Examining the interplay between racial segregation patterns and access to hospital care

Cromley, Gordon; Lin, Jie

doi:10.1177/23998083221108188

Cited by 3 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 47 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While proximity is a common measure of access, access is a broader concept that might involve not only physical distance, but also social factors, cultural barriers, or quality of service. For example, access might be related to racial segregation (Cromley and Lin, 2022), or barriers might be based on whether or not an individual possesses citizenship or other criteria necessary for perceived membership in a community (Staehli & Mitchell, 2016). In addition to exclusionary practices that prohibit certain groups from “free” access to a given amenity, there may be problems inherent to the good, service, or place itself.…”

Section: Access and Spatial Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Who can walk? An analysis of public amenity access in America’s ten largest cities

Talen

2022

Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How uneven is the proximity to public amenities like libraries and schools among racial groups, or children and older people? This paper uses a catchment area approach to evaluate walkable proximity to four common public amenities (parks, libraries, schools, and transit stops), looking at four racial categories and a set of variables that one might reasonably expect proximity to be related to (e.g., population density). For each of the 10 largest US cities examined, location quotients for each amenity (libraries, parks, schools, and transit stops) were calculated at three distances (0.25 miles, 0.5 miles, and 1 mile). Across all amenities, the racial group whose LQ had the greatest increase when comparing net median change between distance bands (i.e., between .25 miles and 1 mile) was Black Americans. There were large differences between the location quotient means and medians in non-White racial groups for each amenity, indicating a large amount of skew. In most cities and with most amenities, the difference between mean and median was considerably smaller in White populations, indicating a more normal curve and fewer outliers. Proximity, in other words, seems to be more homogenous in White populations. The LQs were also significantly higher in White populations across cities. Further, in all cities except Los Angeles, Asian populations were generally the most under-represented group for each catchment area around each amenity. The fact that non-White residents predominantly had lower LQs and therefore lower access (with some exceptions, for example, in the case of schools) is a generalized and problematic finding that adds to the body of evidence documenting the spatial injustices that American cities continue to manifest.

show abstract

Section: Access and Spatial Equitymentioning

confidence: 99%