GeoJournal 51: 329–338, 2001.© 2001 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.329Whose neighbourhood is it? Ethnic diversity in urban spaces in GermanyHeike HanhörsterInstitutfuerLandes-undStadtentwicklungsforschungdesLandesNRW(ILS)(InstituteforRegionalandUrbanDevelopmentoftheFederalStateofNorthRhine-Westphalia),DeutscheStrasse5, 44339Dortmund,Germany(Tel: +49(0)231/9051-247;e-mail: heike.hanhoerster@web.de)Received 5 September 2000; accepted in revised form 10 May 2001Key words: ethnic segregation, polarisation, housing neighbourhoodAbstractThis article focuses on the reciprocal effects that exist between the physical environmentand the social interactions betweenethno-cultural groups in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. Biographical narrative interviews and mental map analyses werecarried out with German and Turkish residents in two disadvantaged neighbourhoods in Germany to define the resident’sown experience of their physical surroundings.The findings of the research verify that the changes in the environment were not only physical and structural changes:theyalsoledtochangingidentitieshavingasymbolicmeaningfortheestablishedGermanresidents.As theTurkishresidentswork to create a sense of identity, the established residents view these changes more as a threat than as an enrichment. Theydo not so much feel threatened by the cultural differences between the groups, but they sense that their own ‘old-time’German socio-cultural position could be affected by the establishment of Turkisch residences and institutions in ‘their’neighbourhood. The empirical research revealed differences in the ethno-cultural perceptions between Duisburgh-Marxlohwhere there is a pronounced small-scale segregation between the groups, whereas there is a small-scale mix of differentethnic groups even at the block level in the other area investigated in Wuppertal-Osterbaum. Although both areas have ahigh percentage of ethnic minorities the small-scale mix in Wuppertal-Ostersbaum seems to have prevented a polarisationin the population.IntroductionUrban space and socio-spatial inequalities had no explicit,significant influence on socio-ecological and economic re-search and policies in Germany until the 1990s. (A criticalviewpoint can be found in: Dangschat, 1997). Earlier re-search on the social experience of urban spaces focusedmainly on the aesthetic elements of the neighbourhoods(compare Lynch, 1965). In recent years, the interdependen-cies between spatial and social processes have become moreand more significant to social scientists studying integra-tion. However, as early as the 1980s, Bourdieu presenteda model of social inequality with his definition of ‘socialspace’ (Bourdieu, 1983). Since then, the term ‘social mi-lieu’ has experienced a renaissance among social scientists(compare Hradil, 1987). Researchers are increasingly ac-knowledging the fact that segregation also acts as a motorthat drives social inequality. This new view of segregationhad a major influence on more recent spatial models. Thesemodels are no longer considered to be complete unless theyinclude a description of the social forces that change andform urban spaces. (compare Ipsen, 1997; Läpple, 1991).Housing shortages and the resulting competition for thescarce resource of affordable housing have had a strong in-fluence on the correlation between immigrant housing andlow-quality housing types and locations in German cities.This socio-spatial ethnic segregation is a highly controver-sial subject in Germany (compare Dangschat, 1994; Esser,1998; Krummacher and Waltz, 1996) 1 .In the 1970s, German Social Ecologists based their the-ories on those of the Chicago School and other AmericanUrban Sociologists. Only temporary spatial concentrationsofethnicgroupswerebelievedtopromoteintegration.Whenresearchers began using a politico-economic approach toanalyse the effects of segregation, a macro-theoretical view-point entered the field: ethnic segregation was then seen tohave both positive (interactionin daily life, cultural identity)and negative (process of increased isolation, closed groupswith little contact to the rest of society) side effects. Siebel(1997) maintains that the question of what to do about seg-regation can only be answered after its causes have beenanalysed. If it is not voluntary,for example, if it is caused bya lack of choices due to discrimination on the housing mar-ket, then it is necessary to take political and administrativemeasures against it. Dangschat and Alisch (1994) come tothe conclusion that residential segregation among membersof lowerincomegroupscanhavepositive effects. But, that isonly true if the residents also have the potential to positivelyinfluence the neighbourhood, i.e., by helping to improvethe urban fabric and infrastructure (stores, buildings, parks,open spaces) and bringing in social and cultural capital.
