Patterns of Gay Male and Lesbian Partnering in the Metropolitan Areas of the United States in 2010

Social Science & Medicine

2017

Air pollution is deleterious to human health, and numerous studies have documented racial and socioeconomic inequities in air pollution exposures. Despite the marginalized status of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) populations, no national studies have examined if they experience inequitable exposures to air pollution. This cross-sectional study investigated inequities in the exposure of same-sex partner households to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) in the US. We examined cancer and respiratory risks from HAPs across 71,207 census tracts using National Air Toxics Assessment and US Census data. We calculated population-weighted mean cancer and respiratory risks from HAPs for same-sex male, same-sex female and heterosexual partner households. We used generalized estimating equations (GEEs) to examine multivariate associations between sociodemographics and health risks from HAPs, while focusing on inequities based on the tract composition of same-sex, same-sex male and same-sex female partners. We found that mean cancer and respiratory risks from HAPs for same-sex partners are 12.3% and 23.8% greater, respectively, than for heterosexual partners. GEEs adjusting for racial/ethnic and socioeconomic status, population density, urban location, and geographic clustering show that living in census tracts with high (vs. low) proportions of same-sex partners is associated with significantly greater cancer and respiratory risks from HAPs, and that living in same-sex male partner enclaves is associated with greater risks than living in same-sex female partner enclaves. Results suggest that some health disparities experienced by LGBT populations (e.g. cancer, asthma) may be compounded by environmental exposures. Findings highlight the need to extend the conceptual framework for explaining LGBT health disparities beyond psycho-behavioral mechanisms translating social stress into illness to include environmental mechanisms. Because psycho-behavioral and environmental factors may together exacerbate health disparities, we call for a shift toward interdisciplinary research on LGBT health that takes into account cumulative risks, including the role of environmental exposures.

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Environmental injustice and sexual minority health disparities: A national study of inequitable health risks from air pollution among same-sex partners

Collins

Grineski

Social Science & Medicine

2017

“…The Census Bureau then re-estimated the number of same-sex partnered households at the state level by employing an indirect method (O'Connell and Feliz, 2011), and researchers have been creating estimates at lower levels by downscaling the Census re-estimates. For this study, I used the county-level estimates of both male and female same-sex partners that were developed by Poston and Chang (2013). In order to calculate the segregation scores for each of the 50 US states, I used the counts of male and female same-sex partners of all the counties within each of the states.…”

Section: Data Data Estimates and Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Residential segregation of same-sex partnered households in the US

2018

IJSSP

Purpose Quantitative research on the segregation of same-sex partners in the USA is new, and limited by challenges related to the accurate measurement of segregation and data errors. The purpose of this paper is to provide a novel approach to re-examine residential segregation between same-sex partners and different-sex partners in the USA. Design/methodology/approach Two versions of the dissimilarity index and corrected same-sex partners data from the 2010 decennial census were used. Effects of different geographic scales were examined. Findings Results reveal that the levels of segregation of both male and female same-sex partners were higher at metropolitan- vs state-levels; the levels of segregation was lower when measured using the unbiased as compared to the conventional version of the D-index; and male same-sex partnered households were more segregated from different-sex partnered households than were female same-sex partnered households. Research limitations/implications Future studies should be attuned to geographic scale effects and should not ignore the bias of the D-index. Originality/value This study provides a better test of the differences between the two versions of the D-index and contributes to the literature by examining the segregation of both male same-sex partners and female same-sex partners across different geographic scales.

“…Gates (2013) developed a procedure for estimating accurate numbers of same-sex partner households at the county level using the 2010 Census corrected state-level estimates as a base, which has been employed by others (e.g., Spring 2013). Poston and Chang (2013) observed the tendency for Gates’s (2013) procedure to generate inaccurate zero estimates for the numbers of same-sex male couples in many counties and so they recalculated more accurate proportions at the county level.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Drawing off Poston and Chang (2013) and Deng (2015), we first generated estimates of the counts of households comprised of (1) same-sex partners, (2) same-sex male partners, and (3) same-sex female partners for all Greater Houston census tracts. The multi-step procedure is detailed by Deng (2015), and involves (1) applying the 2010 Census questionnaire mail-in rate to estimate an error rate of same-sex partner miscoding for each census tract; (2) applying that error rate to develop temporary numbers of same-sex male and same-sex female partner households for each census tract; (3) applying those two temporary variables to create adjusted proportions of same-sex male and female partner households for each census tract; (4) applying those proportions for each census tract to the county-level corrected estimates from Poston and Chang (2013) to develop same-sex male and female partner household estimates for each census tract; (5) calculating uncorrected proportions of same-sex male and female partner households in each census tract by using the original 2010 Census numbers of same-sex male and female partner households for each census tract; and (6) applying the uncorrected proportions to the corrected estimates of same-sex partner households for each census tract to obtain corrected counts of same-sex male and female partners in each census tract.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Environmental Injustice: Unequal Carcinogenic Air Pollution Risks in Greater Houston

Collins

Grineski

Annals of the American Association of Geographers

2016

Disparate residential hazard exposures based on disadvantaged gender status (e.g., among female-headed households) have been documented in the distributive environmental justice literature, yet no published studies have examined whether disproportionate environmental risks exist based on minority sexual orientation. To address this gap, we use data from the US Census, American Community Survey and the Environmental Protection Agency at the 2010 census tract level to examine the spatial relationships between same-sex partner households and cumulative cancer risk from exposure to hazardous air pollutants (HAPs) emitted by all ambient emission sources in Greater Houston (Texas). Findings from generalized estimating equation analyses demonstrate that increased cancer risks from HAPs are significantly associated with neighborhoods having relatively high concentrations of resident same-sex partner households, adjusting for geographic clustering and variables known to influence risk (i.e., race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, renter status, income inequality, and population density). However, HAP exposures are distributed differently for same-sex male versus same-sex female partner households. Neighborhoods with relatively high proportions of same-sex male partner households are associated with significantly greater exposure to cancer-causing HAPs while those with high proportions of same-sex female partner households are associated with less exposure. This study provides initial empirical documentation of a previously unstudied pattern, and infuses current theoretical understanding of environmental inequality formation with knowledge emanating from the sexualities and space literature. Practically, results suggest that other documented health risks experienced in gay neighborhoods may be compounded by disparate health risks associated with harmful exposures to air toxics.