pith. sign in

arxiv: 2501.02299 · v2 · submitted 2025-01-04 · ⚛️ physics.soc-ph · cs.IT· math.IT· physics.data-an

The parenthood effect in urban mobility

Mariana Macedo , Ronaldo Menezes , Alessio Cardillo This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-23 06:31 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification ⚛️ physics.soc-ph cs.ITmath.ITphysics.data-an
keywords parenthoodmarriageurban mobilityhousehold arrangementsUS censusamenity accesscity classification
0
0 comments X

The pith

Different US cities accommodate singles, married people, and parents differently in mobility.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper sets out to establish that parenthood and marriage produce distinct urban mobility and amenity access patterns compared to single individuals, using cross-sectional US census data on household status. It classifies cities by which household type they appear to support best, naming examples such as Houston and Virginia Beach for singles, Atlanta and Baltimore for married people, and Cincinnati and Chicago for parents. A sympathetic reader would care because the finding suggests that one-size-fits-all mobility planning misses real demographic differences and that remote-work relocation choices could be guided by household type.

Core claim

Leveraging US census data, the analysis demonstrates that cities vary significantly in how mobility can be accommodated by different household arrangements: some better accommodate either single individuals (Houston, Virginia Beach) or married people (Atlanta, Baltimore), whereas others favour parents (Cincinnati, Chicago). Parents and married individuals face different mobility costs and amenity access patterns compared to their counterparts, with variations consistent across multiple null model tests.

What carries the argument

City classification by which household arrangement (single, married, or parent) best matches observed mobility and amenity access patterns from census data.

If this is right

  • Urban planning should shift from average-citizen models to tailored strategies that address the needs of different household types.
  • Parents and married individuals experience systematically different mobility costs and access to amenities than singles.
  • The city classifications gain practical weight for relocation decisions as remote work expands location flexibility.
  • Observed differences remain after checks against multiple null models.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Targeted infrastructure investments in parent-favoring cities could focus on schools, parks, and childcare access.
  • Repeating the classification with panel data that tracks individuals through life transitions would test whether the patterns are caused by parenthood and marriage.
  • Applying the same household-type lens to cities outside the US could show whether transportation systems or cultural norms alter which household types are accommodated.

Load-bearing premise

Cross-sectional census snapshots comparing different households can reliably indicate the effects of the life transitions to parenthood or marriage.

What would settle it

A longitudinal study that follows the same people before and after parenthood or marriage and finds no corresponding shift in their mobility or amenity access patterns.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02299 by Alessio Cardillo, Mariana Macedo, Ronaldo Menezes.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Spatial characterisation of amenities and population distributions over the metropolitan areas. We plot the values of the diversity, H, of the spatial distribution of both the types of amenities (panel A) and the travellers (panel C). Panels B and D display instead the Kernel Density Estimator (KDE) of the values of H obtained by bootstrapping 80% of the data for New York metropolitan area. Now that we und… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Characterisation of the mobility diversity and cost for parents and married travellers. For each urban area, we display: The mobility diversity, M, for travellers of different types (panel A). The average value of travel cost, C, and mobility diversity, M (panel B). The differences in cost and mobility diversity for parents/non parents (∆MP,∆CP), (panel C), and for married/non married travellers (∆MM,∆CM),… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Quantifying the parenthood/marital effect on mobility in several null cases. For each urban area, we compute the ratio, R, between the differences in cost in the empirical and null case. The hue of the bars (dots), and the sign in the urban area’s label, denotes the sign of the ratio R. We consider three null cases: NM1 (panels A and B), NM2 (panel C), and NM3 (panel D). The top row accounts for the case o… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate how parenthood and marriage (two major life events) reshape urban mobility patterns, an aspect overlooked in traditional `average citizen' mobility models. Leveraging US census data, we analyse whether these life transitions create distinct urban experiences. Parenthood introduces new priorities including caregiving responsibilities, work-life balance adjustments, and access to family-friendly environments. Similarly, marriage introduces new dynamics including shared household decision-making, potential dual-income benefits, combined residential preferences, and shifts in social networks and lifestyle patterns. Our analysis demonstrates that cities vary significantly in how mobility can be accommodated by different household arrangements: some better accommodate either single individuals (Houston, Virginia Beach) or married people (Atlanta, Baltimore), whereas others favour parents (Cincinnati, Chicago). This classification becomes increasingly relevant for individuals and families as remote work expands relocation possibilities. We find that parents and married individuals face different mobility costs and amenity access patterns compared to their counterparts, with variations consistent across multiple null model tests. This research advances urban planning discourse by advocating for tailored design strategies addressing diverse demographic needs rather than one-size-fits-all approaches.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript uses US census data to examine how parenthood and marriage reshape urban mobility and amenity access patterns. It reports that cities differ systematically in accommodating household types, with examples including better fit for singles in Houston and Virginia Beach, for married individuals in Atlanta and Baltimore, and for parents in Cincinnati and Chicago; these differences are stated to hold across multiple null model tests.

Significance. If the central empirical patterns are robust, the work would usefully extend mobility modeling beyond average-citizen assumptions and highlight city-specific demographic accommodations relevant to remote-work relocation decisions. The explicit use of null model tests provides a concrete robustness check that strengthens the observational comparisons.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract and methods (data and statistical controls sections): the central claim that parenthood and marriage 'reshape' mobility patterns and that cities 'accommodate' household types differently rests on cross-sectional group comparisons. No description of longitudinal tracking, individual fixed effects, or explicit controls for age/income/education selection into parenthood or marriage is provided, leaving the causal interpretation vulnerable to confounding; this directly undermines the 'effect' language in the title and abstract.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract (null model tests paragraph): while null models are invoked to support consistency of the city classifications, the manuscript does not specify how the null models are constructed (e.g., randomization of household labels while preserving marginal distributions) or whether they preserve spatial residential sorting; without these details the tests cannot rule out the alternative that observed differences reflect pre-existing city demographics rather than mobility consequences of life transitions.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: the phrasing 'mobility can be accommodated by different household arrangements' is ambiguous between supply-side urban features and demand-side household preferences; a brief clarification of the intended direction would improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We agree that the cross-sectional design limits causal claims and will revise the manuscript language and add details on null models. The data constraints prevent longitudinal analysis.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and methods (data and statistical controls sections): the central claim that parenthood and marriage 'reshape' mobility patterns and that cities 'accommodate' household types differently rests on cross-sectional group comparisons. No description of longitudinal tracking, individual fixed effects, or explicit controls for age/income/education selection into parenthood or marriage is provided, leaving the causal interpretation vulnerable to confounding; this directly undermines the 'effect' language in the title and abstract.

    Authors: We agree the analysis uses cross-sectional US census data comparing mobility and amenity patterns across household types without longitudinal tracking or individual fixed effects. Selection into parenthood or marriage by age, income, or education is a valid concern. We will revise the title to 'Differences in urban mobility associated with parenthood and marital status', replace 'reshape' and 'effect' language in the abstract with 'differences' and 'associations', add explicit discussion of demographic controls used, and include a limitations section addressing potential confounding. These changes will align claims with the observational data. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract (null model tests paragraph): while null models are invoked to support consistency of the city classifications, the manuscript does not specify how the null models are constructed (e.g., randomization of household labels while preserving marginal distributions) or whether they preserve spatial residential sorting; without these details the tests cannot rule out the alternative that observed differences reflect pre-existing city demographics rather than mobility consequences of life transitions.

    Authors: The full methods section describes the null models as random reassignment of household-type labels while preserving each city's marginal distributions of mobility metrics and amenity access; spatial locations remain fixed to preserve observed residential sorting. We will expand the abstract to include a brief description of this construction and clarify that the tests evaluate whether city classifications exceed random expectations but do not eliminate pre-existing demographic influences. Additional text will note this limitation explicitly. revision: yes

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • The US census data is cross-sectional and does not permit longitudinal tracking of individuals through life transitions or the use of individual fixed effects to address selection into parenthood and marriage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; empirical comparisons from external census data

full rationale

The paper performs observational analysis of US census records comparing mobility/amenity metrics across household categories (parents vs. married vs. single). Claims rest on direct data contrasts plus unspecified null-model tests rather than any derivation, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-citation chain. No equations, ansatzes, or uniqueness theorems are invoked that reduce outputs to inputs by construction. The central results are therefore independent of the paper's own prior outputs and remain falsifiable against the external dataset.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 0 axioms · 0 invented entities

Abstract only; no explicit free parameters, axioms, or invented entities described. Unable to audit ledger contents without full methods and results sections.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5718 in / 1042 out tokens · 24706 ms · 2026-05-23T06:31:54.761083+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 61 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    Barbosa, H. et al. Human mobility: Models and applications. Phys. Reports 734, 1–74, DOI: 10.1016/j.physrep.2018.01.001 (2018)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2018.01.001 2018

  2. [2]

    & Lehmann, S

    Alessandretti, L., Aslak, U. & Lehmann, S. The scales of human mobility. Nature 587, 402–407, DOI: 10.1038/ s41586-020-2909-1 (2020)

    work page 2020

  3. [3]

    World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision

    United Nations. World urbanization prospects: The 2018 revision. Tech. Rep. ST/ESA/SER.A/420, Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, New York, UN (2019)

    work page 2018

  4. [4]

    & Barthelemy, M

    Gallotti, R. & Barthelemy, M. The multilayer temporal network of public transport in Great Britain. Sci. data 2, 1–8 (2015)

    work page 2015

  5. [5]

    & Ramasco, J

    Lenormand, M. & Ramasco, J. J. Towards a better understanding of cities using mobility data. Built Environ. 42, 356–364 (2016)

    work page 2016

  6. [6]

    K., Mladenovi´c, M

    Kujala, R., Weckström, C., Darst, R. K., Mladenovi´c, M. N. & Saramäki, J. A collection of public transport network data sets for 25 cities. Sci. data 5, 1–14 (2018)

    work page 2018

  7. [7]

    The spatial organization of the population density in cities

    V olpati, V . & Barthelemy, M. The spatial organization of the population density in cities.arXiv preprint arXiv:1804.00855 (2018)

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  8. [8]

    M., Rao, P

    Reia, S. M., Rao, P. S. C., Barthelemy, M. & Ukkusuri, S. V . Spatial structure of city population growth.Nat. Commun. 13, 5931 (2022). 9/12

    work page 2022

  9. [9]

    Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development

    United Nations. Transforming our world: the 2030 agenda for sustainable development. Tech. Rep., Department of Economic and Social Affairs, Sustainable Development, New York, UN (2015)

    work page 2030

  10. [10]

    A., Barber, B

    Raymore, L. A., Barber, B. L. & Eccles, J. S. Leaving home, attending college, partnership and parenthood: The role of life transition events in leisure pattern stability from adolescence to young adulthood. J. Youth Adolesc. 30, 197–223 (2001)

    work page 2001

  11. [11]

    & Scott, D

    Larouche, R., Charles Rodriguez, U., Nayakarathna, R. & Scott, D. R. Effect of major life events on travel behaviours: a scoping review. Sustainability 12, 10392 (2020)

    work page 2020

  12. [12]

    & Molloy, A

    McCarthy, L., Delbosc, A., Currie, G. & Molloy, A. Trajectories and transitions: mobility after parenthood. Transportation 48, 239–256 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    & Milkie, M

    Nomaguchi, K. & Milkie, M. A. Parenthood and well-being: A decade in review. J. Marriage Fam. 82, 198–223 (2020)

    work page 2020

  14. [14]

    & Barabási, A.-L

    Song, C., Qu, Z., Blumm, N. & Barabási, A.-L. Limits of predictability in human mobility. Science 327, 1018–1021, DOI: 10.1126/science.1177170 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1177170 2010

  15. [15]

    C., Maritan, A

    Simini, F., González, M. C., Maritan, A. & Barabási, A.-L. A universal model for mobility and migration patterns. Nature 484, 96, DOI: 10.1038/nature10856 (2012)

    work page doi:10.1038/nature10856 2012

  16. [16]

    B., Evsukoff, A

    Barbosa, H., de Lima-Neto, F. B., Evsukoff, A. & Menezes, R. The effect of recency to human mobility. EPJ Data Sci. 4, 21, DOI: epjds/s13688-015-0059-8 (2015)

    work page 2015

  17. [17]

    Lenormand, M. et al. Influence of sociodemographic characteristics on human mobility. Sci. Reports 5, 10075, DOI: 10.1038/srep10075 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1038/srep10075 2015

  18. [18]

    G., Floría, L

    Lotero, L., Hurtado, R. G., Floría, L. M. & Gómez-Gardeñes, J. Rich do not rise early: spatio-temporal patterns in the mobility networks of different socio-economic classes. Royal Soc. open science 3, 150654, DOI: 10.1098/rsos.150654 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1098/rsos.150654 2016

  19. [19]

    Gauvin, L. et al. Gender gaps in urban mobility. Humanit. Soc. Sci. Commun. 7, 1–13, DOI: 10.1057/s41599-020-0500-x (2020)

    work page doi:10.1057/s41599-020-0500-x 2020

  20. [20]

    & Menezes, R

    Macedo, M., Lotero, L., Cardillo, A., Barbosa, H. & Menezes, R. Gender patterns of human mobility in Colombia: Reexamining Ravenstein’s laws of migration. InComplex Networks XI: Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Complex Networks CompleNet 2020, 269–281, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-030-40943-2_23 (Springer Nature, 2020)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-030-40943-2_23 2020

  21. [21]

    & Barbosa, H

    Macedo, M., Lotero, L., Cardillo, A., Menezes, R. & Barbosa, H. Differences in the spatial landscape of urban mobility: gender and socioeconomic perspectives. Plos one 17, e0260874, DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0260874 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0260874 2022

  22. [22]

    Battison, A. et al. Revealing the determinants of gender inequality in urban cycling with large-scale data. EPJ Data Sci. 12, DOI: 10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00385-7 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1140/epjds/s13688-023-00385-7 2023

  23. [23]

    & Geisel, T

    Brockmann, D., Hufnagel, L. & Geisel, T. The scaling laws of human travel.Nature 439, 462–5, DOI: 10.1038/nature04292 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1038/nature04292 2006

  24. [24]

    The Size, Scale, and Shape of Cities

    Batty, M. The Size, Scale, and Shape of Cities. Science 319, 769–771, DOI: 10.1126/science.1151419 (2008)

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1151419 2008

  25. [25]

    & Timme, M

    Molkenthin, N., Schröder, M. & Timme, M. Scaling Laws of Collective Ride-Sharing Dynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 248302, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.248302 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.248302 2020

  26. [26]

    heartbeat

    França, U., Sayama, H., Mcswiggen, C., Daneshvar, R. & Bar-Yam, Y . Visualizing the “heartbeat” of a city with tweets. Complexity 21, 280–287, DOI: 10.1002/cplx.21687 (2016)

    work page doi:10.1002/cplx.21687 2016

  27. [27]

    G., Battiston, F., Saberi, M

    Alessandretti, L., Natera Orozco, L. G., Battiston, F., Saberi, M. & Szell, M. Multimodal urban mobility and multilayer transport networks. Environ. Plan. B: Urban Anal. City Sci. 239980832211081, DOI: 10.1177/23998083221108190 (2022)

    work page doi:10.1177/23998083221108190 2022

  28. [28]

    & Thiran, P

    Kurant, M. & Thiran, P. Layered Complex Networks. Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 138701, DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.138701 (2006)

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.138701 2006

  29. [29]

    & Moreno, Y

    Aleta, A., Meloni, S. & Moreno, Y . A multilayer perspective for the analysis of urban transportation systems. Sci. Reports 7, 44359, DOI: 10.1038/srep44359 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1038/srep44359 2017

  30. [30]

    & Schap, T

    Lino, M., Kuczynski, K., Rodriguez, N. & Schap, T. Expenditures on children by families, 2015. Tech. Rep. 1528-2015, United States Department of Agriculture (2017). Revised March 2017

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    P., Freisthler, B., Kepple, N

    Wolf, J. P., Freisthler, B., Kepple, N. J. & Chavez, R. The places parents go: understanding the breadth, scope, and experiences of activity spaces for parents. GeoJournal 82, 355–368, DOI: 10.1007/s10708-015-9690-y (2017). 10/12

    work page doi:10.1007/s10708-015-9690-y 2017

  32. [32]

    Barbosa, H. et al. Uncovering the socioeconomic facets of human mobility. Sci. Reports 11, 8616, DOI: 10.1038/ s41598-021-87407-4 (2021)

    work page 2021

  33. [33]

    Anderson, K. F. & Galaskiewicz, J. Racial/Ethnic Residential Segregation, Socioeconomic Inequality, and Job Accessibility by Public Transportation Networks in the United States. Spatial Demogr. 1–33, DOI: 10.1007/s40980-021-00093-8 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1007/s40980-021-00093-8 2021

  34. [34]

    M., Centellegher, S., Tizzoni, M

    Luca, M., Campedelli, G. M., Centellegher, S., Tizzoni, M. & Lepri, B. Crime, inequality and public health: a survey of emerging trends in urban data science. Front. Big Data 6, 1124526, DOI: 10.3389/fdata.2023.1124526 (2023)

    work page doi:10.3389/fdata.2023.1124526 2023

  35. [35]

    Moreira, G. C. & Ceccato, V . A. Gendered mobility and violence in the São Paulo metro, Brazil.Urban Stud. 58, 1–20, DOI: 10.1177/0042098019885552 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1177/0042098019885552 2020

  36. [36]

    Tiznado-Aitken, I., Sagaris, L. et al. Uncovering gender-based violence and harassment in public transport: Lessons for spatial and transport justice. J. Transp. Geogr. 114, 103766, DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103766 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2023.103766 2023

  37. [37]

    & Machin, S

    Giupponi, G. & Machin, S. Labour market inequality. Oxf. Open Econ. 3, i884–i905, DOI: 10.1093/ooec/odad039 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1093/ooec/odad039 2024

  38. [38]

    & Pettersson, F

    Hrelja, R., Khan, J. & Pettersson, F. How to create efficient public transport systems? A systematic review of critical problems and approaches for addressing the problems. Transp. Policy 98, 186–196, DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.10.012 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.tranpol.2019.10.012 2019

  39. [39]

    Chacon-Hurtado, D., Kumar, I., Gkritza, K., Fricker, J. D. & Beaulieu, L. J. The role of transportation accessibility in regional economic resilience. J. Transp. Geogr. 84, 102695, DOI: 10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102695 (2020)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2020.102695 2020

  40. [40]

    & Klein, L

    D’ignazio, C. & Klein, L. F. Data feminism (MIT press, 2023)

    work page 2023

  41. [41]

    Perez, C. C. Invisible women: Data bias in a world designed for men (Abrams, 2019)

    work page 2019

  42. [42]

    Masset, R

    Roy, S., Bailey, A. & van Noorloos, F. Understanding the barriers affecting women’s mobility in the first-and last-mile stretches in low-and middle-income countries: A systematic review. J. Transp. Geogr. 121, 104036, DOI: 10.1016/j. jtrangeo.2024.104036 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1016/j 2024

  43. [43]

    & Hale, J

    Kapsalis, E., Jaeger, N. & Hale, J. Disabled-by-design: effects of inaccessible urban public spaces on users of mobility assistive devices – a systematic review. Disabil. Rehabil. Assist. Technol. 19, 604–622, DOI: 10.1080/17483107.2022. 2111723 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1080/17483107.2022 2022

  44. [44]

    Gender and mobility: new approaches for informing sustainability

    Hanson, S. Gender and mobility: new approaches for informing sustainability. Gender , Place & Cult. 17, 5–23, DOI: 10.1080/09663690903498225 (2010)

    work page doi:10.1080/09663690903498225 2010

  45. [45]

    & McQuaid, R

    Hail, Y . & McQuaid, R. The concept of fairness in relation to women transport users. Sustainability 13, 2919, DOI: 10.3390/su13052919 (2021)

    work page doi:10.3390/su13052919 2021

  46. [46]

    Schwanen, and D

    Pereira, R. H., Schwanen, T. & Banister, D. Distributive justice and equity in transportation. Transp. Rev. 37, 170–191, DOI: 10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660 (2017)

    work page doi:10.1080/01441647.2016.1257660 2016

  47. [47]

    Gender differences in commuting travel in the US: interactive effects of race/ethnicity and household structure

    Hu, L. Gender differences in commuting travel in the US: interactive effects of race/ethnicity and household structure. Transportation 48, 909–929, DOI: 10.1007/s11116-020-10085-0 (2021)

    work page doi:10.1007/s11116-020-10085-0 2021

  48. [48]

    & Batista-Ferrer, H

    Audrey, S. & Batista-Ferrer, H. Healthy urban environments for children and young people: A systematic review of intervention studies. Heal. & Place 36, 97–117, DOI: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.09.004 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2015.09.004 2015

  49. [49]

    Schipperijn, J. et al. The role of playgrounds in promoting children’s health – a scoping review.Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Activity 21, 72, DOI: 10.1186/s12966-024-01618-2 (2024)

    work page doi:10.1186/s12966-024-01618-2 2024

  50. [50]

    Baldovino-Chiquillo, L. et al. Effects of an urban cable car intervention on physical activity: the TrUST natural experiment in Bogotá, Colombia. The Lancet Glob. Heal. 11, e1290–e1300, DOI: 10.1016/S2214-109X(23)00274-7 (2023)

    work page doi:10.1016/s2214-109x(23)00274-7 2023

  51. [51]

    Rubio, M. A. et al. The impacts of an urban cable car system on liveability: a mixed methods study in Bogotá, Colombia. In The Empathic City: An Urban Health and Wellbeing Perspective , 311–345, DOI: 10.1007/978-3-031-32840-4_14 (Springer, 2023)

    work page doi:10.1007/978-3-031-32840-4_14 2023

  52. [52]

    Child-friendly cities and communities: opportunities and challenges

    Powell, R. Child-friendly cities and communities: opportunities and challenges. Child. Geogr. 1–14, DOI: 10.1080/ 14733285.2024.2353746 (2024)

    work page arXiv 2024

  53. [53]

    Census Data API User Guide

    United States Census Bureau. Census Data API User Guide. Available at: https://www.census.gov/data/developers/ guidance/api-user-guide.html (2024)

    work page 2024

  54. [54]

    American Community Survey

    United States Census Bureau. American Community Survey. Available at: https://www.census.gov/programs-surveys/acs/

    work page

  55. [55]

    Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org

    OpenStreetMap contributors. Planet dump retrieved from https://planet.osm.org . https://www.openstreetmap.org (2017). 11/12

    work page 2017

  56. [56]

    Cluster-based ag- gregate forecasting for residential electricity demand using smart meter data

    Pappalardo, L., Pedreschi, D., Smoreda, Z. & Giannotti, F. Using big data to study the link between human mobility and socio-economic development. Proc. - 2015 IEEE Int. Conf. on Big Data, IEEE Big Data 2015 871–878, DOI: 10.1109/BigData.2015.7363835 (2015)

    work page doi:10.1109/bigdata.2015.7363835 2015

  57. [57]

    Lenormand, M. et al. Entropy as a measure of attractiveness and socioeconomic complexity in Rio de Janeiro metropolitan area. Entropy 22, 368, DOI: 10.3390/e22030368 (2020)

    work page doi:10.3390/e22030368 2020

  58. [58]

    Guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing, 2006)

    Oliphant, T. Guide to NumPy (Trelgol Publishing, 2006)

    work page 2006

  59. [59]

    van der Walt, S., Colbert, S. C. & Varoquaux, G. The NumPy Array: A Structure for Efficient Numerical Computation. Comput. Sci. Eng. 13, 22–30, DOI: 10.1109/MCSE.2011.37 (2011)

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2011.37 2011

  60. [60]

    geopandas/geopandas: v1.0.1, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.12625316 (2024)

    Joris, V .et al. geopandas/geopandas: v1.0.1, DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.12625316 (2024)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.12625316 2024

  61. [61]

    Hunter, J. D. Matplotlib: a 2D graphics environment. Comput. Sci. & Eng. 9, 90–95, DOI: 10.1109/MCSE.2007.55 (2007). Declaration For the purpose of open access, the authors have applied a Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) licence to any accepted manuscript version arising from this submission. Acknowledgements The authors are grateful to Laura Lotero f...

    work page doi:10.1109/mcse.2007.55 2007