1090301

research-article2022
SRDXXX10.1177/23780231221090301SociusRhubart et al.

Original Article Socius: Sociological Research for

a Dynamic World
Volume 8: 1­–11
Sociospatial Disparities in “Third Place” © The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:

Availability in the United States sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/23780231221090301
https://doi.org/10.1177/23780231221090301
srd.sagepub.com

Danielle Rhubart1 , Yue Sun2, Claire Pendergrast2,

and Shannon Monnat2

Abstract
Tertiary to home and work, “third places” serve as opportunity structures that transmit information and facilitate social
capital and upward mobility. However, third places may be inequitably distributed, thereby exacerbating disparities in
social capital and mobility. The authors use tract-level data from the National Neighborhood Data Archive to examine
the distribution of third places across the United States. There were significant disparities in the availability of third
places. Higher poverty rates were associated with fewer third places. Tracts with the smallest shares of Black and
Hispanic populations had comparatively more third places. However, this racial disadvantage was not linear, suggesting
potential buffering effects in places with the largest shares of Black and Hispanic populations. There was also a rural
disadvantage, except in the most isolated rural tracts. This study demonstrates the value of conceptualizing and
measuring third places to understand sociospatial disparities in the availability of these understudied opportunity
structures.

Keywords
third places, social mobility, racial/ethnic disparities, socioeconomic disparities

The United States has remarkably high levels of racial/eth- In this article, we build on work by Galster and Sharkey
nic, socioeconomic, and geographic inequality in access to (2017) arguing that spatial opportunity structures create and
social capital and upward mobility (Murray et al. 2006; perpetuate inequality because they provide the tools or attri-
Smeeding 2005). Sociologists have long implicated place- butes for social mobility but are not available equitably
level factors in contributing to these inequalities (Entwisle across disparate sociospatial contexts. We also build on pre-
2007; Galster and Sharkey 2017; Lobao, Hooks, and vious work showing that third places act as spatial opportu-
Tickamyer 2007). This has included understanding how third nity structures (e.g., Stenstrom et al. 2019; Small 2006;
places—the physical locations outside the home or work- Walton 2014). We use tract-level data from the National
place that provide opportunities for social interaction and Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA) to examine the distri-
social support (Finlay et al. 2019; Oldenburg 1999)—shape bution of third places in the United States. Our analyses iden-
opportunity (Hickman 2013). Although third places have the tify census tract–level rural-urban continuum status and
capacity to support individual and community-level well- racial/ethnic and SES composition differences in the distri-
being and social opportunity (Cabras and Mount 2017; bution of five specific types of third places: (1) free and pub-
Stenstrom, Cole, and Hanson 2019), little research has exam- licly available third places; (2) organizations that provide
ined the distribution of third places in the United States. social assistance, including child and youth services, services
Moreover, the existing research on third places focuses for older adults and persons with disabilities, community
almost exclusively on urban contexts, with very little atten- food services, child care centers, emergency and other relief
tion to the distribution of third places in rural communities
(Klinenberg 2018; Small and McDermott 2006). Because 1
The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA
third places may offer resources and social supports that 2
Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA
facilitate social mobility, disparities in their availability risk
perpetuating or exacerbating existing social cleavages. Corresponding Author:
Danielle Rhubart, The Pennsylvania State University, Department of
Therefore, it is important to determine if third place avail- Biobehavioral Health, Biobehavioral Health Building, University Park, PA
ability varies by rurality and by neighborhood racial/ethnic 16802, USA
or socioeconomic status (SES) composition. Email: dcr185@psu.edu

Creative Commons Non Commercial CC BY-NC: This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-
NonCommercial 4.0 License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and
distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages
(https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
2 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 

services, and vocational rehabilitation services; (3) low-cost networks, opportunities, and other participants/service recipi-
commercial, including coffee shops, bars, and fast food res- ents (Small, Jacobs, and Peeples Massengill 2008).
taurants; (4) creative, athletic and entertainment, including The three remaining third place types all fall under the
spectator sports, fitness and recreation, bowling alleys, umbrella of commercial spaces where goods and services are
museums, and performance art; and (5) personal services, typically purchased. Low-cost commercial establishments
including salons and barbershops. where people share a drink or a meal are a ubiquitous type of
This research makes two substantial contributions to the third place, with distinct social benefits for different age
literature. First, we propose a conceptual organization of groups, geographies, and income levels (Cabras and Mount
third place types. Second, we use census tract–level data on 2017; Rosenbaum et al. 2007). Creative, athletic, or enter-
these third place types to identify racial/ethnic, socioeco- tainment third places provide opportunities for social con-
nomic, and rural-urban disparities in third place availability nection over creative activities and performances (Slater and
across the United States. This is a substantial advancement Koo 2010) or through observing and participating in sporting
on prior studies that relied on a limited scope of third places, events (Melnick 2016). Finally, personal services, including
urbancentric case studies, or county-level data. barbershops and salons, enable relationship building and the
dissemination of information (Anderson, Cimbal, and Maile
2010; Mills 2013). Our analyses consider all five types.
Third Places
Tertiary to home (first place) and work (second place), Third Places as Spatial Opportunity
“third places” such as coffee shops, bookstores, salons, bars,
libraries, civic associations, and religious organizations pro-
Structures for Social Mobility
vide physical spaces where friends, neighbors, and strangers Galster and Sharkey (2017) argued that spatial opportunity
can gather regularly, happily, and on common ground structures provide the tools or attributes for social mobility
(Oldenburg 1999). The broad definition of third places (also but are not equitably available across sociospatial contexts.
known as a type of social infrastructure) encompasses a They defined spatial opportunity structure as the compilation
diverse range of organizations and institutions that serve the of “natural and human-made systems that have a geographic
characteristic purpose of affording sociality in local envi- connection and play important roles in people’s socioeco-
ronments (Latham and Layton 2019). Although there is no nomic status achievements” (p. 7). The spatial opportunity
formal typology of third places in the literature, two key structures of local environments enable sharing attributes
distinctions in third place purpose and function are worth that accumulate over time into a “bundle” that can provide
noting: the requirement of payment for access to places and pathways for social mobility and ultimately facilitate well-
the type of activities and services supported by a place. being (Galster and Sharkey 2017). Third places can help
These two distinctions may have implications for who uses people acquire attributes that can subsequently shape SES.
third places and how third places affect individual and com- However, it is not known if third places are equitably avail-
munity outcomes (Finlay et al. 2019). The diversity of third able across different sociospatial contexts. In this section, we
place form and function, and the potential for racial/ethnic, briefly review the evidence on how third places yield attri-
socioeconomic, and rural-urban variation in availability, butes that individuals can accumulate over time to improve
access, and use of specific types of third places, suggests SES. We then discuss the rationale for examining the socio-
that they should not be conceptualized as homogenous but spatial distribution of third places.
instead as a set of types. On the basis of the literature, we Third places connect people to networks of social capital,
propose five types of third places. support, resources, and information that may lead to eco-
The first type is free and publicly available third places, nomic opportunities, professional connections, or support
including libraries, religious organizations, and civic associa- accessing services and benefits, particularly among histori-
tions. These third places are free to access and provide public cally marginalized and disadvantaged groups (Small 2006;
good. Libraries have been found to support socialization and Walton 2014). For example, libraries connect individuals to a
facilitate social capital through educational programming, range of resources and information, including job search sup-
public talks, social gatherings, and community group meet- port, learning materials, and literacy development (Stenstrom
ings (Klinenberg 2018; Stenstrom et al. 2019). Religious et al. 2019). Libraries, recreational facilities, and social ser-
organizations also provide space and programming to support vices can also facilitate social capital, particularly for low-
social connection and support (Small and Gose 2020). income populations as individuals connect with resources and
Community centers, other civic organizations, and senior wider networks of support and relationships (Aabø 2009;
centers also shape community cohesion and social opportuni- Curley 2010). Similarly, routine organizations such as
ties (Colistra, Bixler, and Schmalz 2019). Social service orga- churches and childcare centers facilitate social connections
nizations are a second type of third place that typically have for low-income populations that lead to information, services,
no cost associated with them but are focused primarily on and material goods (Small and Gose 2020). Social capital
promoting resources, opportunities, and social networks by stemming from third places can also yield community-level
connecting individuals with service providers, organizational benefits, such as facilitating community-scale entrepreneurial
Rhubart et al. 3

activity or producing social connections that spur local eco- third places (e.g., civic and social organizations, bowling
nomic development (Cabras and Mount 2017; Sharp et al. alleys) are more likely to be located in counties with higher
2002). The perceived quality of third places, along with other income levels (Rupasingha, Goetz, and Freshwater 2000).
local services, can play a role in whether people want to Prior research has shown that place-level financial hardship is
remain in their communities. Accordingly, a lack of third associated with disinvestment in the arts and recreation (Scott
places can reduce community well-being and sustainability 2013). Conversely, previous research on 331 U.S. metropoli-
(Erickson, Call, and Brown 2012). tan areas showed that there were slightly more commercial
establishments1 in higher poverty metro areas (Small and
McDermott 2006). Research encompassing the entire United
Sociospatial Disparities in Third Place Access States found no association between poverty and availability
Historical and contemporary processes of racial and eco- of fast food restaurants (James et al. 2014). Although findings
nomic segregation and urbanization have fundamentally vary by geography and type of establishments, we hypothe-
altered the distribution of schools, employment opportuni- size that the types of third places that are predominantly profit
ties, environmental hazards, and exposure to violence driven or require substantial initial private investment, such
(Galster and Sharkey 2017). It is possible that these same as low-cost commercial establishments, personal services,
processes have also shaped the distribution of third places. and creative, athletic, and entertainment third places are less
We briefly review the literature and knowledge gaps on the prevalent in high-poverty neighborhoods.
distribution of third places by rural-urban status and racial/
ethnic and socioeconomic composition. Racial/Ethnic Composition. Third places play important roles
in social mobility for historically marginalized racial/ethnic
Rural-Urban Status Variation in Third Places. Existing research groups. For example, Black barber shops can serve as spaces
has provided important insights about the role third places for social connection and entrepreneurial opportunity (Mills
play in maintaining community cohesion and promoting 2013). Higher densities of churches and civic organizations
overall well-being in urban areas of the United States are associated with lower homicide rates among Blacks (Lee
(Latham and Layton 2019; Mouratidis 2018) as well as in and Ousey 2005). Businesses and civic organizations in pre-
rural communities outside the United States (Cabras and dominantly Black and predominantly Hispanic neighbor-
Mount 2017; Mair 2009). We build on this literature by con- hoods can also help mediate the effects of natural and public
sidering rural-urban disparities in third place availability in health disasters (e.g., Finucane et al. 2020; Klinenberg
the United States. Access to third places may be especially 2002). Yet given the history of racist policies and institu-
important for social and economic life in rural communities tions in the United States, including redlining, blockbusting,
(Cabras and Mount 2017; Flaherty and Miller 2016; Mair and disinvestment (Adelman and Gocker 2007; Lichter
2009). Shaped by broader global and national processes et al. 2007a; Lichter et al. 2007b), neighborhoods with larger
(e.g., deindustrialization, automation, and urbanization), shares of racial/ethnic minorities have less availability of
rural areas have higher rates of poverty and precarious health care, quality schooling, and other spatial opportunity
employment, larger shares of older adults, and smaller shares structures (Caldwell et al. 2017; García 2020). Therefore,
of people with at least some college compared with urban there is reason to expect less availability of third places in
areas (Jensen et al. 2020; Schafft and Biddle 2014; Slack communities with larger shares of Blacks and Hispanics.
2014). In addition, research shows that rural counties with However, there is almost no research on the role of place-
aging populations have comparatively low availability of level racial/ethnic composition on third place availability.
essential services (Thiede et al. 2017). Meanwhile, disinvest- Small and McDermott (2006) found that metropolitan areas
ment in the public service sector across many parts of the with larger shares of Black residents had fewer establish-
United States as a result of the devolution of social welfare ments (see note 1). Rupasingha, Goetz, and Freshwater
programs may have reinforced the importance of third places (2006) found that ethnic fragmentation (the probability that
as local resources for social development in rural areas two randomly chosen residents from the same county would
(Sharp and Parisi 2003). Some types of third places, such as be of two different races) is associated with lower levels of
religious organizations, may have been somewhat protected county-level social capital, but they did not examine racial
from these trends, given higher rates of church attendance, composition differences in the availability of different types
for example, in the rural South (Dillon and Savage 2006). of third places.
For these reasons, we hypothesize that rural communities In sum, third places play important roles in facilitating
may have comparatively less third place infrastructure. upward social mobility at both the individual and community
levels. Third places have the potential to serve as equalizers
Socioeconomic Composition. Third places can fulfill important
functions for low-income communities and residents (Hick- 1
Establishments included banks and credit unions, daycare centers,
man 2013; Small and Gose 2020). However, the density and convenience stores, hardware stores, laundromats, grocery stores
types of third places may vary depending on place-level and pharmacies, barbershops, nail salons and beauty salons, and
socioeconomic composition. For example, some types of restaurants (Small and McDermott 2006)
4 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 

in disadvantaged and marginalized communities, but if they socioeconomic measures (U.S. Census Bureau 2019). We
are not available, their absence could exacerbate existing dis- used the percentage of the population who fall at or below
advantages in these communities. However, it is unclear how the federal poverty line as the measure of tract-level SES.
the distribution of third places varies by rural-urban status We used percentage non-Hispanic Black and percentage
and by community-level racial/ethnic and socioeconomic Hispanic as measures of racial composition. Because the
composition. We fill this gap. racial composition variables are highly skewed, we created
quartiles for both percentage non-Hispanic Black and per-
centage Hispanic.
Methods We used the census tract rural-urban commuting area
(RUCA) codes from the U.S. Department of Agriculture
Data and Measures Economic Research Service (ERS 2020) to operationalize
Our analyses include all census tracts in the United States (N rural-urban continuum status. We aggregated RUCA codes
= 72,760). Census tracts are standard geographic units that into four groups on the basis of previous classifications used
can approximate neighborhoods and have a relatively narrow by Rural Health Research Center (n.d.): urban, large rural,
range in population sizes compared with larger units of analy- small rural, and isolated. Urban RUCAs are those in metro-
ses (e.g., counties). Census tracts also approximate neighbor- politan areas (RUCAs 1–3) or outside of metropolitan areas,
hoods better than county or ZIP code delineations (Forrest but with secondary commuter flows of 30 percent to 50 per-
2019). We used publicly available data from the NaNDA, cent to an urbanized area (RUCAs 4.1, 5.1, 6.1, 7.1, 8.1, and
housed by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and 10.1). Large rural includes tracts in micropolitan areas with
Social Research, to examine the spatial distribution of third secondary commuter flows of less than 30 percent to an
places (Esposito et al. 2020a, 2020b; Finlay et al. 2020a, urbanized area (RUCAs 4.0, 5.0, and 6.0). Small rural
2020b, 2020c). NaNDA data include annual counts of various includes tracts in small town areas and with secondary com-
establishment types taken from the National Establishment muter flows of less than 30 percent to an urbanized area
Time Series database, which provides records for private for- (RUCAs 7.0, 7.2, 8.0, 8.2, and 9.0). Isolated rural includes
profit and nonprofit establishments and government agencies tracts in rural areas with no primary flows to urbanized areas
(Walls and Associates 2017). Establishments are classified or clusters (RUCAs 10.0, 10.2, and 10.3).
according to the North American Industry Classification
System codes (see Appendix A for a full list). We used census
tract–level establishment counts from 2017, the most recent
Analyses
year of available data, from the following NaNDA data sets: Although census tracts provide a better representation of
eating and drinking places; religious, civic, and social organi- neighborhood-level measures of the built environment than
zations; parks; personal services; arts, entertainment, and rec- counties, many people travel outside of their home census
reation; and social service organizations. We aggregated types tract on a daily basis for work, school, shopping, and recre-
of third places into the five theoretically informed types dis- ation. Therefore, measuring availability of third places
cussed earlier: requires attention to neighboring tracts, especially for aeri-
ally small census tracts. We account for potential spatial
1. Free and publicly available third places: religious spillover of third place availability, by using a distance-based
organizations, civic organizations, and libraries third place count. We use the spatial window sum approach
2. Social services: organizations that provide social to calculate the total number of third places available, for
assistance such as child and youth services, services each third place type, within 5 miles for urban host census
for the elderly and persons with disabilities, other tracts or 10 miles for rural host census tracts. Median, mini-
individual and family services, community food ser- mum, and maximum counts for each third place type are
vices, childcare centers, emergency and other relief reported in Table 1.
services, and vocational rehabilitation services. We then used negative binomial regression models to pre-
3. Low-cost commercial third places: coffee shops, dict third place counts using rural-urban status, neighbor-
bars, and fast food restaurants hood racial/ethnic composition, and poverty composition
4. Creative, athletic, and entertainment third places: (Table 2). We offset each model with the natural log of the
spectator sports, fitness and recreation, bowling tract-level population to account for tract-level differences in
alleys, museums, and performance art population size. All models control for U.S. census region.
5. Personal services: salons, barbershops, and weight We conducted sensitivity analyses by replicating the models
loss counseling using 2015 NaNDA data and 2010–2014 ACS data (Appendix
B). Results from the sensitivity analyses were consistent
We used 2012–2016 American Community Survey five- with results presented in Table 2. We conducted all regres-
year estimates for census tract–level demographic and sion analyses in Stata 17.0.
Rhubart et al. 5

Table 1. Median Counts (Minimum, Maximum) of Third Places by Racial/Ethnic and Poverty Composition and RUCA Code for All U.S.
Census Tracts, 2017.
Free and Publicly Low-Cost Creative, Athletic,
Available Commercial and Entertainment Personal Services Social Services

Percentage non-Hispanic Black

Q1 62 (0, 7,331) 30 (0, 4,278) 14 (0, 3,001) 31 (0, 4,625) 35 (0, 4,459)
Q2 163 (0, 6,303) 100 (0, 4,282) 60 (0, 2,973) 105 (0, 4,037) 115 (0, 3,754)
Q3 242 (0, 6,168) 144 (0, 4,270) 86 (0, 2,992) 152 (0, 4,060) 165 (0, 3,736)
Q4 369 (0, 6,291) 167 (0, 4,247) 94 (0, 2,971) 190 (0, 4,046) 218 (0, 3,755)
Percentage Hispanic
Q1 79 (0, 7,331) 35 (0, 4,142) 15 (0, 2,945) 36 (0, 4,625) 39 (0, 4,459)
Q2 145 (0, 6,102) 75 (0, 4,259) 42 (0, 2,973) 78 (0, 3,926) 88 (0, 3,708)
Q3 246 (0, 6,303) 138 (0, 4,282) 87 (0, 3,001) 156 (0, 4,037) 169 (0, 3,754)
Q4 376 (0, 6,280) 217 (0, 4,278) 127 (0, 2,992) 246 (0, 4,060) 245 (0, 3,755)
Percentage poverty
Q1 188 (0, 7,331) 113 (0, 4,270) 79 (0, 2,973) 125 (0, 4,625) 134 (0, 4,459)
Q2 148 (0, 6,183) 85 (0, 4,282) 47 (0, 3,000) 87.5 (0,4,037) 95 (0, 3,754)
Q3 148 (0, 6,291) 75 (0, 4,241) 36 (0, 2,992) 77 (0, 4,060) 85 (0, 3,736)
Q4 313 (0, 6,303) 153 (0, 4,247) 74 (0, 3,001) 160 (0, 4,046) 187 (0, 3,755)
RUCA code
Urban 259 (0, 6,303) 147 (0, 4,282) 88 (0, 3,001) 161 (0, 4,060) 175 (0, 3,755)
Large rural 76 (0, 437) 31 (0, 209) 12 (0, 138) 31 (0, 293) 37 (0, 270)
Small rural 37 (0, 766) 12 (0, 364) 4 (0, 287) 13 (0, 354) 15 (0, 574)
Isolated rural 18 (0, 7,331) 5 (0, 3,730) 2 (0, 2,028) 6 (0, 4,625) 6 (0, 4,459)

Note: N = 72,760. Q = quartile; RUCA = rural-urban commuting area.

Table 2. Incident Rate Ratios and Confidence Intervals from Negative Binomial Models Predicting Census Tract–Level Third Place
Counts, 2017.
Creative, Athletic, and
Free and Publicly Available Low-Cost Commercial Entertainment Personal Services Social Services

IRR 95 Percent CI IRR 95 Percent CI IRR 95 Percent CI IRR 95 Percent CI IRR 95 Percent CI

Percentage non-Hispanic Black (reference: Q1)

Q2 .115*** .108–.122 .117*** .109–.124 .120*** .112–.128 .116*** .109–.123 .120*** .112–.128
Q3 .140*** .131–.149 .134*** .126–.143 .137*** .128–.146 .134*** .125–.142 .144*** .135–.154
Q4 .236*** .221–.251 .199*** .186–.213 .197*** .184–.211 .213*** .199–.227 .235*** .220–.251
Percentage Hispanic (reference: Q1)
Q2 .091*** .086–.097 .099*** .093–.106 .111*** .104–.118 .100*** .094–.107 .100*** .094–.106
Q3 .108*** .101–.114 .121*** .114–.129 .137*** .129–.146 .124*** .117–.132 .118*** .111–.126
Q4 .137*** .129–.146 .161*** .151–.172 .182*** .171–.194 .174*** .164–.186 .144*** .135–.153
Percentage .995*** .994–.996 .995*** .994–.996 .991*** .990–.992 .992*** .991–.993 .994*** .993–.995
poverty
RUCA code (reference: urban)
Large rural .124*** .119–.130 .093*** .088–.097 .059*** .056–.062 .088*** .084–.093 .092*** .087–.096
Small rural .051*** .048–.055 .030*** .028–.032 .018*** .016–.019 .032*** .030–.034 .032*** .030–.034
Isolated rural 3.207*** 3.003–3.424 3.140*** 2.930–3.365 3.429*** 3.191–3.685 3.247*** 3.032–3.477 3.265*** 3.050–3.496
Constant 27.847*** 26.872–28.858 16.455*** 15.850–17.083 10.066*** 9.681–10.466 18.278*** 17.612–18.969 17.507*** 16.871–18.167
α 2.875*** 2.852–2.899 3.146*** 3.120–3.173 3.320*** 3.291–3.348 3.083*** 3.058–3.109 3.075*** 3.049–3.101
AIC 1,073,849 969,038 882,279 980,758 991,860
BIC 1,073,987 969,175 882,416 980,896 991,998

Note: N = 72,760. Counts are offset by the natural log of the census tract population, and models control for U.S. census region. AIC = Akaike information criterion; BIC =
Bayesian information criterion; CI = confidence interval; IRR = incidence rate ratio; Q = quartile; RUCA = rural-urban commuting area.
***p < .001.
6 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 

Results knowledge, information, and aspirations that enable upward

social mobility at both the individual and community levels.
Descriptive Statistics As such, third places have the potential to serve as equalizers
Table 1 presents the median counts of available third places in disadvantaged and marginalized communities, such as
for each third place type by racial/ethnic composition, pov- rural areas and communities with large shares of racial/eth-
erty composition, and RUCA code for all U.S. census tracts. nic minorities and/or high poverty rates. In this study, we
Across all third place types, tracts with larger relative shares proposed a typology for third places and examined the distri-
of non-Hispanic Blacks had higher median counts of third bution of third places across this typology: free and publicly
places. Similarly, tracts with larger relative shares of available third places; social services; low-cost commercial
Hispanics had higher median counts of third places for all third places; creative, athletic, and entertainment third places;
types. Across all third place types, tracts with the highest and personal services. We found that third places are
(quartile 4) and lowest (quartile 1) poverty rates had the unequally distributed across all third place types. Our results
highest median counts of third places. The median count of point to several important takeaways with implications for
third places declined with increasing rurality across all third research and policy.
place types. First, we found that poverty is negative associated with
third place availability. This finding is not surprising. These
high-poverty neighborhoods (census tracts) are home to resi-
Neighborhood Disparities in Third Places dents with fewer resources and less political capital to advo-
cate for these types of community resources. Less availability
Table 2 presents the incidence rate ratios and confidence
of third places in these neighborhoods is concerning because
intervals from negative binomial models predicting third
these are the very same places with the least robust safety
place counts. The findings show that there are fewer third
nets in place to support and lift up low-income populations.
places in tracts with larger shares of Blacks and larger shares
Reduced availability of third places risks exacerbating the
of Hispanics. Compared with tracts with the smallest shares
already subpar spatial opportunity structures in high-poverty
of non-Hispanic Blacks and the smallest shares of Hispanics
communities in the United States. Local and state govern-
(in effect “White” census tracts), all other tracts have fewer
ments should support targeted policies and programs that
average available third places across all third place types, net
facilitate a robust third place landscape through small busi-
of other model variables. For example, compared with tracts
ness and nonprofit development as a means of promoting
with the smallest shares of Blacks, those with the highest
social capital and upward mobility.
shares (quartile 4), have between 76 percent and 80 percent
We also found that tracts with the smallest shares of non-
fewer third places, depending on type. Compared to tracts
Hispanic Blacks had the most third places. These findings
with the smallest shares of Hispanics, those with the highest
align with prior research showing that neighborhoods with
shares (quartile 4), have between 82 percent and 86 percent
larger concentrations of racial/ethnic minorities have less
fewer third places, depending on type. However, the relation-
availability of health care, quality schooling, and other spatial
ship is not linear across quartiles. For all third place types,
opportunity structures (Caldwell et al. 2016; García 2020).
the disadvantage was largest for tracts ranked in the second
Research on the broader historical and spatial context of
and third quartiles for shares of non-Hispanic Blacks and
racial residential segregation and apartheid shows a legacy of
Hispanics. Higher poverty rates were associated with signifi-
racist policies and practices that drove disinvestment in com-
cantly fewer third places across all types. For most types of
munities of color (Lichter et al. 2007a; Lichter et al. 2007b;
third places, a 1 percentage point increase in the poverty rate
Logan and Parman 2015; Soss, Fording, and Schram 2011)
is associated with a 1 percentage point decline in the third
and resulted in blacks’ being clustered in persistently poor
place count. In terms of the rural-urban continuum, large and
neighborhoods with limited opportunities for upward mobil-
small rural tracts had significantly and substantially fewer
ity (Slack and Jensen 2002). However, the relationship we
third places per capita compared to urban tracts (between 88
found between third place count and percentage non-Hispanic
percent and 98 percent fewer, on average, depending on
Black was not linear. In particular, tracts with the largest rela-
type). However, isolated rural tracts had over three times the
tive shares of non-Hispanic Blacks were the least disadvan-
per capita count of third places across all types.
taged in comparison with tracts with moderate shares of
non-Hispanic Blacks (quartiles 2 and 3). This may reflect the
long history of grassroots organizing and community-based
Discussion
cooperatives created by and present in Black communities
Following home and work, third places such as coffee shops, (Boston 2006; Green, Green, and Kleiner 2011; Lewis and
barber shops, bars, libraries, civic associations, and religious Trulear 2008), which could be buffering this relationship.
organizations are physical spaces where people can meet and We found a similar pattern for percentage Hispanic. Like
gather (Oldenburg 1999). Third places serve as opportunity Black residential patterns, Hispanic residential patterns are
structures that facilitate social capital formation and transmit also shaped by past and present racial residential segregation
Rhubart et al. 7

as well as settlement patterns of Hispanic immigrants mobility and overall well-being. We encourage researchers
(Lichter and Johnson 2018). On the other hand, high rates of to use the third place typologies we have identified in this
residential segregation among Hispanics (Lichter, Parisi, and paper to identify how the spatial distribution of different
Taquino 2016) may drive entrepreneurship among Hispanics types of third places are related to various social and health
themselves, leading to the creation of establishments (e.g., outcomes. Future research should work to understand if and
salons, fast food restaurants, entertainment venues) to serve how each of these types of third places shape social mobility
their own communities (Bates, Jackson, and James Johnson and well-being. For example, do third places help explain
2007), potentially explaining the smaller disadvantage in differential economic or health outcomes among populations
tracts with the largest relative shares of Hispanics. Purposeful from low-income neighborhoods?
migration patterns to locations that have the resources and
opportunity structures desired for upward mobility among
Hispanic populations may also be explaining the smaller dis-
Limitations
advantage in tracts with the largest relative shares of Hispanic The present findings should be considered in light of some
populations. Qualitative research is needed to understand limitations. First, NaNDA uses the National Establishment
whether and how third places facilitate opportunity in his- Time Series database as its data source for establishments
torically marginalized communities, such as those with large and organizations. These data have some inaccuracies
Black and Hispanic populations, including in new Hispanic (Finlay et al. 2019) and do not capture organizations or
destinations. groups that do not have a fixed location (e.g., a local philan-
It is important to point out that availability does not neces- thropy group that meets in the local school or library).
sarily mean access. Residents of these neighborhoods may Moreover, approximately 5 percent of the data do not include
face cost and transportation barriers to accessing the third a specific address that can be geocoded and assigned to a
places that are available. For low-income Blacks and census tract but rather denotes a ZIP code. For those
Hispanics in these neighborhoods, additional social and lin- instances, NaNDA compilers assigned the establishment to
guistic barriers could still play a role in limiting access to the census tract that has the largest overlap with the ZIP
third places. code.
Third, we found a rural disadvantage in third place avail- Second, we used Euclidean distance for our distance buf-
ability across all third place types, except in the case of the fer calculations. Therefore, we were unable to account for
most isolated rural tracts. Small and large rural tracts had physical barriers that may limit access (e.g., placement of
substantially fewer third places than their urban counterparts. roads, mountain ranges, rivers, etc.).
This means that residents of many rural communities must Third, for third places to yield attributes that facilitate
travel further to access these spatial opportunity structures upward mobility and well-being, not only do they need to be
that can provide social support and the exchange of knowl- present (supply), but there must also be an active decision
edge. Rural residents are also less likely to have access to among individuals to use the third places (demand), and third
public transportation if they do not have a personal vehicle places must be equitably accessible. This latter point has
(Litman 2017) and face reduced access to legal and health received some attention in the literature, suggesting that dis-
care services (Douthit et al. 2015; Pruitt et al. 2018; Statz and crimination and language barriers can prevent disadvantaged
Termuhlen 2020), potentially compounding barriers to well- minority groups from accessing some types of community
being and upward social mobility. However, rural places are spaces (Knollenberg et al. 2021; Sharaievska et al. 2010). In
not homogenous. The most isolated tracts had significantly addition to availability, cost, and differences in preferences
more third places than urban tracts (and their small and large or service needs across groups and communities, transporta-
rural peers). This may reflect a basic minimum or bottom tion and time barriers may also produce disparities in the
floor of third places required to support a community, result- social and economic benefits third places offer (Small 2006;
ing in higher relative counts when all other factors are held Williams and Hipp 2018).
constant. These findings have implications for community-
based efforts to promote individual- and community-level
Conclusion
social mobility in rural areas (Green 2019).
Finally, this study also makes an important conceptual As the United States continues to struggle with high levels of
contribution. Specifically, we found that the proposed typol- racial, ethnic, economic, and geographic inequality (Murray
ogy is useful for conceptually organizing third place types et al. 2006; Smeeding 2005), social scientists must broaden
but that certain types of places (e.g., high-poverty tracts) are our understanding of how the built environment propels or sty-
disadvantaged regardless of the type of third place being mies movement up the social ladder. Third places can play a
considered. Third place disadvantage seems to cluster. This role in creating opportunities for social interaction, economic
suggests that third places, an important spatial opportunity development, and community-scale entrepreneurial activities
structure, are unlikely to be substitutable, resulting in com- that stem from strong social capital ties (Cabras and Mount
pounding challenges in creating spaces that promote social 2017; Sharp et al. 2002). In this paper, we argue that an
8 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 

understudied type of spatial opportunity structure—third Adelman, Robert M., and James Clarke Gocker. 2007. “Racial
places—may have the potential to offset or compensate for the Residential Segregation in Urban America.” Sociology
negative effects of low access to other spatial opportunity Compass 1(1):404–23.
structures in historically disadvantage communities in the Anderson, Keith A., Andrea M. Cimbal, and Jeffrey J. Maile. 2010.
“Hairstylists’ Relationships and Helping Behaviors with Older
United States. As expected, tracts with the lowest rates of pov-
Adult Clients.” Journal of Applied Gerontology 29(3):371–80.
erty and smallest shares of Blacks and Hispanics have the
Bates, Timothy, William Jackson III, and James Johnson. 2007.
most third places. However, the relationship for Blacks and “Advancing Research on Minority Entrepreneurship.” Annals
Hispanics is not linear. This means that third places may play of the American Academy of Political and Social Science
a role in buffering historical legacies of marginalization by 613:10–18.
facilitating social capital, support, and the exchange of Boston, Thomas. 2006. “The Role of Black-Owned Businesses
resources and information in tracts with the largest relative in Black Community Development.” In Jobs and Economic
shares of Blacks and Hispanics that could lead to economic Development in Minority Communities edited by Ong, P., and
opportunities, professional connections, or access to services A. Loukaitou-Sideris. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University
(Small 2006; Stenstrom et al. 2019; Walton 2014). In addition, Press.
given escalating trends of rural population aging and decline Cabras, Ignazio, and Matthew P. Mount. 2017. “How Third
Places Foster and Shape Community Cohesion, Economic
(Jensen et al. 2020), it is essential to shore up access to third
Development and Social Capital: The Case of Pubs in Rural
places to prevent further erosion of the rural spatial opportu-
Ireland.” Journal of Rural Studies 55(1):71–82.
nity structure. Rather than disinvesting in third places and risk- Caldwell, Julia, Chandra Ford, Steven Wallace, May Wang,
ing continued loss of important opportunity structures (Finlay and Lois Takahashi. 2017. “Racial and Ethnic Residential
et al. 2019), communities should invest in and leverage the Segregation and Access to Health Care in Rural Areas.” Health
existing network of organizations and small businesses that and Place 43:104–12.
facilitate social capital formation and social mobility opportu- Colistra, Craig, Robert Bixler, and Dorothy Schmalz. 2019.
nities and fill the gaps left by other types of spatial opportunity “Exploring Factors That Contribute to Relationship Building
structures especially in low-income and rural communities. in a Community Center.” Journal of Leisure Research 50(1):1–
17.
Curley, Alexandra M. 2010. “Relocating the Poor: Social Capital
Funding and Neighborhood Resources.” Journal of Urban Affairs
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for 32(1):79–103.
the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: two research Dillon, Michele, and Sarah Savage. 2006. “Values and Religion
networks funded by the National Institute on Aging (R24 AG065159 in Rural America: Attitudes toward Abortion and Same-Sex
and 2R24 AG045061), the National Institute on Aging–funded Center Relations.” Issue Brief No. 1. Durham, NH: Carsey Institute.
for Aging and Policy Studies at Syracuse University (P30AG066583), Douthit, N., S. Kiv, T. Dwolatzky, and S. Biswas. 2015. “Exposing
the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Some Important Barriers to Health Care Access in the Rural
Human Development–funded Population Research Institute at Penn USA.” Public Health 129(6):611–20.
State (P2CHD041025), the U.S. Department of Agriculture Entwisle, Barbara. 2007. “Putting People into Place.” Demography
Agricultural Experiment Station Multistate Research Project: W4001, 44(4):687–703.
Social, Economic and Environmental Causes and Consequences of Erickson, Lance, Vaughn Call, and Ralph Brown. 2012. “SOS—
USDA-supported Rural Population research Network, and the Satisfied or Stuck, Why Older Rural Residents Stay Put: Aging
Syracuse University Lerner Center for Public Health Promotion. in Place or Stuck in Place in Rural Utah.” Rural Sociology
77(3):408–34.
ERS (Economic Research Service). 2020. “Rural-Urban Commuting
Human Subjects Protections Area Codes.” Retrieved March 29, 2022. https://www.ers.usda.
The data used in this study are publicly available county-level data. gov/data-products/rural-urban-commuting-area-codes/.
The study is exempt from human subjects review. Esposito, Michael, Mao Li, Jessica Finlay, Iris Gomez-Lopez,
Anam Khan, Philippa Clarke, and Megan Chenoweth. 2020a.
“National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA): Eating and
ORCID iD Drinking Places by Census Tract, United States, 2003–2017.”
Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium for Political and
Danielle Rhubart https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6649-5104
Social Research. Retrieved March 29, 2022. https://www.ope-
nicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/115404/version/V2/view.
Supplemental Material Esposito, Michael, Mao Li, Jessica Finlay, Iris Gomez-Lopez,
Anam Khan, Philippa Clarke, and Megan Chenoweth. 2020b.
Supplemental material for this article is available online. “National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA): Personal
Care Services and Laundromats by Census Tract, United States,
2003–2017.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium
References
for Political and Social Research. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
Aabø, Svanhild. 2009. “Libraries and Return on Investment (ROI): https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/115981/version/
A Meta Analysis.” New Library World 110(7/8):311–24. V2/view.
Rhubart et al. 9

Finlay, Jessica, Michael Esposito, Min Hee Kim, Iris Gomez- Race, Class, and Sustainability, edited by A. H. Alkon and J.
Lopez, and Philippa Clarke. 2019. “Closure of ‘Third Places’? Agyeman. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Exploring Potential Consequences for Collective Health and Hickman, Paul. 2013. “‘Third Places’ and Social Interaction
Wellbeing.” Health and Place 60:102225. in Deprived Neighbourhoods in Great Britain.” Journal of
Finlay, Jessica, Mao Li, Michael Esposito, Iris Gomez-Lopez, Housing and the Built Environment 28(2):221–36.
Anam Khan, Philippa Clarke, and Megan Chenoweth. 2020a. James, Peter, Mariana C. Arcaya, Devin M. Parker, Reginald D.
“National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA): Arts, Tucker-Seeley, and S. V. Subramanian. 2014. “Do Minority
Entertainment, and Recreation Organizations by Census Tract, and Poor Neighborhoods Have Higher Access to Fast-Food
United States, 2003–2017.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Restaurants in the United States?” Health & Place 29:10–17.
Consortium for Political and Social Research. Retrieved Jensen, Leif, Shannon M. Monnat, John J. Green, Lori M. Hunter,
March 29, 2022. https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/proj- and Martin J. Sliwinski. 2020. “Rural Population Health and
ect/115543/version/V2/view. Aging: Toward a Multilevel and Multidimensional Research
Finlay, Jessica, Mao Li, Michael Esposito, Iris Gomez-Lopez, Agenda for the 2020s.” American Journal of Public Health
Anam Khan, Philippa Clarke, and Megan Chenoweth. 2020b. 110(9):1328–31.
“National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA): Religious, Klinenberg, Eric. 2002. Heat Wave: A Social Autopsy of Disaster in
Civic, and Social Organizations by Census Tract, United States, Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
2003–2017.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium Klinenberg, Eric. 2018. Palaces for the People: How Social
for Political and Social Research. Retrieved March 29, 2022. Infrastructure Can Help Fight Inequality, Polarization, and
https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/115967/version/ the Decline of Civic Life. New York: Crown.
V1/view. Knollenberg, Whitney, Sara Brune, Jane Harrison, and Ann
Finlay, Jessica, Mao Li, Michael Esposito, Iris Gomez-Lopez, Savage. 2021. “Strategies to Facilitate the Integration of
Anam Khan, Philippa Clarke, and Megan Chenoweth. 2020c. Hispanic Migrants in a Tourism-Dependent Community.”
“National Neighborhood Data Archive (NaNDA): Social Journal of Policy Research in Tourism, Leisure and Events
Services Organizations by Census Tract, United States, 13(1):1–19.
2003–2017.” Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-University Consortium Latham, Alan, and Jack Layton. 2019. “Social Infrastructure and
for Political and Social Research. Retrieved March 29, 2022. the Public Life of Cities: Studying Urban Sociality and Public
https://www.openicpsr.org/openicpsr/project/117163/version/ Spaces.” Geography Compass 13(7):e12444.
V2/view. Lee, Matthew, and Graham Ousey. 2005. “Institutional Access,
Finucane, Melissa L., Aaron Clark-Ginsberg, Andrew M. Parker, Residential Segregation, and Urban Black Homicide.”
Alejandro U. Becerra-Ornelas, Noreen Clancy, Rajeev Sociological Inquiry 75(1):31–54.
Ramchand, and Tim Slack, et al. 2020. “Building Community Lewis, Charles, and Harold Trulear. 2008. “Rethinking the Role
Resilience to Large Oil Spills: Findings and Recommendations of African American Churches as Social Service Providers.”
from a Synthesis of Research on the Mental Health, Economic, Black Theology 6(3):343–65.
and Community Distress Associated with the Deepwater Lichter, Daniel T., and Kenneth M. Johnson. 2018. “Immigrant
Horizon Oil Spill.” RAND Corporation RR-A409-1. Retrieved Gateways and Hispanic Migration to New Destinations.”
March 29, 2022. https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/ International Migration Review 43(3):496–518.
RRA409-1.html. Lichter, Daniel T., Dominico Parisi, Steven M. Grice, and Michael
Flaherty, Mary Grace, and David Miller. 2016. “Rural Public C. Taquino. 2007a. “Municipal Underbounding: Annexation
Libraries as Community Change Agents: Opportunities for and Racial Exclusion in Small Southern Towns.” Rural
Health Promotion.” Journal of Education for Library and Sociology 72:47–68.
Information Science 57(2):143–50. Lichter, Daniel T., Domenico Parisi, Steven Michael Grice, and
Forrest, Matt. 2019. “Stop Using ZIP Codes for Geospatial Michael C. Taquino. 2007b. “National Estimates of Racial
Analyses.” CARTO. Retrieved March 29, 2022. https://carto. Segregation in Rural and Small-Town America.” Demography
com/blog/zip-codes-spatial-analysis/. 44(3):563–81.
Galster, George, and Patrick Sharkey. 2017. “Spatial Foundations Lichter, Daniel T., Dominico Parisi, and Michael C. Taquino. 2016.
of Inequality: A Conceptual Model and Empirical Overview.” “Emerging Patterns of Hispanic Residential Segregation:
Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences Lessons from Rural and Small-Town America.” Rural
3(2):1–33. Sociology 81(4):483–518.
García, Emma. 2020. “Schools are Still Segregated, and Black Litman, Todd. 2017. “Public Transportation’s Impact on Rural
Children are Paying a Price.” Economic Policy Institute. and Small Towns: A Vital Mobility Link.” American Public
Retrieved March 29, 2022. https://www.epi.org/publication/ Transportation Association. Retrieved March 29, 2022.
schools-are-still-segregated-and-black-children-are-paying-a- https://www.apta.com/wp-content/uploads/Resources/
price/. resources/reportsandpublications/Documents/APTA-Rural-
Green, John. 2019. “Pathways for Equity in Development: Transit-2017.pdf.
Exploring the Past and Informing the Future through the Rural Lobao, Linda, Gregory Hooks, and Ann Tickamyer. 2007. The
Social Sciences.” Journal of Rural Social Sciences 34(2):6. Sociology of Spatial Inequality. Albany: State University of
Green, John, Eleanor Green, and Anna Kleiner. 2011. “From the New York Press.
Past to the Present: Agricultural Development and Black Logan, Trevor, and John Parman. 2015. “The National Rise in
Farmers in the American South.” In Cultivating Food Justice; Residential Segregation.” NBER Working Paper No. 20934.
10 Socius: Sociological Research for a Dynamic World 

Retrieved March 29, 2022. http://www.nber.org/papers/ for Rural America in the Twenty-First Century, edited by D. L.
w20934. Brown and L. E. Swanson. Philadelphia: Pennsylvania State
Mair, Heather. 2009. “Club Life: Third Place and Shared Leisure in University Press.
Rural Canada.” Leisure Sciences 31(5):450–65. Slater, Alix, and Hee Jung Koo. 2010. “A New Type of ‘Third
Melnick, Merrill J. 2016. “Searching for Sociability in the Stands: Place’?” Journal of Place Management and Development
A Theory of Sports Spectating.” Journal of Sport Management 3(2):99–112.
7(1):44–60. Slack, Tim. 2014. “Work in Rural America in the Era of
Mills, Quincy T. 2013. Cutting along the Color Line: Black Barbers Globalization.” In Rural America in a Globalizing World:
and Barber Shops in America. Philadelphia: University of Problems and Prospects for the 2010s, edited by C. Bailey,
Pennsylvania Press. L. Jensen, and E. Ransom. Morgantown: West Virginia Press.
Mouratidis, Kostas. 2018. “Built Environment and Social Well- Slack, Tim, and Leif Jensen. 2002. “Race, Ethnicity, and
Being: How Does Urban Form Affect Social Life and Personal Underemployment in Nonmetropolitan America: A 30-Year
Relationships?” Cities 74:7–20. Profile.” Rural Sociology 67:208–33.
Murray, Christopher J. L., Sandeep C. Kulkarni, Catherine Michaud, Small, Mario Luis. 2006. “Neighborhood Institutions as Resource
Niels Tomijima, Maria T. Bulzacchelli, Terrell J. Iandiorio, and Brokers: Childcare Centers, Interorganizational Ties,
Majid Ezzati. 2006. “Eight Americas: Investigating Mortality and Resource Access among the Poor.” Social Problems
Disparities across Races, Counties, and Race-Counties in the 53(2):274–92.
United States.” PLoS Medicine 3(9):e260. Small, Mario Luis, and Leah E. Gose. 2020. “How Do Low-Income
Oldenburg, Ray. 1999. The Great Good Place: Cafes, Coffee People Form Survival Networks? Routine Organizations as
Shops, Bookstores, Bars, Hair Salons, and Other Hangouts at Brokers.” Annals of the American Academy of Political and
the Heart of a Community. New York: Marlowe. Social Science 689(1):89–109.
Pruitt, Lisa, Amanda Kool, Lauren Sudeall, Michele Statz, Danielle Small, Mario Luis, Erin M. Jacobs, and Rebekah Peeples Massengill.
Conway, and Hannah Haksgaard. 2018. “Legal Deserts: A 2008. “Why Organizational Ties Matter for Neighborhood
Multi-state Perspective on Access to Justice.” Georgia State Effects: Resource Access through Childcare Centers.” Social
University College of Law, Legal Studies Research Paper Forces 87(1):387–414.
No. 2019-01. Retrieved March 29, 2022. https://ssrn.com/ Small, Mario Luis, and Monica McDermott. 2006. “The Presence
abstract=3198411. of Organizational Resources in Poor Urban Neighborhoods:
Rosenbaum, Mark S., James Ward, Beth A. Walker, and Amy L. An Analysis of Average and Contextual Effects.” Social
Ostrom. 2007. “A Cup of Coffee with a Dash of Love: An Forces 84(3):1697–1724.
Investigation of Commercial Social Support and Third-Place Smeeding, Timothy M. 2005. “Public Policy, Economic Inequality,
Attachment.” Journal of Service Research 10(1):43–59. and Poverty: The United States in Comparative Perspective.”
Rupasingha, Anil, Stephan Goetz, and David Freshwater. 2000. Social Science Quarterly 86(Spec. Iss.):955–83.
“Social Capital and Economic Growth: A County-Level Soss, Joe, Richard C. Fording, and Sanford F. Schram. 2011.
Analysis.” Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics Disciplining the Poor: Neoliberal Paternalism and the
32(3):565–72. Persistent Power of Race. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago
Rupasingha, Anil, Stephen Goetz, and David Freshwater. 2006. Press.
“The Production of Social Capital in US Counties.” Journal of Statz, Michele, and Paula Termuhlen. 2020. “Rural Legal Deserts
Socio-Economics 35(1):83–101. Are a Critical Health Determinant.” American Journal of
Rural Health Research Center. N.d. “Rural-Urban Commuting Area Public Health 110(10):1519–22.
Codes (RUCAs).” Retrieved March 29, 2022. http://depts. Stenstrom, Cheryl, Natalie Cole, and Rachel Hanson. 2019. “A
washington.edu/uwruca/ruca-maps.php. Review Exploring the Facets of the Value of Public Libraries.”
Schafft, Kai, and Katharine Biddle. 2014. “Education and Schooling Library Management 40(6/7):354–67.
in Rural America.” In Rural America in a Globalizing World: Thiede, Brian C., David L. Brown, Scott R. Sanders, Nina Glasgow,
Problems and Prospects for the 2010s, edited by Bailey, C., and Laszlo J. Kulcsar. 2017. “A Demographic Deficit? Local
L. Jensen, and E. Ransom. Morgantown: West Virginia Press. Population Aging and Access to Services in Rural America,
Scott, David. 2013. “Economic Inequality, Poverty, and Park 1990–2010.” Rural Sociology 82(1):44–74.
and Recreation Delivery.” Journal of Park and Recreation U.S. Census Bureau. 2019. “American Community Survey 5-Year
Administration 31(4):1–11. Estimates (2010–2014; 2012–2016).” Retrieved March 29,
Sharaievska, Iryna, Monika Stodolska, Kimberly Shinew, and 2022. SocialExplorer.com.
Jungeun Kim. 2010. “Perceived Discrimination in Leisure Walls and Associates. 2017. National Establishment Time Series
Settings in Latino Urban Communities.” Leisure 34(3):295– (NETS) database.
326. Walton, Emily. 2014. “Vital Places: Facilitators of Behavioral and
Sharp, Jeff S., Kerry Agnitsch, Vern Ryan, and Jan Flora. 2002. “Social Social Health Mechanisms in Low-Income Neighborhoods.”
Infrastructure and Community Economic Development Strategies: Social Science and Medicine 122:1–12.
The Case of Self-Development and Industrial Recruitment in Williams, Seth A., and John R. Hipp. 2018. “How Great and How
Rural Iowa.” Journal of Rural Studies 18(4):405–17. Good? Third Places, Neighbor Interaction, and Cohesion in
Sharp, Jeff S., and Dominico M. Parisi. 2003. “Devolution: Who the Neighborhood Context.” Social Science Research 77:68–
Is Responsible for Rural America?” Pp. 353–62 in Challenges 78.
Rhubart et al. 11

Author Biographies Claire Pendergrast is a PhD student in the Department of

Sociology at Syracuse University and a graduate fellow at the
Danielle Rhubart is an assistant professor of biobehavioral Syracuse University Lerner Center for Public Health Promotion.
health and director of the Rural Health Disparities Lab. She is Her research focuses on aging, social policy, health disparities, and
trained as a rural sociologist and demographer and studies rural the public health impacts of disasters. She has published 11 peer-
population health and the social determinants of health. She uses reviewed papers in public health, aging, and sociology journals,
large data sets to determine how place shapes health and well- including Ageing & Society, the Journal of Applied Gerontology,
being differently across groups of people. She has published 12 and Health Security.
peer-reviewed journal articles, including articles in Public Policy
Shannon Monnat is an associate professor of sociology and direc-
and Aging Report, Population Research and Policy Review, and
tor of the Lerner Center for Public Health Promotion at Syracuse
Population and Environment. She has also published research
University. Her research examines trends and geographic differ-
briefs and reports through the Carsey School of Public Policy
ences in health and mortality, with a particular focus on rural-urban
(University of New Hampshire), the Lerner Center for Public
and within-rural health disparities. She has more than 60 peer-
Health Promotion (Syracuse University), and the Center for
reviewed journal articles and book chapters and has presented to
Rural Pennsylvania.
numerous public, academic, and policy audiences, including the
Yue Sun is a PhD student in the Department of Sociology at United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, the National Institutes
Syracuse University. She holds a master of sociology from of Health, the National Academy of Sciences, the Aspen Institute,
Zhejiang University and a bachelor of public administration the U.S. Office of National Drug Control Policy, and at congres-
from East China University of Science and Technology. Her sional briefings. She was a member of the National Academy of
research interests include spatial disparities in health and mor- Sciences Consensus Committee that released the 2021 report “High
tality, rural demography, and political economy of health and and Rising Mortality Rates among Working-Age Adults.” Her
environment. Her recent research focuses on coronavirus disease research has been funded by several federal and foundation grants,
2019 mortality, vaccination, and spatial modeling. Her work has including through the National Institutes of Health, U.S. Department
been published in the Journal of Rural Health and Population of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Justice, Robert Wood Johnson
and Environment. Foundation, and Institute for New Economic Thinking.