A Surface‐Based Approach to Measuring Spatial Segregation

Abstract

Quantitative indices of residential segregation have been with us for half a century, but suffer significant limitations. While useful for comparison among regions, summary indices fail to reveal spatial aspects of segregation. Such measures generally consider only the population mix within zones, not between them. Zone boundaries are treated as impenetrable barriers to interaction between population subgroups, so that measurement of segregation is constrained by the zoning system, which bears no necessary relation to interaction among population subgroups. A segregation measurement approach less constrained by the chosen zoning system, which enables visualization of segregation levels at the local scale and accounts for the spatial dimension of segregation, is required. We propose a kernel density estimation approach to model spatial aspects of segregation. This provides an explicitly geographical framework for modeling and visualizing local spatial segregation. The density estimation approach lends itself to development of an index of spatial segregation with the advantage of functional compatibility with the most widely used index of segregation (the dissimilarity index D). We provide a short review of the literature on measuring segregation, briefly describe the kernel density estimation method, and illustrate how the method can be used for measuring segregation. Examples using a simulated landscape and two empirical cases in Washington, DC and Philadelphia, PA are presented.

Segregation as a multiscalar phenomenon and its implications for neighborhood-scale research: the case of South Seattle 1990–2010

“…Duncan et al (1961) cautioned about the effect of scale on measures of segregation as early as 1961 while the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem (MAUP) addressed by Openshaw and others (Openshaw & Taylor, 1979; Openshaw, 1977) brought the issue of scale and aggregate measurement to a broad audience. These authors and many others were certainly sensitive to the fact that population measures vary with scale, but the issue is regularly addressed as a problem to be solved (through better aggregating units) rather than as a source of information about the processes that affect our units of analysis (O’Sullivan & Wong, 2007; Osth, Malmberg, & Andersson, 2014; Wong, 2010). …”

Weighted network Voronoi Diagrams for local spatial analysis

“…Many forms of kðdðv; s i ÞÞ exist, such as the Gaussian, quartic, and Conic (Gibin, Longley, & Atkinson, 2007) versions. It has been widely accepted that the choice of forms is less important than choosing an appropriate search bandwidth (Bailey & Gatrell, 1995;O'Sullivan & Wong, 2007). In addition, n i denotes the number of branches at the node on the path from s i to x (assuming there are p of them).…”

“Voting with Their Feet”: Delineating the Sphere of Influence Using Social Media Data

“…Spatial KDE has been applied in many geographical studies, but most studies are related to the density of events or population [45,46]. In general, the surface is partitioned into grid cells.…”