Towards an Understanding of Refugee Segregation, Isolation, Homophily and Ultimately Integration in Turkey Using Call Detail Records

  • Jeremy BoyEmail author
  • David Pastor-Escuredo
  • Daniel Macguire
  • Rebeca Moreno Jimenez
  • Miguel Luengo-Oroz


In this chapter, we contribute a methodological framework for measuring integration through the lens of spatial and social segregation using CDR data. We illustrate the application of this framework using the datasets provided by Türk Telekom. Integration is one of the main durable solutions to refugee crises recognized by the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). It is a complex and gradual legal, economic, social and cultural process that burdens both the settling population, and the receiving society. Successful integration requires actions from a variety of stakeholders (including different levels of government, NGOs, welfare service providers, etc.), which can make evaluating the outcomes of targeted programmes and policies extremely difficult. While these generally differ from country to country, UNHCR recognizes a need for standardized indicators that can be used to compare integration across countries and regions, and to assess the success of various efforts. Here, we show how segregation, isolation and homophily can be measured by deriving population estimates from CDRs, and how the evolution of refugees’ communication patterns and mobility traces can provide initial insights into their social integration.


  1. 1.
    (1951) Convention relating to the status of refugees (189 U.N.T.S. 150, entered into force April 22, 1954).
  2. 2.
    (2013) Refugee integration and the use of indicators: evidence from Central Europe.
  3. 3.
  4. 4.
    (2017a) Emergency social safety net: Quarter 4 2017 monitoring report.
  5. 5.
    (2017b) UNHCR Turkey fact sheet.
  6. 6.
    (2017c) UNHCR Turkey: provincial breakdown Syrian refugees in Turkey.
  7. 7.
    (2017d) UNHCR Turkey: Syrian refugee camps and provincial breakdown of Syrian refugees registered in South East Turkey.
  8. 8.
  9. 9.
    (2018b) International recommendations on refugees statistics. Technical report.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Alexander L, Jiang S, Murga M, Gonzalez MC (2015) Origin–destination trips by purpose and time of day inferred from mobile phone data. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 58. Scholar
  12. 12.
    Balkan B, Tok EO, Torun H, Tumen S (2018) Immigration, housing rents, and residential segregation: evidence from Syrian refugees in Turkey. IZA Discussion Papers 11611, Institute for the Study of Labor (IZA).
  13. 13.
    Bell W (1954) A probability model for the measurement of ecological segregation. Soc Forces 32(4):357–364. Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bernstein H (2018) Bringing evidence to the refugee integration debate.
  15. 15.
    Blumenstock J, Fratamico L (2013) Social and spatial ethnic segregation: a framework for analyzing segregation with large-scale spatial network data. In: Proceedings of the 4th annual symposium on computing for development, ACM DEV-4 2013, ACM, New York, NY, USA, pp 11:1–11:10.
  16. 16.
    Bonnel P, Hombourger E, Olteanu-Raimond AM, Smoreda Z (2015) Passive mobile phone dataset to construct origin-destination matrix: potentials and limitations. Transp Res Procedia 11:381–398., Scholar
  17. 17.
    Carrington PJ (2016) Log-linear distance models of homophily in small groups. Methodol Innov 9:2059799115622746. Scholar
  18. 18.
    Cascetta E, Carten A, Montanino M (2016) A behavioral model of accessibility based on the number of available opportunities. J Transp Geogr 51:45–58., Scholar
  19. 19.
    Coleman JS (1958) Relational analysis: the study on social organization with survey methods. Hum Organ 17:28–36. Scholar
  20. 20.
    Cortese CF, Falk RF, Cohen JK (1976) Further considerations on the methodological analysis of segregation indices. Am Sociol Rev 41(4):630–637. Scholar
  21. 21.
    Currarini S, Jackson MO, Pin P (2009) An economic model of friendship: homophily, minorities, and segregation. Econometrica 77(4):1003–1045.
  22. 22.
    Currarini S, Matheson J, Vega-Redondo F (2016) A simple model of homophily in social networks. Eur Econ Rev 90:18–39., (social identity and discrimination)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    de Montjoye YA, Quoidbach J, Robic F, Pentland AS (2013) Predicting personality using novel mobile phone-based metrics. In: Greenberg AM, Kennedy WG, Bos ND (eds) Social computing. Behavioral-cultural modeling and prediction. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 48–55Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Deville P, Linard C, Martin S, Gilbert M, Stevens FR, Gaughan AE, Blondel VD, Tatem AJ (2014) Dynamic population mapping using mobile phone data. Proc Natl Acad Sci 111(45):15888–15893., Scholar
  25. 25.
    Duncan OD, Duncan B (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. Am Sociol Rev 20(2):210–217. Scholar
  26. 26.
    Freeman LC (1978) Segregation in social networks. Sociol Methods Res 6(4):411–429. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Herrera-Yagüe C, Schneider CM, Couronné T, Smoreda Z, Benito RM, Zufiria PJ, González MC (2015) The anatomy of urban social networks and its implications in the searchability problem. arxiv:abs/1506.00770
  28. 28.
    Iceland J, Weinberg DH (2002) Racial and ethnic residential segregation in the United States 1980–2000. Bureau of CensusGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Iceland J, Weinberg DH, Steinmetz E (2002) Racial and ethnic residential segregation in the United States, 1980–2000Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Iqbal MS, Choudhury C, Wang P, Gonzalez MC (2014) Development of origindestination matrices using mobile phone call data. Transp Res Part C Emerg Technol 40:6374. Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kunz EF (1981) Part II: the analytic framework: exile and resettlement: refugee theory. Int Migr Rev 15:42–51. Scholar
  32. 32.
    Massey DS, Denton NA (1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Soc Forces 67(2):281–315. Scholar
  33. 33.
    McPherson M, Smith-Lovin L, Cook JM (2001) Birds of a feather: homophily in social networks. Annu Rev Sociol 27(1):415–444. Scholar
  34. 34.
    Nurmi P (2012) Data analysis from mobile networks.
  35. 35.
    Pestre G, Letouzé E, Zagheni E (2016) The ABCDE of big data: assessing biases in call-detail records for development estimates. In: Annual world bank conference on development economicsGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Salah AA, Pentland A, Lepri B, Letouzé E, Vinck P, de Montjoye Y, Dong X, Dagdelen Ö (2018) Data for refugees: the D4R challenge on mobility of Syrian refugees in Turkey. arxiv:abs/1807.00523
  37. 37.
    Stopczynski A, Sekara V, Sapiezynski P, Cuttone A, Madsen MM, Larsen JE, Lehmann S (2014) Measuring large-scale social networks with high resolution. PloS One 9(4):1–24. Scholar
  38. 38.
    Valtonen K (2004) From the margin to the mainstream: conceptualizing refugee settlement processes. J Refug Stud 17(1):70–96., Scholar
  39. 39.
    Vanhoof M, Reis F, Ploetz T, Smoreda Z (2018a) Assessing the quality of home detection from mobile phone data for official statistics. arxiv:abs/1809.07567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Vanhoof M, Reis F, Smoreda Z, Ploetz T (2018b) Detecting home locations from CDR data: introducing spatial uncertainty to the state-of-the-art. arxiv:abs/1808.06398

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeremy Boy
    • 1
    Email author
  • David Pastor-Escuredo
    • 2
  • Daniel Macguire
    • 3
  • Rebeca Moreno Jimenez
    • 3
  • Miguel Luengo-Oroz
    • 1
  1. 1.UN Global PulseNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Technical University MadridMadridSpain
  3. 3.UNHCR InnovationGenevaSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations