How Neighborhoods Shape Access to Cultural Institutions and Why It Matters for Social Mobility

A new study from the USC Price School of Public Policy shines a bright light on an issue that often hides in plain sight: the places we live can quietly influence how easily we access cultural institutions that help shape opportunity. The research, published in the Journal of Economic Geography, breaks down how distance and travel time affect who can reach libraries, museums, elite universities, theaters, art galleries, and other sources of what researchers call cultural capital. And the findings are clear — less educated and lower-income neighborhoods consistently live farther from these cultural resources, creating yet another barrier that can hold communities back.

Below is a detailed, straightforward walkthrough of what the study uncovered, how the researchers measured these disparities, why cultural capital matters, and what solutions the authors believe could help close the gap.

What the Study Examined

Researchers Elizabeth Currid-Halkett and Andrew Eisenlohr set out to quantify something that has long been suspected but never measured on this scale: the geographic dimension of cultural inequality. To do this, they analyzed neighborhoods across the 12 most populous metropolitan areas in the United States, comparing their distance and travel times to eight types of cultural amenities:

• Libraries
• Museums
• Elite universities
• Whole Foods stores
• Equinox gyms and spas
• Fine performing arts venues
• Independent film venues
• Art galleries

These were chosen as representative sources of cultural capital, which refers to the knowledge, skills, habits, and cultural exposure that help people move upward in society. This concept, rooted in the work of sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, has been widely studied — but mostly in terms of education or family environment. Geography, surprisingly, has been understudied.

To measure access accurately, the researchers calculated straight-line distances (how far something is “as the crow flies”) as well as expected travel times, which reflect real-world transportation networks.

Their sampling strategy involved taking randomly selected neighborhoods and comparing their access levels based on average educational attainment and average household income.

Key Findings: Who Lives Closest and Who Doesn’t

The results reveal a pattern that is both consistent and concerning.

1. Higher-educated neighborhoods live closer to all cultural amenities

Across every category — museums, libraries, film venues, galleries, food stores, elite universities, fitness centers, and arts venues — neighborhoods with more college-educated residents had significantly better proximity.

This held true whether the measurement was distance or travel time. In other words, it’s not just about miles on a map — it’s about how long it actually takes to get there.

2. Higher-income neighborhoods enjoy shorter travel times

When looking specifically at travel time, the researchers found that the highest-earning census tracts were closer to every type of cultural capital than the lowest-earning tracts.

This reinforces a pattern many cities have struggled with: wealth clusters around high-amenity areas, while lower-income communities remain pushed farther out.

3. Even small increases in distance create real-world barriers

One surprising finding involves the psychology of distance. Even modest increases — a half-mile or a few extra minutes of travel — can significantly reduce how often people make use of an institution. Prior research has shown that households are far less likely to use public transit or visit a cultural location when it falls just beyond a short walking distance.

Cultural resources might be open to all, but accessibility is not equal.

4. These disparities are systematic, not random

The study shows a consistent, patterned inequality across major cities. Cultural amenities tend to cluster in neighborhoods that already have high levels of education, wealth, and social capital. This spatial clustering reinforces social differences from one generation to the next.

Why Cultural Capital Matters for Social Mobility

The concept of cultural capital goes beyond simply visiting a museum or having a library card. It includes:

• familiarity with arts and culture
• educational expectations
• comfort within elite institutions
• exposure to new ideas and networks
• knowledge of how to navigate academic and professional environments

People who accumulate cultural capital often experience more social mobility, meaning they have better chances of improving their economic and social position.

Cultural institutions — universities, museums, libraries, performing arts centers — act as engines that help develop these skills. But when access to these institutions is geographically uneven, the result is spatial inequality layered on top of economic inequality.

In simple terms: where you live affects what opportunities are available to you, even when those opportunities are technically “public.”

How the Researchers Suggest Addressing the Gap

The authors don’t just point out the problem — they offer several policy recommendations to help close the access divide:

1. Expand and diversify access to elite universities

Elite universities often sit at the center of cultural ecosystems that include galleries, libraries, theaters, and lecture halls. Making these institutions more accessible to diverse populations could have ripple effects across neighborhoods.

2. Redistribute affordable housing

By placing affordable housing closer to cultural institutions — rather than clustering it in low-amenity areas — cities could give lower-income families more direct access to cultural capital.

3. Teach cultural capital early through schools

Schools, the researchers argue, should incorporate cultural capital directly into the curriculum. This can help students understand:

• why cultural exposure matters
• how it relates to opportunity
• how to navigate institutions that may feel unfamiliar

Even when geographic access is limited, schools can help bridge cultural gaps.

The Larger Context: Why Geography Is Becoming a Bigger Factor in Inequality

The study’s conclusions tap into a broader conversation happening in economics, sociology, and urban studies.

Place shapes opportunity

We now know that ZIP codes often predict future income more reliably than any other factor. When cultural capital is unevenly distributed geographically, it creates a self-reinforcing cycle:

• high-opportunity neighborhoods attract more amenities
• amenities increase desirability
• desirability increases property values
• lower-income residents get priced out
• cultural institutions remain clustered in privileged areas

This cycle doesn’t require intentional exclusion — it emerges naturally unless policy intervenes.

Cultural capital is tied to educational outcomes

Students exposed to cultural amenities tend to perform better academically, develop broader worldviews, and gain confidence in elite environments. Without access to these spaces, children may miss out on opportunities to build the non-academic skills that help them succeed later in life.

Geographic inequality compounds other forms of inequality

Income, education, transportation, and housing all intersect with geography. When cultural access is sparse in disadvantaged communities, it becomes another layer of a multi-layered challenge.

Why This Study Matters Today

As cities debate housing affordability, school funding, transportation planning, and community development, this research adds a crucial perspective: cultural institutions are not luxuries — they are infrastructure for social mobility.

By showing that access to cultural capital is unequal in measurable ways, the study challenges policymakers to rethink how cities are planned and how opportunity is distributed.

It’s not enough for museums, libraries, and universities to exist. Their location — and how reachable they are — determines who can benefit from them.

Research Reference

The Geography of Cultural Capital: Measuring Neighborhood-Level Gaps in Access as a Key Driver of Social Mobility
https://doi.org/10.1093/jeg/lbaf040