Inequalities in Space and Time: Population Segregation and Urban - - PDF document

1

Inequalities in Space and Time: Population Segregation and Urban Morphology in Brazil, 2000/20101

Igor Cavallini Johansen2 Roberto Luiz do Carmo3 Abstract The Urban Transition, that is, the passage from a predominantly rural to a mostly urban society,

• ccurred in Latin America faster compared to what happened in Western European and North

American countries. In Brazil, the rapid urban growth produced cities marked by social inequality. Focusing on this country, our purposes on this study were: 1) to investigate how social segmentation

• ccurs in the urban fabric or, in other words, how social inequality is reflected in the city space; 2)

check if there are any changes in progress, i.e., if that pattern is being modified; and 3) with regard to urban morphology, test the hypothesis that the center-periphery pattern remains valid to explain the configuration of urban space in Brazilian metropolises. This analysis was performed using the five largest metropolitan regions of Brazil according to their total population size in 2010. This study investigated the years 2000 and 2010, using spatial analysis and statistics tools. It was concluded that, in Brazil, despite a small reduction in socio-spatial segregation between 2000 and 2010, this topic continues being a relevant issue to the population research agenda for the next decades. Key-words: Segregation; Inequality; Spatial Analysis; Urban Morphology; Brazilian Metropolises.

1 Paper presented in the XXVIII IUSSP International Population Conference – Cape Town, South Africa, October 29th to

November 04th 2017.

2 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em

• Demografia. Campinas/SP, Brasil. Contato: igor@nepo.unicamp.br.

3 Universidade Estadual de Campinas, Instituto de Filosofia e Ciências Humanas, Programa de Pós-Graduação em

• Demografia. Campinas/SP, Brasil. Contato: roberto@nepo.unicamp.br.

2

Introduction Latin American countries experienced a rapid urbanization process that occurred more explicitly during the second half of the 20th century (GWYNNE, 1985; FARIA, 1991; OJIMA, 2007; MARTINE, MCGRANAHAN, 2010). The Urban Transition, that is, the passage from a predominantly rural to a mostly urban society, occurred here faster compared to what happened in Western European and North American countries (UN, 2014). The rapid growth of cities, especially considering the substantial influx of populations from rural to urban areas, culminated in the production of cities marked by social inequality. The segmentation of social groups by different income strata reflected in the infrastructural differences of the dwelling place (KOWARICK, 1979; MARICATO, 2000). Particularly in Brazil, the peripheries, understood as areas or regions not adequately provided with basic services of urban infrastructure (COSTA, MONTE-MOR, 2002), took increasing space in cities, what was even more evident in the metropolitan regions (KOWARICK, 1979; MARICATO, 1979; LAGO, 2000). Thus one of the clearest marks of Brazilian urbanization is the strong division between social groups. Consequently, the segments with the worst socioeconomic conditions, whose dwelling places have basic deficiencies in access to urban resources and services, have in these places a reaffirmation of their precarious living conditions and, consequently, the maintenance of the poverty cycle (MARICATO, 1979; 2000; TASCHNER, BOGUS, 2001). The purposes of this study were: 1) to investigate how social segmentation occurs in the urban fabric or, in other words, how social inequality is reflected in the city space; 2) check if there are any changes in progress, i.e., if that pattern is being modified; and 3) with regard to urban morphology, test the hypothesis that the center-periphery pattern remains valid to explain the configuration of urban space in Brazilian metropolises. The center-periphery model suggests the organization of the population groups in concentric circles according to their socioeconomic conditions (BURGESS, 1929; TASCHNER; BOGUS, 2001). This explanatory model predicts the occurrence of a "rich" center versus a "poor" periphery. In the center there would be areas better equipped with urban resources and services and, consequently, they would be inhabited by the most affluent population segments. In the surrounding areas, in turn, marked by the precariousness of these resources and services, would be located the population groups in worse socioeconomic conditions. These population groups would reside there because they cannot afford living in the more central areas, where the land price is considerably higher (SINGER, 1978; OLIVEIRA, 1979; MARTINE, MCGRANAHAN, 2010).

3

Methods Study areas The five largest Brazilian Metropolitan Regions (MR) were selected in terms of population size in

• 2010. They were, in descending order: São Paulo MR, Rio de Janeiro MR, Belo Horizonte MR, Porto

Alegre MR and Integrated Development Region of the Federal District and Surroundings (whose abbreviation is named RIDE-DF in Portuguese and where the country capital is located – Brasília). They belong to the South, Southeast and Center-West regions of the country, guaranteeing the coverage and geographical representativity of the Brazilian metropolises. Data Source The analysis used as data source the Atlas of Human Development in the Brazilian Metropolitan

• Regions. The Atlas was launched in 2014 and was developed by the United Nations Development

Program (UNDP), the Institute of Applied Economic Research (IPEA) and the João Pinheiro Foundation (FJP). Its data refer to the years 2000 and 2010, while based on information from the Brazilian Population Census carried out in these years. Unit of Analysis The unit of analysis of this investigation is the Human Development Unit, produced by the Atlas of Human Development in the Brazilian Metropolitan Regions. Variable The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite indicator that synthesizes information of income, schooling and life expectancy. It is regularly used by the United Nations to assess the level

• f development of the countries (UN, 2016). In this study it is used the HDI calculated for the

intramunicipal level, available in the Atlas.

Population Projection

Considering that some units of analysis had no population in 2000 and, therefore, had no value for the variable HDI, it was necessary to carry out the projection of the missing data. The units were not expressive in the total (RMSP: 4.6%, RMRJ: 2.9%, RMBH: 2.9%, Porto Alegre RM: 3.6%, RIDE- DF: 3.3%). These gaps were adequately met using the Forecast function of Microsoft Excel 2010 software.

4

Spatial statistical analysis The processes of the spatial statistics analysis as well as the representation of the results on maps were carried out from ArcMap software version 10.3.1. The statistical analysis used three concomitant and complementary procedures: 1) Spatial Autocorrelation (Moran’s I): This tool is also known as the Global Moran’s I. It is used to verify if there are groups of units of analysis (also called clusters) with high IDHM on the one hand, and low IDHM on the other. To reject the null hypothesis (H0), it is used as criterion of statistical significance p-value <0.014 2) Incremental Spatial Autocorrelation: this is a strategy to find the best radius distance (in meters) that the clusters should be searched in order to boost the results. The choice is made by numerous tests performed by the software in order to find the distance that points the best z-score

• possible. The z-score comprises a measure that assists in the analysis of the existence of clusters. The

ideal distances found in the analysis for 2010 were also applied for 2000 (see next step), so that the results could be compared between the two years. 3) Cluster and Outlier Analysis (Local Moran’s I): this comprises the Moran Local Index. In this step, we can use as input the best radius distance found in the previous one of the analysis. The result will be a map, which classifies the units of analysis into five categories: Not Significant – Area units where the analysis was not significant; High-High – Area units with high HDI close to others with high HDI; High-Low – Area units with high HDI close to others with low HDI; Low-High – Area units with low HDI close to others with high HDI; Low-Low – Area units with low HDI close to others with low HDI. Results The metropolises selected for this study present differences between themselves, both in terms

• f expansion history (which will not be addressed in this study) and about their current demographic

characteristics (Table 1). The Brazilian metropolis that occupies the first place in population volume is the São Paulo MR, which had in 2010 about 19.7 million inhabitants, while the fifth largest is the RIDE-DF, with more than 3.5 million population. The geometric rate of annual growth of the population between 2000 and 2010 also varies, being the greater 2.3% per year for the RIDE-DF and the smallest, 0.8% for Rio de Janeiro and Porto

• Alegre. The degree of urbanization among the surveyed metropolises is between 94.1% and 99.8%

4 In the case of the Global Moran’s I, the null hypothesis (H0) is that there would be no clusters. The aim is to reject the

null hypothesis. Therefore, in the result of the analysis, the p-value, as indicated, should be less than 0.01.

5

• f the total population. This means that the population studied resides mainly in areas defined as

urban. The number of municipalities also varies among the MRs investigated, ranging from the minimum of 21 municipalities in Rio de Janeiro to 39 in São Paulo. The geographic space, or area, is another important differential, being the lowest the Rio de Janeiro MR (about 7 thousand km²) and the largest, the RIDE-DF (more than 56 thousand km²). It is worth noting also that with this extract

• f reality there are metropolitan regions of the Southeast, Center-West and Southern regions of Brazil,

these five locations corresponding to more than 23% of the total population of the country. Table 1 – Main characteristics of the selected Metropolitan Regions (MR)

Total Population Geometric Rate

• f Annual

Growth 2000/2010 (% per year) Degree of urbanization¹ in 2010 (%) Number of municipalitie s² Total area (km²) 2000 2010 São Paulo MR 17.878.703 19.683.975 1,0 99,8 39 7.947 Rio de Janeiro MR 10.894.156 11.835.708 0,8 99,5 21 6.737 Belo Horizonte MR 4.819.288 5.414.701 1,2 97,6 34 9.473 Porto Alegre MR 3.658.376 3.958.985 0,8 97,1 34 10.346 Integrated Development Region

• f the Federal District

and Surroundings (RIDE-DF) 2.952.276 3.717.728 2,3 94,1 22 56.434 Notes: ¹ Degree of urbanization: percentage of population residing in the area classified as urban. ² Number of municipalities for the year 2010. Source: Total Population: Population Census (IBGE, 2000; 2010); Number of municipalities and total area: PNUD, IPEA, FJP, 2014.

The results of the application of spatial analysis techniques are presented in Figure 1. The Metropolitan Regions of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and the Integrated Development Region of the Federal District and Surroundings clearly indicate the importance of the central municipality and its direct surroundings as the place of residence of the "elite", that is, populations with the highest HDI (represented in green on the map). On the other hand, the "poor" areas, with the lowest HDI (in red), are markedly distributed around it. This pattern occurs quite clearly in 2000 and remains in the year 2010, although with some reduction of the deprived areas. Belo Horizonte and Porto Alegre, by its turn, presented a less centralized distribution, even though they also have a clear spatial concentration

• f populations with antagonistic levels of HDI. These two metropolises also presented a reduction of

the clusters with lowest HDI in the period considered.

6

2000 2010

São Paulo Metropolitan Region Rio de Janeiro Metropolitan Region Belo Horizonte Metropolitan Region Porto Alegre Metropolitan Region Integrated Development Region of the Federal District and Surroundings (RIDE-DF)

Figure 1. Moran’s I of the Human Development Index, selected Metropolitan Regions, Brazil, 2000/2010

7

Discussion and Conclusions This study dialogues with the analytical perspective of historical geography, understanding the urbanization process while at the same time the condition and product of social processes in continuous transformation (HARVEY, 1994; 1996; 2013). In the same way, this text is located in the panorama of the discussion about urbanization from a structuralist

• matrix. This perspective conditions the view of the urban formation as a socially constructed

process, in which the roles of / and the contradictions between social classes are evident in the dispute for the urban space (SINGER, 1978; OLIVEIRA, 1979). It is impossible to discuss urban inequalities without talking about the difficulty of providing adequate housing to the population, a task left fundamentally to the market, is in line with the reality experienced in Brazil. In this context, Maricato (2000) indicates three fundamental characteristics of the Brazilian urbanization process. The first is low-wage industrialization in a narrow residential market. That is, the cost

• f reproduction of the labor force does not comprise the cost of the housing, which is set by the

private market. Thus, wages are not enough to pay the price of housing in the "formal market". The second characteristic is that urban managements (city halls and state governments) have a tradition of regressive investment, that is, real estate investment opportunities are provided by public investments, for example by opening new transport axes, which comprise new fronts for the action of real estate capital. The third fundamental characteristic of Brazilian urbanization is ambiguous legislation or arbitrary application of the law, which encompasses the fact that the

• ccupation of urban land is tolerated because, otherwise, the poor population would be left

without alternatives, leading to a civil war, such is the dimension of this social problem. However, occupation is allowed, but not at any location, that’s the arbitrary (unfair) application

• f the law: "It is not at any location, however, that urban land invasion is tolerated. In areas

valued by the market, the law applies". (MARICATO, 2000, p.161). Focusing on the national level and discussing the values of use, exchange values and differential value of space, Santos (1994) indicates that the use of the city by economic agents

• ccurs through a dispute between agents to seize certain fractions of the urban space, which

illustrates the old debate on the values of use and exchange. It happens that in the city there is a process of selective valorization:

Its materiality [of the city] is formed by the juxtaposition of differently equipped areas [...]. Each place, within the city, has a different vocation, from the capitalist point of view, and the internal division of labor to each agglomeration is not indifferent to it. (SANTOS, 1994, p. 129 and 130)

8

The author argues that the division of labor is a central category in political economy and also in the explanation of the population and economic activities on the Earth. Bueno (2013), in a broader perspective, points out that it must be remembered that urban and regional planning has the challenge of revising its foundations in order to face the problems and adapt the human habitat to global environmental changes. Metropolises and large cities, although more equipped, also have large areas with incomplete urbanization, especially in the peripheral neighborhoods, with favelas, contaminated/degraded areas and increasing densification of deprived areas in the center of the cities. Analyzing the five major Brazilian metropolitan regions in two moments in time, 2000 and 2010, the proposals of this study were: 1) to investigate how social segmentation occurs in the urban fabric or, in other words, how social inequality is reflected in the city space; 2) check if there are any changes in progress, i.e., if that pattern is being modified; and 3) with regard to urban morphology, test the hypothesis that the center-periphery pattern remains valid to explain the configuration of urban space in Brazilian metropolises. The application of spatial analysis techniques using the Human Development Index showed that: 1) Population segregation remains a relevant issue to be discussed in the country. The spatial autocorrelation measured by the Global Moran’s I in 2010 indicated, through its z-score, that there is a hierarchy among the metropolises analyzed with respect to spatial segregation. The "champion" in the spatial segregation ranking of the population is the Metropolitan Region

• f Rio de Janeiro (z-sore = 90.5), in the second place is the Metropolitan Region of São Paulo

(z-score = 55.5), the third is the RIDE-DF (z-score = 7), the fourth, the Metropolitan Region of Belo Horizonte (z-score = 6.2), and in the last place is the Metropolitan Region of Porto Alegre (z- score = 5.8); 2) It is possible to verify changes in the metropolises, especially in the sense of reducing the differentials of HDI, however in general the fall of inequality happened in a little expressive

• way. In a context such as the current one – with the worsening of economic indicators – it is

possible and likely that the repercussion will occur especially on the most impoverished segments, returning to generate the growth of the socioeconomic inequality and, consequently, the expansion of the levels of social segmentation in the urban fabric; and 3) The hypothesis that the center x periphery model remains feasible for the explanation

• f urban morphology, especially in the metropolitan space scale, has proven itself. This

statement is corroborated by the maps presented in Figure 1. However, we also argue that it is

9

necessary to consider the occupation history of each urban area to avoid applying mechanically this framework, respecting the local specificities. All the cases analyzed are worthy of attention and deserve further study in future works. It may be symptomatic of this process that the capital of the country, Brasília – located in the RIDE-DF –, follow exactly the same pattern of Brazilian socio-spatial segregation. That is, not even in the highest seat of the public administration it is seen the “example” of an integrative way of planning and organizing the social groups in the city. Regarding this reality, Ferro (1969) already affirmed that, while Brasília was planned to receive the leadership of the country’s administration and the agencies of the capital, the “mudflats” of the satellite cities spread around. The author denies the applicability of the term “cities” in this case, which would be inappropriate in the face of “garbage heaps”. The use of “satellite”, on the other hand, totally makes sense, for these areas present a picture in which “sub-men gravitate around those who have the privilege of humanity” (FERRO, 1969, p. 28). It should be noted that the author’s text was published in the late 1960s. The data for 2010 continue to point to a striking inequality in the locality. It is concluded that, although there has been a small reduction in socio-spatial segregation between 2000 and 2010 in the context of Brazilian larger metropolises, this social problem must continue to be strongly present in the research agenda and focus of urban public policies in the country. It is known that the separation of social groups corrodes what city can bring of the best for the society: the coexistence with the different and, consequently, the learning and growth with it. The corrosion of this conviviality occurs in various ways in the current configuration of the urban space of the Brazilian metropolises, from condominiums and closed lots on the one hand, to occupation areas, slums and favelas on the other. This process is mainly due to the proximity and exchange of interests between public power and private agents, real estate and speculative capital. The current urban reality is clearly presented. The correlation of political forces in the present and the near future will indicate whether the urban destiny will be the consolidation of this segregating process or the courageous indication of new possibilities, new directions and, therefore, new ways of living in the urban space.

10

References BUENO, L. M. M. A adaptação da cidade às mudanças climáticas: uma agenda de pesquisa e uma agenda política. In. OJIMA, R.; MARANDOLA JR., E. Mudanças climáticas e as cidades: novos e antigos debates na busca da sustentabilidade urbana e social. São Paulo: Blucher, 2013. p. 23-56. BURGESS, E. W. Urban Areas. In. SMITH, T. V.; WHITE, L. D. (Eds.) Chicago: An experiment in social science research. New York: Greenwood Press, 1929. COSTA, H. S. M.; MONTE-MOR, R. L. M. Urbanization & Environment: trends and patterns in contemporary Brazil. In: HOGAN, D. J.; BERQUÓ, E.; COSTA, H. S. M. (Eds.). Population and environment in Brazil: Rio + 10. Campinas: CNPD, ABEP, NEPO, 2002. FARIA, V. E. Fifty years of urbanization in Brazil. Novos Estudos CEBRAP, n. 29, p. 98- 119, 1991. GWYNNE, R. N. Industrialisation and Urbanisation in Latin America. London: Croom Helm, 1985. HARVEY, D. From management to entrepreneurship: the transformation of urban administration during the late capitalism. Espaço e debates, n. 39, 1996. HARVEY, D. Postmodernism in the city: architecture and urban design. In. ______. Postmodern Condition. São Paulo, SP: Edições Loyola, 1994. HARVEY, D. The limits of the capital. São Paulo, SP: Boitempo, 2013. KOWARICK, L. The urban spoliation. Rio de Janeiro, RJ: Paz e Terra, 1979. LAGO, L. C. Inequalities and segregation in the metropolises: Rio de Janeiro in time of

• crisis. Rio de Janeiro: Revan/Observatório-IPPUR/UFRJ-FASE, 2000.

MARICATO, E. The capitalist production of the house (and city) in industrial Brazil. São Paulo: Alfa-Omega, 1979. MARICATO, E. The ideas out of place and the place out of ideas: Urban planning in Brazil.

• In. ARANTES, O. The city of unique thinking: breaking consensus. Petrópolis, RJ: Vozes,

2000. MARTINE, G.; MCGRANAHAN, G. The Brazilian urban transition: trajectory, difficulties and lessons learned. In. BAENINGER, R. Population and Cities: subsidies for planning and social policies. Brasília: UNFPA, 2010. OJIMA, R. Comparative analysis of urban dispersion in Brazilian urban agglomerations: theoretical and methodological elements for urban and environmental planning. Dissertation (Doctorate) – University of Campinas – Unicamp, 2007. OLIVEIRA, F. Preface. In. MARICATO, E. (Org.). The capitalist production of the house (and city) in industrial Brazil. São Paulo, SP: Editora Alfa-Omega, 1979.

11

SANTOS, M. Por uma Economia Política da Cidade: O Caso de São Paulo. São Paulo-SP: Editora da PUC-SP, 1994. p. 115-145. SINGER, P. Introduction: Urbanization and Social Classes. In. SINGER, P. Political Economy of Urbanization. São Paulo, SP: Editora Brasiliense, 1978. TASCHNER, S. P.; BOGUS, L. M. M. São Paulo, an unequal metropolis. EURE (Santiago), Santiago, v. 27, n. 80, p. 87-120, May 2001. UN - UNITED NATIONS. Department of Economic and Social Affairs. Population Division. World Population Prospects, the 2014 revision. New York, 2014. Available in: <https://goo.gl/Pfi1QT>. Accessed in November 2016. UN - UNITED NATIONS. Human Development Index. Available in: http://goo.gl/BSGPG9. Accessed in December 2016. UNDP - UNITED NATIONS DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM; IPEA - INSTITUTE OF APPLIED ECONOMIC RESEARCH; FJP - JOÃO PINHEIRO FOUNDATION. Atlas of Human Development in Brazilian Metropolitan Regions. Brasília-DF: PNUD, IPEA, FJP,

• 2014. Available in: <https://goo.gl/rvm3Va>.