Access to housing by migrant population in Montevideo
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Access to housing by migrant population in Montevideo
1. Introduction
Foreign immigration in Uruguay has been steadily increasing since 2012, even though its composition
has changed based on the country of origin. Currently, the main national origins correspond to non-
bordering Latin American countries, among which Venezuela, Cuba, Peru and the Dominican Republic
stand out (Prieto & Márquez-Scotti, 2019). Naturally, this change in the migration dynamics of the
country - which has for a long time been a distinct outbound nation - poses new challenges in terms of
the social and economic inclusion of the migrant population. The social inclusion of migrant populations
is a concept that refers to two processes: on the one hand, access to rights and, on the other hand, to
levels of participation in host societies (Millán-Franco et al., 2019). Specifically, access to adequate
housing has been recognized as the right of every individual in the 1966 International Covenant on
Economic, Social and Cultural Rights adopted and ratified by the United Nations General Assembly. In
Uruguay, the exercise of civil, economic, social and cultural rights of the migrant population are formally
guaranteed by its Constitution and by national laws No. 18,250, No. 18,254 and No. 18,076. Any of these
legal instruments explicitly mentions the right to adequate housing for the inhabitants of the national
territory regardless of their national origin and migration status. This safeguarding, rights-centered legal
framework includes the right to adequate housing as an integral part of the social inclusion definition
(Koolhaas & Pellegrino, 2020; CAREF, 2020; Gandini, Prieto Rosas & Lozano-Ascencio, 2019). However,
the evidence shows that in Uruguay this right is systematically violated for a large part of the resident
population. Faced with this difficulty, the affected population finds partial residential and housing
solutions in informal contexts that include the occupation of irregular settlements or collective dwellings
designed for temporary use. The latter constitute one of the most recurrent accommodation strategies
among newly arrived migrants who come to live in the city of Montevideo and face difficulties in
meeting certain requirements to live in a private home, such as a lease guarantee. Even though the
prevalence of this type of dwellings decreases among the migrant population with the duration of their
stay in Montevideo, it does not cease to exist (Bengochea & Madeiro, 2020). Qualitative studies have
shown the residential vulnerability faced by migrants in this type of housing: risk of forced evictions,
poor material conditions (humidity, inadequate air circulation, lack of running water, etc.), scarce
recreational space for children and adolescents, abuse of power by administrators, and overcrowding
(España, 2019; Boggio et al., 2019; Fossatti & Uriarte, 2018a, 2018b). Moreover, these dwellings are
concentrated in certain areas of Montevideo (Prieto, Bengochea, Márquez Scotti, Fernández Soto &
Montiel, 2019), which could be indicative of a process of residential segregation and, potentially, of the
exposure to its negative consequences on broader processes of social inclusion (Xie, 2010; Massey &
Denton, 1988)
2. Background
The relationship between housing and migration, especially in urban areas, has been studied in close
connection with the transition to homeownership and the processes of residential segregation for
receiving societies mainly in Europe and the United States (Byerly, 2019; Iceland, Weinberg & Hughes,
2014; Amuedo-Dorantes & Mundra, 2013; Davidov & Weick, 2011; Constant, Roberts & Zimmermann,
2009; Iceland & Scopilliti, 2008). On the other hand, in the South American region this issue has been
addressed mainly in relation to traditional border migration dynamics, such as the migration of Bolivians
and Paraguayans to the city of Buenos Aires (Mera, 2014, 2018; Gallinati, 2015, 2016; Sassone, 2007,
2009; Bruno, 2007), Colombians to Quito, Guayaquil (Moscoso Alvarez & Burneo, 2014; Colectivo
Migración & Refugio, 2011) or Maracaibo (Yicón & Acosta, 2009). However, the new migratory dynamics
1of the southern region of the Latin American continent, strongly impacted by the migration of
Venezuelans, Cubans, Dominicans and Haitians, have generated new problems regarding access to
housing that are different from what is observed in Europe or the United States. For example, residential
forms have been identified linked to the dynamics of renting, subletting and occupancy of private and
collective dwellings, as well as the setup of irregular urban settlements, outside the formal real estate
market. The most outstanding examples of this regional literature have addressed case studies in cities
such as Santiago de Chile, Iquique, Antofagasta, Buenos Aires or Montevideo (Bengochea & Prieto
Rosas, 2021; Mera, 2021; Bengochea & Madeiro, 2020; Marcos & Mera, 2018; Contreras Gatica, Ala-
Louko & Labbé, 2015).
These host cities in southern Latin America are characterized by structural inequalities that construct
scenarios where the population - native and foreign - accesses irregular or precarious type of housing as
a housing alternative (Mera, 2021). In these contexts, migrants face at least four factors that result in
unequal access to housing: the high cost of rents and purchase, the lease guarantee system, the
presence of prejudices and stereotypes about people born abroad, and their migration status (Mera,
2021). In the case of Uruguay, the first two constraints might gain special relevance (Bengochea &
Madeiro, 2020), since, although an important stratification according to national origin in the access to
legal residence is identified, in practice, migrants can obtain the identity card relatively easily
(Bengochea et al., 2021; Montiel & Prieto, 2019). Mera (2021) identifies three common alternatives
used by intraregional migrants who settle in Latin American cities without obtaining a private or regular
home within the formal market. A first alternative is the occupancy of land or plots in self-built irregular
urbanizations, a second alternative can be the occupancy of deteriorated houses in the downtown area
of cities, and a third option can be the rental of bedrooms in private homes or collective dwellings.
Multivariate studies on this topic are more common outside Latin America, where the availability of
quantitative data is greater, and tend to focus on access to homeownership. In the case of Uruguay,
where the predominant tenure regime among the migrant population is that of rent, studies on access
to housing for migrants have typically had a descriptive approach, focusing on the analysis of the type of
housing rented and occupied by that the migrant population and its habitability conditions (Bengochea
& Prieto Rosas, 2021; Bengochea & Madeiro, 2020; Fossatti & Uriarte, 2018a). So far, the factors that
support access to the different types of housing available in the city have not been discussed because of
the poor availability of quantitative data. In any case, the literature review on factors associated with
access to housing in other destination countries allows us to identify relevant factors for the present
work. The existence of co-ethnic social networks helps to explain settlement patterns and the choice of
type of dwelling occupied by migrants upon arrival. Teixeira (2011) finds that immigrants in the
Canadian city of Central Okanagan tend to share the living space or to look for precarious housing
alternatives to reduce expenses. Dewberry (2020) finds that, in Los Angeles, the adversities faced by the
population of Latino origin in accessing affordable housing mainly respond to people’s migration status,
and this in turn affects the way in which they enter the labor market. Likewise, the arrival cohort is key
to understanding how access to housing is implemented, since it has been found that once a certain
time of settlement has elapsed, residential conditions tend to improve (Mundra & Uwaifo Oyelere,
2018; Anniste & Tammaru, 2014; Leal & Alguacil, 2012). Anniste and Tammaru (2014) find that the
residential trajectories of migrants are closely related to their occupational history, which translates into
an increase in the financial resources available to rent or buy a home. Knowledge about the housing
market also increases with time of settlement, which is a key aspect in accessing a better housing.
Likewise, several studies show that there is a strong link between housing events and household events,
in such a way that the family becomes a privileged environment to understand the housing scenario
where people are inserted (Andersen, 2011; Mulder & Lauster, 2010; Feijten & Mulder, 2002). Another
factor that can affect access to adequate housing are migration plans, especially those that include the
2return to the country of origin. For example, it is very common for those migrants who live their
homeland on economic and labor grounds to not plan to stay permanently in the host country and for
this reason they expect a situation in a lower-quality housing to be strictly temporary (Mulder, 2006).
Finally, the educational level of the migrant is of interest to understand the type of access to housing
since it is associated with the current and future income level, as well as job stability, which positively
affects the acquisition of a home (Davidov & Weick, 2011). However, in segmented labor markets, as is
the case of Uruguay, this statement does not apply, since the high levels of over-education and insertion
in low-paying jobs (Márquez, Prieto Rosas & Escoto, 2020; Montiel & Prieto, 2019; Prieto & Márquez-
Scotti, 2019) inhibits the positive effect that educational level can have on the socioeconomic situation
of those who migrate and their families.
3. Data and methods
The data used comes from the Recent Immigration Ethnosurvey (ENIR) 1, which collects retrospective
information on the migratory experience of 803 informants of Cuban, Dominican, Peruvian and
Venezuelan origin in Montevideo, and their families, resulting in a total of 2,219 individual observations.
The case selection strategy used in the ENIR consisted of an adaptation of Respondent Driven
Sampling (RDS) (Volz & Heckathorn, 2008). The non-probability sample on which the ENIR was based
shaped its universe or sampling frame as the field work progressed and information was collected on
the size of the interpersonal networks of fellow citizens from the selected communities of origin who
lived in Montevideo and were older than 17. From this information, RDS2 type weights were
constructed following the methodology developed by Volz & Heckathorn (2008).
Table 1: Independent variables and expected effects
Variable Hypothesis
Origin H1: The probability of residing in a collective dwelling differs among the four
migrant origins, as well as the factors associated with said probability.
Year of migration H2: The probability of residing in a collective dwelling is positively related to the
year of arrival in Uruguay.
Migration plans H3: The fact of having a permanent residence immigration plan in the country
reduces the probability of residing in a collective dwelling.
Family networks at arrival
H4: The probability of residing in a collective home is lower among migrants who
Received support to find lodging at
had a support network at the time of arrival in Uruguay
arrival
Still own a property in origin H5: The probability of residing in a collective dwelling is lower among people who
own a home in their country of origin.
Working prior to migration H6: The fact of having worked at least one year before migration in the country of
origin reduces the probability of residing in a collective dwelling.
At least 1 child in family at arrival H7: The presence of minors in migrants’ family units at the time of arrival in
Uruguay reduces the probability of residing in a collective dwelling.
Family size at arrival H8: There is a negative relationship between the size of migrants’ families at the
time of arrival and the probability of residing in a collective dwelling.
Educational attainment H9: The probability of residing in a collective dwelling increases with the
educational/socioeconomic level of migrants.
1The ENIR was conducted by the School of Social Sciences of UDELAR and the Latin American Migration Project by the
University of Guadalajara and Princeton University- and was financed by the Sectoral Commission for Scientific Research of
UdelaR, UNICEF Uruguay and the Inter-American Development Bank.
3In order to meet research objectives, bivariate analyses are carried out to know the characteristics of
the dwellings where migrants reside and a multivariate logistic model is estimated to predict the
probability of residing in a collective dwelling upon arrival in Montevideo in relation to having dwelled in
a private house.
4. Results
Table 2: Selected indicators for factors associated with the type of first home
Cuba Dom. Peru Venezuela
Private Collective Private Collective Private Collective Private Collective
Bef.2000 1.3 14.3 19.6
Year of
2000-2011 0.9 0.5 0.0 43.0 53.7 2.6
arrival
2012 3.6 5.0 0.3
2013 0.6 7.5 13.7 6.3 0.8 2.0
2014 4.3 0.9 17.6 61.6 6.8 5.3 1.6 0.3
2015 7.7 1.9 1.1 2.3 2.0 6.1 10.3 8.8
2016 9.4 14.3 2.4 0.2 0.5 0.3 10.5 23.4
2017 19.8 18.8 26.6 6.3 11.9 4.8 42.8 30.0
2018 56.0 64.1 44.3 12.4 15.1 4.3 29.8 37.5
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Planning to No 17.2 16.7 17.2 16.7 41.7 79.1 20.9 12.9
stay in Yes 82.8 83.3 82.8 83.3 58.3 20.9 79.1 87.1
Uruguay Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Family No 77.2 80.2 77.2 80.2 66.8 38.9 69.5 85.0
networks at Yes 22.8 19.8 22.8 19.8 33.2 61.1 30.5 15.0
arrival Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Received No 3.6 11.3 3.6 11.3 0.2 17.7 22.6 20.6
support to Yes 96.4 88.7 96.4 88.7 99.8 82.3 77.4 79.4
find lodging
Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
at arrival
Still owns a No 56.7 69.5 56.7 69.5 98.3 96.4 93.1 99.6
property at Yes 43.3 30.5 43.3 30.5 1.7 3.6 6.9 0.4
origin Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Working No 25.6 19.1 25.6 19.1 28.4 44.0 26.3 28.7
before Yes 74.4 80.9 74.4 80.9 71.6 56.0 73.7 71.3
migration Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
Children in No 81.7 95.4 81.7 95.4 86.1 89.2 72.6 81.3
1st housing At least 1 18.3 4.6 18.3 4.6 13.9 10.8 27.4 18.7
at head’s
year of Total 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100
arrival
Family size at
Mean 1.6 1.4 1.9 1.2 1.3 1.3 1.8 1.8
arrival
Educational
Mean 14.1 13.9 11.6 10.9 12.8 11.8 15.5 15.5
attainment
Source: ENIR, 2018.
4Figure 1: Probability of residing in a collective dwelling upon arrival in Montevideo
Source: ENIR, 2018.
5. Findings
The indicators analyzed so far report that, overall, the shortcomings in housing materialize in the high
average levels of overcrowding and in a high incidence of households with a relatively high expenditure
on housing in their first home in Montevideo. Both problems are present in private and collective
dwellings, but cost-related problems are more frequent in the former and overcrowding is greater in the
latter. Collective housing is more common in the Cuban and Dominican communities, and it is there
where the levels of overcrowding are higher. The Peruvian community registers the highest levels of
critical overcrowding and faces a significant amount of challenges regarding the affordability of private
and collective dwellings. The estimated logistic regression model shows that the community of origin
impacts on the type of housing to which migrants come to reside upon arrival in Montevideo since the
probability of living in a collective dwelling is not the same among the four communities studied. With
the other factors of the model remaining constant, people of Dominican origin are 5.2 times more likely
to reside in a collective dwelling than the community of Venezuelan origin. This probability is 3.4 times
higher within the Cuban community and 2.2 times higher within the Peruvian community, in both cases
also in relation to migrants of Venezuelan origin. As observed in the literature, social networks of help
and support at the time of arrival are important resources in the processes of social inclusion of
migrants in host societies. In this case we see the protective effect of family networks by reducing the
probability of residing in a collective dwelling. According to the data of our model and keeping the other
factors constant, the probability of residing in a collective home is 42% lower among people who had
family networks in relation to those who did not, and 40% lower among those who received help finding
housing in relation to those who did not have this kind of support. A protective effect is also observed
for families that at the time of arrival were made up of at least one minor, since in these cases the
probability of residing in a collective dwelling is reduced by 50% in relation to those families that did not
have a minor among their members. The model estimated for the group of communities does not allow
to corroborate the hypotheses regarding the year of arrival in Uruguay, the migratory plans of
permanence, homeownership in the country of origin, the fact of having worked before migration, the
size of the family at the time of arrival and educational attainment of the informant.
5References
Amuedo‐Dorantes, C. & Mundra, K. (2013). Immigrant Homeownership and Immigration Status: Evidence from Spain. Review of
International Economics, 21(2), 204-218.
Andersen, H.S. (2011) Motives for Tenure Choice during the Life Cycle: The Importance of Non‐Economic Factors and Other
Housing Preferences. Housing, Theory and Society, 28(2), 183-207.
Anniste, K. & Tammaru, T. (2014). Ethnic differences in integration levels and return migration intentions: A study of Estonian
migrants in Finland. Demographic Research, 30, 377-412.
Bengochea, J. & Madeiro, V. (2020). Acceso a la vivienda adecuada de las personas migrantes en la ciudad de Montevideo.
Montevideo, Uruguay: UNICEF Uruguay. Retrieved from: https://omif.cienciassociales.edu.uy/wp-
content/uploads/2020/11/INFORME_VIVIENDA_WEB.pdf
Bengochea, J. & Prieto Rosas, V. (2021). Situación de vivienda de los inmigrantes recientes en Montevideo. In F. Vera, V. Adler &
F. Toro (Eds.), Inmigrando: Comprender ciudades en transición, Vol.3. Buenos Aires, Argentina: IADB. In press.
Bengochea, J.; Cabezas, G.; Gandini, L.; Herrera, G.; Luzes, M.; Montiel, C.; Prieto Rosas, V.; Vera Espinoza, M. & Zapata, G. P.
(2021). COVID-19 y población migrante y refugiada. Análisis de las respuestas político-institucionales en ciudades receptoras de
seis países en América Latina. In F. Vera, V. Adler & F. Toro (Eds.), Inmigrando: Comprender ciudades en transición, Vol.3.
Buenos Aires, Argentina: IADB. In press.
Boggio, K.; Funcasta, L.; de León, V. & Olhaberry, C. (2019). Montevideo. Entrando a la ciudad con paso de inmigrante. In S.
Aguiar, V. Borrás, P. Cruz, L. Fernández & M. Pérez Sánchez (Eds.), Habitar Montevideo: 21 miradas sobre la ciudad (pp. 481–
501). Montevideo, Uruguay: IM, FBS, FCS UdelaR.
Bruno, S. (2007). Movilidad territorial y laboral de los migrantes paraguayos en el Gran Buenos Aires. IX Jornadas Argentinas de
Estudios de Población. Asociación de Estudios de Población de la Argentina, Huerta Grande, Córdoba.
Byerly, J. (2019). The residential segregation of the American Indian and Alaska Native population in US metropolitan and
micropolitan areas, 2010. Demographic research, 40, 963-974.
CAREF. (2020). Laberintos de papel. Desigualdad y regularización migratoria en América del Sur. Retrieved from:
https://www.cels.org.ar/web/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/CELS_Migrantes_digital_Final-1.pdf
Colectivo Migración y Refugio. (2011). Refugiados Urbanos en Ecuador. Estudio sobre los procesos de inserción urbana de la
población colombiana refugiada, el caso de Quito y Guayaquil. Quito, Ecuador: Colectivo Migración y Refugio & Facultad
Latinoamericana de Ciencias Sociales (FLACSO).
Constant, A. F.; Roberts, R. & Zimmermann, K. F. (2009). Ethnic identity and immigrant homeownership. Urban Studies, 46(9),
1879-1898.
Contreras Gatica, Y.; Ala-Louko, V. & Labbé, G. (2015). Acceso exclusionario y racista a la vivienda formal e informal en las áreas
centrales de Santiago e Iquique. Polis. Revista Latinoamericana, 14(42), 53-78.
Davidov, E. & Weick, S. (2011). Transition to homeownership among immigrant groups and natives in West Germany, 1984–
2008. Journal of Immigrant & Refugee Studies, 9(4), 393-415.
Dewberry, S. (2020). Undocumented Immigrant Access to Housing Under the Trump Administration: Potential Impacts and
Policy Alternatives. Pepperdine Policy Review, 12(1), 10.
España, V. (2019). Una radiografía crítica del activismo judicial en Uruguay: análisis de las experiencias de exigibilidad del
derecho a la vivienda. In S. Aguiar, V. Borrás, P. Cruz, L. Fernández & M. Pérez Sánchez (Eds.), Habitar Montevideo: 21 miradas
sobre la ciudad (pp. 243–272). Montevideo, Uruguay: IM, FBS, FCS Udelar.
Feijten, P. & Mulder, C. H. (2002). The timing of household events and housing events in the Netherlands: A longitudinal
perspective. Housing studies, 17(5), 773-792.
Fossatti, L. & Uriarte, P. (2018a). Informe Acceso a la vivienda y población migrante en Montevideo. Retrieved from:
http://www.fhuce.edu.uy/images/NEMMPO/Informe_acceso_a_la_vivienda.pdf
Fossatti, L. & Uriarte, P. (2018b). Viviendo sin derecho. Migraciones latinoamericanas y acceso a la vivienda en Montevideo. La
Rivada. Investigaciones En Ciencias Sociales, 6, 42–60.
Gallinati, C. (2015). Vivir en la villa y luchar por la vivienda. O sobre una de las formas de ser migrante en la ciudad de Buenos
6Aires. Odisea. Revista de Estudios Migratorios, (2), 51-78.
Gallinati, C. (2016). La participación política de bolivianos y paraguayos residentes de villas en la ciudad de Buenos Aires: una
aproximación desde la lucha por la vivienda. Horizontes Antropológicos, (46), 359-386.
Gandini, L.; Prieto Rosas, V. & Lozano-Ascencio, F. (2019). El éxodo venezolano: migración en contextos de crisis y respuestas de
los países latinoamericanos. In L. Gandini, F. Lozano-Ascencio & V. Prieto (Eds.), Crisis y migración de población venezolana.
Entre la desprotección y la seguridad jurídica en Latinoamérica (pp. 9-31). Mexico City, Mexico: UNAM.
Iceland, J. & Scopilliti, M. (2008). Immigrant residential segregation in US metropolitan areas, 1990–2000. Demography, 45(1),
79-94.
Iceland, J.; Weinberg, D. & Hughes, L. (2014). The residential segregation of detailed Hispanic and Asian groups in the United
States: 1980-2010. Demographic Research, 31, 593.
Koolhaas, M. & Pellegrino, A. (2020). Las políticas públicas sobre migraciones y la sociedad civil en América Latina. El caso de
Uruguay. In L. M. Chiarello (Coord.), Las políticas públicas sobre migraciones y la sociedad civil en América Latina. Los casos de
Ecuador, Uruguay y Venezuela (pp. 198-360). New York, United States: Scalabrini International Migration Network (SIMN).
Leal, J. & Alguacil, A. (2012). Vivienda e inmigración: las condiciones y el comportamiento residencial de los inmigrantes en
España. In CIDOB, Anuario CIDOB de la Inmigración (pp. 126-156). Barcelona, Spain: CIDOB.
Marcos, M. & Mera, G. (2018). Migración, vivienda y desigualdades urbanas: condiciones socio-habitacionales de los migrantes
regionales en Buenos Aires. Revista INVI, 33(92), 53-86.
Márquez, C.; Prieto Rosas, V. & Escoto, A. (2020). Segmentación en el ingreso por trabajo según condición migratoria, género y
ascendencia étnico-racial en Uruguay. Revista Migraciones, (49), 85-118.
Massey, D. S. & Denton, N. A. (1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67(2), 281–315.
https://doi.org/10.1093/sf/67.2.281
Mera, G. (2014). Migración paraguaya en la Ciudad de Buenos Aires (2010): distribución espacial y pobreza. Revista
Latinoamericana de Población, 8(14), 57-80.
Mera, G. (2018). Tras los patrones de asentamiento: interrogando los mapas de distribución espacial de los migrantes
regionales en la Aglomeración Gran Buenos Aires. REMHU: Revista Interdisciplinar da Mobilidade Humana, 26(52), 189-208.
Mera, G. (2021). Migración y vivienda. In F. Vera, V. Adler & F. Toro (Eds.), Inmigrando: Comprender ciudades en transición,
Vol.3. Buenos Aires, Argentina: IADB. In press.
Millán-Franco, M., Gómez-Jacinto, L., Hombrados-Mendieta, I., García-Martín, M. A., & García-Cid, A. (2019). Influence of time
of residence on the sense of community and satisfaction with life in immigrants in Spain: The moderating effects of
sociodemographic characteristics. Journal of Community Psychology, 47(5), 1078–1094. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22172
Montiel, C. & Prieto, V. (2019). Garantizada la protección jurídica, otros son los desafíos. Venezolanos en la ciudad de
Montevideo. In L. Gandini, F. Lozano-Ascencio & V. Prieto (Eds.), Crisis y migración de población venezolana. Entre la
desprotección y la seguridad jurídica en Latinoamérica (pp. 235-257). Mexico City, Mexico: UNAM.
Moscoso Alvarez, R. & Burneo, N. (2014). Más allá de las fronteras: la población colombiana en su proceso de integración
urbana en la ciudad de Quito. Quito, Ecuador: ACNUR.
Mulder, C. H. (2006). Population and housing: a two-sided relationship. Demographic Research, 15, 401-412.
Mulder, C. H. & Lauster, N. T. (2010). Housing and family: An introduction. Housing Studies, 25(4), 433-440.
Mundra, K. & Uwaifo Oyelere, R. (2017). Determinants of homeownership among immigrants: Changes during the great
recession and beyond. International Migration Review, 52(3), 648–694.
Prieto Rosas, V., Bengochea, J., Fernández Souto, M., Márquez Scotti, C., & Montiel, C. (2019). Etnoencuesta de Inmigración
Reciente (ENIR) para la ciudad de Montevideo, 2018. Informe preliminar de resultados.
Prieto, V. & Márquez-Scotti, C. (2019). Inclusión social de inmigrantes recientes que residen en viviendas particulares de
Uruguay. Documento N°4. Montevideo, Uruguay. Retrieved from:
https://www.colibri.udelar.edu.uy/jspui/bitstream/20.500.12008/23222/1/DT%20UM-PP%2004.pdf
Sassone, S. M. (2007). Migración, territorio e identidad cultural: construcción de “lugares bolivianos” en la Ciudad de Buenos
Aires. Población de Buenos Aires, 4(6), 9-28.
7Sassone, S. M. (2009). Breve geografía histórica de la migración boliviana en la Argentina. In Ministerio de Cultura & Gobierno
de la Ciudad de Buenos Aires, Buenos Aires Boliviana. Migración, construcciones identitarias y memoria (pp. 389-402). Buenos
Aires, Argentina: Comisión para la Preservación del Patrimonio Histórico Cultural de la Ciudad Autónoma de Buenos Aires.
Teixeira, C. (2011). Finding a home of their own: Immigrant housing experiences in Central Okanagan, British Columbia, and
policy recommendations for change. Journal of International Migration and Integration/Revue de l'integration et de la
migration internationale, 12(2), 173-197.
Volz, E. & Heckathorn, D. D. (2008). Probability based estimation theory for respondent driven sampling. Journal of official
statistics, 24(1), 79-97.
Xie, M. (2010). The Effects of multiple dimensions of residential segregation on black and hispanic homicide victimization.
Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(2), 237–268. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-009-9078-6
Yicón, L. & Acosta, N. (2009). Red social de inmigrantes colombianos y concentración urbana. Caso: municipio
Maracaibo. Espacio Abierto, 18(1), 151-174.
8You can also read
