Hispanics and the Future of America (2006) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
4 Redrawing Spatial Color Lines: Hispanic Metropolitan Dispersal, Segregation, and Economic Opportunity--Mary J. Fischer and Marta Tienda
4 Redrawing Spatial Color Lines: Hispanic Metropolitan Dispersal, Segregation, and Economic Opportunity--Mary J. Fischer and Marta Tienda
Pages 100-137
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 100... ...
Whether the Hispanicization of metropolitan America redraws spatial color lines in urban places long divided into black and white into three-way splits is an empirical question with far-reaching implications for social integration and civic engagement. More than at any time in the past, Hispanics have consolidated their national presence owing to their unprecedented geographic dispersal buttressed by growing numbers (Zúñiga and Hernández-León, 2005)
|
From page 101... ...
Following a brief review of recent studies about race and ethnic residential segregation, we use the 100 largest metropolitan areas to document Hispanics' unprecedented geographic dispersal to new urban destinations; to portray trends in spatial segregation using measures of evenness and exposure; and to consider the social significance of the new residential patterns based on changes in school segregation, home ownership, and employment outcomes. Throughout we systematically compare Hispanics with blacks in order to understand whether, where, and how their new urban choices alter black spatial arrangements.
|
From page 102... ...
. For ease of exposition and parsimony, we divide the 100 largest metropolitan areas into three strata: the Traditional Metros, New Hispanic Destinations, and a residual, designated Other Large Metros.
|
From page 103... ...
Between 1980 and 2000, Hispanic population shares rose from 18 to 30 percent in the Traditional Metros, while the black share declined slightly, from 14 to 12 percent of the stratum total. Hispanicization of the Traditional Metros is all the more impressive because many of these cities grew substantially during the period, with immigration driving up the foreign-born share of the population from 16 to 27 percent of the stratum total.5 The New Hispanic Destinations are of particular interest because of the number of places involved, their nationwide spread, their diverse growth rates, and the variable size of their black population.
|
From page 104... ...
As the U.S. Hispanic population has become more diversified through immigration, the Cuban share of the total declined nationally and across all types of metropolitan areas, but especially the Traditional Metros and the New Hispanic Destinations.
|
From page 105... ...
Before the onset of mass immigration during the 1970s, spatial assimilation trumped residential succession as the dominant mechanism driving Hispanic residential segregation. With the exception of Puerto Ricans living in New York, in 1980 Hispanics were only moderately segregated from Anglos -- in sharp
|
From page 106... ...
As Los Angeles became the primary destination of new Latin American immigrants, Hispanic residential segregation from whites there approached that of New York City, historically the most segregated city for Hispanics. Chicago's Hispanics also became more segregated from whites during the 1970s, as the volume of new immigrants rose (Bean and Tienda, 1987)
|
From page 107... ...
It is conceivable that, except for the black hypersegregated metropolitan areas, population diversification facilitated the decline in racial residential segregation, particularly in locations that became more ethnically diverse. Because this is difficult to discern using segregation measures based solely on binary comparisons, several researchers have used multigroup entropy indices to examine the relationship between the growing diversity of places and patterns of segregation.
|
From page 108... ...
Subsequently we consider the implications of spatial arrangements for social isolation, school segregation, home ownership, and labor market integration. Spatial Segregation by Types of Metropolitan Areas Although multigroup indicators of segregation are advantageous for assessing residential trends for Hispanics, to maintain comparability with many prior studies we also use the dissimilarity index (D)
|
From page 109... ...
Over the 20-year period, the level of Hispanic segregation from all other groups fell 1 percent, but during the same time period their separation from whites increased 3 percent. This indicates that Hispanic population growth raises their likelihood of sharing residential space with groups other than whites.
|
From page 110... ...
Although Hispanic segregation from all others and whites remained lower in New Hispanic Destinations compared with Traditional Metros, the countervailing trends have produced some convergence between strata. Moreover, the average level of segregation in New Hispanic Destinations masks considerable variability across specific metropolitan areas, reflecting variation in their size, their preexisting minority populations, and the timing of the Hispanic influx.
|
From page 111... ...
relationship between the rate of Hispanic demographic growth and increases in segregation levels.10 To illustrate, both Minneapolis, Minnesota, and Providence, Rhode Island, have similar sized Hispanic populations (both slightly under 100,000 in 2000) that grew about 325 percent between 1980 and 2000.
|
From page 112... ...
. Cross-group comparisons with other groups provide additional context for interpreting Hispanic segregation trends, especially in light of claims that the Hispanic geographic dispersal reshaped urban color lines.
|
From page 113... ...
In short, increased Hispanic segregation in the New Hispanic Destinations appears to be largely driven by the higher degree of spatial separation experienced by the foreignborn. The almost uniform increases in segregation for Hispanics settling in New Hispanic Destinations accompanied by substantial decreases in blacks' segregation from others in these metropolitan areas suggests the plausible hypothesis that the Hispanic dispersal is softening established color lines and weakening class divisions (Logan, 2003; Morenoff and Tienda, 1997)
|
From page 114... ...
In Los Angeles, second largest among the Traditional Metros, the average Hispanic lived in a neighborhood that was 63 percent Hispanic in 2000 -- up from 50 percent in 1980 -- while the average Hispanic in Chicago lived in a neighborhood that was only 48 percent Hispanic in 2000. Partly because Hispanics comprise relatively small population shares in the New Hispanic Destinations and especially in the Other Large Metros, their social isolation is considerably lower in these places: on average, their Hispanic compatriots comprised well below 20 percent of the neighborhood.
|
From page 115... ...
GeoLytics 1980 White 0.497 0.321 0.497 0.346 0.340 0.756 0.793 0.798 0.809 0.874 0.748 0.727 0.792 0.853 0.732 0.676 Trends the statistical from NC Type Segregation MI CA MN extracted Area NY Destinations PA RI MSAs metropolitan Metros TN Metros = IL 4-3a FL GA Rapids, OK 100 Data York, Angeles, Large MSA Hispanic top New Chicago, Los Miami, Allentown, Providence, Grand Minneapolis, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, Nashville, Tulsa, TABLE Metropolitan Traditional New Other Total NOTE: SOURCE:
|
From page 116... ...
GeoLytics 1980 White 0.379 0.160 0.126 0.166 0.202 0.436 0.828 0.615 0.451 0.634 0.263 0.480 0.428 0.362 0.405 0.413 Trends the statistical from NC Type Segregation MI CA MN extracted Area NY Destinations metropolitan PA RI MSAs Metros TN Metros = IL 4-3b FL GA Rapids, 100 OK Data York, Angeles, Large MSA Hispanic top New Chicago, Los Miami, Allentown, Providence, Grand Minneapolis, Atlanta, Raleigh-Durham, Nashville, Tulsa, TABLE Metropolitan Traditional New Other Total NOTE: SOURCE:
|
From page 117... ...
With an average neighborhood composition of 9 percent, Hispanics living in the Traditional Metros had a fairly constant, low probability of sharing residential space with blacks. By contrast, Hispanics in New Hispanic Destinations were increasingly likely to share residential space with blacks, as the average neighborhood percentage black rose from 15 to 17 percent.
|
From page 118... ...
Both the period-specific ownership rates and the pattern of change differ across metropolitan area types. Hispanic home ownership rates exceeded those of blacks in the Traditional Metros throughout the period, so that by 2000 nearly 2 in 5 blacks were homeowners in these metropolitan areas compared with 44 percent of Hispanics.
|
From page 119... ...
119 Black 38.8 47.3 49.2 44.7 Native- Born Hispanic 47.9 47.2 48.1 47.8 Foreign- Born Hispanic 41.4 41.3 43.7 41.4 Hispanic 44.2 44.0 47.0 44.2 19902000 Type, White 66.4 73.3 75.1 71.4 Area 2000 Total 56.6 67.3 69.3 63.4 Black 35.5 43.1 48.0 41.3 (IPUMS)
|
From page 120... ...
. The pernicious effects of school segregation stem from its divisive class underpinnings, namely that schools in which minorities are disproportionately concentrated are poorer, on average, than predominantly white schools (Tienda and Niu, 2004)
|
From page 121... ...
So too does evidence that school resegregation was largely driven by the reversal of social integration policies rather than changes in residential location. Because school segregation along ethnic lines is highly correlated with social class and school quality, evidence of a weakened association between school and residential segregation implies that social integration of future cohorts, including the rapidly growing second generation, may be thwarted.
|
From page 122... ...
Labor force growth in the Traditional Metros was well above the 100-metropolitan-area average but slightly below the 34 percent employment growth registered in the New Hispanic Destinations. By contrast, in the large metropolitan areas with very small Hispanic populations (and very large black populations)
|
From page 123... ...
In the Traditional Metros, as Hispanic employment in nondurable manufacturing fell, from approximately 13 to 6 percent between 1980 and 2000, the representation of foreign-born Hispanic workers within the industry nearly doubled, rising from 15 to 29 percent (Table 4-7)
|
From page 124... ...
SOURCE: IPUMS. TABLE 4-6 Industry Distribution for the Hispanic Civilian Labor Force by Metropolitan Area Type, 19802000 Traditional New Hispanic Metros Destinations Industry Sector 1980 2000 1980 2000 Agriculture and mining 4.0 1.7 2.9 1.1 Construction 6.5 9.6 4.7 12.0 Nondurable manufacturing 13.2 6.4 10.8 5.7 Durable manufacturing 16.3 9.2 17.0 8.6 Wholesale trade 4.8 4.9 3.6 3.8 Retail trade 10.2 11.5 8.4 10.8 Transport and utilities 5.2 4.9 5.1 4.3 Information and communication 1.2 2.4 1.1 2.4 Finance, insurance, and real estate 5.3 5.5 5.5 5.5 Business and administrative services 2.9 5.2 4.0 5.9 Health, education, and professional services 12.2 15.0 14.9 13.1 Public administration 4.2 3.0 6.0 3.0 Personal and repair services 14.0 20.9 16.1 24.0 Total % 100.0 100.2 100.1 100.2 Ns (000s)
|
From page 125... ...
REDRAWING SPATIAL COLOR LINES 125 Small Metropolitan and Other Large Metros Top 100 MSAs Nonmetropolitan Areas 1980 1990 2000a 1980 1990 2000 1980 1990 2000 0.4 0.5 0.8 3.3 5.6 8.1 0.9 1.8 2.7 1.1 1.4 1.8 4.2 4.9 6.4 2.5 2.9 3.4 82.4 80.5 76.1 77.6 72.4 64.5 87.8 85.7 82.5 13.4 14.2 16.2 12.1 12.6 13.0 7.3 7.4 7.6 2.7 3.4 5.1 2.8 4.5 8.0 1.5 2.2 3.7 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 99.9 12,628 13,548 12,174 60,258 72,908 75,591 45,407 51,864 63,163 Hispanic Top 100 MSAs Labor Force Small Metropolitan and Other Large Hispanic Labor Total Labor Nonmetropolitan Metros Force Force Areas 1980 2000 1980 2000 1980 2000 1980 2000 1.9 1.5 3.8 1.6 1.8 0.7 13.3 9.2 4.8 8.2 6.2 10.0 5.6 6.4 8.0 9.1 10.5 6.7 12.9 6.3 7.8 4.2 9.9 8.2 20.1 12.1 16.6 9.1 13.9 8.2 12.9 8.1 3.7 3.3 4.6 4.6 4.7 3.9 3.2 3.4 10.6 11.6 10.1 11.4 11.8 11.6 10.0 10.6 6.2 3.5 5.2 4.7 6.1 5.3 5.1 3.8 1.0 2.5 1.1 2.4 1.6 3.7 0.9 1.5 3.3 5.2 5.2 5.5 7.0 7.9 2.9 3.5 3.2 5.1 3.0 5.3 4.8 8.7 1.9 3.7 15.7 17.9 12.6 14.7 17.4 20.3 14.5 16.4 5.3 4.0 4.5 3.0 5.5 4.5 5.1 3.9 13.9 18.5 14.2 21.5 11.9 14.7 12.4 18.6 100.2 100.1 100.0 100.1 99.9 100.1 100.1 100.0 172 304 4,413 10,717 58,971 74,411 1,469 3,776
|
From page 126... ...
A comparable trend toward concentration of Hispanic immigrants is evident in rapidly growing industries, notably the personal and repair services. In Traditional Metros, native and foreign-born Hispanics made up, respectively, 8 and 10 percent of employment in personal and repair services in 1980, but two decades later, these shares rose to 25 and 11 percent,
|
From page 127... ...
A similar change occurred in the smaller metropolitan areas and nonmetropolitan areas, where foreign-born Hispanics more than quadrupled their representation not only in the low-skilled personal and repair services and in construction, but also in agriculture and mining.
|
From page 128... ...
However, changes in spatial separation differed appreciably across types of metropolitan areas. With one-third of all residents of Hispanic origin and 1 in 4 residents foreign-born, the Traditional Metros are among the most diverse, and they exhibit moderate segregation levels.
|
From page 129... ...
Whether high schools support one prom or several depends not only on settlement patterns, but also on whether black, Hispanic and white students interact socially within and beyond the school halls. Soft segregation as evidenced by Toombs County, Georgia, is not even broached by the vast literature about rising school segregation in the midst of increased residential diversity.
|
From page 130... ...
. Hispanic residential segregation: A comparison of Mexicans, Cubans, and Puerto Ricans.
|
From page 131... ...
. Indexes of racial residential segregation for 109 cities in the United States, 1940 to 1970.
|
From page 132... ...
132 FB 8.9 % 26.8 15.6 19.4 18.5 18.9 13.2 30.2 11.4 20.6 21.4 43.3 36.8 31.5 55.7 39.0 21.4 24.0 29.9 15.2 19.2 14.8 12.8 23.7 35.7 B Areas, 2.5 8.0 6.0 5.5 3.1 5.1 9.8 0.5 1.7 3.7 7.7 7.7 6.6 5.7 5.3 % 12.4 18.9 15.1 11.2 17.5 13.5 20.3 24.6 22.3 12.7 H 2000 % 29.8 41.6 26.2 14.5 17.1 23.0 18.8 78.2 18.2 44.0 29.9 39.8 44.6 88.3 57.3 25.1 13.3 18.5 30.8 25.1 37.8 14.4 51.2 26.7 16.8 Statistical FB 7.0 8.9 9.8 6.4 6.3 8.4 % 22.4 13.8 14.8 27.4 18.2 14.2 36.2 33.7 28.0 48.8 32.9 17.3 16.2 15.5 11.3 10.2 18.7 30.5 B Metropolitan 2.5 9.0 5.3 5.7 3.5 4.6 0.1 1.4 3.3 6.5 6.7 6.5 6.0 7.4 % 12.8 21.7 15.8 10.6 18.1 12.7 10.5 19.1 23.2 22.4 14.2 H Largest 1990 % 24.0 37.0 20.5 28.0 12.1 14.5 13.0 69.6 11.3 35.5 21.4 33.3 37.8 85.2 49.2 22.1 10.3 13.1 23.0 16.3 26.5 11.6 47.6 20.5 14.5 100 FB % 4.7 5.4 8.6 5.0 5.4 4.8 9.0 6.3 8.8 8.4 8.0 16.6 12.0 22.3 11.0 29.2 23.6 20.0 39.2 26.7 13.7 15.1 13.9 16.9 Measures: B 2.0 9.3 5.2 5.3 3.8 4.8 0.2 1.3 3.2 5.1 6.0 6.8 5.5 8.5 % 13.6 20.0 16.0 10.4 18.7 12.6 12.6 17.3 23.1 20.9 15.0 H 8.1 8.9 7.3 6.7 8.7 Composition 1980 % 18.0 36.1 17.5 21.6 11.5 61.9 29.0 14.6 26.1 27.6 81.3 35.7 17.7 10.6 14.8 14.1 18.6 44.9 14.8 11.2 Racial/Ethnic PMSA PMSA PMSA CA CA A4-1 TX Area PMSA Metros MSA Beach, MSA PMSA MSA MSA PMSA PMSA CA PMSA AZ MSA NM CA PMSA MSA PMSA Bernardino, TABLE TX Statistical MSA CA PMSA PMSA MSA PMSA MSA NJ PMSA NY PMSA CA CA Hispanic IL TX TX CA TX TX CO TX NJ CA FL County, City, WorthArlington, AngelesLong York, Antonio, Diego, Francisco, Paso, Albuquerque, Austin, Bakersfield, Chicago, Dallas, Denver, El Fort Fresno, Houston, Jersey Los McAllen, Miami, New Newark, Oakland, Orange PhoenixMesa, RiversideSan Sacramento, San San San APPENDIX 19802000 Metropolitan Traditional
|
From page 133... ...
133 6.3 7.9 6.8 3.4 6.4 4.8 6.5 6.2 3.9 4.6 6.6 4.6 2.9 3.1 3.7 35.1 20.7 13.6 17.2 20.4 12.4 11.4 28.1 18.4 10.2 26.8 23.3 19.1 continues 2.8 6.7 3.0 1.9 6.1 3.0 8.1 7.0 7.3 7.8 9.5 5.8 8.1 11.7 14.8 28.9 27.4 30.1 20.5 13.4 20.5 19.7 20.2 17.5 13.9 21.7 12.8 21.9 13.9 7.0 2.7 7.9 6.5 2.0 1.8 5.9 5.1 1.8 6.3 5.0 2.7 3.1 9.6 2.7 3.8 5.2 1.3 2.1 1.6 24.0 30.5 29.3 19.1 33.4 17.3 16.7 10.5 20.6 7.5 5.3 6.1 4.8 4.6 1.2 2.8 2.5 3.7 3.6 1.5 2.1 3.0 1.8 4.8 2.6 1.9 2.0 1.4 24.9 16.4 10.8 12.7 18.7 21.1 14.0 16.9 12.9 10.1 3.5 5.2 2.9 2.2 4.6 1.8 7.5 6.8 5.8 6.5 6.0 9.3 10.0 13.8 25.8 25.7 27.0 19.9 11.9 14.9 19.2 19.3 17.2 10.0 13.7 19.8 12.7 19.9 13.0 3.8 1.8 4.2 2.0 1.3 0.4 4.5 0.9 0.8 8.6 7.9 3.3 0.8 0.7 1.7 7.6 0.9 2.5 2.9 0.5 0.8 0.6 21.0 23.5 24.4 13.6 26.5 11.6 11.2 8.0 8.2 5.8 5.3 5.1 2.8 4.0 1.2 2.3 2.6 4.1 1.6 2.0 3.1 1.8 3.9 2.5 2.0 9.2 2.1 1.4 14.4 11.7 13.9 20.0 11.5 11.8 12.0 3.3 5.5 2.7 8.7 2.1 3.6 1.5 7.1 5.3 6.3 6.1 6.8 6.9 9.9 12.9 24.5 25.5 28.8 20.5 11.2 11.1 19.6 19.2 17.1 12.8 21.7 12.9 20.3 13.0 9.9 2.4 1.0 2.5 1.1 0.9 7.0 0.7 2.3 0.8 0.7 3.9 7.2 2.1 0.6 0.7 1.1 4.3 0.8 1.9 2.4 0.6 7.6 0.9 0.6 17.5 19.3 20.9 21.4 MSA NC PMSA PMSA Salem, MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA PMSA MSA FL MSA PMSA NJ MSA MI MSA MSA MSA MSA MSA PMSA MSA MSA MSA PMSA PMSA Destinations MSA MSA AL MSA IN PA PA FL MO-KS AR NVAZ CA CA MD NCSC OH SC TN KYIN AZ CA CA PMSA CT NY GA MANH IN Rapids, City, Jose, Lauderdale, Rock, Hispanic Vegas, San Stockton, Tucson, Vallejo, Ventura, Albany, Allentown, Atlanta, Baltimore, BergenPassaic, Birmingham, Boston, Charlotte, Columbus, Fort Gary, Grand GreensboroWinston Greenville, Harrisburg, Hartford, Indianapolis, Jacksonville, Kansas Knoxville, Las Little Louisville, New
|
From page 134... ...
134 FB 5.0 6.8 8.4 9.5 6.7 8.5 6.7 9.6 7.3 6.1 9.6 5.5 % 22.0 15.6 18.5 13.1 18.7 11.3 15.2 10.0 13.5 11.1 12.1 20.9 B 8.0 5.3 5.8 8.5 8.3 2.7 4.0 1.1 6.0 4.4 6.7 7.0 8.8 % 43.4 15.7 15.6 13.1 30.9 10.6 13.9 22.7 30.2 10.2 26.0 H 2.4 6.3 3.3 5.7 3.3 9.8 3.1 6.7 5.5 7.4 7.9 6.1 2.3 6.6 5.2 5.5 4.8 8.8 2000 % 11.2 10.3 16.5 10.8 12.5 10.4 FB 1.9 4.4 4.5 9.0 2.3 9.0 5.7 4.7 2.8 7.6 4.8 3.6 4.9 6.5 8.7 8.9 2.5 % 14.7 11.3 11.9 10.0 10.2 10.6 14.8 B 6.5 3.6 5.8 7.0 8.3 3.1 4.1 0.9 4.3 4.0 6.2 7.0 8.8 8.2 % 40.5 13.6 15.4 11.7 28.2 10.4 12.0 24.9 29.0 26.2 H 0.8 7.1 3.6 1.5 3.7 0.8 6.3 6.2 2.3 3.5 2.6 8.9 3.5 4.8 1.2 1.0 5.8 2.2 2.8 9.1 3.6 6.7 2.0 5.7 1990 % FB % 1.6 4.6 3.7 1.5 9.8 9.0 4.5 3.0 3.7 6.8 5.8 9.7 3.3 2.4 8.1 4.0 6.3 9.3 8.6 7.5 1.7 9.5 B 5.3 2.3 6.1 6.2 9.0 7.5 2.6 2.3 1.0 6.8 3.6 5.2 6.2 9.2 7.8 % 40.1 10.8 16.1 10.4 28.5 12.9 24.7 29.0 26.7 H 1.0 4.4 2.5 1.1 2.5 0.6 4.0 3.7 1.5 2.3 2.2 3.5 2.0 2.0 0.8 0.9 4.9 1.7 2.0 4.4 2.7 5.1 1.5 2.9 1980 % MSA PMSA NJ News, FL MSA PMSA PMSA Continued A4-1 MSA MNWI PMSA MSA Area NJ PMSA MSA ORWA PMSA MSA MSA NC PMSA Paul, NY PMSA BeachNewport OK MSA WA MSA MSA MSA UT TABLE WI CT MSA RI-MA MSA PMSA DCMDVAWV Statistical TNARMS TN MSA City, VA MA PetersburgClearwater, MSA NEIA FL City, FL WA OK Haven, Lake VANC Memphis, MiddlesexSomersetHunterdon, Milwaukee, MinneapolisSt. MonmouthOcean, Nashville, Nassau-Suffolk, New NorfolkVirginia Oklahoma Omaha, Orlando, PortlandVancouver, Providence, RaleighDurham, Richmond, SeattleBellevue, Salt Sarasota, Springfield, Tacoma, TampaSt.
|
From page 135... ...
3.9 4.2 5.2 3.5 6.1 1.8 5.6 3.9 2.3 6.8 3.2 2.6 5.9 2.1 4.6 7.2 2.7 6.6 2.6 2.5 4.8 3.0 3.5 9.3 13.9 18.6 B Tract 7.4 9.9 3.0 8.1 9.1 1.0 5.8 11.9 14.7 16.7 11.0 29.5 10.0 30.1 13.1 19.3 30.2 13.2 21.4 27.3 34.5 18.8 17.3 11.2 11.0 13.9 Hispanic; = H 19702000 7.8 4.1 2.4 2.1 0.6 2.1 1.4 1.8 1.5 0.6 1.9 1.3 0.8 1.9 6.8 0.9 4.3 3.6 0.6 3.1 0.8 1.1 1.4 3.3 1.5 11.8 area; Database statistical 4.1 4.6 5.4 3.5 6.0 2.2 6.8 3.2 2.4 6.9 3.1 2.6 6.8 1.6 5.0 6.5 3.8 6.2 3.1 2.7 4.8 2.8 4.4 7.2 Change 10.8 18.1 7.5 9.1 9.3 2.2 7.3 8.0 0.6 4.8 13.7 14.0 15.8 11.0 27.9 31.7 12.3 16.2 28.8 12.6 20.3 28.7 32.2 18.7 17.0 10.6 10.5 13.8 metropolitan Neighborhood primary CD 4.9 2.9 1.6 1.7 0.5 1.4 1.8 1.3 1.4 0.6 1.8 1.3 0.6 1.6 7.2 1.1 4.0 2.5 0.5 2.0 0.4 0.9 1.0 2.8 1.3 8.4 = PMSA Census area; GeoLytics the statistical PMSA MSA PMSA from PMSA FL MSA MSA MSA MSA PMSA MSA PMSA LA MSA MSA LA MSA MSA MSA DEMD PANJ MSA MSA OH Beach, PMSA MI MSA SC MSA MSA Averages extracted Metros OHKYIN PMSA metropolitan OH MSA SC HI PA NY KS PA MO-IL NY = OH NY OH MI AL OH Data Palm Rouge, MSA Large Arbor, Orleans, MSA Louis, 100 West Wichita, Wilmington, Akron, Ann Baton Buffalo, Charleston, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbia, Dayton, Detroit, Honolulu, Mobile, New Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Rochester, Scranton, St. Syracuse, Toledo, Youngstown, Other Top NOTE: SOURCE:
|
From page 136... ...
HISP MEX PR CUB OTH Traditional 9,363.5 18.0 60.2 13.8 6.9 19.0 Hispanic Metros New York, NY 1,465 17.7 1.8 59.9 4.7 33.6 Chicago, IL 581 8.1 63.0 22.3 3.2 11.5 Los Angeles, CA 2,065 27.6 79.6 1.8 2.2 16.4 Miami, FL 580 35.7 2.2 7.9 70.0 20.0 New Hispanic Destinations 1,268.5 2.4 35.1 23.2 7.5 34.1 Allentown, PA 14 2.5 8.0 70.8 1.8 19.4 Providence, RI 22 2.0 7.2 19.0 3.0 70.8 Grand Rapids, MI 18 2.1 71.2 9.6 3.9 15.4 Minneapolis, MN 23 1.1 63.4 5.9 2.4 28.4 Atlanta, GA 23 1.1 32.6 11.3 16.9 39.3 Raleigh-Durham, NC 5.3 0.8 42.9 7.5 7.1 42.5 Nashville, TN 5.5 0.6 49.1 5.7 4.5 40.6 Tulsa, OK 10 1.5 59.3 4.7 4.0 32.0 Other Large Metros 484.6 1.7 25.0 37.2 4.0 33.8 Top 100 (P) MSA 11,116.6 8.4 55.4 16.1 6.9 21.6 NOTE: N= Hispanic population absolute size (000s)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.