1 / 27

Sean F. Reardon, Stanford University Barrett A. Lee, Penn State University

Beyond the Census Tract: Methods for Studying the Geographical Scale of Metropolitan Racial Segregation. Sean F. Reardon, Stanford University Barrett A. Lee, Penn State University Glenn Firebaugh, Penn State University Stephen A. Matthews, Penn State University

cooper-irwin
Download Presentation

Sean F. Reardon, Stanford University Barrett A. Lee, Penn State University

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Beyond the Census Tract: Methods for Studying the Geographical Scale of Metropolitan Racial Segregation Sean F. Reardon, Stanford University Barrett A. Lee, Penn State University Glenn Firebaugh, Penn State University Stephen A. Matthews, Penn State University Kendra Bischoff, Stanford University Chad R. Farrell, University of Alaska David O’Sullivan, University of Auckland RC-28 meeting in Brno, Czech Republic, Friday, May 25, 2007

  2. Acknowledgments • Technical support: Steve Graham and Yosef Bodovski, Penn State Population Research Institute • Funding: National Science Foundation (SES-0520400 and SES-052045), Penn State Children, Youth and Families Consortium, Penn State Population Research Institute

  3. Part of a Larger Project – Three Objectives • Develop methods for studying the geographical scaleof segregation (the talk today) • Design strategies for estimating the determinants of segregation at different geographical scales in U.S. cities • Specifying outcome-sensitive models of the consequencesof segregation in U.S. cities

  4. DefiningTerms Segregation – extent to which individuals’ local environments differ in their composition on some population characteristic, such as race (“racial segregation”) • Each individual’s local environment is relatively similar in racial composition  little racial segregation/ great variation in racial composition  high racial segregation • Corresponds to Massey’s ‘evenness’ dimension

  5. Definitions, continued Geographical scale of segregation refers to the size or ‘radius’ of the local environments whose compositions are being compared

  6. “Beyond the census tract” --But what’s wrong with census tracts? • Bounded-region problem: Indifference to proximity within and across tracts. Residents of: • different tracts have no proximity • same tract have equal proximity • Fixed-boundaries problem: You cannot vary radius size to study segregation at different geographic scales (the issue of interest here) • Arbitrary-size problem: Census tracts vary greatly in size, so you aren’t comparing “like with like” in comparing “local environments” (next slide)

  7. Bounded-Region Problem: Individual and Tract Proximity 1 6 Tract B 3 4 5 Tract A Tract C Tract D 2

  8. From tract-based to local environment-based methods How to solve the three problems of using tracts to study segregation (bounded-region, fixed-boundaries -- so you cannot study segregation at different geographical scales -- and arbitrary-size)? • Focus on location of individuals, their residential proximity • Each person at center of local environment (LE) • LE made up of distance-weighted average of populations at each point within radius • Compare LE racial mix to larger region • Segregation = average degree to which individual LEs differ from overall composition of city

  9. Local Environments 1 6 Tract B 3 4 5 Tract A Tract C Tract D 2

  10. Types of local environments • Strength of LE approach: flexibility • Three types of LEs of interest: • Micro: pedestrian neighborhood • Meso: elementary school, daycare, police substation • Macro: shopping, church, high school • Researcher can compare level of segregation across different-sized LEs – “segregation profile” is curve showing level of segregation across different-sized LEs

  11. Segregation measure: H • Theil’s information theory index (H) • Compares racial mix of LEs to metro as whole – how much less diverse is former than latter? • Maximum seg = 1 (LEs are monoracial) • Minimum seg = 0 (LEs match metro) • Can be extended to multi-group situation • H computed for minority-W combinations • H computed for LEs of varying radii (500m, 1000m, 2000m, 4000m) segregation profiles for cities (next slide)

  12. Example: Segregation Profiles for Selected Metropolitan Areas and Racial Group Combinations

  13. Does size of LE or ‘catchment area’ matter? Top 10 Hispanic-White Segregated Metro Areas by LE size

  14. Does size of ‘catchment area’ matter? Part 2:Black-White Segregation Profiles for Selected Metropolitan Areas

  15. How did we construct the seg profiles? Data and procedures (GIS) • 2000 US census data for 100 largest metro areas – provides block counts of racial groups • Divide block map into 50x50m cells, and estimate racial group counts for each cell (sensitivity analysis - this size works well) • Smooth grid, preserving block counts • Apply proximity function (distance-decay function, so nearby populations are weighted more heavily) to compute racial composition of LEs • Segregation = average degree to which individual LEs differ from overall composition of city

  16. H ratio • Scale-specific Hs complemented with H ratio • H4000/H500 operationalizes slope of segregation profile • High value = flatter slope • Low value = steeper slope • Share of micro-segregation due to macro-segregation

  17. Contributions • Conceptualizes segregation as variation in racial composition of local environments – segregation is average of the LE variations • Solves problems of tract-based approaches: • Bounded region (so proximity is 1 for all residents in a tract and 0 for all residents outside the tract) • Fixed-boundaries (so you can’t compare segregation at different geographical scales) • Arbitrary size • Segregation profile a useful tool: • captures segregation at multiple scales • introduces new dimension of segregation (slope) • Results highlight scale-sensitive nature of segregation patterns, determinants

  18. Resources • Working papers available at: • http://www.pop.psu.edu/mss/ • click on “publications” • Plans for software/data dissemination

  19. Appendix material If there is time in the presentation, some of the appended material might be discussed as well.

  20. Next steps • Technical improvements: • fine-tuning LE size to granularity • increasing realism of landscape (adding barriers) • Need scale-specific theory of segregation • What accounts for micro-seg, macro-seg, relation between them (slope)? • Factors differentiating intrametropolitan space • More attention to consequences • Implications of segregation scale for age groups

  21. Average interquartile range in tract size 25 highest-density metro areas: 1.1 to 6.2 km2 25 lowest-density metro areas: 2.5 to 27.8 km2 Average min/max tract size for 100 largest metro areas Minimum: .4 km2 (.16 mi2) Maximum: 1,319.0 km2 (509.3 mi2) Tract size for Riverside-San Bernardino-Ontario metro area Median: 4.9 km2 (1.9 mi2) Mean: 121.3 km2 (46.8 mi2) Minimum: .5 km2 (.2 mi2) Maximum: 20,700.4 km2 (7,992.5 mi2)

  22. Checkerboard Problem City B City A

  23. Mean Segregation Levels by Local Environment Size and Racial Group Combination

  24. Determinants of Hispanic-White Segregation by Local Environment Size

  25. Determinants of H Ratio (H4000/H500) by Racial Group Combination

More Related