




































AUSTRALIAN POPULATION STUDIES  2019 | Volume 3 | Issue 2 | pages 41-44 

 

© Arringer, Sigler and Charles-Edwards 2019. Published under the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial licence 
3.0 Australia (CC BY-NC 3.0 AU). Journal website: www.australianpopulationstudies.org 

Residential concentration patterns 
of immigrant groups in Australia’s 
major cities 

Renee Arringer*  The University of Queensland 

Thomas Sigler  The University of Queensland 

Elin Charles-Edwards  The University of Queensland 

 

* Corresponding author. Email: renee.arringer@uqconnect.edu.au. Address: School of Earth and 

Environmental Sciences, Chamberlain Building, The University of Queensland, St Lucia 4072, 

Queensland, Australia 

Paper received 7 September 2019; accepted 17 October 2019; published 18 November 2019 

 

Immigration is a global process that stems from a range of personal motivations including the 

prospect of higher income, better access to education and health, and improved living conditions 

(UNDP 2009). This is reflected in Australia’s migrant profile where, as of the 2016 Census, almost half 

of the population were either born overseas or had at least one parent born overseas (ABS 2017a). 

Ethnic diversity is continuously rising in Australia; however, migrants remain overwhelmingly 

concentrated in the major Australian cities of Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and Perth. This 

concentration extends to the suburb scale, as specific neighbourhoods are home to large numbers of 

co-ethnic communities. An extensive literature (e.g. Burnley 2005; Edgar 2014; Forrest and Sheshkin 

2015; Portes and Zhou 1993) indicates that concentration can be involuntary (e.g. ghetto formation) 

or voluntary, where community members benefit from proximity to others speaking their language 

or sharing their cultural and social values. 

This DemoGraphic shows the changing residential concentration of the largest immigrant groups in 

Australia’s four most populous cities between 2006 and 2016. It includes both migrants settled in 

Australia and those who immigrated during the five years prior to the 2006, 2011, and 2016 

censuses. The immigrant groups were selected as those comprising Australia’s ten largest migrant 

stocks in 2016 (concerned with the birthplace of current immigrants living in Australia) and those 

with the ten largest migrant flows in 2016 (the number of immigrants entering Australia). Stocks 

were based on ABS estimated resident populations by country of birth in 2016 (ABS 2017b) and flows 

were based on data from the Department of Home Affairs (Department of Home Affairs 2018). When 

combined, these yielded a total of 13 selected countries of birth: China, England, India, Ireland, Italy, 

Malaysia, Nepal, New Zealand, Pakistan, Philippines, Scotland, South Africa, and Vietnam. 

Country of birth data were extracted from the 2006, 2011, and 2016 censuses based on a 

harmonised geography and extracted by Statistical Areas Level 2 (SA2) for each Greater Capital City 

Statistical Area (GCCSA). These data were used to calculate the Index of Dissimilarity for each 

D
e

m
o

G
ra

p
h

ic
 

 

http://www.australianpopulationstudies.org/
mailto:renee.arringer@uqconnect.edu.au


42 Arringer, Sigler & Charles-Edwards  Australian Population Studies 3 (2) 2019 

 

immigrant group in comparison to the Australian-born population. The Index of Dissimilarity is 

defined as: 

𝐼𝐷 =  
1

2
 ∑ |𝑥𝑖 −  𝑦𝑖|

𝑖
 

where 𝑥 is the percentage of Australian-born population in category 𝑖 (SA2) and 𝑦 is the percentage 

of immigrant-group population in category 𝑖 (SA2). Values close to zero indicate that little 

dissimilarity exists while high values denote high levels of dissimilarity. Plotting dissimilarity against 

the absolute population of each group reveals the progression of residential concentrations between 

groups  

The DemoGraphic in Figure 1 represents the progression of each immigrant group’s residential 

concentration as a series of plotted lines. The colour of each line represents the immigrant group, 

and the shape of the first data point represents the city (circle = Brisbane; triangle = Melbourne; 

diamond = Perth; square = Sydney). The arrows signal the directionality of absolute population 

change for each group, as well as the degree of relative concentration, as measured by the Index of 

Dissimilarity. All groups, except for Italy-born and the Scotland-born (Melbourne and Sydney) grew 

between the 2006 and 2016 Census. Over this same period, most groups became more dissimilar, 

with only the Italy-born (Brisbane and Sydney); South Africa-born (Brisbane and Melbourne), 

Vietnam-born (Brisbane, Perth and Sydney) and Nepal-born (Brisbane), becoming less concentrated. 

The latter reflects rapid population growth from a low base. From Figure 1, it appears that  

immigrant groups disperse into two modes of settlement, with one converging towards dissimilarity 

of around 10-20 (England, Ireland, New Zealand, Scotland, and South Africa) and the other 

converging towards dissimilarity of around 50 (China, India, Malaysia, Nepal, Pakistan, Philippines, 

and Vietnam). Italian immigrant groups depart from this trend, fluctuating between dissimilarities of 

30 and 40 for all cities, with group size remaining stagnant or decreasing. For groups converging 

around dissimilarity of 10-20, there is an observable increase in dissimilarity over the three Census 

years as group size increases (excluding Scotland). Groups located in Sydney, Melbourne, and Perth 

increase in dissimilarity as they increase in size until 2011. After this point they continue to increase 

in size, but their dissimilarity decreases. Brisbane is an exception to this pattern, with the majority of 

groups maintaining a steady directionality. The results show that with the exception of very small 

groups (e.g. Nepal-born in Perth, Vietnam-born in Brisbane and Perth), the residential patterns of the 

largest non-Australian born groups are becoming more dissimilar over time. 

When other research is consulted (Burnley 2005; Edgar 2014; Forrest and Dandy 2018), these results 

suggest that factors surrounding ethnicity – particularly English language proficiency – can influence 

the level of segregation experienced by immigrant groups in Australia. It also suggests immigrant 

groups will not necessarily become completely ‘assimilated’ into Australian society (i.e. dissimilarity = 

0) after a certain period, as shown by early-immigrant groups such as those born in Italy. As the 

DemoGraphic shows, dissimilarity can increase as group size grows, suggesting that group size may 

be one variable affecting co-ethnic residential preference. 

The results presented suggest the need for new models of urban residential settlement to better 

reflect Australia’s ever-changing immigration profile. Understanding how group-level characteristics 



Australian Population Studies 3 (2) 2019  Arringer, Sigler & Charles-Edwards 43 

 

(such as size) determine residential concentration is critical as Australian cities become increasingly 

diverse in numbers and origins of immigrant groups. 

 

Figure 1: Residential concentration patterns of the largest immigrant groups in Australia’s major cities,    

2006-16 

Source: Australian Bureau of Statistics 2006, 2011, and 2016 census data 

Notes: ‘Dissimilarity’ values represent the index of dissimilarity for each immigrant group. ‘Group Size’ is the total 

populations of immigrant groups represented on a logarithmic scale. Country abbreviations: China (CHN), England (ENG), 

India (IND), Ireland (IRL), Italy (ITA), Malaysia (MYS), Nepal (NPL), New Zealand (NZL), Pakistan (PAK), Philippines (PHL), 

Scotland (SCT), South Africa (ZAF), Vietnam (VNM). The letter preceding the country abbreviation corresponds to Brisbane 

(B), Melbourne (M), Perth (P), or Sydney (S). 

References 

ABS (2017a) Census of Population and Housing: Australia Revealed, 2016. Catalogue No. 2024.0. Canberra: 

ABS. 

ABS (2017b) Migration, Australia, 2015-16. Catalogue No. 3412.0. Canberra: ABS. 

Alba R D and Nee V (2003) Remaking the American Mainstream: Assimilation and Contemporary 

Immigration. Cambridge: Harvard University Press. 

Burnley I (2005) Generations, Mobility and Community: Geographies of Three Generations of Greek and 

Italian Ancestry in Sydney. Geographical Research 29(4): 379-392. 



44 Arringer, Sigler & Charles-Edwards  Australian Population Studies 3 (2) 2019 

 

Department of Home Affairs (2018) Country Profiles. Canberra: Australian Government. 

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/country-profiles/profiles. 

Accessed 21 February 2018. 

Edgar B (2014) An intergenerational model of spatial assimilation in Sydney and Melbourne, Australia. 

Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies 40(3): 363-383. 

Forrest J and Dandy J (2018) Proficiency in English, linguistic shift and ethnic capital: an intergenerational 

analysis of non-English speaking background immigrant groups in Sydney, Australia. Journal of 

Multilingual and Multicultural Development 39(2): 111-123. 

Forrest J and Sheshkin I (2015) Strands of Diaspora: The resettlement experience of Jewish immigrants to 

Australia. Journal of International Migration and Integration 16(4): 911-927. 

Portes A and Zhou M (1993) The new second generation: segmented assimilation and its variants. The 

Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 530: 74-96. 

UNDP (2009) Human Development Report 2009: Overcoming barriers: Human mobility and development. 

New York: UNDP. 

 

https://www.homeaffairs.gov.au/research-and-statistics/statistics/country-profiles/profiles

