Recapturing Space: New Middle-Range Theory in Spatial Demography 2016
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-22810-5_18
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Concluding Remarks: Developing Spatial Demography

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
6
0

Year Published

2016
2016
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(6 citation statements)
references
References 20 publications
0
6
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Our approach to studying the recession’s spatially differentiated impact on county labor markets is premised on the ideas that, first, space and place are key arenas in which social inequality emerges, operates, and changes over time; and second, that middle-range spatial scales and subnational inequality are important foci for research (Lobao 2004; Howell, Porter, and Matthews 2016; Tickamyer 2000). Social scientists have found significant between-place differences in many indicators of wellbeing in the U.S., including employment (Smith and Glauber 2013), income (Peters 2013), education (Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, and Crowley 2006), poverty (Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 2007; Curtis, Voss, and Long 2012), program participation (Slack and Myers 2014), health and mortality (Burton et al 2013; Sparks and Sparks 2010), and residential segregation (Downey 2003).…”
Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our approach to studying the recession’s spatially differentiated impact on county labor markets is premised on the ideas that, first, space and place are key arenas in which social inequality emerges, operates, and changes over time; and second, that middle-range spatial scales and subnational inequality are important foci for research (Lobao 2004; Howell, Porter, and Matthews 2016; Tickamyer 2000). Social scientists have found significant between-place differences in many indicators of wellbeing in the U.S., including employment (Smith and Glauber 2013), income (Peters 2013), education (Roscigno, Tomaskovic-Devey, and Crowley 2006), poverty (Cotter, Hermsen, and Vanneman 2007; Curtis, Voss, and Long 2012), program participation (Slack and Myers 2014), health and mortality (Burton et al 2013; Sparks and Sparks 2010), and residential segregation (Downey 2003).…”
Section: Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In the analysis and explanation of demographic dynamics, the influence of space and territorial context is both relevant and useful, especially in the study of small administrative territorial units, such as NUTS 3 and LAUs (see Note 1) (e.g., De Castro, 2007; Howell et al, 2016; Thiede & Monnat, 2016; Yu et al, 2020). All demographic phenomena occur in specific spaces and places (Chi & Zhu, 2008) thus space can have a relevant role in influencing the context in which the demographic events take place and the variables closely connected with these events.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Based on the extensive development regarding segregation measures (see Tivadar, 2019; Wong, 2016; Yao et al, 2019 for a review), this work uses the Mutual Information Index ( M ), a multi-group measure based on the entropy, introduced by Theil, 1972; Theil and Finizza, 1971) and developed by Mora and Ruiz-Castillo (2003, 2009, 2011) and Frankel and Volij (2011). 3 Due to its margin-dependent property in both directions (groups and units), this index is ‘highly decomposable’, which is why some studies have used it in recent years to analyse segregation at the local level and between groups (e.g.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%