what!type!of!neighborhoods!into!which!the!chinese!tend!to

!!

!

!

!

!

!

WHAT!TYPE!OF!NEIGHBORHOODS!INTO!WHICH!THE!CHINESE!TEND!TO!MOVE:! !

A!STUDY!OF!THE!CHINESE!AMERICANS!IN!THE!CITY!OF!NEW!YORK,!1970=2010!

!

!

!

!

!A!Thesis!Presented!to!the!Faculty!of!Architecture,!Planning!and!Preservation!

COLUMBIA!UNIVERSITY!

!

!

!

!

!In!Partial!Fulfillment!

of!the!Requirements!for!the!Degree!Master!of!Science!in!Urban!Planning!

!

!

!

!!

by!

!Chuanxi!Xiong!

!

May!2014!

!

! i!

Table&of&Contents&

Introduction& 1!

Literature&review& 3!1.#The#Chinese#Americans# 3!

2.#197052010# 5!

3.#Theoretical#Background# 6!

Spatial!Assimilation! 6!

Immigrant!Settlement!Pattern! 8!

The!determinants!of!immigrants’!location!choices! 9!

Conceptual&Framework& 11!

Methodology& 12!

Analysis& 17!1.#Indices# 17!

Index!of!dissimilarity! 17!

Index!of!Exposure! 19!

Index!of!Isolation! 21!

2.#Regressions# 24!

Regression!1970D1980! 24!




3.#Descriptive#Statistics# 50!

The!Chinese!Population! 51!

The!households! 56!

Conclusion& 58!

Validity&Threats& 61!

Planning&Implications& 62!

Appendix& 64!

Bibliography& 65!!

&

!

!

!

!

!

! ii!

List&of&Tables&

!

Table!1!Population!Growth!in!the!City!of!New!York,!1970D2010!.....................................!1!

Table!2!Index!of!Dissimilarity!.........................................................................................!18!

Table!3!Index!of!Exposure!..............................................................................................!19!

Table!4!Index!of!Isolation!...............................................................................................!22!

Table!5!Descriptive!Statistics!of!data!in!Year!1970D1980!...............................................!24!

Table!6!VIF!for!the!regression!model!for!Year!1970D1980!.............................................!25!

Table!7!Regression!results!for!Year!1970D1980!..............................................................!25!

Table!8!Regression!result!on!the!subset!for!Year!1970D1980!........................................!27!

Table!9!Robust!Standard!Errors!of!the!regression!model!for!Year!1970D1980!..............!29!

Table!10!Descriptive!Statistics!of!data!in!Year!1970D1980!.............................................!30!

Table!11!VIF!of!the!model!for!Year!1980D1990!..............................................................!31!

Table!12!Regression!result!of!the!model!for!Year!1980D1990!........................................!31!

Table!13!Regression!result!on!the!subset!of!the!model!for!Year!1980D1990!.................!33!

Table!14!Robust!Standard!Errors!of!model!for!Year!1980D1990!....................................!35!


Table!16!VIF!of!the!model!for!Year!1990D2000!..............................................................!37!

Table!17!Regression!result!of!model!for!Year!1990D2000!..............................................!38!

Table!18!Regression!result!of!the!regression!on!the!subset!for!Year!1990D2000!..........!40!

Table!19!Robust!Standard!Errors!of!model!on!the!subset!for!Year!1990D2000!.............!41!


Table!21!VIF!of!the!full!model!for!Year!2000D2010!........................................................!44!

Table!22!Regression!result!of!the!model!for!Year!2000D2010!........................................!44!

Table!23!Regression!results!on!the!subset!for!Year!2000D2010!.....................................!46!

Table! 24! Robust! Standard! Errors! for! the! regression! model! on! the! subset! for! Year!

2000D2010!..............................................................................................................!49!

Table!25!General!characteristics!of!the!Chinese!population!in!the!three!PUMAs,!2012!52!

Table!26!General!characteristics!of!all!the!households!in!the!three!PUMAs,!2012!.......!57!

Table!27!The!coefficients!of!the!models!for!all!four!decades!........................................!59!

&

!

!

!

!

!

! &

!

! iii!

List&of&Figures&

!

Figure!1!Chinese!American!Population!in!the!City!of!New!York!at!the!Census!Tract!Level,!

1970D2010!Sources:!US!Census!1970,!1980,!1990,!2000!and!2010,!NYC!DCP!.........!3!

Figure!2!Index!of!Dissimilarity!........................................................................................!18!

Figure!3!Index!of!Exposure!.............................................................................................!20!

Figure!4!Population!Composition!of!New!York!City,!1970D2010!....................................!21!

Figure!5!Index!of!Isolation!..............................................................................................!22!

Figure!6!Plots!of!the!regression!model!for!Year!1970D1980!..........................................!26!

Figure!7!Plots!of!regression!for!Year!1970D1980!............................................................!29!

Figure!9!Plots!of!regression!on!the!subset!for!the!model!for!Year!1980D1990!..............!35!

Figure!10!Plots!of!the!model!for!Year!1990D2000!..........................................................!39!

Figure!11!Plots!of!regression!on!the!subset!for!the!model!for!Year!1990D2000!............!41!

Figure!12!Plots!of!regression!for!Year!2000D2010!..........................................................!46!

Figure!13!Plots!of!regression!on!the!subset!for!Year!2000D2010!...................................!48!

! !

!

! iv!

Acknowledgements&

&

I! would! never! have! been! able! to! finish! this! thesis!without! the! support! of! the! faculty,!my!

friends!and!my!family.!

First!and! foremost! I!offer!my!sincerest!gratitude! to!my!advisor,!Prof.! Lance!Freeman,!who!

has!supported!me!throughout! this!year,!with!his!patience!and!knowledge.! I!appreciate!his!

encouragement!and!guidance!in!the!whole!process,!from!how!to!write! literature!review!to!

how!to!deal!with!the!problems!in!the!regressions.!

I!would!like!to!thank!Dr.!Benjamin!Goodrich!for!being!my!reader!and!offering!suggestions!on!

the!quantitative!methods.!I!learned!a!lot!about!data!analysis!from!his!course!and!his!advice!

on!the!thesis.!

I!would!also!thank!the!internship!opportunity!at!Asian!Americans!for!Equality!in!the!summer!

of! 2013,!which! inspired!my! interest! in! the! residential! segregation! issues.!Douglas!Nam! Le!

kindly! provided!me! the!opportunity! to!work! there! and! supported!my! choice! of! the! thesis!

topic.!

Finally,!my!thanks!go!to!all!the!fellow!students!in!the!Urban!Planning!Program.!We!spent!so!

many!unforgettable!days!and!nights!in!the!studio!and!made!all!this!progress!together.

!

! 1!

Introduction&

In!the!City!of!New!York,!the!Asian!population!was!the!fastest!growing!major!race!and!ethnic!

group,! growing! by! 30! percent! from! 2000! to! 2010.! The! population! of! the! Asian! in! 2010! is!

more! than! 6! times! of! the! one! in! 1970.! As! the! largest! Asian! subgroup! in! New! York! City,!

Chinese!Americans!have!grown!by!34!percent!from!2000!to!2010,!with!around!half!a!million!

residents.!The!Chinese!population! in!2010! is!more! than!8! times!of! the!size! in!1970.! In! the!

same!period,!the!total!population!in!the!city!didn’t!change!much.! !

Table#1#Population#Growth#in#the#City#of#New#York,#197052010#

!

1970! 1980! 1990! 2000! 2010!

!

Number! Percentage! Number! Percentage! Number! Percentage! Number! Percentage! Number! Percentage!

Total! 7,894,851! 100.00%! 7,071,639! ! ! ! ! ! !100.00%! 7,322,564! 100.00%! 8,008,278! 100.00%! 8,175,133! 100.00%!

Asian! 160,720! 2.04%! 229,789! 3.25%! 509,955! 6.96%! 774,163! 9.67%! 1,017,515! 12.45%!

Chinese*! 56,217! 0.71%! 124,764! 1.76%! 238,919! 3.26%! 357,243! 4.46%! 474,783! 5.81%!

*!In!Census!1970,!1980!and!1990,!the!Chinese!population!includes!the!Taiwanese,!while!in!Census!2000!and!2010,!it!doesn’t.!

The!same!applies!to!all!the!Chinese!population!data!in!this!article.!

!

With!the!rapid!increase!of!the!Chinese!population,!the!Chinatowns!in!the!City!of!New!York!

are!one!the!most!fast!changing!ethnic!enclaves.!The!Old!Chinatown!in!Lower!Manhattan!was!

the!first!place!in!New!York!City!where!the!Chinese!American!concentrated.!In!the!1870s,!the!

Old!Chinatown!was!in!a!fourDblock!neighborhood!across!Canal!Street!from!Little!Italy!in!the!

Lower!East!Manhattan(Min!Zhou,!2009).!Over!the!span!of!one!and!a!half!centuries,!the!Old!

Chinatown! grew! at! accelerated! speed! into! several! community! districts.! Besides! that,! the!

Chinese!population!has!grown!rapidly!and!spread!out! into!the!“satellite!Chinatowns”,!such!

as!Flushing!in!Queens!and!Sunset!Park!in!Brooklyn.!

In!different!neighborhoods,!different!trends!were!also!observed.!The!general!changes!in!the!

number!of!Chinese!population!in!the!census!tract!level!throughout!the!year!1970D2010!are!

!

! 2!

shown! in! Figure! 1.! Up! until! 2009,! Asian! Americans! were! a! significant! proportion! of!

neighborhoods!that!historically!have!not!been!considered!Asian!American!“places”,!such!as!

Bensonhurst,! Forest! Hill,! Richmond! Hill,! Lower! Manhattan! and! Murray! Hill!

("Distinct! !Places,! !Shared! !Opportunity:!

A! !NeighborhoodDbased! !Analysis! !of! !Asian! !Americans! !in! !NYC,"! 2011).! Among! these!

five!community!districts,!according!to!Census!2010,!Chinese!Americans!(except!Taiwanese)!

are! the! largest! Asian! community! in! Bensonhurst! (Brooklyn! Community!District! 11),! Forest!

Hills!(Queens!Community!District!6),!Lower!Manhattan!(Manhattan!Community!District!1&2)!

and!Murray!Hill!(Manhattan!Community!District!6).! !

On!the!other!hand,!the!traditional!Chinese!neighborhoods!are!not!growing!at!the!same!pace.!

As! in! a! report! by! Asian! American! Federation,! from! 2000! to! 2010,! while! most! of! the!

neighborhoods! with! large! Chinese! American! populations! maintained! double! digit! growth!

rates,! the! Chinatown! and! SoHoDTribecaDCivic! CenterDLittle! Italy! NTAs! saw! declines! in! the!

Chinese!population!of!17!percent! and!19!percent! respectively.! In! addition,! the! Lower!East!

Side!NTA!saw!only!a!6!percent!increase!in!the!Chinese!population.! !

This!study!is!to!look!into!the!change!in!the!spatial!distribution!of!the!Chinese!Americans!in!

New! York! City! during! 1970D2010,! whether! the! Chinese! Americans! are! getting! assimilated!

with! other! ethnic! groups! in! this! period! and! what! kind! of! neighborhoods! they! tend! to!

concentrate!in.! !

!

! 3!

!Figure#1#Chinese#American#Population#in#the#City#of#New#York#at#the#Census#Tract#Level,#197052010#

Sources:#US#Census#1970,#1980,#1990,#2000#and#2010,#NYC#DCP#

&

Literature&review&

1.!The!Chinese!Americans!

In! 1980,! Asian! immigrants! and! Asian! Americans! already! made! up! the! third! ethnic! racial!

group! in! the! nation,! after! blacks! and! Hispanics! (Mangiafico,! 1988).! While! the! Asian!

population! is! an! important! ethnic! group! to! look! into,! the! Chinese! American! should! be!

!

! 4!

studied!individually!because!different!trends!in!the!subgroups!can!be!observed.!As!the!Asian!

population! increase! rapidly! during! 1970D2010,! the! different! subgroups! didn’t! grow! at! the!

same! speed.! For! example,! during! 2000D2010,! the! Asian! ethnic! groups! with! the! largest!

numeric! increases! in! population! were! Chinese! (+125,113),! Bangladeshis! (+33,519)! and!

Indians!(+26,468)!(Shih!&!Xu,!2012).!However,!in!terms!of!the!percentage!in!the!total!Asian!

population,! the! Chinese! increased! from! 46.2%! to! 46.7%! while! the! largest! increase! is! the!

Bangladeshi!from!2.5%!to!5.2%!and!Pakistani!the!second!from!3.1%!to!4.1%.!

The! subgroups! in! the! Asian! population,! such! as! the! Chinese,! Filipino,! Indian,! Vietnamese,!

Korean!and!Japanese!etc.,!differ!in!many!ways,!including!geographic!settlement.!It!is!found!

that!ethnic!and!subDethnic!attachments! in!Chinese,! Indian,!and!Korean! immigrants! in!New!

York!City!varied!a!lot!(Min!&!Kim,!2009).!Across!U.S.,!the!geographic!settlement!patterns!are!

very! different! among! AsianDAmerican! subgroups,! as! well! as! the! levels! of! income! and!

education,! socioDeconomic! ledger,! religious! identities,! social!and!cultural! realms,!pathways!

into!the!U.S,!degrees!of!attachment!to!relatives!and!naturalization!rates!("The!Rise!of!Asian!

Americans,"!2013).! !

As!a!large!and!fastDgrowing!ethnic!group!in!the!City!of!New!York,!the!Chinese!American!is!an!

important!subject! for! the!study!of!spatial!assimilation.!The!Chinese!ethnic!enclaves!exhibit!

obvious! Chinese! characteristics.! The! traditional! Chinese! neighborhood! such! as!Manhattan!

Chinatown!expanded!a! lot!across! the!time!and!new!Chinese!neighborhoods!emerged.!This!

gives!rise!to!the!question!of!what!kind!of!neighborhood!the!Chinese!evolved!to!be!a!Chinese!

ethnic!enclave.!

!

!

! 5!

2.!1970D2010!

The!time!period!of!this!study! is! from!1970!to!2010,!after!the!passage!of!1965!Immigration!

Act.! This! HartDCellar! Act! abolished! the! national! origins! quota! system! that! had! structured!

American! immigration! policy! since! the! 1920s,! replacing! it! with! a! preference! system! that!

focused! on! immigrants'! skills! and! family! relationships! with! citizens! or! residents! of! the!

U.S.("Public!Law!89–236!89th!congress,!H.!R.!2580!October!3,!1986!An!Act,"!1965)!

The! long! history! of! Chinese! immigration! and! settlement! in! the!U.S! dates! back! to! the! late!

1840s! and! includes! more! than! 60! years! of! legal! exclusion! (Kuo,! 1977).! While! Chinese!

laborers!were! shipped! in! largest! numbers! to! the!west! coast,! few! Chinese! resided! in!New!

York!(Min!Zhou,!2009).!With!the!lifting!of!legal!barriers!to!Chinese!immigration!after!World!

War! II! and! the!enactment!of! liberal! immigration! legislation!beginning!with! the!passage!of!

the!Immigration!and!Nationality!Act!Amendments!of!1965!(the!HartDCeller!Act),!the!Chinese!

American!community!has!increased!13Dfold:!from!237,000!in!1960!to!1.6!million!in!1990!and!

to!3.6!million!in!2006!(Min!Zhou,!2009).! !

The!historical!Immigration!Act!1965!made!it!possible!for!record!numbers!of!Chinese!to!join!

their! families! already! living! in! the!United! States! for! generations.! Chinatowns! revived!with!

the!arrival!of!new!immigrants,!a!resurgence!of!the!garment!industry!and!a!thriving!Chinese!

restaurant! industry! (Peter.! Kwong,! 1987).! Precipitated! by! the! 1965! Immigration! Act,!

continuing!streams!of!immigration!and!the!resultant!settlement!of!new!arrivals!into!existing!

ethnic! communities! reinforce! and! perpetuate! the! urban! nature! of! Asian! American!

communities!(Barringer,!Gardner,!&!Levin,!1993).!There!is!also!research!indicating!that!Asian!

enclaves!were!beginning! to! form! in!many!U.S.!metropolitan! areas! around!1980(Massey!&!

!

! 6!

Denton,!1987).!

!

3.!Theoretical!Background!

Spatial#Assimilation#

The! raceDrelations! cycle!developed!by!Park! (1928)! involves! the! four! sequential! stages! that!

new! immigrant! groups! process,! which! are! contract,! competition,! accommodation,! and!

eventual! assimilation.! Gordon! (1964)! describes! various! forms! and! stages! of! assimilation,!

including! cultural,! structural,! marital,! identificational,! attitudeDreceptional,!

behaviorDreceptional,! to! civic! assimilation.! Cultural! assimilation,! to! Gordon,! is! a! necessary!

first! step! and! is! considered! the! top! priority! on! the! agenda! of! immigrant! adjustment.! The!

research!done!by!Wen,!Lauderdale,!and!Kandula!(2009)!supported!the!classical!assimilation!

theory,! showing! that! the!percent!of!whites! is! a! good!marker!of!higher!neighborhood!SES,!

suburban!location,!less!immigrant!concentration!and!higher!levels!of!acculturation.!

While! full! assimilation! may! apply! to! the! experience! of! European! groups,! to! other! ethnic!

groups! it! may! not! be! the! case.! The! segmented! assimilation! theory! was! developed,!

recognizing! the! fact! that! spatial! patterns! of! ethnic! neighborhoods! are! not! homogeneous,!

and! the! segmented! assimilation! model! fits! better! to! empirical! patterns! of! ethnic! spatial!

settlement! (A.! Portes! &! Zhou,! 1993).! Immigrants! are! today! being! absorbed! by! different!

segments!of!American!society,!ranging!from!affluent!middleDclass!suburbs!to! impoverished!

innercity! ghettos,! but! that! becoming! American! may! not! always! be! an! advantage! for!

themselves!nor!for!their!children!(Min!Zhou,!1997).!

Different! ethnic! groups! may! exhibit! different! assimilation! patterns.! Research! into! the!

!

! 7!

dimensions!of!segregation!among!Asians!also!reveal!that!similar!to!Hispanics/Latinos,!levels!

of!residential!segregation!measured!by!dissimilarity!to!Whites!among!Asians!is!much!lower!

compared! to! that! among! Blacks! (Frey! &! Farley,! 1996;! Icel,! 1999;! John! R.! Logan,! Alba,!

McNulty,!&!Fisher,!1996;!Massey!&!Denton,!1987).!The!groupDspecific!population!growth!is!

buttressing! Hispanic! and! Asian! ethnic! enclaves,! which! is! different! from! the! African!

Americans! (Iceland,! 2004).! There! is! also! an! empirical! research! indicating! that! the! Asian!

presents!a!different!vision!of!spatial!assimilation,!in!which!AsianDAnglo!contact!is!not!related!

to!indicators!of!SES!or!acculturation(Massey,!1985).!The!relatively!slow!pace!of!assimilation!

among! ChineseDAmericans! may! be! attributed! to! the! difference! in! racial! and! cultural!

distinction!from!American!whites(Warner!&!Srole,!1945).!

On!the!other!hand,!segregated!community!of! the!Chinese! in!New!York!can!be!one!kind!or!

form! of! voluntary! segregation! on! the! devised! scale,! which! is! the! "voluntary! segregation!

involving! involuntary! factor(s)! (Yuan,! 1963).! The! lack! of! English! ability! is! one! important!

predictor!of!selfDsegregation!among!both!Asians!and!Hispanics! (Nguyen,!2004).!Apart! from!

voluntary! segregation! because! of! inability! to! adjust,! the! dispersion! of! Chinese! also!

symbolizes!gradual!assimilation(Yuan,!1966).!The!contemporary!immigration!stream!is!more!

diverse! and! includes! many! immigrants! with! high! levels! of! human! capital! who! find!

professional!or!other!highDstatus!positions!in!the!United!States!(Alejandro!Portes!&!Rumbaut,!

1996).! Some! groups! may! form! ethnic! communities! in! a! different! social! process! than!

immigrant! enclave,!with!motives! associated!more!with! taste,! preference! and! ambition! to!

sustain!ethnic!identity!than!with!economic!necessity!(John!R.!Logan,!Zhang,!&!Alba,!2002).! !

!

!

! 8!

Immigrant#Settlement#Pattern#

Whereas!the!immigrants!in!the!past!typically!located!primarily!within!urban!enclaves,!recent!

immigrants!are!more!likely!to!locate!within!suburban!neighborhoods.!In!the!midD1990s,!Fong!

(1994)! and! Horton! (1995)! noted! the! suburban! trend! in! California's! first! "suburban!

Chinatown"! in! Monterey! Park.! The! notion! of! Ethnoburbs! was! created! to! refer! to! the!

suburban! ethnic! clusters! of! residential! areas! and! business! districts! in! large! metropolitan!

areas.!Those!communities!are!mostly!multiethnic!communities,!in!which!one!ethnic!minority!

group! has! a! significant! concentration,! but! does! not! necessarily! comprises! a! majority! (Li,!

1997).! By! 2000! more! immigrants! in! metropolitan! areas! lived! in! suburbs! than! cities,! and!

growth!rates!there!exceeded!those!in!the!cities(Singer,!2004).!Within!the!last!two!decades,!

suburban! Asian! ethnic! enclaves! have! developed! in! many! metropolitan! areas! around! the!

country! to! accommodate! both! affluent! U.S.! and! foreignDborn! Asian! Americans! alike! (Le,!

2007).! !

Nationwide,!six!major!types!of!U.S.!immigrant!“gateways”!were!identified!by!Singer!(2004),!

including! former! gateways,! continuous! gateways,! postDWorld! War! II! gateways,! emerging!

gateways,! reDemerging! gateways,! and! preDemerging! gateways.! New! York! is! one! of! the!

continuous! gateways,!with! aboveDaverage! percentage! foreignDborn! for! every! decade! from!

1900!to!2000.!In!this!type!of!gateways,!relatively!higher!percentage!of!immigrants!resided!in!

central!cities!because!of!the!attachment!to!historical!immigrant!neighborhoods.!

Immigrants! no! longer! concentrated! in! deprived!neighborhoods! for! the! lack! of!money! and!

social!resources.!The!concept!of!ethnic!community!was!also!created!to!describe!ethnic!areas!

in!desirable! locations,!often! in!affluent! suburbia,!and!selected!by! those!who!are!equipped!

!

! 9!

with! human! and! financial! capital! and! could! afford! living! in!white! neighborhoods,! but! still!

choose! to! live! in! these! ethnic! communities! out! of! motive! associated! with! taste! and!

preference!(John!R.!Logan!et!al.,!2002).!And!research!did!observe!the!ethnic!communities!or!

the!resurgent!ethnicity!phenomena!(Brown!&!Chung,!2006).!

Old! Chinatown! has! not! experienced! the! neighborhood! decline! predicted! by! assimilation!

theories!but! is!growing!at!accelerated!speeds!as!the!tremendous! influx!of!new!immigrants!

and!foreign!capital!brings!life!to!the!decaying!area!surrounding!Chinatown!(Min!Zhou,!2009).!

Meanwhile,!the!Old!Chinatown!is!no!longer!the!only!concentration!of!the!Chinese!Americans.!

The!majority!of!the!Chinese!American!population!is!spreading!out!into!the!suburbs!outside!

of!traditional!immigrant!gateway!cities!as!well!as!in!new!urban!centers!of!Asian!settlement!

(M.!Zhou,!Tseng,!&!Kim,!2008).!

!

The#determinants#of#immigrants’#location#choices#

In! the! classic! spatial! assimilation! theory,! the! early!waves! of! European! immigrants! initially!

located!in!neighborhoods!close!to!the!factories,!shops,!and!institutions!that!employed!them.!

As! immigrants! became!more! upwardly! mobile! they! moved! out! of! immigrant! enclaves! to!

neighborhoods!with!better!housing!and!schools.!(Alba,!Logan,!Stults,!Marzan,!&!Zhang,!1999;!

John!R.!Logan!et!al.,!2002;!Massey,!1985;!Moen,!DempsterDMcClain,!&!Walker,!1999)!

The! determining! factors! of! a! migrant’s! initial! choice! of! residence! include! family! and!

friendship! ties,! group! identification,! journeyDtoDwork,! rental! rates,! discriminatory!

practices(Thompson,!1971).!In!a!research!on!the!relationship!between!immigrant!settlement!

and! labor! force! characteristics! in! Ontario,! Canada,! it! was! revealed! that! the! recent!

!

! 10!

immigrants!tend!to!concentrate! in!regions!with!higher!housing!prices!and!none!of!average!

income,! unemployment! rate,! nor! occupation! significantly! influenced! the! spatial!

concentration! of! immigrants! in! Ontario.! They! concluded! that! probably! the! proximity! of!

family!and!friends!have!prevailing!influence!(Sonia!Di!&!Bauder,!2005).!

Factors! as! to! social! network,! safety,! housing! and! school! have! an! influence! on! where! the!

ethnic! groups! move.! As! dual! labor! market! theories! define! new! immigrants! mainly! as!

additions!to!the!secondary!labor!market!linked!with!small!peripheral!firms,!the!ethnic!social!

networks!matter!a!lot!in!mobility!and!status!attainment!process!(Wilson!&!Portes,!1996).!For!

many! households! attaining! residence! in! a! safe! neighborhood! with! adequate! housing! and!

good!schools!is!an!important!objective!(Popkin,!Briggs,!&!Goering,!2011).!

A!study!in!Canada!of!the!data!from!1996!to!2001!showed!that!recent!immigrants!are!much!

more!likely!than!the!nativeDborn!to!commute!by!public!transit!even!after!controlling!for!age,!

gender,!income,!distance!to!work,!and!distance!between!place!of!residence!and!city!center!

(Heisz!&!Schellenberg,!2004)!

Min!Zhou!(2009)!studied!a!similar!question!in!the!New!York!City,!which!was!to!estimate!the!

independent!effects!of! various!neighborhood! characteristics! (e.g.,! the!percentage!of! racial!

minorities,!median!household!incomes,!occupations,!rental!housing,!and!residential!stability)!

on!the!percentage!of!Chinese!living!in!a!particular!neighborhood.!Results!showed!that!they!

were!most! likely! to! share! a! census! tract! with! other! Asians! and! least! likely! to! do! so! with!

either! blacks! or! Hispanics.! However,! percentage! of! residents! holding! topDranking!

occupations!was!the!only!censusDtract!characteristic!seemed!to!significantly!affect!where!the!

!

! 11!

Chinese! were! concentrated.! Also,! the! residential! movement! was! highly! selective! and!

directed!toward!relative!disadvantaged!tracts.!

For! the! existing! studies,! the! Asian! Americans! are! usually! treated! as! an! entire! group.!

However,!different!ethnic!subgroups!within!the!Asian!Americans!differ!a!lot!in!demographics,!

cultural! realms! and! religious! identities,! etc,!which!may! lead! to! their! different! behavior! of!

interacting! with! people! from! other! ethnic! groups.! The! Chinese! American! is! the! largest!

subgroup! in! the! City! of! New! York! with! high! increasing! rate.! Thus! this! particular! group! is!

worth!looking!into.! !

Apart!from!that,!although!there!are!studies!about!the!neighborhood!characteristics!and!the!

white! turnover! rate! or! white! loss! (Denton! &!Massey,! 1991;! Galster,! 1990;! Lee! &!Wood,!

1991),! the! factors! examined! are! limited.! The! independent! variables! are! mostly! ethnic!

composition!and!socioeconomic! factors,!and! the!dependent!variable! is!possibility!of! losing!

the!white! or! the!white! turnover! rate.!More! variables! such! as! community! facilities! can! be!

included.! !

!

Conceptual&Framework&

As!in!a!report!by!the!Lewis!Mumford!Center,!the!AsianDWhite!segregation!in!New!York!City!

has!changed!from!49!in!1980,!48!in!1990!to!51!in!2000,!where!it!was!most!highly!segregated!

metro!area!across!the!country!in!2000.!The!isolation!of!Asians!increased!from!16!in!1980,!20!

in!1990! to!27! in!2000,! ranking! fifth! in!all! the!metro!areas(J.! Logan,!2001).!After! reviewing!

literatures! exploring! the! assimilation! of! ethnic! groups,! such! as! the! classical! spatial!

assimilation!model,!the!segmented!assimilation!model,!the!emerging!of!ethnoburbs!etc,!this!

!

! 12!

paper! is! going! to! examine! the! trend! of! the! changes! of! segregation! and! isolation! of! the!

Chinese!Americans!in!the!City!of!New!York!in!the!year!1970D2010.!The!changes!throughout!

the! years! can! also! tell! us! which! assimilation! theory! is! more! explanatory! for! this! specific!

group.! !

Then!the!factors!that!relate!to!the!spatial!concentration!of!the!Chinese!Americans!in!the!City!

of!New!York!will!also!be!explored!at!the!census!tract!level.!A!multiple!linear!regression!will!

be!employed.!This! research!will! be!done!on! the!neighborhood!characteristic! factors!every!

ten!years!between!1970!and!2010.!My!hypotheses!are!that!Chinese!Americans!are!getting!

more!segregated!and!isolated,!although!the!degree!is!not!as!high!as!the!Black.!The!Chinese!

Americans! in! the! New! York! City! tend! to! live! with! other! Chinese! instead! of! other! ethnic!

groups.! They! concentrate! in! neighborhood!with! higher! socioeconomic! status,!more! public!

housing!and!school!resources!and!better!public!transit!access.! !

!

Methodology&

Due! to! the! limitation!of! the!data,! the! term!Chinese!Americans!used! in! this! study! includes!

people! who! indicate! their! race! as! Chinese! or! report! entries! such! as! China! or! Chinese!

American! in! US! Census.! It’s! not! differentiated! whether! they! are! firstDgeneration! or!

secondDgeneration!immigrants.!We!won’t!be!able!to!tell!the!change!in!the!spatial!preference!

as!the!Chinese!Americans!get!neutralized!and!stay!in!the!US!for!generations.!

In! this! thesis,! the! decennial! census! data,! Census! 1970,! 1980,! 1990,! 2000! and! 2010! at! the!

census! tract! level! will! be! used.! Firstly,! the! conditions! of! the! segregation! of! the! Chinese!

Americans!in!the!New!York!City!every!ten!years!throughout!the!years!from!1970D2010!will!be!

!

! 13!

examined.!To!reflex!that,!three!indices!will!be!calculated,!Index!of!Dissimilarity!(D),!Index!of!

Exposure! (P)! and! Isolation! Index! (I).! The! indices!of! the!Chinese!will! be! compared!with! the!

ones!of! the!whole!Asian!population!and! the!black.! The! Index!of!Dissimilarity! and! Index!of!

Exposure! will! be! constructed! against! the! white! population! in! the! city! because! that’s! the!

dominant!society.!

As! explained! by! sociologists! (Farley! &! Frey,! 1994;! Frey! &! Farley,! 1996;! John! R.! Logan! &!

Schneider,! 1984;! Massey! &! Denton,! 1987),! the! Index! of! Dissimilarity! is! an! oftenDused!

indicator! of! spatial! segregation! and! basically! measures! the! ‘evenness’! or! differential!

distribution!of!minority!and!majority!group!members!across!tracts.! !

The!formula!for!two!groups,!for!example!Whites!and!Blacks,!in!a!particular!city!is:! !

D =100* 12

wi

WT−biBTi=1

n

∑ !

Where:!n!=!number!of!tracts!or!spatial!units,!wi!=!number!of!Whites!in!tract!i,!WT!=!total!

number!of!Whites!in!the!city,!bi!=!number!of!Blacks!in!tract!i,!BT!=!total!number!of!Blacks!in!

the!city.!

D! scores! range! from!0! to!100,!which!are! interpreted!as! the!percentage!of!one!group!who!

would! have! to! move! to! achieve! an! even! proportion.! 0! means! nobody! needs! to! move!

because!each!tract!has!the!same!composition.!In!Le!(2007),!a!value!of!60!or!above!indicates!

a!very!high!level!of!segregation,!while!30!to!59!are!considered!moderate,!and!values!of!30!or!

less!are!considered!low.!Demographers!interpret!change!of!10!points!and!above!in!D!in!one!

decade!as!very!significant!change,!change!of!5D10!points!as!moderate!change!and!below!5!

points! as! small! change! or! no! real! change! at! all.! Small! but! repeated! changes! in! several!

decades!can!constitute!a!significant!trend(J.!Logan,!2001).!

!

! 14!

For!the!Index!of!Exposure,!as!in!Le!(2007),!it!refers!to!the!racial/ethnic!composition!of!a!tract!

and!the!degree!to!which!one!racial/ethnic!group!is!exposed!to!another!racial/ethnic!group.!P!

values! range! from!0! to!100,! the! same!with!D.! For!example,! an!Exposure! score!of!10.0! for!

WhiteDAsian!exposure!indicates!that!the!average!White!lives!in!a!neighborhood!that!is!10.0%!

Asian(J.!Logan,!2001).!The!formula!is!as!follows,!for!Whites!and!Blacks.!

P =100* nibNb( )∑ niw

ni( ) !

Where:!nib!=!number!of!Blacks!in!the!tract,!niw!=!number!of!Whites!in!the!tract,!Nb!=!number!

of!Blacks!in!the!city,!ni!=!total!population!of!the!tract.! !

The! Isolation! Index! is! the!percentage!of! sameDgroup!population! in! the! census! tract!where!

the!average!member!of!a!racial/ethnic!group!lives.!It!has!a!lower!bound!of!zero!(for!a!very!

small! group! that! is! quite! dispersed)! to! 100! (meaning! that! group! members! are! entirely!

isolated! from!other! groups).! This! Index! is! affected! by! the! size! of! the! group! DD! it! is! almost!

inevitably!smaller!for!smaller!groups,!and!it! is! likely!to!rise!over!time!if!the!group!becomes!

larger.!

I =100* wi

W!

"#

$

%&wi

ti!

"#

$

%&

'

()

*

+,

i=1

n

∑ !

Where:!wi!=!number!of!Whites!in!the!tract,!W!=!number!of!Whites!in!the!city,!ti=!total!

population!of!the!tract.!

The! same! three! Indices!will!be!calculated!using!census!data! for! the!entire!Asian!American!

group,! as!well! as! the! other! ethnic! groups,! such! as! the! black! and! the! Latino.! Comparisons!

across!different!groups!and!across!time!will!be!made.! !

As! the! second! step,! the!ordinary! least! squares!multiple! regressions!will! be!done! for!every!

ten!years,!from!1970!to!2010.!The!latter!year’s!number!of!Chinese!in!each!census!tract!will!

!

! 15!

be! regressed! on! the! independent! variables! in! the! beginning! year,! including! the! white!

population,! black! population,! Chinese! population,! the! percentage! of! people! with! college!

education,! percentage! of!managerialDexecutive,!median! household! income,! percentage! of!

rental! housing,! percentage! of! multifamily! housing,! percentage! of! schoolDage! children!

enrolled! in! public! schools! and! density! of! subway! stations.! The! percentage! of! people!with!

college!education,!percentage!of!managerialDexecutive,!and!median!household! income!are!

chosen!to!reflect!the!socioeconomic!status!of!the!neighborhood.!

lg(CHNy+10+1)!=!β0!+!β1!lg(WHITE+1)!+!β2!lg(BLACK+1)!+!β3!lg!(CHNy!+1)! !

+!β4!lg(INCOME)!+!β5!P_PUBLIC!+!β6!P_MANAGER! !

+!β7!P_COLLEGE!+!β8!P_MULTI!+!β9!P_RENT!+!β10!lg(SUBWAY+1)!

where!

CHNy+10!=!The!number!of!Chinese!population!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y+10!

WHITE!=!The!number!of!white!population!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

BLACK!=!The!number!of!black!population!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

CHNy!=!The!number!of!Chinese!population!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

INCOME!=!The!median!household!income!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

P_PUBLIC!=!The!percentage!of!people!enrolled!in!public!schools! in!people!3!years!and!

over!enrolled!in!school!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

P_MANAGER! =! The! percentage! of! people! with! executive,! administrative,! and!

managerial! occupations! in! employed! people! 16! years! and! over! in! the! census! tract! in!

Year!y!

P_COLLEGE!=!The!percentage!of!people!with!education!of!college!or!more!in!people!25!

!

! 16!

years!old!and!over!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

P_MULTI!=!The!percentage!of!multiDfamily!housing!units! in!all!the!housing!units! in!the!

census!tract!in!Year!y!

P_RENT!=!The!percentage!of!renter!occupied!housing!units! in!all!the!occupied!units! in!

the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

SUBWAY!=!The!density!of!subway!stations!in!the!census!tract!in!Year!y!

The!population!variables,! the!median! income!and!the!subway!station!density!variables!are!

taken! nature! logarithm! in! the! model.! The! reason! is! that! observations! of! these! variables!

contain!a!lot!of!zeros!and!are!right!skewed.!For!example,!more!than!half!of!the!census!tracts!

have!zero!Chinese!population! in!the!year!1970.!The! logarithm!is!more!close!to!the!normal!

distribution! and! the! correlation! among! variables! is! reduced.! Adding! 1! to! the! population!

variables! and! the! subway! station! density! before! taking! the! logarithm! is! to! making! the!

number!meaningful!when!the!observation!equals!zero.!

The! data! for! the! regression! are! all! from! the! decennial! census,! Census! 1970,! 1980,! 1990,!

2000!and!2010.!The!chart!of!specific!items!in!the!census!used!is!attached!in!the!appendix.!All!

census!data!in!1970,!1980,!1990!and!2000!are!normalized!into!the!census!tract!boundaries!in!

2010!using!Longitudinal!Tract!Database! (LTDB),!developed!by! John!R!Logan,!Xu,!and!Stults!

(2012).!Dollars!in!income!levels!throughout!the!years!are!all!adjusted!for!inflation!to!match!

value!in!2010!for!comparison.!So!the!data!used!and!shown!in!this!thesis!are!all!using!2010!

census!tract!boundaries!and!dollar!value.!The!subway!station!density!is!calculated!from!the!

GIS!shapefile!of!the!New!York!City!Subway!Stations!from!Community!Cartography,!together!

with!the!census!tract!boundary!shapefile!from!New!York!City!Department!of!City!Planning.!

!

! 17!

The! regressions! are! to! explore!what! are! the! variables! that! can! explain! the! change! of! the!

Chinese! population! in! the! census! tracts.! That! can! reflect!what! kinds! of! neighborhood! the!

Chinese!prefer!and!tend!to!concentrate!in.!The!coefficient!will!be!compared!across!the!year!

to!see!whether!the!influential!factors!changed!in!the!40Dyear!period.! !

As! the! last! step,! a! closer! look! will! be! taken! into! the! demographics! and! neighborhood!

characteristics! of! the! three! major! Chinese! ethnic! enclaves,! which! are! Chinatown! in!

Manhattan,! Sunset! Park! in! Brooklyn! and! Flushing! in! Queens.! The! American! Community!

Survey!(ACS)!1Dyear!Public!Use!Microdata!Samples!(PUMS)!of!the!three!corresponding!Public!

Use!Microdata!Areas!(PUMAs)!are!used.!The!descriptive!statistics!will!be!used!to!explore!the!

difference! among! enclaves,! as! a! supplement! of! the! cityDwide! regressions.! Although! the!

sample! data!might! be! with! errors! and! the! PUMAs! are! large! predefined! areas,! it! can! still!

reflect!the!differences!among!the!three!places.! !

!

Analysis&

1.!Indices!

Index#of#dissimilarity#

The!Index!of!Dissimilarity!measures!the!relative!separation!or!integration!of!the!black,!Asian!

and! Chinese! population! to! the! white! population! across! all! census! tracts! of! the! city.! For!

example,! the!whiteDChinese! dissimilarity! index! in! 1970!was! 65,!which!means! that! 65%! of!

Chinese!people!would!need!to!move!to!another!neighborhood!to!make!the!Chinese!and!the!

white!evenly!distributed!across!all!neighborhoods.!The!indices!are!calculated!for!the!black,!

Asian!and!Chinese!during!the!year!1970!to!2010,!which!are!shown!in!Table!2!and!Figure!2.! #

!

! 18!

Table#2#Index#of#Dissimilarity#

&Black& Asian& Chinese&

1970! 71! ! 44! ! 65! !

1980! 77! ! 46! ! 55! !

1990! 76! ! 44! ! 53! !

2000! 75! ! 45! ! 56! !

2010! 72! ! 47! ! 59! !

&

!

Figure#2#Index#of#Dissimilarity!

From!the!index,!it!can!be!told!that!the!Chinese!always!have!higher!level!of!segregation!from!

the!white! than! the!Asian!as!a!whole!but! lower! level! than! the!black.!The!Asian! is!a! lot! less!

segregated!from!the!white!than!the!black.!The! Index!of!Dissimilarity!of!the!Asian! is!almost!

the! half! of! that! of! the! black.! The! Chinese! had! an! Index! of! Dissimilarity! of! 65,! not! much!

different! from! 71! for! the! black! in! 1970.! However,! the! condition! of! segregation! got!much!

better!from!1970!to!1980.!The!index!decreased!dramatically,!from!65!to!55.!

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Black

Asian

Chinese

!

! 19!

Across! the! year! 1970! to! 2010,! the! degree! that! the! Chinese! are! separated! from! the!white!

declined!from!1970!to!1990!and!increased!from!1990!to!2010.!The!variation!of!the!index!for!

Chinese!during!the!period!is!larger!than!both!the!Asian!and!the!black.!The!overall!tendency!

of!the!index!for!the!Chinese!is!the!same!with!the!whole!Asian!population!from!1980!to!2010.!

However,!the!degree!that!the!Asian!are!separated!from!the!white!increased!during!1970!to!

1980,!which!is!different!from!that!for!the!Chinese.!

In!general,!the!Chinese!or!Asian!shows!a!reverse!trend!in!segregation!from!the!white!to!that!

of! the! black.! When! the! black! got! more! separated! from! the! white,! the! Chinese! got! less!

separated! and! vice! versa.! The! reason! for! this!might! be! that!when! the!white!moved! away!

from!the!black,!they!may!choose!to!live!with!the!Asian.! !

!

Index#of#Exposure#

The! Index! of! Exposure! here!measures! the! number! of!white! people! that! a!member! of! the!

black,!Asian!and!Chinese!will!meet!or!interact!with!in!every!100!people!in!New!York!City.!For!

example,!the!Index!of!Exposure!of!the!Chinese!to!the!white!in!1970!is!69.!It!shows!that!for!

an!average!member!of!the!Chinese,! in!every!100!people!he/she!meets! in!New!York!will!be!

white.!The!results!are!shown!in!Table!3!and!Figure!3.!

Table#3#Index#of#Exposure#

&Black& Asian& Chinese&

1970! 37! 81! 69!

1980! 21! 63! 57!

1990! 18! 56! 54!

2000! 16! 48! 47!

2010! 19! 43! 42!

!

!

! 20!

!

Figure#3#Index#of#Exposure#

From! year! 1970! to! 2010,! the! Index! of! Exposure! for! the! Chinese! declined! from! 69! to! 42,!

exhibiting! decreasing! interaction! with! the! white! in! the! city.! The! index! for! the! Chinese! is!

always!smaller! than! that!of! the!Asian!and!bigger! than! that!of! the!black.!Overall,! the!Asian!

have! more! interaction! with! the! white! population! in! the! city! than! the! black.! In! addition,!

Chinese!has!less!interaction!than!the!whole!Asian!group.!

In! general,! the! indices! for! all! three! groups! exhibit! a! decreasing! trend,!which!means! all! of!

them!have!less!and!less!interaction!with!the!white!throughout!the!years.!The!indices!for!the!

Chinese! shows! a! moderate! decreasing! trend,! more! dramatically! than! the! black! but! less!

dramatically! compared! with! the! whole! Asian! group.! In! contrast! with! the! Asian! and! the!

Chinese,! the! index! for! the!black! increased! from!year!2000! to!2010,!after! three!decades!of!

increase.!

Comparisons! among! exposure! indices! are! affected! by! differences! in! both! spatial!

distributions! and! in! aggregate! racial! composition(Taeuber! &! Taeuber,! 1988).! Thus! the!

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Black

Asian

Chinese

!

! 21!

decreasing! indices! don’t! necessarily! the! groups! are!more! segregated.! The! changes! in! the!

racial!composition!in!the!total!population!in!New!York!City!are!shown!in!Figure!4.!We!can!tell!

that!the!proportion!of!the!white!kept!declining!during!the!period,!which!is!part!of!the!reason!

why! the! Index! of! Exposure! kept! declining.! The! percentage! of! white! people! in! the! city!

decreased!and!the!chance!that!other!groups!interact!with!the!white!will!definitely!decrease!

accordingly.!However,! comparison!across! the! groups! can! still! reflect!how! segregated!each!

group! is.! The! Chinese! are! less! segregated! from! the! white! than! the! black! but! more!

segregated!compared!to!the!rest!of!the!Asian!population.!

!

Figure#4#Population#Composition#of#New#York#City,#197052010#

Index#of#Isolation#

The! Index!of! Isolation! is! telling! the!number!of!people!white,!black,!Asian!or!Chinese!every!

100!people!in!the!census!tract!for!the!average!white,!black,!Asian!or!Chinese!person!in!the!

New!York!City.!For!example,!the!Index!of!Isolation!for!the!Chinese!is!16.!It!means!that!for!an!

average!Chinese!in!the!city!in!1970,!in!every!100!people!in!his/her!census!tract,!there!were!

16!Chinese!people.!The!indices!are!calculated!for!the!white,!black,!Asian!and!Chinese!during!

0

1,000,000

2,000,000

3,000,000

4,000,000

5,000,000

6,000,000

7,000,000

8,000,000

9,000,000

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

Total

White

Black

Asian

Chinese

!

! 22!

1970!to!2010,!which!are!shown!in!Table!4!and!Figure!5.! !

Table#4#Index#of#Isolation#

&White& Black& Asian& Chinese&

1970! 88! 62! 11! 16!

1980! 80! 66! 17! 21!

1990! 75! 66! 22! 21!

2000! 66! 62! 27! 24!

2010! 63! 59! 32! 29!

!

!

Figure#5#Index#of#Isolation#

The!Index!of!Isolation!of!the!Chinese!is!low!compared!to!the!other!groups.!It!is!close!to!that!

of!the!whole!Asian!group.!It!is!5!units!higher!than!that!of!the!Asian!in!year!1970!to!1980!and!

a!little!bit!lower!than!that!of!the!Asian!in!the!year!1990!to!2010.!The!white!has!the!highest!

Index!of!Isolation!in!all!groups.!The!second!highest!is!the!black.!The!Asian!together!with!the!

Chinese!have!the!lowest.! !

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

1970 1980 1990 2000 2010

White

Black

Asian

Chinese

!

! 23!

In!general,!throughout!the!year!1970!to!2010,!the!Index!of!Isolation!for!the!Chinese!and!the!

Asian!kept!increasing!while!the!index!for!the!white!and!the!black!showed!a!decreasing!trend.!

The!Chinese!as!well!as!the!Asian!are!seeing!more!and!more!people!of!the!same!ethnic!group!

in!the!census!tract,!while!the!white!and!the!black!are!see!fewer!and!fewer!people!of!their!

groups.! !

The! value! of! Index! of! Isolation! is! affected! by! the! size! of! the! group.! It! is! smaller! for! the!

smaller! groups,! and! it! is! likely! to! rise! over! time! if! the! group! becomes! bigger("Technical!

Information,").! So! this! index! doesn’t! directly! reflect! the! degree! of! discrimination! either.! !

Considering!the!sizes!of!different!groups!in!the!years!shown!in!Figure!4,!the!indices!change!

in!the!same!trend!with!the!numbers!of!the!according!population.!The!change!of!the!size!of!

the! groups! explains!most! of! the! variation! in! the! index.! However,! the! Chinese! population!

kept! increasing! dramatically! throughout! the! period! while! the! index! doesn’t! increase! that!

much,! especially! in! the! year! 1980! to! 1990.! As! the! Chinese! population! grew! bigger,! they!

gradually!got!more!dispersed!into!the!whole!city.!That!can!also!be!seen!in!the!expansion!of!

the!Chinese!‘footprint’!shown!in!Figure!1.!

From!the!three!different!indices,!it!can!be!told!that!the!Chinese!always!have!a!higher!level!of!

segregation!from!the!white!than!the!Asian!as!a!whole!but!a!lower!level!than!the!black.!The!

Chinese! also! have! less! interaction! with! the! white! than! the! Asian! as! a! whole! but! more!

interaction! than! the!black.! The!Asian! including! the!Chinese! see!much! fewer!people!of! the!

same!group!than!the!black!and!the!white.!But!they!are!seeing!more!and!more,!as!the!Index!

of!Isolation!increases.!

The!conditions!of!segregation!and!assimilation!of!the!Chinese!changed!most!dramatically!in!

!

! 24!

the! year! 1970D1980! compared! to! the! later! three! decades.! The! general! trend! in! the! four!

decades!is!decreasing!interaction!with!the!white!and!more!interaction!with!the!Chinese.!The!

level!of!segregation!first!decreased!and!then! increased.!Basically! the!Chinese!population! is!

growing!fast!in!the!four!decades.!They!are!spreading!into!more!and!more!neighborhoods!in!

the!city!but!they!are!staying!clustered,!especially!in!the!year!of!1990D2010.! !

!

2.!Regressions!

Regression#197051980#

The! regression! is! done! for! every! decade! during! 1970D2010.! In! 1970,! there! is! no! data! for!

median!household!income!in!US!Census,!so!the!average!household!income!is!used!instead.!

There! are! 2167! census! tracts! (interpolated! to! 2010! census! tract! boundaries)! in! total! and!

1501! census! tracts! are! left! with! the! null! values! deleted.! Table! 5! shows! the! descriptive!

statistics!for!observations!used!for!this!regression!model.! !

Table#5#Descriptive#Statistics#of#data#in#Year#197051980#

Results#of#the#regression#

In!the!first!place,! the!VIF(Variance! Inflation!Factor)! is!calculated!for!the!model! for!possible!

&min& max& Median& mean& var& std.dev&

chn80! 0! 6,322! 16! 60! 81,061! 285!

white! 0! 15,566! 2,747! 3,032! 4,481,966! 2,117!

black! 0! 10,339! 160! 972! 2,434,285! 1,560!

ave_income! 0! 118,507! 10,852! 11,867! 52,158,140! 7,222!

chn70! 0! 4,954! 0! 29! 40,015! 200!

p_college! 0%! 69%! 6%! 9%! 0.0096! 10%!

p_public! 0%! 69%! 31%! 32%! 0.0071! 8%!

p_manager! 0%! 39%! 6%! 7%! 0.0026! 5%!

p_rent! 0%! 100%! 77%! 68%! 0.0729! 27%!

p_multi! 2%! 100%! 94%! 83%! 0.0533! 23%!

subway! 0.00! 199.89! 0.00! 11.09! 531.39! 23.05!

!

! 25!

multicolinearity.!The!result!is!shown!below!in!Table!6.!The!VIF!values!are!all!no!bigger!than!3,!

which!don’t!indicate!severe!multicolinearity.!We!will!adopt!the!full!model.!The!results!of!the!

multiple!regression!are!shown!in!Table!7!and!related!plots!are!in!Figure!6.!

Table#6#VIF#for#the#regression#model#for#Year#197051980#

lgwhite! lgblack! lgchn70! lgin! p_public!

1.595072! 1.488696! 1.269116! 1.452418! 1.066905!

p_manager! p_college! p_multi! p_rent! lgsubway!

2.984786! 2.739393! 2.777015! 2.769204! 1.147766!

Table#7#Regression#results#for#Year#197051980#

Call:!

! ! ! ! !lm(formula!=!lgchn80!~!lgwhite!+!lgblack!+!lgchn70!+!lgin!+!p_public!+!p_manager!+!p_college!

+!p_multi!+!p_rent!+!lgsubway,!data!=!data1970)!

! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !Residuals:!

! ! ! !Min! 1Q! Median! 3Q! Max! !

D3.721! D0.7826! 0.0839! 0.8588! 3.6902! !

! ! ! ! ! !Coefficients:!

! ! ! !

!

Estimate! Std.!Error! t!value! Pr(>|t|)!

!(Intercept)! D1.78412! 0.55952! D3.189! 0.00146! **!

lgwhite! 0.41192! 0.03437! 11.986! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgblack! D0.21842! 0.01607! D13.59! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgchn70! 0.37537! 0.01938! 19.372! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! 0.08376! 0.05862! 1.429! 0.15327!

!p_public! 2.56683! 0.37953! 6.763! 1.93ED11! ***!

p_manager! D1.48544! 1.06017! D1.401! 0.16138!

!p_college! 2.64583! 0.52303! 5.059! 4.75ED07! ***!

p_multi! D0.13581! 0.22386! D0.607! 0.54417!

!p_rent! 0.25035! 0.19119! 1.309! 0.1906!

!lgsubway! 0.05519! 0.02073! 2.662! 0.00785! **!

DDD!

! ! ! ! !Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !Residual!standard!error:!1.201!on!1490!degrees!of!freedom!

Multiple!RDsquared:! ! 0.5205,!Adjusted!RDsquared:! ! 0.5173!

!

! 26!

!

Figure#6#Plots#of#the#regression#model#for#Year#197051980#

There! are! several! variables! in! the!model! that! are! statistically! significant! and! the! adjusted!

RDsquare! is! 0.5173.! There! is! no! outliner! with! large! leverage.! The! residuals! are! nearly!

normally!distributed.!However,!there!can!be!seen!some!pattern!in!the!residuals!of!the!model.!

After! examining! the! data,! the! pattern! is! formed! by! the! observations! with! a! really! small!

Chinese!population!in!1970!but!decreased!to!almost!0!in!1980.!For!example!the!observation!

in!the!“line”!has!a!Chinese!population!of!ten!in!1970!but!zero!in!1980.!The!model!doesn’t!fit!

these! observations!with! a! really! small! Chinese! population.! For! the! census! tracts!with! less!

!

! 27!

than!ten!Chinese!people! in!1970,!they!are!not!the!focus!of!the!study!because!the!changes!

are!so!dependent!on! the!decisions!of! just!several!households.!To!better!model! the!rest!of!

population,! we! create! a! subset! of! the! observations! with! a! Chinese! population! greater! or!

equal! to! ten! in!1970.!After! applying! the! selection,!519!observations!are! left.! The!previous!

transformation!method!will!still!be!used!because!the!Chinese!population!in!1980!may!still!be!

zero.!The!results!of!the!new!regression!are!shown!in!Table!8!and!Figure!9.!

Table#8#Regression#result#on#the#subset#for#Year#197051980#

Call:!

! ! ! ! !lm(formula!=!lgchn80!~!lgwhite!+!lgblack!+!lgchn70!+!lgin!+!p_public!+!p_manager!+!

p_college!+!p_multi!+!p_rent!+!lgsubway,!data!=!1970_subset)!

! ! !

! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !Residuals:!

! ! ! ! !Min! 1Q! Median! 3Q! Max!

!D3.7372! D0.6216! 0.0966! 0.7551! 2.8692!

!

! ! ! ! ! !Coefficients:!

! ! ! !

!


!(Intercept)! D1.27497! 1.50078! D0.85! 0.39598!

!lgwhite! 0.49576! 0.08346! 5.94! 5.30ED09! ***!

lgblack! D0.30286! 0.02946! D10.28! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgchn70! 0.88089! 0.06222! 14.157! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.15768! 0.15075! D1.046! 0.29608!

!p_public! 0.11182! 0.1711! 0.654! 0.51372!

!p_manager! D2.17635! 1.75008! D1.244! 0.21423!

!p_college! 2.15181! 0.80225! 2.682! 0.00755! **!

p_multi! 0.70539! 0.44433! 1.588! 0.11302!

!p_rent! D0.34913! 0.32325! D1.08! 0.28062!

!lgsubway! 0.08411! 0.0318! 2.645! 0.00843! **!

DDD!

! ! ! ! !Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !Residual!standard!error:!1.147!on!508!degrees!of!freedom!


FDstatistic:!43.51!on!10!and!508!DF,!pDvalue:!<!2.2eD16!

!

! 28!

As! we! look! at! the! plots! again,! the! pattern! in! the! regression! residuals! is! reduced.! The!

significance! level! for! coefficients! didn’t! stay! the! same.! The! P_PUBLIC! variable! is! not!

statistically!significant!any!more.!Although!the!QDQ!plot!of!the!residuals!is!further!from!the!

diagonal!line!compared!to!Figure!6,!the!large!sample!size!will!still!make!the!regression!result!

reliable.!In!Figure!7,!the!variance!of!residuals!doesn’t!appear!to!be!constant.!Heteroscedacity!

may!still!exist! in! the!model,!which!would!make!the!F!value!and!t!values!meaningless.!As!a!

result,!the!robust!standard!errors!will!be!used!to!interpret!the!results.!The!results!for!robust!

standard!errors!are!shown!in!Table!9.!

As!in!Table!9,!the!coefficients!of!variables!WHITE,!BLACK,!CHN70,!P_COLLEGE!and!SUBWAY!

are! statistically! significant,! which! really! high! significant! levels.! The! Chinese! population!

increased! during! 1970D1980!where! there! are!more!white! people,! less! black! people,!more!

Chinese!people,!more!college!educated!and!more!subway!stations!in1970.! !

!

! 29!

!

Figure#7#Plots#of#regression#for#Year#197051980#

Table#9#Robust#Standard#Errors#of#the#regression#model#for#Year#197051980#

t!test!of!coefficients:!

! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!


!(Intercept)! D1.274973! 1.855248! D0.6872! 0.492255!

!lgwhite! 0.495757! 0.076964! 6.4414! 2.75ED10! ***!

lgblack! D0.302863! 0.029599! D10.232! <2.20ED16! ***!

lgchn70! 0.880885! 0.060227! 14.6261! <2.20ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.157679! 0.191287! D0.8243! 0.410155!

!p_public! 0.11182! 0.138153! 0.8094! 0.418671!

!p_manager! D2.176345! 1.605335! D1.3557! 0.175798!

!p_college! 2.151805! 0.676786! 3.1794! 0.001566! **!

p_multi! 0.70539! 0.527605! 1.337! 0.181832!

!

!

! 30!

p_rent! D0.349134! 0.46695! D0.7477! 0.454993!

!lgsubway! 0.084111! 0.031859! 2.6401! 0.008544! **!

DDD!

! ! ! ! !Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

!

The!Chinese!population!in!1970!explains!more!of!the!Chinese!population!in!1980!than!to!the!

white!population!in!1970.!With!1%!more!white!people!in!1970,!the!Chinese!would!be!0.50%!

more!in!1980,!holding!other!variables!constant.!While!with!1%!more!Chinese!people!in!1970,!

there! will! be! 0.88%! more! Chinese! in! 1980.! Considering! the! large! growth! of! Chinese!

population! in! the! city! during! the! period,! the! Chinese! didn’t! only! increase! at!where! there!

were! a! lot! of! Chinese! 10! year! prior,! they! dispersed! into! neighborhoods! with! white!

population!as!well.!Holding!all!other!variables!constant,!the!Chinese!population!will!be!less!

where!there!were!more!black!people.!They!did!choose!where!there!were!more!managerial!

jobs!and!easier!public!transit!access.!

!


There!are!2152!census!tracts!(interpolated!to!2010!census!tract!boundaries)!in!total!in!Year!

1980! and! 2117! census! tracts! are! left! with! the! null! values! deleted.! Table! 10! shows! the!

descriptive!statistics!of!observations!used!for!this!regression!model.! !


&min& max& median& mean& var& std.dev&

chn90! 0! ! 7,873! ! 32! ! 113! ! 146,831! ! 383! !

white! 0! ! 18,057! ! 1,736! ! 2,026! ! 3,048,175! ! 1,746! !

black! 0! ! 12,282! ! 175! ! 841! ! 1,692,385! ! 1,301! !

chn80! 0! ! 6,688! ! 15! ! 59! ! 84,896! ! 291! !

med_inc! 3! ! 154,784! ! 43,197! ! 44,327! ! 340,309,800! ! 18,447! !

p_college! 0%! 76%! 10%! 14%! 0.0185! ! 14%!

p_public! 0%! 100%! 73%! 70%! 0.0317! ! 18%!

!

! 31!

p_manager! 0%! 100%! 18%! 22%! 0.0193! ! 14%!

p_rent! 0%! 100%! 77%! 69%! 0.0670! ! 26%!

p_multi! 0%! 100%! 93%! 82%! 0.0553! ! 24%!

subway! 0.00! 322.73! 0.00! 12.52! 838.30! 28.95!

!

In! the! first! place,! the! multicollinearity! is! tested! using! VIF,! as! shown! in! Table! 11.! The!

P_MANAGER,! P_COLLEGE,! P_MULTI! and! P_RENT! variables! have! VIF! higher! than! 5,! which!

indicate!that!multicollinearity!exists!among!these!variables.!However,!as!the!sample!size! is!

large,! the! increased! standard! errors! of! the! estimates! for! the! coefficients! won’t! be! a! big!

problem.!Under! this!circumstance,! the!VIF!values!are!not!so!big!as! to!be!worried!about! in!

the!model.! All! the! variables!will! be! kept! for! the! regression.! The! results! of! this!model! are!

shown!in!Table!12!and!Figure!8.! !

Table#11#VIF#of#the#model#for#Year#198051990#


2.042085! 1.804094! 1.628056! 3.025528! 2.226608!


7.875928! 8.076268! 5.849558! 7.947212! 1.204575!

!

Table#12#Regression#result#of#the#model#for#Year#198051990#

Call:! ! ! ! ! !

lm(formula!=!lgchn90!~!lgwhite!+!lgblack!+!lgchn80!+!lgin!+!p_public!+!p_manager!+!p_college!

+!p_multi!+!p_rent!+!lgsubway,!data!=!data1970)!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Residuals:! ! ! ! ! !

Min! 1Q! Median! 3Q! Max! !

D3.5935! D0.5299! 0.0121! 0.5254! 5.3613! !

! ! ! ! ! !

Coefficients:! ! ! ! !

! Estimate! Std.Error! t!value! Pr(>|t|)! !

(Intercept)! D0.15334! 0.79716! D0.192! 0.847484! !

lgwhite! 0.27738! 0.02055! 13.496! <2.00ED16! !

!

! 32!

lgblack! D0.15894! 0.01043! D15.237! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgchn80! 0.75023! 0.01509! 49.709! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.07452! 0.07057! D1.056! 0.291109! ***!

p_public! 1.28676! 0.16734! 7.69! 2.25ED14! **!

p_manager! D0.67775! 0.40357! D1.679! 0.09323! ***!

p_college! 1.39171! 0.41801! 3.329! 0.000886! .!

p_multi! 0.50309! 0.20515! 2.452! 0.014276! ***!

p_rent! D0.51411! 0.21729! D2.366! 0.018071! !

lgsubway! 0.02878! 0.01342! 2.145! 0.032071! **!

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !

Residual!standard!error:!0.9161!on!2089!degrees!of!freedom!


FDstatistic:!652.9!on!10!and!2089!DF,! ! pDvalue:!<!2.2eD16!

!

!

Figure'8'Plots'of'the'reduced'regression'model'for'Year'198091990#

!

! 33!


RDsquare! is! 0.7564.! There! is! no! outliner! with! large! leverage.! The! residuals! are! overall!

normally!distributed!except!for!the!two!tails.!However,!the!similar!pattern!can!be!observed!

in! the! residuals! as! in! the!previous!models.! The!pattern! is! still! formed!by! the!observations!

with! a! really! small! Chinese! population! in! 1980! but! decreased! to! almost! 0! in! 1990.! So! a!

similar!subset!will!be!taken!for!the!same!model,!which!includes!observations!with!a!Chinese!

population! greater! or! equal! to! ten! in! the! year! 1990.! 1458! observations! are! left.! For! the!

model!applied!on!the!subset!of!observations,!the!results!are!shown!below!in!Table!13!and!

Figure!9.!

Table#13#Regression#result#on#the#subset#of#the#model#for#Year#198051990#

Call:! ! ! ! ! !

lm(formula! =! lgchn90! ~! lgwhite! +! lgblack! +! lgchn80! +! lgin! +! p_public! +! p_manager! +!

p_college!+!p_multi!+!p_rent!+!lgsubway,!data!=!data1980_subset)!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !



D3.6854! D0.4038! D0.0162! 0.4116! 2.0971! !

! ! ! ! ! !


! Estimate! Std.!Error! t!value! Pr(>|t|)! !

(Intercept)! 1.822328! 1.209009! 1.507! 0.131996! !

lgwhite! 0.359583! 0.032302! 11.132! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgblack! D0.152875! 0.011642! D13.131! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgchn80! 0.922115! 0.021953! 42.004! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.340676! 0.109078! D3.123! 0.001831! **!

p_public! 1.000997! 0.175241! 5.712! 1.40ED08! ***!

p_manager! D0.900585! 0.471332! D1.911! 0.056275! .!

p_college! 1.769024! 0.4602! 3.844! 0.000127! ***!

p_multi! 0.361274! 0.231175! 1.563! 0.118366! !

p_rent! D0.684356! 0.249594! D2.742! 0.006198! **!

lgsubway! 0.001409! 0.013239! 0.106! 0.91528! !

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

!

! 34!

!

As!shown!in!Figure!9,!the!pattern!in!Figure!8!is!almost!totally!removed.!The!scatter!points!in!

the!“Residuals!vs!Fitted”!are!more!evenly!distributed!at!the!two!sides!of!the!line.!The!upper!

right! part! of! the! QDQ! plot! is! closer! to! the! diagonal! line,! which! represents! the! standard!

normal! distribution.! The! leverage! of! the! observations! is! even! smaller.! As! the! fitted! value!

increase,! the! residuals! have! a! trend! of! decreasing.! As! this! possible! heteroscedacity! may!

make! the! F! value! and! t! values! meaningless,! the! robust! standard! errors! will! be! used! to!

interpret!the!results.!The!results!are!shown!in!Table!14.!

From! the!Robust! Standard!Errors! results,!we! can! tell! that! at! the!95%! significant! level,! the!

coefficients! of!WHITE,! BLACK,! CHN80,! INCOME,! P_COLLEGE,! P_PUBLIC! and!RENT! variables!

are!statistically!significant.!The!result! is!a!lot!different!than!that!of!1970D1980.!The!Chinese!

population! will! be! larger! in! 1990! where! there! are!more! white! people,! less! black! people,!

more! Chinese! people,! lower! median! income,! more! public! schools,! fewer! managerial!

executives!and!more!rental!housing!in!1980,!holding!other!variables!constant.!

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !



FDstatistic:! ! ! 277!on!10!and!1217!DF,!pDvalue:!<!2.2eD16!

!

! 35!

!

Figure#9#Plots#of#regression#on#the#subset#for#the#model#for#Year#198051990#

Table#14#Robust#Standard#Errors#of#model#for#Year#198051990#


! !

! ! ! ! ! !

!


!(Intercept)! 1.8223281! 1.2993366! 1.4025! 0.1610191!

!lgwhite! 0.3595833! 0.0353582! 10.1697! <2.20ED16! ***!

lgblack! D0.1528752! 0.0120787! D12.6566! <2.20ED16! ***!

lgchn80! 0.9221151! 0.0192891! 47.805! <2.20ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.340676! 0.1205525! D2.826! 0.004791! **!

p_public! 1.0009966! 0.1756175! 5.6999! 1.50ED08! ***!

p_manager! D0.9005848! 0.508585! D1.7708! 0.07685! .!

p_college! 1.7690244! 0.4733797! 3.737! 0.0001949! ***!

p_multi! 0.3612739! 0.2227527! 1.6219! 0.1050922! !

!

! 36!

p_rent! D0.6843559! 0.2482413! D2.7568! 0.0059239! **!

lgsubway! 0.0014087! 0.0133608! 0.1054! 0.9160502!

!DDD!

! ! ! ! !Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

!

The! coefficient! of! INCOME! is! negative! while! the! coefficient! of! P_COLLEGE! is! positive.! It!

means! that! holding! the! other! variables! constant,! the! neighborhood!median! income!has! a!

positive! influence! on! the! Chinese! population! while! the! percentage! of! people! with! the!

education! of! college! or! above! may! have! a! negative! influence.! This! cannot! simple! be!

concluded!that!the!Chinese!concentrated!where!the!neighborhood!socioeconomic!status!is!

higher! or! lower.! For! neighborhoods! with! the! same! median! income! in! 1980,! the! Chinese!

population!will!be! larger!where!there!are!more!college!graduates.!For!neighborhoods!with!

the!same!percentage!of!college!graduates,!the!Chinese!population!will!be!larger!where!the!

median!income!is!lower.! !

Compared!with!the!result!in!Year!1970D1980,!the!Chinese!population!in!1980!explains!more!

of! the! Chinese! population! in! 1990! and! the!white! population! explains! less.!With! 1%!more!

white! people! in! 1980,! the!Chinese!would! be! 0.36%!more! in! 1990,! holding! other! variables!

constant.!While!with!1%!more!Chinese!people!in!1980,!there!will!be!0.92%!more!Chinese!in!

1990.!With!the!increase!of!Chinese!population!during!this!decade,!the!Chinese!tend!to!show!

a! stronger! trend! of! clustering! in! 1980D1990! than! 1970D1980.! The! coefficient! of! lg(BLACK)!

dropped! a! lot! from! D0.30! to! D0.15.! Holding! all! other! variables! constant,! the! Chinese!

population!will!be!less!in!1990!where!there!were!more!black!people!there!in!1980.!However,!

the! influence! of! black! population! on! Chinese! population! decreased.! Public! schools! and!

rental!housing!resources!also!appear!to!be!influential!in!their!choice!of!living!places!as!well!

!

! 37!

during!this!decade.! !

!







chn00! 0! 9,200! 38! 168! 233,650! 483!

white! 0! 14,903! 1,445! 1,801! 2,882,416! 1,698!

black! 0! 12,401! 284! 984! 1,937,276! 1,392!

chn90! 0! 7,873! 32! 113! 146,831! 383!

med_inc! 0! 263,779! 63,879! 66,763! 1,149,017,000! 33,897!

p_college! 0%! 81%! 15%! 20%! 0.0256! 16%!

p_public! 0%! 52%! 19%! 19%! 0.0067! 8%!

p_manager! 0%! 67%! 11%! 12%! 0.0043! 7%!

p_rent! 0%! 100%! 71%! 66%! 0.0636! 25%!

p_multi! 0%! 100%! 90%! 79%! 0.0642! 25%!

subway! 0.00! 322.73! 0.00! 12.49! 836.65! 28.92!

!

VIF! test! is! done! for! the! model! for! possible! multicollinearity,! as! shown! in! Table! 16.! The!

P_MULTI! and! P_RENT! variables! have! relatively! higher! VIFs,! which! indicate! that! a! certain!

level! of! multicollinearity! exists! among! these! variables.! As! the! sample! size! is! large,! this!

multicollinearity!won’t!affect!the!estimates!for!the!coefficients.!Thus!all!the!variables!will!be!

kept.!The!results!of!the!regression!are!shown!in!Table!17!and!Figure!10.! !

Table#16#VIF#of#the#model#for#Year#199052000#


2.297966! 2.07989! 1.821187! 4.462082! 3.023306!


!

! 38!

2.737847! 3.28166! 5.557539! 7.42917! 1.199766!

!

Table#17#Regression#result#of#model#for#Year#199052000#

Call:! ! ! ! ! !


p_college!+!p_multi!+!p_rent!+!lgsubway,!data!=!data1990)!

! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !



D3.6703! D0.4718! D0.0105! 0.4823! 3.8629! !

! ! ! ! ! !



(Intercept)! 3.269422! 0.874051! 3.741! 0.000189! ***!

lgwhite! 0.051589! 0.019751! 2.612! 0.009065! **!

lgblack! D0.122132! 0.011829! D10.324! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgchn90! 0.875896! 0.013253! 66.089! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.238558! 0.0749! D3.185! 0.001469! **!

p_public! D0.016283! 0.389042! D0.042! 0.966618! !

p_manager! 0.677581! 0.463547! 1.462! 0.143964! !

p_college! 0.592648! 0.20739! 2.858! 0.00431! **!

p_multi! 0.235218! 0.170819! 1.377! 0.168656! !

p_rent! D0.133394! 0.198427! D0.672! 0.501493! !

lgsubway! 0.007821! 0.012299! 0.636! 0.52491! !

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !


Multiple!RDsquared:! ! 0.8218,!Adjusted!RDsquared:! ! 0.821! !


!

!

! 39!

!

Figure#10#Plots#of#the#model#for#Year#199052000#

There! are! several! variables! in! the! reduced!model! that! are! statistically! significant! and! the!

adjusted! RDsquare! is! 0.821.! As! in! Figure! 10,! there! is! no! outliner! with! large! leverage.! The!

residuals!are!overall!normally!distributed!except!for!the!two!tails.!However,!there!can!still!be!

seen! some! pattern! in! the! residuals! of! the! model.! The! pattern! is! still! formed! by! the!

observations!with! a! really! small! Chinese! population! in! 1990! but! decreased! to! almost! 0! in!

2000.!To!better!fit!the!rest!of!the!population,!which!is!more!important!to!our!research,!the!

subset!of!data!will!be!used!with!a!Chinese!population!greater!or!equal!to!10!in!the!year!1990.!

!

! 40!

1460!observations!are!left.!The!results!of!the!regression!on!the!subset!are!shown!in!Table!18!

and!Figure!11.!

Table#18#Regression#result#of#the#regression#on#the#subset#for#Year#199052000#

Call:! ! ! ! ! !



! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !



D3.4005! D0.3496! 0.0018! 0.3736! 2.4211! !

! ! ! ! ! !



(Intercept)! 2.643006! 0.884993! 2.986! 0.00287! **!

lgwhite! 0.091047! 0.025033! 3.637! 0.000285! ***!

lgblack! D0.135828! 0.0118! D11.511! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgchn90! 1.048417! 0.015744! 66.593! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.271869! 0.07606! D3.574! 0.000363! ***!

p_public! 0.038939! 0.405647! 0.096! 0.923539! !

p_manager! 0.6458! 0.468941! 1.377! 0.16868! !

p_college! 0.729111! 0.191804! 3.801! 0.00015! ***!

p_multi! 0.388961! 0.159083! 2.445! 0.014603! *!

p_rent! D0.377124! 0.185301! D2.035! 0.042014! *!

lgsubway! D0.002399! 0.010913! D0.22! 0.826049! !

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !




!

As!shown!in!Figure!11,!the!pattern!in!Figure!10!is!almost!totally!removed.!The!scatter!points!

representing!the!residuals!are!distributed!more!randomly.!In!the!upper!right!part!of!the!QDQ!

plot,!the!points!furthest!from!the!diagonal!line!don’t!exit!any!more.!The!model!looks!better!

if!it!is!only!applied!to!the!subset.!However,!as!the!fitted!value!increased,!the!residuals!have!a!

!

! 41!

trend! of! decreasing.! As! this! possible! heteroscedacity!may!make! the! F! value! and! t! values!

meaningless,!the!robust!standard!errors!will!be!used!to!interpret!the!results.!The!results!are!

shown!in!Table!19.!

!

Figure#11#Plots#of#regression#on#the#subset#for#the#model#for#Year#199052000#

Table#19#Robust#Standard#Errors#of#model#on#the#subset#for#Year#199052000#


! ! ! ! ! !


(Intercept)! 2.6430057! 1.0027368! 2.6358! 0.0084838! **!

lgwhite! 0.0910465! 0.0323104! 2.8179! 0.0049001! **!

lgblack! D0.1358283! 0.0142634! D9.5228! <2.20ED16! ***!

!

! 42!

lgchn90! 1.0484169! 0.0163757! 64.0227! <2.20ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.2718692! 0.0883108! D3.0785! 0.0021192! **!

p_public! 0.0389394! 0.4879947! 0.0798! 0.9364115! !

p_manager! 0.6458! 0.4751354! 1.3592! 0.1742977! !

p_college! 0.729111! 0.2193041! 3.3247! 0.0009074! ***!

p_multi! 0.3889614! 0.1700688! 2.2871! 0.0223348! *!

p_rent! D0.3771239! 0.1995011! D1.8903! 0.0589129! .!

lgsubway! D0.0023987! 0.0110973! D0.2162! 0.8288978! !

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

&

From! the!Robust! Standard!Errors! results,!we! can! tell! that! at! the!95%! significant! level,! the!

coefficients! of! WHITE,! BLACK,! CHN90,! INCOME,! P_COLLEGE! and! P_MULTI! variables! are!

statistically!significant.!The!Chinese!population!increased!during!1990D2000!where!there!are!

more! white! people,! less! black! people,! more! Chinese! people,! lower! households! income,!

more!college!graduates!and!more!multiDfamily!housing,!holding!other!variables!constant.!

The!coefficient!of!INCOME!is!negative!while!the!coefficient!of!P_COLLEGE!is!positive,!which!

is! similar! to! the! result! in! year! 1980! to! 1990.! It! means! that! holding! the! other! variables!

constant,! the! neighborhood! median! income! has! a! positive! influence! on! the! Chinese!

population!while!the!percentage!of!people!with!the!education!of!college!or!above!may!have!

a! negative! influence.! However,! the! values! of! both! coefficients! decrease.! Actually! the!

estimate! of! the! coefficient! for! lg(INCOME)! decreases! from! 2.14! in! 1970D1980,! to! 1.77! in!

1980D1990!and!to!0.73!during!this!period.!This!cannot!simple!be!concluded!that!the!Chinese!

concentrated! where! the! neighborhood! socioeconomic! status! is! higher! or! lower.! For!

neighborhoods!with!the!same!median!income!in!1980,!the!Chinese!population!will!be!larger!

where! there!are!more!college!graduates.! For!neighborhoods!with! the! same!percentage!of!

college!graduates,!the!Chinese!population!will!be!larger!where!the!median!income!is!lower.! !

!

! 43!

As! a! continuing! trend,! the! Chinese! population! in! 1990! explains! more! of! the! Chinese!

population! in!2000!and! the!white!population!explains! less.!With!1%!more!white!people! in!

1990,!the!Chinese!would!be!0.09%!more!in!2000.!The!number!was!0.35%!from!1980!to!1990.!

While!with!1%!more!Chinese!people!in!1990,!there!will!be!1.04%!more!Chinese!in!2000.!With!

the!growth!of!Chinese!population!in!the!city,!the!Chinese!have!a!stronger!trend!of!clustering.!

The!factor!where!there!were!Chinese!was!more!and!more!important!to!where!the!Chinese!

population! grew.! The! coefficient! of! lg(BLACK)! stays! similar,! which! is! D0.14.! The! Chinese!

population!will!still!be!smaller!where!there!is!larger!black!population.!

The! coefficient! for! percentage! of! multiDfamily! housing! school! and! public! transit! access!

variables!are!no! longer!significant! in! this!model.! Instead,! the!percentage!of!college!degree!

and! the!median! income! show! significant! impact! on! the! growth! of! Chinese! population.! As!

both! percentage! of! college! degree! and! median! income! are! indicators! of! neighborhood!

socioeconomic!status.! It!may!be!abnormal!that!they!have!reverse! impact!on!the!growth!of!

the! Chinese! population.! One! reason! for! this! might! be! the! multicollinearity! among! the!

variables,!although!they!pass!the!VIF!test.!

!







chn10! 0! 8,832! 47! 224! 306,424! 554!

!

! 44!

white! 0! 13,901! 1,331! 1,689! 2,641,394! 1,625!

black! 0! 14,476! 348! 1,002! 1,794,880! 1,340!

chn00! 0! 9,200! 38! 169! 234,230! 484!

med_inc! 12,949! 261,773! 55,814! 64,395! 1,433,187,000! 37,857!

p_college! 0%! 88%! 19%! 24%! 0.0340! 18%!

p_public! 0%! 100%! 76%! 71%! 0.0348! 19%!

p_manager! 0%! 100%! 10%! 12%! 0.0050! 7%!

p_rent! 2%! 100%! 70%! 66%! 0.0576! 24%!

p_multi! 0%! 100%! 88%! 77%! 0.0634! 25%!

subway! 0.00! 289.63! 0.00! 12.37! 798.87! 28.26!

!

Table!21!shows!the!VIF!test!for!the!model.!The!INCOME,!P_COLLEGE!and!P_RENT!variables!

have!relatively!higher!VIF!values.!It!shows!that!multicollinearity!exists!among!these!variables.!

As!the!sample!size! is! large,!this! level!of!multicollinearity!won’t!affect!the!estimates!for!the!

coefficients!much.!Thus!all!the!variables!will!be!kept.!The!results!of!the!regression!are!shown!

in!Table!22!and!Figure!12.! !

Table#21#VIF#of#the#full#model#for#Year#200052010#


2.177048! 1.718069! 1.945725! 6.287252! 2.597076!


2.920164! 5.451145! 4.938055! 7.463216! 1.212984!

!

Table#22#Regression#result#of#the#model#for#Year#200052010#

Call:! ! ! ! ! !


p_college!+!p_multi!+!p_rent!+!lgsubway,!data!=!First_c)!

! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !



D3.5201! D0.4273! D0.0146! 0.4371! 4.5826! !

! ! ! ! ! !


!

! 45!


(Intercept)! 2.299853! 0.957717! 2.401! 0.01642! *!

lgwhite! 0.074003! 0.018709! 3.955! 7.89ED05! ***!

lgblack! D0.049165! 0.011127! D4.419! 1.04ED05! ***!

lgchn00! 0.835357! 0.012085! 69.126! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.244017! 0.083069! D2.938! 0.00334! **!

p_public! 0.886648! 0.148755! 5.96! 2.94ED09! ***!

p_manager! 0.850443! 0.416188! 2.043! 0.04114! *!

p_college! 0.88247! 0.217874! 4.05! 5.30ED05! ***!

p_multi! 0.230524! 0.151939! 1.517! 0.12936! !

p_rent! D0.166342! 0.196015! D0.849! 0.39619! !

lgsubway! D0.008974! 0.01161! D0.773! 0.43964! !

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !



FDstatistic:! ! 1078!on!10!and!2105!DF,!pDvalue:!<!2.2eD16!

!


RDsquare!is!0.8358.!The!factor!WHITE,!CHN00,!P_PUBLIC,!P_MANAGER!and!P_COLLEGE!show!

a! positive! relationship! with! the! Chinese! population! in! 2010! at! the! 95%! confidence! level,!

while!BLACK!and!INCOME!exhibit!a!negative!relationship.! !

In! Figure! 12,! there! is! no! outliner! with! large! leverage.! The! residuals! are! overall! normally!

distributed! except! for! the! two! tails.!However,! there! can! still! be! seen! some!pattern! in! the!

residuals!of!the!model.!After!examining!the!data,!the!pattern!is!formed!by!the!observations!

with! a! small! Chinese! population! in! 2000! but! decreased! to! almost! 0! in! 2010.! The! model!

doesn’t! fit! these!observations!with!a! really! small!Chinese!population.!To!better!model! the!

rest!of!population,!we!create!a!subset!of!the!observations!with!a!Chinese!population!greater!

or!equal!to!ten!in!2000,!the!same!as!what’s!done!before.!After!applying!the!selection,!1503!

observations!are!left.!The!results!of!the!regression!on!the!subset!are!shown!in!Table!23!and!

!

! 46!

Figure!13.!

!

Figure#12#Plots#of#regression#for#Year#200052010#

Table#23#Regression#results#on#the#subset#for#Year#200052010#

Call:! ! ! ! ! !



! ! ! ! ! !

! ! ! ! ! !



D3.2743! D0.3017! D0.0109! 0.2924! 3.036! !

! ! ! ! ! !


!

! 47!


(Intercept)! 0.51068! 0.92809! 0.55! 0.582234! !

lgwhite! 0.12268! 0.0217! 5.652! 1.89ED08! ***!

lgblack! D0.0444! 0.01034! D4.294! 1.87ED05! ***!

lgchn00! 0.97677! 0.0139! 70.256! <2.00ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.13907! 0.08092! D1.719! 0.085897! .!

p_public! 0.51685! 0.13628! 3.793! 0.000155! ***!

p_manager! 0.97512! 0.36013! 2.708! 0.006852! **!

p_college! 0.45224! 0.19818! 2.282! 0.022632! *!

p_multi! 0.09371! 0.13379! 0.7! 0.483792! !

p_rent! D0.10126! 0.16813! D0.602! 0.547098! !

lgsubway! D0.01779! 0.01009! D1.763! 0.078176! .!

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

! ! ! ! ! !




!

!

!

! 48!

!

Figure#13#Plots#of#regression#on#the#subset#for#Year#200052010#

In!the!regression!on!the!subset,! the!pattern! in!the!regression!residuals! is!almost!removed.!

The!model! fits! the!data!better.!Although! the!QDQ!plot!of! the! residuals! is! further! from! the!

diagonal!line,!the!large!sample!size!will!still!make!the!regression!result!reliable.!However,!as!

the!fitted!value! increases,! the!standard!residuals!have!a!trend!of!decreasing.! It!shows!that!

heteroscedacity! may! exist! in! the! model,! which! may! make! the! F! value! and! t! values!

meaningless.!To!avoid!that,!the!robust!standard!errors!will!be!used!to!interpret!the!results.!

The!results!for!robust!standard!errors!are!shown!in!Table!24.!

!

! 49!

Table#24#Robust#Standard#Errors#for#the#regression#model#on#the#subset#for#Year#200052010#


! ! ! ! ! !


(Intercept)! 0.510677! 1.257772! 0.406! 0.684788! !

lgwhite! 0.122675! 0.02884! 4.2537! 2.23ED05! ***!

lgblack! D0.044397! 0.011231! D3.9532! 8.07ED05! ***!

lgchn00! 0.976771! 0.014318! 68.2209! <2.20ED16! ***!

lgin! D0.139065! 0.115596! D1.203! 0.229157! !

p_public! 0.516851! 0.172609! 2.9944! 0.002796! **!

p_manager! 0.975117! 0.684746! 1.4241! 0.154639! !

p_college! 0.452243! 0.240886! 1.8774! 0.060656! .!

p_multi! 0.093706! 0.135418! 0.692! 0.489057! !

p_renter! D0.101256! 0.203437! D0.4977! 0.618749! !

lgsubway! D0.017792! 0.009959! D1.7866! 0.074211! .!

DDD! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

!

From!the!Robust!Standard!Errors! results,!we!can!tell! that! the!coefficients!of! four!variables!

are!significant!at!the!99%!significant! level.!The!variables! include!the!WHITE,!BLACK,!CHN00!

and!P_PUBLIC.!The!Chinese!population! increased!during!2000D2010!where! there!are!more!

white!people,!less!black!people,!more!Chinese!people!and!more!public!school!resources.! !

The!Chinese!population!in!2010!continued!to!react!largely!to!the!Chinese!population!and!not!

much!to!the!white!in!2000.!The!effect!of!Chinese!population!10!years!prior!decreases!while!

the!effect!of!white!population!increased.!With!1%!more!white!people!in!2000,!the!Chinese!

would!be!0.12%!more! in!2000.!While!with!1%!more!Chinese!people! in!2000,! there!will!be!

0.98%! more! Chinese! in! 2000.! The! Chinese! in! the! census! tracts! still! keep! growing,! both!

spreading! and! clustering.! The! coefficient! of! lg(BLACK)! decreased! a! lot! to! only! D0.4.! The!

Chinese!population!doesn’t!change!as!much!in!response!to!the!black!population!anymore.!

!

!

! 50!

3.!Descriptive!Statistics!

The!regressions!indicate!which!types!of!neighborhoods!the!Chinese!tend!to!move!into!in!the!

city!overall.!However,!among!the!three!most!established!Chinese!ethnic!enclaves,!which!are!

Chinatown! in! Manhattan,! Sunset! Park! in! Brooklyn! and! Flushing! in! Queens,! different!

characteristics!can!be!observed.!People!with!different!educational!background,!ancestry!and!

socioeconomic!status!may!have!different!location!preferences.!

Flushing,!located!in!northDcentral!Queens,!was!mainly!a!white!middleDincome!workingDclass!

area,! whose! residents! were! of! Jewish,! Irish,! Italian,! and! German! ancestry.! In! 1960,! 97!

percent!of!the!population!was!nonDHispanic!white.!Prior!to!the!1970s,!nonwhites!were!not!

welcome! in! the! neighborhood(Min! Zhou,! 2009).! Since! 1980s,! large! numbers! of! affluent,!

entrepreneurial,! and! highly! skilled! immigrants! from! Taiwan! came! to! Flushing,! which!

contributed!to!the!development!of!Flushing’s!economy.!Compared!with!those!living!on!the!

Lower!East!Side,!Flushing’s!residents!had!much!higher!levels!of!education!and!occupational!

status,!lower!poverty!rates,!and!higher!median!household!incomes(Min!Zhou,!2009).!

Sunset! Park,! Brooklyn! is! about! 30! minutes! by! subway! from! Old! Chinatown.! It! is! a!

workingDclass! neighborhood! of! twoDstory! houses! and! brownstones! originally! settled! by!

European!immigrants(Min!Zhou,!2009).!As!in!Flushing,!the!earlier!European!immigrants!and!

their! children! have! gradually! moved! to! the! suburbs! since! the! late! 1960s,! leaving! many!

absenteeDowned!houses! and! storefronts! vacant.! As!white! residents! slowly! abandoned! the!

neighborhood,!ethnic!minorities!and!new!immigrants—first!Dominicans,!then!Puerto!Ricans,!

then!Asians,! and!Arabs—moved! in(Winnick,!1990).!Chinese! started! to!move! there! in! large!

numbers!in!the!late!1980s.!

!

! 51!

Sunset! Park! is! more! an! outlet! or! extension! of! Old! Chinatown! than! a! newly! founded!

Chinatown! with! its! own! unique! character,! as! Flushing! is.! The! more! upwardly! mobile!

immigrant! Chinese! are! unlikely! to! move! to! Sunset! Park! because! of! the! neighborhood’s!

workingDclass! characteristics,! but! they! may! purchase! a! home! as! a! rental! property.!

HardDworking! though! less! upwardly! mobile! immigrants! are! often! able! to! buy! a! house! in!

Sunset!Park,!renting!out!part!of!it!to!coethnic!immigrant!families!in!order!to!meet!the!hefty!

mortgage!payments(Min!Zhou,!2009).!In!fact,!most!immigrant!Chinese!in!Sunset!Park!share!

similar!socioeconomic!characteristics!with!noncoethnic!residents!in!the!neighborhood.!Most!

of!Sunset!Park’s!Chinese! immigrants!are!CantoneseDspeakers! from!the!mainland!and!Hong!

Kong.!A!sizable!number!of!Fuzhounese!have!also!moved! into!the!neighborhood;!most!rent!

basement! units! from! coethnic! homeowners(Peter! Kwong,! 1997).! It! is! also! called! “Little!

Fuzhou”.!

The! differences! among! the! three! “Chinatowns”! will! be! further! explored! using! descriptive!

statistics! from! the! PUMS! oneDyear! data! in! 2012.! The! person! record! will! indicate! the!

demographics! of! the! Chinese! population! in! the! PUMAs,! while! the! household! record! will!

exhibit!the!community!characteristics.! !

!

The#Chinese#Population#

This!data!is!chosen!from!all!the!persons!samples!in!corresponding!three!PUMAs!in!the!PUMS!

2012! oneDyear! files.! The! total! numbers! and! the! percentages! are! constructed! using! the!

weights! of! the! samples.! There! are! 166,702! people! in! Chinatown! Manhattan! Community!

District! 3DDChinatown! &! Lower! East! Side! PUMA,! 151,865! people! in! Brooklyn! Community!

!

! 52!

District!7DDSunset!Park!&!Windsor!Terrace!PUMA!and!250,406!people!in!Queens!Community!

District!7DDFlushing,!Murray!Hill!&!Whitestone!PUMA.!The!percentages!are!the!compositions!

of!all!the!people!indicating!their!race!as!Chinese.!The!income!is!adjusted!into!2012!dollars.! !

Table#25#General#characteristics#of#the#Chinese#population#in#the#three#PUMAs,#2012#

!

Chinatown! Sunset!Park! Flushing!

Total!Chinese! 40,247! 42,876! 80,105!

! ! ! !Gender#

! ! !%!Male! 46.0! ! 51.4! ! 49.1! !

! ! ! !Age#

! ! !%!0D19! 16.3! ! 26.6! ! 18.2! !

%!20D39! 25.7! ! 35.8! ! 31.5! !

%!40D59! 27.5! ! 26.2! ! 33.3! !

%!60D79! 22.6! ! 10.1! ! 13.8! !

%!80D94! 7.9! ! 1.2! ! 3.2! !

Median!Age! 45! 32! 40!

! ! ! !English#Ability#

! !%!Very!well! 21.2! ! 15.8! ! 16.4! !

%!Well! 15.3! ! 17.7! ! 22.6! !

%!Not!well! 30.8! ! 32.9! ! 33.5! !

%!Not!at!all! 17.4! ! 23.0! ! 15.4! !

%!N/A!(less!than!5!years!old/speaks!only!

English! 15.3! ! 10.6! ! 12.2! !

! ! ! !Marital#Status#

! !%!Married! 41.3! ! 50.3! ! 51.3! !

%!Widowed! 10.4! ! 1.2! ! 4.4! !

%!Divorced! 9.7! ! 2.0! ! 3.9! !

%!Seperated! 1.9! ! 0.3! ! 1.5! !

%!Never!married!or!under!15!years!old! 36.7! ! 46.1! ! 38.9! !

! ! ! !Citizenship#

! !%!Born!in!the!U.S.! 24.8! ! 23.7! ! 22.0! !

%!Born!abroad!of!American!parent(s)! 1.6! ! 0.0! ! 0.1! !

%!U.S.!citizen!by!naturalization! 45.0! ! 27.8! ! 32.5! !

%!nonDU.S.!Citizen! 28.6! ! 48.5! ! 45.4! !

! ! ! !Years#of#Naturalization#

!

!

! 53!

%!1940D1959! 0.2! ! 0.0! ! 0.2! !

%!1960D1979! 5.4! ! 0.5! ! 2.4! !

%!1980D1999! 20.8! ! 8.7! ! 13.2! !

%!2000D2012! 18.5! ! 18.6! ! 16.8! !

%!Not!naturalized! 55.0! ! 72.2! ! 67.5! !

! ! ! !School#Enrollment#

! !%!Not!attending!school! 94.7! ! 92.9! ! 93.5! !

%!Public!school!or!public!college! 4.9! ! 2.3! ! 3.1! !

%!Private!school!or!college!or!home!school! 0.4! ! 4.8! ! 3.4! !

! ! ! !Education#attainment#

! !%!College!graduate!and!above! 16.1! ! 8.8! ! 21.5! !

! ! ! !Occupation#

! ! !%!Management,!Business,!Science,!and!

Arts!Occupations! 12.3! ! 5.0! ! 14.6! !

%!Service!Occupations! 14.8! ! 23.7! ! 18.0! !

%!Sales!and!Office!Occupations! 13.8! ! 13.0! ! 14.7! !

%!Natural!Resources,!Construction,!and!

Maintenance!Occupations! 1.3! ! 3.7! ! 3.9! !

%!Production,!Transportation,!and!Material!

Moving!Occupations! 8.3! ! 8.9! ! 6.1! !

%!Military!Specific!Occupations! 0.0! ! 0.0! ! 0.0! !

%!Without!occupation! 49.4! ! 45.7! ! 42.6! !

! ! ! !Income#

! ! !Median!Individual!Income!($)! 7,526! 5,001! 7,020!

! ! ! !Means#of#Transportation#to#Work#

! ! !%!Subway!or!elevated! 15.4! 21.9! 10.2!

%!Walked! 11.1! 8.6! 6.0!

%!Not!working! 63.2! 60.1! 54.3!

As!shown!in!the!table,!in!the!PUMAs,!Flushing!has!the!largest!Chinese!population.!The!male!

proportion!in!the!Chinese!is!largest!in!Sunset!Park,!which!is!51.4%!and!smallest!in!Chinatown,!

46.0%.!In!both!Chinatown!and!Flushing,!the!numbers!of!male!is!less!then!female.! !

For!age,!Chinatown!has!the!smallest!portion!of!people!that!are!less!than!40!years!old,!while!

Sunset!Park!has!the!largest.!The!proportion!of!people!aging!40D59!is!the!largest!in!Flushing.!

What’s!more,!people!with!the!age!larger!than!60!have!a!far!larger!percentage!in!Chinatown!

!

! 54!

than!in!Sunset!Park!and!Flushing.!The!huge!differences!in!the!median!age!tell!the!same!story.!

Overall,! the!Chinese!population! in!Chinatown! is! the!oldest! in! the! three!and!Sunset!Park! is!

the! youngest.! The! reason! behind! this! may! be! that! Chinatown! is! the! earliest! established!

Chinese!ethnic!enclave!in!the!city!while!Sunset!Park!is!the!latest.!As!a!result,!there!are!a!lot!

of! earliest! Chinese! immigrants! in! Chinatown! and! a! lot! of! younger!working! class! in! Sunset!

Park.!

For!English!ability,!there!are!most!people!in!Chinatown!who!speak!English!very!well.!Overall,!

people!in!Chinatown!speak!the!best!English!while!people!in!Sunset!Park!speak!the!poorest.!

As!the!immigrants!in!Chinatown!are!oldest!and!may!have!stayed!in!the!US!the!longest,!they!

have!good!reason!to!speak!the!best!English.! !

For! marital! status,! the! married! percentage! is! the! smallest! in! Chinatown! and! largest! in!

Flushing.!Besides!that,!Chinatown!has!a!significant!higher!percentage!of!widowed!population!

than!the!other!two,!probably!related!to!a!large!percentage!of!people!aging!60!or!more.!The!

percentage!of!never!married!or!younger!than!15!in!Sunset!Park!is!much!larger!than!that!of!

the!other!two,!probably!related!to!the!younger!population!there.!

For!citizenship,!there! is!a!much!larger!percentage!of!Chinese!with!citizenship! in!Chinatown!

than!the!other!two.!The!nonDU.S.!citizens!only!compose!28.6%!in!Chinatown,!while!it’s!above!

40%!in!the!other!two!neighborhoods.!At!the!same!time,!the!Chinese!got!naturalized!have!a!

much!higher!percentage! in!Chinatown.!With! similar! proportions!of! naturally! born!Chinese!

Americans!among!the!three,!more!people!in!Chinatown!were!born!foreign!but!got!the!U.S.!

citizenship.!

For! years! of! naturalization,! people! got! naturalized! before! 2000! constitute! a! much! larger!

!

! 55!

proportion! in! all! the! Chinese! population! in! Chinatown.! There! are! only! very! limited!

percentage!of!people!got!naturalized!before!2000!in!Sunset!Park.!It!shows!that!people!who!

migrated!in!the!earlier!time!tend!to!live!in!Chinatown!and!people!who!came!to!the!U.S!later!

tend!to!stay!in!Flushing!and!Sunset!Park.!

For! school! enrollment,! in! the! Chinese! people! attending! schools,! there! is! a! much! higher!

percentage! of! enrollment! in! public! schools! in! Chinatown,! than! Flushing! and! Sunset! Park.!

There!seems!to!be!more!abundant!public!education!resources!in!Chinatown.!

For!education!attainment,! Flushing!has! the!higher!percentage!of! collegeDeducated!people.!

Chinatown!is!the!second!and!Sunset!Park!is!the!least.!It!shows!that!the!Chinese!in!Flushing!

are! immigrants!with!higher!education.! In! the! contrary,! the!working! class!people! in! Sunset!

Park!are!less!educated.!

For! occupation,! there! is! the! highest! percentage! of! people! with! management,! business,!

science,! and! arts! occupations! in! Flushing.! The! Chinatown! is! the! second! place! and! Sunset!

Park! is! the!much! lower! than! the! other! two.! The! percentage! in! Sunset! Park! is! almost! one!

third!of!that! in!Flushing.! Instead,! in!Sunset!Park,!there! is!the!highest!percentage!of!service!

occupations! among! the! three.! In! Chinatown,! people!without! occupation! have! the! highest!

percentage.!

For!median!individual!income,!it’s!the!highest!in!Chinatown!of!$7,526,!second!in!Flushing!of!

$7,021!and!least!in!Sunset!Park!of!$5,001.!The!Chinese!people!in!Sunset!Park!earn!much!less!

than!the!other!two!neighborhoods.!

For! means! of! transportation! to! work,! there’s! highest! percentage! of! people! taking! the!

subway! in!Sunset!Park.!The!highest!percentage!of!people!walking!to!work! is! in!Chinatown.!

!

! 56!

The!percentage!of!people!not!working!is!the!highest!in!Chinatown!as!well.!The!reason!might!

be! that! there! are! the! most! people! aging! 60! or! above,! which! are! beyond! the! age! for!

retirement,!in!Chinatown.!

As!in!the!demographics,!some!distinct!characteristics!of!the!three!Chinese!ethnic!enclaves!in!

the!city!can!be!told.!The!overall!Chinese!people!in!Chinatown!tend!to!be!older,!speak!better!

English!and!have!U.S.!citizenship,!public!school!opportunities,!more!management!jobs,!and!

higher!income.!The!Chinese!people!in!Sunset!Park!tend!to!have!more!females,!be!younger,!

speak!worse!English,!have! limited!access! to!public! schools,! receive! less!education,!work! in!

service!occupations!and!have!the!lower!income.!As!in!Flushing,!people!tend!to!be!middle!age,!

speak!moderate!English,!receive!more!education!and!have!higher!income.!

The!statistics!further!implies!that!Chinatown,!as!the!oldest!Chinese!neighborhood!in!the!city,!

still! serve! as! the! home! to! the! oldest! generation! of! immigrants.! Flushing,! as! the! next!

emerging!one,!hosts!a!younger!generation!of!immigrants,!often!with!high!levels!of!education!

and! occupational! status.! As! to! Sunset! Park,! it! houses! the! workingDclass! people,! who!

commute!to!work!in!the!service!occupations!and!have!lower!levels!of!education!and!income.!

!

The#households#

Data! in! this! part! is! from! all! the! household! samples! in! corresponding! three! PUMAs! in! the!

PUMS!2012!oneDyear!files.!The!total!numbers!and!the!percentages!are!constructed!using!the!

weights!of!the!samples.!There!are!76,688!households!in!Chinatown!Manhattan!Community!

District!3DDChinatown!&!Lower!East!Side!PUMA,!48,978!households!in!Brooklyn!Community!

District! 7DDSunset! Park! &! Windsor! Terrace! PUMA! and! 94,150! households! in! Queens!

!

! 57!

Community!District!7DDFlushing,!Murray!Hill!&!Whitestone!PUMA.!The!percentages!are! the!

compositions!of!all!the!households.!The!income!is!adjusted!into!2012!dollars.! !

Table#26#General#characteristics#of#all#the#households#in#the#three#PUMAs,#2012#

!

Chinatown! Sunset!Park! Flushing!

Total!Households! 76,688! 48,978! 94,150!

! ! ! !Income!

! ! !Median!Household!Income!($)! 32,327! 37,883! 48,187!

! ! ! !Monthly!Rent!

! !%!0D499! 19.9%! 6.2%! 2.2%!

%!500D999! 20.5%! 18.1%! 12.9%!

%!1000D1499! 12.0%! 28.5%! 16.2%!

%!1500D1999! 11.9%! 13.3%! 13.8%!

%!2000+! 19.5%! 3.7%! 2.2%!

%!Not!a!rental!unit! 16.2%! 30.1%! 52.7%!

! ! ! !Tenure!

! ! !%!Owned!with!mortgage!or!loan! 5.9%! 13.2%! 23.1%!

%!Owned!free!and!clear! 6.0%! 11.1%! 21.7%!

%!Rented! 79.8%! 67.1%! 45.0%!

%!Occupied!without!payment!of!rent! 0.9%! 1.4%! 2.9%!

! ! ! !Units!in!structure!

! !%!MultiDfamily!housing! 99.0%! 89.6%! 72.3%!

!

For!median!household!income,!it’s!the!highest!in!Flushing!for!$48,186,!second!in!Sunset!Park!

for! $37,882! and! least! in! Chinatown! for! $32,326.! The! difference! between! the! household!

income! here! and! the! individual! income! shown! before! may! be! because! the! household!

income! doesn’t! only! include! Chinese! households! but! all! the! households! in! the! PUMAs.!

Another!reason!is!that!the!percentage!of!people!married!in!Chinatown!is!the!lowest!and!the!

widowed!is!the!highest.!Smaller!household!size!also!leads!to!smaller!household!income.!

For!monthly!rent,!there!is!the!most!rental!housing!in!Chinatown!and!least!in!Flushing.!There!

!

! 58!

is!a!full!range!of!rent!level!in!Chinatown,!from!extremely!cheap!to!moderately!expensive.!In!

Sunset! Park! and! Flushing,! most! of! the! rent! falls! into! $500D$1,500.! There! is! a! really! low!

percentage!of!housing!beyond!that!range.!

For! tenure,! the! percentage! of! rental! housing! is! the! largest! in! Chinatown,!which! is! 79.8%,!

much! larger! than! 67.1%! of! Sunset! Park! and! 45.0%! of! Flushing.! There! is! also! smaller!

percentage!of!households!owning!their!house!with!mortgage.!

For!units! in! structure,!almost!all! the!households! in!Chinatown! live! in!multiDfamily!housing.!

72.3%!of!the!households!in!Flushing!live!in!multiDfamily!housing,!which!is!the!lowest,!while!

for!Sunset!Park!it’s!89.6%.!In!other!words,!the!density!or!floorDareaDratio!in!Chinatown!is!the!

largest.!

From!the!household!sample!data,!it!can!be!seen!that!there!is!the!most!multiDfamily!housing!

and! rental! housing! in! Chinatown.! There! is! the! most! housing! ownership! and! least!

multiDfamily!housing!in!Flushing.!The!monthly!rent!which!is!either!larger!than!$2,000!or!less!

than!$500!exist!in!a!large!amount!in!Chinatown,!not!in!the!other!two!neighborhoods.!

!

Conclusion&

Generally,! the! white,! black! and! Chinese! population! ten! years! prior! explains! the! size! of!

Chinese!population!in!the!neighborhoods.!The!effect!of!other!factors!changed!from!decade!

to! decade.! The! coefficients! in! the! models! for! the! four! decades! and! the! corresponding!

significance! levels!are!shown! in!Table!25.!The!signs!of!all!coefficients!stay!the!same!across!

decades,!except!for!the!percentage!of!managerial!executives.!The!median!household!income!

showed! a! negative! relationship! with! the! Chinese! population! from! 1980! to! 2000.! The!

!

! 59!

percentage!of!public!school!enrollment!had!a!positive!impact!during!1980D1990!and!during!

2000D2010.! The! larger! percentage! of! college! educated! associates! with! larger! Chinese!

population.!The!effect!of!all!facts!decreased,!as!time!went!on.!There!was!also!positive!effect!

of! percentage! of! multiDfamily! housing! in! 1990D2000,! negative! effect! of! rental! housing! in!

1980D1990!and!positive!effect!of!transit!access!in!1970D1980.!

Table#27#The#coefficients#of#the#models#for#all#four#decades#

! 1970D1980! 1980D1990! 1990D2000! 2000D2010!

(Intercept)! D1.274973! ! 1.8223281! ! 2.6430057! **! 0.510677! !

lgwhite! 0.495757! ***! 0.3595833! ***! 0.0910465! **! 0.122675! ***!

lgblack! D0.302863! ***! D0.1528752! ***! D0.1358283! ***! D0.044397! ***!

lgchn(10!

years!prior)!

0.880885! ***! 0.9221151! ***! 1.0484169! ***! 0.976771! ***!

lgin! D0.157679! ! D0.340676! **! D0.2718692! **! D0.139065! !

p_public! 0.11182! ! 1.0009966! ***! 0.0389394! ! 0.516851! **!

p_manager! D2.176345! ! D0.9005848! .! 0.6458! ! 0.975117! !

p_college! 2.151805! **! 1.7690244! ***! 0.729111! ***! 0.452243! .!

p_multi! 0.70539! ! 0.3612739! ! 0.3889614! *! 0.093706! !

p_rent! D0.349134! ! D0.6843559! **! D0.3771239! .! D0.101256! !

lgsubway! 0.084111! **! 0.0014087! ! D0.0023987! ! D0.017792! .!

DDD! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Signif.!codes:!!0!’***’!0.001!’**’!0.01!’*’!0.05!’.’!0.1!’!’!1!!

!

Among! the! population! factors,! the! Chinese! population! ten! years! prior! have! the! largest!

coefficients,! which! means! the! largest! influence.! During! year! 1970D2000,! the! Chinese!

population! grew! faster! and! faster! in! response! to! Chinese! population! ten! years! prior,! and!

slower!and!slower!to!white!population.!The!magnitude!of!the!effect!of!the!white!population!

decreased!a!lot.!The!Chinese!population!got!assimilation!with!the!white!population!the!most!

during!1970D1980.!After!that,!the!Chinese!kept!the!trend!of!clustering.!The!period!2000D2010!

saw!a!minor!different!trend.!The!effect!of!Chinese!population!decreased!and!that!of!white!

!

! 60!

population!increased!compared!to!the!previous!decade.! !

In!contrast!with!positive!effect!of! the!white!population,! the!black!population!has!shown!a!

negative!impact!on!the!Chinese!population.!The!Chinese!population!will!be!smaller!at!where!

there!is!larger!black!population,!holding!the!other!variables!constant.!However,!throughout!

the!years,!the!effect!kept!decreasing!dramatically.!During!year!2000D2010,!the!effect!is!very!

minor.!

The!results! from!the!regressions!are!aligning!with! the! indices.!With! the!growth!of!Chinese!

population! in! the!whole!city,! the!Chinese!spread!more!out! into!the!city!during!1970D1980.!

They!are!much! less! segregated! from! the!white!during! the!decade.!After! that,! the!Chinese!

group! grew! and! clustered! at! the! same! time! in! year! 1980D2010.! They! lived! closer! to!more!

people! of! the! same! ethnic! group! and! are! having! less! and! less! interaction!with! the!white!

people,!as!the!Chinese!population!kept!growing!at!a!high!speed!and!the!white!is!decreasing.! !

The! socioeconomic! conditions! of! where! the! Chinese! grow! may! not! necessarily! improve!

during! 1970.! During! 1980D2000,! the! Chinese! population! was! larger! where! the! median!

income!was!lower,!holding!other!variables!constant.!On!the!other!hand,!during!1970D2000,!

the!Chinese!population!was!larger!where!there!was!higher!percentage!of!college!graduates,!

holding!other!variables!constant.! It’s!hard!to!conclude!whether!the!Chinese!population!are!

moving!to!neighborhoods!with!higher!or!lower!socioeconomic!status.!But!at!least,!they!are!

increasing!in!the!neighborhood!with!lower!households!income.!Min!Zhou!(2009)!suggested!

that! the! Chinese! residential! movement! might! not! necessarily! be! associated! with!

socioeconomic! achievement.! Also,! ethnicity! might! trump! class! in! determining! their!

residential!patterns.!

!

! 61!

Overall,! this!phenomenon!does!not!go!along! that!well!with! the!classic!assimilation! theory.!

For!the!Chinese!Americans!in!New!York!City!as!a!whole,!they!are!not!getting!assimilated!with!

the!white!population! and!moving! to!neighborhoods!with!better! socioeconomic! status.!On!

the!contrary,!after!dispersing!into!the!city!from!1970!to!1980,!the!Chinese!population!keeps!

a!strong!tendency!in!clustering.!The!reason!may!be!that!friendship!and!family!ties,!as!well!as!

group!identification!matter!more!to!the!Chinese!people!among!all!the!factors.!

Looking!into!the!three!Chinese!enclaves,!Chinatown,!Sunset!Park!and!Flushing!specifically,!it!

does!not!go!along!with!the!classic!assimilation!theory!either.!Three!of!them!are!all!thriving.!

The! oldest! Chinese! neighborhoods! with! the! earliest! immigrants! are! not! the! home! of! the!

poorest! and! least! educated! people.! As! a! matter! of! fact,! the! “newest”! enclave,! which! is!

Sunset! Park! in! Brooklyn,! tends! to! be! a! home! to! those! who! are! youngerDgeneration!

immigrants!and!who!move!out!of!Chinatown.!People! there!have! lower! level!of!education,!

income!and!occupations!than!both!Flushing!and!Chinatown.!However,!Flushing,!as!a!location!

where!the!Taiwanese!and!people!from!mainland!China!directly!migrated!to,!exhibit!a!higher!

level!of!education,!income!and!occupations.!

!

Validity&Threats&

The! regression! can! only! examine! the! correlation,! instead! of! causality.! It! can! only! be! told!

what!kind!of!neighborhoods!tend!to!have!larger!Chinese!population.!It’s!not!known!whether!

the! Chinese! make! the! settlement! decisions! because! of! the! factors.! In! addition,! the!

relationship! between! Chinese! population! and! neighborhood! characteristics! may! be!

reciprocal.! For! example,! the! neighborhood! median! household! income! may! decrease! as!

!

! 62!

Chinese! immigrants! of! low! income!moved! into! the! neighborhood.! This! relationship! is! not!

considered!in!the!analysis.!

Due!to!the!limitation!in!the!data,! it! is!not!differentiated!whether!the!Chinese!Americans!in!

the!census!tracts!are!foreign!born!or!naturally!born.!It!is!not!specified!in!US!Census,!except!

for! the!year!1970.!The!effect!of!naturalDborn!Chinese!Americans!moving!out!of! the!ethnic!

enclaves!and!the!possible!effect!of!foreignDborn!immigrants!moving!into!the!ethnic!enclaves!

cannot! be! separated! technically! from! the! data.! It’s! thus! not! feasible! to! analyze! how! the!

Chinese!may!make!different!location!decisions!as!they!stay!longer!in!the!US!and!gain!higher!

socioeconomic!status.! !

In!addition,!the!geographic!area!taken!into!consideration!was!only!the!City!of!New!York.!In!

reality,! when! the! Chinese! American! choose! to! move! out! of! the! existing! Chinese! ethnic!

enclaves,!they!may!move!to!New!Jersey!or!other!nearby!cities!in!the!triDstate!area.!There!are!

notable!Chinese!communities! in!New!Jersey!and!Connecticut!as!well.!To! just! look! into! the!

City!of!New!York!may!be!not!comprehensive!enough.! !

!

Planning&Implications&

Planners! and! designers! should! consider! the! immigrants’! housing! and! residential!

environmental!preferences!when!making!decisions!about!urban!policies!and!the!city! form.!

It’s! strongly! advocated! by! Brookings! Institution! that! cities! provide! living! environments,!

public! services,!and!development!plans! that! respond!and!adapt! to! the!needs!of! increasing!

diverse!populations.!("Racial!Change! in!the!Nation's!Largest!Cities:!Evidence!from!the!2000!

Census!",!2001)! !

!

! 63!

To! further! reinforce! this! point,! Smith! and! Furuseth! (2006)! suggest! that! “underlying!many!

policy! issues! are! demographic! differences! between! local! residents! and! recent! migrants,!

including! age,! gender,! and! household! composition.”! In! new! destinations,! planning! for!

immigrant! populations! takes! place! amid!wider! reconfigurations! in! how! social! services! are!

managed! and! how! government! and! nongovernment! institutions! understand! their! roles! in!

the!changing!demographics(Winders,!2012).! !

To!study!the!type!of!neighborhoods!into!which!the!Chinese!trend!to!move!and!the!trend!of!

Chinese!Americans!to!get!assimilated! into!or!get!segregated!from!the!other!ethnic!groups,!

planners! can! better! predict! the! development! of! the! neighborhoods! and! set! appropriate!

goals!incorporating!the!benefit!for!the!minorities.!The!Chinese!account!for!more!than!5%!of!

the!total!population!in!the!City!of!New!York!now.!Knowing!where!the!Chinese!move!to!and!

concentrate,! planners! can! contribute! to! the! development! of! the! ethnic! communities! and!

guide!the!development!of!ethnic!enclaves.!Necessary!infrastructure!and!civic!service,!such!as!

signs!in!different!languages!can!be!added!to!improve!quality!of!life!for!the!minority!groups.!

Affordable! housing! opportunities,! public! school! resources! and! transit! access! in! different!

neighborhoods!can!be!reexamined!to!cater!the!need!of!the!minority!ethnic!groups.!

! !

!

! 64!

Appendix&

Variables! Terms!in!US!Census!

� ! � ! 1970! 1980! 1990! 2000! 2010!

TOTAL,!WHITE,!

BLACK! Race! T12! T12! T12! T14! T54!

P_COLLEGE!

Cumulative!Educational!

Attainment!For!Population!

25!Years!And!Over! T29!

!

T117! T43!

!! ! ! ! ! Years!of!School!

Completed!(Cumulative)!

!

T180!

! ! !

P_MANAGER!

Occupation! T65! T50! T39!

! !! ! ! ! ! Occupation!For!

Employed!Civilian!

Population!16!Years!and!

Over!

! ! !

T86!

!

INCOME!

Average!Family!Income! T85!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Median!Household!

Income!

!

T53! T43! T93!

!P_RENT! Tenure! T108! T81! T73! T156! T69!

P_MULTI! Housing!Units!In!Structure! T112! T84! T76! T159!

!

P_PUBLIC!

School!Enrollment!By!Level!

And!Type!Of!School!(15%)! T36!

!

T54!

! !! ! ! ! ! School!Enrollment!

!

T49!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! School!Enrollment!

(Private!School)!

!

T48!

! ! !! ! ! ! ! Level!of!School!by!

Type!of!School!For!Enrolled!

in!School!Population!3!Years!

And!Over!

!

!

!

T56!

!

CHN!

Country!Of!Origin!And!

Nativity!(15%)! T134!

! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! Asian!By!Specific!

Origin!

!

T18! T15! T19!

!! ! ! ! ! Asian!Alone!With!One!

Asian!Category!For!Selected!

Groups!

! ! ! !

T57!

!

!

! 65!

Bibliography&

Alba,!Richard!D.,!Logan,!John!R.,!Stults,!Brian!J.,!Marzan,!Gilbert,!&!Zhang,!Wenquan.!(1999).!

Immigrant!Groups! in! the!Suburbs:!A!Reexamination!of!Suburbanization!and!Spatial!

Assimilation.!American#Sociological#Review,#64(3),!446D460.!doi:!10.2307/2657495!

Barringer,! Herbert! R.,! Gardner,! Robert!W.,! &! Levin,! Michael! J.! (1993).! Asians# and# Pacific#

islanders#in#the#United#States.!

Brown,!Lawrence!A.,!&!Chung,!SuDYeul.!(2006).!Spatial!segregation,!segregation!indices!and!

the! geographical! perspective.! Population,# Space# and# Place,# 12(2),! 125D143.! doi:!

10.1002/psp.403!

Denton,!Nancy!A.,!&!Massey,!Douglas! S.! (1991).! Patterns! of!Neighborhood! Transition! in! a!

Multiethnic!World:!U.S.!Metropolitan!Areas,!1970D1980.!Demography,#28(1),!41D63.!

doi:!10.2307/2061335!

.! Distinct! !Places,! !Shared! !Opportunity:!

A! !NeighborhoodDbased! !Analysis! !of! !Asian! !Americans! !in! !NYC.! (2011).! New!

York,!NY:!Asian! !Americans! !for! !Equality,! !Inc.!

Farley,! Reynolds,! &! Frey,! William! H.! (1994).! Changes! in! the! Segregation! of! Whites! from!

Blacks!During! the!1980s:! Small! Steps!Toward!a!More! Integrated!Society.!American#

Sociological#Review,#59(1),!23D45.!doi:!10.2307/2096131!

Fong,! Timothy! P.! (1994).! The! first! suburban! Chinatown! :! the! remaking! of!Monterey! Park,!

California.!Philadelphia!::!Temple!University!Press.!

Frey,! William! H.,! &! Farley,! Reynolds.! (1996).! Latino,! Asian,! and! black! segregation! in! U.S.!

metropolitan!areas:!Are!multiethnic!metros!different?!Demography,#33(1),!35D35.! !

Galster,! George! C.! (1990).! White! Flight! from! Racially! Integrated! Neighbourhoods! in! the!

1970s:! the! Cleveland! Experience.! Urban# Studies,# 27(3),! 385D399.! doi:!

10.1080/00420989020080341!

Gordon,!Milton!M.! (1964).!Assimilation# in# American# Life# :# The# Role# of# Race,# Religion# and#

National#Origins:!Oxford!University!Press,!USA.!

Heisz,!Andrew,!&!Schellenberg,!Grant.! (2004).!PUBLIC!TRANSIT!USE!AMONG!IMMIGRANTS.!

Canadian#Journal#of#Urban#Research,#13(1),!170D191.! !

Horton,! John.! (1995).! The! politics! of! diversity! :! immigration,! resistance,! and! change! in!

Monterey!Park,!California.!In!J.!Calderon!(Ed.).!Philadelphia!::!Temple!University.!

!

! 66!

Icel,! John.! (1999).! Earnings! Returns! to! Occupational! Status:! Are! Asian! Americans!

Disadvantaged?! Social# Science# Research,# 28(1),! 45D65.! doi:!

http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/ssre.1998.0634!

Iceland,! John.! (2004).! Beyond! Black! and! White:! Metropolitan! residential! segregation! in!

multiDethnic! America.! Social# Science# Research,# 33(2),! 248D271.! doi:!

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0049D089X(03)00056D5!

Kuo,! ChiaDling.! (1977).! Social# and# political# change# in# New# York's# Chinatown:# the# role# of#

voluntary#associations.!

Kwong,!Peter.!(1997).!Forbidden!workers:!illegal!Chinese!immigrants!and!American!labor.! !

Kwong,!Peter.!(1987).!The!new!Chinatown!(1st!ed.!ed.).!New!York!::!Noonday.!

Le,! C.! N.! (2007).! Asian! American! assimilation! :! ethnicity,! immigration,! and! socioeconomic!

attainment.!New!York!::!LFB!Scholarly!Pub.!

Lee,!Barrett!A.,!&!Wood,!Peter!B.!(1991).!Is!Neighborhood!Racial!Succession!PlaceDSpecific?!

Demography,#28(1),!21D40.!doi:!10.2307/2061334!

Li,!Wei.! (1997).! Spatial# transformation# of# an# urban# ethnic# community# from# Chinatown# to#

Chinese# "Ethnoburb"# in# Los# Angeles.! (9733086! Ph.D.),! University! of! Southern!

California,!Ann!Arbor.! ! ProQuest!Dissertations!&!Theses!Full!Text!database.! !

Logan,!John.!(2001).!Ethnic!Diversity!Grows,!Neighborhood!Integration!Lags!Behind!(pp.!32):!

Lewis!Mumford!Center.!

Logan,!John!R,!Xu,!Zengwang,!&!Stults,!Brian.!(2012).!Interpolating!US!decennial!census!tract!

data! from! as! early! as! 1970! to! 2010:! A! longitudinal! tract! database.! Professional#

Geographer,#forthcoming.! !

Logan,!John!R.,!Alba,!Richard!D.,!McNulty,!Tom,!&!Fisher,!Brian.!(1996).!Making!a!Place!in!the!

Metropolis:! Locational! Attainment! in! Cities! and! Suburbs.! Demography,# 33(4),!

443D453.!doi:!10.2307/2061779!

Logan,!John!R.,!&!Schneider,!Mark.!(1984).!Racial!Segregation!and!Racial!Change!in!American!

Suburbs,! 1970D1980.! American# Journal# of# Sociology,# 89(4),! 874D888.! doi:!

10.2307/2779255!

Logan,!John!R.,!Zhang,!Wenquan,!&!Alba,!Richard!D.!(2002).!Immigrant!Enclaves!and!Ethnic!

Communities! in! New! York! and! Los! Angeles.! American# Sociological# Review,# 67(2),!

299D322.!doi:!10.2307/3088897!

!

! 67!

Mangiafico,! Luciano.! (1988).! Contemporary! American! immigrants! :! patterns! of! Filipino,!

Korean,!and!Chinese!settlement!in!the!United!States.!New!York!::!Praeger.!

Massey,! Douglas! S.! (1985).! Ethnic! Residential! Segregation:! A! Theoretical! Synthesis! and!

Empirical!Review.!Sociology#and#social#research,#69(3),!315D350.! !

Massey,! Douglas! S.,! &! Denton,! Nancy! A.! (1987).! Trends! in! the! Residential! Segregation! of!

Blacks,! Hispanics,! and! Asians:! 1970D1980.! American# Sociological# Review,# 52(6),!

802D825.!doi:!10.2307/2095836!

Min,! Pyong! Gap,! &! Kim,! Young! Oak.! (2009).! Ethnic! and! subDethnic! attachments! among!

Chinese,!Korean,!and!Indian!immigrants!in!New!York!City.!Ethnic#and#Racial#Studies,#

32(5),!758D780.!doi:!10.1080/01419870802635424!

Moen,! Phyllis,! DempsterDMcClain,! Donna,! &! Walker,! Henry! A.! (1999).! A! nation! divided! :!

diversity,! inequality,! and! community! in! American! society.! Ithaca,! N.Y.! ::! Cornell!

University!Press.!

Nguyen,! Mai! Thi.! (2004).! The! selfDsegregation! of! Asians! and! Hispanics:! The! role! of!

assimilation! and! racial! prejudice.! Race# and# Society,# 7(2),! 131D151.! doi:!

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.racsoc.2005.05.006!

Park,! Robert! E.! (1928).! Human! Migration! and! the! Marginal! Man.! American# Journal# of#

Sociology,#33(6),!881D893.!doi:!10.2307/2765982!

Popkin,!Susan!J,!Briggs,!Xavier!de!Souza,!&!Goering,!John.!(2011).!Moving!to!opportunity:!the!

story! of! an! American! experiment! to! fight! ghetto! poverty.! Choice# reviews# online,#

48(8),!48D4550D4548D4550.!doi:!10.5860/CHOICE.48D4550!

Portes,! A.,! &! Zhou,! M.! (1993).! THE! NEW! 2NDDGENERATION! D! SEGMENTED! ASSIMILATION!

AND! ITS! VARIANTS.! The# Annals# of# the# American# Academy# of# Political# and# Social#

Science,#530,!74D96.! !

Portes,! Alejandro,! &! Rumbaut,! Ruben! G.! (1996).! IMMIGRANT# AMERICA:# A# PORTRAIT.!

Berkeley,!CA:!University!of!California!Press.!

Public!Law!89–236!89th!congress,!H.!R.!2580!October!3,!1986!An!Act.!(1965).! International#

Migration,#3(3),!100D110.!doi:!10.1111/j.1468D2435.1965.tb00873.x!

.! Racial! Change! in! the!Nation's! Largest! Cities:! Evidence! from! the! 2000!Census! (2001):! The!

Brookings!Institution!Center!on!Urban!and!Metropolitan!Policy.!

.!The!Rise!of!Asian!Americans.!(2013):!Pew!Social!Demographic!Trends!RSS.!

!

! 68!

Shih,!Howard,!&!Xu,!Peiyi.!(2012).!Asian!Americans!in!New!York!City:!A!Decade!of!Dynamic!

Change!2000D2010:!Asian!American!Federation.!

Singer,!Audrey.!(2004).!The#rise#of#new#immigrant#gateways:!The!Brookings!Institution.!

Smith,!Heather!A.,!&!Furuseth,!Owen!J.!(2006).!Latinos!in!the!new!South!:!transformations!of!

place.!Aldershot,!England!;:!Ashgate.!

Sonia! Di,! Biase,! &! Bauder,! Harald.! (2005).! Immigrant! Settlement! in! Ontario:! Location! and!

Local!Labour!Markets.!Canadian#Ethnic#Studies,#37(3),!114D135.! !

Taeuber,! Alma! F,! &! Taeuber,! Karl! E.! (1988).! MEASURES! OF! RACIAL! EXPOSURE:! SOME!

PROBLEMS.! !

Technical! Information.).! ! ! Retrieved! April! 1,! 2014,! from!

http://mumford.albany.edu/census/BlackWhite/notes.htm!

Thompson,! Bryan.! (1971).! SETTLEMENT# TIES# AS# DETERMINANTS# OF# IMMIGRANT#

SETTLEMENT# IN# URBAN# AREAS:# A# CASE# STUDY# OF# THE# GROWTH# OF# AN# ITALIAN#

NEIGHBORHOOD# IN# WORCESTER,# MASSACHUSETTS,# 187551922.! (7203344! Ph.D.),!

Clark!University,!Ann!Arbor.! ! ProQuest!Dissertations!&!Theses!Full!Text!database.! !

Warner,!William!Lloyd,!&!Srole,!Leo.!(1945).!The!social!systems!of!American!ethnic!groups.! !

Wen,!Ming,!Lauderdale,!Diane!S.,!&!Kandula,!Namratha!R.!(2009).!Ethnic!Neighborhoods!in!

MultiDEthnic! America,! 1990D2000:! Resurgent! Ethnicity! in! the! Ethnoburbs?! Social#

Forces,#88(1),!425D460.!doi:!10.2307/40345052!

Wilson,! Kenneth! L.,! &! Portes,! Alejandro.! (1996).! Immigrant# Enclaves:# An# Analysis# of# the#

Labor#Market#Experiences#of#Cubans#in#Miami.!

Winders,! Jamie.! (2012).! Seeing! Immigrants:! Institutional! Visibility! and! Immigrant!

Incorporation!in!New!Immigrant!Destinations.!The#Annals#of#the#American#Academy#

of#Political#and#Social#Science,#641(1),!58D78.!doi:!10.1177/0002716211432281!

Winnick,! Louis.! (1990).! New# people# in# old# neighborhoods:# The# role# of# immigrants# in#

rejuvenating#New#York's#communities:!Russell!Sage!Foundation.!

Yuan,!D.!Y.!(1963).!Voluntary!Segregation:!A!Study!of!New!Chinatown.!Phylon#(19605),#24(3),!

255D265.!doi:!10.2307/273399!

Yuan,! D.! Y.! (1966).! Chinatown! and! beyond:! The! Chinese! Population! in!Metropolitan! New!

York.!Phylon#(19605),#27(4),!321D332.!doi:!10.2307/273613!

!

! 69!

Zhou,!M.,!Tseng,!Y.!F.,!&!Kim,!R.!Y.!(2008).!Rethinking!Residential!Assimilation:!The!Case!of!a!

Chinese! Ethnoburb! in! the! San! Gabriel! Valley,! California.! Amerasia# journal,# 34(3),!

55D55.! !

Zhou,!Min.! (1997).!Segmented!Assimilation:! Issues,!Controversies,!and!Recent!Research!on!

the!New!Second!Generation.! International#Migration#Review,#31(4),!975D1008.!doi:!

10.2307/2547421!

Zhou,!Min.! (2009).!Contemporary#Chinese#America:# immigration,# ethnicity,#and# community#

transformation.!

!

!

!

!

what!type!of!neighborhoods!into!which!the!chinese!tend!to

Documents