Key findings

  • Connections of super-diverse neighbourhoods to other places and the availability of particular services were influential in shaping individuals decisions to move in and stay. Family was also important, although it may not be as important in super-diverse neighbourhoods as ethnic neighbourhoods.
  • Individuals’ resources and dispositions strongly underpin residential mobility decisions. For some minority ethnic groups, the availability of cultural and religious facilities were important in shaping reasons to move in and stay.
  • An increase in individuals’ own resources, coupled with the presence of family elsewhere; the presence of shared identities elsewhere, congestion and overcrowding and the perceived attractiveness of other areas were identified as key reasons to leave.
  • Many Eastern European migrants – and who are relatively ‘invisible’ - settled in super-diverse neighbourhoods once they became accustomed to visible difference. They were also attracted by the visible diversity of super-diverse neighbourhoods due to issues of discrimination by the majority white community in other parts of the city and due to intra-migrant tensions with others in Eastern European ‘enclaves’ beyond the area.
  • Whilst diversity was increasingly common, it was not necessarily leading to conviviality or integration.
  • Language was cited as a key barrier to integration and networking.
  • The continuing predominance of particular ethnic groups was noted as undermining conviviality. ‘Anchor points’ for conviviality were absent or limited to specific ethnic/faith groups.
  • ‘Brexit’ had not impinged on issues of conviviality or discrimination, or on mobility intentions except for those considering longer-term (international) migration.
  • Individuals identified that they had multiple forms of place belonging - to the home, followed by family, the neighbourhood and different ‘communities of interest’.
  • Discrimination around ‘newness’ undermined belonging for some.
  • Established areas of super-diversity are more likely to provide a number of key activity spaces for local residents compared to areas of emergent super-diversity.
  • Work and social relations, combined with the presence/absence of particular services or facilities shaped individuals’ activity spaces towards the neighbourhood or city.