Report on Urban Segregation in Greater Boston: An SDG Perspective

Executive Summary

A report by Boston Indicators details shifting patterns of residential segregation in the Greater Boston area. The findings indicate progress in racial integration but a significant regression in economic segregation. These trends present critical challenges to the region’s advancement toward key United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities) and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Economic Segregation: A Challenge to SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities)

The report’s primary finding is the intensification of economic segregation, which directly contravenes the core principles of SDG 10. This trend is characterized by a growing concentration of wealth and a widening gap between income groups.

• The clustering of households by similar income levels has risen from 32% in 1980 to 43% today.
• This trend is driven by the increasing number of high-income households clustering together, which limits socio-economic interaction and reinforces inequality.

Analysis of Income Disparity

The data reveals a stark income divide, highlighting a failure to ensure equitable distribution of economic prosperity as outlined in SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth) and SDG 10.

1. The top 20% of earners in the region have an average income of nearly $400,000, which is more than 19 times the average income of the bottom 20% (under $21,000).
2. The income gap is even more pronounced at the highest level, with the top 5% earning nearly $700,000.
3. The region’s middle class is shrinking, indicating an economic polarization that undermines sustainable and inclusive growth.

Racial and Ethnic Integration: Mixed Progress Toward SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities)

The goal of creating inclusive, safe, and resilient human settlements (SDG 11) has seen mixed results. While some progress has been made in racial integration, new challenges have emerged.

Key Integration Trends

• Positive Developments: Residential segregation between white and Black communities, as well as between white and Asian communities, has declined since 1980.
• Negative Developments: Segregation between white and Latino residents has increased during the same period.
• Increased Isolation: The proportion of Asian and Latino residents living in isolated communities has grown significantly, which can impede access to diverse resources and opportunities.

Policy Implications for the 2030 Agenda

The report underscores that residential segregation patterns have profound implications for achieving a sustainable and equitable urban future. The clustering of specific racial or income groups becomes problematic when it leads to systemic disadvantages.

• The persistence of segregation, whether caused by policy or personal choice, can lead to unequal access to essential public goods such as quality education, transportation, and healthcare.
• This unequal access directly undermines the targets of SDG 11, which call for universal access to basic services, and SDG 10, which aims to reduce inequality of outcome.
• Policies such as restrictive zoning can exacerbate these trends, forcing groups into clusters with fewer resources and reinforcing systemic disparities. Further analysis is required to develop policies that promote genuinely diverse and equitable communities.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The article’s central theme is the growing economic segregation and persistent racial segregation in Boston, which are core issues of inequality within a society.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The discussion revolves around residential patterns, segregation within a major metropolitan area, and the resulting unequal access to public goods and services, which directly relates to creating inclusive and sustainable cities.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities

  • Target 10.1: By 2030, progressively achieve and sustain income growth of the bottom 40 per cent of the population at a rate higher than the national average. The article highlights a significant challenge to this target by stating that the top 20% of earners in Boston make “more than 19 times the income of the bottom 20%.” This vast income gap indicates that the income of the bottom percentile is not growing sustainably.
  • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article directly addresses this by reporting on worsening economic segregation, where “higher- and lower-income households are less likely to interact today than they were more than four decades ago.” It also notes that while some forms of racial segregation are declining, “dissimilarity between white and Latino residents has grown,” and the isolation of Asian and Latino residents has “increased significantly,” indicating persistent challenges to social and economic inclusion.
  • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The article implies a connection to this target by mentioning that segregation becomes problematic “when policies such as restrictive zoning force groups to cluster, and when those clusters have unequal access to public goods, like quality education, transportation, and health care.” This points to policies that create and reinforce inequalities of outcome.

• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

  • Target 11.3: By 2030, enhance inclusive and sustainable urbanization and capacity for participatory, integrated and sustainable human settlement planning and management in all countries. The report’s findings that “43% of these households now cluster among others with similar incomes — up from 32% in 1980” demonstrates a trend away from inclusive and integrated human settlement, pointing to a failure in sustainable urbanization planning.
  • Target 11.7: By 2030, provide universal access to safe, inclusive and accessible, green and public spaces. The article connects to this target by highlighting that residential clustering leads to “unequal access to public goods, like quality education, transportation, and health care,” which are essential components of an inclusive and accessible city.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Indicators for SDG 10

  • Racial Income Segregation Index: The article explicitly cites this index, stating it rose from 32% in 1980 to 43% today. This directly measures the extent of economic segregation and can track progress towards Target 10.2.
  • Income Ratio (Top 20% vs. Bottom 20%): The article provides a clear indicator of income inequality by stating the top 20% of earners make “more than 19 times the income of the bottom 20%.” This metric can be used to monitor progress on Target 10.1.
  • Dissimilarity Index: This is used in the article to “estimate the share of one group that would need to move to match the residential distribution of another.” It is a specific indicator of racial segregation and inclusion, relevant to Target 10.2.
  • Racial Isolation Measurement: The article mentions that “the share of Asian and Latino residents living in isolation has increased significantly,” implying a metric for measuring the isolation of specific racial groups, which is relevant for tracking social inclusion under Target 10.2.

• Indicators for SDG 11

  • Percentage of Households Clustered by Income: The statistic that “43% of these households now cluster among others with similar incomes” serves as a direct indicator of the lack of inclusive human settlement, relevant to Target 11.3.
  • Access to Public Goods and Services: While not quantified, the article’s reference to “unequal access to public goods, like quality education, transportation, and health care” based on residential location implies that tracking access to these services by neighborhood or demographic group would be a key indicator for Target 11.7.

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: boston.com