Limits...
Where Do Ethno-Linguistic Groups Meet? How Copresence during Free-Time Is Related to Copresence at Home and at Work.

Toomet O, Silm S, Saluveer E, Ahas R, Tammaru T - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: The study is based on cellphone data for a medium-sized linguistically divided European city (Tallinn, Estonia), where the Estonian majority and mainly Russian-speaking minority populations are of roughly equal size.The results show that both places of residence and work are segregated, while other activities occur in a far more integrated environment.Copresence during free-time is positively associated with copresence at place of residence and work, however, the relationship is very weak.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Economics, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia; Department of Geography, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia.

ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes ethnic segregation across the whole activity space-at place of residence, place of work, and during free-time. We focus on interethnic meeting potential during free-time, measured as copresence, and its relationship to copresence at place of residence and work. The study is based on cellphone data for a medium-sized linguistically divided European city (Tallinn, Estonia), where the Estonian majority and mainly Russian-speaking minority populations are of roughly equal size. The results show that both places of residence and work are segregated, while other activities occur in a far more integrated environment. Copresence during free-time is positively associated with copresence at place of residence and work, however, the relationship is very weak.

No MeSH data available.


Kernel density estimates of the homophily distribution in R, W and F.(A) Estonian-speakers; (B) Russian-speakers.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4440775&req=5

pone.0126093.g002: Kernel density estimates of the homophily distribution in R, W and F.(A) Estonian-speakers; (B) Russian-speakers.

Mentions: The global homophily measures reported in Table 1 potentially mask important differences in the underlying distribution. The (marginal) homophily density in all three activity sites provides us a more detailed account of the segregation patterns (Fig 2). It appears that isolation at place of residence and place of work is distributed in a broadly similar way, and this is true for both language groups. Both across R and W tracts, homophily ranges roughly between 0.2 and 0.9, reflecting the population composition that varies across the city. The similarity of homophily distribution over R and W tracts is further highlighted by the rather similar values of the respective dissimilarity indices (DR = 0.41 and DW = 0.46). Fig 2 indicates that a number of Estonian-speakers live in tracts that are densely populated by Russian-speakers (where the homophily ranges between 0.2 and 0.3), while a significant fraction of Russian-speakers live in tracts that are more coethnic (homophily around 0.8). The W-homophily distribution of Russian-speakers has more mass at the less isolated end of the scale (homophily 0.4 and less).


Where Do Ethno-Linguistic Groups Meet? How Copresence during Free-Time Is Related to Copresence at Home and at Work.

Toomet O, Silm S, Saluveer E, Ahas R, Tammaru T - PLoS ONE (2015)

Kernel density estimates of the homophily distribution in R, W and F.(A) Estonian-speakers; (B) Russian-speakers.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4440775&req=5

pone.0126093.g002: Kernel density estimates of the homophily distribution in R, W and F.(A) Estonian-speakers; (B) Russian-speakers.
Mentions: The global homophily measures reported in Table 1 potentially mask important differences in the underlying distribution. The (marginal) homophily density in all three activity sites provides us a more detailed account of the segregation patterns (Fig 2). It appears that isolation at place of residence and place of work is distributed in a broadly similar way, and this is true for both language groups. Both across R and W tracts, homophily ranges roughly between 0.2 and 0.9, reflecting the population composition that varies across the city. The similarity of homophily distribution over R and W tracts is further highlighted by the rather similar values of the respective dissimilarity indices (DR = 0.41 and DW = 0.46). Fig 2 indicates that a number of Estonian-speakers live in tracts that are densely populated by Russian-speakers (where the homophily ranges between 0.2 and 0.3), while a significant fraction of Russian-speakers live in tracts that are more coethnic (homophily around 0.8). The W-homophily distribution of Russian-speakers has more mass at the less isolated end of the scale (homophily 0.4 and less).

Bottom Line: The study is based on cellphone data for a medium-sized linguistically divided European city (Tallinn, Estonia), where the Estonian majority and mainly Russian-speaking minority populations are of roughly equal size.The results show that both places of residence and work are segregated, while other activities occur in a far more integrated environment.Copresence during free-time is positively associated with copresence at place of residence and work, however, the relationship is very weak.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Economics, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia; Department of Geography, Tartu University, Tartu, Estonia.

ABSTRACT
This paper analyzes ethnic segregation across the whole activity space-at place of residence, place of work, and during free-time. We focus on interethnic meeting potential during free-time, measured as copresence, and its relationship to copresence at place of residence and work. The study is based on cellphone data for a medium-sized linguistically divided European city (Tallinn, Estonia), where the Estonian majority and mainly Russian-speaking minority populations are of roughly equal size. The results show that both places of residence and work are segregated, while other activities occur in a far more integrated environment. Copresence during free-time is positively associated with copresence at place of residence and work, however, the relationship is very weak.

No MeSH data available.