Korean Americans in Los Angeles: Decentralized Concentration and Socio‐spatial Disparity

Abstract

This study analyses the socioeconomic and demographic make‐up of Koreans in Los Angeles metropolis, the largest hub of Koreans in the United States, to better understand the decentralized concentration of Koreans by addressing their within‐ and among‐group variations. By employing the rarely used measures of correspondence and typology analyses, we delineate the boundaries for Korean clusters using Getis and Ord G* local statistic, wherein each cluster's neighborhood and demographic characteristics are compared to gain nuanced insights of within‐group variations, and its evolution during 1970–2010. Cluster level analysis of Koreatown suggests that even though it was classified as a Korean cluster, Korean Americans were unevenly distributed across these clusters, with underrepresentation in white‐dominant neighborhoods, whereas much of their intraurban spaces were shared with Hispanics. All clusters except extended Koreatown exhibited Li's ethnoburb‐style spatial patterns. The Koreatown and suburban clusters were also distinct in terms of their demographic/ethnic, socioeconomic, educational, age/life cycle, and housing characteristics, suggesting socio‐spatial polarization. Our analysis, challenges the commonly perceived notion of Koreans being a homogenous group and Asians being model minorities. We illustrate significant within‐group differences among the Koreangelos. We, thus, propose innovative measures to analyze population groups to flesh out rich narratives of America's fast changing social geographies.

Using community-based geographical information system (GIS) to recruit older Asian Americans in an Alzheimer’s disease study

“…We used ‘Tell-A-Friend about Data is Power’ as an ad campaign to communicate the importance of having data from Koreans for Koreans. This recruitment strategy, using language and race matched recruiters and researchers,35 62–64 would promote access to hard-to-reach KAs, and help participants to feel ‘listened to’ and show the ‘value of their contribution to the study’. As most KAs are connected and have ties to Korean churches or senior associations, we used a chain referral sampling method, such as other forms of respondent-driven sampling 35 65–68.…”

A Renewed Call for Disaggregation of Racial and Ethnic Data: Advancing Scientific Rigor and Equity in Gifted and Talented Education Research

“…Hidden within the data are underidentified and underserved students from the MENA and subgroups of Asian Americans. Sharma and Koh (2019) found that Koreans who reside in Orange County, CA, exhibit significant disparity in educational attainment when geographical concentration is taken into consideration. Although 85% of the southern Orange County Korean population had achieved an associate or higher degree, only 61% of the Koreatown residents had attained high school or lower education (Sharma & Koh, 2019).…”

“…Sharma and Koh (2019) found that Koreans who reside in Orange County, CA, exhibit significant disparity in educational attainment when geographical concentration is taken into consideration. Although 85% of the southern Orange County Korean population had achieved an associate or higher degree, only 61% of the Koreatown residents had attained high school or lower education (Sharma & Koh, 2019). This is yet another example of within group disparity that is masked by prevalent classification and general perception.…”

Rent burden determinants in hot and cold housing markets of Davidson and Shelby counties, Tennessee

“…The conventional 30-percent threshold is often used by government entities for distinguishing households as being rent-burdened (Joice, 2014). O'Dell et al (2004) argue that any fixed thresholds may be inefficient for gauging affordability and they may mask structural conditions of housing and neighborhood characteristics concerning the quality of life (Sharma, 2016;Sharma & Koh, 2019). Also, this definition does not take into account local contexts and housing market scenarios, since spending more than 30 percent on housing may be quite common in some areas (e.g., Los Angeles or New York City).…”