The social integration of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals: Exploring the role of the municipal context

M.M. Fischer, M. Kalmijn, S. Steinmetz

Research output: Contribution to journal/periodicalArticleScientificpeer-review

Abstract

This paper examines possible differences between lesbians, gay men and bisexuals (LGBs) compared to heterosexuals with respect to their integration into the residential neighbourhood. By means of a multi-level analysis, we examine if there is a gap in social integration between LGBs compared to heterosexuals, and if so, to what extent municipality characteristics can account for variations in this gap. Specifically, we test a cultural hypothesis (i.e., how liberal or conservative the cultural climate is) and a social hypothesis (i.e., how large the share of LGBs is). In total, we analyse 7,320 LGBs and 114,298 heterosexual respondents from four pooled waves of the Dutch Safety Monitor (2012–2015). We link these individual level data to an external survey, which allows the measurement of the cultural climate in each municipality. Overall, we found little evidence that there is an integration gap between LGBs and heterosexuals in the Netherlands as a whole. We find some support for the social hypothesis and no support for the cultural hypothesis. The analyses highlight the particular role of Amsterdam. While both heterosexuals and LGBs are less integrated in Amsterdam compared to less urbanized areas, this is more so the case for heterosexuals. The social integration among LGBs does not drop as sharply as it does among heterosexuals, suggesting that LGBs also benefit socially from living in Amsterdam.
Original languageEnglish
Article number102320
JournalSocial Science Research
Volume84
Early online date03 Jul 2019
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2019

Keywords

  • sexual orientation
  • social integration
  • multi-level
  • neighbourhood
  • social context

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'The social integration of lesbians, gay men and bisexuals: Exploring the role of the municipal context'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this