Search

There is an implicit, and often explicit, policy view that cities need to provide increased public transit and access to that transportation for low-income and immigrant populations. In this perspective, only by providing increased access to public transit will society overcome the travel problems for these disadvantaged populations. Still, studies of mostly welfare populations have suggested that while public transportation is not unimportant, the car is a critical factor in moving from welfare to work. This paper extends that work by examining the job access behavior of both the low-income population in general and the foreign born population. How much do low-income households in the Los Angeles metropolitan area use public transportation in their journey to work? Are the foreign-born population public transportation users and can we determine the relative trade-off of public transit and car use by these households? We show that the car provides a real gain for low income and foreign born populations but that the gain is not without a potential wider problem – many poor and foreign born populations use the car without the full societal costs as large proportions of these populations use the car without carrying car insurance. We conclude that the gains may well be a mixed blessing if there are gains to these poor and foreign born populations but the costs are born, at least in part by society at large.

For the past decade and a half there has been a concerted effort to determine if policy interventions in residential location can solve the problems of inner city poverty and racial concentration. Studies based on data from the Gautreaux litigation and the HUD sponsored Moving to Opportunity (MTO) program have provided an overall optimistic interpretation of the possibilities of improving inner city lives with mobility vouchers and counseling. A re-analysis of the data from the MTO program focusing specifically on African American households suggests greater caution in the interpretation of the findings from either Gautreaux or the MTO program. There is no statistically significant difference between the percent of poor or the percent of black in the current neighborhoods between MTO and Section 8 experimental groups. In some cases there is no statistically significant difference between moves with vouchers and those who move without any assistance at all. Although there is some evidence that the MTO programs have brought specific gains for individual families, and there are quite significant geographic variability in outcomes, claims for the MTO program need to be treated with a great deal more caution than they have been to date.

A recent article [Vinkovic D, Kirman A (2006) Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 103:19261?19265] showing that the Schelling model has a physical analogue extends our understanding of the model. However, prior research has already outlined a mathematical basis for the Schelling model and simulations based on it have already enhanced our understanding of the social dynamics that underlie the model, something that the physical analogue does not address. Research in social science has provided a formal basis for the segregative outcomes resulting from the residential selection process and simulations have replicated relevant spatial outcomes under different specifications of the residential dynamics. New and increasingly detailed survey data on preferences demonstrates the embeddedness of the Schelling selection process in the social behaviors of choosing alternative residential compositions. It also demonstrates that, in the multicultural context, seemingly mild preferences for living with similar neighbors carry the potential to be strong determinants for own race selectivity and residential segregation.

Multiculturalism has been advanced as an alternative to normative assimilation theory. Multiculturalists argue that it provides a more nuanced solution to the incorporation of immigrants in immigrant driven societies such as the United States. However, rising nationalism and fears of separatism have raised questions about the efficacy of multiculturalism and reinvigorated assimilationists. But, debates between multiculturalists and assimilationists are largely stalemated discussions of how society might best incorporate new arrivals, because they ignore the fundamental issue of very large marginalized groups. This paper will argue that the debates might better be directed to issues of inequality and marginalization as the central issues of incorporation. While all immigrants are to some extent marginalized, the large and growing undocumented population (especially in the US) challenges the notion of how incorporation will proceed at all. Both assimilation and multiculturalism assume a legal basis to society and the recognition of shared political values and the respect for national consensus but the growing number of undocumented (unauthorized or illegal immigrants) are in effect outside of either the assimilationist or the multicultural model. They are often outside of the formal labor markets, residentially isolated, and have poor of non-existent skills. They are unlikely to be able to acquire the economic and cultural gains that will led to assimilation, or enable them to participate in a multi-cultural society. They are more likely to live separate lives and thus increase the divisions within society. I use data on undocumented immigrants in Los Angeles to illustrate the vulnerability, marginality and the problems encountered by these immigrants and use this to extrapolate to issues of assimilation and multiculturalism.

This paper examines the demographic variation in housing cost adjustment associated with family migration in the United States. The American population continues to migrate away from very large metropolitan areas down the urban hierarchy to smaller metropolitan and micropolitan areas, according to studies based on the 2000 Census and beyond. The exodus from the largest metropolitan areas is frequently attributed to the push effects of diseconomies and congestion, increasing presence of foreign population, and housing affordability problems particularly in the large gateway cities. Yet, there is no empirical study of the housing cost adjustments associated with migration. This study aims to redress this gap by empirically addressing three questions. First, is migration associated with housing affordability adjustments? Second, when families migrate do they increase or decrease their housing costs and what are the demographic variations in these housing cost adjustments? Lastly, are there significant differences in the geographies of housing cost adjustments among migrant families? The first of these questions is addressed using the Census 2000 county-to-county migration flows merged with Census 2000 measures for median housing value and median income. The remaining questions are examined using the 2000 Public Use Micro Sample 5% National file. The results indicate evidence of significant changes in housing costs associated with migration in general, and interstate migration in particular. On average the direction of migration is to more affordable places. Families migrating from the traditional gateway cities with relatively high percentage of foreign born populations are the most likely to make enormous shifts in affordability. However, these moves do not translate neatly into the regional white flight theory. In particular, Hispanics are far more likely to decrease housing costs with migration, as are non US citizens and naturalized citizens. While primarily empirical, this research makes an important contribution to debates within the family migration literature, including conjectures of regional white flight and gendered theories of migration. Family migration towards greater housing affordability is strategic and embedded in larger issues of family work-life balance.

This paper examines, in two separate analyses, actual and planned residential moves. Although we now have robust models and substantive empirical analysis of residential mobility, especially of the role of housing consumption and the variables that trigger residential moves, we are less clear about how the model applies to minority households and in diverse ethnic settings. This paper uses data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Study – a longitudinal study of mobility and neighborhood change in the Los Angeles region to contrast the mobility outcomes for white and Latino households. A separate analysis examines planned mobility and extends the analysis of the role of neighborhood variables in explaining expected mobility. The incorporation of measures of neighborhood satisfaction and dissatisfaction finds, as hypothesized, that low levels of satisfaction and whether or not the neighborhood is perceived as “close-knit” are modest predictors of the likelihood of future moves. However, the additive effect of neighborhood variables, beyond the structural effects of age and housing needs, on intentions is quite small.

Previous research has shown that households are sensitive to commuting distance. In particular, households beyond a threshold distance move closer to the job when they change residence. The questions which motivate this paper are – how does race affect the probability of moving closer to the job when households change residence, and is there a trade off between commuting distance and neighborhood composition? Using a specialized data set the research shows that the commuting behaviors of minority and white households are consistent with the overall hypothesis that households minimize their commuting distance whenever possible. The research also shows that there is a tendency for both white and black households to choose slightly more integrated settings after changing residences. Yet, black households have to juggle the trade-off between neighborhoods with high socio-economic status and commute distance and those who choose higher socio-economic status neighborhoods have longer commutes.

Previous research has shown that households are sensitive to commuting distance. A model of the responses to work-residence separation showed that the probability of moving closer to the job was a function of increasing distance from the work place. In particular, households beyond a threshold distance moved closer to the job when they changed residence. The question which is central in this paper is how race affects the probability of moving closer to the job when households change residence. Using a specialized data set the research shows that the commuting behaviors of relatively affluent minority and white households are consistent with the overall hypothesis that households minimize their commuting distance whenever possible. Thus, when we hold socio-economic status constant, there are negligible differences int he responses of white and minority households. Both household types are likely to move closer to their work locations with greater distances from the work location.

This research uses a longitudinal data set of commuting behavior to test the nature and strength of the association between residential change and employment location. Do households minimize commuting distances when they change residences and what are the differences for one-worker and two-worker households? The analysis utilizes descriptive measures of distance and time to work for pre- and post-residential relocations and develops estimates from a probability model of work-place attraction. We extend earlier research on commuting distances by using a multimodal rather than a monocentric city, by specifically considering the commuting responses of two-worker households and by formally estimating a model of the response to commuting distances. The findings indicate that both one- and two-worker households with greater separation between workplace and residence make decreases in distance and time. Overall, as other studies have shown, women commute shorter distances and are more likely to minimize commuting after a move than are men. The probability model fits the likelihood of decreasing distance with greater separation and provides a more exact specification of the connection between residence and workplace than previous analyses of this relationship.

Immigration, and births to new immigrants, will continue to fuel California's population growth, not just in the urban areas but in the cities and towns of rural counties. Local communities will face a wide range of social and economic changes as they adapt to increasing population diversity. As we enter a new century, the demands for greater investments in education, health care and other aspects of the urban infrastructure will increase.

The COVID-19 pandemic changed behaviors, at least temporarily, and possibly more permanently, with implications for both work and leisure activities. Some of those behavioral changes, such as dining in restaurants, have significant ripple effects on businesses and employment. We investigate the response to health risks in China with a study of decisions about eating out during the pandemic. We find that compared to a traditional measure of financial risk attitude, dining out behavior better captures individuals' attitude toward the health risk posed by the pandemic and is more significant in predicting their expected total consumption during the recovery phase of the pandemic. In addition, we find that the effect of domestic in-migration is positive with respect to dining out, a signifier of confidence in the government response to the safety of internal flows. In contrast, international migration and port city of entry status are strongly negative with respect to dining out. The risk from the virus is perceived to be much stronger in such contexts. From a policy perspective establishing border controls was critical in re-creating a robust economy. Additional city and household level characteristics that affect dining-out behavior are also identified. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Residential preferences and their role in creating and maintaining residential segregation are a subject of intense interest in ongoing debates about race and residential sorting in U.S. metropolitan areas and are central in work based on the Schelling tolerance models of residential selection. This study examines how residential preferences change across income, education, and age and provides new information on how race and socioeconomic status interact to create patterns of preference in particular locations. In general, African-Americans with increasing income show a distinct shift to greater willingness to live in integrated settings but also a distinct shift to own-race selections with second choices for neighborhood composition. Whites' unwillingness to move to African-American neighborhoods of more than 50% other race exacerbates the tendency to separate. Socioeconomic status plays a similar role for other ethnic groups. These findings parallel those from agent-based modeling about the low probability of achieving substantial mixing of racial and ethnic groups. Keywords: preferences; segregation; ethnicity; income

For the past four decades a significant subset of geographers have had a strong interest in using scientific methods and tools to answer questions about society and societal change. The [...]

There is an ongoing debate about levels of segregation, their causes, and their long-term direction. The debate is between those who, while acknowledging some role for economic forces, place the emphasis for continuing segregation on discrimination and White prejudice and those who place greater emphasis on income, wealth, and residential preferences. This debate is further illuminated with a detailed analysis of African American suburbanization using a combination of data from the 2000 Census and the Current Population Survey. The analysis confirms other research that shows substantial suburban growth of African American populations. It adds to that research by showing that those African American populations who move to the suburbs have substantially more income and wealth and higher levels of education than African American populations who move within the metropolitan cores. In addition, suburban African Americans live in more integrated settings than those who live in the central city. The implications of this finding bolster the view that income does matter in residential choices for African Americans. Keywords: residential mobility; segregation; suburbanization

Suburban Asian and Hispanic populations have higher socioeconomic status and in general they translate that increase in socioeconomic status into greater integration in the suburbs. Outcomes however can vary based on metropolitan context and there is greater mixing in California than in the United States as a whole.

Introduction I am extremely pleased to speak at this special Presidential Session of the Pacific Coast Geographers meeting hosted by Jim Allen, this year's President of the APCG. Given his [...]

Neighborhoods have become the focus of questions about how they affect the families that live within them. A current working assumption of some federal policies is that, with help, households can escape poverty neighborhoods and change their spatial context. How true is this, especially for low-income households, and does changing neighborhoods have measurable benefits? The study uses data from the Moving to Opportunity program, initiated by the Department of Housing and Urban Development, to test whether policy interventions by means of housing vouchers have aided moves away from low-poverty areas and into integrated residential settings. By examining the neighborhood demography of the initial and subsequent locations of the samples, it is possible to assess the success of the objectives of decreasing poverty and increasing integration. Although the program has shown some success in assisting households to live in lower-poverty neighborhoods, the findings here emphasize just how difficult it is to intervene in dynamic processes such as housing choice and mobility to create policy outcomes. housing vouchers | poverty | integration