London's Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001ÂŒ2011

London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011: A Cartographic Exploration

Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen, and James Forrest

Abstract London’s population became increasing more diverse ethnically over the decade 2001–2011, a period when the White population declined, with many commentators suggesting that there has been ‘White flight’ from some districts in the face of ‘invasion’ by members of ethnic minority groups. To examine how extensively the city’s ethnic landscape changed during that period – and whether suggestions of the operation of ‘invasion and succession processes’ are valid – this article reports on statistical mapping of small area data for the two censuses. The results identify clearly-defined, substantial blocks of territory within the urban residential fabric where members of each of the main census respondent self-identified ethnic groups are concentrated. These have expanded outwards, into areas from which the White population has clearly withdrawn, though in most cases the rate of cluster areal expansion has been less than the groups’ numerical growth.

Publication of the results of the 2011 Census of England and Wales in early 2013 stimulated considerable media debate regarding the country’s changing ethnic composition, with commentators focusing their attention on the substantial changes to London’s ethnic mix.1 Some emphasised the geography of those changes, in particular the expansion of parts of London – as well as other cities – where Whites were now in a minority. How extensive have the changes in London’s residential landscape been? We use a recently- developed method of identifying the areas where different ethnic groups are concentrated to portray the city’s changing ethnic geography. The urban studies literature is replete with analyses of neighbourhood change and putative explanations for its origins and geography. The classic studies of Chicago still underpin much of that work, with its arguments that an immigrant group (i) is initially established in certain parts of the city – usually although not always its inner, relatively deprived areas – and (ii) as its numbers grow, the area in which its members form above average proportions of the total expands from that core, displacing the groups formerly concentrated there. This process – widely known as invasion-and-succession – involves an expansion of the area occupied by the ethnic group under consideration away from the core and towards the outer suburbs, with in turn the majority occupants of the suburban areas ‘invaded’ moving further out. To many, this response to the growth of London’s non-White groups and the spatial expansion of the areas where they are concentrated has

1 R.J. Johnston, M.F. Poulsen and J. Forrest, ‘Multiethnic Residential Areas in a Multi-ethnic Country? A Decade of Major Change in England and Wales’, Environment and Planning A, 45 (2013), pp. 753–759.

London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011 been interpreted as ‘White flight’. Thus The Economist referred to a process of what the former chair of the Equality and Human Rights Commission termed ‘majority retreat’,2 but on the BBC News website Mark Easton suggested that this ‘flight’ was as much a consequence of ‘working class aspiration and success’ as ‘the indigenous population forced out of their neighbourhoods by foreign migrants’.3 Whatever the causes, however, The Economist cites David Goodhart, Director of the think-tank Demos, arguing that British cities are becoming ethnically more segregated, which was ‘hindering the assimilation of new immigrants’; in a brief news item The Times (6 May 2013) reported the same Demos source showing that ‘Thousands of white Britons have moved out of areas with a high proportion of ethnic minorities in the past decade, leaving many neighbourhoods mostly black or Asian’4 – a finding that is at odds with other analyses which suggest that segregation levels declined between 2001 and 2011.5 Most of these early analyses have used relatively coarse-scale spatial data, with little detailed analysis of the changing geography. The cartographic procedure adopted here identifies in detail the areas where each ethnic group was concentrated at both census dates, and allows an initial evaluation of the relevance of the mid-twentieth century North American model to contemporary London. Have the non-White areas of London been expanding while those where Whites predominate have contracted? To what extent has the city’s ethnic landscape changed over a decade?

London’s ethnic diversity London is widely recognised as an increasingly multi-ethnic, multi-cultural city. A large number of different cultural groups is established there, many of them associated with particular parts of the city. Identifying the majority of these groups from census data is not straightforward – though it can be done using information on language, religion and birthplace, for example – so most attention is focused, as here, on the ethnic classification deployed by the Office of National Statistics. This relies on a self-assessment question regarding a respondent’s ethnicity, in which the major categories relate to either country of origin/identification (e.g. Bangladeshi, Chinese, Indian, Pakistani) or colour (e.g. Black

2 ‘Racial Segregation: Everyone Out’, 11 May, 2013, pp. 27–28: http://www.economist.com/news/britain/ 21577384-whites-are-fleeing-britains-inner-cities-so-everybody-else-everyone-out [14 January 2014]. 3 M. Easton, ‘Why Have the White British left London’, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21511904 [14 January 2014] 4 ‘White Britons Quit Black or Asian Areas’ http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/article3757125.ece [14 January 2014]. The study referred to – ‘Half Full or Half Empty? How has Ethnic Segregation in England and Wales changed between 2001 and 2011’ by Eric Kaufmann – is available at http://www.demos.co.uk/ files/ethnicdistributione+w.pdf [14 January 2014] 5 L. Simpson, More Segregation or More Mixing? (Manchester: University of Manchester, ESRC Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity, 2012). Available at http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/census/ 869_CCSR_ Bulletin_More_segregation_or_more_mixing_v7NW.pdf [14 January 2014]. G. Catney, Has Neighbourhood Ethnic Segregation Decreased? (Manchester: University of Manchester, ESRC Centre on Dynamics of Ethnicity, 2013). Available at http://www.ethnicity.ac.uk/ census/885_CCSR_Neighbourhood_Bulletin_ v7.pdf [14 January 2014].

Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Table 1 The Population of London’s Main Ethnic Groups, 2001–2011

Ethnic group 2001 2011 % change White 5,103,176 4,887,435 –4.2 Bangladeshi 153,841 222,127 +44.4 Chinese 80,124 124,250 +55.1 Indian 437,084 542,857 +24.2 Pakistani 142,719 223,797 +56.8 Other Asian 133,109 398,515 +199.3 Black African 378,924 573,931 +51.4 Black Caribbean 343,616 344,597 +0.3 Other Black 60,311 170,112 +182.1 Other Non-White 112,812 281,041 +149.1 Mixed 226,282 405,729 +79.3 TOTAL 7,171,998 8,173,941 +14.0

African, Black Caribbean). Because of changes in that classification between the two censuses of 2001 and 2011, we focus on eleven major groups (Table 1). One key feature of Table 1 is that whereas London’s population grew by 14 per cent over the decade, its White component (which includes Irish) declined by 4.2 per cent. Most of the non-White ethnic groups grew very substantially. The main exception to this overall trend was the longer-established Black Caribbean group. Migration from those islands has declined in recent decades and in addition social and cultural assimilation of those members well-established in London, especially young adults, has probably contributed to the very substantial growth of those self-identifying as of Mixed ethnicity. The four main Asian groups have grown very considerably, however: is this reflected in the city’s geography?

Mapping spatial concentrations The goal of this mapping exercise is to identify those parts of London into which each of the census ethnic groups was clustered at each of the two census dates – those contiguous blocks of neighbourhoods where they formed a significantly larger share of the local population than they did in London as a whole. This used data at the smallest spatial scale available – the census Output Areas (OAs) which are subdivisions of the local authority wards specifically designed to be relatively homogeneous on two criteria (dwelling type and tenure). In London they had an average population of 297 in 2001 and 326 in 2011, and the majority of those OAs were unchanged between the two censuses.6 Data at this very small scale – each OA contains approximately 100–125 households – provide a very fine-grained geography of ethnicity in the urban area. Grouping together contiguous OAs where members of a particular ethnic group are concentrated better

6 Of the 25,053 OAs in London in the 2011 Census, 23,406 (93 per cent) were unchanged from those used for the 2001 Census.

London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011 identifies those areas of than do data at the ward or borough scale. For this purpose we have used a local statistics measure – the Getis-Ord G*.7 (The statistical formulae are set out in the Appendix to this article.) For each OA, the G* value for an ethnic group identifies whether the average percentage of its population who are members of that group plus the percentage in all of its neighbouring OAs (in these analyses, all those within 1000 metres) is significantly larger (using conventional significance limits) than that across London as a whole.8 Contiguous blocks of territory with large G* values are thus those districts where the group’s members are clustered and mapping the clusters for each of the 2001 and 2011 censuses allows exploration of London’s changing ethnic geographies. Given the numerical growth of most of the capital’s non-White ethnic groups over that decade, have the areas into which they are clustered expanded commensurately?

Cartographic explorations This section discusses a sequence of maps derived from the G* analyses. Each picks out three sets of areas. Two – those termed ‘no change’ and ‘contracted’ in the maps (and shown in grey and red respectively in the online version of the article) – comprise the OAs with G* greater than +2.58 in the analysis of the 2001 geography: they are the parts of London where the members of the relevant group were concentrated then. Another two – the ‘no change’ and ‘expanded’ areas (shown in grey and blue respectively in the online version of the article) – comprise the comparable areas identified in the analysis of the 2011 geography. The ‘no change’ areas are thus those where the group was clustered in both years; the ‘expanded’ areas are those into which it expanded during the decade. Thus the ‘no change’ areas are those where the group was clustered at both censuses, whereas the ‘contracted’ and ‘expanded’ areas respectively show those where it was no longer clustered in 2011 having been so in 2001 and those into which its cluster expanded over the decade.9 Among the Asian ethnic groups, the map for Bangladeshis (Figure 1) identifies two major clusters north of the Thames, just to the north and east of the City. The latter is by far the larger of the two, taking in the whole of the borough of Tower Hamlets and most

7 On the method’s basis and development see: A. Getis and J.K. Ord, ‘The Analysis of Spatial Association by Use of Distance Statistics’, Geographical Analysis, 24 (1992), pp. 189–206; J.K. Ord and A. Getis, ‘Local Spatial Autocorrelation Statistics: Distributional Issues and an Application’, Geographical Analysis,27 (1995), pp. 286–306; and J.K. Ord and A. Getis, ‘Testing for Local Spatial Autocorrelation in the Presence of Global Autocorrelation’, Journal of Regional Science, 41 (2001), pp. 411–32. For its application in studies of ethnic landscapes see R.J. Johnston, M.F. Poulsen and J. Forrest, ‘Measuring Ethnic Residential Segregation: Putting some more Geography in’, Urban Geography, 30 (2009), pp. 90–109; R.J. Johnston, M.F. Poulsen and J. Forrest, ‘Evaluating Changing Residential Segregation in Auckland, New Zealand, using Spatial Statistics’, Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 102 (2011), pp. 1–23; and M.F. Poulsen, R.J. Johnston and J. Forrest, ‘The Intensity of Ethnic Residential Clustering: Exploring Scale Effects using Local Indicators of Spatial Association’, Environment and Planning A, 42 (2010), pp. 874–94. 8 The method also identifies those OAs where the percentages are significantly smaller than the London average, but we have not investigated those areas here. 9 Some of the thin red slivers on the online maps may reflect OA boundary changes, but the overall pattern is very consistent of contracted areas on the inner fringes of many of the clusters and expanded areas on their outer edges.

41 Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Figure 1 Bangladeshi clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

of Newham, whereas the latter comprises much of Camden (especially its southern part) and a small portion of western Islington. That second cluster contracted somewhat around its southern rim over the decade (presumably as a consequence of either gentrification – where relatively affluent households move into renovated or redeveloped properties in inner-city neighbourhoods formerly occupied by lower income groups – or the arrival of other immigrant groups10), and the small clusters south of the river present in 2001 had all dissipated ten years later. The second, and larger, cluster, on the other hand, expanded very substantially into the adjacent eastern boroughs of Barking & Dagenham and Redbridge plus, to a very small extent, the southern fringe of Waltham Forest – as the invasion-and- succession model would predict for an expanding population (44 per cent over the decade:

10 On gentrification in London see T. Butler and G. Robson ‘Social Capital, Gentrification and Neighbourhood Change: a Comparison of Three South London Neighbourhoods’, Urban Studies,38 (2001), pp. 2145–62 and ‘Plotting the Middle Classes: Gentrification and Circuits of Education in London’, Housing Studies, 18 (2003), pp. 5–28; and L. Lees, T. Slater and E. Wyly, Gentrification (London, 2008).

42 London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011

Figure 2 Chinese clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

Table 1). A small area of Newham – the newly-developed former London Docklands – remains outwith the cluster, however. Table 2 provides data on the neighbourhoods covered by the two clusters at each date: the ‘no change’ and ‘expanded’ areas (the cluster in 2011) were together 35 per cent larger than those occupied by the ‘no change’ and ‘contracted’ areas in 2001. Although more than 100,000 individuals claiming Chinese identity lived in London in 2011, these have not been associated with marked spatial concentrations – apart from small specialised areas associated with ‘Chinatown’. Figure 2 shows significant clustering of this group along both banks of the Thames, however, from Kensington & Chelsea through to Newham and Greenwich, incorporating much of northern Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham plus southern Camden and Islington – with a northwesterly extension into parts of Barnet. Some parts of that cluster expanded in the previous decade – mainly to the east (including those parts of Newham which are not in the Bangladeshi cluster: there is considerable overlap of the Bangladeshi and Chinese clusters elsewhere in that borough, as well as in its neighbours to the west). But the areas of significant Chinese clustering in

Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Table 2 The Area Occupied by the Significant Clusters of Each of London’s Main Ethnic Groups (in square kilometres): 2001 and 2011

Ethnic group 2001 2011 % change White 682.6 627.3 –8.1 Bangladeshi 77.8 104.2 +35.0 Chinese 185.1 156.1 –15.3 Indian 245.0 264.5 +7.9 Pakistani 194.9 232.7 +19.4 Other Asian 254.9 303.6 +19.1 Black African 240.6 282.6 +17.4 Black Caribbean 258.2 264.5 +2.4 Other Black 232.4 265.0 +14.0 Other Nonwhite 234.3 240.7 +2.7 Mixed 269.4 265.1 –1.6 northwest and north London have substantially contracted over the decade, so that overall the area of London where Chinese are significantly over-represented declined by some 15 per cent over the decade (Table 2). Turning to the Indian clusters (Figure 3), here the dominant feature is continuity, with only small areas of contraction and expansion: despite the Indian population increasing by nearly one-quarter between 2001 and 2011 (Table 1), the area into which it was significantly concentrated grew by only 8 per cent (Table 2) and so the cluster’s Indian population density increased. The main concentrations are in northwest London, in an arc stretching northeast from Heathrow airport in Hounslow and encompassing almost all of Brent and Harrow plus much of Ealing and Hillingdon: over the decade, the main expansion was in Hillingdon – again, a geography that reflects the invasion-and-succession model, with some contraction on the inner fringes, especially in Brent and Barnet. Of the other clusters, that in northeast London (overlapping with the northern edge of the Bangladeshi cluster in Newham and Redbridge) expanded very slightly,11 and that in Barnet contracted considerably, whereas south of the river that in Croydon contracted on its northern fringes and expanded southwards. The Indians are by far the most heterogeneous of London’s Asian ethnic groups according to their religion, with large numbers of Muslims and Sikhs as well as Hindus. Their distributions are not separately identified in the available OA data, but a cross- classification of ethnicity by religion is available at the local authority scale. Table 3 presents the distributions of the three separate religious groups in the eight local authorities covered by the main clusters identified in Figure 3: the first five of those boroughs are at the core of the northwest London cluster, the next two of the east London cluster, and the smaller, south London cluster is centred on Croydon. Although Hindus form the majority of the Indian population in all but one of the eight boroughs, Muslims are very much concentrated in Newham and Redbridge (where Bangladeshis and Pakistanis – both

11 Some 28 per cent of the Indians in Newham are Muslims, according to the census cross-classification table available at the local authority scale only, compared to just 6 per cent in Hounslow.

44 London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011

Figure 3 Indian clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

predominantly Muslim – are also concentrated12) and Sikhs are much more numerous in three of the five western boroughs, as well as in Redbridge.13 London’s Pakistani population increased by more than 50 per cent over the decade, but the area into which they were significantly concentrated grew by less than half of that figure (Tables 1–2). They are clustered in four parts of the metropolitan area (Figure 4), three of them – all north of the Thames – overlapping considerably with the Indian and Bangladeshi clusters; the fourth occupies a sector of southwest London, most of it closer to the centre than the Indian cluster in Croydon, with which there is some overlap. There were very few areas of contraction over the decade – mainly on the fringes of the Brent

12 C. Peach, ‘Islam, Ethnicity and South Asian Religions in the London 2001 Census’, Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, New Series, 31 (2006), pp. 353–70. 13 On London’s religious geography more generally, and the location of Hindu temples, Muslim mosques and Sikh gurdwaras, see R. Gale and S. Naylor, ‘Religion, Planning and the City: the Spatial Politics of Ethnic Minority Expression in British Cities and Towns’, Ethnicities, 2 (2002), pp. 387–409, and C. Peach and R. Gale, ‘Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in the New Religious Landscape of England’, Geographical Review, 93 (2003), pp. 469–90.

45 Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Table 3 The Distribution of Indians by Religion in Eight London Boroughs: 2011

Borough Hindu Muslim Sikh TOTAL Brent 44,875 3,415 1,251 58,017 Ealing 18,531 3,019 18,896 48,240 Harrow 46,556 3,677 2,051 63,051 Hillingdon 15,184 2,355 13,411 36,795 Hounslow 21,698 3,133 16,143 48,161 Newham 18,739 11,735 4,832 42,484 Redbridge 21,492 5,818 12,762 45,660 Croydon 14,525 2,791 1,017 24,660 cluster – and the main expansion has been to the west into Hillingdon and northeast into Waltham Forest, Redbridge and the western edge of Barking & Dagenham. The Other Asian group (which almost tripled in size over the decade) is also largely concentrated in the same areas of northwestern, southwestern and northeastern London as the Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis. Its clusters have expanded over the ten years (Figure 5), along with the emergence of new ones – in central Barnet (overlapping parts of

Figure 4 Pakistani clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

46 London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011

Figure 5 Asian Other clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

a contracting Indian cluster) and Greenwich. In the southwest, the substantial clusters in Merton and Kingston upon Thames, overlapping the smaller Pakistani clusters there (Figure 4), have been linked by a major area of expansion covering the northern part of the borough of Sutton; data available at the local authority scale show that the three boroughs have a substantial concentration of Sri Lankans. Overall, the area occupied by the clusters increased by 19 per cent (Table 2) – much less than the near-200 per cent increase in their numbers (Table 1). The Other Asian group is very heterogeneous in its members’ origins and cultures, and to a considerable extent they live in separate parts of the clusters identified in Figure 5. Those separate concentrations can be identified at the borough scale using birthplace data (no cross-classification of ethnicity by birthplace is available), and are shown in Table 4 for the four national groups separately identified in that dataset. Those from Hong Kong are very widely distributed across the twelve boroughs (shown in the table according to the four separate clusters): indeed, only 36 per cent of London’s Hong Kong-born residents lived in those twelve boroughs in 2011, with the largest number in the newly-established

Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Table 4 The Distributions of Four ‘Other Asian’ Birthplace Groups Across Twelve London boroughs: 2011

Borough Iran Hong Kong Sri Lanka Philippines Brent 2,085 847 7,702 3,564 Ealing 3,440 1,046 6,687 1,644 Harrow 1,198 758 10,392 789 Hillingdon 910 859 4,290 1,142 Hounslow 1,070 932 2,660 2,027 Newham 369 706 5,052 4,192 Redbridge 427 679 7,248 660 Croydon 814 728 5,270 1,150 Kingston 1,046 729 3,510 735 Merton 621 577 6,327 1,124 Sutton 564 540 3,386 1,016 Greenwich 230 1,101 1,382 548 TOTAL 37,339 26,435 84,542 44,199 cluster in Greenwich. By contrast, 75 per cent of the Sri Lankan-born lived in those boroughs, with substantial numbers in three of the four clusters (the exception being that in Greenwich). The main concentration of Iranian-born was in the boroughs forming the west London cluster (68 per cent of those living in the twelve boroughs) – but two-thirds of all of the Iranian-born lived elsewhere in the city. Similarly, some 60 per cent of all the Philippine-born lived outwith those boroughs, but over 40 per cent of the 18,043 who did were concentrated in Brent and Newham (both of which had major extensions to their Other Asian clusters over the decade). The Black ethnic groups have generally been longer established in London than their Asian counterparts, and the numbers for the two main groups – African and Caribbean – grew only slightly over the decade (Table 1). Partly because of their longer presence and the somewhat weaker cultural differences between them and the White population (particularly in language and religion), they have been more dispersed through the urban fabric (as indicated by indices of segregation and exposure14). Nevertheless, there has been significant clustering into particular areas. Black Africans, for example (Figure 6), are significantly concentrated in parts of inner south London (mainly in Southwark, Lambeth and Lewisham plus parts of Croydon and Merton), and this cluster has expanded substantially on its southern fringes, with little contraction elsewhere. An eastern cluster along the Thames’ south bank has also expanded. To the north of the Thames, the main clusters overlap with those of the Asian groups in the east – except that there is no Black African clustering in the Bangladeshi ‘heartland’ of Tower Hamlets. Here too there has been expansion into outer suburbs – mainly east into Barking & Dagenham and north into Enfield, but this has

14 L. Simpson, ‘Ghettos of the Mind: the Empirical Behaviour of Indices of Segregation and Diversity’, Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A: Statistics in Society, 170 (2007), pp. 425–54; Simpson, More Segregation or More Mixing?; Catney, Has Neighbourhood Ethnic Segregation Decreased?

48 London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011

Figure 6 Black African clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

been countered by contraction in inner areas of Haringey, Islington and Hackney plus the complete disappearance of a small cluster in Camden. Overall, the areas in which Black Africans are spatially clustered have expanded by some 17 per cent (Table 2). The Black African group is also internally heterogeneous both culturally and according to birthplace. Table 5 shows the distribution of the four largest birthplace groups coinciding with that ethnic classification, in four borough clusters. Members of the two West African birthplace groups are fairly evenly spread across all four clusters, though there are substantial concentrations of Nigerians in Southwark, Lewisham, Greenwich and Bexley (the cluster in the latter two boroughs is in effect an extension of that focused on Southwark, though without a link between the two).15 There is no comparable clustering

15 Many northern Nigerians are Muslims whereas southern Nigerians are predominantly Christian, and those in the former category are probably more likely to live in Newham than Southwark. On Nigerians in London, see C. Knowles, ‘Nigerian London: Re-mapping Space and Ethnicity in Superdiverse cities’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 36 (2013), pp. 651–69.

49 Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Table 5 The Distributions of Four Black African Birthplace Groups across thirteen London boroughs: 2011

Borough Ghana Nigeria Kenya Somalia Barnet 1,885 3,765 4,930 2,345 Brent 2,680 2,911 7,382 6,855 Bexley 1,169 6,011 835 118 Greenwich 2,315 13,013 1,016 1,742 Newham 4,680 7,545 2,155 3,924 Enfield 4,089 4,114 2,152 3,297 Hackney 3,604 6,692 459 1,401 Haringey 3,500 2,760 867 3,325 Croydon 5,363 4,715 3,390 1,188 Lambeth 4,413 6,211 851 2,492 Lewisham 2,845 9,554 687 1,098 Merton 2,743 1,389 1,019 486 Southwark 4,808 13,588 710 1,067

TOTAL 62,896 114,718 64,212 65,333

Figure 7 Black Caribbean clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

50 London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011

Figure 8 Other Black clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

of Ghanaians. Members of the two East African-birthplace groups – Kenyans and Somalis – are most likely to be found in the northwest London boroughs of Barnet and Brent.16 The map of Black Caribbean clusters (Figure 7) is similar to that for Black Africans in many respects, with the main concentrations in inner south London (incorporating the suburb of Brixton, in the Borough of Lambeth, which became a major area of concentration in the early post-Second World War decades), inner northwest London (extending out from the Notting Hill area, where many of the original migrants settled), and much of north London. There are, however, no clusters of Black Caribbeans on either bank of the Thames from Greenwich and Newham eastwards. The clusters have expanded only slightly, unsurprising given the very small increase in the group’s population. Members of the Black Other group are mainly clustered in the same areas as the Black Caribbeans – with the exception of an expanding cluster in Greenwich (Figure 8) – but there are no birthplace data with which the group’s internal heterogeneity can be established.

16 Many Kenyan-born persons in the UK identify themselves as Asians, reflecting their origins in the Indian subcontinent.

51 Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Figure 9 Other Ethnic clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

The Other Ethnic group is also heterogeneous, but nevertheless there is significant clustering of its members in northwest and north London, with the latter showing considerable expansion, including into Enfield which has a substantial Turkish-born population (Figure 9). There was also substantial contraction in other areas such as that in southwest London – which may have been linked to individuals’ ethnic classification changing from ‘Other’ to ‘Other Asian’ (Figure 5). In 2011, 29 per cent of those claiming a mixed identity opted for the ‘White-Black African’ group and another 18 per cent ‘White- Black Caribbean’, with a further 25 per cent ‘White-Asian’. The main clustering of those claiming a Mixed identity is in the areas of inner north and south London where the Black groups are also concentrated (Figure 10), with a further one in the inner northwest overlapping an area of Pakistani clustering. There is no substantial clustering in the eastern boroughs, especially those where Bangladeshis are the main Asian group. Finally, Figure 11 shows the areas where members of the – declining – White population have been clustered at the two censuses. Not surprisingly, given the patterning shown on the previous maps, these clusters are predominantly suburban, in parts of the metropolitan

52 London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011

Figure 10 Mixed clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

area where the non-White groups are not prevalent. Also not surprisingly, there are few areas of expansion comprising OAs: many of them are north of the Thames – especially those parts of Islington, Camden, Brent and Hackney where gentrification is proceeding. There were, however, quite substantial areas of contraction. Many are on the inner fringes of the White clusters, strongly suggestive of ‘invasion-and-succession’ by non-White groups – notably in Barking & Dagenham, an area of both Black African and Bangladeshi expansion. But there were others on the metropolitan fringes, notably in Hillingdon and Hounslow, where there has been considerable Indian and Pakistani expansion (Figures 3–4), and in Enfield, where a substantial expansion of the Black African cluster emerged. Overall, the area of significant White clustering has declined by some 8 per cent (Table 2) whereas the White population declined by only half that amount (Table 1) – suggesting that substantially more Whites are now living in relatively mixed residential areas than previously.17

17 For detailed analyses of such diversity see R.J. Johnston, M.F. Poulsen and J. Forrest, ‘Increasing Diversity within Increasing Diversity: the Changing Ethnic Composition of London’s neighbourhoods, 2001–2011’, Population, Space and Place, doi 10.1002/psp1838 [14 January 2014].

53 Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest

Figure 11 White clusters in London, 2001–2011, defined using G* statistics (with a threshold of +2.58).

Cluster density and sharing These cartographic analyses have shown that each of London’s main ethnic groups is spatially clustered within the metropolitan area’s residential fabric – though the degree of clustering varied to some extent across groups. Further, those clusters in most cases occupy substantial areas of contiguous territory: different parts of the townscape, extending in most cases over several square kilometres, are characterised by concentrations of different groups.18 Most of the non-White clusters expanded substantially over the decade – though not to the same degree as their population grew. (The exceptions are the rapidly-growing Chinese group, traditionally not very segregated within English cities, and the slow- growing Black Caribbean community.)

18 This does not mean that there may not be small pockets of one or a few OAs in which members of a group form a significant above-average share of the local population – the G* analysis would not identify these unless the distance threshold was set much tighter – but they are clearly not a major feature of the landscape.

London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011

Table 6 The Percentage of the Members of each of London’s Main Ethnic Groups living in that Group’s Significant Clusters: 2001 and 2011

Ethnic group 2001 2011 % change White 49.9 48.5 –1.4 Bangladeshi 67.7 68.1 +0.4 Chinese 38.3 39.6 +1.3 Indian 61.3 60.9 -0.4 Pakistani 61.6 66.2 +5.4 Other Asian 53.3 49.9 –3.4 Black African 59.9 56.4 –3.5 Black Caribbean 61.6 61.4 –0.2 Other Black 61.5 58.2 –3.3 Other Non-White 46.9 47.5 +1.40 Mixed 45.5 42.3 –3.2

Most groups – with the exception of Whites – have both grown in size and extended the area in which they form a significantly large element of the local population. Overall, however, there has been little change in the degree to which the members of each group are concentrated in those spatial clusters. Table 6 shows the percentage of each group’s total London population living in the identified clusters. For the main non-White groups (five Asian and three Black) this averaged around 60 per cent in both census years, with only a small change over the decade. (Again, the Chinese are a clear exception.) For the remainder – White, Other Non-Whites and Mixed – the average was just below half of their members located within the clusters, indicating a larger share living in more mixed areas; again there was little change over the decade. As the cartographic depictions have shown, there is some overlap of the clusters – as with those of the Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis in Newham (Figures 1, 3 and 4). In addition, members of each group may have been living in areas that form part of another’s significant clusters, even though the clusters do not overlap. To assess the extent of such ‘shared spaces’, Table 7 shows the percentage of each of the three main South Asian groups living in the clusters formed for the other two, at both dates. Thus, for example, in 2001 17.1 per cent of London’s Bangladeshis lived in areas that were part of the Indian clusters, a share that increased to 23.7 per cent ten years later. There was a similar increase

Table 7 The Percentage of each of London’s Asian Ethnic Groups living in the Clusters defined for three of the Groups: 2001 and 2011

Cluster Bangladeshi Indian Pakistani 2001 2011 %C 2001 2011 %C 2001 2011 %C Bangladeshi – – – 17.1 23.7 +6.6 19.8 29.8 +10.0 Indian 9.9 17.7 +7.8 – – – 47.8 49.3 +0.5 Pakistani 19.9 30.2 +10.3 49.8 50.4 +1.4 – – – Chinese 13.7 16.8 +3.1 18.4 12.8 –5.6 14.2 13.4 –0.8 Other Asian 10.0 3.3 –6.7 43.1 37.2 –5.9 38.6 35.4 –3.2

55 Ron Johnston, Michael Poulsen and James Forrest in the percentage of Bangladeshis living in the Pakistani clusters. By far the greatest amount of ‘space-sharing’ involved the city’s Pakistani population, approximately one-half of whom lived in areas with significant clusters of Indians. That ‘space-sharing’ was not reciprocated by the Indians, however, less than one-fifth of whom lived in areas in 2011 contained within the Pakistani clusters. Pakistanis were much more likely to ‘share space’ with Indians than vice versa. Table 7 also shows the degree to which the other two Asian groups ‘shared space’ with the Bangladeshis, Indians and Pakistanis. In general, the Chinese lived apart from their South Asian counterparts, with less than one-fifth of them resident in the clusters defined for one of the three. There was much more ‘space-sharing’ with Indians and Pakistanis – though not also Bangladeshis – by the burgeoning population of Other Asians, however, although that declined somewhat over the decade.

Conclusions This cartographic analysis of London’s ethnic geographies in 2001 and 2011 has identified very clear and, in most cases, extensive clustering of the city’s main self-identified ethnic groups within the urban residential fabric. Using data at the smallest scale of analysis available – with average populations of c.300 – G* analyses have identified substantial blocks of territory where all of the constituent OAs have on average much larger percentages of their population in the relevant ethnic group than is the case over the remainder of London. For most of the non-White ethnic groups, those clusters house around 60 per cent of the group’s members; concentration into certain parts of the city only is thus the general pattern in London’s contemporary non-White ethnic landscape. Because most of the areas deployed in these analyses were common across the two censuses (2001 and 2011) it was also possible to map how those geographies had changed over a decade during which most groups – with the particular exception of the White host population – had grown considerably. For most groups, the areas in which they were clustered had expanded, but not to the same extent as their numbers. For most non-White groups, too, changes between 2001 and 2011 had two components: an increase in cluster density, with the areas where they are concentrated growing less than the group’s numbers; and extension of their clusters outwards towards the suburbs where, as a consequence, there was a contraction in the White clusters, whose total area was reduced to a greater extent than the number of Whites. To some extent this outward expansion in particular sectors of the urban complex – to the west by Indians, for example, and to the northeast by Bangladeshis – was matched by a contraction of the cluster size on its inner margins. Commentaries when the census data on ethnicity were first released, and based largely on larger-scale data, implied that this pattern reflected considerable ‘White flight’, residents of formerly predominantly-White areas moving into the outer suburbs and beyond as a response to an in-movement of non-Whites – the characteristic feature of the classic invasion-and-succession models of residential change. Although this cartographic analysis has generated patterns entirely consistent with the invasion-and-succession model it has

London’s Changing Ethnic Landscape, 2001–2011 not confirmed that interpretation. Clearly the White population declined in some areas as that of one or more of the non-White groups grew, but in many the ethnic character is more likely to be mixed than dominated by one non-White group only. (In 2001, for example, 348,035 Whites lived in the OAs within the defined Bangladeshi clusters shown in Figure 1; in 2011, 389,998 Whites lived in the comparable area.) London’s changing ethnic landscape – creating what Knowles calls a ‘superdiverse city’19 – is much more complex than some of the more simplistic commentaries implied.

Appendix: the G* statistic A G* statistic is computed for each of the OAs for each ethnic group at each date by comparing the percentage of its population there to that of the average for all its neighbours within a defined distance from the OA centroid.

n n n n ∑  ∑ √ ∑ 2 ∑ 2 G* = [ wij (x – X) wij ]/ [S {n wij – ( wij ) } / (n – 1) ] i j j j j j where xj is the percentage of the population of OA j in ethnic group x; X is the mean percentage of the population of all OAs in ethnic group x; wij is the spatial proximity weight for OAs i and j, coded 1 if j is within d metres of i (d in this case is 1000 metres), and 0 otherwise; n is the number of OAs into which the city is divided; S is n √ ∑ 2  2 [{ xj }/n] – X j and

G*i is the value (distributed as Z) for OA i.

The larger the value of G*, the larger the difference between the average percentage of the ethnic group in question in OA i plus its neighbours, relative to the city-wide average. G* can be either positive or negative: a negative value indicates that an OA and its near neighbours have significantly fewer members of the ethnic group under consideration than the city-wide average – they are the parts of London from which the group is relatively absent; a positive value indicates that on average an OA and its neighbours have above average percentages of their populations from the ethnic group being analysed. As G* has the same distribution as Z, statistically-significant clusters can be directly identified by mapping its values. In the cartography deployed here, we use a threshold G* value of 2.58, equivalent to a probability of 0.01, to identify the significant clusters.

19 Knowles, ‘Nigerian London’.