The Dimensions of Residential Segregation

Abstract

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.. Oxford University Press is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Social Forces. AbstractThis paper conceives of residential segregation as a multidimensional phenomenon varying along five distinct axes of measurement: evenness, exposure, concentration, centralization, and clustering. Twenty indices of segregation are surveyed and related conceptually to one of the five dimensions. Using data from a large set of U.S. metropolitan areas, the indices are intercorrelated and factor analyzed. Orthogonal and oblique rotations produce pattern matrices consistent with the postulated dimensional structure. Based on the factor analyses and other information, one index was chosen to represent each of the five dimensions, and these selections were confirmed with a principal components analysis. The paper recommends adopting these indices as standard indicators in future studies of segregation.After decades of lively debate on the nature of residential segregation and how to measure it, Duncan and Duncan (1955a) ushered in a long era of peace by demonstrating that there was little information in any of the prevailing indices not contained in the index of dissimilarity and the minority proportion, a conclusion subsequently reaffirmed by Taeuber and Taeuber (1965). For more than 20 years afterwards, the dissimilarity index served as the standard segregation measure, routinely employed to measure spatial segregation between social groups. This Pax Duncana came to an abrupt end in 1976, with the publication of a critique of the dissimilarity index by Cortese, Falk, and Cohen (1976). Ironically, this paper did not have a serious direct impact on the measurement of residential segregation. Practitioners did not take its criticisms too seriously

The spatialities of ageing: Evidencing increasing spatial polarisation between older and younger adults in England and Wales

“…Hence, while D in 1991 was 28.7 on average for the group aged 65 and over, in 2011 D for the same age group had increased to 39.6. A lt ho ug h t his l at te r v alue f al ls w ithi n w ha t t h e lite rat u re re f e rs to as a 'moderate' degree of segregation (Massey and Denton 1988), it is evident that the spatial separation between the older and younger groups has increased substantially (+10.9) in the last 20 years. Thus far, our results indicate increasing age segregation, in accordance with previous literature in the US showing an increase in residential segregation between similar age groups (60 years and over vs. 20-34 years) across local neighbourhoods defined by census blocks (Winkler 2013).…”

“…Multiplying by 100 expresses the share as a percentage, where 0 = no segregation and 100 = total segregation. A good rule of thumb is that values of D less than 30 indicate low segregation, 30 to 60 indicate moderate segregation, and values over 60 indicate high segregation (Massey and Denton 1988). D can also be interpreted as the percentage of the population who would have to move to create a distribution of older adults to younger adults in the OA geography that matches the distribution in the larger (national/district) geographic unit.…”

Schelling's Segregation Model: Parameters, scaling, and aggregation

“…We call the latter quantity seclusiveness and denote by N 0 . Since the publication of Schelling's papers, sociologists have devised new measures to quantify different aspects of segregation, including: evenness, exposure, clustering, concentration and centrality (Duncan and Duncan 1955;Massey and Denton 1988;Massey, White, and Phua 1996). Exposure relates to the degree of contact between agents of different kinds and clustering relates to the degree of contiguity among agents of one kind.…”

Desindustrialización y crisis en la Barcelona posolímpica: ¿hacia una ciudad dual?

“…Este indicador puntúa de 0 (ausencia de segregación) a 1 (máxima segregación) e indica la proporción del grupo social estudiado que debería cambiar de residencia para obtener una distribución residencial igualitaria en todo el ámbito de estudio (Duncan & Duncan, 1955a;Massey & Denton, 1988 …”