English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Urban structure reflects land use processes and affects the livability of metropolitan areas. Structure and process can be illuminated by analysis of employment subcenters whose delineation often utilizes density and threshold criteria modified by local knowledge. This study addresses two questions: (1) are employment subcenters thus defined differently from the metropolitan area as a whole and (2) are employment subcenters different from each other? Employment density thresholds and totals are analyzed at census block group level of geography. Location quotients for subcenters and subcenter components (census block groups) are analyzed using Mann-Whitney rank order tests. The results indicate that the answer is “yes” to both questions. Affirmation of the first supports the credibility of density/threshold delineations, and of the second indicates an under-studied aspect of urban structure. Subcenter differences may contribute to problems of worker accessibility to employment opportunities. The results suggest that unstable urban structure may be an impediment to socioeconomic mobility and that, on a theoretical level, it may be desirable to revisit the question of whether influence fields are discrete or probabilistic.

Changing employment subcenters and opportunity in the Pittsburgh metropolitan area