
Residential segregation by income and education is increasing alongside slowly declining black-white segregation. Segregation in urban neighborhood residents' non-home activity spaces has not been explored. How integrated are the daily routines of people who live in the same neighborhood? Are people with different socioeconomic backgrounds that live near one another less likely to share routine activity locations than those of similar education or income? Do these patterns vary across the socioeconomic continuum or by neighborhood structure? The analyses draw on unique data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey that identify the location where residents engage in routine activities. Using multilevel p2 (network) models, we analyze pairs of households located in the same neighborhood and examine whether the dyad combinations across three levels of SES conduct routine activities in the same location, and whether neighbor socioeconomic similarity in the co-location of routine activities is dependent on the level of neighborhood socioeconomic inequality and trust. Results indicate that, on average, increasing SES diminishes the likelihood of sharing activity locations with any SES group. This pattern is most pronounced in neighborhoods characterized by high levels of socioeconomic inequality. Neighborhood trust explains a nontrivial proportion of the inequality effect on the extent of routine activity sorting by SES. Thus stark, visible neighborhood-level inequality by SES may lead to enhanced effects of distrust on the willingness to share routines across class.
socioeconomic inequality, H, Social Sciences, neighborhoods, segregation, activity spaces
socioeconomic inequality, H, Social Sciences, neighborhoods, segregation, activity spaces
| selected citations These citations are derived from selected sources. This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | 43 | |
| popularity This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% | |
| influence This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically). | Top 10% | |
| impulse This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network. | Top 10% |
