Advertisement

Immigrant Location Patterns in a Southern European Metropolis: The Case of Athens

  • Paschalis A. ArvanitidisEmail author
  • George Petrakos
  • Dimitrios Skouras
Chapter
Part of the Advances in Spatial Science book series (ADVSPATIAL)

Abstract

Over the last two decades, Greece has seen a substantial influx of economic immigrants giving rise to a number of studies examining the social, economic and spatial implications immigration has for the country. In terms of the spatial impact, the observed tendency is immigrants to move primarily into metropolitan areas, which offer employment opportunities and anonymity. However, very little is known with regard to the specific, intra-urban, locations immigrants choose for their residence and the factors that affect such decisions. The current study attempts to shed light on the above issues, analysing the spatial distribution of economic immigrants within the metropolitan area of Athens, their mobility patterns and the resultant metropolitan structure. Our findings indicate a slight preference for central areas, but, over the time, the general dispersion of such immigrants to peripheral locations. On these grounds, spatial segregation, to the formation of clear ethnic enclaves, seems less plausible.

Keywords

Immigrants Location Segregation Athens 

1 Introduction

Over the last 20 years or so, Greece has seen a substantial influx of immigrant populations originating primarily from the countries of ex USSR, the Balkans and Eastern Europe, as well as from Asia and Africa. Currently, according to official estimates, people originating from such places make up about one million of Greece total population, compared to about 50,000 in 1991, of which the vast majority (over 60 %) are economic immigrants from Albania (Arvanitidis and Skouras 2008).

This phenomenon has attracted increasing attention in the literature, giving rise to a number of studies examining the economic, social and spatial implications immigration has for the country (see Lazaridis 1996; Psimmenos 1995, 1998; Lianos 2001; Cavounidis 2002; Lianos and Papakonstantinou 2003; Labrianidis et al. 2004; Baldwin-Edwards 2005; Arapoglou 2006; Rovolis and Tragaki 2006; Maloutas 2007; Arvanitidis and Skouras 2008; Cavounidis et al. 2008). As regards its spatial impact, the general trend reported is that new-comers move primarily into the metropolitan areas (Rovolis and Tragaki 2006), which offer anonymity and substantial employment opportunities. Within the urban frame, immigrants seems to show a preference for central locations (Maloutas 2007), where accessibility is high (due to transport networks) and low-cost housing is available (Arvanitidis and Skouras 2007).

In the light of these arguments the current study analyses the residential distribution of various immigrant groups within Athens’ metropolitan area, to assess their locational preferences, the degree of their mobility and the pattern of their spatial development. In doing so, the paper utilizes data from the 2001 National Census, whereas the spatial unit of data collection and analysis is the Census Collection District (apografikos tomeas), which is the smallest available.

The paper is structured as follows. The next section outlines the theoretical models that have been developed to explain immigrants’ spatial behaviour. On these grounds, Sects. 3 and 4 review the empirical literature to delineate the international and national experience respectively. These are followed by Sect. 5, which briefly outlines the research method employed, and Sect. 6, which discusses immigrants’ intra-urban locational pattern and assesses the degree of segregation exhibited. Finally, Sect. 7 concludes the paper by summarising the key findings.

2 The Spatial Behaviour of Immigrants: Conceptual Considerations

The location preferences of immigrants, as well as any minority group in general, and the spatial patterns that result from their decisions have been discussed in the literature under the theme of segregation. Initial approaches to segregation, however, dealt with space implicitly, simply assuming that the social environment of different groups corresponds to some organisational unit that has a spatial substance. These treatments have been repeatedly criticised in the literature for their simplistic approach and their inability to properly project such social phenomena on space (see Openshaw and Taylor 1979; White 1983; Massey and Denton 1988; Morrill 1991; Wong 1993, 1997, 2002; Reardon and O’Sullivan 2004).

A notable attempt to put space into the forefront of the analysis of segregation is Massey and Denton (1988). Employing notions available from the economics literature, they identified five separate dimensions to the segregation of any one group: evenness, exposure, concentration, clustering, and centralization. Evenness refers to the differential distribution of the subject population, exposure denotes the likelihood of interaction between groups, concentration addresses the relative amount of physical space occupied, centralization indicates the degree to which a group is located near the urban centre, and clustering specifies the gathering of group members into one certain space.

More recently, other scholars (Reardon and O’Sullivan 2004) have elaborated on the above approach to develop more refined measures of spatial segregation that analyse patterning along two axes: one indicating spatial exposure or spatial isolation and the other indicating spatial evenness or spatial clustering (see Fig. 20.1). Spatial exposure/isolation refers to the extent that people belonging to one group are mixed with people of other groups or remain spatially isolated in their local spatial environments. Spatial evenness/clustering assesses the distribution of a group in the residential space, specifying the extent to which its members prefer to locate close to each other (i.e. to cluster together). The combination of the two analytical concepts gives four patterns of residential location, as shown in Fig. 20.1. The upper half of the diagram presents two patterns of evenly distributed (‘black’ and ‘white’) households, indicating low levels of spatial clustering (or high levels of spatial evenness). The difference between the two is on the degree of exposure they go through. People of the two groups in the upper-right pattern are equally mixed with each other, whereas in the upper-left quadrant ‘black’ households are more isolated. In turn, both patterns at the bottom half of the figure indicates high degrees of clustering: the right one presents a ‘black’ community with higher exposure, whereas at the left one higher degrees of isolation are evident.
Fig. 20.1

Dimensions of spatial segregation (Source: based on Reardon and O’Sullivan 2004)

Turning to the reasons behind the development of the various patterns of residential segregation, two major streams of explanation have been put forward: cultural and economic. Cultural explanations argue that minority group members tend to locate close to each other in order to take advantage of their closely-integrated social networks and to retain valued elements of their cultural heritage, such as language and religion (Boal 1976; Hugo 1996; Dunn 1998). Economic explanations draw attention to the functioning of both the labour and the housing markets, asserting that newcomers tend to concentrate in specific areas of the city (usually the least expensive ones) due to income and information limitations (Massey 1985; Bartel 1989; Boal 1996; Kempen and Ozuekren 1998). These arise, firstly, because immigrants are usually low-skilled, low-paid, unemployment-prone workers (Tripier 1990; Ulrich 1994), and, secondly, because they are faced with both restricted access to housing and other information regarding the institutional mechanisms of the host society (Yinger 1986; Kesteloot 1995; Petsimeris 1995; Pacione 1996). It is important to mention that economic explanations see intra-urban low-priced housing as the cause behind the spatial clustering of minority group members, whereas for cultural explanations low-priced houses is rather a side-effect caused by the decrease of desirability of the particular location to other groups of inhabitants.

In order to analyse the dynamics of spatial settlement of immigrants, three fully fledged explanatory models have been put forward (Freeman 2000). These are the spatial assimilation model, the spatial stratification model and the residential preference model, which are discussed next.

The spatial assimilation model, developed by the Chicago School of Human Ecology, argues for the time-progressive dispersal of initially spatial-concentrated immigrant groups (Dunn 1998). Concentration is rooted in the cultural character of immigration but is reinforced by economic considerations that affect the immigration process. It is expected that during the initial stages of immigration, newcomers would cluster together in order to take advantage of the social and kinship networks of their co-ethnics (Cutler et al. 1999). These networks provide social support and information as well as employment opportunities. However, as time goes by, the gradual acquisition of the language, values, and manners of the host society (a process called acculturation), achieved through prolonged contact with natives and through mass institutions such as schools and the media, would lead to the spatial assimilation of the immigrants (Freeman 2000). This is because, as the degree of acculturation increases and the socioeconomic status of the immigrants rises, the social distance between natives and immigrants diminishes, leading to a decrease in the spatial distances between them (Hawley 1950; Park 1926). Thus, immigrants move out of the poor inner-city areas to the outer suburbs, starting to integrate spatially with the natives (Massey 1985; Kempen and Ozuekren 1998).

Although the spatial assimilation model describes relatively well the progress of spatial settlement for most immigrant groups, e.g. the non-English speaking populations in Sydney and Melbourne in Australia (Grimes 1993; Hugo 1996) and the black Caribbean people in Greater London (Peach 1996), it encounters serious problems in explaining the spatial patterns of minorities with African heritage, namely African Americans and Puerto Ricans, in the USA (Freeman 2000). This has led to the development of the place stratification model.

The place stratification model considers urban space as a hierarchy of places ordered in terms of desirability and the quality of life they provide to urban dwellers (Logan 1978). Natives occupy the most desirable places, keeping immigrants, and generally ethic and racial minorities, at a distance (Cutler et al. 1999). This situation reflects the perception that the natives have of immigrants and their place in the society. Immigrants are attributed with a low social status and remain segregated, even if they are financially able to take up residence in areas occupied by natives (Alba and Logan 1993; Freeman 2000). The place hierarchy is maintained through institutional mechanisms (red-lining, exclusionary zoning, etc.) and/or discriminatory acts on the part of the host society, which can be explicit, such as violence against minorities (Cutler et al. 1999; Anas 2004), or implicit, such as discrimination on the housing and land market (Yinger 1986; Cutler et al. 1999; Ahmed and Hammarstedt 2008). In the case of hierarchy disturbance, natives are expected to depart from the ‘invaded’ area in a progressive manner, leaving immigrants to constitute, slowly but steadily, the majority population in the area.

While the place stratification model envisages spatial segregation being imposed on immigrants (by other urban groups), the residential preference model asserts that this is in fact a decision of the immigrants themselves. That is, members of the immigrant group ‘prefer’ to reside with their co-ethnics and to remain spatially segregated, even when they have the financial means or the social status that would enable them to move elsewhere (Freeman 2000; Anas 2004). There are many benefits to be gained from such spatial behaviour. To newcomers, the community’s social network would provide not only emotional, social and cultural support, but also other vital ‘resources’, such as housing and valuable information (on the host institutional framework and the labour market) (Freeman 2000). To all other members, the community represents the stronghold of their own cultural identity (in a sense it constitutes a specific ethnic local public good). It enables them to sustain aspects of their pre-migration cultural practices (religion, language, etc.) while also facilitating their assimilation into wider society. This element constitutes the key difference between the residential preference model and the spatial assimilation model; that is, there is no acculturation process envisaged in the former.

3 Some International Evidence on the Spatial Behaviour of Immigrants

What becomes apparent from the above discussion is that the intra-urban location decisions of immigrants are determined by both cultural and economic factors. When cultural reasons prevail over economic ones, immigrant concentration is expected to be strong and sustained in the long-run. In contrast, dominance of economic considerations over cultural ones would lead, in the long-run, to smoother residential patterns characterised by greater evenness. A number of studies have attempted to explore these issues in empirical research and to assess the role played by, and significance attached to, each set of determinants with regard to the developed urban residential structure.

In a study examining patterns of residential location among immigrants in Oslo, Blom (1999) supported the view that the most significant factor in determining immigrant’s locational behaviour is economic resources; though cultural reasons also appear to play an important causal role. This is interpreted as an assimilation tendency where immigrants, after a certain length of stay, start to conform to local residential patterns. On these grounds, dispersal of foreign-born inhabitants is observed after an initial period of concentrated immigrant housing. Djuve and Hagen (1995) come to a similar conclusion, drawing on survey research they conducted on a sample of 329 refugees in Oslo. They found that affordability of housing was the main reason behind the latter’s decision to settle in a particular residential area within the city, rather than ‘preferences for living close to countrymen’. Analogous evidence has also been provided by Zang and Hassan (1996); Lan-Hung and Jung-Chung (2005) and Burnley (2005), who explored the residential preferences of immigrants in Australian metropolises. These studies indicated that, while immigrant groups may prefer to settle in close proximity to their family and kin for practical and/or emotional reasons, their locational choice depends largely on income and housing affordability, availability of neighbourhood services and closeness to work, giving rise to more assimilated residential patterns.

In a recent study investigating immigration dynamics and resulting residential patterns in the four largest Dutch cities (i.e. Amsterdam, Rotterdam, The Hague and Utrecht), Bontje and Latten (2005) observe a strong exchange of population subgroups. Natives show an ongoing outflow from certain urban neighbourhoods, where foreign-born population is increasingly settling in. These neighbourhoods have formed the basis of immigrant communities that are growing fast through family reunification and family formation. In fact, in some areas the share of foreigners has reached “… levels above 70 per cent and even 80 per cent, in contrast to the national share of 10 per cent” (Bontje and Latten 2005: 450). This can be seen as an example of joint implementation of economic and cultural factors, where economic reasons account for the initial stages of immigrant concentration, and cultural reasons justify its enhancement and longevity. Similar conclusions are drawn by Bolt et al. (2002) who, on the basis of both income and ethnicity, predict further strengthening of segregation and concentration of immigrants in the Dutch cities. However, there are researchers (Deurloo and Musterd 1998; Musterd and Deurloo 2002) who assert that the observed patterns of immigrant residential concentration tend not to be stable and therefore spatial integration is to be seen.

The situation across the Atlantic appears to be more complex. Scholars, such as Freeman (2000), Johnston et al. (2003) and Myers and Liu (2005), report a process of immigrant clustering in the American Metropolises similar to the one described above (i.e. fuelled by a time-lagged implementation of economic and cultural factors), but only for certain ethnic groups. Thus, it is argued that initially Asian and Latino immigrants were located in the degraded inner-city areas due to economic reasons, whereas subsequent newcomers of the same ethnic groups settled in the same neighbourhoods on the basis of cultural reasons. However, as they climb up the socioeconomic ladder they tend to move out and to assimilate into ‘white’ neighbourhoods. In contrast to Asian and Latino groups, the form of residential patterning exhibited by African Americans is somewhat different, in both its character and intensity (Massey and Denton 1985, 1987; Denton and Massey 1988; Harrison and Weinberg 1992; Alba and Logan 1993; Logan et al. 1996; Clark and Ware 1997; Freeman 2000). This ethnic group seems to place greater emphasis on cultural factors and, on these grounds, to show more concentrated patterns of residential location.

A similar situation is also observed in some European cities, such as Lisbon. Malheiros (2000) and Malheiros and Vala (2004) distinguish between two groups of immigrants with different locational behaviour. African-origin immigrants are more ‘consolidated’ in their residential pattern, whereas all other groups (dominated by Eastern Europeans and Brazilians) temporarily settle within their co-ethnics, only to flee out when their socio-economic conditions improve. Malheiros (2000) argues that a significant factor behind this dual pattern of immigrant settlement is the housing market and the policies adopted by the local authorities (of freezing property rents, tight controls over evictions, and loose enforcement of legal procedures over illegal constructions) that have reinforced the concentration of the less-affluent African-origin immigrants.

Concluding this discussion, it becomes clear that is no common pattern of immigrant residential location evident in the majority of places. Stated differently, economic and cultural factors influence the locational choice and the residential patterns of immigrants to a different degree, depending on the local conditions, policies and institutions, the cultural and economic background of immigrants and the time that immigration takes place. It is on these grounds that Musterd et al. (1998), having analysed immigrant residential behaviour in nine European metropolises, identifies the establishment of four spatial patterns: (a) clustering of immigrants in inner-city locations, (b) concentrations of immigrants outside central areas, (c) scattered immigrants but with clustering in inner-city locations, and (d) scattered immigrants but with concentrations in locations outside the city centre.

4 Immigrants in Greek Metropolises: A Review of the Literature

For many decades Greece has been a labour-exporting country. In fact, almost two million Greeks emigrated since the end of the nineteenth century to countries of North America (especially to the USA), Oceania and northern Europe (Kotzamanis 2008). The reversal of migratory balance started in the mid-1970s with the returning of the first waves of ‘repatriates’,1 but it really took off in the early 1990s (see Fig. 20.2), fuelled by the border opening in East Europe and the subsequent adoption of restrictive policies by the traditional destination countries of northern Europe (King 2000; Rovolis and Tragaki 2006). During this period the vast majority of immigrants which entered the country were undocumented, whereas legal status was granted under the first, second and third regularisation programmes, took place in 1997–8, 2001–2 and 2005–6 respectively. Despite these regularisation campaigns and relevant legislative attempts aiming to deal with immigration in a more comprehensive way,2 illegal immigration has remained an issue of concern and integration proved to be quite a challenge for both the Greek state and the Greek society in general (Cavounidis 2007).
Fig. 20.2

Number of foreign citizens in Greece (population censuses 1951–2001) (Source: own elaboration [ESYE])

Today, migrants constitute a significant part of Greece’s population. According to the 2001 Census of the National Statistical Service (ESYE), which provides the most recent and reliable information, the estimated number of non-nationals living in the country was 762,191 people, amounting to approximately 7 % of the total population (as compared to 1.4 %, 10 years earlier). It is important to note that other studies have put this figure up to one million, when unregistered or Greek ethnic immigrants are taken into account (OECD 2001; Lianos et al. 2008). By 2003, there have been approximately 130,000 foreign children attending state schools (of which about 32,000 were ethnic Greeks), comprising 11 % of primary school registrations and the 8 % of secondary school registrations (Baldwin-Edwards 2005).

Contrary to the experience of other European countries, the majority of immigrants in Greece comes from a restricted number of countries, with few, if any, historic or cultural links (Rovolis and Tragaki 2006). Thus, only five countries of origin (out of more than 200 in total) count for about 70 % of all non-nationals, while ten countries represent more than 80 % of them (see Table 20.1). The majority of immigrants (eight out of ten) come from Europe, especially from Albania (57.5 %) and to a lesser extent from other Balkan countries, the Central-eastern Europe and the Republics of ex-USSR. Asians represent 9 % of the foreign population, Africans about 2 %, and those from America and Oceania, which are largely repatriates who have returned to their homeland with their families, amount to 4.8 %.
Table 20.1

Immigrants in Greece (2001)

Origin

Numbers

%

Sex ratioa

Europe

640,997

84.10

1.14

 Southeastern

500,280

65.64

1.33

 Central and East

74,682

9.80

0.60

 EU-15

46,869

6.15

0.67

 Rest of Europeb

19,166

2.51

0.86

Asia

68,361

8.97

2.07

America

27,293

3.58

0.88

Africa

15,620

2.05

1.99

Oceania

9,060

1.19

0.87

Albania

438,036

57.47

1.42

Bulgaria

35,104

4.61

0.66

Georgia

22,875

3.00

0.76

Romania

21,994

2.89

1.30

India and Pakistan

18,346

2.41

17.91

Russia

17,535

2.30

0.60

Ukraine

13,616

1.79

0.33

Poland

12,831

1.68

0.85

Egypt

7,448

0.98

3.24

Philippines

6,478

0.85

0.31

Total

762,191

100.00

1.20

Source: own elaboration (2001 population census, ESYE)

aMales to females

bMainly Cypriots

Immigrants in Greece tend to be young (average age of about 29 years old), mostly men (about 55 %) that come to the country mainly for economic reasons (although women migrate for family reasons too) (Rovolis and Tragaki 2006). The majority of them work in construction, agriculture, manufacturing and various low and semi-skilled services in tourism, catering, domestic service, etc. (Lianos and Papakonstantinou 2003; Kanellopoulos 2008). Partly because of the exclusionary legal framework and partly due to the structural characteristics of the Greek labour market, the big bulk of immigrant labour has been absorbed by the underground economy and informal employment remains widespread for large shares of foreign workers, even after legal status is achieved (Kanellopoulos et al. 2006).

In terms of geographical location, the majority of immigrants found residence in the metropolitan areas of Athens and Thessaloniki (Rovolis and Tragaki 2006; Kotzamanis 2008). As regards the immigrant’s intra-metropolitan location pattern, researchers (Lazaridis 1996; Psimmenos 1995, 1998; Baldwin-Edwards 2005; Maloutas 2007) have reported a tendency of the former to concentrate in the old city centre and other poor areas of Athens, which are characterised by low-quality housing and lack of public facilities. This literature identifies three reasons that inform such decisions. The main explanation is economic, where immigrants choose to take up residence in these areas simply because rents are low and there is housing stock available. This is supported by cultural issues. Co-ethnics already reside in these areas, and newcomers decide to settle there too, in order to take advantage of the social and kinship networks which offer social and emotional support and valuable information regarding the host institutions and opportunities.

Interestingly, however, concentration seems to be fuelled by a third factor: the xenophobic intolerance of the natives. Greece has a history of high levels of xenophobia recorded in opinion polls, although rather less visible in reality. In support of this argument Baldwin-Edwards (2005) mentions the results of a survey conducted in 2002 amongst 2,100 households living in Athens metropolis: it was found that 44 % of respondents believed that immigrants should live separately from Greeks, in other areas.3 Although high levels of racial intolerance are clearly linked with low educational and income levels, the point that clearly emerges is that Greeks would not object to the creation of ethnic ghettos, presumably with little comprehension of their long-term implications.

This tendency of immigrants (a significant number of whom have been illegal) to locate in Athens inner-city over the 1990s worried the Greek government, who consequently intensified the policing of such areas.4 Actually, this was so intense that in June 1998, migrants had held a rally for the first time in Athens demonstrating for their right to have a place to live5 (Lazaridis and Psimmenos 2000). Under the weight of these pressures some immigrants had moved out of the city centre, finding residence in the surrounding municipalities. In spatial terms this gave rise to higher rates of integration between immigrants and natives and to a more dispersed residential pattern of the former.

Thessaloniki presents a very similar picture to the case of Athens. Economic reasons on the part of the immigrants, and a hesitancy to rent property to foreigners on the part of the natives, led the immigrant population to take up residence in both the inner-city and the western suburbs where housing is cheap, constructions are old and the residential quality is low (Velentzas et al. 1996; Hatziprokopiou 2003). However, there are no visible clusters of immigrants and the resulting patterns of residence do not seem to lead to any kind of excessive concentration in which ethnic ghettoes could be developed (Kokkali 2005).

5 Exploring Immigrant Location in Athens Metropolitan Area: Methodological Issues

Having outlined some general trends in immigrants’ locational behaviour, the rest of the paper analyses the residential distribution of various immigrant groups within Athens metropolitan region. The aim is to shed light on their locational preferences, exposing the pattern of their spatial arrangement over time and assessing the degree of their segregation. In doing so, data from the 2001 National Census were acquired at the smallest available spatial unit, which is the Census Collection District – CCD (apografikos tomeas).

The populations chosen for analysis are immigrants from Eastern Europe (post-socialist countries), Africa and Asia. These are largely economic immigrants6 coming primarily from 12 countries: Albania, Poland, Russia, Bulgaria, Romania, Ukraine, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Philippines. These populations as a whole exceed the 90 % of the total number of immigrants found residence in Athens metropolis (see Table 20.2).
Table 20.2

Immigrants in Athens metropolitan region in 2001 (ranked by size)

 

Nationality

Numbers

In percentage (%)

of total

cumulative

1

Albanians

209,333

62.06

 

2

Poles

11,529

3.42

65.48

3

Russians

11,465

3.40

68.88

4

Bulgarians

11,141

3.30

72.18

5

Romanians

10,270

3.04

75.23

6

Pakistani

10,133

3.00

78.23

7

Ukrainians

9,996

2.96

81.20

8

Egyptians

7,187

2.13

83.33

9

Iraqis

6,618

1.96

85.29

10

Filipinos

6,484

1.92

87.21

11

Bangladeshi

4,767

1.41

88.62

12

Syrians

4,713

1.40

90.02

Source: own elaboration (EKKE-ESYE 2005)

Two methods of analysis have been employed. First we examined the degree of residential segregation exhibited within specific areas. In particular, we calculated the Dissimilarity Index7 (D) in each one of the municipalities comprising the metropolitan region, in order to assess the relative dominance of each immigrant group in an area as compared to the native population (or the proportion of immigrants that would need to move out in order to achieve an even distribution). The basic formula for the Index is:
$$ \mathrm{ D} = \frac{1}{2}\sum\limits {\frac{{{{\mathrm{ M}}_{\mathrm{ i}}}}}{\mathrm{ M}} - \frac{{{{\mathrm{ N}}_{\mathrm{ i}}}}}{\mathrm{ N}}} $$
where Mi is the population of immigrants that reside in a spatial unit i, M is the overall immigrant population living in the metropolitan region, and Ni and N are the populations of natives in unit i and the whole region respectively. The Dissimilarity Index varies from −1 to 1. Zero denotes an even distribution between the two groups (immigrants and natives), whereas the values of −1 and 1 indicate the dominance of natives and immigrants in the area respectively.

Analysis based on the Dissimilarity Index moved in two directions. We started by comparing the indices of the city centre (Athens municipality), for each immigrant group, with those of the periphery (that is all other municipalities) to investigate whether there is any immigrant population that is over-represented (that is, concentrates) either in the city centre (centralization) or in the rest of the region. Next, we examine the dissimilarity indices of all municipalities to identify those areas where specific ethnic populations dominate.

Segregation analysis was complemented with cartographic presentations of the residential location of immigrants in order to expose the current pattern of spatial distribution (in 2001) and its changes over time. First, we started with a simple display of the relative distribution of immigrants (as a percentage of the total population) in order to identify patterns of clustering and isolation. Then, we looked into mobility patterns to assess changes in the locational preferences of immigrants over time. In particular, we examined whether immigrants had changed their residence either 1 or 6 years before 2001 (where the National Census took place), that is in 1995 or 2000 respectively. Since detailed information on the mobility pattern of each ethnic group of immigrants is not available (apart from Albanian which comprise more than half of the immigrants in total), analysis at this stage was conducted on an aggregate level of immigrants’ region of origin (i.e. Eastern Europe, North Africa, West Asia, Central-South Asia and South-East Asia).

6 Exploring Immigrant Location in Athens Metropolitan Area: Analysis and Discussion

Analysis starts by examining the degree of immigrant evenness/clustering (with the use of D) within each one of the municipalities comprising the metropolitan region. It then moves to consider the overall pattern of immigrant distribution across Athens region and to assess the extent of their clustering and isolation. Table 20.2 provides the D values of each immigrant group for Athens centre and periphery, as well as such values for all municipalities in the region. Map 20.1 provides a picture of the built up areas in Athens region, whereas Maps 20.2, 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, 20.13, and 20.14 depict the spatial distribution of each immigrant group (CDD is the unit of analysis). The darker the colour, the higher the proportion of immigrants in the area is.
Map 20.1

Athens metropolitan region (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.2

Immigrants’ spatial distribution within Athens metropolitan region (all nationalities) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.3

Albanians spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.4

Poles spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.5

Russians spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.6

Bulgarians spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.7

Romanians spatial distribution( Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.8

Pakistani spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.9

Ukrainians spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.10

Egyptians spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.11

Iraqis spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.12

Filipinos spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.13

Bangladeshi spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.14

Syrians spatial distribution (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

As can be seen from Table 20.3 (see also Map 20.2), Athens central area seems to exert an attraction to the totality of immigrants that find residence in the Greek capital. This verifies the previously reported trend of immigrants to concentrate in the Athens inner-city (see Sect. 4 above). Out of the 12 nationalities that have been examined, only three groups, Russians, Pakistani and Iraqis, seems to be overshadowed by the native population in the city centre (negative D value). Of the rest, the greatest clustering is exhibited by Bangladeshi (D is close to 0.4), followed by Filipinos and Poles (both Ds are close to 0.2).
Table 20.3

Dissimilarity index per area

Municipality

Total

Albanians

Poles

Russians

Bulgarians

Romanians

Pakistani

Ukrainians

Egyptians

Iraqis

Filipinos

Bangladeshi

Syrians

Athens inner-city (Athens municipality)

0.18042

0.16554

0.19105

−0.05754

0.13976

0.12146

−0.03138

0.11134

0.10679

−0.00026

0.19732

0.39641

0.15785

Periphery (all other municipalities)

−0.17806

−0.16554

−0.58756

−0.09188

−0.48543

−0.44903

−0.14410

−0.42885

−0.41998

−0.20625

−0.60071

0.08655

−0.52211

Acharnes

−0.00386

−0.00826

−0.01859

0.09826

−0.01736

0.00971

0.04067

−0.01292

−0.01937

−0.02011

−0.01981

0.00699

−0.01976

Aegaleo

−0.00668

−0.00708

−0.01825

−0.01164

−0.01560

−0.00784

0.01621

−0.01656

−0.01625

0.13330

−0.02014

0.00247

−0.01288

Ag. Anargyroi

−0.00094

0.00288

−0.00735

−0.00416

−0.00715

−0.00404

0.00998

−0.00507

−0.00746

−0.00778

−0.00848

0.00840

−0.00711

Ag. Dimitrios

−0.00655

−0.00529

−0.00962

−0.00808

−0.01308

−0.01359

−0.01257

−0.01161

−0.01183

0.03576

−0.01771

−0.00170

−0.00728

Ag. Ioannis Rentis

0.00201

0.00104

−0.00355

0.00066

−0.00261

0.00329

0.03435

−0.00271

0.00525

0.00827

−0.00352

0.00596

−0.00092

Ag. Paraskevi

−0.00506

−0.00882

−0.01213

−0.01253

−0.00869

−0.01330

−0.01350

−0.00924

−0.01127

−0.01547

−0.01451

−0.00146

−0.01489

Ag. Stefanos

0.00234

0.00548

−0.00219

−0.00232

−0.00104

−0.00127

−0.00068

−0.00199

−0.00162

−0.00262

−0.00233

−0.00026

−0.00031

Ag. Varbara

−0.00405

−0.00393

−0.00723

0.01141

−0.00669

−0.00561

−0.00134

−0.00590

−0.00631

0.00383

−0.00840

0.00148

−0.00768

Alimos

−0.00240

−0.00688

−0.00699

−0.00410

−0.00587

−0.00704

−0.01044

−0.00343

−0.00613

−0.00400

−0.00955

0.00090

−0.00531

Amarousio

−0.00709

−0.00934

−0.01586

−0.01486

−0.01225

−0.01341

−0.01897

−0.01314

−0.01568

−0.01883

−0.01669

−0.00133

−0.01551

Ampelakia

−0.00100

−0.00058

−0.00185

−0.00143

−0.00159

−0.00101

−0.00196

−0.00167

−0.00136

−0.00195

−0.00186

−0.00020

−0.00155

Ano Liosia

−0.00275

−0.00268

−0.00641

0.01020

−0.00591

−0.00299

−0.00163

−0.00483

−0.00478

−0.00686

−0.00507

0.00674

−0.00491

Argyroupoli

−0.00348

−0.00383

−0.00626

−0.00550

−0.00607

−0.00673

−0.00819

−0.00563

−0.00620

−0.00891

−0.00861

−0.00093

−0.00520

Artemida

0.00215

0.00579

0.00156

−0.00309

−0.00301

−0.00288

−0.00475

0.00009

−0.00284

−0.00483

−0.00435

−0.00036

−0.00388

Aspropyrgos

0.00231

0.00514

−0.00739

0.02651

−0.00595

−0.00132

0.02194

−0.00526

−0.00725

−0.00578

−0.00764

0.00009

−0.00750

Avlona

0.00098

0.00173

−0.00116

−0.00082

−0.00118

−0.00042

0.00692

−0.00114

0.00017

0.00082

−0.00133

0.00047

−0.00129

Dafni

0.00201

0.00508

−0.00325

−0.00463

−0.00186

−0.00350

−0.00390

−0.00407

−0.00411

0.01383

−0.00421

0.00081

0.00671

Drapetsona

−0.00164

−0.00132

−0.00290

0.00254

−0.00207

−0.00089

−0.00350

−0.00289

−0.00289

−0.00346

−0.00349

0.00013

−0.00277

Elefsina

−0.00066

−0.00085

−0.00613

0.03383

−0.00490

−0.00196

−0.00386

−0.00377

−0.00604

−0.00676

0.00964

0.00063

−0.00700

Elliniko

−0.00104

−0.00221

−0.00326

−0.00086

−0.00295

−0.00384

−0.00321

−0.00056

−0.00305

−0.00140

−0.00388

0.00003

−0.00301

Fili

−0.00020

0.00021

−0.00077

−0.00059

−0.00064

−0.00042

−0.00082

−0.00068

−0.00082

−0.00057

−0.00072

−0.00008

−0.00082

Filothei

0.00003

−0.00197

−0.00168

−0.00039

0.00141

−0.00179

−0.00206

0.00294

−0.00166

−0.00205

0.00662

−0.00008

−0.00165

Galatsi

−0.00670

−0.00358

−0.01034

−0.01143

−0.01012

−0.01168

−0.01577

−0.01028

−0.01320

−0.01518

−0.01560

−0.00100

−0.00803

Gerakas

−0.00143

−0.00037

−0.00286

−0.00282

−0.00266

−0.00347

−0.00371

−0.00310

−0.00357

−0.00350

−0.00387

−0.00039

−0.00333

Glyfada

0.00024

−0.00711

−0.01509

−0.00043

−0.01264

−0.01318

−0.02153

−0.00614

−0.01417

−0.01891

−0.01346

−0.00078

−0.01572

Glyka Nera

−0.00058

−0.00003

−0.00168

−0.00124

−0.00099

−0.00144

−0.00041

−0.00170

−0.00184

−0.00184

−0.00184

−0.00018

−0.00130

Ilio (Nea Liosia)

−0.00800

−0.00078

−0.01523

−0.01738

−0.01706

−0.00979

−0.00726

−0.01837

−0.02002

−0.01590

−0.02212

0.00241

−0.01516

Ilioupoli

−0.01067

−0.00898

−0.01695

−0.01319

−0.01374

−0.01669

−0.02036

−0.01607

−0.01622

−0.01757

−0.02023

−0.00175

−0.01127

Iraklio

−0.00655

−0.00538

−0.01069

−0.00949

−0.00881

−0.00884

−0.00565

−0.00895

−0.01141

−0.01268

−0.01223

−0.00091

−0.01022

Kaisariani

0.00018

0.00097

−0.00414

−0.00521

−0.00375

−0.00491

−0.00733

−0.00374

−0.00146

−0.00683

−0.00437

−0.00012

−0.00569

Kallithea

−0.00279

−0.00832

−0.02093

0.05045

−0.01405

−0.01374

−0.01533

−0.00314

0.04741

−0.02189

−0.02571

0.00651

−0.00102

Kalyvia Thorikou

0.00056

0.00212

−0.00284

−0.00217

−0.00253

−0.00250

−0.00262

−0.00126

−0.00228

−0.00312

−0.00271

−0.00021

−0.00296

Kamatero

−0.00343

−0.00247

−0.00470

−0.00158

−0.00553

−0.00491

−0.00468

−0.00464

−0.00569

−0.00594

−0.00609

0.00943

−0.00551

Keratea

−0.00110

0.00038

−0.00346

−0.00284

−0.00276

−0.00360

−0.00367

−0.00332

−0.00347

−0.00367

−0.00367

−0.00037

−0.00367

Keratsini

−0.01031

−0.00627

−0.01510

−0.00638

−0.01660

−0.01468

−0.01801

−0.01186

−0.01305

−0.02007

−0.01776

0.00082

−0.01603

Kifisia

−0.00015

−0.00711

−0.01043

−0.00742

−0.00609

−0.00844

−0.00863

0.00032

−0.00816

−0.01208

0.00969

−0.00062

−0.00839

Korydallos

−0.00806

−0.00658

−0.01585

0.00399

−0.01307

−0.00727

−0.01543

−0.01084

−0.01463

−0.00139

−0.01813

0.00401

−0.01435

Kropia

0.00174

0.00461

−0.00295

−0.00140

−0.00518

−0.00350

0.00531

−0.00369

−0.00530

−0.00699

−0.00642

−0.00070

−0.00319

Lavreotiki

−0.00140

−0.00220

−0.00289

−0.00067

−0.00252

−0.00234

−0.00294

−0.00266

−0.00165

0.00366

−0.00284

−0.00029

−0.00267

Lykovrysi

−0.00080

−0.00043

−0.00200

−0.00181

−0.00172

−0.00173

0.00212

−0.00191

−0.00226

−0.00226

−0.00226

−0.00023

−0.00226

Mandra

−0.00119

−0.00018

−0.00261

0.00133

−0.00279

−0.00223

−0.00031

−0.00295

−0.00301

−0.00339

−0.00332

−0.00035

−0.00351

Marathonas

0.00160

0.00158

−0.00211

−0.00187

−0.00126

−0.00248

0.01126

−0.00149

0.01561

−0.00248

−0.00248

−0.00025

−0.00234

Markopoulos

−0.00058

0.00156

−0.00288

−0.00379

−0.00268

−0.00391

−0.00373

−0.00326

−0.00421

−0.00431

−0.00393

−0.00043

−0.00417

Megara

−0.00168

0.00197

−0.00719

−0.00770

−0.00687

−0.00623

0.00647

−0.00672

−0.00737

−0.00777

−0.00758

−0.00078

−0.00749

Melissia

−0.00118

−0.00226

−0.00506

−0.00427

−0.00354

−0.00373

−0.00531

−0.00330

−0.00448

−0.00535

−0.00490

−0.00055

−0.00398

Metamorfosi

−0.00256

−0.00137

−0.00494

−0.00429

−0.00466

−0.00382

0.01183

−0.00542

−0.00699

−0.00738

−0.00719

0.00012

−0.00684

Mosxato

−0.00256

−0.00280

−0.00354

0.00035

−0.00440

−0.00397

−0.00276

−0.00253

−0.00149

−0.00646

−0.00627

0.00217

−0.00578

Nea Chalkidona

0.00022

0.00092

−0.00091

−0.00124

−0.00137

−0.00148

0.00594

−0.00100

−0.00213

−0.00270

−0.00244

0.00107

−0.00133

Nea Erythraia

−0.00004

−0.00069

−0.00331

−0.00326

−0.00280

−0.00385

−0.00423

−0.00157

−0.00372

−0.00419

0.00150

0.00067

−0.00418

Nea Filadelfia

−0.00104

−0.00221

−0.00326

−0.00086

−0.00295

−0.00384

−0.00321

−0.00056

−0.00305

−0.00140

−0.00388

0.00003

−0.00301

Nea Ionia

−0.00262

0.00493

−0.01500

−0.01116

−0.01040

−0.01256

0.02684

−0.01251

−0.01516

−0.01697

−0.01729

0.00233

−0.01643

Nea Makri

0.00175

0.00205

0.00325

0.00052

0.00027

−0.00296

−0.00140

−0.00143

−0.00092

−0.00123

−0.00324

−0.00041

−0.00369

Nea Peramos

−0.00053

0.00015

−0.00206

−0.00131

−0.00067

−0.00126

−0.00122

−0.00157

−0.00127

−0.00206

−0.00206

−0.00021

−0.00165

Nea Smyrni

−0.00427

−0.00940

−0.01397

−0.00358

−0.00823

−0.01442

−0.01994

−0.00464

−0.00997

−0.00964

−0.01640

−0.00145

−0.01000

Neo Psychiko

−0.00122

−0.00170

−0.00224

−0.00145

−0.00134

−0.00203

−0.00295

−0.00086

−0.00284

−0.00304

−0.00084

−0.00018

−0.00290

Nikaia

−0.00960

−0.00598

−0.02209

−0.00565

−0.01845

−0.01016

0.01031

−0.01861

−0.01988

−0.01973

−0.02498

−0.00087

−0.01619

Paiania

−0.00095

0.00033

−0.00270

−0.00315

−0.00220

−0.00239

−0.00352

−0.00191

−0.00270

−0.00360

−0.00341

−0.00036

−0.00183

Palaio Faliro

0.00068

−0.01011

−0.01278

−0.00036

−0.00782

−0.01087

−0.01747

−0.00119

−0.00124

−0.01577

−0.00974

−0.00132

−0.00523

Pallini

−0.00033

0.00071

−0.00365

−0.00375

−0.00266

−0.00230

−0.00365

−0.00361

−0.00247

−0.00466

−0.00313

−0.00034

−0.00425

Papagos

−0.00218

−0.00340

−0.00298

−0.00251

−0.00160

−0.00332

−0.00372

−0.00246

−0.00332

−0.00372

−0.00239

−0.00025

−0.00345

Pefki

−0.00317

−0.00354

−0.00470

−0.00366

−0.00385

−0.00528

−0.00530

−0.00379

−0.00455

−0.00529

−0.00497

−0.00055

−0.00541

Perama

−0.00323

−0.00203

−0.00494

−0.00134

−0.00547

−0.00441

−0.00523

−0.00126

−0.00369

−0.00717

−0.00488

−0.00072

−0.00486

Peristeri

−0.01114

−0.00871

−0.03197

−0.02235

−0.02737

−0.02281

0.05898

−0.02853

−0.02221

0.15581

−0.03658

0.00966

−0.02543

Petroupoli

−0.00911

−0.00861

−0.01035

−0.00933

−0.01130

−0.00230

−0.01298

−0.01159

−0.01298

−0.01260

−0.01319

0.00037

−0.01184

Piraeus

−0.00557

−0.00006

−0.03641

−0.01725

−0.02965

−0.02323

0.00601

−0.02194

0.01079

−0.02040

−0.03557

0.02036

−0.02800

Psychiko

0.00126

−0.00297

−0.00106

0.00820

0.00245

0.00083

−0.00291

0.00037

−0.00198

−0.00283

0.01503

−0.00006

−0.00294

Rafina

0.00136

0.00323

0.00016

−0.00232

0.00199

−0.00263

−0.00305

−0.00189

−0.00221

−0.00317

−0.00263

−0.00008

−0.00289

Spata-Loutsa

−0.00003

0.00188

−0.00267

−0.00253

−0.00192

−0.00243

−0.00224

−0.00199

−0.00134

−0.00283

−0.00283

−0.00028

−0.00283

Tavros

0.00008

0.00007

−0.00347

0.00455

−0.00282

−0.00140

0.00739

−0.00205

0.00260

−0.00391

−0.00387

0.00804

−0.00130

Vari

0.00145

0.00157

−0.00023

0.00089

−0.00220

−0.00217

−0.00305

0.00160

−0.00215

−0.00280

−0.00190

0.00153

−0.00006

Voula

0.00220

−0.00282

−0.00399

−0.00236

−0.00203

−0.00424

−0.00578

−0.00024

−0.00335

−0.00526

0.00193

0.00002

−0.00427

Vouliagmeni

0.00244

0.00002

−0.00073

−0.00006

−0.00034

−0.00079

−0.00070

0.00137

−0.00120

−0.00179

0.00354

0.00092

0.00011

Vrilissia

−0.00334

−0.00581

−0.00607

−0.00383

−0.00347

−0.00657

−0.00715

−0.00393

−0.00574

−0.00723

−0.00599

−0.00072

−0.00682

Vyronas

−0.00469

−0.00080

−0.01159

−0.00739

−0.00991

−0.00589

−0.01497

−0.01060

−0.01259

−0.01668

−0.01477

−0.00097

−0.01135

Xaidari

−0.00829

−0.00788

−0.01142

−0.00905

−0.01029

−0.00981

0.00244

−0.01065

−0.01101

−0.00891

−0.01261

−0.00068

−0.01194

Xalandri

−0.00555

−0.00678

−0.01727

−0.01401

−0.00830

−0.01320

−0.01812

−0.00663

−0.01575

−0.01701

−0.01249

0.00608

−0.01740

Xolargos

−0.00334

−0.00416

−0.00735

−0.00711

−0.00517

−0.00691

−0.00900

−0.00414

−0.00770

−0.00886

−0.00737

−0.00090

−0.00790

Ymittos

−0.00048

0.00039

−0.00236

−0.00197

−0.00134

−0.00216

−0.00311

−0.00198

−0.00281

−0.00086

−0.00282

−0.00031

−0.00120

Zefyrio

−0.00194

−0.00157

−0.00235

−0.00124

−0.00221

−0.00097

−0.00246

−0.00246

−0.00235

−0.00245

−0.00245

0.00172

−0.00232

Zografos

−0.00200

−0.00477

−0.01486

−0.01390

−0.00800

−0.01707

−0.02057

−0.01287

−0.01069

−0.01574

−0.01102

0.00009

−0.00344

Source: own elaboration (EKKE-ESYE 2005)

The Dissimilarity Indices on the second column of Table 20.3 make clear that apart from central Athens, immigrants as a whole are over-represented (at a minor degree) in 11 other municipalities. These are the areas of Ag Ioannis Rentis (0.002) and Dafni (0.002) both neighbouring Athens centre at the south, Voula (0.002), Vouliagmani (0.002) and Vari (0.001) which are on the south-east end of the city, Kropia (0.002), Artemida (0.002), Nea Makri (0.002) and Marathonas (0.002) which are on the east (the last three on the Aegean seaside), Ag Stefanos (0.002) on the north and Aspropyrgos (0.002) on the west of the metropolitan region.

For those municipalities dominated by immigrants, the degree of segregation of each immigrant group is as follows (see Table 20.3). In Ag. Ioannis Rentis seven out of the 12 nationalities are over-represented, with Pakistani (0.034), Iraqis (0.008), Bangladeshi (0.006) and Egyptians (0.005) showing the highest segregation degree. Bangladeshi (0.020), Egyptians (0.011) and Pakistani (0.006) are also over-represented in Piraeus. In Acharnes segregation is high for immigrants of Russia (0.098), Pakistan (0.041), Romania (0.010) and Bangladesh (0.007), whereas in Metamorfosi over-representation is evident only in Pakistani (0.012). Filipinos, working primarily in domestic help, are found in excess in the high-class areas of Kifisia (0.007), Vouliagmeni (0.004) and Voula (0.002).

Other municipalities with relative dominance of immigrants are Peristeri and Aegaleo, both over-represented by Iraqis (Ds are 0.156 and 0.133 respectively). Of all areas examined, those which provide residence to five and above immigrant groups of high segregation are the following: Ag. Ioannis Rentis (seven groups), Avlona (five), Voula (five), Tavros (five) and Psychiko (five). In contrast, those municipalities where immigrants are under-represented (which means that natives dominate) are: Ag. Paraskevi, Amarousio, Ampelakia, Argyroupoli, Vrilissia, Vyronas, Galatsi, Gerakas, Glyka Nera, Ilioupoli, Iraklio, Melissia, Nea Smyrni, Neo Psychiko, Papagos, Perama, Pefki and Xolargos.

The overall pattern of immigrant distribution is displayed in Map 20.2. As can be seen immigrants as a whole are scattered all over the metropolitan region, indicating low levels of isolation. High clustering is evident in city centre, though it extends down to Piraeus through the neighbouring municipality of Ag. Ioannis Rentis. In the periphery, clustering is observed in Aspropyrgos on the west, in the areas of Metamorfosi, Acharnes and Kifisia on the north of the city, in Ag. Stefanos further up, in Penteli and Anthousa on the city east and in Voula, Vouliagmani and Vari on the city south-east. In addition, a considerable degree of immigrant concentration is apparent in the east side of the region, across the Aegean seaside (municipalities of Marathonas, Nea Makri, Rafina and Artemida).

Maps 20.3, 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, 20.13, and 20.14 provide a picture of the spatial distribution of each one of the immigrant group examined. Albanians, comprising the 62 % of the immigrants as a whole, deserve special attention. Observing the pattern of their distribution across the region (Map 20.3), it becomes evident that they exhibit the greatest dispersion, as compared to the other nationalities. They are over-represented in 28 municipalities of the metropolis, with central Athens receiving the majority of these people (D is 0.166). Around the city centre, areas with relatively high percentage in Albanian population are Dafni, Ag. Ioannis Rentis and Piraeus on the south, and Ag. Anargyroi, Nea Ionia and Amarousio on the north. In the periphery, clustering is evident in Aspropyrgos on the west, Metamorfosi, Kifisia, Acharnes and Ag. Stefanos on the north, in Penteli and Anthousa on the east as well as in a number of municipalities on the east seaside (Marathonas, Nea Makri, Rafina, Artemida and Markopoulos).

Although immigrants as a whole are dispersed all over the metropolitan region, the exposure/isolation pattern of each one of the nationalities under study differs. Two groups can be identified: one of relative exposure and one of isolation. As Maps 20.4, 20.5, 20.6, 20.7, 20.8, 20.9, 20.10, 20.11, 20.12, 20.13, and 20.14 indicate, people originating from Eastern European countries (Albania, Bulgaria, Poland, Romania, Russia and Ukraine) seems to follow a pattern of relative dispersion across the metropolitan region. In turn, those coming from North Africa and Asia (Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Philippines) appear to live in relative isolation. As discussed in Sect. 2, such behaviour is driven by cultural and/or economic factors. Religion might be an important parameter here since in five out of the six countries of the second group, i.e. Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Pakistan and Bangladesh, the official creed is Islam, whereas the Greek official religion is Christianity. As concerns Filipinos, the other nationality of the second group, economic reasons might be of primary importance, since these people (who are not in their majority Muslims) are employed largely in domestic help and reside with the wealthy families that employ them in specific parts of the city (Psychico, Ekali, Kifisia, Vouliagmeni).

As regards the clustering/evenness dimension, we observe eight nationalities of immigrants to exhibit a similar pattern, which is described by both high concentration within the city centre (centralisation) and relatively lower concentrations in other parts of the metropolitan region. In particular, apart from central Athens, people originating from Poland and Bulgaria show a preference for residence in municipalities at the east coast (Marathonas, Nea Makri, Rafina, Artemida), Romanians in local concentrations in Ag. Ioannis Rentis and Acharnes, whereas Ukrainians are deployed in Mosxato and Piraeus at the south and Filothei and Psychiko at the north of the city centre, as well as in the adjacent areas of Kifisia, Acharnes, Nea Erythraia and Ekali (see Maps 20.4, 20.6, 20.7 and 20.9 respectively).

Syrians and Egyptians (Maps 20.14 and 20.10 respectively) are quite centralised, showing a preference for the inner-city and nearby municipalities at the south (Dafni, Kallithea, Tavros, Ag Ioannis Rentis and Piraeus). So do Bangladeshi (Map 20.13), who apart from the city centre, where their over-representation (measured by D) is almost double as compared to those of other immigrants groups, find residence in Ag Ioannis Rentis and Piraeus (southern at the city-centre), as well as in the adjacent area of northern municipalities of Kamatero, Acharnes, Zefyrio and Ano Liosia. In turn, Filipinos are seen to reside (Map 20.12) not only in central Athens but also in the high-income areas of Filothei and Psychico at the north of the city centre, Kifisia and Ekali further up, and Vouliagmeni at the south-east of the city, where they are employed in the domestic help.

The rest three nationalities of immigrants, i.e. Iraqis, Pakistani and Russians seems to follow a different location pattern, characterised by low centralisation. In particular, the vast majority of Iraqis, which exhibit the most isolated and clustering pattern of the three,8 find home in the adjacent municipalities of Ag. Ioannis Rendis, Aegaleo and Peristeri located on the west of central Athens (Map 20.11). In turn, Pakistani are deployed along a west-north corridor (across the Kifisou Avenue), taking up residence in the municipalities of Ag. Ioannis Rendis, Aegaleo, Peristeri, Ag. Anargyroi, Acharnes and Metamorfosi (Map 20.8). Finally, Russians, who in their majority are repatriated Greek-ethnic Pontians, exhibit a highly exposure pattern but with increased clustering in Acharnes and Ano Liosia (Map 20.5). These are areas where land had been made available (at low cost) by the Greek government aiming to assist Greek-Pontians’ residency and integration.

Apart from determining the current distribution of immigrants across Athens metropolitan region, the study is also interested in its dynamics, which are reflected on the mobility pattern of the immigrants. On these grounds, the rest of the paper looks at the changes in immigrant residential location took place in the years of 1995 and 2000, where data from the 2001 census are available. In particular, Maps 20.15, 20.16, 20.17, 20.18, 20.19, 20.20, 20.21, 20.22, 20.23, 20.24, 20.25, and 20.26 highlight those areas (at the CDD level) where immigrants have recently moved in, or more precisely, the areas where immigrant reside during the 2001 census but they have moved in there either a year or 6 years ago (that is in 2000 or in 1995, respectively).
Map 20.15

Albanians destinations (moved in at 1995) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.16

Albanians destinations (moved in at 2000) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.17

East Europeans destinations (moved in at 1995) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.18

East Europeans destinations (moved in at 2000) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.19

West Asians destinations (moved in at 1995) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.20

West Asians destinations (moved in at 2000) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.21

Central-South Asians destinations (moved in at 1995) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.22

Central-South Asians destinations (moved in at 2000) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.23

South-East Asians destinations (moved in at 1995) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.24

South-East Asians destinations (moved in at 2000) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.25

North Africans destinations (moved in at 1995) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

Map 20.26

North Africans destinations (moved in at 2000) (Source: own elaboration [EKKE cartographic platform])

What becomes evident from the cartographic representations below (Maps 20.15, 20.16, 20.17, 20.18, 20.19, 20.20, 20.21, 20.22, 20.23, and 20.24) is a clear tendency of immigrants to decentralise, that is, to move out of the central Athens and to take up residence in the peripheral municipalities of the city. This is the case both in 1995 and in 2000 time points. This exodus, however, is not uniform either across time or across immigrant groups. As regards the former, the data indicate the gradual increase of immigrants’ decentralisation over time. In particular, changes in residential location took place in 2000 constitute the 23 % of the totality of movements occurred since 1995. This means that one out of four immigrants who have changed area of residence within this 6 years time frame she did so over the last year.

The second point raised highlights the fact that mobility is not the same for all immigrant groups examined. In particular, people of East European countries, and especially Albanians, exhibit a much higher mobility degree as compared to Asians or Africans. Actually, about half (45 %) of the Albanians that live in Athens have, within the examined period, moved houses from the central area to municipalities in the periphery, whereas the respective figure for Asian or Africans is below 10 %.

7 Conclusions

The current research has analysed the residential distribution of various immigrant groups within Athens metropolitan region. In particular, it has determine both the pattern of isolation, clustering and centralisation immigrants display and the degree of segregation exhibited within specific areas, and assessed the dynamics of the aforementioned configurations. Such analysis enables to shed light on the locational preferences of various immigrant groups, on possible changes of these preferences over time, and on the emerging form of their spatial arrangements.

Our findings indicate the preference of immigrants for central locations, where accessibility is high, due to transport networks, and low-cost housing is available. This trend has been also reported in other studies, such as Psimmenos (1995, 1998), Baldwin-Edwards (2005) and Maloutas (2007), but the current research adds four clarifications on the issue.

First, the emerging pattern of immigrants’ residential location is described as one of increasing exposure and decentralisation. This is principally attributable to the locational behaviour of Eastern Europeans, and particularly of Albanians,9 which is characterised by relative dispersion on the one hand, and increasing mobility from central areas to the peripheral locations on the other. Along these lines it is of interest to note that an important role to the aforementioned distribution is played by Russians, which is the third, in terms of size, group of immigrants, exhibiting a highly exposure pattern with relative clustering in away-from-the-centre northern municipalities of the metropolis.

Second, the locational pattern and dynamics are not uniform to all groups of immigrants. Whereas Eastern Europeans (with possible exception this of Poles) show signs of dispersion, and perhaps integration with the local population, those who are coming from Asia and Africa are seen to exhibit a rather seclusive behaviour and a pattern of location characterised by relative isolation and low mobility. Given the present small size of the latter groups it can be argued that no specific ethnic ghettos are under formation, though there are no guarantees that this will be the case in the future.

Third, although economic factors are significant determinants of immigrants’ locational decisions, it seems that cultural reasons play a key role too, especially for specific immigrant groups. Thus, for instance, one can easily attribute the initial location of newcomers from Philippines within the wealthy neighbourhoods of Ekali, Vouliagmeni, Psychico and Kifisia, to pure economic reasons, as these people were primarily employed in the domestic help of the high-income families residing in those areas. However, there are difficulties in explaining why people remained there, once the community increased its size with the arrival of further Filipinos, without reference to cultural reasons. Similarly, the initial location of Russian-Pontians in Acharnes may be due to economic reasons, and in particular to the policies of low-cost housing put forth by the Greek government over the 1990s, but the further enlargement of the community within the same area should be seen as a side-effect of the close-knit ethnic networks of support developed in the area.

Finally, it becomes evident that we know relatively little of the processes and factors determining the intra-urban locational decisions of immigrants. Perhaps this may be due to the too-short experience Greece has on the issue, and perhaps it might be necessary for patterns to establish before we could be able to draw firm conclusion on the subject. At the moment we can argue that both economic and cultural features affect the locational choices of immigrants, but further research needs to be put forward in order to shed light on these matters, investigating in more detail the specific qualities (which might be related to the housing stock, labour opportunities, local institutions, immigrants’ nationality, religion, family structure, etc.) that define the locational behaviour of these people.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    Consisted of returning Greek guest workers, members of the Greek Diaspora from Egypt or elsewhere, as well as political exiles from the time of the Civil War of the 1940s.

  2. 2.

    Laws 2910/2001, 3386/2005 and 3536/2007, and Presidential Decrees 358/1997, 359/1997, 131/2006 and 150/2006.

  3. 3.

    Other incidents that could be interpreted along this line include the continuing public advertisements and notices in Athens refusing to rent property to foreigners. As Psimmenos (2001) clearly states, few natives would be willing to rent their property to a foreigner (especially of Albanian origins) if there are chances to rent it to someone else.

  4. 4.

    Researchers such as Lazaridis and Psimmenos (2000) have linked those measures to an overall local-government strategy to regenerate the centre of Athens.

  5. 5.

    Baldwin-Edwards (2005) argues that after intense criticism from leading academics, several state institutions and agencies dealing with immigrants on a regular basis have started to become more sensitised to issues relating to immigrants’ rights and social integration. These agencies include various arms of the Ministry of Labour (OAED, IKA) and also the Greek police, to which clear instructions have been given in a circular from the Ministry of Public Order to respect immigrants’ rights and prohibit police violence.

  6. 6.

    Although the majority of these people are economic (labour force) immigrants there is a small number of refugees and asylum seekers coming mostly from Iraq.

  7. 7.

    This is the most widely-used measure of residential segregation developed by Duncan and Duncan (1955).

  8. 8.

    This behaviour might be related to the fact that most Iraqis are in fact asylum-seekers and refugees rather than economic immigrants. We thank the anonymous referee for bringing this point to our attention.

  9. 9.

    Note that Eastern Europeans comprise more than 78 % of the totality of immigrants, with Albanians being the 62 %.

References

  1. Ahmed AM, Hammarstedt M (2008) Discrimination in the rental housing market: a field experiment on the internet. J Urban Econ 64(2):362–372CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alba RD, Logan JR (1993) Minority proximity to whites in suburbs: an individual-level analysis of segregation. Am J Sociol 98(13):88–1427Google Scholar
  3. Anas A (2004) Ethnic segregation and ghettos. In: Arnott RJ, McMillen DP (eds) A companion to urban economics. Blackwell, London, pp 536–554Google Scholar
  4. Arapoglou VP (2006) Immigration, segregation and urban development in Athens: the relevance of the LA debate for Southern European metropolises. Greek Rev Soc Res 121(C):11–38Google Scholar
  5. Arvanitidis P, Skouras D (2007) Intra-urban patterns of immigrant location and the housing market: a preliminary investigation. Fondazione Eni Enrico Mattei working paper series, 42.2007Google Scholar
  6. Arvanitidis P, Skouras D (2008) The residential characteristics of immigrants in the medium-sized city of Volos: a preliminary investigation. Department of planning and regional development, University of Thessaly, Discussion paper series, 14(10):177–198Google Scholar
  7. Baldwin-Edwards M (2005) The integration of immigrants in Athens: developing indicators and statistical measures. Mediterranean Migration Observatory- UEHR and Panteion University, AthensGoogle Scholar
  8. Bartel AP (1989) Where do the new U.S. immigrants live? J Labour Econ 7(4):371–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blom S (1999) Residential concentration among immigrants in Oslo. Int Migr 37(3):617–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Boal FW (1976) Ethnic residential segregation. In: Herbert DT, Johnston RJ (eds) Social areas in cities, vol 1, Spatial processes and form. Wiley, London, pp 41–79Google Scholar
  11. Boal FW (1996) Immigration and ethnicity in the urban Milieu. In: Roseman CC, Laux HD, Thieme G (eds) Ethnicity, geographic perspectives on ethnic change in modern cities. Rowman and Littlefield, Maryland, pp 283–304Google Scholar
  12. Bolt G, Hooimeijer P, van Kempen R (2002) Ethnic segregation in the Netherlands: new patterns, new policies? Tijdschr Econ Soc Ge 93(2):214–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Bontje M, Latten J (2005) Stable size, changing composition: recent migration dynamics of the Dutch large cities. Tijdschr Econ Soc Ge 96(4):444–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Burnley Ι (2005) Immigration and housing in an emerging global city, Sydney, Australia. Urban Pol Res 23(3):329–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cavounidis J (2002) Migration in Southern Europe and the case of Greece. Int Migr 40(1):45–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Cavounidis J (2007) New elements of Greek policies concerning irregular migrants: the policy of regulations of unauthorised migrants. IMEPO, AthensGoogle Scholar
  17. Cavounidis J, Kontis A, Lianos T, Fakiolas R (eds) (2008) Immigration in Green: experiences, policies and prospects, vol 1. IMEPO, Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  18. Clark WA, Ware J (1997) Trends in residential segregation by socioeconomic status in California. Urban Aff Rev 32:825–843CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Cutler DM, Glaeser EL, Vigdor JL (1999) The rise and decline of the American Ghetto. J Pol Econ 107(3):455–506CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Denton NA, Massey DS (1988) Residential segregation of blacks, Hispanics and Asians by socioeconomic status and generation. Soc Sci Quart 69:797–818Google Scholar
  21. Deurloo MC, Musterd S (1998) Ethnic clusters in Amsterdam, 1994–96: a micro-area analysis. Urban Stud 35(3):385–396CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Djuve AB, Hagen K (1995) “Find me a job! Living conditions among refugees in Oslo”, Fafo Report 184. The Research Foundation Fafo, OsloGoogle Scholar
  23. Duncan OD, Duncan B (1955) A methodological analysis of segregation indexes. Am Sociol Rev 20:210–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Dunn KM (1998) Rethinking ethnic concentration: the case of Cabramatta, Sydney. Urban Stud 35(3):503–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. EKKE – ESYE (National Centre for Social Research – National Statistical Service of Greece) (2005) Panorama of Greek census data 1991–2001. Application under experimental and restricted use at the EKKEGoogle Scholar
  26. Freeman L (2000) Minority housing segregation: a test of three perspectives. J Urban Aff 22(1):15–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Grimes S (1993) Residential segregation in Australian cities: a literature review. Int Migr Rev 27(1):103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Harrison RJ, Weinberg DH (1992) Racial and ethnic segregation in 1990. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Population Association of America, DenverGoogle Scholar
  29. Hatziprokopiou P (2003) Albanian immigrants in Thessaloniki, Greece: processes of economic and social incorporation. J Ethnic Migration Stud 29:1033–1057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Hawley A (1950) Human ecology. Ronald, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  31. Hugo GJ (1996) Diversity down under: the changing ethnic mosaic of Sydney and Melbourne. In: Roseman CC, Laux HD, Thieme G (eds) EthniCity: geographic perspectives on ethnic change in modern cities. Rowman and Littlefield, Maryland, pp 102–134Google Scholar
  32. Johnston RJ, Poulsen MF, Forrest J (2003) And did the walls come tumbling down? Ethnic residential segregation in four US metropolitan areas, 1980–2000. Urban Geogr 24:560–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kanellopoulos K (2008) Attributes and contribution of immigrants in the labour market. In: Cavounidis J, Kontis A, Lianos T, Fakiolas R (eds) Immigration in green: experiences, policies and prospects, vol 1. IMEPO, Athens, pp 1542–173 (in Greek)Google Scholar
  34. Kanellopoulos K, Gregou M, Petralias A (2006) Illegal immigrants in Greece: state approaches, their profile and social situation. BMN and Centre for Planning and Economic Research, AthensGoogle Scholar
  35. Kesteloot C (1995) The creation of socio-spatial marginalization in Brussels: a tale of flexibility, geographical competition and guestworker neighbourhoods. In: Sadler D, Hadjimichalis C (eds) Europe at the margins: new mosaics of inequality. Wiley, Chichester, pp 82–99Google Scholar
  36. King R (2000) Southern Europe in the changing global map of migration. In: King R, Lazaridis G, Tsardanidis C (eds) Eldorado or fortress? Migration in Southern Europe. Macmillan, London, pp 3–26Google Scholar
  37. Kokkali IE (2005) Albanian immigration and urban transformations in Greece Albanian migrant strategies in Thessaloniki, Greece. Paper presented at the 2nd LSE Ph.D. symposium on modern Greece, London, 10 June 2005Google Scholar
  38. Kotzamanis B (2008) Immigrants in Greece, primary analysis of their geographical dispersion and this contribution to population changes of the last decade. In: Cavounidis J, Kontis A, Lianos T, Fakiolas R (eds) Immigration in green: experiences, policies and prospects, vol 1. IMEPO, Athens, pp 12–37 (in Greek)Google Scholar
  39. Labrianidis L, Lyberaki A, Tinios P, Hatziprokopiou P (2004) Inflow of migrants and outflow of investment: aspects of interdependence between Greece and the Balkans. J Ethnic Migr Stud 30(6):1183–1208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Lan-Hung C, Jung-Chung H (2005) Locational decisions and residential preferences of Taiwanese immigrants in Australia. GeoJ 64(1):75–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Lazaridis G (1996) Immigration to Greece: a critical evaluation of Greek policy. New Comm 22(2):335–348Google Scholar
  42. Lazaridis G, Psimmenos I (2000) Migrant flows from Albania to Greece: economic, social and spatial exclusion. In: King R, Lazaridis G, Tsardanidis C (eds) Eldorado or fortress? Migration in Southern Europe. Macmillan, London, pp 170–185Google Scholar
  43. Lianos T (2001) Illegal migrants to Greece and their choice of destination. Int Migr 39(2):4–28CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Lianos T, Papakonstantinou P (2003) Modern migration in Greece: economic research. KEPE, Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  45. Lianos T, Kanellopoulos K, Gregou M, Papakonstantinou P (2008) Estimation of the number of immigrants residing illegally in Greece. IMEPO, Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  46. Logan JR (1978) Growth, politics and the stratification of places. Am J Sociol 84:404–416CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Logan JR, Alba R, Leung S (1996) Minority access to white neighbourhoods: a multiregional comparison. Soc Forces 74:851–881Google Scholar
  48. Malheiros J (2000) Urban restructuring and immigration in Lisbon. In: King R, Lazaridis G, Tsardanidis C (eds) Eldorado or fortress? Macmillan, London, pp 207–231Google Scholar
  49. Malheiros JM, Vala F (2004) Immigration and city change: the Lisbon Metropolis at the turn of the twentieth century. J Ethnic Migr Stud 30(6):1065–1086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Maloutas T (2007) Segregation, social polarization and immigration in Athens during the 1990s: theoretical expectations and contextual difference. Int J Urban Reg Res 31(4):733–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Massey DS (1985) Ethnic residential segregation: a theoretical synthesis and empirical review. Soc Soc Res 69(3):315–350Google Scholar
  52. Massey DS, Denton NA (1985) Spatial assimilation as a socioeconomic outcome. Am Sociol Rev 50:94–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Massey DS, Denton NA (1987) Trends in the residential segregation of Hispanics, blacks and Asians: 1970–1980. Am Sociol Rev 52:802–824CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Massey DS, Denton NA (1988) The dimensions of residential segregation. Soc Forces 67:281–315Google Scholar
  55. Morrill RL (1991) On the measure of spatial segregation. Geog Res Forum 11:25–36Google Scholar
  56. Musterd S, Deurloo R (2002) Unstable immigrant concentrations in Amsterdam: spatial segregation and integration of newcomers. Housing Stud 17(3):487–503CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Musterd S, Ostendorf W, Breebaart M (1998) Multi-ethnic metropolis: patterns and policies. Kluwer, LondonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Myers D, Liu CY (2005) The emerging dominance of immigrants in the US housing market 1970–2000. Urban Pol Res 23(3):347–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. OECD (2001) Trends in international migration. OECD, ParisGoogle Scholar
  60. Openshaw S, Taylor P (1979) A million or so correlation coefficients: three experiments on the modifiable area unit problem. In: Wrigley N (ed) Statistical applications in the spatial sciences. Pion, London, pp 127–144Google Scholar
  61. Pacione M (1996) Ethnic segregation in the European city. Geogr 81:120–132Google Scholar
  62. Park RE (1926) The urban community as a spatial pattern and a moral order. In: Burgess EW (ed) The urban community. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, pp 21–31Google Scholar
  63. Peach C (1996) Does Britain have ghettos? Trans Inst Br Geogr 21:216–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Petsimeris P (1995) Une methode pour l’ analyse de la division ethnique et sociale de l’ espace intra-metropolitan du Grand Londres. L’ Espace Geographique 1995–2:139–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Psimmenos Ι (1995) Immigration from Balkans. Glorybook – Papazisis, Athens (in Greek)Google Scholar
  66. Psimmenos Ι (1998) Creating places of social segregation: the case of unofficial Albanian immigrants in Athens city centre. In: Kasimati K (ed) Social segregation: the Greek experience. Gutenberg, Athens, pp 221–273 (in Greek)Google Scholar
  67. Psimmenos I (2001) Immigration from the Balkans, social exclusion in Athens. Papazisis, AthensGoogle Scholar
  68. Reardon FS, O’ Sullivan D (2004) Measures of spatial segregation. Soc Methodol 34(1):121–162CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Rovolis A, Tragaki A (2006) Ethnic characteristics and geographical distribution of immigrants in Greece. Eur Urban Reg Stud 13(2):99–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Tripier M (1990) L’immigration dans la classe ouvriere en France. L’ Harmattan, ParisGoogle Scholar
  71. Ulrich R (1994) The impact of foreigners on the public purse. In: Spencer S (ed) Immigration as an economic asset: the German experience. Trentham Books, Stoke-on-Trent, pp 65–91Google Scholar
  72. van Kempen R, Ozuekren AS (1998) Ethnic segregation in cities: new forms and explanations in a dynamic world. Urban Stud 35(10):1631–1656CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Velentzas K, Kalogirou S, Karagianni H, Katsikas N, Papamichos M, Hatziprokopiou P, Chlomoudis K (1996) Housing market in Thessaloniki. Paratiritis, ThessalonikiGoogle Scholar
  74. White MJ (1983) The measurement of spatial segregation. Am J Sociol 88:1008–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Wong WS (1993) Spatial indices of segregation. Urban Stud 30:559–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Wong WS (1997) Spatial dependency of segregation indices. Can Geogr 41:128–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Wong WS (2002) Spatial measures of segregation and GIS. Urban Geogr 23:85–92CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Yinger J (1986) Measuring racial discrimination with fair housing audits: caught in the act. Am Econ Rev 76(5):881–893Google Scholar
  79. Zang X, Hassan R (1996) Residential choices of immigrants in Australia. Int Migr 34(4):567–582CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paschalis A. Arvanitidis
    • 1
    Email author
  • George Petrakos
    • 2
  • Dimitrios Skouras
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  2. 2.Department of Planning and Regional DevelopmentUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece
  3. 3.Hellenic Army Aviation Corps. & Department of Planning and Regional DevelopmentUniversity of ThessalyVolosGreece

Personalised recommendations