62
SEGREGACIÓN RESIDENCIAL EN DOS CIUDADES DE LA MACRO REGIÓN SUR DEL PERÚ
MANUEL DAMMERT-GUARDIA, LUIS RIVERA-SEGURA
REVISTA URBANO Nº 49 / MAYO 2024 - OCTUBRE 2024
PÁG. 62 - 77
ISSN 0717 - 3997 / 0718 - 3607
This work is part of the research “Irregular and informal urban growth in Arequipa, Lima, and Tacna,” funded by CONCYTEC
through the PROCIENCIA program within the framework of the E041-2022-03 Financial Schemes Competition, called “Applied
Research Projects in Social Sciences,” under contract PE501078514-2022. In addition, it had the support of PUCP’s FAI-0037-
2022.
Doctor en Sociología
Profesor de el Departamento de Ciencias Sociales
Ponticia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú
https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7583-1878
mdammert@pucp.edu.pe
Magíster en Estudios Urbanos
Asistente de docencia en la Facultad de Letras y Ciencias Humanas
Ponticia Universidad Católica del Perú, Lima, Perú
https://orcid.org/0009-0005-0019-6124
lerivera@pucp.edu.pe
https://doi.org/10.22320/07183607.2024.27.49.05
1
2
3
Recibido: 25-01-2024
Aceptado: 06-05-2024
SEGREGACIÓN RESIDENCIAL EN DOS CIUDADES DE LA MACRO REGIÓN SUR DEL PERÚ
RESIDENTIAL SEGREGATION
IN TWO CITIES IN PERU’S
SOUTHERN MACRO-REGION
1
MANUEL DAMMERTGUARDIA 2
LUIS RIVERASEGURA 3
SEGREGACIÓN RESIDENCIAL EN DOS CIUDADES DE LA MACRO REGIÓN SUR DEL PERÚ
MANUEL DAMMERT-GUARDIA, LUIS RIVERA-SEGURA
REVISTA URBANO Nº 49 / MAYO 2024 - OCTUBRE 2024
PÁG. 62 - 77
ISSN 0717 - 3997 / 0718 - 3607
63
Studies on residential segregation in Peru have privileged the study of the capital city, to the detriment of cities with other
scales and contexts. This article analyzes the residential segregation levels and patterns in two Peruvian cities in the southern
macro-region: Arequipa and Tacna. Based on data provided by the 2007 and 2017 censuses, synthetic and spatial segregation
indicators were analyzed in both cities, taking as reference the educational level of the head of household and calculating the
data on the block, census area, and district scales. The results show that inherited segregation patterns are maintained, while at
the same time, the growing middle-class sectors are included in the more consolidated working-class settlements. In addition,
processes that reinforce segregation were identied, such as the modication of the role of central areas, urban land production
for the upper-class areas, and homogeneity of disadvantages in new areas of urban expansion, which are linked, particularly
in the city of Arequipa, to the occupation of risk areas. The study suggests that these processes shape a low-scale urban
segregation or fragmentation pattern in both cities, which coexists with inherited patterns.
Keywords: residential segregation, segregation patterns, urbanization, urban growth.
Los estudios sobre segregación residencial en el Perú han privilegiado el estudio de la ciudad capital, en desmedro de ciudades
con otras escalas y contextos. En este artículo analizamos los niveles y patrones de segregación residencial en dos ciudades
del Perú, ubicadas en la macro región sur: Arequipa y Tacna. A partir de los datos proporcionados por los censos de los años
2007 y 2017, se analizaron indicadores sintéticos y espaciales de segregación en ambas ciudades, tomando como referencia
el nivel educativo del jefe de hogar y calculando los datos para las escalas de manzana, área censal y distrito. Los resultados
muestran que se mantienen patrones de segregación heredados, al mismo tiempo que los crecientes estratos medios son
incluidos en los asentamientos populares más consolidados. Además, se identicaron procesos que refuerzan la segregación,
como la modicación de la función de las áreas centrales, producción de suelo urbano para estratos altos y homogeneidad de
desventajas en nuevas áreas de expansión urbana, las que están vinculadas particularmente en la ciudad de Arequipa en la
ocupación sobre áreas de riesgo. El estudio sugiere que estos procesos dan forma a un patrón de segregación urbana de baja
escala o fragmentación en ambas ciudades que coexisten con los patrones heredados.
Palabras clave: segregación residencial, patrones de segregación, urbanización, crecimiento urbano.
64
SEGREGACIÓN RESIDENCIAL EN DOS CIUDADES DE LA MACRO REGIÓN SUR DEL PERÚ
MANUEL DAMMERT-GUARDIA, LUIS RIVERA-SEGURA
REVISTA URBANO Nº 49 / MAYO 2024 - OCTUBRE 2024
PÁG. 62 - 77
ISSN 0717 - 3997 / 0718 - 3607
I. INTRODUCTION
Residential segregation (RS, from now on) - understood
as the distribution and concentration patterns of the
population in the region - is one of the most important
fields of analysis in urban studies. RS patterns are
based on socio-economic, demographic, and/or ethnic
criteria to configure opportunity structures that impact
the quality of life. The production of urban space and
the levels of segregation do not depend exclusively
on individual decisions but on the institutional
arrangements of the land and real estate markets,
the location of public investment policies, and the
contextual conditions of each urban agglomeration.
RS is a multiscale process driven by diverse systemic
mechanisms and contextual factors, their legacies and
transformation, and not by inevitable global forces,
individual behavior, or pure market logic” (Arbaci, 2019,
p5). It depends on each city’s historical trajectory,
multiple dimensions, and institutional arrangements
(Maloutas, 2012). In operational terms, RS refers to the
degree of separation of two or more groups in the same
area (Massey & Denton, 1988).
RS is a field that is not without controversies. Debates
have been identified around whether contemporary
territorial transformations generate conditions for the
increase of RS, large-scale segregation patterns, or
small-scale segregation and socio-spatial fragmentation
(Borsdorf & Hidalgo, 2010; Janoschka, 2002; Prévot
Schapira, 2001; Sabatini et al., 2001), or the relationship
between segregation and inequalities (Ruiz-Tagle &
López, 2014; Sabatini et al., 2020). In methodological
terms, discussions arise on synthetic (such as the
dissimilarity index) and spatial indices (Sánchez &
Gómez, 2021), operationalization (Massey & Denton,
1998), and the impact of the analysis scale on the
results (Marengo & Elorza, 2014; Sabatini et al., 2001),
the use of census tracts or other delimitations. In
addition, whether the RS patterns are similar when
comparing cities of different scales and sizes has
recently been discussed (Garreton et al., 2020; Krupka,
2007; Mayorga, 2021; Monkkonen, 2012).
The following article contributes to these debates
by comparing two regional cities in Peru’s southern
macro-region. The starting point is moving away from
the country’s metropolitan area and capital, Lima, and
its almost 10 million inhabitants, to analyze Tacna and
Arequipa, with populations of around 300,000 and
1 million, respectively (INEI, 2017). These cities were
chosen for the following three reasons: a) Both belong
to the same southern macro-region; b) Arequipa is
the second most populous city in the country; and
c) Both cities have population growth rates higher
than the country’s capital and a significant recent
regional growth. The dimensions are the distribution
and homogeneity/heterogeneity, analyzed from
the socioeconomic variable, taking as a reference
the level of education achieved by the head of
household. The analysis uses spatial and non-
spatial indexes with information from the 2007 and
2017 censuses, and three scales of analysis were
incorporated: block, census area, and district.
The article identifies various debates about RS
in urban studies to delimit its working premises.
Subsequently, the socio-spatial context of the
analyzed cities and the results of the spatial and non-
spatial indices are described. Finally, the article marks
the coexistence of both cities’ large- and small-scale
segregation dynamics as relevant.
II. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK.
Segregation: debates and scales
RS is one of the central topics in urban studies.
In particular, it is a crucial analytical input to
understanding growth models, location patterns,
relationships between social inequalities and urban
form, and the role of the land and housing market,
among other things. In the United States, the racial,
sociocultural, and socioeconomic ethnic components
have been discussed from different angles (Massey
& Denton, 1998). On the other hand, various
adaptations and uses of the analysis models were
made in Latin America to understand Residential
Segregation (Sabatini, Cáceres & Cerda, 2001) from
critical readings (Ruiz Tagle & López, 2014). RS is
associated with multiple processes (de Queiroz,
2017). Among the main topics, the following stand
out: link with urban informality (Clichevsky, 2000),
public policies, housing, and land markets (Águila
& Prada, 2020; Prada-Trigo & Andrade, 2022), and
the effects of migration. At the same time, RS is a
structure of opportunities (Katzman, 2001) associated
with dynamics of labor insertion (Niembro et al.,
2019), income generation (Gomes & de Queiroz,
2021), territorial stigmas (Elorza, 2019), citizen
security (Arriagada & Morales, 2006), access to the
labor market (Niembro et al., 2019) and can influence
- albeit ambiguously - social networks (Marques,
2015) and their resources (Otero et al., 2021).
SEGREGACIÓN RESIDENCIAL EN DOS CIUDADES DE LA MACRO REGIÓN SUR DEL PERÚ
MANUEL DAMMERT-GUARDIA, LUIS RIVERA-SEGURA
REVISTA URBANO Nº 49 / MAYO 2024 - OCTUBRE 2024
PÁG. 62 - 77
ISSN 0717 - 3997 / 0718 - 3607
65
Different debates regarding the analyzed literature
can be highlighted. Faced with the question about
the particularity of the RS patterns in Latin American
cities (Rodríguez & Arriagada, 2004), an argument was
made in favor of a large-scale pattern as a result of the
characteristics of the massive urbanization process of
the 20
th
century, the barriers of access to housing in the
formal markets, and the processes of irregular access
and self-construction. On the other hand, the move
to smaller-scale segregation, or fragmentation, was
proposed (Borsdorf & Hidalgo, 2010; Prévot Schapira,
2001). An intermediate line shows that the RS patterns
are explained by the forms of measurement and work
scale or by their coexistence (Aguilar & Mateos, 2021).
A second debate is about the relationship
between segregation, extension, population, and
metropolization, which were extended to comparative
studies that identified general characteristics of
RS patterns between cities of different sizes, with
or without metropolitan conditions. Garreton et
al. (2020) proposed an analysis model where a
correlation between size and level of segregation was
demonstrated for Chile. According to Krupta (2007),
size and segregation have no significant differences.
Monkkonen (2012) analyzed more than 100 urban areas
in Mexico and concluded the following: The historical
urban development processes are more important in
determining segregation patterns than the universal
land market factors (p. 143). The contexts are specific
configurations of historical, territorial, and institutional
processes to understand the RS patterns (Theodore et
al., 2009). Namely, segregation is a concept linked to
the context (Maloutas, 2012), where people are more
inclined towards cities other than the capitals.
In the case of intermediate cities, Toro and Orozco
(2018) discussed the particularities of segregation
patterns in intermediate cities, highlighting the
possibility of different processes - such as forms of
negotiation and tolerance of proximity between
social groups. Paying particular attention to real estate
growth, for their part, Águila and Prada (2020) identified
in the city of Valdivia, Chile, a segregation marked by
opposite poles, i.e., there is a voluntarily segregated
group, which is a high socioeconomic class [...] and a
peripheral cordon (p.39). For the case of intermediate
cities in Mexico, Ruiz et al. (2021) concluded that the
growth of intermediate cities follows a periphery
pattern, with homogeneous old areas, indigenous
populations in dispersed localities, and swaths of
“newcomer” populations in disadvantaged situations.
III. CASE STUDY
Cities of Peru’s Southern Macro-region
Similar to regional trends (Cebrián et al., 2022), Peru’s
urban growth in the 20
th
and 21
st
centuries was mainly
defined by the sustained increase in urban population,
which rose from 35.4% in 1940 to 82.4% in 2017. The
urban primacy, with a third of the national population
residing in the capital (Lima), forms part of the centralism
and weaknesses of networks of cities integrated into the
national territory (Espinoza et al., 2022; Galarza, 2011).
The countrys System of Cities and Population Centers
revealed that the cities with the highest demographic
growth between 2007 and 2017 are not the capital. The
population growth rates of intermediate major cities and
regional metropolises are higher than those of national
metropolises (Table 1). Metropolitan Lima saw the most
significant growth in the 20
th
century, with intercensal
growth rates of 5.2 (1940-1961), 5.7 (1961-1972), 3.7 (1972-
1981), 2.7 (1981-1993), and 2.0 (1993-2007). This meant
rising from about 500,000 inhabitants in 1940 to almost 10
million in 2017. Although the growth rate has decreased,
it is still the country’s most important urban area.
The predominance of Lima is also reflected in urban
studies, which presented excessive attention to this to the
detriment of other processes at a national level (Calderón
& Vega-Centeno, 2016). Studies focusing on the capital
usually argue that this case is representative of the rest
of the country’s urban processes. This sometimes leads
to the reproduction of what Vergara and Salazar (2021)
mention, namely studying cities of different scales as
if they were “mini-metropolises. There are important
exceptions, such as territorial studies (Vilela, 2023),
debates on the role of intermediation of intermediate
cities (Canziani & Schejtman, 2013), and the possibilities
they offer for decentralized economic development
(Espinoza et al., 2022), as well as efforts to analyze
territorial and environmental conditions in Arequipa
(Zevallos, 2020), the water distribution system also in
Arequipa (Zapana et al., 2021), and the role of the state
in the production of land and housing in Tacna (Abanto,
2017), among others.
According to Law No. 31313, “Sustainable Urban
Development Law (2021), it is mentioned that Perus
national territory is subdivided into urban macrosystems.
Due to its economic and demographic importance, the
southern macrosystem has Arequipa as a dynamic city
(regional metropolis). Tacna (a major city) is located
in this same macro system. Both cities have a smaller
population than the capital, even though Arequipa has
66
SEGREGACIÓN RESIDENCIAL EN DOS CIUDADES DE LA MACRO REGIÓN SUR DEL PERÚ
MANUEL DAMMERT-GUARDIA, LUIS RIVERA-SEGURA
REVISTA URBANO Nº 49 / MAYO 2024 - OCTUBRE 2024
PÁG. 62 - 77
ISSN 0717 - 3997 / 0718 - 3607
4 According to the national regulations, there are 8 classication ranges of urban agglomerations, the main ones being: 1) National metropolis
(Lima) (10 million inhabitants); 2); regional metropolis (500,001 or more); major city (100,000 to 500,000); intermediate city (20,000 to 100,000);
and minor city (5001 to 20,000).
Table 1. Growth rate and population in department capitals4. Source: MVCS (2016); INEI (2017)
one million inhabitants and Tacna has less than 300,000.
Therefore, the population and territorial extension had
considerable growth in both cases. Between 1984 and
2017, the built-up area of Arequipa grew more than
threefold (Figure 1), especially in recently urbanized areas
on land classified as a non-mitigable risk zone (Arequipa
Provincial Municipality, 2015). In the case of Tacna, the
built-up area has grown sixfold (Figure 2). However, due
to the growth of the urban area, these areas are exposed
to more significant anthropogenic hazards that limit their
habitability (quarries, pig farms, sanitary landfills, among
others) (Tacna Provincial Municipality, 2013).
IV. METHODOLOGY
The microdata of the 2007 and 2017 Population and
Housing Censuses (CPV, in Spanish) were used, which
were processed in a Geographic Information System
Department capital 2007 2017 City typology Growth rate
Puerto Maldonado 57,035 85,024 Main intermediate city 4.1
Ayacucho 151,019 216,444 Major City 3.7
Abancay 51,462 72,277 Main intermediate city 3.5
Chachapoyas 23,202 32,026 Intermediate city 3.3
Moquegua 50,799 69,882 Main intermediate city 3.2
Huánuco 148,665 196,627 Major City 2.8
Moyobamba 39,250 50,073 Main intermediate city 2.5
Arequipa 806,782 1,008,290 Southern Macrosystem Regional Metropolis 2.3
Piura 377,896 473,025 Northern Macrosystem Regional Metropolis 2.3
Cajamarca 161,215 201,329 Major City 2.2
Huancavelica 40,004 49,570 Intermediate city 2.2
Cusco 348,935 428,450 Central Southern Macrosystem Regional
Metropolis
2.1
Ica 232,054 282,407 Main Major City 2.0
Trujillo 766,082 919,899 Northern Macrosystem Regional Metropolis 1.8
Huancayo 382,478 456,250 Central Macrosystem Regional Metropolis 1.8
Pucallpa 272,251 326,040 Central Macrosystem Regional Metropolis 1.8
Huaraz 99,462 118,836 Major City 1.8
Tacna 242,670 286,240 Main Major City 1.7
Metropolitan Lima 8,472,092 9,562,280 National Metropolis 1.2
Puno 119,116 128,637 Major City 0.8
Tumbes 91,365 96,946 Main intermediate city 0.6
Chiclayo 527,250 552,508 Northern Macrosystem Regional Metropolis 0.5
Iquitos 367,153 377,609 Northern Macrosystem Regional Metropolis 0.3
Cerro de Pasco 61,046 58,899 Main intermediate city -0.4