Content uploaded by Rafael Harun
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Rafael Harun on Mar 18, 2021
Content may be subject to copyright.
Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at
https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjou20
Journal of Urbanism: International Research on
Placemaking and Urban Sustainability
ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjou20
The immigrant effect on commuting modal shares:
variation and consistency across metropolitan
zones
Rafael Harun, Pierre Filion & Markus Moos
To cite this article: Rafael Harun, Pierre Filion & Markus Moos (2021): The immigrant
effect on commuting modal shares: variation and consistency across metropolitan zones,
Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, DOI:
10.1080/17549175.2021.1893798
To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1893798
Published online: 12 Mar 2021.
Submit your article to this journal
View related articles
View Crossmark data
The immigrant eect on commuting modal shares: variation
and consistency across metropolitan zones
Rafael Harun , Pierre Filion and Markus Moos
School of Planning, University of Waterloo, Waterloo, ON, Canada
ABSTRACT
The literature has identied an “immigrant eect” in commuting
modal shares, accounting for higher reliance on public transit. Few
studies have, however, studied the immigrant eect at the intra-
metropolitan scale. This paper relies on individual- and census tract-
level data to identify relations between immigrant modal shares
and housing location within three metropolitan concentric zones
(inner city, inner and outer suburb) and selected socioeconomic
variables. Findings from the Toronto metropolitan area conrm the
existence of an immigrant eect, as immigrants register higher
levels of transit use than the domestically born population in all
categories of residential location across the metropolitan region.
The paper reects on reasons for, and sustainability consequences
of, disproportional immigrant transit reliance in sectors, such as the
outer suburb, that are poorly served by transit. It suggests
a demand-driven transit strategy that would involve adjusting ser-
vices to the higher transit reliance of immigrants.
KEYWORDS
Immigrant Settlement;
transportation pattern;
suburbanization; Toronto
Introduction
Just as immigrants opt for suburban residential locations, researchers have pointed to
a lasting “immigrant eect” on commuting patterns, whereby immigrants contribute to
lower overall car-use regardless of income. However, much less is known about potential
intra-metropolitan spatial variations of this eect. The lower car-dependency among
immigrants seems paradoxical given their increasing presence in low-density suburbs
where transit availability is sparse relative to more central locations. There is little research
that can help us understand whether immigrants in the suburbs also post lower car
dependency compared to other suburban residents; or whether, instead, the overall
metropolitan-level eect is driven primarily by a subset of immigrants who reside in the
more transit-accessible inner city. Better understanding of these dynamics can aid in the
design of public transit policies to meet potential sustainability goals of lower car use.
In this paper, we investigate commuting patterns of immigrants within the Toronto
census metropolitan area (CMA). Statistics Canada applies the term “immigrant” to
describe a person who is born outside Canada and has been granted legal rights to live
in the country permanently (Statistics Canada 2019). In Toronto, immigrants constitute
nearly half of the total population and are highly diverse in terms of ethnicity and country
CONTACT Rafael Harun smharun@uwaterloo.ca
JOURNAL OF URBANISM
https://doi.org/10.1080/17549175.2021.1893798
© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group
of origin (Vézina and Houle 2017). The characteristics of immigrants that dierentiate
them from non-immigrants are well documented in the literature. Research has shown
that immigrants generally have lower incomes and larger family sizes compared to non-
immigrant populations (Agarwal 2010; Crossman 2013). It also portrays distinct prefer-
ences, which are largely inuenced by the culture at their country of origin, in selecting
residential locations and making lifestyle choices (Li 2009). Interactions between these
socioeconomic factors culminate in dierences in the utilization of urban services, such as
transportation, between immigrants and non-immigrants in metropolitan regions (Heisz
and Schellenberg 2004).
To analyse commuting patterns of immigrants, we rst use individual-level census data
to describe how the commuting patterns of immigrants living in dierent housing types
and tenures vary from those of the non-immigrants with similar housing circumstances.
Second, we compare commuting characteristics of census tracts, categorized according to
their proportion of immigrants. We develop models for the whole CMA and for each
metropolitan zone (inner city, inner and outer suburbs), and use standardized coecients
to compare models. The models measure how commuting modes vary with the concen-
tration of immigrants within census tracts, while accounting for other characteristics that
impact commuting behaviour.
Census tract data can only reveal a relationship between commuting behaviour and
immigrant concentrations at the tract level. It does not measure immigrants’ individual
transportation behaviour directly. However, in combination with the individual data
analysed here and in prior research, we can (cautiously) draw conclusions about how
the commuting behaviour of immigrants varies spatially.
Findings demonstrate that immigrants register lower car-dependency than non-
immigrants regardless of housing type or tenure. The census tract-level analysis shows
an increase in public transit use, and carpooling, with higher levels of immigrant
concentration in all metropolitan zones. The persistently higher transit use in tracts
with concentrations of immigrants irrespective of zone shows that the “immigrant
eect” on car dependency exists even in suburbs with relatively low levels of public
transit service. Findings thus refute the view that higher public transit use among
immigrants stems solely from a tendency for them to reside in sectors that are well
served by transit.
The suburbanization of immigration
The percentage of immigrants in Canada was 21.9% in 2016. In Toronto, Canada’s largest
metropolitan region, this proportion reached 46.1%. Among nations hosting high num-
bers of immigrants, Canada stands out because of the high diversity of backgrounds and
country of origins (Hiebert 2016). Most immigrants to Canada are selected through
a points system, which in theory is intended to gauge their capacity to integrate to
Canadian society, especially its job market (Knowles 2016, 247–271). Despite their diver-
sity and qualication, and Canada’s multicultural policies, integration of immigrants
within Canadian society is frequently impaired by the non-recognition of foreign work
and educational credentials, structural racism and exclusion (Guo, 2009). As a result, many
immigrants must settle for jobs that do not correspond to their skill set, and thus end up
in precarious, low-paid employment (Kaushal et al. 2016; Wilkinson et al. 2016).
2R. HARUN ET AL.
As suburbs contain most of the metropolitan population, jobs, services and retailing, it
is not unexpected that a majority of immigrants now opt for suburban living (Gordon &
Janzen, 2013). Immigrants, like other residents, suburbanize in large part to benet from
lower housing cost, particularly for larger ground-level dwellings, and proximity to
a growing suburban job pool (Behrens and Kühl 2011).
More so than the general population, some immigrant households are drawn to big
suburban houses, capable of accommodating large extended families (Bascaramurty
2013). Existing concentrations of residents belonging to their own ethnic group, which
ease access to family members and friends along with ethnic-oriented shops, employ-
ment, institutions and places of worship, may also account for the disproportionate
appeal the suburb exerts on immigrants (Qadeer, Agrawal, and Lovell 2010). These
suburban ethnic concentrations express the distinctive culture of immigrants in local
politics, the retail scene and public institutions (Li 1998, 2006; Wang and Zhong 2013).
Travel patterns
Prior studies of travel behaviour identied patterns among immigrants that dier from
those of domestically born, notably less driving, higher reliance on public transit and
carpooling, along with shorter travelled distances (Blumenberg and Evans 2010, 2007;
Blumenberg and Shiki 2008; Blumenberg and Song 2008). These dierences reect the
preferences of immigrants as regards residential location, culture, and socioeconomic
status. For instance, transportation habits immigrants bring from their country of origin
are believed to contribute to their higher reliance on public transit (Tal and Handy 2010, 92).
At the same time, these travel distinctions are also seen as consequences of immi-
grants’ socioeconomic circumstances. Higher public transit patronage and shorter travel
distances are related to lower income and more precarious labour market circumstances
than those of domestically born individuals (Blumenberg and Shiki 2008; Chatman and
Klein 2013; Clark and Wang 2010; Lovejoy and Handy 2008). For many immigrants,
diculties inherent in integrating into their host country, especially its labour market,
result in limited resources restricting their location and transportation choices
(Blumenberg 2009). Historically, the lower income of immigrants had a dual transit-
conducive eect on their travel pattern: It made it dicult for them to rely on the car
and conned them to high-density inner-city neighbourhoods, which were generally well
served by public transit.
Several studies point to a transportation assimilation tendency among immigrants,
whereby their travel pattern loses its distinctiveness as the stay in the host country
lengthens (Asgari, Zaman, and Jin 2017; Chatman and Klein 2009,315; Xu 2018). For
example, Hu (2017) documented the rapid adoption of the North American automobile
culture by Asian immigrants in the US. In a similar vein, two Toronto-focussed studies
exposed a convergence between the commuting distance and modal shares of foreign-
and domestically born residents with increasing length of stay in Canada (Heisz and
Schellenberg 2004; Newbold and Scott 2018; Newbold, Scott, and Burke 2017).
Tal and Handy (2010, 85) note wide dierences in the rapidity with which the trans-
portation patterns of dierent immigrant groups converge with those of non-immigrants.
They also nd that some immigrant groups maintain higher levels of public transit use
regardless of length of stay in the host country. It is noteworthy, however, that despite the
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 3
identication of dierences between transportation patterns of foreign- and domestically
born residents, there is less variation in the travel behaviours of immigrants and non-
immigrants sharing similar socioeconomic characteristics.
The residential geographies of immigrants and their transportation behaviour are
closely linked. Yet, the two are often studied in isolation. A few studies have considered
immigrant settlement patterns to understand their transportation behaviour predomi-
nantly focussing on carpooling (Liu and Painter 2012; Shin 2017a, 2017b). Lo, Shalaby, and
Alshalalfeh (2011) have stressed the importance of improved governance to better
account for the impacts of immigrant settlement on transportation infrastructure.
However, the impact on transport patterns of variations in spatial concentrations of
immigrants remains largely unexplored.
Clearly, the suburban geography of immigrants in Toronto would suggest higher car
dependency due to the nexus between car use and the suburban realm. The low density
of suburbs, their functionally specialized planning and limited transit options make them
ill-suited to non-automobile modes (Moos et al. 2018). In the Toronto CMA, transit services
generally decline with distance from the central business district (CBD).
Therefore, we expect that immigrants living near the CBD will demonstrate higher
reliance on public transit, walking and cycling than suburban immigrants. But how do the
dierences in modal split between immigrants and non-immigrants vary in dierent areas
within a specic metropolitan area? In other words, does the relationship between
distance from the CBD and car-dependency change at the same rate for immigrants
and non-immigrants? Or are inner city immigrants primarily responsible for
a metropolitan-wide lower car use among immigrants as compared to non-immigrants?
These are the questions driving this paper.
Methods
The data originate from the 2016 Canadian census. We use variables on immigration
status, household composition, education, income, housing, and commuting mode at the
individual and census tract (CT) level.
Two additional variables were computed to improve understanding of transportation
patterns. Distance from the centroid of each CT to the central business district (CBD) was
calculated. Also, we measured distances from the centroid of the tracts to their nearest
rapid transit stop (bus rapid transit or rail system) to assess the proximity of CTs to quality
public transit. Information on the transit system was generated in ArcGIS 10.6 using the
information collected in General Transit Feed Specication (GTFS) format from multiple
sources.
The analysis in this research is divided into three parts: i) individual-level data on
commuting patterns ii) immigrants’ spatial distribution at the CT level, and iii) relationship
between commuting mode and the spatial concentration of immigrant residential areas.
First, the individual data compares commuting modes of non-immigrants and immi-
grants, including the length of stay in the host country variable for the latter. Publicly
available individual-level census data do not allow the cross-tabulation of immigrant and
non-immigrant commuting data with intra-CMA residential locations. Thus, we compare
commuting modes by characteristics of the housing stock that have been associated with
suburban ways of living in prior research (Moos and Walter-Joseph 2017; Walks 2013). This
4R. HARUN ET AL.
approach does not add an explicit spatial dimension. But we know from prior research
that the geography of single-detached home ownership increases with distance from the
CBD and is generally highest in the outer reaches of the CMA (Taylor and Burcheld 2010).
Nonetheless, when interpreting results from this rst part of the research, we must keep in
mind that there are some central area CTs that also register high levels of single-detached
homeownership.
A location quotient (LQ) was devised using Formula 1 to measure the level of immi-
grant concentration of the CTs relative to their average in Toronto CMA.
LQ ¼
Ii
=
Pi
I
=
P
(1)
where, Ii= total immigrant in CT i; Pi= total population in CT i; I = total immigrant in
Toronto; and P = total population in Toronto.
The CTs were divided into three groups based on the levels of immigrant concentration.
The tracts with LQ values above 1.2 were categorized as “high concentration of immigrants”,
and those with scores less than 0.8 were considered to have “low concentration of immi-
grants”. CTs with in-between LQ values were identied as showing a “medium concentra-
tion”. The three categories of CTs were created within each of the three metropolitan zones
(inner city, inner and outer suburb), which were dened following established methods
using their period of development (Bunting and Filion 1996; Skaburskis and Moos 2008). The
inner city contains CTs originally urbanized before 1946, the inner suburbs were developed
for the most part between 1946 and 1971, and the outer suburbs were built primarily from
1971 onwards. Pre-1946 villages and towns that have since been absorbed by suburban
development are assigned to the inner or outer suburb zone according to the period when
areas surrounding them were developed.
Finally, we compare transportation patterns by levels of CT immigrant concentration
within each zone both descriptively and using multivariate analysis. Regression models
were constructed to assess the relationship between levels of immigrant concentration
and selected socioeconomic and transportation variables. We framed four spatial error
regression models, one within each zone and one for the CMA as a whole. The limitation
of CT-level data is that they only apply to CT averages, not to individual-level information.
So, while the CT data add a more nuanced geographic dimension to the analysis of
immigrant settlement patterns, caution must be exercised in interpreting ndings.
Spatial error regression models were devised using a maximum likelihood approach in
GeoDa (a GIS software package). Spatial error models control for spatial eects (Irwin and
Geoghegan 2001), and thereby, derive more ecient and unbiased relationships com-
pared to other modelling approaches, such as Ordinary Least Square (OLS) regression.
Lagrange Multiplier test (LM-lag and LM-error) and their robust versions (RLM-lag and
RLM-error) were assessed to detect the presence of spatial dependence. The selection of
the spatial error model is further justied by the higher signicance of LM-error and RLM-
error than LM-lag and RLM-lag respectively. Although OLS and spatial lag models were
developed in addition to the spatial error model using the same set of variables, results
from the latter model were selected for discussion because of better model t.
The immigrant LQ values of CTs were added as the dependent variable in the models.
The independent variables captured three dimensions – physical, socioeconomic and
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 5
transportation. For the physical dimension, the model included distances from the
centroid of each CT to the CBD as well as the density of private dwellings within each
CT. The socioeconomic dimension comprised variables representing the percentage of
the population with a university degree, average household size, percentage of house-
holds spending thirty percent or more of their income on shelter and housing tenure
(owner to renter ratio). The physical and socioeconomic variables were selected because
of their importance in shaping transportation outcomes, which is acknowledged in the
literature (Heisz and Schellenberg 2004; Levinson 1997; Newbold, Scott, and Burke 2017).
LQs for four commuting modes were included – driving, public transit, carpooling and
active transportation (biking and walking) – representing their use in each CT relative to
the average for the entire CMA.
1
Thus, the models will show us how commuting modes vary with levels of immigrant
concentration in each zone, while holding other factors that impact residential location
patterns constant.
The Toronto CMA
The Toronto CMA (Figure 1) was selected for the study because of its high proportion of
immigrants and the sharp distinction in land use and transportation patterns between
central and outer zones. The inner city registers high densities and shares of non-
Figure 1. Municipal concentric zones of toronto CMA.
6R. HARUN ET AL.
automobile-based commuting. It is also the urban zone where public transit is most
developed and ridership the highest. The inner suburb is more automobile oriented.
Transit service quality (frequency and coverage) is highly uneven. Some portions of the
inner suburb are served by subways whereas others cope with infrequent local bus
services (Filion, McSpurren, and Appleby 2006). The outer suburb presents a more uniform
low-density conguration. Apart from rail connections to Downtown Toronto, public
transit coverage in the outer suburb is generally infrequent and lacks interconnectivity
between dispersed outer-suburban origins and destinations.
With about 500,000 jobs, downtown Toronto represents the largest concentration of
employment in the CMA. The airport and the extensive employment zone surrounding it
comprise nearly as many jobs, but these are much more dispersed, and therefore ill-suited
to public transit (Blais 2016). The remainder of the region’s employment is either dis-
persed or concentrated in much smaller clusters throughout the inner city, inner and
outer suburb (Figure 1).
Toronto portrays a geography of income that resembles that of other large global cities
such as New York. The inner city, after decades of gentrication, posts high income levels
contrasting the inner suburbs where incomes have been declining relative to the CMA
average. Meanwhile, the outer suburb maintains high incomes, although select portions
experience declining incomes (Breau, Shin, and Burkhart 2018). Hulchanski (2007) has
documented income polarisation at the CT scale within the City of Toronto as formerly
middle-income CTs become over time either wealthier or poorer residential areas.
Findings from prior research also point to an association between accessibility to quality
public transit and higher income within the inner city, and an association between low-
quality transit services and inferior incomes in the suburb, especially the inner suburb
(Amar & Teelucksingh, 2015; Jones and Ley 2016).
Commuting mode and housing
At the CMA level, our analysis conrms prior ndings that immigrants are less likely to
drive and more likely to use transit for traveling to work compared to the general
population. Based on the 2016 census individual-level data, 60% of all Toronto CMA
commuters drive to work, compared to 44% of immigrant commuters. In contrast,
while only 25% of the general population use public transit to travel to work, the
proportion for immigrants is close to 38%. Carpooling is higher among immigrants
compared to the rest of the population (8% versus 6%), albeit it represents a small
proportion of the total journeys. Meanwhile, immigrants register higher walking (7%
versus 5.5%) but lower cycling (1% versus 1.5%) rates as compared to all commuters.
While these data apparently suggest automobile dependency among immigrants and
non-immigrants alike, they also highlight the fact that immigrants are substantially
more reliant on transit services and carpooling for commuting compared to the
population as whole.
We also nd a strong relationship between commuting mode and length of stay in
Canada (Figure 2). The share of drivers is just under 43% for immigrants who arrived
between 2015 and 2016. This share among immigrants steadily increases with length of
stay. At 85%, it is highest among immigrants who settled in Canada between 1965 and
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 7
1969. This is 25% higher than the share of car commuters among the total population, but
comparable to that of the non-immigrants of a similar age.
The data demonstrate changes in transportation behaviour as immigrants become
accustomed to dominant North American transportation norms over time. Immigrants
rely more on public transit due to income constraints but also because of journey habits
acquired in their country of origin (Tal and Handy 2010). Over time, transit shares drop as
immigrants’ incomes rise, allowing them to avail themselves of the greater eciency of
the automobile at negotiating the North American metropolitan built form.
However, it needs to be remembered that these are cross-sectional data. There is no
guarantee, of course, that new immigrants will follow a similar trajectory over time. Yet,
the high suburbanization of immigrants points toward the possibility of even greater car-
dependence over time, working against sustainability goals, unless there is a substantial
improvement in suburban transit service and/or severe stagnation in immigrants’
incomes.
We now link commuting modes and housing characteristics to provide cursory insight
into the intra-metropolitan geography of immigrants’ commuting patterns (Figure 3).
Although not exclusively, single-detached homeownership is generally associated with
more dispersed residential locations in Toronto. Even in central locations, single-detached
neighbourhoods are much more car dependent than nearby high-density areas.
Considering tenure also allows us to see dierences in commuting patterns between
immigrants and non-immigrants with somewhat similar socio-economic backgrounds.
Figure 2. Commuting mode by the length of stay of immigrants in Canada.
8R. HARUN ET AL.
Figure 3 shows the ratio of immigrants’ commuting mode shares relative to total
population mode shares. Values greater than 1 indicate higher reliance on a particular
mode on the part of immigrants. Dierences between immigrants and the total popula-
tion are shown for four dierent housing arrangements: single-detached owned, single-
detached rented, apartment owned and apartment rented.
The data indicate that immigrants are less likely to drive to work than the general
population living in similar types of housing (Figure 3). Immigrants are more likely to
carpool and use transit among all housing categories. The dierence in carpooling is
highest among those living in owned apartments, while the dierence in transit use is
highest among renters. With the exception of those residing in owner-occupied single-
detached housing, immigrants are less likely to cycle to work but are at least as likely as
the total population to walk, with the exception of those renting apartments.
The spatial distribution of immigrants
Not unexpectedly, the spatial analysis shows high suburbanization and clustering of
Toronto’s immigrant population. Figure 4 and Table 2 indicate that the tracts with high
(LQs exceeding 1.2) immigrant concentration predominantly appear in inner and outer
suburbs. There are fewer high-LQ CTs in the inner city, and those that post such con-
centrations are mostly found at the outer edge of this zone. The inner-city CTs nearing the
CBD register a low immigrant presence (LQs below 0.8).
Figure 3. Ratio of immigrant’s commuting mode shares to the total population.
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 9
Meanwhile, high-LQ tracts in the inner and outer suburb form large clusters. Such CTs
in the inner suburb tend to be near the outer boundary of this zone, whereas many of
these tracts in the outer suburbs appear to be a spill-over of the inner-suburban agglom-
erations of high LQ CTs.
The zonal distribution of the immigrant population further conrms the high degree of
suburbanization among immigrants (Table 1). The data in Table 1 indicate that 86% of
Toronto immigrants reside in the two suburban concentric zones, where the outer suburb
accounts for the majority (52%). It is in the inner suburb that immigrants represent the
highest percentage of the population (53%).
Findings point to the tendency for immigrants to concentrate in high-LQ suburban CTs.
The low and medium LQ CTs together contain 85% of inner-city immigrants. In contrast,
close to half of outer suburban immigrants reside in high LQ CTs. The distribution of
Figure 4. Distribution of immigrants in Toronto CMA.
Table 1. Distribution of immigrants across concentric zones.
Number of
Immigrants
Concentric Zone Immigrants as Percent of
all Toronto CMA Immigrants
Immigrants as a Percent of the
Concentric Zone Population
Inner City 377,735 13.96 35.5
Inner Suburb 922,360 34.09 53.08
Outer Suburb 1,405,455 51.95 43.88
Total 2,705,550 100
10 R. HARUN ET AL.
immigrants in the inner suburbs is even more concentrated. Nearly two-thirds of inner-
suburban immigrants live in high-LQ CTs.
Modal split by level of immigrant concentration
Table 3 presents commuting modal split by CMA zone and level of immigrant concentra-
tion. Most glaring is the decrease in transit share as one moves from the inner city to the
inner and, then, outer suburb, accompanied by a rise in driving. This trend is indeed
consistent with our expectations as density and multifunctionality as well as transit
availability and frequency are highest in the inner city and, generally, decline with
distance from the CBD (Lo, Shalaby, and Alshalalfeh 2011; Miller and Soberman 2003).
Driving dominates in the inner and outer suburb and transit surpasses driving in the inner
city, regardless of the level of immigrant concentration. Cycling and walking rates are
highest in low- and medium-LQ CTs of the inner city – a zone that is increasingly
gentrifying and, on average, has fewer immigrants (Filion 1991). The nding is consistent
with previous studies linking active transportation and gentrication (e.g., John 2015).
Another noticeable pattern is the higher share of transit commuters in all three zones’
high-LQ-tracts. The driving to transit ratio is highest in the low-LQ tracts and decreases
with the level of immigrant concentration. Breaking this trend, however, are high-LQ
inner-city tracts, which post higher driving shares than inner-city CTs with lower LQs. This
is likely in part due to the location of the high-LQ inner city tracts, further from subways
and the CBD than CTs with lower LQs.
Of additional relevance to our investigation is the rate at which the transit modal
shares of low- and high-LQ CTs decline as we move from the inner city to the outer
suburb. As we transition from the inner city to the inner suburb, the decline in transit
shares in both low- and high-LQ CTs is about 12%. This decline is, however, both more
pronounced and uneven when we consider dierences in transit shares between the
inner and outer suburb. It is 16% for low-LQ CTs and reaches 19% for high-LQ CTs.
Table 2. Compositions of census tracts and their distribution of immigrants within each concentric
zone, 2016.
% of CTs by category within each zone % distribution of immigrants within each zone
Inner City Inner Suburb Outer Suburb Inner City Inner Suburb Outer Suburb
LQ <0:8 59 13 34 42.39 5.68 16.23
0.8 <LQ <1:2 34 37 36 42.71 32.13 36.52
LQ >1:2 7 51 30 14.89 62.19 47.25
Table 3. Commuting modal shares by immigrant concentration of tracts in each concentric zone.
Driving Transit Passenger Walking and Cycling Driving to Transit Ratio
Inner City Low 35.38% 37.86% 3.09% 23.25% 0.93
Medium 29.24% 42.67% 3.37% 24.52% 0.68
High 38.15% 48.59% 4.95% 7.41% 0.78
Inner Suburb Low 64.86% 25.12% 4.59% 4.58% 2.58
Medium 57.77% 32.53% 5.00% 3.72% 1.77
High 53.17% 36.23% 6.18% 3.56% 1.46
Outer Suburb Low 79.81% 9.56% 6.05% 3.65% 8.34
Medium 75.95% 14.37% 6.17% 2.57% 5.28
High 72.99% 16.88% 7.01% 2.27% 4.32
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 11
High-LQ CTs in the outer suburb register higher transit shares than low-LQ CTs in the
same zone, but this dierence is much smaller in the outer suburb than in either the inner
suburb or inner city. We suspect that both lower transit service levels as well as higher
immigrant incomes in the outer than inner suburb account for this situation.
Figure 5 illustrates the relationship between the percentage of a tract’s automobile-
based commuters and distance from the CBD, dierentiating low and high immigrant
tracts. Not surprisingly, driving rises with distance from the CBD, as the density of the built
form declines and transit service becomes less frequent. The graph also shows that the
tracts with high levels of immigrants are located mostly between 10 and 35 km from the
CBD. This coincides with the outer edges of the inner city, the inner suburb and the inner
portions of the outer suburb. Most remarkable is how the slope of the relationship
between driving and distance from the CBD changes with immigrant concentration levels.
The high-LQ tracts see driving commutes increase less quickly with distance from the CBD
than the low immigrant tracts or, for this matter, than all tracts.
Immigrant concentration, socioeconomic status, and commuting modes
We developed regression models to test whether the relationship between the concen-
tration of immigrants and lower automobile use persists once we account for other factors
shaping commuting patterns. In addition to a model including all tracts in the CMA,
separate regressions were constructed for each metropolitan zone to see how the
relationship between immigrant concentrations and commuting patterns varies in dier-
ent parts of the metropolitan region. Table 4 summarizes results from the regression
analysis.
Figure 5. Relationship between car use and distance from CBD for CTs with different concentrations of
immigrants.
12 R. HARUN ET AL.
Relationships between socio-economic variables and immigrant concentrations, for
the most part, hold across CMA zones. (Zonal comparisons must be interpreted with
caution as they refer to tract-level averages.) We nd a positive association between
household size and immigrant concentration levels in CTs, reecting the tendency for
immigrants to live in larger households than the non-immigrants. Higher immigrant
concentrations were also associated with lower socioeconomic status as indicated by
the spending on shelter variable. The proportion of the CT households spending 30% or
more of their income on shelter increases with immigrant concentration.
These CT-based ndings are consistent with results from studies using individual-level
data to investigate immigrants in Toronto. Large household size among immigrants is
commonly attributed to their adherence to traditional family structures (two parents and
children) and the prevalence of multi-family and inter-generational households
(Bascaramurty 2013; Hiebert et al. 2006). Meanwhile, immigrants, especially in their
early years, spend, on average, nearly 50% of their income on housing, primarily due to
their low income (Preston et al., 2009). Overall, both immigrant owners and renters end up
allocating a substantial proportion of their incomes to meet housing costs (Hiebert 2017).
A relationship between the owner to renter ratio and immigrant concentration levels
was only detected in the inner suburb. We assume that this positive association reects
high homeownership rates among immigrants, particularly in the inner suburbs, observed
in earlier studies (e.g., Hiebert 2017). A greater appeal of home ownership for immigrants
relative to the Canadian-born could also be a factor contributing to their observed
tendency to allocate a high portion of their income to housing.
The relationship between immigrant concentrations and education varies by CMA
zone. In the outer suburb, an increase in the population with a university degree is
positively associated with immigrant concentrations. The nding is not unexpected
since the percentage of immigrants with a masters’ or doctorate degree is twice that of
the non-immigrants (Statistics Canada 2017). However, there is a negative association in
the inner city between university education and immigrant concentration, consistent with
the location of subsidized housing that houses low-income immigrants in Toronto’s inner
city and to some extent also in the inner suburb. Widespread inner-city gentrication,
Table 4. Transportation and socioeconomic correlates of immigrant concentrations.
Toronto CMA Inner City Inner Suburb Outer Suburb
Coeff Coeff Coeff Coeff
LQ – Driving 0.061 0.118 −0.039 0.016
LQ – Transit 0.154* 0.147* 0.180* 0.224*
LQ – Walk and Cycle −0.035* 0.024 −0.054* −0.034
LQ – Passenger 0.071* 0.088* 0.056* 0.068*
Distance from CBD −0.004* 0.005 0.022* −0.013*
Dwelling Density 0.018* 0.022* 0.017* 0.050*
University Degree 0.002 −0.193* −0.031 0.110*
Average Household Size 0.146* 0.119* 0.077* 0.173*
Owner to Renter Ratio 0.004 −0.039 0.040* −0.002
Spending More than 30% of Income on Shelter 0.362* 0.233* 0.294* 0.392*
CONSTANT 0.014 0.025 0.011 0.150
R
2
0.876 0.783 0.830 0.891
N-Cases 1132 234 336 562
*Significant at 5% Confidence Interval
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 13
which attracts mostly highly educated non-immigrants, is a further factor accounting for
this observation.
Extensive research has attributed the apparent paradox between immigrants’ high
education achievement and their dicult economic circumstances to an insucient
recognition in Canada of their out-of-country educational qualication and work experi-
ence (Annen 2019; Drolet and Teixeira 2019; Premji and Shakya 2017). Such discrimination
results in underemployment and lower incomes.
The commuting patterns revealed by the models are generally in accord with ndings
from the literature on immigrants’ transportation behaviour (Blumenberg and Evans 2010,
2007; Blumenberg and Shiki 2008; Blumenberg and Song 2008; Liu and Painter 2012; Shin,
2017b). Our results point to higher reliance on public transit and carpooling in the high
immigrant-concentration tracts. The models detected a positive association between public
transit use and immigrant concentration for the entire study area as well as for each CMA
zone. Remarkably, the relationship between driving and immigrant concentrations is not
statistically signicant in any of the models. This points to the fact that although high
immigrant areas register inferior driving levels, it remains the dominant mode of transport
across the suburban zones in low-, medium- and high-LQ CTs, often by a large margin.
The models also identify an increase in carpooling with higher immigrant concentra-
tion levels. We speculate that limited public transit service in the suburbs, where most
immigrants reside, contributes to higher carpooling rates. What is more, employment
decentralization in Toronto CMA has induced suburban job growth, which largely takes
place in industrial and business park congurations, whose low density and large mono-
functional expanses make them notoriously dicult to service by transit. In these circum-
stances, carpooling provides an economical and convenient alternative. Moreover, ethnic
districts provide strong social cohesion, which favours carpooling. The ndings also
suggest lower reliance on active transportation in high-LQ CTs, especially in the suburbs.
One explanation may be the presence of concentrations of immigrants in suburban
environments that are car-oriented and therefore hostile to walking and cycling.
The higher transit dependence in high-LQ tracts could be associated with proximity to
transit stops, but our analysis indicates otherwise. Figure 6 represents the comparison of the
mean distance from the centroids of low-, medium-, and high-LQ- tracts to the nearest rail
transit and BRT stops with the average distance calculated for their respective metropolitan
zone. The positive values in the gure indicate less distance to these transit stops than the
zonal average and the negative values suggest longer distances. As indicated in the gure,
the medium- and high-LQ tracts in the inner city were located further from such transit stops
compared to the low-LQ CTs. The high-LQ tracts in the inner suburb were also more distant
from these transit stops than their counterparts. The relationship is reversed in the outer
suburb as the medium- and high-LQ tracts registered proximity to rail transit and BRT stops
compared to the low-LQ tracts. Regardless, the residents of the medium and high-LQ tracts
in the outer suburb still need to travel 2.7 km on average to access transit.
The ndings show higher reliance on transit and carpooling in areas with high
immigrant concentrations; but they also suggest that the residential locations of immi-
grants are not necessarily conducive to transit use, raising equity concerns. Transit
infrastructure in the Toronto remains highly concentrated in the inner city, particularly
in and around the CBD. However, inner city and inner suburb tracts with high immigrant
concentrations are located furthest from transit. Prior analysis has also detected
14 R. HARUN ET AL.
constrained access to public transit in low-income areas of Toronto, where there are high
concentrations of immigrants (see, Martin Prosperity Institute 2011).
Conclusion: the immigrant concentration eect
The analysis in this paper sits at the juncture of two interrelated issues – immigrant
settlement and transportation patterns, which have previously mostly been addressed in
silos. Instead, we consider commuting patterns in relation to immigrant residential dis-
tribution and the broader metropolitan context, such as the diering availability of public
transit in the inner city versus the suburbs. The higher reliance on public transit and
carpooling in immigrant intensive tracts meshes with the transportation behaviour of
immigrants documented in the literature (Blumenberg and Evans 2010, 2007;
Blumenberg and Shiki 2008; Blumenberg and Song 2008; Liu and Painter 2012; Shin 2017b).
The data conrm the high suburbanization of immigrants in Toronto; the suburbs
account for the overwhelming majority of immigrants in absolute terms, and the suburbs
have a higher percentage of immigrants relative to the population than the inner city
does. We also conrm the clustering of immigrants in specic parts of the suburban realm
(also see Wang and Zhong 2013). Findings highlight shared socioeconomic features in
high immigrant tracts, notably larger household size and lower income.
Regarding commuting patterns, we conrm prior ndings pointing to an immigrant
eect: Immigrants are less likely to be car-based commuters than the Canadian-born
population, in large part due to higher transit shares (and to a lesser extent, more reliance
on carpooling). We nd that this eect holds regardless of immigrants’ housing type or
tenure. Driving is higher among immigrants living in owner-occupied single-detached
dwellings than among immigrants renting apartments (reecting locational and socio-
economic conditions that impact commuting patterns). However, when compared to the
Canadian-born population in similar types of housing, immigrants still post lower shares of
driving.
Figure 6. Mean difference in distances from CT centroids to the nearest transit stop relative to
metropolitan average.
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 15
The spatial data on transportation patterns unequivocally pointed towards higher reli-
ance on public transit and carpooling for commuters in high immigrant-concentration areas
irrespective of their CMA zones. The reliance on transit in high immigrant tracts was
generally as expected in the inner city, and to some extent in the inner suburb. The dense
coverage of subways, busses, and streetcars in the inner city provides more transit options
for all residents. Parts of the inner suburb are serviced by subway and others by buses,
although many areas in this zone have quite infrequent service levels. The heavier reliance
on public transit in outer suburban tracts with high immigrant levels is perhaps more
surprising given its low-density and automobile-oriented conguration, and limited transit
options. It is important to note that there is a prevalent automobile assimilation tendency
among immigrants in Toronto. The dierence in the rate of automobile use between
immigrants and non-immigrants converges as the duration of stay of the immigrants in
Canada lengthens. However, the length-of-stay factor was not incorporated in this research
as it predominantly focuses on a general investigation of the inter-metropolitan-zone
variations in immigrant-transportation relationships.
The higher transit shares in high-immigrant tracts also raise inequality concerns. Such
tracts in the inner city and inner suburb are predominantly located in areas that have
limited public transit access. Even in the inner city, where transit infrastructure is perva-
sive, we nd that the distance between tracts and transit stops is longer for the tracts with
large than those with small shares of immigrants. Even if this distance for the high-LQ
tracts is less than the zonal average in the outer suburb, residents in these areas still need
to travel considerable distances on foot to access transit service. Many of the high-
immigrant tracts fall into what prior research has identied as “transit deserts” in
Toronto (Martin Prosperity Institute 2011). Therefore, we emphasize that the high transit
use detected in immigrant intensive tracts in Toronto does not indicate easy and equal
access to the public transit system across metropolitan zones. Quite to the contrary, it
suggests that some people are relying on transit despite the diculty of accessing it, in
part due to income constraints.
Potentially because of the constrained access to public transit in high-immigrant tracts,
carpooling has achieved some popularity. The high-LQ CTs can provide a cohesive ethnic
environment conducive to carpooling. Moreover, decentralization of employment has
induced job growth in the suburbs, where many immigrants are employed. Since the
location oers limited public transportation options, in immigrant neighbourhoods car-
pooling can arise as a convenient and economical commuting mode.
This said, ndings from the research clearly highlight the need for expanding public
transit coverage to the suburbs. A demand-led improvement of transit systems would
advantage geographic concentrations of immigrants. It would enhance services in transit-
reliant but underserved suburbs, where many high immigrant tracts are found. The
ndings suggest that immigrants rely on transit even when conditions for transit use
are less favourable. However, this also points to one of the reasons for the decline of the
“immigrant eect” on transportation patterns with length of stay. As immigrants spend
more time in Canada, they become just as driving dependent as non-immigrants, likely
because they nd it dicult to navigate the low-density suburban landscape without
a car.
Advantages of public transit improvements would likely be considerably less in the
outer suburb. The potential for improving transit-based accessibility is hampered in the
16 R. HARUN ET AL.
outer suburban zone by lower densities and larger monofunctional land use zones in
both residential and employment districts, and the poor connectivity among dierent
public transit systems from diverse suburban municipalities. In nearly all parts of the
outer suburbs, public transit is a much inferior alternative to the car, adding rapid
transit would only marginally improve accessibility because of low densities. To
improve the accessibility within the outer suburbs would also involve modifying its
land-use conguration. These proposals would promote mixed-use and high-density
developments especially in or close to areas where immigrants concentrate. Interim
solutions could focus on ridesharing and/or transit improvements in select higher
density nodes.
More generally, the paper points to the ways in which immigrants contribute to more
sustainable transport patterns in Canada’s largest metropolitan area, even in areas that
are not generally believed to be conducive to public transit use. Transit enhancements in
areas with high shares of immigrants are likely not only going to improve the service for
existing transit users but may also slow the immigrant integration eect on automobile
use over time. Immigrants have higher shares of transit use than the Canadian born, even
when socio-economic factors are considered. Researchers and policymakers ought to be
paying more attention to how to keep existing transit users in the system.
Note
1. Driving corresponds to the use of car, truck or van for work-related travels as a driver, whereas
carpooling corresponds to passengers in these same vehicles.
Disclosure statement
No potential conict of interest was reported by the author(s).
Notes on contributors
Rafael Harun, PhD is a Researcher in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo. His
research is on immigrant issues in metropolitan regions and the urban planning implications.
Pierre Filion, PhD is a Professor in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo and a
registered professional planner. His research is on downtown and inner city planning, metropolitan
region planning, and land use transportation interactions.
Markus Moos, PhD is an Associate Professor in the School of Planning at the University of Waterloo
and a registered professional planner. His research is on urban housing markets and the changing
demography, social structures, and economies of cities.
ORCID
Rafael Harun http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2370-3633
Pierre Filion http://orcid.org/0000-0002-7538-6441
Markus Moos http://orcid.org/0000-0003-2667-8664
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 17
References
Agarwal, S. (2010). “Neighbourhood Patterns and Housing Choices of Immigrants: Region of Peel
Immigration Discussion Paper.”
Amar, A., and C. Teelucksingh. 2015. “Environmental Justice, Transit Equity and the Place for
Immigrants in Toronto.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 24 (2): 43–63.
Annen, S. 2019. “Measuring Labour Market Success: A Comparison between Immigrants and
Native-born Canadians Using PIAAC.” Journal of Vocational Education and Training 71 (2):
218–238. doi:10.1080/13636820.2018.1473469.
Asgari, H., N. Zaman, and X. Jin. 2017. “Understanding Immigrants’ Mode Choice Behavior in Florida:
Analysis of Neighborhood Eects and Cultural Assimilation.” Transportation Research Procedia 25:
3083–3099. doi:10.1016/j.trpro.2017.05.319.
Bascaramurty, D. 2013. “Brampton, Three Generations, One House.” In The Globe and Mail. May 31.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/in-brampton-three-generations-one-house
/article12295651/
Behrens, J., and K. Kühl. 2011. “The Changing Face of Migration: Opportunities for Urban Planners in
the American Suburb.” Berkeley Planning Journal 24 (1): 131–138.
Blais, P. 2016. Unlocking the Potential of the Airport Megazone. Toronto, ON: Neptis Foundation.
http://www.neptis.org/publications/unlocking-potential-airport-megazone
Blumenberg, E. 2009. “Moving in and Moving Around: Immigrants, Travel Behavior, and Implications
for Transport Policy.” Transportation Letters 1 (2): 169–180. doi:10.3328/TL.2009.01.02.169-180.
Blumenberg, E., and A. Evans. 2010. “Planning for Demographic Diversity: The Case of Immigrants
and Public Transit.” Journal of Public Transportation 13 (2): 23–45. doi:10.5038/2375-0901.13.2.2.
Blumenberg, E., and E. Evans. 2007. Growing the immigrant transit market: public transit use and
California immigrants. Paper presented at the 86
th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation
Research Board, Washington, DC.
Blumenberg, E., and K. Shiki. 2008. Immigrants and resource sharing: The case of carpooling. Paper
presented at the 87
th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC.
Blumenberg, E., and L. Song. 2008. Travel behavior of immigrants in California: Trends and policy
implications. Paper presented at the 87
th
Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board,
Washington, DC..
Breau, S., M. Shin, and N. Burkhart. 2018. “Pulling Apart: New Perspectives on the Spatial Dimensions
of Neighbourhood Income Disparities in Canadian Cities.” Journal of Geographical Systems 20:
1–25. doi:10.1007/s10109-017-0255-0.
Bunting, T., and P. Filion. 1996. “The Dispersed City: Its Spatial and Temporal Dynamics.” In P. Filion ,
T. E. Bunting and K. Curtis (Eds.), The Dynamics of the Dispersed City: Geographic and Planning
Perspectives on Waterloo Region, 9–54. Waterloo: Department of Geography, University of
Waterloo.
Chatman, D., and N. Klein. 2009. “Immigrants and Travel Demand in the United States: Implications
for Transportation Policy and Future Research.” Public Works Management & Policy 13 (4):
312–327. doi:10.1177/1087724X09334633.
Chatman, D., and N. J. Klein. 2013. “Why Do Immigrants Drive Less? Conrmations, Complications,
and New Hypotheses from a Qualitative Study in New Jersey, USA.” Transport Policy 30: 336–344.
doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2013.10.002.
Clark, W., and W. Wang. 2010. “The Automobile, Immigrants, and Poverty: Implications for Immigrant
Earnings and Job Access.” Urban Geography 31 (4): 523–540. doi:10.2747/0272-3638.31.4.523.
Crossman, E. (2013). “Low-income and Immigration: An Overview and Future Directions for
Research.” Ottawa. https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/corporate/
reports-statistics/research/low-income-immigration-overview-future-directions-research.html%
0Ahttp://les/829/low-income-immigration-overview-future-directions-research.html
Drolet, J. L., and C. Teixeira. 2019. “Fostering Immigrant Settlement and Housing in Small Cities:
Voices of Settlement Practitioners and Service Providers in British Columbia, Canada.” The Social
Science Journal. doi:10.1016/j.soscij.2019.07.010.
18 R. HARUN ET AL.
Filion, P. 1991. “The Gentrication Social Structure Dialectic: A Toronto Case Study.” International
Journal of Urban and Regional Research 15 (4): 553–574. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.1991.tb00658.x.
Filion, P., K. McSpurren, and B. Appleby. 2006. “Wasted Density? The Impact of Toronto’s Residential-
density-distribution Policies on Public-transit Use and Walking.” Environment and Planning A 38
(7): 1367–1392. doi:10.1068/a37414.
Gordon, D., and M. Janzen. 2013. “Suburban nation? Estimating the size of Canada’s suburban
population.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 30 (3): 197–220.
Guo, S. 2009. “Dierence, Deciency, and devaluation: tracing the roots of non-recognition of
foreign credentials for immigrant professionals in Canada.” Canadian Journal for the Study of
Adult Education, 37–52.
Heisz, A., and G. Schellenberg. 2004. “Public Transit Use among Immigrants.” Canadian Journal of
Urban Research 13 (1): 170–191.
Hiebert, D. 2016. What’s so Special about Canada? Understanding the Resilience of Immigration and
Multiculturalism. Washingto DC: Migration Policy Institute (MPI).
Hiebert, D. 2017. “Immigrants and Refugees in the Housing Markets of Montreal, Toronto and
Vancouver, 2011.” Canadian Journal of Urban Research 26 (2): 52–78. http://search.ebscohost.
com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=127412435&site=ehost-live
Hiebert, D., A. Germain, R. Murdie, V. Preston, J. Renaud, D. Rose, E. Wyly, V. Ferreira, P. Mendez, and
A. M. Murnaghan. 2006. The Housing Situation and Needs of Recent Immigrants in the Montréal,
Toronto, and Vancouver CMAs : An Overview. Ottawa, ON: Canada Mortgage and Housing
Corporation. http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/schl-cmhc/NH18-28-1-2007-
eng.pdf
Hu, L. 2017. “Changing Travel Behavior of Asian Immigrants in the U.S.” Transportation Research Part
A: Policy and Practice 106: 248–260.
Hulchanski, D. 2007. “The three cities within Toronto: income polarization among Toronto’s neigh-
bourhoods, 1970–2000.” Research Bulletin. Toronto: Centre for Urban and Community Studies,
University of Toronto.
Irwin, E. G., and J. Geoghegan. 2001. “Theory, Data, Methods: Developing Spatially Explicit Economic
Models of Land Use Change.” Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment 85 (1–3): 7–24. doi:10.1016/
S0167-8809(01)00200-6.
John, S. 2015. “Cycles of Investment: Bicycle Infrastructure, Gentrication, and the Restructuring of
the San Francisco Bay Area.” Environment and Planning A 47 (1): 121–137. doi:10.1068/a130098p.
Jones, C., and D. Ley. 2016. “Transit-oriented Development and Gentrication along Metro
Vancouver’s Low-income SkyTrain Corridor.” Canadian Geographer 60 (1): 9–22. doi:10.1111/
cag.12256.
Kaushal, N., Y. Lu, N. Denier, J. S. H. Wang, and S. J. Trejo. 2016. “Immigrant Employment and
Earnings Growth in Canada and the USA: Evidence from Longitudinal Data.” Journal of Population
Economics 29 (4): 1249–1277. doi:10.1007/s00148-016-0600-5.
Knowles, V. 2016. Stragers at Our Gates: Canadian Immigration and Immigration Policy. 4th ed.
Toronto, ON: Dundurn Toronto.
Levinson, D. M. 1997. “Job and Housing Tenure and the Journey to Work.” The Annals of Regional
Science 31 (4): 451–471. doi:10.1007/s001680050058.
Li, W. 1998. “Ethnoburb versus Chinatown : Two Types of Urban Ethnic Communities in Los
Angeles.” Cybergeo 10: 1–12. http://www.cybergeo.presse.fr/culture/weili/weili.htm
Li, W. 2006. “Spatial Transformation of an Urban Ethnic Community: From Chinatown to Ethnoburb
in Los Angeles.” In From Urban Enclave to Etghnic Suburb: New Asian Communitis in Pacic Rim
Countries, edited by W. Li, 74–94. Honolulu: University of Hawaii Press.
Li, W. 2009. Ethnoburb: The New Ethnic Community in Urban America. Honolulu: University of Hawaii
Press.
Liu, C., and G. Painter. 2012. “Travel Behavior among Latino Immigrants.” Journal of Planning
Education and Research 32 (1): 62–80. doi:10.1177/0739456X11422070.
Lo, L., A. Shalaby, and B. Alshalalfeh. 2011. “Relationship between Immigrant Settlement Patterns
and Transit Use in the Greater Toronto Area.” Journal of Urban Planning and Development 137 (4):
470–476. doi:10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000080.
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 19
Lovejoy, K., and S. Handy. 2008. “A Case for Measuring Individuals’ Access to Private-vehicle Travel as
A Matter of Degrees: Lessons from Focus Groups with Mexican Immigrants in California.”
Transportation 35 (5): 601–612. doi:10.1007/s11116-008-9169-5.
Martin Prosperity Institute. 2011. “Transit Deserts and Hulchanski’s Thee Cities.” Toronto, ON: Martin
Prosperity Institute, University of Toronto.
Miller, E., and R. Soberman. 2003. Travel Demand and Urban Form. Toronto, ON: Neptis Foundation.
http://www.neptis.org/sites/default/les/smart_growth_issue_papers_travel_demand_and_
urban_form/travel_demand_nip9.pdf
Moos, M., and R. Walter-Joseph. 2017. Still Detached and Subdivided? Suburban Ways of Living in 21st-
Century North America, Edited by M. Moos and R. Water-Joseph. Berlin: Jovis Verlag.
Moos, M., J. Woodside, T. Vinodrai, and C. Yan. 2018. “Automobile Commuting in Suburban High-rise
Condominium Apartments: Examining Transitions toward Suburban Sustainability in Toronto.”
Urban Planning 3 (4): 15–28. doi:10.17645/up.v3i4.1645.
Newbold, B., and D. Scott. 2018. “Insights into Public Transit Use by Millennials: The Canadian
Experience.” Travel Behaviour and Society 11: 62–68. doi:10.1016/j.tbs.2017.12.009.
Newbold, B., D. Scott, and C. Burke. 2017. “Immigrant Status and Commute Distance: An Exploratory
Study Based on the Greater Golden Horseshoe.” Transportation 44 (1): 181–198. doi:10.1007/
s11116-015-9633-y.
Premji, S., and Y. Shakya. 2017. “Pathways between Under/unemployment and Health among
Racialized Immigrant Women in Toronto.” Ethnicity and Health 22 (1): 17–35. doi:10.1080/
13557858.2016.1180347.
Preston, V., R. Murdie, J. Wedlock, S. Agrawal, U. Anucha, S. D’Addario, M. J. Kwak, J. Logan, and A.
Murnaghan. 2009. “Immigrants and Homelessness - At Risk in Canada’s Outer Suburbs.” Canadian
Geographer 53 (3): 288–304. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0064.2009.00264.x
Qadeer, M., S. Agrawal, and A. Lovell. 2010. “Evolution of Ethnic Enclaves in the Toronto
Metropolitan Area, 2001–2006.” Journal of International Migration and Integration 11 (3):
315–339. doi:10.1007/s12134-010-0142-8.
Shin, E. 2017a. “Ethnic Neighborhoods, Social Networks, and Inter-household Carpooling:
A Comparison across Ethnic Minority Groups.” Journal of Transport Geography 59: 14–26.
doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2017.01.002.
Shin, E. 2017b. “Unraveling the Eects of Residence in an Ethnic Enclave on Immigrants’ Travel Mode
Choices.” Journal of Planning Education and Research 37 (4): 425–443. doi:10.1177/
0739456X16663309.
Skaburskis, A., and M. Moos. 2008. “The Redistribution of Residential Property Values in Montreal,
Toronto, and Vancouver: Examining Neoclassical and Marxist Views on Changing Investment
Patterns.” Environment and Planning A 40 (4): 905–927. doi:10.1068/a39153.
Statistics Canada. (2017). “Education in Canada: Key Results from the 2016 Census.” The Daily.
Ottawa, ON. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/171129/dq171129a-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. (2019). “Denitions, Data Sources, and Methods.” Accessed 20 November 2020.
https://www23.statcan.gc.ca/imdb/p3Var.pl?Function=Unit&Id=85107
Tal, G., and S. Handy. 2010. “Travel Behavior of Immigrants: An Analysis of the 2001 National
Household Transportation Survey.” Transport Policy 17 (2): 85–93. doi:10.1016/j.
tranpol.2009.11.003.
Taylor, Z., and M. Burcheld. 2010. Growing Cities: Comparing Urban Growth Patterns and Regional
Growth Policies in Calgary, Toronto, and Vancouver. Toronto: Neptis Foundation.
Vézina, M., and R. Houle. 2017. Settlement Patterns and Social Integration of the Population with an
Immigrant Background in the Montréal, Toronto and Vancouver Metropolitan Areas. Ottawa, ON:
Statistics Canada. http://www.statcan.gc.ca/pub/89-657-x/89-657-x2016002-eng.pdf
Walks, A. 2013. “Suburbanism as a Way of Life, Slight Return.” Urban Studies 50 (8): 1471–1488.
doi:10.1177/0042098012462610.
Wang, S., and J. Zhong (2013). “Delineating Ethnoburbs in Metropolitan Toronto.” The CERIS Working
Paper Series No. 100. Toronto, ON.
20 R. HARUN ET AL.
Wilkinson, L., P. Bhattacharyya, J. Bucklaschuk, J. Shen, I. Chowdhury, and T. Edkins. 2016.
“Understanding Job Status Decline among Newcomers to Canada.” Canadian Ethnic Studies 48
(3): 5–26. doi:10.1353/ces.2016.0023.
Xu, D. 2018. “Transportation Assimilation Revisited: New Evidence from Repeated Cross-sectional
Survey Data.” PloS ONE 13 (4): e0194296. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0194296
JOURNAL OF URBANISM 21
