The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Good segregation, bad segregation
Abstract
Much of the literature on segregation is underlain by an implicit model which argues that groups start highly segregated in inner city locations and disperse over time. Parallel and related to this spatial pattern is the social process of assimilation. Groups start highly segregated and unassimilated and become dispersed and assimilated over time. The paper argues that there is a critical distinction between the black American ghetto and other forms of segregation. The ghetto is not part of a continuum of spatial distributions which begins in the inner city and ends in the suburbs three generations later; it is an end in itself. The black ghetto is different in kind from other forms of segregation. Nearly all of its members are black and nearly all the black population in American cities is in such locations. African American segregation has been almost continuously high during the twentieth century and has not diminished with socio-economic improvement. Ethnic enclaves of the Irish, Poles or other ethnicities in the USA never achieved such homogeneous concentrations. Thus representing European concentrations as having evolved from a past distribution, which was akin to the present black ghetto, falsifies the European past and mistakes the current dilute levels of European concentration as representing the black future. On the other hand, the equation of spatial segregation with levels of social assimilation, is largely supported. The process of assimilation, like the sequence of spatial segregation, is neither inevitable nor unidirectional.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
Work Together, Live Apart? Geographies of Racial and Ethnic Segregation at Home and at Work
Ellis, M., Wright, R., & Parks, V. (2004) · Annals of the Association of American Geographers · doi:10.1111/j.1467-8306.2004.00417.x · Cited by 340
The spatial syntax of urban segregation
Vaughan, L. (2007) · Progress in Planning · doi:10.1016/j.progress.2007.03.001 · Cited by 332
Arbaci, S., & Malheiros, J. (2010) · Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies · doi:10.1080/13691830903387378 · Cited by 131
Metadata
- Authors
- Peach, C.
- Venue
- Planning Perspectives
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1996-12
- Volume
- 11
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 379-398
- ISSN
- 0266-5433 (ISSN-L)
- 1466-4518
- OpenAlex
- W1994076614
- Cited by
- 218
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 3.28
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Good segregation, bad segregation. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1080/026654396364817
- The paper
- Peach, C. (1996). Good segregation, bad segregation. Planning Perspectives. https://doi.org/10.1080/026654396364817
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.