Citation and Abstract
Regional variations in average distance to public libraries in the United States
F. Donnelly
Library & Information Science Research
Volume 37, Issue 4, October 2015, Pages 280–289
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.lisr.2015.11.008
Abstract
“There are substantive regional variations in public library accessibility in the United States, which is a concern considering the civic and educational roles that libraries play in communities. Average population-weighted distances and the total population living within one mile segments of the nearest public library were calculated at a regional level for metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas, and at a state level. The findings demonstrate significant regional variations in accessibility that have been persistent over time and cannot be explained by simple population distribution measures alone. Distances to the nearest public library are higher in the South compared to other regions, with statistically significant clusters of states with lower accessibility than average. The national average population-weighted distance to the nearest public library is 2.1 miles. While this supports the use of a two-mile buffer employed in many LIS studies to measure library service areas, the degree of variation that exists between regions and states suggests that local measures should be applied to local areas.”
Purpose
I’m not going to repeat all the findings, but will provide some context.
As a follow-up to my earlier work, I was interested in trying an alternate approach for measuring public library spatial equity. I previously used the standard container approach – draw a buffer at some fixed distance around a library and count whether people are in or out, and as an approximation for individuals I used population centroids for census tracts. In my second approach, I used straight-line distance measurements from census block groups (smaller than tracts) to the nearest public library so I could compare average distances for regions and states; I also summed populations for these areas by calculating the percentage of people that lived within one-mile rings of the nearest library. I weighted the distances by population, to account for the fact that census areas vary in population size (tracts and block groups are designed to fall within an ideal population range – for block groups it’s between 600 and 3000 people).
Despite the difference in approach, the outcome was similar. Using the earlier approach (census tract centroids that fell within a library buffer that varied from 1 to 3 miles based on urban or rural setting), two-thirds of Americans fell within a “library service area”, which means that they lived within a reasonable distance to a library based on standard practices in LIS research. Using the latest approach (using block group centroids and measuring the distance to the nearest library) two-thirds of Americans lived within two miles of a public library – the average population weighted distance was 2.1 miles. Both studies illustrate that there is a great deal of variation by geographic region – people in the South consistently lived further away from public libraries compared to the national average, while people in the Northeast lived closer. Spatial Autocorrelation (LISA) revealed a cluster of states in the South with high distances and a cluster in the Northeast with low distances.
The idea in doing this research was not to model actual travel behavior to measure accessibility. People in rural areas may be accustomed to traveling greater distances, public transportation can be a factor, people may not visit the library that’s close to their home for several reasons, measuring distance along a network is more precise than Euclidean distance, etc. The point is that libraries are a public good that provide tangible benefits to communities. People that live in close proximity to a public library are more likely to reap the benefits that it provides relative to those living further away. Communities that have libraries will benefit more than communities that don’t. The distance measurements serve as a basic metric for evaluating spatial equity. So, if someone lives more than six miles away from a library that does not mean that they don’t have access; it does means they are less likely to utilize it or realize it’s benefits compared to someone who lives a mile or two away.
Data
I used the 2010 Census at the block group level, and obtained the location of public libraries from the 2010 IMLS. I improved the latter by geocoding libraries that did not have address-level coordinates, so that I had street matches for 95% of the 16,720 libraries in the dataset. The tables that I’m providing here were not published in the original article, but were tacked on as supplementary material in appendices. I wanted to share them so others could incorporate them into local studies. In most LIS research the prevailing approach for measuring library service areas is to use a buffer of 1 to 2 miles for all locations. Given the variation between states, if you wanted to use the state-average for library planning in your own state you can consider using these figures.
To provide some context, the image below shows public libraries (red stars) in relation to census block group centroids (white circles) for northern Delaware (primarily suburban) and surrounding areas (mix of suburban and rural). The line drawn between the Swedesboro and Woodstown libraries in New Jersey is 5-miles in length. I used QGIS and Spatialite for most of the work, along with Python for processing the data and Geoda for the spatial autocorrelation.
The three tables I’m posting on the resources page are for states: one counts the 2010 Census population within one to six mile rings of the nearest public library, the second is the percentage of the total state population that falls within that ring, and the third is a summary table that calculates the mean and population-weighted distance to the nearest library by state. One set of tables is formatted text (for printing or just looking up numbers) while the other set are CSV files that you can use in a spreadsheet. I’ve included a metadata record with some methodological info, but you can read the full details in the article.
In the article itself I tabulated and examined data at a broader, regional level (Northeast, Midwest, South, and West), and also broke it down into metropolitan and non-metropolitan areas for the regions. Naturally people that live in non-metropolitan areas lived further away, but the same regional patterns existed: more people in the South in both metro and non-metro areas lived further away compared to their counterparts in other parts of the country. This weekend I stumbled across this article in the Washington Post about troubles in the Deep South, and was struck by how these maps mirrored the low library accessibility maps in my past two articles.
]]>Since it’s a new site with a new address, many of the links to projects I’ve referred to throughout the years on this blog are no longer valid. Redirects are in place, but they won’t last forever. Some notable links to update:
The new site has a dedicated blog that you can follow (via RSS) for the latest updates to the portal. The portal also has a number of relatively new and publicly accessible datasets that we’ve posted over the last year (but that I haven’t had time to post about). These include the NYC Mass Transit Spatial Layers series and population centroids for US census geographies. We’ve been creating ISO spatial metadata for all of our new layers, but we still need to create XML stylesheets to make them more human-readable. That will be one of many projects to do for this academic year.
]]>I kept searching for some definitive proof, and through someone’s tweet I found a link to a PDF of the US Census Bureau’s Budget Estimates for Fiscal Year 2016, presented to Congress this February 2015. I found confirmation buried on page CEN – 106 (the 100th page in a 190 page doc):
Data Products
Restoration of ACS Data Products ($1.5 million): Each year, the ACS releases a wide range of data products widely used by policymakers, Federal, state and local governments, businesses and the public to make decisions on allocation of taxpayer-funds, the location of businesses and the placement of products, emergency management plans, and a host of other matters. Resource constraints have led to the cancellation of data products for areas with populations between 20 and 60 thousand based on 3-year rolling averages of ACS data (known as the “3-Year Data” Product).They have also resulted in delays in the release of the 1- and 5- year Public Use Macro Sample (PUMS) data files and canceled the release of the 5- year Comparison Profile data product and the Spanish Translation of the 1- and 5- year Puerto Rico data products.
The Census Bureau proposes to terminate permanently the 3-Year Data Product. The Census Bureau intended to produce this data product for a few years when the ACS was a new survey. Now that the ACS has collected data for nearly a decade, this product can be discontinued without serious impacts on the availability of the estimates for these communities.
The ACS would like to restore the timely release of the other essential products in FY2016. The continued absence of these data products will impact the availability of data – especially for Puerto Rico – to public and private sector decision makers.
So at this point it’s still just a proposal. The benefits, besides the ability to release other datasets in a timely fashion, would be simplification for users. Instead of choosing between three datasets now there will only be two – the one year and the five year. You choose the one year for large areas and the five year for every place else. In terms of disadvantages, consider this example – here are the number of children enrolled in nursery school in NY State PUMA 03808, which covers Murray Hill, Gramercy, and Stuyvesant Town in the eastern half of Midtown Manhattan:
Population Over 3 Years Old Enrolled in Nursery / Pre-school
Since PUMAs are statistical areas built to contain 100k people, data for all of them is available in each series. Like all the ACS estimates these have a 90% confidence interval. Look at the data for the 1-year series. The margin of error (ME) is so large that’s it’s approximately 50% of the estimate, which in my opinion makes it worthless for just about any application. The estimate itself is much lower than the estimate for the other two series. It’s true that it’s only capturing the latest year, but administrative data and news reports suggest that the number of nursery school children in the district that covers this area has been relatively stable over time, with modest increases (geographically the district covers an area much larger than this PUMA). This suggests that the estimate itself is not so great.
The 5 year estimate may be closer to reality, and its ME is only 20% of the estimate. But it covers five years in time. If you wanted something that was a compromise – more timely than the five year but with a lower ME than the one year, then the three year series was your choice, in this case with an ME that’s about 33% of the estimate. But under this proposal, this choice goes away and you have to make do with either 1-year estimates (which will be lousy for geographies that aren’t far above the 65k population threshold, and lousy for small population groups where ever they are located), or better 5-year estimates that cover a greater time span.
]]>I also provide a brief explanation of using OpenRefine to clean data using their text facet tools. One thing I forgot to mention in the article is that after you apply your data fixes with OpenRefine, it records the history. So if you have to process an update of the same file in the future (which I’ll have to do repeatedly), you can simply re-apply all the fixes you made in the past (which are saved in a JSON file).
While the article is pragmatic in nature, I did make an attempt to link this example to the bigger picture of data librarianship, advocating that data librarians can work to add value to datasets for their users, rather than simply pointing them to unrefined resources that many won’t be able to use.
The citation and link:
Donnelly, F. P. (2014). Processing government data: ZIP Codes, Python, and OpenRefine. code{4}lib Journal, 25 (2014-07-21). http://journal.code4lib.org/articles/9652.
As always the journal has a great mix of case studies, and this issue included an article on geospatial metadata.
While I’ve used Python quite a bit, this is the first time that I’ve written anything serious that I’ve released publicly. If there are ways I could improve it, I’d appreciate your feedback. Other than a three-day workshop I took years ago, I’m entirely self-taught and seldom have the opportunity to bounce ideas off people for this type of work. I’ve disabled the blog comments here a long time ago, but feel free to send me an email. If there’s enough interest I’ll do a follow-up post with the suggestions – mail AT gothos DOT info.
]]>The article is available via Emerald’s journal database. If you don’t have access to it from your library feel free to contact me and I’ll send you a copy (can’t share this one freely online).
Title: The American Community Survey: practical considerations for researchers
Author(s): Francis P. Donnelly
Citation: Francis P. Donnelly, (2013) “The American Community Survey: practical considerations for researchers”, Reference Services Review, Vol. 41 Iss: 2, pp.280 – 297
Keywords: American Community Survey, Census, Census geography, Data handling, Decennial census, Demographic data, Government data processing, Government information, Margins of error, Sample-based data, United States of America, US Census Bureau
Article type: Technical paper
DOI: 10.1108/00907321311326228 (Permanent URL)
Publisher: Emerald Group Publishing Limited
Title: The geographic distribution of United States public libraries : An analysis of locations and service areas
Author: Francis P. Donnelly
Journal: Journal of Librarianship and Information Science (JOLIS)
Year: 2014, Volume 46, Issue 2, Pages 110-129
ISSN: 0961-0006
DOI: 10.1177/0961000612470276
Publisher: Sage
Abstract
This article explores the geography of public libraries in the United States. The distribution of libraries is examined using maps and spatial statistics to analyze spatial patterns. Methods for delineating and studying library service areas used in previous LIS research are modified and applied using geographic information systems to study variations in library accessibility by state and by socio-economic group at the national level. A history of library development is situated within the broader economic and demographic history of the US to provide insight to contemporary patterns, and Louis Round Wilson’s Geography of Reading is used as a focal point for studying historical trends. Findings show that while national library coverage is extensive, the percentage of the population that lives in a library’s geographic service area varies considerably by region and state, with Southern and Western states having lower values than Northeastern and Midwestern states.
Keywords
Geographic information systems, geography, public libraries, service areas, spatial equity, United States
This OCLC flier (How Public Libraries Stack Up) piqued my interest in public libraries as community resources, public goods, and placemaking institutions. If the presence of a public library brings so much value to a community, then by extension the lack of a public library could leave a community at a disadvantage. This led to the next set of logical questions: how are libraries distributed across the country, and which people and communties are being served and which aren’t?
I took a few different approaches to answer these questions. The first approach was to use (and learn) spatial statistics so the overall distribution could be characterized, and the second was to use spatial extraction methods to select census areas and populations that were within the service areas of each library, to see differences in how populations were served and to study these differences across different states. The LIS literature is rich with research that uses GIS to study library use, so I provide a thorough summary of what’s come before. Then after I had the results I spent a good deal of time researching how the contemporary pattern came to be, and coupled the research on the history of public libraries with the broader history of urban and economic development in the United States.
I had a few unstated motives – one of them was to learn spatial statistics, with the help of: OpenGeoda and its documentation, this excellent book on Spatial Data Analysis (for theory), these great examples from Spatial Justice, and invaluable advice from Deborah Balk, a Professor of Spatial Demography with the CUNY Institute for Demographic Research.
One of my other goals was to use only open source software – QGIS, GRASS, and OpenGeoda, which was also a success. Although in my next study I’ll probably rely on QGIS and Spatialite; I found I was doing a lot of attribute data crunching using the SQLite Manager, since the attributes of GRASS vectors can be stored in SQLite, and I could probably save time (and frustration) by using Spatialite’s features instead. I did get to learn a lot about GRASS, but for my purposes it was overkill and I would have been just fine with a spatial database. I was definetely able to sharpen my Python skills, as processing the American Community Survey data for every census tract in the US manually would have been crazy.
In a project this size there are always some pieces that end up on the cutting room floor, so I thought I’d share one here – a dot map that shows where all 16,700 public libraries are. In the article I went with a county choropleth map to show the distribution, because I was doing other county-level stuff and because the dimension restrictions on the graphic made it a more viable option. The dot map reveals that libraries are typically where people are, except that the south looks emptier and the midwest fuller than it should be, if libraries were in fact evenly distributed by population. As my research shows – they’re not.
]]>I also updated the manual for use with QGIS 1.8. I’m thinking that the addition of the Data Browser and the ability to simply select the CRS of the current layer or project when you’re doing a Save As (rather than having to select the CRS from the master list) will save a lot of valuable time in class. With every operation that we perform we’re constantly creating new files as the result of selections and geoprocessing, and I always lose a few people each time we’re forced to crawl through the file system to add new layers we’ve created. These simple changes should speed things up. I’ve updated the manual throughout to reflect these changes, and have also updated the datasets to reflect what’s currently available. I provide a summary of the most salient changes in the introduction.
]]>For full details check out this flier. You can register via the College’s CAPS website; do a search for DEM and register for each session (DEM0003, DEM0004, and DEM0005).
]]>