Framing the Residential Patterns of Asian Communities in Three Italian Cities: Evidence from Milan, Rome, and Naples

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The article provides a good snapshot of the four foreign-born groups in the three Italian cities. The initial descriptive data demonstrates the sharp growth in the foreign population and the detailed 2011 data are convincing on the general patterns of segregation/integration in geographical terms. The somewhat brief concluding remarks help place those differences in terms of occupations and migration patterns. Although brief, that analysis is sound. The use of multiple indices of two-group and multi-group segregation/integration is, as the authors suggest, necessary to catch the nuance of the variation. The use of all those different indices makes the findings far more compelling. Also, I found the accompanying diagrams very interesting, including the twin use of total population and total foreign population.

This is a fine paper with a few glitches listed below.

Line 28: “Raising the concern of”  ??

Line 77: “This article examines” ??

Line 108: Should be “Bangladeshis.” Check the rest of the paper; you are inconsistent on this

Line 112: “To the best of our”

Line 121: Stick with “Filipino” for consistency.

Line 122: Composed of women”

Line 143: “All of them holders of a regular residence permit and enumerated” ???

Line 149: “of the total number of Filipinos”    -- Also note another Bangladeshis on that line

Line 152: “total number of Filipinos”

Line 157: “together hosted 28.4%”   also clean up that whole sentence

Line 163: I think you should delete “whether”

Line 165: add “but” at the very beginning of that line

Table 1: add lines before and after the names of the three cities and put them in bold.

Line 170 and after. I was not clear how much of this was done by them before you got the data and how much you might have been involved. Please specify.

Line 217: “as mentioned earlier”

Line 218: maybe “multiracial, multiethnic” (i.e., it is not just multiracial)

Line 225: “two group” (because it’s adjectival)

Line 239: “the Delta index” (for clarity and consistency)

Line 263: “We also consider” (for clarity)

Line 285: “allowed us to anchor census”  ??

Line 295: “Bangladeshis”

Line 303 Table – do lines for Rome and Naples (like you do for Milan). This should be Table 2 not 1 (and current Table 2 should be Table 3).

Line 307: most segregated group “is”

Line 313: “only in the city of Milan”

Line 318: I know some people use the word “contagion” for this, but avoid it if you can or at least cite the source and put the word in quotation marks

Line 343: use “occupational” rather than “professional” – “professional implies high level jobs

Line 347: “making proximity” ??

See notes to author(s)

Author Response

Authors' response in blue.

All the requested modifications (mainly stylistic and linguistic) were addressed. The readability and fluency of the manuscript have greatly improved, thank you. The answer to the request regarding the “methods” section is provided separately, immediately after the reviewer’s comment.

The article provides a good snapshot of the four foreign-born groups in the three Italian cities. The initial descriptive data demonstrates the sharp growth in the foreign population and the detailed 2011 data are convincing on the general patterns of segregation/integration in geographical terms. The somewhat brief concluding remarks help place those differences in terms of occupations and migration patterns. Although brief, that analysis is sound. The use of multiple indices of two-group and multi-group segregation/integration is, as the authors suggest, necessary to catch the nuance of the variation. The use of all those different indices makes the findings far more compelling. Also, I found the accompanying diagrams very interesting, including the twin use of total population and total foreign population.

This is a fine paper with a few glitches listed below.

Line 28: “Raising the concern of”  ??

Line 77: “This article examines” ??

Line 108: Should be “Bangladeshis.” Check the rest of the paper; you are inconsistent on this

Line 112: “To the best of our”

Line 121: Stick with “Filipino” for consistency.

Line 122: Composed of women”

Line 143: “All of them holders of a regular residence permit and enumerated” ???

Line 149: “of the total number of Filipinos”    -- Also note another Bangladeshis on that line

Line 152: “total number of Filipinos”

Line 157: “together hosted 28.4%”   also clean up that whole sentence

Line 163: I think you should delete “whether”

Line 165: add “but” at the very beginning of that line

Table 1: add lines before and after the names of the three cities and put them in bold.

Line 170 and after. I was not clear how much of this was done by them before you got the data and how much you might have been involved. Please specify. The first two lines of the section were reformulated to clear more that the census data referred to the census tracts and then we performed the areal interpolation to refer the data to homogeneous spatial units (i.e. the squared cells). An additional clarifying sentence was added to the last part of the section to sum up the outcome of the procedure. We hope that now the explanation of what we have done is clearer to the reader. 

Line 217: “as mentioned earlier”

Line 218: maybe “multiracial, multiethnic” (i.e., it is not just multiracial)

Line 225: “two group” (because it’s adjectival)

Line 239: “the Delta index” (for clarity and consistency)

Line 263: “We also consider” (for clarity)

Line 285: “allowed us to anchor census”  ??

Line 295: “Bangladeshis”

Line 303 Table – do lines for Rome and Naples (like you do for Milan). This should be Table 2 not 1 (and current Table 2 should be Table 3).

Line 307: most segregated group “is”

Line 313: “only in the city of Milan”

Line 318: I know some people use the word “contagion” for this, but avoid it if you can or at least cite the source and put the word in quotation marks

Line 343: use “occupational” rather than “professional” – “professional implies high level jobs

Line 347: “making proximity” ??

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper utilizes data from 2001, 2011, and 2021 Italian census enumerations to estimate indices of residential segregation across four Asian ethnic groups in three major Italian cities—Milan, Rome, and Naples. The analysis reveals higher levels of segregation in Naples compared to the other two cities. Furthermore, it indicates that immigrants from Bangladesh and China demonstrate higher levels of segregation than those from the Philippines and Sri Lanka.

While I appreciate the intent of the paper, it suffers from several severe theoretical and analytical shortcomings. The study is descriptive and possesses limited scientific merit. A significant amount of work would be required for this paper to reach a publishable standard.

The paper could benefit from a robust theoretical framework to elucidate the differences in patterns of residential segregation between the North and South and between different groups. For instance, in the South, higher levels of segregation could be exacerbated by disparities in economic opportunities, a poorly-performing housing market, and discriminatory housing practices. The author(s) should also consider developing a framework to explain changes in integration over time. This could involve a brief description of these groups' trends since 1960 and how Italy's evolving diversity is influencing the immigration debate. For example, in Italy, children of immigrants are still not considered citizens. How does this affect their spatial and social integration? What impact does this have on their economic mobility? And how does this influence improvement in residential attainment?

Analytically, the paper lacks a clear strategy linked to its primary objectives. It is unclear what we learn from the various indices presented. Moreover, the paper fails to present any trends; it limits itself to an analysis of the 2011 data. An examination illustrating trends over time could elucidate how segregation shifts in the context of increasing diversity. What about other groups in each of these cities and the country as a whole? Did Asians precede other immigrant groups in these cities? Amidst escalating diversity, three theoretical issues warrant consideration: the buffering hypothesis, the conflict hypothesis, and the hunkering-down perspective. Which of these perspectives is most likely at play in these cities, and  Italy as a country? The author(s) could have utilized each city as a case study to examine each of these perspectives. In doing so, the paper would have provided a significant intellectual contribution

Author Response

Authors' response in blue.

The paper utilizes data from 2001, 2011, and 2021 Italian census enumerations to estimate indices of residential segregation across four Asian ethnic groups in three major Italian cities—Milan, Rome, and Naples. The analysis reveals higher levels of segregation in Naples compared to the other two cities. Furthermore, it indicates that immigrants from Bangladesh and China demonstrate higher levels of segregation than those from the Philippines and Sri Lanka.

While I appreciate the intent of the paper, it suffers from several severe theoretical and analytical shortcomings. The study is descriptive and possesses limited scientific merit. A significant amount of work would be required for this paper to reach a publishable standard.

The paper could benefit from a robust theoretical framework to elucidate the differences in patterns of residential segregation between the North and South and between different groups. For instance, in the South, higher levels of segregation could be exacerbated by disparities in economic opportunities, a poorly-performing housing market, and discriminatory housing practices. The author(s) should also consider developing a framework to explain changes in integration over time. This could involve a brief description of these groups' trends since 1960 and how Italy's evolving diversity is influencing the immigration debate. For example, in Italy, children of immigrants are still not considered citizens. How does this affect their spatial and social integration? What impact does this have on their economic mobility? And how does this influence improvement in residential attainment?

The North-South segregation duality has been illustrated more extensively by including considerations on the differences in economic opportunities (mainly in terms of job availability) and the housing market conditions in the last section of the manuscript. Your suggestion has allowed the work to be more comprehensive and based on a more solid inherent background. Thank you. As regards the consideration of the temporal variation in segregation, we do not have at our disposal data referring at other time periods and with the same geographical scale of those analysed in the paper. For this reason, we could not extend the analysis to assess variation in segregation level over time. Besides this, the aim of the work was to provide a cross-sectional snapshot of the four foreign-born groups in the three Italian cities. The application intended to provide the basis for a spatial consideration on the differences in segregation between groups and across urban contexts. Moreover, the work aimed also to contribute to enlarge the existing literature on ethnic residential segregation in Italian contexts, which is still very scarce. We hope that you will appreciate the work done and be satisfied with our explanation of the scope of the work. Thank you.

Analytically, the paper lacks a clear strategy linked to its primary objectives. It is unclear what we learn from the various indices presented. Moreover, the paper fails to present any trends; it limits itself to an analysis of the 2011 data. An examination illustrating trends over time could elucidate how segregation shifts in the context of increasing diversity. What about other groups in each of these cities and the country as a whole? Did Asians precede other immigrant groups in these cities? Amidst escalating diversity, three theoretical issues warrant consideration: the buffering hypothesis, the conflict hypothesis, and the hunkering-down perspective. Which of these perspectives is most likely at play in these cities, and  Italy as a country? The author(s) could have utilized each city as a case study to examine each of these perspectives. In doing so, the paper would have provided a significant intellectual contribution

Considerations on the three well-known sociological theories on ethnic diversity and segregation that the reviewer mentions have been included in the last section of the work. Besides the broad validity of the theories, we did not have at our disposal data referring to different time periods, which could have confirmed or rejected the mentioned theories. For this reason, we avoided to draw rash conclusions in this regard. On the contrary, we provided a general reasoning on the theoretical discourse which we think has strengthened the literature background and has enhanced the quality of the work. Thank you.

Reviewer 3 Report

Let me preface my review by stating that I do not have the expertise to evaluate the sophisticated quantitative analysis and its methodological basis. Yet, in my view, the author(s) has ample experience in conducting such complex empirical analysis based on areal data from General Population Censuses (using 'fine spatial lattice data'). And the result of the empirical analysis is impressive in its scope and detailed focus. Producing such fine-grained documentation of segregation patterns at the city level is much needed in migration studies and, more specifically, can enrich research on patterns of migrants’ societal integration as they manifest themselves in forms of residential segregation and inequalities enormously. In particular the visualization of segregation patterns in the studied three cities is a significant contribution to scholarship in the field.

In my view, the analysis and presentation of the empirical data does not need any changes. Similarly, the review of the literature is appropriate and sufficiently focused. The reason for my ‘minor changes’ categorization is that I would have two suggestions for interpreting the findings:

1.     While the article develops a compelling interpretation for the differences that the main immigrant groups (Bangladeshi, Chinese, Filipinos, Sri Lankans) show in terms of their segregation patterns, it is less clear from the interpretation in what way Milan, Rome, and Naples provide distinct environments for the social inclusion of migrant communities (just a quick note on terminology: I am not sure that characterizing these communities as “foreign groups” is appropriate; some of their members might indeed taken up Italian citizenship. What makes them a coherent group is not their status as ‘foreigners’ but their shared background as immigrants from a particular country). The article could benefit from trying to explain more fully the differences between these three cities and what could account for the differing segregation patterns. Is it simply a matter of economic prosperity and social vulnerability as the conclusion suggests? What exactly does the ‘North-South gradient of segregation’ entail? Not all readers are likely to be well informed about this explanation/ theory.

2.     The manuscript could be improved by relating more fully the results of the empirical study to the scholarly debates in the literature. The text claims that is contributes to the  ‘literature on residential segregation in Southern Europe’ but in the conclusion it speaks very generally about the importance of segregation in urban settings and the need for more effective inclusion of migrants. Yet, this statement is not sufficiently related to the literature review earlier in the manuscript. The last sentence of the text illustrates that a closer integration of literature review and the findings of the impressive empirical analysis would be beneficial: ”Overall, this study underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing segregation in diverse societies, emphasizing the need for inclusive urban planning and policies that promote social cohesion and integration.”  In its generality, this statement might be appropriate. Yet, I am not sure that the text provides much detail on what is missing in terms of social cohesion and integration in the three cities under review. Here the first point mentioned above becomes relevant. The text would be more coherent and effective if these integration challenges in the specific urban contexts received somewhat more attention and reference to scholarly debates in interpretating the empirical findings.

A final stylistic note: I do not think that the title needs to mention the usage of 'fine spatial lattice data'. This reference is not easily understandable to most readers and it makes the title sound – unnecessarily – clumsy.

Author Response

Authors' response in blue.

Let me preface my review by stating that I do not have the expertise to evaluate the sophisticated quantitative analysis and its methodological basis. Yet, in my view, the author(s) has ample experience in conducting such complex empirical analysis based on areal data from General Population Censuses (using 'fine spatial lattice data'). And the result of the empirical analysis is impressive in its scope and detailed focus. Producing such fine-grained documentation of segregation patterns at the city level is much needed in migration studies and, more specifically, can enrich research on patterns of migrants’ societal integration as they manifest themselves in forms of residential segregation and inequalities enormously. In particular the visualization of segregation patterns in the studied three cities is a significant contribution to scholarship in the field.

In my view, the analysis and presentation of the empirical data does not need any changes. Similarly, the review of the literature is appropriate and sufficiently focused. The reason for my ‘minor changes’ categorization is that I would have two suggestions for interpreting the findings:

1. While the article develops a compelling interpretation for the differences that the main immigrant groups (Bangladeshi, Chinese, Filipinos, Sri Lankans) show in terms of their segregation patterns, it is less clear from the interpretation in what way Milan, Rome, and Naples provide distinct environments for the social inclusion of migrant communities (just a quick note on terminology: I am not sure that characterizing these communities as “foreign groups” is appropriate; some of their members might indeed taken up Italian citizenship. What makes them a coherent group is not their status as ‘foreigners’ but their shared background as immigrants from a particular country). The article could benefit from trying to explain more fully the differences between these three cities and what could account for the differing segregation patterns. Is it simply a matter of economic prosperity and social vulnerability as the conclusion suggests? What exactly does the ‘North-South gradient of segregation’ entail? Not all readers are likely to be well informed about this explanation/ theory.

The differences between cities have been made clearer by a deeper clarification of the Italian North-South duality in the labour and housing markets. Specifically, the conclusive section of the work has been enlarged by providing additional explanations (corroborated by the existing related literature) of the actual economic conditions in the North and South of Italy and considerations on the discriminatory practices affecting the Italian housing market. The inclusion of these reasonings has allowed us to better relate the phenomenon of ethnic residential segregation to the socioeconomic conditions of the places where segregation emerges. Thank you very much.

2. The manuscript could be improved by relating more fully the results of the empirical study to the scholarly debates in the literature. The text claims that is contributes to the  ‘literature on residential segregation in Southern Europe’ but in the conclusion it speaks very generally about the importance of segregation in urban settings and the need for more effective inclusion of migrants. Yet, this statement is not sufficiently related to the literature review earlier in the manuscript. The last sentence of the text illustrates that a closer integration of literature review and the findings of the impressive empirical analysis would be beneficial: ”Overall, this study underscores the importance of recognizing and addressing segregation in diverse societies, emphasizing the need for inclusive urban planning and policies that promote social cohesion and integration.”  In its generality, this statement might be appropriate. Yet, I am not sure that the text provides much detail on what is missing in terms of social cohesion and integration in the three cities under review. Here the first point mentioned above becomes relevant. The text would be more coherent and effective if these integration challenges in the specific urban contexts received somewhat more attention and reference to scholarly debates in interpretating the empirical findings.

The conclusive section of the manuscript has been extensively revised, and we think that the current version highlights better the contribution of the application to the understanding of ethnic residential segregation in the selected Italian cities. The considerations on the results have been corroborated by referring to an additional literature. Finally, we realized that the sentence reported by the reviewer was misleading and decided to remove it, consistently with the revision of the whole section of the manuscript. Overall, the relevance of the topic addressed and of the manuscript contribution itself, are now more highlighted. Thank you.

A final stylistic note: I do not think that the title needs to mention the usage of 'fine spatial lattice data'. This reference is not easily understandable to most readers and it makes the title sound – unnecessarily – clumsy.

Done, thank you.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I am pleased with the revision, as the author(s) have made a commendable effort to address all raised concerns. The paper is articulately written, and the data employed for analysis are notably novel. The findings offer profound insights into our comprehension of segregation in Italy, particularly concerning the disparities between the north and south. However, it is crucial for the authors to underscore that the analysis reflects segregation only at a specific scale (100m x 100m cell). Each metropolitan area might display distinct segregation patterns when examined at varying geographical scales.