No. 16 (2011): GFS

Perceived immigration. A case study for the municipality of Pozzuolo

Department of Human Sciences, University of Udine, Udine, Italy.


  • Perception,
  • immigration, native population,
  • municipality of Pozzuolo del Friuli,
  • demoscopic survey,
  • self-administered questionnaire,
  • hospitality,
  • integration
  • ...More

How to Cite

S T E L L A, M. A. R. I. A. N. N. A. (2023). Perceived immigration. A case study for the municipality of Pozzuolo. Gjornâl Furlan Des Siencis - Friulian Journal of Science, 16(16), 99–118. Retrieved from


This study explores the perception of the residents of the municipality of Pozzuolo
del Friuli, in the province of Udine, with regard to the phenomenon of foreign immigration
to Italy. The study has involved a demoscopic survey conducted through a
self-administered questionnaire, consisting of 60 questions divided in three thematic
sections. The questionnaire was distributed by mail to a randomly-chosen population
sample estimated in 10% of the total residents, proportionately distributed among the
municipality main centre (Pozzuolo) and surrounding localities. The answers were
analysed by the statistical software “Statistical Package for Social Science”.
The results presented in this paper constitute a fraction of the total answers, which, in
the cases of interest, have been cross-checked to provide a complete and detailed picture
of the residents’ perception of the phenomenon. The study reveals an interest in
immigration-related issues which is generally greater among younger people and for the
nearest geographical contexts, and conversely less significant among older respondents
and for the most distant geographical areas. The values of solidarity and hospitality are
both considered significantly important by respondents, who show a greater propensity
for the former over the latter. However, answers indicate that the two sentiments are
directed at different categories of people: while solidarity may be shown with “anyone”,
respondents feel most hospitable towards those who are closest to them.
Moreover, attention has been paid to the analysis of the characteristics of foreign immigrants,
such as their country of origin, religion, qualifications, and reason to emigrate,
this last one being the variable which is most taken into account by the native respondents.
It has also emerged that the immigrants’ country of origin, even if it does not appear
to have influence over the acceptance, or lack of it, of a foreign person, is still relevant
in determining the attitude of the native population. Regarding this, answers show
that the preference given to areas of origin such as Western Europe and North America
is accompanied by a tendency to reject immigrants coming from the Arab countries; the order of preference of the geographical areas is maintained unaltered for all the different
categories of social relation proposed by the survey. In brief, even though native
respondents have a propensity to prefer situations which are nearest to their own, they
maintain a fundamental openness which encourages them to enter in contact with a foreign
person without, at the same time, losing control over their environment and living


  1. Ammaturo N. (2004). La dimensione della solidarietà nella società globale. Milano: Franco Angeli.
  2. Binder N.E., Polinard J.L., Wrinkle R.D. (1997). Mexican American and Anglo Attitudes Toward Immigration Reform: A View from The Border. Social Science Quarterly, 78 (2): 324-337.
  3. Bloemraad I. (2012). Understanding “Canadian Exceptionalism” in Immigration and Pluralism Policy. Washington DC: Migration Policy Institute.
  4. Bonifazi C. (2006). L’immigrazione straniera in Italia. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  5. Caporiacco G. (1983). L’emigrazione dalla Carnia e dal Friuli. Udine: Ente Friuli nel Mondo.
  6. Caporiacco G., Caporiacco A. (1978). 1877-1880. Coloni friulani in Argentina, Brasile, Venezuela, Stati Uniti. Reana: Chiandetti.
  7. Cattarinussi B. (2006). Sentimenti, passioni, emozioni. Le radici del comportamento sociale. Milano: Franco Angeli.
  8. Collins L. (2011). England their England. The Failure of British Multiculturalism and the Rise of the Islamophobic Right. The New Yorker, July 4, 2011: 28-34.
  9. Diehl C., Steinmann J.P. (2012). The Impact of the “Sarrazin Debate” on the German Public’s Views On Immigration, Washington DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
  10. Espenshade T., Calhoun C.A. (1993). An Analysis of Public Opinion toward Undocumented Immigration. Population Research and Policy Review, 12: 189-224
  11. Di Giusto G.M., Jolly S.K. (2008). French Xenophobia and The Radical Right: Public Attitudes toward Immigration. Boston MA: Congressional Proceeding on 28-31 August 2008 for the Annual Conference of the American Political Science Association.
  12. Ford R. (2012). Parochial and Cosmopolitan Britain. Examining the Social Divide in Reactions to Immigration. Washington DC: The German Marshall Fund of the United States.
  13. Gallup (2012). Immigration. Web Site consulted on May 31, 2012 and available at
  14. Gerbino W. (1983). La percezione. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  15. Haubert J., Fussel E. (2006). Explaining Pro-Immigrant Sentiment in the U.S. Social Class, Cosmopolitarism and the Perception of Immigrants. International Migration Review, 40(3): 489-507.
  16. Hethling A., Greenberg M. (2011). In Our Backyards: Regional Influences of Public Opinion of Immigration. Journal of Integrated Social Sciences, 2: 148-171.
  17. Higham J. (1998). Strangers in the Land: Patterns of American Nativisma 1860-1925. News Brunswick: Rutgers University Press.
  18. Nanos N. (2010). Canadians Strongly Support Immigration, But Don’t Want Current Levels Increased. Policy Options, July-August: 9-14.
  19. Pagani B.M. (1968). L’emigrazione friulana dalla metà del secolo IXX al 1940. Udine: Arti grafiche friulane.
  20. PollingReport. Immigration ( 2012). Document consulted on May 31, 2012 and available at
  21. Pugliese E. (2006). L’Italia tra migrazioni interne e migrazioni internazionali. Bologna: Il Mulino.
  22. Simon R.J., Sikich K.W. (2007). Public Attitudes toward Immigrants and Immigration Policies across Seven Nations. International Migration Review, 41 (4): 956-962.
  23. Stadler M., Seeger F., Räithel A. (1979). Psicologia della percezione. Milano: Juventa.
  24. Stella M. (2010). Immigrazione e territorio: La realtà del centro Ernesto Balducci e la percezione dei residenti del comune di Pozzuolo del Friuli. Tesi di laurea.
  25. Stella M. (2011). Primo rapporto sugli ingressi al Centro di accoglienza e promozione culturale “Ernesto Baludcci”: Dati per la riflessione. Majano: Friulstampa.
  26. The German Marshall Fund of The United States (2008). Transatlantic Trends: Immigration 2008. Washington DC: Transatlantic Trends.
  27. The German Marshall Fund of The United States (2009). Transatlantic Trends: Immigration 2009. Washington DC: Transatlantic Trends.
  28. The German Marshall Fund of The United States (2010). Transatlantic Trends: Immigration 2010. Washington DC: Transatlantic Trends.
  29. The German Marshall Fund of The United States (2011). Transatlantic Trends: Immigration 2011. Washington DC: Transatlantic Trends.
  30. Timberlake J.M., Williams R.H. (forthcoming). Stereotypes of U.S. Immigrants from Four Global Regions. Social Science Quarterly.
  31. Vision Critical (2012). Australians Split on Immigration and Policies on Asylum-Seekers. Vancouver BC: Angus Reid Public Opinion.
  32. Wilkes R., Guppy N., Farris L. (2008). No Thanks, We’re Full: Individual Characteristics, National Context, and Changing Attitudes toward Immigration. International Migration Review, 42 (2): 302-329.
  33. Zamperini A. (2004). Solidarietà e tolleranza. In Sapio A. Per una psicologia della pace. Milano: Franco Angeli, pp. 401-428.
  34. Zolberg A. (2008). A Nation by Design: Immigration Policy in the Fashioning of America. Cambridge: Russell Sage Foundation Books at Harvard University Press.
  35. Zoll R. (2003). La solidarietà: eguaglianza e differenza. Bologna: Il Mulino.