George Mason University Community and Food Security Paper 1-Download and read both articles provided. -Moffat; Mohammed; Newbold, “Cultural Dimensions of

George Mason University Community and Food Security Paper 1-Download and read both articles provided.

-Moffat; Mohammed; Newbold, “Cultural Dimensions of Food Insecurity among Immigrants and Refugees”.

-Farrell, and Firebaugh, “Is Immigrant Neighborhood Inequality Less Pronounced in Suburban Areas?”

2-In the worksheet provided do the following:

-cite both articles in A.S.A Format

-Research Methods & Data (One Paragraph for each article) *don’t go in depth and write a lot of details, it should be brief and more like a summary.

-Main Argument (One Paragraph for each article) *don’t go in depth and write a lot of details, it should be brief and more like a summary.

*all of this should be written inside the worksheet. Cultural Dimensions of Food Insecurity among Immigrants and Refugees
Moffat, Tina;Mohammed, Charlene;Newbold, K Bruce
Human Organization; Spring 2017; 76, 1; ProQuest Central
pg. 15
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
Doing Sociology – Step #1
Article
Citation
Research
Methods
&
Data
Main
Argument
Social Science Research 57 (2016) 161e176
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Social Science Research
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/ssresearch
Is immigrant neighborhood inequality less pronounced in
suburban areas?
Chad R. Farrell a, *, Glenn Firebaugh b
a
b
Department of Sociology, University of Alaska Anchorage, USA
Department of Sociology, Pennsylvania State University, USA
a r t i c l e i n f o
a b s t r a c t
Article history:
Received 17 June 2015
Received in revised form 3 December 2015
Accepted 20 January 2016
Available online 28 January 2016
We investigate suburbanization and neighborhood inequality among 14 immigrant groups
using census tract data from the 2008e2012 American Community Survey. Immigrant
neighborhood inequality is de?ned here as the degree to which immigrants reside in
neighborhoods that are poorer than the neighborhoods in which native whites reside.
Using city and suburb Gini coef?cients which re?ect the distributions of groups across
neighborhoods with varying poverty rates, we ?nd that the immigrant-white gap is
attenuated in the suburbs. This ?nding applies to most of the nativity groups and remains
after accounting for metropolitan context, the segregation of poverty, and group-speci?c
segregation levels, poverty rates, and acculturation characteristics. Despite reduced
neighborhood inequality in the suburbs, large group differences persist. A few immigrant
-vis suburban whites while others expegroups achieve residential parity or better vis-a
rience high levels of neighborhood inequality and receive marginal residential returns on
suburban location.
© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Keywords:
Neighborhood
Inequality
Suburb
Immigrant
Poverty
Segregation
1. Introduction
Despite idyllic images of spacious homes, good schools, and safe streets, it is clear that portions of suburbia are struggling
(Allard and Roth, 2010). Suburbs have never been quite as homogenous as popular images would have us believe (Jackson,
1987), and some suburban neighborhoods experienced a precipitous decline during the economic volatility of the 2000s.
According to recent analyses by Kneebone and Berube (2013), the ?rst decade of this century saw the suburban poverty
population in the nation’s largest metropolitan areas increase by 53 percent while the poverty population in cities increased
by less than half that rate. As a result, 2010 became the ?rst decennial census year in which the suburban poor outnumbered
the urban poor.
At the same time, a “suburban immigrant nation” (Hardwick, 2008) has emerged in the wake of deindustrialization,
dispersed employment, and new immigration from Latin America and Asia (Liu and Painter, 2011; Singer, 2005; Singer et al.,
2008). The suburbs are now the ?rst destination of many incoming immigrants rather than a residential stepping stone from
the city. This trend runs counter to previous periods in which just a few gateway cities housed the bulk of the foreign-born
population. As a result, three out of every ?ve immigrants in large metropolitan areas reside in the metropolitan periphery
* Corresponding author. Department of Sociology, University of Alaska Anchorage, 3211 Providence Drive (SSB 372), Anchorage, AK 99508-4614, USA.
E-mail address: crfarrell@uaa.alaska.edu (C.R. Farrell).
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2016.01.001
0049-089X/© 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
162
C.R. Farrell, G. Firebaugh / Social Science Research 57 (2016) 161e176
(Wilson and Singer, 2010). This has contributed to the widespread diversi?cation of communities within metropolitan areas
(Lee et al., 2014) and to the emergence of “melting pot suburbs” which have blurred historical color lines (Frey, 2011).
In light of the growing suburbanization of immigrants, it is an opportune moment to reconsider the residential circumstances of immigrants in relation to the highly suburbanized U.S.-born white population. From prior research we know that
immigrants tend to live in poorer neighborhoods than natives (Galster et al., 1999; Hall and Greenman, 2013; Rosenbaum and
Friedman, 2007; White and Sassler, 2000) but we do not know whether the disparities are greater for immigrants who live in
cities or in suburbs. Most of the research on recent immigrant settlement patterns to this point has focused on residential
segregation (Cutler et al., 2008; Farrell, 2016; Hall, 2013; Iceland, 2009). However, to quote Alba et al. (2014, p. 2), “segregation
research offers a limited window on residential situations: knowing how segregated a group is does not necessarily tell us
what kinds of neighborhoods its members typically live in.” In fact, segregation is only one of several factors determining the
degree of residential inequality for groups (Quillian, 2012).1
Rather than using segregation as a proxy for neighborhood inequality, then, we tackle the issue directly by focusing on the
degree to which immigrant groups reside in disparate economic environments when compared to U.S.-born whites. Specifically, we are interested in assessing whether suburbanization attenuates the immigrant-white gap in neighborhood socioeconomic conditions. While there have been efforts to measure neighborhood inequality among broadly de?ned
ethnoracial groups (Firebaugh and Farrell, 2015; Osypuk et al., 2009; Timberlake, 2002; Timberlake and Iceland, 2007), we
extend that analysis by examining neighborhood inequality broken down by suburb and city for 14 immigrant groups in the
metropolitan United States. Drawing on a tailored version of the Gini index we measure immigrant neighborhood inequality
using tract poverty rates from the 2008e2012 American Community Survey. Our research is guided by three questions: 1. Do
immigrants experience different levels of neighborhood inequality vis-
a-vis native whites in cities and suburbs? 2. Do city/
suburb differences remain after taking into account metropolitan context, segregation, and socioeconomic and acculturation
characteristics of immigrant groups? 3. Do immigrant neighborhood inequality patterns differ by country of origin?
The answers to these questions are not straightforward. On one hand, housing discrimination, low-density zoning, white
?ight, and nativist animus on the part of incumbents could produce greater suburban neighborhood inequality by pushing
suburbanizing immigrants into distressed areas (Fennelly and Or?eld, 2008; Odem, 2008). Alternatively, immigrants arriving
in the United States with high levels of education and income may seek out suburban enclaves that are both af?uent and
ethnically distinct (Li, 1998, 2006; Logan et al., 2002), resulting in narrower disparities in suburban areas for certain groups. Of
course, both forces could be at work, and the relative importance of the forces likely varies across the immigrant groups. Our
objective in this paper is to determine whether, for each of the groups, the disparity in neighborhood poverty for immigrants
and native whites tends to be greater in suburban areas or in central cities.
2. Immigrant suburbanization and neighborhood inequality
Although there is a growing literature addressing recent residential segregation patterns in the context of immigration
(Farrell, 2016; Hall, 2013; Iceland, 2009; Lee et al., 2014; Lichter et al., 2010), there are signi?cant gaps in our knowledge about
immigrant neighborhood inequalitydthe degree to which immigrant groups reside in poorer neighborhoods than U.S.-born
whites dodparticularly with respect to suburban areas. The issue is important because residence in disadvantaged neighborhoods is associated with a variety of social ills including high school dropout (Crowder and South, 2011), violent juvenile
crime (Ludwig et al., 2001), depression (Kim, 2010), lower cognitive ability (Sharkey and Elwert, 2011), and diminished life
satisfaction (Firebaugh and Schroeder, 2009). Moreover, long-term exposure to localized disadvantage can have adverse
effects across generations (Sharkey, 2008). Disparities in neighborhood poverty may only be partly due to aggregate differences in household income across racial and nativity groups. In New York City, for example, black and Latino immigrant
families live in lower quality neighborhoods than white families even after controlling for a range of relevant household
characteristics (Rosenbaum and Friedman, 2007).
Concentrated af?uence also matters (Massey, 1996; Bischoff and Reardon, 2014). White populations are growing
rapidly in outlying exurbs as suburbanization exacerbates the spatial segregation of prosperity (Dwyer, 2010; Frey, 2011).
This has implications for racial neighborhood inequality, since af?uent suburban blacks and Hispanics reside in neighborhoods with poverty rates much higher than those experienced by af?uent suburban whites (Logan, 2014). However,
Lee and Marlay (2007) identify substantial concentrations of immigrants in af?uent neighborhoods, most of which are
found in the suburbs. Combined with their additional ?nding that Asians are overrepresented in wealthy neighborhoods,
it is possible that certain suburbanized immigrant groups could be residentially advantaged relative to suburban whites.
This underscores the need to focus on speci?c country-of-origin groups rather than relying on broad panethnic
classi?cations.
Suburbanization has traditionally been viewed as the spatial manifestation of acculturation and upward mobility for
immigrants and their offspring (Alba and Logan, 1991; Massey, 1985). This process of spatial assimilation is predicted not only
to increase residential integration with majority group households but also to improve the residential circumstances of the
immigrant groups themselves (Rosenbaum and Friedman, 2007). Existing research on spatial assimilation generally focuses
1
Hypothetically at least, native and foreign-born populations could live in segregated neighborhoods while still experiencing equivalent levels of
localized poverty.
C.R. Farrell, G. Firebaugh / Social Science Research 57 (2016) 161e176
163
on the former, assessing whether socioeconomic advancement (e.g., income, education) or acculturation (e.g., English language pro?ciency) among minority groups leads to greater residential proximity to whites. By contrast, we treat residential
segregation as a predictor rather than a proxy for immigrant neighborhood inequality. Speci?cally, we are interested in
whether suburban immigrants are more likely to achieve residential parity in neighborhood economic characteristics with
whites irrespective of their residential proximity to them. Thus we investigate whether, and to what degree, segregation in
cities and suburbs accounts for neighborhood disparities among immigrants and U.S.-born whites. In addition, we seek to test
whether, consistent with the spatial assimilation perspective, economic and acculturation characteristics explains any suburban effect on neighborhood inequality.
A segmented version of the assimilation model (Portes and Zhou, 1993) posits differing residential trajectories
conditioned by national origin, enclave size, and reception by the host society. A simple straight-line version of the
spatial assimilation model suggests that accounting for the aforementioned socioeconomic and acculturation characteristics should explain away any group differences in residential patterns. By contrast, the segmented model recognizes the different economic, regional, and historical circumstances under which various immigrant groups enter the
United States and predicts group differences to persist even after controlling for socioeconomic status and acculturation. This is one of the reasons we look at speci?c country-of-origin groups rather than the aggregate foreign-born
population.
The place strati?cation perspective provides a more pessimistic view about the spatial assimilation, emphasizing the
obstacles to residential attainment for racial and ethnic minorities, including new immigrants in the suburbs. These barriers
include continued racial discrimination in housing and lending (Pager and Shepherd, 2008), anti-density zoning (Rothwell
and Massey, 2009), and resistance on the part of native incumbents (Fennelly and Or?eld, 2008). Given that many of these
realities are playing out anew in the suburbs, a place strati?cation approach might predict greater residential inequality for
newcomers in the suburbs than would be found in established cities. It would also point to residential segregation from
whites as one of the major factors ?guring into neighborhood inequality (Massey and Denton, 1993).
A number of past studies have investigated the neighborhood circumstances of immigrant groups (Adelman et al., 2001;
Cort, 2011; Galster et al., 1999; Hall and Greenman, 2013; White and Sassler, 2000). But these studies seldom assess the degree
to which residential disparities differ by city versus suburb. Prior studies of residential attainment that do take the suburbs
into account generally ?nd that, consistent with spatial assimilation, suburban location is associated with residential advantages for immigrants. For example, Alba et al. (2000) ?nd that in ?ve large metropolitan areas Asian and Hispanic
immigrant suburbanites reside in more af?uent neighborhoods (as measured by median household income) than do their city
counterparts. Most pertinent to our study, they ?nd that the white-immigrant gap in neighborhood income also narrows in
the suburbs. So, compared to city-dwellers, immigrant suburbanites were not only better off in absolute terms but also were
on a more equal residential footing relative to whites.
In another study, Friedman and Rosenbaum (2007) use several subjective indicators from the American Housing Survey to
assess neighborhood quality among residents. They ?nd that foreign-born blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in the suburbs report
less exposure to localized disorder than their coethnics in the cities. When comparing the perceived neighborhood conditions
of immigrant suburbanites to native whites, however, some interesting patterns emerge. Net of household income and other
variables, whites actually experience more neighborhood disadvantage than certain immigrant groups on the neighborhood
quality indicators. For example, Asian immigrants in the suburbs are less likely than white suburbanites to report trash near
their homes (see also White and Sassler, 2000). By contrast, foreign-born blacks are disadvantaged in relation to whites
whether they live in suburbs or central cities, and there is some evidence that their residential fortunes are worse in the
suburbs. Hispanic immigrants are also residentially disadvantaged (compared to whites) in both the cities and the suburbs
with regard to litter, lack of open spaces, and the presence of nearby buildings with bars on windows. This is consistent with
other research ?nding Hispanic immigration to be associated with higher rates of neighborhood poverty proximity in the
suburbs (Holliday and Dwyer, 2009).
Rather than relying on broad panethnic classi?cations, a few other studies have looked at more re?ned samples of
country-of-origin groups. Alba et al. (1999) ?nd that the link between acculturation and suburbanization weakened for
several groups, as English bilingual Cubans, Chinese, Filipinos, and Koreans were no less likely to reside in suburbs than
English monolingual coethnics. Similarly, Argeros (2013) ?nds that recent Caribbean immigrants with low Englishlanguage pro?ciency are more likely to be living in the suburbs than their more acculturated coethnics, but these
Caribbean suburbanites reside in disadvantaged areas relative to native whites. These results suggest that suburban
areas are becoming more open to less acculturated immigrants, but that the suburban areas in which the immigrants are
settling are disadvantaged relative to the residential environments of typical white suburbanites. Immigrant clustering
in “ethnoburbs” (Li, 1998) nonetheless does not always indicate residential disadvantage. Logan et al. (2002) compare
the city versus suburb neighborhood contexts of several immigrant groups for New York and Los Angeles. They ?nd that
a variety of groupsdincluding Mexicans, Chinese, Vietnamese, and Cubansdare more likely to reside in ethnically
distinct neighborhoods in the suburbs than they are in cities and that in many cases these suburban ethnic neighborhoods are characterized by higher incomes and lower poverty rates than city neighborhoods. Apparently, then, some
groups do not need to be residentially intermingled with native whites to experience suburban neighborhood
amenities.
Although these studies enrich our understanding of the residential circumstances of immigrant groups in America, they
suffer from a number of limitations. First, they often rely on broad panethnic categories that do not allow for an assessment of
164
C.R. Farrell, G. Firebaugh / Social Science Research 57 (2016) 161e176
speci?c country-of-origin groups. Second, research that does incorporate detailed groups often relies on small samples of a
few large metropolitan areas, thereby excluding many of the new destinations to which immigrants are dispersing (e.g., see
Frank and Akresh, 2016; Hall, 2013; Lichter and Johnson, 2009). Third, some studies have treated suburban location or
proportion white as indicators of neighborhood socioeconomic context (Alba et al., 1999; Argeros, 2013; Galster et al., 1999),
leaving unmeasured the actual socioeconomic conditions of suburban areas. Our research overcomes many of these limitations by assessing immigrant neighborhood inequality in city and suburban neighborhoods across all U.S. metropolitan
areas with a signi?cant immigrant presence. It includes a large and diverse sample of immigrants from 14 different countries
of origin located in Asia, the Caribbean, and Latin America. Finally, it uses a measure of neighborhood inequality that takes
into account the entire distribution of neighborhood economic environmentsdas measured by poverty ratesdinhabited by
immigrant and native residents.
3. Data and methods
3.1. Data
This study uses census tract data from the 2008e2012 American Community Survey (ACS) 5-year estimates to document
the set…
Purchase answer to see full
attachment