Immigrants' settlement patterns: a methodological assessment

Immigrants´settlement patterns: a methodological approach Emília Malcata Rebelo PhD, Assistant Professor CITTA - Research Centre for Territory, Transports and Environment Faculty of Engineering of Porto University (Portugal), Department of Civil Engineering, Territorial, Urban and Environment Planning Division, Rua Dr. Roberto Frias, s/n, 4200-465, PORTO (PORTUGAL) Tel.: 351225081482/Fax: 351225081486/ e-mail: [email protected].pt ABSTRACT The main objective of this article consists in the development of a methodology of cartographic analysis to support municipal decisions concerning attraction, location and distribution of immigrants in metropolitan areas, assuring respective integration. This innovative methodology is aimed at identifying settlement patterns, and respective intensity, adopted by specific groups of immigrants, according to concentration/sprawl/dispersion territorial characteristics and their own ethnic features, in relation to correspondent patterns of the whole population. It is applied, as a case study, to Porto Metropolitan Area (Portugal). A discussion is pursued on the sociological reasons that explain concentrated or dispersed behaviors by different ethnic groups, and how those behaviors shape the morphological and typological characteristics of concentrated/sprawled/dispersed settlements of different groups of immigrants. The application of this methodology to different urban/metropolitan realities allows (i) the monitoring of the evolution of indicators concerning immigrants and metropolitan territorial characteristics, (ii) the analysis and comparison of settlement behaviors exhibited by different ethnic groups, in relation to native correspondent behaviors (iii) the critical inspection of the evolution of the integration of different ethnic groups, and (iv) the definition and application of urban policies aimed at attracting, distributing and locating immigrants in the metropolitan areas, simultaneously assuring socio-economic territorial sustainability. INTRODUCTION Considering the increasing importance immigrants assume in socio-economic sustainability of developed countries and regions, the research reported in this article aims at designing and developing a set of decision-support tools concerning attraction, location and distribution of immigrants. These policies should be harmonized with the needs of territorial socio-economic development, assuring good integration conditions to immigrants. The intermediate-level goals to reach this purpose consist in: (i) developing a metropolitan management information system on immigrants and on morphological and typological characteristics of land use, with monitoring functionalities, (ii) proposing a methodology of analysis and cartographic display of the settlement patterns of different ethnic groups (using geographic information systems), (iii) interpreting settlement patterns, through the identification of the underlying reasons, and (iv) drawing conclusions and formulating guidelines in urban/metropolitan policies aimed at planers and territorial decision-makers. This methodology is based on the comparison of the behaviors of different ethnic groups with the prevailing land use concentration/sprawled/dispersed structural characteristics, and points out respective patterns of residential land use. It allows a clear understanding of the influence some concentration dimensions exert upon settlements´ choices, within the framework (i) of territorial planning, and (ii) immigrant’s characteristics, location preferences and assimilation processes. This article presents and discusses relevant issues for academics and policy makers. It is hoped the proposed methodology assists municipal decision-makers in the definition and implementation of integrated policies that mix together metropolitan territorial development, and concerns for immigrants´ integration. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK In the theoretical analysis of relevant literature will be considered four main points that shape the current state of the art in issues strictly related to the scope of the research here reported: (i) identification of the sociological reasons that explain settlement behaviors of the different groups of immigrants, (ii) how these sociological reasons translate in morphological and typological spatial concentrated or dispersed settlements, (iii) ways to measure and quantify these concentration/sprawled/dispersed settlement characteristics, and (iv) importance of sociological reasons and physical patterns in planning decisions and operation of joint policies of socio-economic territorial development/consolidation and immigrants´ integration. Within this framework, the identification and characterization of the location patterns of different immigrant groups allows: (i) the proactive definition of policies of attraction/location/distribution of immigrants, and (ii) the improvement of housing, employment, infrastructures and equipment provision, as well as social and cultural involvement and participation of immigrants. Sociological reasons underlying immigrants´ concentrated or dispersed behaviors and how they translate in different physical settlements According to several authors (Arbaci, 2008; Fonseca, 1999, Fonseca et al., 2002; Malheiros, 2002; Massey, 1990; Musterd and Van Kempen, 2007; Peach, 2002; Teixeira and Murdie, 1997) the main reasons that explain the sociological patterns or urban/metropolitan concentration are: (i) the spatial differentiation due to the characteristics of the urban economies, (ii) the performance of the housing markets, and (iii) the characteristics of the groups of immigrants. The sociological reasons that explain urban/metropolitan dispersion are: (i) the socio-economic mobility and (ii) the acculturation/assimilation processes that settle on the perception that a differentiated urban/metropolitan economy makes the allocation of its resources unevenly in space, thus encouraging immigrants to displace in order to increase their social and professional attainment levels. The spatial differentiation due to the characteristics of the urban economies is conditioned, on the one side, by the territorial planning norms, and on the other, by the succession processes in land use. Ethnic minorities search for housing locations near their work places, even if temporarily. These settlement succession patterns are, thus, strongly modeled by the characteristics of the local economies and depend on the spatial concentration/dispersion of capital, and on the existence of urban transports. During periods of urban/metropolitan expansion quick changes occur in land residential use: the classes with higher social mobility move to more attractive locations, letting behind free spaces where recent incomers will lodge. On the contrary, during periods of economic stagnation or recession, immigrants pile up in ghettos, because the succession in space uses slows down. The performance of the housing markets manifest through: (i) the pre-settled housing structures, public spaces, infrastructures and equipments, (ii) the legal and property housing characteristics, and (iii) the neighborhood sociological features. Immigrants´ urban and metropolitan opportunities and choices are modeled by sociospatial pre-settled structures that provide affordable accommodation facilities (Madoré, 1997, 2005). European ethno-cities have, generally, low housing conditions and a rather informal access to real estate markets (Malheiros, 2002). However, European southern cities additionally exhibit (Malheiros, 2002) low socio-spatial segregation levels associated to more complex patterns of housing distribution, and higher suburbanization levels, translated in the peripheral distribution of middle and low-income population, (that results from the existence of a weak rental market in central and peri-central areas, and from the implementation of re-generation programmes since the 90 th decade, with correspondent induced gentrification processes). Other urban/metropolitan factors that influence socio-urban processes and respective spatial shape are, namely: a depopulation in central and peri-central areas; a strong presence of families with high incomes in central areas; prevailing low levels of housing mobility, and spatial effects that result from housing rent controls (Arbaci, 2008; Malheiros, 2002). Besides, there exists a strong relation between the characteristics of the neighborhoods (Galster, 1987), that shape different housing typologies and different morphological layouts – concentrated or dispersed –, and the functional effectiveness of the workforce. Individuals embody their perception of housing neighborhoods, and develop communication networks that act as socialization cores because they foster their social, economic, cultural and religious integration (Goering et al., 1995; Kleit, 2001; Wellman, 1988); favor social, communicational and ideological ties among individuals that share the same experiences and the same expectations (Goering et al., 1995; Gould and Turner, 1997; Kleit, 2001; Scott, 1980; Wellman, 1988); and reflect a certain social, and even, professional, status (Scott, 1980). Consequently, these networks induce individuals´ choices, attitudes, behaviors and achievements, through the influence they exert on their values and preferences (Galster and Killen, 1995). They additionally provide advantages from emergent social and economic opportunities (Briggs, 1998; Goering et al., 1995; Kleit, 2001). These networks, by their turn, are also modeled by those opportunities (Burt, 1983; Campbel et al., 1986; Granovetter, 1983; Kleit, 2001; Marsden and Campbel, 1984; Wellman and Potter, 1999). The demographic/sociological and professional characteristics of the groups of immigrants (Myers, 1999) strongly condition their settlement patterns, be they centered on age, gender, sector of economic activity, professional group, career progression along time, or geographic mobility, as compared with the homologous values of the native population. As immigrants from African countries with Portuguese official language and from Brazil have a strong cultural tie with the Portuguese language and historical heritage, their integration is rather brief. The same holds true for immigrants from Western and Northern European Union countries that share recent political, economic and cultural challenges and believes with Portuguese natives. The jobs immigrants have or search for, their academic background and professional skills, as well as their labor-supply elasticity (Borjas, 1994; Pecoud, 2002) also condition their settlement behaviors. Thus, in comparison with native population, they often fit better certain kinds of tasks (Altonji and Card, 1991; Bean et al., 1988; Borjas et al., 1996; Card, 1990; Fieldhouse, 1999; LaLonde and Topel, 1991; Reimers, 1998; Stoll et al., 2002). Immigrants´ socio-economic mobility is mainly explained by their search for high social and professional levels that, as already referred to, are strictly connected to neighborhoods´ physical characteristics, resources, infrastructures and opportunities (Ellen and Turner, 1997; Massey, 1990; Massey and Denton, 1993; Rosebaum, 1991; Rosebaum et al., 1999; Wilson, 1986, 1996). The higher the diversity in the relations network, the greater is access to opportunities (Kleit, 2001), and if immigrants inhabit environments with high-qualified resources, infrastructures and equipments, then their social/professional/economic mobility will be launched (Massey, 1990; Massey and Denton, 1993; Rosebaum et al., 1999), and balanced with all other citizens (Kleit, 2001; Wilson, 1996, 1986). But the social and professional status is also dependent on immigrants´ academic background, professional skills, their working places, and respective inter-relations (Li, 1998). Socioeconomic local development, the availability of searched jobs, and the successful acculturation of some groups of immigrants guide them to more desirable locations (Logan et al., 1996), despite “location-attainment” goals differ between different population groups, due to the specificity of their acculturation processes (Logan, 2006). The spatial acculturation/assimilation processes are explained by: (i) the spatial assimilation (Massey, 1990), (ii) the behaviors of native people in residential neighborhoods (Logan, 2006), and (iii) the spatial stratification (Logan et al., 1996). The assimilation processes last the time required to surmount linguistic and cultural differences, and to enter networks of information and ethnic support (Logan et al., 2003). The closer immigrants´ uses, costumes and feelings are to the ones of destination communities, the quicker and the better assimilation occurs (Logan, 2006; Madoré, 2005). In Portugal (similarly to what happens in the United States of America and in Brasil) the integration/assimilation of Portuguese-speaking immigrants roots on a strong multiculturalist belief (Ellis, 2001). This results from a historical sociability between people with different ethnic characteristics, within different environments and cultural contexts. However, settlement and mobility patterns may be bounded by contingent contexts (Bolt et al., 2008; Fortuijn et al., 1998; White, 1999) that include stereotypes and racial segregation behaviors from autochthon people (Arbaci, 2008; Bolt et al., 2008; Fortuijn et al., 1998; Logan, 2006). These hinder assimilation processes, and imply isolation or segregation of some groups, as a result of their social, economic, cultural or religious condition (Logan, 2006; Maloutas, 2004; Ondrich, 2001). The model of spatial stratification, as well as many empirical studies developed in southern European cities (Fonseca et al., 2002; Kazepov, 2005; Malheiros, 2002; Malheiros and Mendes, 2007; Musterd et al., 2006) clearly draw attention to social exclusion and ghetto formation that emerge from negative influences of local neighborhoods. As a response to these constraints, ethnic communities naturally tie together and reflect strong network connections (Logan, 2006); even if assimilation processes are swift (Justino, 2007). Measures of urban concentration/sprawl/dispersion The sociological aspects of ethnic groups´ aggregation behaviors shape morphological and typological patterns of spatial concentration, sprawl or dispersion. Urban sprawl is generally faced as a multidimensional phenomenon with many different dimensions (Ewing et al., 2002; Galster et al., 2001; Torrens and Alberti, 2000). Generalized adopted perspectives to urban/metropolitan sprawl (Frenkel and Ashkenazi, 2008) include measures of growth rates (Hadly, 2000; Jackson, 1985; Weitz, 2000); density (Burton, 2000; Chin, 2002; Churchman, 1999; Galster et al., 2001; Razin and Rosentraub, 2000); spatial geometry (Batty and Kim, 1992; Batty and Longley, 1994; Herold and Menz, 2001; McGarigal and Marks, 1995; Torrens and Alberti, 2000; Turner, 1989); accessibility (Ewing et al, 2002;Torrens and Alberti, 2000); and aesthetic issues (Gordon and Richardson, 1997). In order to render these concepts operational, to integrate them in the analysis, and to develop decision tools, many theoretical and empirical assessments have been pursued in the scope of urban management strategies, policies and actions. A great number of approaches reported in literature seek to measure these concentration/sprawl/dispersion dimensions in land use that exert straight impacts on residential inclusion/segregation. If the chosen indices are easily comparable and widespreadly adopted, then comparison of respective values among different urban areas and along time becomes rather important for policy decisions and respective implementation. A great number of such indices was proposed in the literature in order to measure separately or jointly the following dimensions of land use patterns (Massey and Denton, 1988): (i) unevenness (that refers to the differential distribution of two or more social/ethnic groups among different city areas), (ii) exposure (that refers to the potential degree of contact, or possibility of interaction, between members of the minority and majority groups within a geographical area), (iii) concentration (that refers to the relative amount of physical space occupied by a minority group in the urban environment), (iv) centralization (that translates the spatial proximity to the centre of an urban area) and (v) clustering (that shows whether a unit of area inhabited by minority members is contiguous or spatially grouped in relation to other areas). These dimensions can be considered in absolute terms (in which case they relate to territorial areas); and in relative terms (when values are compared with other population settlement patterns) (Massey and Denton, 1988). More recently, the typology of analysis suggested and empirically applied by Galster et al. (2001) considerers eight dimensions of analysis: (i) density (average number of residential units by square mile of developed and developable land in a certain territorial unit), (ii) continuity of the urban layout (that measures how developable land has been built up in a continuous form), (iii) concentration (that shows how development locates proportionately or disproportionately in a reduced area of urban space, instead of arranging uniformly), (iv) grouping (that represents how buildings group in order to minimize the amount of land per square mile of developable land occupied with residential and non-residential uses), (v) centrality (that points out the degree in which residential or non-residential development locates near the CBD of a given urban area), (vi) nuclearity (that shows how the extension of an urban area is characterized by mononuclear, as opposed to polinuclear, development), (vii) proximity (degree in which different land uses are near one another in a given unit of area), and (viii) mixed uses (extent in which two distinct land uses coexist within the same unit of area). Importance of sociological and physical reasons of urban concentration/sprawl/dispersion to planning policies As relations between residential land use patterns (and their underlying sociological/economic reasons) and measures of urban and metropolitan concentration/sprawl/dispersion enlighten how populations´ features and territorial characteristics interact in settlement decisions, they are thoroughly important for urban planning and management. Immigrants are increasingly important in the social and economic sustainability of developed countries, so different planning systems have been concerned with their attraction, location, distribution and integration, within various institutional and political frameworks (Andersen and Van Kempen, 2003; Ellis, 2001; Garbaye, 2002; Van Marissing et al., 2006). The actions and initiatives of Municipalities are basic to reinforce the identification/conciliation ties between the cultural background of immigrants and the political rules, procedures and values of their destination towns and countries (Garbaye, 2002). Similarly, the economic issues are especially important because globalization trends have provoked deep changes in economic production systems and goals; in mobility patterns; in the spatial imaginary (Larner, 1998); and in inter-community sociability (Gans, 1961; Qadeer, 1997; Rebelo and Paiva, 2006). To respond to immigrants´ needs planning should: (i) build dwellings and appropriate neighborhoods, as well as correspondent infrastructures and equipments, (ii) create jobs to assure a balanced social, economic and territorial development, and (iii) stimulate immigrants´ involvement and participation in the definition and implementation of urban/metropolitan policies (Dekker and Van Kempen, 2004; Musterd and Van Kempen, 2007; Van Marissing et al., 2006). Within this scope, urban planning policies and interventions must be supported by analysis tools that allow: (i) the identification, characterization and monitoring of the location patterns of different groups of immigrants, and respective comparison with native homologous values, (ii) the anticipation of the results of a proactive policy definition of attraction/distribution/settlement of immigrants in order to harmonize socio-economic metropolitan development with the integration of immigrants, and (iii) a better provision of housing, employment, infrastructures and equipments, and the enhancement of immigrants´ participation and citizenship. DISCUSSION OF THE PROCEDURE Methodological outline In order to support public decisions, and to assess and cartographically visualize the specific settlement patterns of each group of immigrants in Porto Metropolitan Area, this article proposes a methodology to confront the diverse forms of land use by different groups of immigrants with the prevailing morphologies and typologies of concentrated/dispersed edification patterns in Porto Metropolitan Area. This methodology develops according to the following steps: 1. Brief description and characterization of Porto Metropolitan Area. 2. Construction of a metropolitan urban management information system (with monitoring functionalities) on: (i) the residential location of the different groups of immigrants, (ii) the residential location of the total population, and (iii) the The computation of the indicators of urban/metropolitan concentration/sprawl/dispersion, for each parish, is as follows: (i) the population density is given by the quotient between resident population and respective parish´ surface (expressed in Km 2 ), (ii) the residential density is given by the quotient between the number of classical familiar accommodation and the area of respective parish (expressed in Km 2 ), (iii) the continuity of the urban layout is reckoned through the quotient between non-isolated buildings and the total number of buildings, (iv) the concentration is computed by the quotient between the total number of buildings and the developed and developable area, and (v) the grouping is given by the quotient between the total number of floors and the developed and developable area (Figure 4). Population Density Habitation Density Concentration Population density 79.3 - 1442.9 1442.9 - 3460.3 3460.3 - 6415.3 6415.3 - 11169.5 11169.5 - 17725.7 Parishes Residential density 0.3 - 299.2 299.2 - 813.8 813.8 - 1751.8 1751.8 - 4065.1 4065.1 - 8111.8 Parishes Concentration 0.2 - 234.3 234.3 - 482.7 482.7 - 839.7 839.7 - 1479.1 1479.1 - 3253.5 Parishes Continuity Grouping Continuity 3.1 - 26.7 26.7 - 52.6 52.6 - 68.9 68.9 - 83.7 83.7 - 99.7 Parishes Grouping 0.4 - 428.7 428.7 - 899.8 899.8 - 1646.3 1646.3 - 4197.7 4197.7 - 10211.8 Parishes FIGURE 4: Territorial distribution in Porto Metropolitan Area of the different indicators of urban concentration/sprawl/dispersion. Development of a set of tools for the analysis, visualization and simulation of settlement patterns The analysis and cartographic tool developed, that proposes the characterization of land use behaviors of the different ethnic groups, consists in crossing the patterns of each immigrant group’s residential distribution and the patterns of current territorial concentration/sprawl/dispersion in Porto Metropolitan Area. The adopted procedure tackles separately the zones where the percentage of immigrants is higher than correspondent indicator’s average value (concentrated), and the ones where it is lower (dispersed). The parishes where the following inequality holds true approximately constitute the concentrated metropolitan zone: Areaan Metropolit Porto wholein theindicator thisof valueaverage ionconcentraturban ofindicator theof value Areaan Metropolit Porto wholein the group this tobelong that immigrants ofnumber Total groupcertain a tobelong that immigrants ofNumber ≥ For each group of immigrants and for each parish, each indicator was then standardized, taking as reference the percentage of correspondent population in total population, given mathematically by: Areaan Metropolit Porto wholein theindicator thisof valueAverage parishin that indicator theof Value Areaan Metropolit Porto wholein the population Total parishin that population Total Areaan Metropolit Porto wholein the group this tobelong that immigrants ofnumber Total parishin that groupcertain a tobelong that immigrants ofNumber Similarly, it can be said each indicator represents, for each parish, the quotient between the percentages of immigrants that belong to a certain group as compared with the value of the indicator, with the percentage of all population as compared with the average value of this indicator in the whole Porto Metropolitan Area. The influence of concentration or dispersion indicators is stressed when their value concerning a certain group of immigrants as compared to correspondent value in total population is higher than one, and the higher the obtained ratio the higher is the influence this indicator exerts on that group of immigrants, in that parish. In order to identify, for each group of immigrants, a pattern of land use behavior, considering current or predicted territorial concentration/sprawl/dispersion indicators, the following five-step methodology of analysis was adopted: (i) elaboration of matrices correspondent to the cartographic treatment that results from inter-crossing the settlement patterns of the different groups of immigrants and the morphological and typological characteristics of the metropolitan territory; (ii) identification of the relevant areas of analysis in the most concentrated and in the most dispersed zones of Porto Metropolitan Area; these areas exhibit specific characteristics so their land use will be studied with more detail; (iii) elaboration of tables to identify the type of presence (high, medium, reduced) and the intensity of residential use (strong, medium, low) in these specific areas; (iv) description of the behavior of each population group in face of the attraction power of each indicator of concentration/dispersion; and (v) proposal of a classification for the settlement patterns by the different population groups in Porto Metropolitan Area, according to the selected vectors of analysis of spatial morphologies and typologies. This succession of methodological steps is the basis for the replication of this kind of analysis in different territorial spaces and for its comparison among spaces and along time. It was additionally developed a visualization and simulation interface that tests the effects that result from a strategically-guided actuation over the values of the chosen indicators on the presence, distribution and intensity of presence of the different immigrant groups. Proposal of urban policies aimed at immigrants´ attraction, location and distribution The developed tools are very useful for planning purposes because they enlighten a better comprehension of settlement behaviors of the different groups of immigrants. They assist in the outline of urban policies and management measures in order to proactively attract immigrants to certain metropolitan zones, where both their academic background and professional skills can be applied in local economic development, assuring, at the same time, their successful integration (namely through provision of good residential and work conditions). RESULTS Two matrixes are first proposed: they result from the inter-crossing of the settlement patterns by different groups of immigrants and the physical morphological and typological metropolitan characteristics, one concerning the zone where the concentration characteristics are relevant (Table 1), and the other concerning the zone where the dispersion characteristics prevail (Table 2). This inter-crossed analysis of residential settlements, through record and comparison of data, has many advantages at different levels, because it allows: (i) the visualization of data concerning the relative distribution of each population group (in the first row of each matrix), and of data concerning the distribution of each indicator (in the first column of each matrix), (ii) the visualization, for each map, of the parishes where the attraction effect of each indicator is effective, (iii) the comparative analysis, within each map, of the relative attraction power of each indicator: lighter parishes show that the attraction power of that indicator over a certain group of immigrants is weaker than its attraction over the total population; whereas medium-color and dark parishes show that the attraction power over that group of immigrants is higher than over total population, (iv) the analysis of differences among the behaviors of different population groups in face of the same indicator (comparative analysis performed in each line), (v) the analysis of differences among the behaviors of the same population group concerning different indicators (comparative analysis performed in each column), (vi) the comparison among population groups and among concentration/sprawl/dispersion indicators because scales are normalized, (vii) the appraisal of densities of land occupation by each immigrant group, through the analysis of upper and lower scale’s limits and, finally, (viii) the analysis of the spreading patterns of land use: whether land use has an epicenter and adjacent land is occupied as an oil spot or if land occupation densities are punctual but fragmented. TABLE 1: Matrix of urban concentration W. and N. E. U. countries 0.5 - 1 1.1 - 1.6 Parishes Brazil 0.3 - 1 1.1 - 1.4 Parishes African countries 0.3 - 0.8 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0.4 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 2.3 Parishes Venezuela 0.5 - 1 1 - 2 2.1 - 6.4 Parishes South Africa 0.6 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 2.2 Parishes N.and W. E. U. countries 0.3 - 1 1.1 Parishes Brazil 0.3 - 1 1.1 - 1.4 Parishes African countries 0.3 - 1 1.1 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0.4 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 2.6 Parishes Venezuela 0.5 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 7.9 Parishes South Africa 0.3 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 3.8 Parishes Brazil 0 - 1 1.1 - 2.4 Parishes African countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 1.6 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0.3 - 1 1.1 - 2.9 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 5 5.1 - 7.2 Parishes South Africa 0.4 - 1 1.1 - 3.4 Parishes W. and N. E. U. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 1.5 Parishes Population density 79.3 - 1442.9 1442.9 - 3460.3 3460.3 - 6415.3 6415.3 - 11169.5 11169.5 - 17725.7 Parishes Residential density 0.3 - 299.2 299.2 - 813.8 813.8 - 1751.8 1751.8 - 4065.1 4065.1 - 8111.8 Parishes Concentration 0.2 - 234.3 234.3 - 482.7 482.7 - 839.7 839.7 - 1479.1 1479.1 - 3253.5 Parishes W. and N. E. U. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 3.3 Parishes Brazil 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 9.3 Parishes African countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.1 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 7.8 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 6.8 Parishes South Africa 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.8 Parishes Grouping Indicator 0.4 - 428.7 428.7 - 899.8 899.8 - 1646.3 1646.3 - 4197.7 4197.7 - 10211.8 W. and N. E. U. countries 0.6 - 1 1.1 - 1.9 Parishes Brazil 0.6 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 2.5 Parishes African countries 0.7 - 1 1.1 - 1.9 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0.4 - 1 1 - 1.6 1.6 - 2.7 Parishes Venezuela 0.6 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 4.9 Parishes South Africa 0.5 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 4.7 Parishes N. and W. E. U. countries 0.3 - 0.7 Parishes Brazil 0.3 - 1 1.1 - 2 Parishes African countries 0.3 - 1 1.1 - 1.3 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0.3 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 2.6 Parishes Venezuela 0.6 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 7.2 Parishes South Africa 0.4 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 2.8 Parishes Continuity 3.1 - 26.7 26.7 - 52.6 52.6 - 68.9 68.9 - 83.7 83.7 - 99.7 Parishes Grouping 0.4 - 428.7 428.7 - 899.8 899.8 - 1646.3 1646.3 - 4197.7 4197.7 - 10211.8 Parishes W. and N. E. U. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 3.3 Parishes Brazil 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 9.3 Parishes African countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.1 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 7.8 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 6.8 Parishes South Africa 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.8 Parishes The same analysis was performed for the more dispersed zone in the metropolitan area (Table 2): TABLE 2: Matrix of urban dispersion W. and N. E. U. countries 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 34.1 Parishes Brazil 1.3 - 2 2.1 - 4.5 Parishes African countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 1.9 Parishes Eastern E. countries 1.5 - 2 2.1 - 61.4 Parishes Venezuela dens pop - 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 26.8 Parishes South Africa 1.3 - 2 2.1 - 16.6 Parishes N. and W. E. U. countries 1.3 - 2 2.1 - 34.3 Parishes Brazil 0.8 - 1 1.1 - 1.3 Parishes African countries 1.1 - 1.9 Parishes Eastern E. countries 1.5 - 2 2.1 - 75.3 Parishes Venezuela 1.2 - 2 2.1 - 33.3 Parishes South Africa 1.3 - 2 2.1 - 18.6 Parishes W. and N. E. U. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 5 5.1 - 22.9 Parishes Brazil 1.2 - 2 2.1 - 3.2 Parishes South Africa 0 - 1.1 1.3 - 5 5.1 - 12.5 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 5 5.1 - 44 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 5 5.1 - 24.1 Parishes South Africa 0 - 1.1 1.3 - 5 5.1 - 12.5 Parishes Population density 79.3 - 1442.9 1442.9 - 3460.3 3460.3 - 6415.3 6415.3 - 11169.5 11169.5 - 17725.7 Parishes Residential density 0.3 - 299.2 299.2 - 813.8 813.8 - 1751.8 1751.8 - 4065.1 4065.1 - 8111.8 Parishes Concentration 0.2 - 234.3 234.3 - 482.7 482.7 - 839.7 839.7 - 1479.1 1479.1 - 3253.5 Parishes W. and N. E. U. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 3.3 Parishes Brazil 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 9.3 Parishes African countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.1 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 7.8 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 6.8 Parishes South Africa 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.8 Parishes W. and N. E. U. countries 0.8 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 65.6 Parishes Brazil 0 - 1 1.1 - 1.4 Parishes African countries 0.8 - 1 1.1 - 1.6 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0.6 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 37.1 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 42.4 Parishes South Africa 0.5 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 22.1 Parishes Brazil 0 - 1 1.1 - 1.6 Parishes African countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 2.3 Parishes Eastern E. countries 1.5 - 2 2.1 - 49.4 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 34.8 Parishes South Africa 0 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 15.9 Parishes Continuity 3.1 - 26.7 26.7 - 52.6 52.6 - 68.9 68.9 - 83.7 83.7 - 99.7 Parishes Grouping 0.4 - 428.7 428.7 - 899.8 899.8 - 1646.3 1646.3 - 4197.7 4197.7 - 10211.8 Parishes W. and N. E. U. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 3.3 Parishes Brazil 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 9.3 Parishes African countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.1 Parishes Eastern E. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 7.8 Parishes Venezuela 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 6.8 Parishes South Africa 0 - 1 1.1 - 3 3.1 - 5.8 Parishes N. and W. E. U. countries 0 - 1 1.1 - 2 2.1 - 24.1 Parishes Póvoa´s outside ring Medium presence Very strong intensity Not present Not present Medium fragmented Very strong intensity Not present Low presence Very strong intensity Grouping Main outside ring Ring High presence Very strong and medium intensity Reduced presence Medium intensity Medium presence Low medium and strong intensity Medium fragmented presence Very strong intensity Not present Not present Maia/Valo ngo pole Not present Not present Not present Not present High presence Very strong and medium intensity High presence Very strong intensity Gaia/Espinho pole Not present Not present Not present Not present High presence Very strong and medium intensity High presence Very strong and medium intensity Póvoa´s outside ring Medium presence Very strong intensity Not present Not present Medium fragmented presence Very strong intensity Not present Low presence Very strong intensity Once identified these patterns of land use, the behavior of each population group is described in face of their preferred location and of the attraction power that urban concentration/sprawl/dispersion factors exert on it. The type of presence and respective intensity (displayed in tables 3 and 4) are condensed and systematized in table 5 using a simplified notation. This table assembles all the specific areas under analysis, either within the most concentrated or within the most dispersed metropolitan zones. According to this notation the type of presence is first is pinpointed, and then, respective intensity of presence is presented in brackets. The presence of a certain indicator in a determinate group of immigrants may be: (i) high (+), (ii) medium (+/-), (iii) reduced (- ), or (iv) it may not be present (0). As far as intensity of presence is concerned, the following situations may occur: (i) very strong intensity (++), (ii) strong intensity (+), (iii) medium intensity (+/-) or (iv) low intensity (-). Taking the previous example once again, the high presence of the indicator of concentration is figured by the sign +, whereas the low/medium intensity is represented by (- +/-) notation. After the characterization of each indicator of concentration/sprawl/dispersion in each relevant area of analysis and for each immigrant group is performed, next a brief description of correspondent settlement patterns is outlined. In the first line is pointed out the zone (concentrated or dispersed) where the presence of this indicator is prevailing, and then are highlighted the specific areas where intensity of presence is remarkable or not much important. TABLE 5: Notation and description of each population group’s behavior in face of the urban concentration/dispersion indicators Immigrants from Western and Northern European Union countries Immigrants from Brazil Immigrants from African countries with Portuguese official language Immigrants from Eastern European countries Immigrants from Venezuela Immigrants from South Africa Populacion Density Metropolitan core - (-) + (-) + (-) - (-) 0 0 Suburban ring - (-) + (-) + (-) +/- (- +/- +) - (- +/-) - (- +/- +) Póvoa´s core +/- (+/- -) - (-) - (-) 0 0 - (- +/-) Outside ring + (+/- +) - (+/- +) +/- (- +/-) +/- (++) + (+/- ++) Maia/Valongo pole + (+/- ++) Gaia/Espinho pole + (+/- ++) Póvoa´s outside ring + (++) 0 0 +/- (++) 0 +/- (++) Immigrants´ patterns of territorial population density Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring -Medium/ high intensity in outside metropolitan ring Concentrated area -Low intensity in the metropolitan core -Low intensity in suburban ring Concentrated area -Low intensity in the metropolitan core -Low intensity in suburban ring Extends into metropolitan outside ring Fragmented -Variable intensity in suburban ring -Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole -Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole Dispersed area -Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring Residential Density Metropolitan core - (-) + (-) + (-) - (-) 0 0 Suburban ring - (- +/-) + (- +/-) + (- +/-) +/- (+/- +) +/- (- +/- +) + (- +/- +) Póvoa´s core - ( -) 0 0 0 0 0 Outside ring + (+/- +) - (- +) +/- (+/-) +/- (++) + (+/- ++) Maia/Valongo pole + (+/- ++) Gaia/Espinho pole + (+/- ++) Póvoa´s outside ring + (++) 0 0 +/- (++) 0 +/- (++) Immigrants´ patterns of territorial residential Density Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring -Medium/ High intensity in outside metropolitan ring Concentrated area -Low intensity in the metropolitan core -Low/medium intensity in suburban ring Concentrated area -Low intensity in the metropolitan core -Low/medium intensity in suburban ring Extends into metropolitan outside ring Fragmented -Variable intensity in suburban ring - Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole -Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole Dispersed area -Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring Concentration Metropolitan core +/- (-) + (- +/-) + (-) +/- (-) 0 0 Suburban ring - (-) +/- (- +/-) +/- (- +/-) +/- (+/- ) - (- +/- +) - (- +/-) Póvoa´s core +/- (- +/-) - (- ) +/- (- ) 0 0 +/- (- +/-) Outside ring + (+/- +) - (-) +/- (- +/-) +/- (- +/- ++) Maia/Valongo pole 0 0 0 0 + (+/- ++) + (+/- ++) Gaia/Espinho pole 0 0 0 0 + (+/- ++) + (+/- ++) Póvoa´s outside ring + (++) 0 0 +/- (++) 0 - (+/- ++) Immigrants´ patterns of territorial concentration Dispersed area - Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring –- Variable intensity in Póvoa´s core – Variable intensity in Concentrated area -Low and medium intensity in the metropolitan core - Low and medium intensity in suburban ring Concentrated/ Dispersed area -Variable intensity in suburban ring -Variable intensity in main outside metropolitan ring Fragmented - Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring Dispersed area - Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole - Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole -Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole -Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring Póvoa´s outside ring Continuity of the urban layout Metropolitan core ++ (- +/-) ++ (- +/- +) ++ (- +/-) + (- +/- +) - (-) +/- (+/-) Suburban ring +/- (-) - (-) - (- +/-) - (+/- +) - (+/- +) - (- +/- +) Póvoa´s core + (+/-) + (- +/-) +/- (- +/-) 0 - (-) + (- +/-) Outside ring +/- (- +/-) +/- (- +/-) +/- (- +/-) +/- (+/- ++) Maia/Valongo pole +/- (+/- ++) +/- (+/- ++) Gaia/Espinho pole + (+/- ++) + (+/- ++) Póvoa´s outside ring +/- (++) 0 0 +/- (++) 0 - (++) Immigrants´ patterns of territorial continuity of the urban layout Concentrated area - Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring - Medium/ Strong intensity in metropolitan core - Medium/ High intensity in Póvoa´s core Concentrated area - Low/medium intensity in metropolitan core - Low/medium intensity in Póvoa´s core Extends into metropolitan outside ring Concentrated area -Variable intensity in metropolitan core -Low/medium intensity in Póvoa´s core - Low/medium intensity in main metropolitan outside ring Extends into metropolitan outside ring Fragmented -Variable intensity in metropolitan core -Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole -Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole -Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole Grouping Metropolitan core +/- (-) + (-) + (-) +/- (-) 0 0 Suburban ring - (-) - (- +/-) - (- +/-) - (- +/- +) - (- +/- +) - (- +/- +) Póvoa´s core - ( -) 0 0 0 0 - (-) Outside ring + (+/- ++) - (+/-) +/- (- +/- +) +/- (++) Maia/Valongo pole + (+/- ++) + (++) Gaia/Espinho pole + (+/- ++) + (+/- ++) Póvoa´s outside ring +/- (++) 0 0 +/- (++) 0 - (++) Immigrants´ patterns of territorial grouping Dispersed area - Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring -Medium/ high intensity in outside metropolitan ring Concentrated area -Low intensity in the metropolitan core Concentrated area -Low intensity in the metropolitan core -Variable intensity in main outside metropolitan ring Fragmented -Low intensity in the metropolitan core - Very high intensity in main outside metropolitan ring -Very high intensity in Póvoa´s outside ring Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole -Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole Dispersed area -Very high intensity in Maia/Valongo pole -Very high intensity in Gaia/Espinho pole Finally a classification is proposed for land occupation patterns by the different population groups in Porto Metropolitan Area. It is summed up in Table 6: TABLE 6: Proposed classification of land occupation patterns by the different population groups in Porto Metropolitan Area Immigrants from Western and Northern European Union countries Immigrants from Brazil Immigrants from African countries with Portuguese official language Immigrants from Eastern European countries Immigrants from Venezuela Immigrants from South Africa Population Density Concentrated in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated in the core and suburban metropolitan area Concentrated in the core, suburban and adjacent zones of the metropolitan area Fragmented in suburban and outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated bipolarized in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Residential Density Concentrated in dispersed outside of the metropolitan area Concentrated in the core and suburban zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated in the core, suburban and adjacent zones of the metropolitan area Fragmented in suburban and outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated bipolarized in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentration Concentrated in dispersed Póvoa´s outside ring, Póvoa´s core and metropolitan outside ring Concentrated in the core and suburban ring of the metropolitan area Concentrated/ dispersed in suburban and metropolitan ring’s areas Fragmented in metropolitan’s outside ring and Póvoa´s outside ring Concentrated bipolarized in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated bipolarized in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Continuity of the urban layout Concentrated in outside Póvoa and metropolitan area’s cores Concentrated in metropolitan’s and Póvoa´s core Concentrated in the core, suburban and adjacent zones of the metropolitan area Fragmented in the core, suburban and outside zones of the metropolitan area and outside zones of Póvoa Concentrated in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Grouping Concentrated in dispersed outside metropolitan ring and Póvoa´s outside ring Concentrated in the core of the metropolitan area Concentrated in the core and expanding towards the outside ring of the metropolitan area Fragmented in outside metropolitan ring and Póvoa´s outside ring Concentrated bipolarized in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area Concentrated bipolarized in dispersed outside zones of the metropolitan area The application of the proposed methodological approach to the case study in Porto Metropolitan Area point out that: (i) All the population groups exhibit concentration behaviors in land use, but they do not necessarily occupy the most concentrated areas defined by the urban and metropolitan morphological and typological characteristics. (ii) The population groups whose urban behavior better adjusts to current concentration land use patterns in Porto Metropolitan Area are Brazilians and immigrants from African countries with Portuguese official language. (iii) Brazilians mainly concentrate in the metropolitan core and in the suburban ring in what concerns population density, residential density and concentration. As far as continuity of the built layout is concerned, they also undergo its influence beyond the metropolitan nucleus and Póvoa´s nucleus. The greater influence of the total number of floors (grouping measure) is felt within the metropolitan nucleus. (iv) Immigrants from African countries with Portuguese official language also undergo the influence of all concentration indicators in the metropolitan nucleus and suburban ring, and this effect also extends into parishes that belong to the main outside metropolitan ring that are adjacent to the suburban area. The influence of the total number of buildings (concentration measure) is more notorious in the suburban and metropolitan ring. (v) Immigrants from Eastern European countries exhibit a fragmented behavior in terms of location throughout the whole metropolitan territory, reaching very high land occupation intensities in detached and dispersed parishes. Thus the influence of population and residential densities is particularly effective in suburban and principal outside metropolitan rings, whereas the total number of buildings (concentration measure) and total number of floors (grouping measure) especially manifest in the main metropolitan outside ring and Póvoa´s ring, and the number of non-isolated buildings in relation to total buildings (measure of continuity of the urban layout) turns up in the whole metropolitan zone and respective environment, as well as in Póvoa´s external ring. (vi) Immigrants from Venezuela and South Africa assume a strongly urban concentration and bipolarized behavior, clearly distinct from dominant trends of concentrated land use in metropolitan and Póvoa´s center. They reproduce highly concentrated behaviors in more dispersed zones of Porto Metropolitan Area. (vii) Immigrants from Venezuela experience the strongly polarized influence of all urban concentration indicators in the poles of Maia/Valongo and Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho Municipalities. They settle in a highly dense way in these poles and adjacent areas and in the main outside metropolitan ring, and eventually reach some parishes of the suburban ring. (viii) In what concerns immigrants from South Africa, they manifest the same kind of bipolarized behavior in the poles of Valongo/Maia (that extends to Matosinhos and Vila do Conde Municipalities), and Vila Nova de Gaia/Espinho Municipalities, densely holding the main outside ring of the metropolitan area. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS In this final section of the article will be presented some reflections on: (i) how settlement patterns of the different groups of immigrants are assessed by the proposed methodology, (ii) the sociological reasons that explain the concentration/dispersion patterns of the different groups of immigrants, and how they are spatially shaped in Porto Metropolitan Area, and (iii) the importance of the analyzed issues to territorial planners and decision-makers, in order to delineate and render urban policies operational, namely in what refers to: (a) the identification of the location trends and patterns of the different groups of immigrants and (b) the improvement in housing and employment provision conditions, thus fostering social, economic and cultural involvement and participation of immigrants to better integrate them. In the research reported in this article was settled a spatial analysis, display and simulation methodology in order to identify and typify immigrants´ patterns of land residential use prevailing in a metropolitan area according to its morphological and typological territorial concentration/sprawl/dispersion characteristics. This methodology allows the identification of the extent of the attraction power exerted by each indicator on each ethnic group, in relation to total population. Additionally, it allows the inspection of land use densities (Galster et al., 2001), centrality (Galster et al, 2001) and spatial contiguity (unevenness according to Massey and Denton, 1988, and proximity according to Galster et al., 2001) in the metropolitan settlements of each group. Thus, the methodology provides measures to monitor immigrants´ effective integration, and can be replicated and extended in order to analyze and typify immigrants´ settlement behaviors in other urban/metropolitan contexts. This research launches theoretical and empirical reflections about the interrelation between the spatial differentiation due to the characteristics of the urban economies, the performance of the housing markets, the socio-economic mobility, the acculturation/integration processes and the cultural/ethnic characteristics of population groups. They jointly create a network of residential, social, economic and professional inter-relations that strongly condition location settlement’s choices. These location choices, by their turn, interact and also exert important influence on people’s socialeconomic-professional networks. In Northern American metropolitan regions substantial segregation exists among different groups of immigrants, especially in what concerns black, Asian and Hispanic in comparison with white ones (Logan et al., 1996), thus they withdraw from metropolitan centers, and settle tied up communities in more sprawled and dispersed areas, where they live close together. This ethnic behavior may exert different impacts on assimilation processes. But the south European cities exhibit, in general, low levels of socio-spatial segregation, associated with more complex patterns of housing distribution, and higher levels of peripherization and suburbanization (Arbaci, 2008). The current research confirms these settlement characteristics in Porto metropolitan area. However, the integration of Portuguese-speaking immigrant communities have been much easier than correspondent assimilation by other immigrant communities, similarly to what happened in many European countries (Logan, 2006; Madoré, 2005), what is reinforced by the obtained cartographic results. According to them, it can be concluded that immigrants from African countries with Portuguese official language and from Brazil take advantage from their greater proximity to Portuguese culture, habits and customs. Their settlements almost replicate native-homologous ones – concentrated in the metropolitan centre and urban centers, and expanded throughout the whole suburban area. This way they are more exposed to natives´ influence, thus to better opportunities, jobs, and higher social and professional attainment levels. Immigrants from Western and Northern European Union countries have also undergone successful integration processes, because they also share a large amount of European culture, historic heritage and living conditions with Portuguese people, despite their preferences for fringe areas with better environmental quality. As far as immigrants from Latino-American countries and South Africa are concerned, they rather choose living in concentrated settlements in the outside suburban area, where they tie together and exhibit lesser exposure to native people. They indeed express lower levels of socioeconomic mobility, and face higher hindrances to their assimilation processes. In what respects immigrants from Eastern European countries, they initially face greater difficulties due to a rather different language and customs, what is reinforced by a strong isolation tendency, translated through territorial scattering and dispersion. Despite they detain the same levels of academic backgrounds and professional skills as other immigrant groups, their behavior restrict their own access to infrastructures, equipments and social/professional urban networks, thus their assimilation processes are much longer and complex. The reasons underlying the settlement patterns of the different groups of immigrants, as well as how they are spatially shaped, are particularly important for planners and politicians. That is why the methodology exposed in this article allows the cartographic prompt identification of their location trends and respective characteristics, and settles as an integrated set of decision-support tools. The interventions on concentration/dispersion indicators – made in the simulation interface - may be induced by territorial plans and other planning ordinances or by management measures, and translate, namely, through changes in the number of buildings, in the number of floors, and/or in the percentage of non-isolated buildings as compared to its total number. This methodology, thus, allows (i) the definition of proactive planning strategies of attraction, location and distribution of migratory flows and (ii) the implementation of measures that may change the current patterns of concentrated/dispersed morphological and typological land uses in certain areas, and (iii) the identification of respective effects on immigrants´ settlements. Consequently, municipal powers will be guided to take the appropriate decisions in order to (i) provide the best affordable residential and employment conditions to those immigrants, and (ii) stimulate their socio, economic and cultural involvement, according to their characteristics and preferred neighborhoods. Besides, new trends in each population territorial distribution and/or in concentration/sprawl/dispersion territorial characteristics may continuously be displayed using the exposed methodology, and planning adjusted to fit updated territorial and ethnic features whenever they turn up. The practical implications of this article in the progression of research manifest, mainly, (i) in the concrete ways of rendering operational joint policies of territorial socio-economic development and immigrants´ integration, and (ii) in the development Wilson WJ (1996) When Work Disappears: The World of the New Urban Poor . New York: Knopt.