Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

From Aspatial to Spatial, from Global to Local and Individual: Are We on the Right Track to Spatialize Segregation Measures?

  • Chapter
Recapturing Space: New Middle-Range Theory in Spatial Demography

Part of the book series: Spatial Demography Book Series ((SPDE,volume 1))

Abstract

Today, numerous segregation measures have been proposed, partly reflecting the multi-facet or multi-dimensional nature of segregation, but also the fact that we have different opinions of what segregation entails. Despite many spatial measures have been introduced, approaches to spatialize segregation measures are limited to a few. Therefore, this chapter reflects systemically upon how space was (re)introduced into measuring segregation from multiple fronts. After summarizing the lines of discussion on the dimensions of segregation, the practice of cluster determination using spatial autocorrelation/association measures and their relationships with segregation along the spatial dimension will be critically reviewed. The objective is to identify the critical elements that form the foundation of measuring spatial segregation to be used to develop meaningful spatial segregation measures in the future or to evaluate if a particular spatial measure is effective in capturing the essence of segregation. Thus, using these fundamental characteristics, this chapter also provides an assessment of the state of measuring spatial segregation. Early development of segregation measures was partly driven by the availability of census data. The chapter also assesses new challenges, in particular due to the increasing importance of survey data such as the ACS. On the other hand, individual-level data are becoming more accessible. Distances between individuals may play a more important role in measuring segregation in the future. A brief example of distance-based measure is provided at the end of the chapter.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anselin, L. (1995). Local indicators of spatial association – LISA. Geographical Analysis, 27, 93–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bavaud, F. (1998). Models for spatial weights: A systemic look. Geographical Analysis, 30, 153–177.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bell, W. (1954). A probability model for the measurement of ecological segregation. Social Forces, 32, 357–364.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, L. A., & Chung, S.-Y. (2006). Spatial segregation, segregation indices and the geographical perspective. Population, Space and Place, 12(2), 125–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cortese, C., Falk, F., & Cohen, J. (1976). Further considerations on the methodological analysis of segregation indices. American Sociological Review, 41(4), 630–637.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duncan, O. D., & Duncan, B. (1955). A methodological analysis of segregation indices. American Sociological Review, 20, 210–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elwood, S., Goodchild, M. F., & Sui, D. Z. (2012). Researching volunteered geographic information: Spatial data, geographic research, and new social practice. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102(3), 571–590.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Farber, S., Páez, A., & Morency, C. (2012). Activity spaces and the measurement of clustering and exposure: A case study of linguistic groups in Montreal. Environment and Planning A, 44, 315–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Feitosa, F. F., Camara, G., Monteiro, A. M. V., Koschitzki, T., & Silva, M. P. S. (2007). Global and local spatial indices of urban segregation. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 21, 299–323.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fotheringham, A. F. (1997). Trends in quantitative methods I: Stressing the local. Progress in Human Geography, 21(1), 88–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24, 189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goeken, R., Nguyen, C., Ruggles, S., & Sargent, W. (2003). The 1880 United States population database. Historical Methods, 32, 27–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gorard, S., & Taylor, C. (2002). What is segregation? A comparison of measures in terms of ‘strong’ and ‘weak’ compositional invariance. Sociology: The Journal of the British Sociological Association, 36, 875–895.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grady, S. C. (2006). Racial disparities in low birthweight and the contribution of residential segregation: A multilevel analysis. Social Science and Medicine, 63(12), 3013–3029.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, D. A. (1985). An evaluation of correction techniques for boundary effects in spatial statistical analysis: Contemporary methods. Geographical Analysis, 17(1), 81–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, D. A. (1996). Some guidelines for specifying the geographic weights matrix contained in spatial statistical models. In S. L. Arlinghaus & D. A. Griffith (Eds.), Practical handbook of spatial statistics (pp. 65–82). Boca Raton: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffith, D. A., & Amrhein, C. G. (1983). An evaluation of correction techniques for boundary effects in spatial statistical analysis: Traditional methods. Geographical Analysis, 15(4), 352–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jahn, J., Schmid, C. F., & Schrag, C. (1947). The measurement of ecological segregation. American Sociological Review, 12, 293–303.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jakubs, J. F. (1981). A distance-based segregation index. Journal of Socio-Economic Planning Sciences, 15, 129–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., & Forrest, J. (2007). Racial and ethnic segregation in U.S. Metropolitan areas, 1980–2000: The dimensions of segregation revisited. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 479–504.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., & Forrest, J. (2009). Measuring ethnic residential segregation: Putting some more geography in. Urban Geography, 30, 91–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krupka, D. J. (2007). Are big cities more segregated? Neighborhood scale and the measurement of segregation. Urban Studies, 44(1), 187–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, C.-M., & Culhane, D. P. (1998). A perimeter-based clustering index for measuring spatial segregation: A cognitive GIS approach. Environment and Planning B, 25, 327–343.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lieberson, S. (1981). An asymmetrical approach to segregation. In C. Peach, V. Robinson, & S. Smith (Eds.), Ethnic segregation in cities (pp. 61–82). London: Croom-Helm.

    Google Scholar 

  • Logan, J. R., Jindrich, J., Shin, H., & Zhang, W. (2011). Mapping America in 1880: The urban transition historical GIS project. Historical Methods: A Journal of Quantitative and Interdisciplinary History, 44, 49–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., & Denton, N. A. (1988). The dimensions of residential segregation. Social Forces, 67, 281–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Massey, D. S., White, M. J., & Phua, V. C. (1996). The dimensions of segregation revisited. Sociological Methods & Research, 25, 172–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B. S. (1975). The segregation of socioeconomic groups in urban areas. Urban Studies, 12, 47–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B. S. (1983a). An alternate approach to the development of a distance-based measure of racial segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 1237–1249.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, B. S. (1983b). A distance-decay interaction index to measure residential segregation. Area, 15, 211–216.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morrill, R. L. (1991). On the measure of geographic segregation. Geography Research Forum, 11, 25–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newby, R. G. (1982). Segregation, desegregation, and racial balance: Status implications of these concepts. The Urban Review, 14, 17–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • O’Sullivan, D., & Wong, D. W. (2007). A surface-based approach to measuring spatial segregation. Geographical Analysis, 39, 147–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Openshaw, S., & Taylor, P. J. (1979). A million or so correlation coefficients: Three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem. In N. Wrigley (Ed.), Statistical applications in the spatial sciences (pp. 127–144). London: Pion.

    Google Scholar 

  • Östh, J., Malmberg, B., & Andersson, E. (2014). Analysing segregation with individualized neighbourhoods. In C. D. Lloyd, I. Shuttleworth, & D. W. Wong (Eds.), Social-spatial segregation. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Páez, A., Ruiz, M., López, F., & Logan, J. (2012). Measuring ethnic clustering and exposure with the q statistic: An exploratory analysis of Irish, Germans, and Yankees in 1880 Newark. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102, 84–102.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Páez, A., Ruiz, M., López, F., & Logan, J. (2014). The micro-geography of segregation: Evidence from historical US census data. In C. D. Lloyd, I. Shuttleworth, & D. W. Wong (Eds.), Social-spatial segregation. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Peach, C. (1996). The meaning of segregation. Planning Practice and Research, 11(2), 137–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen, M. F., Johnston, R. J., & Forrest, J. (2002). Plural cities and ethnic enclaves: Introducing a measurement procedure for comparative study. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 26(2), 229–243.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poulsen, M. F., Johnston, R. J., & Forrest, J. (2010). The intensity of ethnic residential clustering: Exploring scale effects using local indicators of spatial association. Environment and Planning A, 42, 874–894.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. (2002). Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology, 32, 33–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., & O’Sullivan, D. (2004). Measures of spatial segregation. Sociological Methodology, 34, 121–162.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., Matthews, S. A., O’Sullivan, D., Lee, B. A., Firebaugh, G., Farrell, C. R., & Bischoff, K. (2008). The geographic scale of metropolitan racial segregation. Demography, 45(3), 489–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reardon, S. F., Farrell, C. R., Matthews, S. A., O’Sullivan, D., Bischoff, K., & Firebaugh, G. (2009). Race and space in the 1990s: Changes in the geographic scale of racial residential segregation: 1990–2000. Social Science Research, 38, 55–70.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reiner, T. A. (1972). Racial segregation: A comment. Journal of Regional Science, 12(1), 137–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sakoda, J. N. (1981). A generalized index of dissimilarity. Demography, 18, 245–250.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shuttleworth, I. G., Lloyd, C. D., & Martin, D. J. (2010). Exploring the implications of changing census output geographies for the measurement of residential segregation: The example of Northern Ireland 1991–2001. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society, Series A, 174(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun, M., & Wong, D. W. S. (2010). Incorporating data quality information in mapping the American Community Survey data. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 37(4), 285–300.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taeuber, K. E., & Taeuber, A. F. (1965). Negroes in cities: Residential segregation and neighborhood change. Chicago: Aldine.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taeuber, K. E., & Taeuber, A. F. (1976). A practitioner’s perspective on the index of dissimilarity. American Sociological Review, 41, 884–889.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C., Gorard, S., & Fitz, J. (2010). The modifiable areal unit problem: Segregation between schools and levels of analysis. International Journal of Social Research Methodology, 6(1), 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang, Y. (2012). Decomposing the entropy index of racial diversity: In search of two types of variance. Annal of Regional Science, 48, 897–915.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, M. J. (1983). The measurement of spatial segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 88, 1008–1018.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, M. J., Kim, A. H., & Glick, J. E. (2005). Mapping social distance ethnic residential segregation in a multiethnic Metro. Sociological Methods Research November, 34(2), 173–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White, K., Borrell, L. N., Wong, D. W., Galea, S., Ogedegbe, G., & Glymour, M. M. (2011). Racial/ethnic residential segregation and self-reported hypertension among U.S.- and foreign-born blacks. American Journal of Hypertension, 24(8), 904–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Winship, C. (1978). The desirability of using the index of dissimilarity or any adjustment of it for measuring segregation. Social Forces, 57, 717–721.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (1993). Spatial indices of segregation. Urban Studies, 30, 559–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (1996). Enhancing segregation studies using GIS. Computers, Environment and Urban Systems, 20(2), 99–109.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (1997). Spatial dependency of segregation indices. The Canadian Geographer, 41(2), 128–136.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (1998). Measuring multi-ethnic spatial segregation. Urban Geography, 19(1), 77–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (2002). Modeling local segregation: A spatial interaction approach. Geographical and Environmental Modelling, 6(1), 81–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (2003). Spatial decomposition of segregation indices: A framework toward measuring segregation at multiple levels. Geographical Analysis, 35(3), 179–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (2004). Comparing traditional and spatial segregation measures: A spatial scale perspective. Urban Geography, 25(1), 66–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. (2005). Formulating a general spatial segregation measure. The Professional Geographer, 57(2), 285–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. (2009). The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP). In A. S. Fotheringham & P. A. Rogerson (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of spatial analysis (pp. 105–123). London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (2011). Exploring spatial patterns using an expanded spatial autocorrelation framework. Geographical Analysis, 43(3), 327–338.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S. (2014). Using a general spatial pattern statistic to evaluate spatial segregation. In C. D. Lloyd, I. Shuttleworth, & D. W. Wong (Eds.), Social-spatial segregation. Bristol: Policy Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S., & Shaw, S.-L. (2011). Measuring segregation: An active-space approach. Journal of Geographical Systems, 13(2), 127–145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W., & Sun, M. (2013). Handling data quality information of survey data in GIS: A case of using the American community survey data. Spatial Demography, 1(1), 3–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wong, D. W. S., Lasus, H., & Falk, R. F. (1999). Exploring the variability of segregation index D with scale and zonal systems: An analysis of thirty U.S. cities. Environment and Planning A, 31, 507–522.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu, C., Wong, D. W., & Yang, C. (2013). Evaluating the “Geographical Awareness” of individuals: An exploratory analysis of Twitter data. Cartography and Geographic Information Science, 40(2), 103–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Geography and GeoInformation Science, George Mason University, Fairfax, VA, USA

    David W. Wong

Authors
  1. David W. Wong
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to David W. Wong .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Mississippi State University, Ridgeland, Mississippi, USA

    Frank M. Howell

  2. Brooklyn College and Graduate Center, City University of New York, Brooklyn, New York, USA

    Jeremy R. Porter

  3. Department of Sociology & Department of Anthropology, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania, USA

    Stephen A. Matthews

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Wong, D.W. (2016). From Aspatial to Spatial, from Global to Local and Individual: Are We on the Right Track to Spatialize Segregation Measures?. In: Howell, F., Porter, J., Matthews, S. (eds) Recapturing Space: New Middle-Range Theory in Spatial Demography. Spatial Demography Book Series, vol 1. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22810-5_5

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-22810-5_5

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-22809-9

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-22810-5

  • eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation