Uneven geographies: Exploring the sensitivity of spatial indices of residential segregation
Uneven geographies: Exploring the sensitivity of spatial indices of residential segregation
复制标题
DOI：
10.1177/2399808318760572
复制
发表时间：
2018-11-01
影响因子：
3.5
通讯作者：
Feitosa, Flavia F.
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Barros, Joana;Feitosa, Flavia F.
自 20 世纪 50 年代以来，隔离指数被广泛用于衡量居住隔离情况，并且该领域不断取得进展。最近的发展包括传统使用的隔离指数的空间全球和局部版本的主张，这为将隔离表示和分析为多尺度和空间变化的现象开辟了途径。较少探讨的是重要的研究设计选择（例如地理边界的范围、分组系统和分析规模）如何影响隔离的测量的问题。本文通过使用一组敏感性分析来调查此类决策对广义相异性 (D) 和信息论 (H) 指数结果的影响，从而在这个方向上做出贡献。以伦敦和圣保罗的比较研究为基础，对两个指数在不同地理边界、分组系统和尺度下获得的结果进行直观和定量分析。结果表明，虽然 D 和 H 描述了相同的隔离空间维度（不均匀/聚类），但它们对地理边界和分组系统表现出不同的敏感性。该研究还揭示了这两个指数如何展现隔离的不同方面，这对其解释和适用性产生影响。该研究最后讨论了有关结果解释的研究设计选择的考虑因素，这表明这两个指数不应互换使用。
There has been extensive use of segregation indices for measuring residential segregation since 1950s, with continuous progress made in the field. Recent developments include the propositions of spatial global and local versions of traditionally used segregation indices, which have opened avenues for representing and analysing segregation as a multiscale and spatially varying phenomenon. Much less explored has been the issue of how important research design choices, such as the extent of geographical boundaries, grouping systems and scales of analysis, can influence the measurement of segregation. This paper contributes in this direction by investigating the impact of such decisions in the outcomes of the indices of generalized dissimilarity (D) and information theory (H) using a set of sensitivity analysis. Using a comparative study between London and Sao Paulo as basis, results obtained with different geographical boundaries, grouping systems and scales for the two indices are analysed visually and quantitatively. Results suggest that although D and H depict the same spatial dimension of segregation (unevenness/clustering), they present different sensitivity to geographical boundaries and grouping systems. The study also revealed how the two indices unfold different aspects of the segregation, which impact on their interpretation and applicability. The study concludes with a discussion of the considerations on research design choices concerning the interpretation of the results, which indicate the two indices should not be used interchangeably.