Advertisement

Networks and Spatial Economics

, Volume 11, Issue 4, pp 581–620 | Cite as

Introducing a Method for the Computation of Doubly Constrained Accessibility Models in Larger Datasets

  • John ÖsthEmail author
Article

Abstract

For four decades, the spatial mismatch hypothesis has been used as a scientific framework for the understanding of spatially related mismatch issues on the labor market. Over time, the mismatch studies have encompassed a wider array of hypotheses including issues of gender and class. However, the validity of the hypotheses is sometimes contested, and almost always is the validity of the hypotheses questioned regarding the models of accessibility used to depict the labor market situation. In this article, ELMO, a new method for the computation of doubly constrained accessibility, is introduced and tested against other commonly used models of accessibility. Using a unique dataset containing coordinates and additional employment related data on all inhabitants and all jobs in a Swedish local labor market, the new method accomplishes to retain the doubly constrained nature even though over 20,000 jobs are included and over 24,000 employable individuals are included. The detailed nature of the model proves to be beneficiary to other models of accessibility, especially for use in mismatch related hypotheses.

Keywords

Accessibility Labor Market Commuting Spatial mismatch ELMO 

References

  1. Åslund O, Östh J, et al (2009) How important is access to jobs? Old question—improved answer. J Econ Geogr: lbp040Google Scholar
  2. Blumenberg E (2004) En-gendering effective planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 70(3):269–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Cervero R (1989) Job-housing balance and regional mobility. Journal of the American Planning Association 55(2):136–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cervero R (1996) Job-housing balance revisited. Journal of the American Planning Association 62(4):492–511CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Clark WAV, Huang Y et al (2003) Does commuting distance matter? Commuting tolerance and residental change. Regional Science and Urban Economics 33:199–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Cook TJ, Ross SL (1999) Sample Selection Bias in Models of Commuting Time. Urban Studies 36(9):1597–1611CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeRango K (2001) Can Commutes Be Used To Test the Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis? Urban Studies 38(9):1521–1529CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fernandez RM, Su C (2004) Space in the study of labor market. Annual Review of Sociology 30:545–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fieldhouse EA (1999) Ethnic Minority Unemployment and Spatial Mismatch: The Case of London. Urban Studies 36(9):1569–1596CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gabriel S, Rosenthal S (1996) Commutes, neighborhood effects and earnings: an analysis of racial discrimination and compensating differentials. Journal of Urban Economics 40:61–83CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gottlieb PD, Lentnek B (2001) Spatial mismatch is not always a central-city problem: an analysis of commuting behaviour in Cleveland, Ohio, and its suburbs. Urban Studies 38(7):1161–1186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hansen WG (1959) How accessibility shapes land use. Journal of the American Institute of Planners 25 Google Scholar
  13. Hanson S, Pratt G (1988) Reconceptualizing the links between home and work in urban geography. Economic Geography 64(4):299–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hanson S, Pratt G (1991) Job search and the occupational segregation of women. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 81(2):229–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hanson P, Pratt G (1995) Gender, work, and space. Routledge, New YorkCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Helling A (1998) Changing intra-metropolitan accessibility in the U.S.: evidence from Atlanta. Progress in Planning 49:55–108CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Holloway S (1996) Job accessibility and male teenage employment, 1980-1990. Professional Geographer 48:445–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ihlanfeldt KR (2006) A primer on spatial mismatch within urban labor markets. A Companion to Urban Economics. R. A. a. D. McMillen. Boston, Blackwell Publishing, pp 404–417Google Scholar
  19. Ihlanfeldt KR, Sjoquist DL (1990) The effect of residential location on the probability of black and white teenagers having a job. Regional Studies 20(1):10–20Google Scholar
  20. Ihlanfeldt KR, Sjoquist DL (1998) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Housing Policy Debate 9(4):849–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Immergluck D (1998) Job proximity and the urban employment problem: do suitable nearby jobs improve neighbourhood employment rates? Urban Studies 35(1):7–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Johnston-Anumonwo I (1992) The influence of household type on gender differences in work trip distance. Professional Geographer 44(2):161–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kain JF (1968) Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics 82:175–197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kain JF (1992) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: three decades later. Housing Policy Debate 3(2):371–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Kasarda JD (1989) Urban industrial transition and the underclass. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 501:26–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Kwan MP (1998) Space-time and integral measures of individual accessibility: a comparative analysis using a point-based framework. Geographical Analysis 30:191–217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kwan MP, Janell DG et al (2003) Accesibility in space and time: a theme in spatially integrated social science. Journal of Geographical Systems 5:1–3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lau JCY, Chiu CCH (2003) Accessibility of low-income workers in Hong Kong. Cities 20(3):197–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McLafferty S, Preston V (1997) Gender, race and the determinants of commuting: New York in 1990. Urban Geography 18:192–202CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Östh J (2007) Modeling job accessibility: Introducing a new measure of potential job accessibility. Home, Job and Space, modeling job accessibility. UppsalaGoogle Scholar
  31. Ottoson J, Lundequist K (2005) Deltidsarbetslöshet i Sverige—en kartläggning. Working Paper från HELA-proejket 2005:5. Stockholm, ALI (National Institute for Working Life )Google Scholar
  32. Peng Z-R (1997) The jobs-housing balance and urban commuting. Urban Studies 34(8):1215–1235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perle ED, Bauder H et al (2002) Accessibility measures in spatial mismatch models. The Professional Geographer 54(1):106–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Preston V, McLafferty S (1999) Spatial mismatch research in the 1990s: progress and potential. Papers in Regional Science 78:387–402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Raphael S (1998) The spatial mismatch hypothesis and black youth joblessness: evidence from the San Francisco Bay Area. Journal of Urban Economics 43:79–111CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Rogers CL (1997) Job search and unemployment duration: implications for the spatial mismatch hypothesis. Journal of Urban Economics 42:109–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Shen Q (1998) Location characteristics of inner-city neighborhoods and employment accessibility of low-income workers. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design 25:345–365CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Smith TE, Zenou Y (2003) Spatial mismatch, search effort, and the urban spatial structure. Journal of Urban Economics 54:129–156CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Taylor BD (1995) Spatial mismatch or automobile mismatch? An examination of race, residence and commuting in US metropolitan areas. Urban Studies 32(9):1453–1473CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Teitz MB, Chapple K (1998) The causes of inner-city poverty: eight hypotheses in search of reality. Cityscape 3(3):33–70Google Scholar
  41. Tillberg K (2001) Barnfamiljers dagliga fritidsresor i bilsamhället—ett tidspussel med geografiska och könsmässiga variationer, Geografiska Regionstudier, Uppsala, ISSN 0431-2023; 43Google Scholar
  42. Turner T, Niemeier D (1997) Travel to work and household responsibility: new evidence. Transportation 24:397–419CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wang F (2000) Modeling commuting patterns in chicago in a GIS Environment: a job accessibility perspective. Professional Geographer 52(1):120–133CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wang F, Minor WW (2002) Where the jobs are: employment access and crime patterns in Cleveland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers 92(3):435–450CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Wasmer E, Zenou Y (2002) Do city structure affect search and welfare? Journal of Urban Economics 51:515–541CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Wilson WJ (1990) The truly disadvantaged: the inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  47. Zhang Z, Bingham R (2000) Metropolitan employment growth and neighborhood job access in spatial and skills perspectives. Empirical evidence from seven Ohio Metropolitan Regions. Urban Affairs Review 35(3):390–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Social and Economic GeographyUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations