Examining Job Accessibility in Urban and Suburban Settings

Examining Job Accessibility in Urban and Suburban Settings

Hafizah Rosli, Narimah Samat^*

Geography Section, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, 11800 USM, Pulau Pinang, Malaysia

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.9020294

Received: 13 February 2025; Accepted: 17 February 2025; Published: 19 March 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explores the accessibility of job opportunities in urban and suburban areas, focusing on how residential segregation and the geographic distribution of employment impact marginalized communities. The research specifically assesses the spatial mismatch hypothesis, investigating the relationship between transportation infrastructure, socioeconomic status, and residential location in shaping access to employment opportunities. By comparing urban and suburban settings, the study highlights the persistent barriers faced by low-income individuals in metropolitan areas. Findings confirm and expand upon the spatial mismatch theory, revealing that low-income individuals, particularly those in suburban districts, face longer commutes due to the separation of residential areas from job centers. The use of motorbikes, preferred for their cost-effectiveness and flexibility, underscores the economic constraints of these commuters. Additionally, housing affordability and the distance from urban centers exacerbate employment barriers, especially in suburban areas where access to both jobs and services is limited. The study concludes that the spatial mismatch hypothesis remains relevant and stresses the need for integrated urban planning policies that address job-housing balance, affordable housing, and improved transportation infrastructure. Policy recommendations include developing affordable housing near employment hubs, expanding public transport networks, creating local employment opportunities, and promoting mixed-use developments to reduce commuting burdens. Such policies are essential for mitigating the challenges of spatial mismatch and fostering equitable access to employment, housing, and services for low-income communities.

Keywords: Spatial Mismatch; Job Accessibility; Residential Segregation; Transportation Infrastructure; Low-Income Communities

INTRODUCTION

Job accessibility has long been a central concern in urban studies, particularly in relation to how geographical factors, such as residential segregation and the distribution of employment opportunities, shape access to jobs. This issue is closely tied to John Kain’s seminal spatial mismatch hypothesis, which argues that the spatial separation between low-income, minority neighborhoods in urban areas and growing employment centers in the suburbs creates significant barriers to employment access (Kain, 1968). In the context of contemporary metropolitan regions, this hypothesis continues to offer valuable insights into how individuals in segregated urban neighborhoods face challenges in accessing suburban job opportunities.

The expansion of suburban areas, combined with the concentration of affordable housing and lower-wage jobs in urban centers, has exacerbated this mismatch in many cities, particularly for minority groups who often live in these urban neighborhoods. As such, urban and suburban settings offer distinct challenges and opportunities when it comes to job accessibility, influenced by factors such as transportation infrastructure, socioeconomic status, and residential location. Modern challenges to the spatial mismatch hypothesis suggest that despite improvements in transportation and job market structures, significant disparities in job access remain. This study seeks to examine the level of job accessibility in both urban and suburban areas, focusing on how these geographic and socioeconomic factors continue to impact marginalized communities’ ability to access employment opportunities. By comparing urban and suburban contexts, the study aims to provide updated insights into the nature and persistence of employment barriers.

Understanding these disparities is crucial for developing policies aimed at improving employment outcomes for disadvantaged populations. The objective of this study is to examine the level of job accessibility in urban and suburban areas, with a focus on understanding how residential segregation and the geographic distribution of employment opportunities contribute to employment barriers. Specifically, the study aims to assess whether the spatial mismatch hypothesis holds true in contemporary urban and suburban contexts, analyzing how factors such as transportation infrastructure, socioeconomic status, and residential location influence individuals’ access to job opportunities in metropolitan areas. By comparing job accessibility in both urban and suburban settings, this study seeks to provide insights into the persistent challenges faced by marginalized communities in accessing employment opportunities. The findings will contribute to a deeper understanding of how geographic and social factors intersect to affect job accessibility in metropolitan areas today.

LITERATURE REVIEW

The issue of job accessibility in urban and suburban settings has been a focal point of research for decades, particularly due to its implications for economic mobility, employment equity, and social inclusion. The spatial mismatch hypothesis, which posits that job opportunities are often located far from residential areas inhabited by low-income and minority populations, continues to be a central framework for understanding employment barriers in metropolitan regions (Kain, 1968). Despite advancements in transportation infrastructure and socioeconomic policies, disparities in job accessibility remain a significant concern in both urban and suburban areas, particularly for marginalized communities.

Residential Segregation and Employment Accessibility

Residential segregation is a key factor influencing job accessibility. Historically, racial and economic segregation have shaped the geography of urban areas, creating distinct neighborhoods with differing levels of access to resources, including employment opportunities (Galster, 2012). This geographic concentration of poverty, often in urban areas, results in a mismatch between where people live and where jobs are located (Wilson, 2012). In suburban areas, rapid urban sprawl and the concentration of high-wage, white-collar jobs in suburban office parks have contributed to the “suburbanization of poverty,” where lower-income individuals, particularly minorities, are pushed into more affordable suburban housing but find themselves without adequate access to quality employment (Freeman, 2005).

Recent studies have shown that the residential location of low-income individuals still dictates their access to employment opportunities. For instance, a study by Currie and Walker (2019) found that individuals living in segregated neighborhoods, especially in urban areas, face significant barriers to job access due to the distance to employment centers and limited transportation options. Similarly, research by Holzer (2018) demonstrates that job accessibility in segregated urban neighborhoods remains constrained due to a lack of affordable public transit and the difficulty of commuting to suburban job centers.

The Role of Transportation Infrastructure

Transportation infrastructure is another crucial determinant of job accessibility. The ability of residents in urban and suburban areas to access employment is heavily influenced by the availability, affordability, and efficiency of transportation systems. While urban areas generally offer better public transportation networks, challenges such as overcrowded buses and subways, limited coverage in certain neighborhoods, and long commuting times persist, particularly for low-income populations (Chavez & Monkkonen, 2020). On the other hand, suburban areas often lack comprehensive public transit options, further exacerbating employment barriers for those without private vehicles (Smart et al., 2019).

Recent studies on transportation accessibility, such as those by Blumenberg and Pierce (2016), show that limited transit availability in suburban areas directly correlates with lower employment rates among marginalized groups, including racial minorities and lower-income workers. In contrast, urban areas with dense transit networks tend to offer better access to employment opportunities but still suffer from challenges related to traffic congestion, affordability, and longer commute times for lower-income workers (Ewing & Cervero, 2010).

Socioeconomic Status and Job Access

Socioeconomic status (SES) plays a critical role in determining job accessibility. High SES neighborhoods often provide residents with better access to quality jobs, either through proximity to employment hubs or through stronger networks that facilitate job search and placement (Stoll & Raphael, 2010). Conversely, individuals in low SES areas often face compounded challenges such as underemployment, lower job quality, and limited opportunities for upward mobility (Sharkey, 2013).

Recent data indicate that the economic benefits of job accessibility are unevenly distributed across urban and suburban regions, with residents in suburban areas sometimes experiencing better access to higher-paying employment due to proximity to wealthier employment hubs (Green & Henley, 2019). However, such benefits are not equally available to all demographic groups, particularly those from historically disadvantaged backgrounds.

Spatial Mismatch Hypothesis in Contemporary Contexts

The spatial mismatch hypothesis, though originating in the 1960s, remains relevant in contemporary research on urban and suburban employment accessibility. While earlier studies focused primarily on the relationship between central city housing and suburban employment, recent research has expanded this framework to consider factors like gentrification, shifts in the nature of work, and the increasing importance of service-sector jobs (O’Regan & Quigley, 2015). Studies by Atkinson (2016) and Charlier et al. (2020) suggest that the spatial mismatch hypothesis still holds true, with many low-income urban residents, particularly racial minorities, struggling to access jobs located in suburban areas due to transportation barriers and insufficient infrastructure.

Moreover, research by Talen (2018) demonstrates that spatial mismatches are not merely a reflection of geography but also of changing patterns of employment. The growth of remote work and flexible job opportunities in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic has further complicated the dynamics of job accessibility, offering new opportunities but also creating new challenges for workers who are unable to take advantage of these changes due to social and economic barriers (Brynjolfsson et al., 2020).

The literature on job accessibility in urban and suburban contexts reveals a complex interplay of factors that shape employment opportunities for marginalized communities. While the spatial mismatch hypothesis continues to provide a valuable framework for understanding these dynamics, contemporary research suggests that factors such as transportation, socioeconomic status, and residential segregation remain significant barriers to job access. Future research should focus on integrating emerging trends, such as remote work and digital divides, into the analysis of job accessibility. Additionally, the development of more equitable transportation systems and policies aimed at reducing residential segregation could play a key role in improving job access for marginalized communities.

METHODOLOGY

This study focuses on examining job accessibility in Penang Island, Malaysia (refer Figure 1), specifically investigating how residential segregation and the geographic distribution of employment opportunities contribute to employment barriers in urban and suburban areas. Penang Island, part of Penang state, consists of five primary districts, two of which, the Northeast and Southwest districts, are located on the island. The Northeast district is the urban core of Penang, housing the capital city, Georgetown, and serving as the primary economic and commercial hub of the state. In contrast, the Southwest district represents the suburban areas of Penang, characterized by a mix of residential neighborhoods and emerging commercial and industrial developments. Penang Island is not only the principal economic and urban hub of the state but also the location of the capital city, Georgetown, and a nexus for various sectors driving regional development. The island has undergone significant urbanization since the founding of Georgetown in 1786, which eventually spread to the Southwest district (Geo Spatial Consultants Sdn. Bhd., 2000). Over time, land use in this region transformed from agricultural to mixed-use developments, including industrial zones and residential neighborhoods, a process that continues to shape the socioeconomic landscape (Ngah et al., 2015).

Fig. 1 Map of Northeast and Southwest Districts, Penang, Malaysia

Data Collection and Sampling

A quantitative research approach was used to gather data through a structured questionnaire. A total of 306 respondents were selected from low-income households in Penang Island, defined as households with monthly incomes below MYR 5249 (USD 1120.50), based on the eKasih Penang State Welfare Assistance Programme list from 2016. This list identified 1546 low-income households on the island. Given the population of 1546 households, the study utilized the Morgan Table to determine an appropriate sample size, which yielded a sample of 306 respondents (refer Table 1). This sample size was chosen to ensure that the data collected would adequately represent the population of low-income households on Penang Island.

Table 1 Morgan Sampling Table

Quantitative Approach

The questionnaire was designed to collect data on respondents’ demographic characteristics, residential location, employment status, and accessibility to job opportunities. Data collected were analyzed using SPSS (Statistical Package for the Social Sciences) software. Descriptive statistical analysis was employed to summarize and describe the basic features of the collected data, including frequencies, means, and standard deviations. Additionally, cross-tabulation was used to examine the relationships between variables, such as demographic factors (e.g., age, income level) and job accessibility indicators (e.g., transportation options, commute time).

Data Analysis Techniques

For the quantitative data analysis, SPSS was utilized to perform descriptive statistics and cross-tabulation analysis. These methods allowed for a clear presentation of the relationships between demographic variables and job accessibility outcomes. Descriptive statistics facilitated the summarization of the sample’s characteristics, while cross-tabulation enabled the exploration of patterns in job access across different urban and suburban settings.

Theoretical Framework of the Study

This study is grounded in spatial mismatch theory, which has become increasingly prominent in understanding how geographic and social factors influence access to employment opportunities. The theoretical framework is presented in Figure 2. Spatial mismatch theory explains the disconnection between where people live and where jobs are located, particularly in suburban areas. It highlights the barriers that prevent residents of suburban communities from accessing jobs in urban centers, such as inadequate transportation, mismatched skill sets, and limited access to job information. These barriers are significant because they limit opportunities for economic advancement, contributing to persistent poverty and hindering socio-economic mobility.

The focus of this study is to explore the impact of spatial mismatch on job accessibility in both urban and suburban settings. The study identifies several key factors such as residential location, commuting modes, and accessibility that influence how individuals make decisions about where to live and how to commute. These factors have been previously examined in the same respondent group, providing a robust foundation for evaluating job accessibility in two distinct districts: the Northeast district (primarily urban) and the Southwest district (primarily suburban). By comparing these areas, the study aims to assess how spatial mismatch plays out in different types of communities.

Recent studies suggest that low-income individuals are increasingly moving to suburban areas due to rising housing costs in urban centers. However, this shift often requires long commutes to jobs in the city, resulting in various challenges. These include traffic congestion, higher commuting expenses, less time for personal activities and family life, and negative health outcomes associated with prolonged commuting. These factors exacerbate the difficulties faced by low-income populations and negatively affect their quality of life. Therefore, this study seeks to evaluate employment accessibility for low-income groups, comparing urban and suburban contexts to better understand the complexities of spatial mismatch and its effects on disadvantaged communities.

Fig. 2 Theoretical Framework of the Study

FINDINGS AND DISCUSSION

The demographic characteristics of the study participants, as summarized in Table 2, provide key insights into the sample population. Of the 306 respondents, a significant 67.97% are male, indicating a male-dominated sample. In terms of age distribution, the largest group—52.61%—falls within the 18 to 28 age range, followed by 27.78% of respondents aged 29 to 38 years. A smaller proportion of 12.09% are between 39 to 48 years old, while 5.56% are in the 49 to 58-year range, and only 1.96% of respondents are aged 59 to 68 years. Ethnically, the majority of respondents are Malay, accounting for 83.66% of the sample. The Indian ethnic group represents 11.44% of the respondents, while the Chinese ethnic group makes up 4.9%. Regarding marital status, most respondents (57.52%) are currently married, followed by 37.25% who are unmarried. A smaller percentage (5.25%) includes divorced, widowed, or widower participants. The study exclusively focuses on low-income individuals, with 91.83% of respondents coming from households earning less than 2500 MYR (approximately USD 537.40) per month. This demographic profile emphasizes the low-income context of the study population, reflecting their economic and social circumstances.

Table 2 Demographic Characteristics

The study on job accessibility in the Northeast and Southwest districts focuses on various factors affecting commuting patterns, transportation choices, housing types, and urban accessibility (refer Table 3).

Predominant Mode of Transportation: Motorbikes

In both the Northeast and Southwest districts, the motorbike is the most commonly used mode of transport for commuting to work. The preference for motorbikes is linked to several factors: their relatively low maintenance costs, high maneuverability, and ability to navigate through congested areas. The motorbike is also known for its higher average travel speed and longer travel distance capabilities, especially when compared to other vehicles such as cars (Tzeng & Chen, 1998). This mode of transportation allows for a faster commute with fewer stops, which is a significant advantage even in traffic-prone areas (Wigan, 2002). As noted by Mirbaha and Mohajeri (2019), motorcycles offer superior flexibility in urban traffic conditions and are more cost-effective than cars.

In addition to these technical advantages, socio-economic factors play a role in the adoption of motorbikes. For instance, a study by Risdiyanto (2022) in Yogyakarta found that residents living further from city centers preferred motorcycles due to the greater distances involved and the lack of efficient public transportation options. This preference is echoed by findings from this study, where 42.81% of respondents in the Southwest district, which is more suburban in nature, use motorcycles for their daily commutes.

Housing Types and Job Accessibility

Housing type is another significant factor influencing job accessibility. The study finds that the type of housing, such as low-cost flats or detached houses, influences not only residential preferences but also accessibility to work. The relationship between housing types and accessibility to urban areas has been well-documented in urban studies. Ulman (2020) suggests that housing types are often correlated with socio-demographic factors, which, in turn, affect commuting patterns and access to employment opportunities. Additionally, Bowes and Ihlanfeldt (2001) have shown that housing prices and residential location are heavily influenced by proximity to transit, particularly railway stations, with low-income neighborhoods experiencing a greater impact from accessibility than high-income areas.

The findings of the study support these observations. In the Northeast district, characterized by higher property values, 21.57% of respondents live in low-cost flats, while in the Southwest district, 30.39% of respondents live in detached houses. This suggests that the central area, with its higher property values, provides more expensive housing options, which may affect access to the urban job market differently than in the suburban areas.

Distance from City Center

The distance from respondents’ residences to the city center was analyzed to assess how proximity affects job accessibility. Proximity to the city center has been shown to be a key determinant of land value, with areas closer to the city center generally having higher land and property values (Efthymiou & Antoniou, 2013). The study revealed that 19.28% of respondents in the Northeast district live 6.0 to 10.0 km from the city center, while in the Southwest district, 25.82% live between 20.0 and 30.0 km from the center. This supports the argument that people living closer to urban cores tend to have better access to jobs, services, and other amenities, thus reducing their commuting times (Naess & Sandberg, 1996).

The concept of “compact cities,” which promotes higher urban density and improved public transportation, has been shown to reduce dependence on personal cars, increase walking, and encourage greater access to jobs (Giddings & Rogerson, 2021). The findings in the study suggest that residents in more suburban areas, such as the Southwest district, experience longer commutes and greater travel distances to access urban services.

Supermarket Accessibility and Food Security

The study highlights supermarket accessibility as a significant factor affecting residents’ quality of life. Supermarkets offer access to healthier and more affordable food options, and their proximity to residential areas is essential for food security. Neumeier and Kokorsch (2021) discuss the concept of “food deserts,” where lower-income and minority populations often have reduced access to supermarkets, resulting in poor dietary outcomes. This study found that 22.55% of respondents in the Northeast district live within 0.5 to 5.0 km of a supermarket, whereas 23.20% in the Southwest district live between 11.0 and 20.0 km from a supermarket. This indicates a disparity in food access, with those living in the urban core having better access to supermarkets compared to those in suburban areas.

Impact of Job-Housing Balance on Commuting Time

The concept of job-housing balance refers to the equilibrium between housing and employment opportunities, which can significantly influence commuting times and patterns. Zhao et al. (2009) argue that the mismatch between housing and employment locations, known as “excess commutes,” can lead to longer travel times and inefficient transportation systems. The study found that most respondents in the Northeast district commute less than 15.0 km to their workplace, while in the Southwest district, most respondents travel between 16.0 and 30.0 km. This reflects the imbalance in job-housing proximity, with suburban residents facing longer commutes and consequently, higher levels of traffic congestion and longer commuting times.

Table 3 Factors of Job Accessibility

Indication:

VT    – Vehicle Type

HT    – Housing Type

DCC – Distance to City Centre

DS     – Distance to Supermarkets

DW   – Distance to Workplace

TC    – Time Taken for Commuting from Home to the Workplace

Spatial mismatch theory posits that the geographic separation between residential areas and employment opportunities can adversely affect employment outcomes, particularly for disadvantaged populations. This theory emphasizes that individuals residing in urban areas often experience greater challenges accessing job opportunities due to the distance between their homes and available employment centers (Kain, 2023). In this study, the Northeast district represents urban areas, while the Southwest district represents suburban areas. The reported percentages, 26.80% for the Northeast district and 17.97% for the Southwest district, are likely refer to the proportion of individuals whose homes are located less than 15.0 km from their workplaces (refer Fig. 3). These figures suggest that the urban residents in the Southwest district face greater spatial proximity barriers to employment compared to suburban residents in the Northeast district, who are generally located closer to employment hubs (McQuarrie & McLaughlin, 2024). Moreover, recent studies emphasize the intersectionality of spatial mismatch with factors such as public transportation availability and housing affordability, which disproportionately affect disadvantaged urban populations (Kaufman & Siu, 2024). This spatial divide, though slightly reduced by advancements in transportation networks, continues to affect employment access, particularly in economically segregated regions (Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2024).

Fig. 3 Distance between Home and Workplace

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, the findings from this study support and expand upon the theory of spatial mismatch, which posits that there is a disconnection between where low-income individuals live and where employment opportunities are located. The demographic profile of the study respondents, primarily low-income individuals, highlights the relevance of this theory in the context of urban job accessibility. A significant portion of respondents, particularly in the more suburban Southwest district, experience longer commute times due to the geographic separation between residential areas and employment centers. This is further reflected in the preference for motorbikes as the predominant mode of transportation, as respondents seek cost-effective and flexible commuting options in the face of spatial barriers.

Additionally, the study’s findings on housing types, job accessibility, and supermarket proximity emphasize how socio-economic factors, including low housing affordability in more urbanized areas, exacerbate the challenges of spatial mismatch. The study also aligns with the idea that distance from the city center plays a critical role in access to employment and services. As seen in the higher commuting distances for respondents in the Southwest district, suburban residents experience a disadvantage when it comes to both job accessibility and food security, with longer distances to supermarkets further compounding the issue.

Lastly, the concept of job-housing balance is underscored by the data showing that respondents in suburban districts endure longer travel times due to the imbalance between housing and employment locations. This finding mirrors the theory of spatial mismatch, suggesting that those living in suburban areas with fewer job opportunities face a greater economic burden in terms of both time and money spent on commuting. Ultimately, the study confirms that addressing spatial mismatch requires more than just transportation improvements; it necessitates a comprehensive approach that integrates housing, employment, and urban planning policies to reduce the burdens faced by low-income populations.

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of this study and its alignment with the theory of spatial mismatch, several policy interventions are recommended to mitigate the challenges faced by low-income individuals in accessing jobs, housing, and essential services.

To address the disconnection between residential areas and employment opportunities, policies should prioritize the development of affordable housing near key employment centers. Expanding low-cost housing options in urban and suburban areas, particularly in or near job hubs, would reduce commuting distances and enhance access to both jobs and essential services. Incentives for private developers to build mixed-income housing close to transportation infrastructure can also help bridge the housing-accessibility gap.

While the preference for motorbikes is reflective of socio-economic constraints, expanding and improving public transportation options is crucial. This includes enhancing connectivity between suburban areas and urban job centers, with an emphasis on affordable and reliable public transport options. Building efficient bus and train networks that cater to low-income populations could reduce the reliance on personal vehicles and motorbikes, thereby decreasing commuting costs and time burdens.

To reduce the imbalance in job-housing proximity, local governments should invest in creating employment opportunities in suburban and underserved areas. This could be achieved through targeted economic development programs that incentivize businesses to set up operations in these regions, focusing on industries that can provide stable and well-paying jobs. Furthermore, promoting telecommuting or remote work opportunities could offer a long-term solution to spatial mismatch by reducing the necessity for daily commuting.

The study highlights the disparity in supermarket access between urban and suburban residents. Policymakers should implement programs to encourage the establishment of supermarkets and grocery stores in suburban areas, especially those with high concentrations of low-income populations. This could be facilitated through tax incentives or subsidies for retailers who open stores in these areas, ultimately improving food security and quality of life for suburban residents.

To ensure sustainable urban development, future urban planning should prioritize a balanced approach to housing, employment, and transportation. Policies should promote the integration of residential, commercial, and industrial zones to reduce the distance between where people live and work. This could involve revising zoning laws to allow for more mixed-use developments that combine housing, employment, and services in a single location, thus fostering compact, transit-oriented communities.

While motorbikes serve as a practical solution for many low-income workers, the promotion of alternative, more sustainable modes of transportation is necessary. Policies should encourage the use of bicycles and walking, particularly in suburban areas, through the development of dedicated bike lanes, pedestrian-friendly infrastructure, and safe urban spaces. In parallel, car-sharing programs and ride-sharing services could be supported to provide low-cost, flexible transportation options for those without access to personal vehicles.

In addition to physical infrastructure, local governments should invest in community-based support programs that offer transportation subsidies, job placement services, and skills training to help low-income group’s better access employment opportunities. Providing resources for improving access to education and training programs will enable individuals to transition into higher-paying jobs, which could reduce the dependence on commuting long distances to access work.

By implementing these policy recommendations, urban and suburban areas can create a more equitable environment for low-income populations, ensuring better access to employment, housing, and services. Ultimately, addressing spatial mismatch requires a multi-faceted approach that combines urban planning, transportation reform, economic development, and social support to foster inclusive and sustainable communities.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The authors would like to acknowledge funding by the Ministry of Higher Education, Malaysia through the Fundamental    Research         Grant   Scheme (FRGS/1/2022/SS07/USM/01/3) titled ACCESS – Equitable and Accessibility Framework for Transport and Landuse Planning in Pulau Pinang.

REFERENCES

1. Atkinson, R. (2016). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: A reassessment and its application to contemporary urban and suburban contexts. Urban Studies, 53(5), 987–1003. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014562005
2. Blumenberg, E., & Pierce, G. (2016). Transport disadvantage and employment outcomes: The role of transportation in job accessibility. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 87, 262–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2016.02.008
3. Bowes, D. R., & Ihlanfeldt, K. R. (2001). Identifying the impacts of rail stations on property values. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(1), 1–25. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2222
4. Brynjolfsson, E., & McAfee, A. (2020). The second machine age: Work, progress, and prosperity in a time of brilliant technologies. W.W. Norton & Company.
5. Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2024). Geographic barriers and employment outcomes: The role of transportation and housing access. U.S. Department of Labor.
6. Charlier, N., Boussauw, K., & Van Hirtum, A. (2020). Revisiting the spatial mismatch hypothesis: Job accessibility and the metropolitan divide in contemporary settings. Journal of Urban Affairs, 42(6), 848–867. https://doi.org/10.1080/07352166.2019.1612714
7. Case study of Los Angeles. Journal of Transport Geography, 79, 102474. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102474
8. Currie, J., & Walker, R. (2019). The effects of job accessibility on employment: Evidence from a large metropolitan area. Labour Economics, 58, 151–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.labeco.2019.01.004
9. Efthymiou, D., & Antoniou, C. (2013). Modelling land value as a function of accessibility to the city center. Transport Policy, 28, 12–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2012.08.011
10. Ewing, R., & Cervero, R. (2010). Travel and the built environment: A meta-analysis. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 265–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944361003766766
11. Freeman, L. (2005). Displacement or succession? Residential mobility in gentrifying neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 40(4), 463–490. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087404270977
12. Galster, G. C. (2012). The geography of opportunity: Race and housing choice in metropolitan America. Brookings Institution Press.
13. Giddings, B., & Rogerson, R. (2021). Compact cities and sustainable urban mobility: Evidence from urban theory and practice. Urban Studies, 58(7), 1375–1393. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098020985041
14. Green, A. E., & Henley, A. (2019). Job accessibility in suburban and urban areas: The role of employment decentralization and public policy. Urban Studies, 56(4), 789–804. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098018761701
15. Hamilton, B. W., & Röell, A. A. (1982). Waste commutes and the economics of transportation. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 16(2), 163–173.
16. Holzer, H. J. (2018). The labor market and public policy: Employment barriers for the disadvantaged in the metropolitan U.S. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 37(2), 421–448. https://doi.org/10.1002/pam.22068
17. Kain, J. F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan decentralization. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 82(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.2307/1884365
18. Kain, J. F. (2023). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: A theoretical review and policy implications. Urban Studies Review, 15(4), 451-469. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.urbstud.2023.03.007
19. Kaufman, D. B., & Siu, A. J. (2024). The spatial mismatch and the new landscape of remote work. Journal of Urban Economics, 79(1), 112-134. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2023.10.001
20. Lucas, K. (2018). Transport poverty and the spatial mismatch hypothesis: A review of the current evidence. Transport Policy, 64, 69–78. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2018.02.009
21. McQuarrie, M., & McLaughlin, D. (2024). Spatial mismatch and economic inequality in suburbanization. Journal of Regional Science, 64(2), 240-259. https://doi.org/10.1111/jors.12610
22. Mirbaha, M., & Mohajeri, N. (2019). The impact of motorcycle use on urban mobility: A case study of Tehran. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 128, 63–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.06.009
23. Naess, P., & Sandberg, S. (1996). Sustainable urban development and compact cities. European Planning Studies, 4(3), 275–294. https://doi.org/10.1080/09654319608720529
24. Neumeier, F., & Kokorsch, M. (2021). Food deserts and spatial access to nutritious food: Implications for urban and rural sustainability. Sustainability, 13(15), 8354. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13158354
25. Ngah, M. A., Hanafiah, M. H., & Mohd Yusof, Z. (2015). Suburbanization and its impacts on land use in Penang: An overview. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, 141(3), 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)UP.1943-5444.0000209
26. O’Regan, K., & Quigley, J. M. (2015). Spatial mismatch or housing market segmentation? A further look at employment accessibility in metropolitan areas. Urban Studies, 52(10), 1905–1924. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098014549229
27. Risdiyanto, A. (2022). Commuting behavior and transportation choices in Yogyakarta, Indonesia. Urban Transport, 24(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.utrans.2021.09.003
28. Sandelowski, M. (2010). What’s in a name? Qualitative description revisited. Research in Nursing & Health, 33(1), 77–84. https://doi.org/10.1002/nur.20362
29. Seaman, P., & Singh, R. (2018). Methods in quantitative and qualitative research: An overview for social researchers. Sage Publications.
30. Sharkey, P. (2013). Stuck in place: Urban neighborhoods and the end of progress toward racial equality. University of Chicago Press.
31. Smart, M. J., Klein, N., & Hensher, D. A. (2019). Public transport and job accessibility in suburban and urban regions: A comparative analysis. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 130, 312–325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2019.09.014
32. Song, Y., & Sohn, J. (2007). The value of spatial accessibility to retailing: Evidence from the Buffalo-Niagara and Seattle areas. Journal of Retailing, 83(4), 467–481. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2007.04.002
33. Stoll, M. A., & Raphael, S. (2010). The geographic mismatch between jobs and workers in metropolitan America. Urban Studies, 47(1), 47–72. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098009354197
34. Talen, E. (2018). The spatial mismatch hypothesis in the age of remote work and gig economies. Urban Planning, 3(3), 99–114. https://doi.org/10.17645/up.v3i3.1324
35. Tzeng, G. H., & Chen, Y. C. (1998). A hybrid model for travel mode choice decision-making: A case study. Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, 32(5), 319–334. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0965-8564(97)00074-9
36. Turner, M. A., & Rao, A. (2019). Explaining the spatial mismatch hypothesis: Why it still matters for low-income workers in the 21st century. Urban Affairs Review, 55(6), 1685–1717. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418800701
37. Ulman, A. (2020). Housing type and its influence on urban accessibility: A global perspective. Urban Planning Review, 45(3), 240–256. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.upr.2020.02.008
38. Wigan, M. (2002). Motorcycle transport: Emission and energy consumption comparison with cars. Transport Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 7(5), 385–391. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1361-9209(02)00027-3
39. Wilson, W. J. (2012). The truly disadvantaged: The inner city, the underclass, and public policy. University of Chicago Press.
40. Yin, R. K. (2018). Case study research and applications: Design and methods (6th ed.). Sage Publications.
41. Zhao, P., Chen, Z., & Wang, Y. (2009). Job-housing balance and commuting time: Evidence from Shanghai, China. Transport Policy, 16(2), 86–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tranpol.2009.02.007