Census-Based Variables Are Informative about Subjective Neighborhood Relations, but Only When Adjusted for Residents’ Neighborhood Conceptions
Abstract
:1. Introduction
1.1. Approaches on Defining Neighborhood Boundaries
1.2. Predicting Neighborhood Relations and Satisfaction from Census-Based Variables
1.3. Aims of This Research
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data Collection
2.2.1. Postcard Design
2.2.2. Postcard Distribution
2.2.3. Processing of Returned Postcards
2.2.4. Demographic Data and Neighborhood Relations
2.2.5. Digitalization and Definition of Neighborhood Boundaries
2.2.6. Inclusion of Census-Based Variables
- Proportion of German residents: The number of residents with a German nationality divided by the total number of residents.
- Average number of people per household: The dataset provided information about the number of people per household in the following categories: 1 person; 2 persons; 3 persons; 4 persons; 5 persons and more persons. As an approximation of the average household size in a given neighborhood, we multiplied the value of each category (i.e., 1 for one person, 2 for two persons, etc.) with the respective number of residents in this category and divided the sum of these multiplications by the total number of residents in this building block. This variable also reflects the proportion of families with children.
- Average number of homes per building: The dataset provided information about the number of homes per building in the following categories: 1–2 homes; 3–5 homes; 6–7 homes; 8–9 homes; 10 and more homes. Corresponding to the method described above, we computed an estimate of the average number of homes per building by multiplying the lowest value of each category (e.g., 3 for the category ‘3–5 homes’) with the respective number of residents in this category, relative to the total number of residents in this building block. Using the lowest value of each category underestimates the true number of homes per building and should thus be treated as a rough estimate rather than a precise measure. However, this was the most consistent approach we could think of.
- Proportion of seniors: The dataset provided only very rough information about the residents’ age. The most relevant and clearly identifiable variable was the number of elderly people (60+ years). We computed the proportion of seniors by dividing the number of residents aged 60 years and older by the total number of residents.
3. Results
3.1. Neighborhood Size and Shape
- Neighborhood relations. The compound measure consisting of the self-reported levels of contact, attachment, and trust.
- Demographics and self-reported living situation. Gender and mother tongue were treated as categorical factors. The number of children was turned into a categorical variable (no children vs. one or more children) due to the odd distribution, with 69.7% of the participants stating that no minors lived at their household. All other variables were treated as continuous factors.
- Census-based variables, as reported in the previous section, and adjusted to the area of the self-defined neighborhood of each participant.
3.2. Neighborhood Relations
4. Discussion
4.1. Limitations
4.2. Towards Identifying Individual and Shared Neighborhood Cores and Boundaries
5. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Institutional Review Board Statement
Informed Consent Statement
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Vallée, J.; Le Roux, G.; Chaix, B.; Kestens, Y.; Chauvin, P. The ‘Constant Size Neighbourhood Trap’ in Accessibility and Health Studies. Urban. Stud. 2015, 52, 338–357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bernardo, F.; Palma-Oliveira, J.-M. Urban Neighbourhoods and Intergroup Relations: The Importance of Place Identity. J. Environ. Psychol. 2016, 45, 239–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Charreire, H.; Feuillet, T.; Roda, C.; Mackenbach, J.D.; Compernolle, S.; Glonti, K.; Bárdos, H.; Le Vaillant, M.; Rutter, H.; McKee, M.; et al. Self-Defined Residential Neighbourhoods: Size Variations and Correlates across Five European Urban Regions. Obes. Rev. 2016, 17, 9–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Colabianchi, N.; Coulton, C.J.; Hibbert, J.D.; McClure, S.M.; Ievers-Landis, C.E.; Davis, E.M. Adolescent Self-Defined Neighborhoods and Activity Spaces: Spatial Overlap and Relations to Physical Activity and Obesity. Health Place 2014, 27, 22–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Oakes, J.M.; Andrade, K.E.; Biyoow, I.M.; Cowan, L.T. Twenty Years of Neighborhood Effect Research: An Assessment. Curr. Epidemiol. Rep. 2015, 2, 80–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Lewicka, M. Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40 Years? J. Environ. Psychol. 2011, 31, 207–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brown, B.; Perkins, D.D.; Brown, G. Place Attachment in a Revitalizing Neighborhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis. J. Environ. Psychol. 2003, 23, 259–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dang, L.; Seemann, A.-K.; Lindenmeier, J.; Saliterer, I. Explaining Civic Engagement: The Role of Neighborhood Ties, Place Attachment, and Civic Responsibility. J. Community Psychol. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Scannell, L.; Gifford, R. The Experienced Psychological Benefits of Place Attachment. J. Environ. Psychol. 2017, 51, 256–269. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jenks, M.; Dempsey, N. Defining the Neighbourhood: Challenges for Empirical Research. Town Plan. Rev. 2007, 78, 153–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- French, S.; Wood, L.; Foster, S.A.; Giles-Corti, B.; Frank, L.; Learnihan, V. Sense of Community and Its Association With the Neighborhood Built Environment. Environ. Behav. 2014, 46, 677–697. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, S.M.; Conway, T.L.; Frank, L.D.; Saelens, B.E.; Cain, K.L.; Sallis, J.F. The Relation of Perceived and Objective Environment Attributes to Neighborhood Satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 2017, 49, 136–160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bonaiuto, M.; Fornara, F.; Bonnes, M. Indexes of Perceived Residential Environment Quality and Neighbourhood Attachment in Urban Environments: A Confirmation Study on the City of Rome. Landsc. Urban. Plan. 2003, 65, 41–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zahnow, R.; Tsai, A. Crime Victimization, Place Attachment, and the Moderating Role of Neighborhood Social Ties and Neighboring Behavior. Environ. Behav. 2019, 0013916519875175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Marco, A.; De Marco, M. Conceptualization and Measurement of the Neighborhood in Rural Settings: A Systematic Review of the Literature. J. Community Psychol. 2010, 38, 99–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coulton, C.J.; Jennings, M.Z.; Chan, T. How Big Is My Neighborhood? Individual and Contextual Effects on Perceptions of Neighborhood Scale. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2013, 51, 140–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cutchin, M.P.; Eschbach, K.; Mair, C.A.; Ju, H.; Goodwin, J.S. The Socio-Spatial Neighborhood Estimation Method: An Approach to Operationalizing the Neighborhood Concept. Health Place 2011, 17, 1113–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Siordia, C.; Coulton, C.J. Using Hand-Draw Maps of Residential Neighbourhood to Compute Level of Circularity and Investigate Its Predictors. Hum. Geogr.— J. Stud. Res. Hum. Geogr. 2015, 9, 131–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- von Stülpnagel, R.; Brand, D.; Seemann, A.-K. Your Neighbourhood Is Not a Circle, and You Are Not Its Centre. J. Environ. Psychol. 2019, 66, 101349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bödeker, M. Walking and Walkability in Pre-Set and Self-Defined Neighborhoods: A Mental Mapping Study in Older Adults. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public. Health 2018, 15, 1363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Smith, G.; Gidlow, C.; Davey, R.; Foster, C. What Is My Walking Neighbourhood? A Pilot Study of English Adults’ Definitions of Their Local Walking Neighbourhoods. Int. J. Behav. Nutr. Phys. Act. 2010, 7, 8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
- Grogan-Kaylor, A.; Woolley, M.; Mowbray(deceased), C.; Reischl, T.M.; Gilster, M.; Karb, R.; Macfarlane, P.; Gant, L.; Alaimo, K. Predictors of Neighborhood Satisfaction. J. Community Pract. 2006, 14, 27–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Krase, J. Seeing Community in a Multicultural Society: Theory and Practice. In Perspectives of Multiculturalism: Western and Transitional Countries; Croatian Commission for UNESCO; FF Press: Zagreb, Croatia, 2004; pp. 151–177. [Google Scholar]
- Dunn, C.E. Participatory GIS—A People’s GIS? Prog. Hum. Geogr. 2007, 31, 616–637. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Flanagin, A.J.; Metzger, M.J. The Credibility of Volunteered Geographic Information. GeoJournal 2008, 72, 137–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mukherjee, F. Public Participatory GIS. Geogr. Compass 2015, 9, 384–394. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Elwood, S.; Leitner, H. GIS and Spatial Knowledge Production for Neighborhood Revitalization: Negotiating State Priorities and Neighborhood Visions. J. Urban. Aff. 2003, 25, 139–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dalton, N. Is Neighbourhood Measurable. In Proceedings of the 6th International Space Syntax Symposium, Istanbul, Turkey, 12–15 June 2007; Volume 88, pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
- Hipp, J.R.; Faris, R.W.; Boessen, A. Measuring ‘Neighborhood’: Constructing Network Neighborhoods. Soc. Netw. 2012, 34, 128–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Campbell, E.; Henly, J.R.; Elliott, D.S.; Irwin, K. Subjective Constructions of Neighborhood Boundaries: Lessons from a Qualitative Study of Four Neighborhoods. J. Urban. Aff. 2009, 31, 461–490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van Gent, W.P.C.; Boterman, W.R.; van Grondelle, M.W. Surveying the Fault Lines in Social Tectonics; Neighbourhood Boundaries in a Socially-Mixed Renewal Area. Hous. Theory Soc. 2016, 33, 247–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Kramer, R. Defensible Spaces in Philadelphia: Exploring Neighborhood Boundaries Through Spatial Analysis. RSF Russell Sage Found. J. Soc. Sci. 2017, 3, 81–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Goldblatt, R.; Omer, I. “Perceived Neighbourhood” and Tolerance Relations: The Case of Arabs and Jews in Jaffa, Israel. Local Environ. 2016, 21, 555–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bae, C.; Montello, D. Representations of an Urban Ethnic Neighbourhood: Residents’ Cognitive Boundaries of Koreatown, Los Angeles. Built Environ. 2018, 44, 218–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Phillips, D.W.; Montello, D.R. Defining the Community of Interest as Thematic and Cognitive Regions. Polit. Geogr. 2017, 61, 31–45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Spielman, S.E. Spatial Collective Intelligence? Credibility, Accuracy, and Volunteered Geographic Information. Cartogr. Geogr. Inf. Sci. 2014, 41, 115–124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Short Item | Full Item | M (SD); Range |
---|---|---|
Self-Reported Living Conditions | ||
Years of residency 1 | How long do you live in your neighborhood? | 9.9 (13.1); 0–64 |
People in household | How many people (including yourself) live in your household? | 2.5 (1.3); 1–8 |
Number of minors 2 | How many people in your household are minors? | 0.5 (1.0); 0–6 |
People in building | How many people live approximately live in the same building as you? | 19.8 (23.1); 1–200 |
Neighborhood relations (assessed on 5-point Likert scales ranging from 1 = ‘not at all’ to 5 = ‘very much’) | ||
Contact | I have a lot of contact with my neighborhood | 3.4 (1.4); 1–5 |
Connection | I feel attached to my neighborhood | 3.6 (1.4); 1–5 |
Trust | I trust people in my neighborhood | 3.9 (1.1); 1–5 |
Neighborhood Boundary | Statistical Block (Used in Model 3) | 500 m Buffer (Used in Model 4) | 208 m Buffer (Used in Model 5) | Self-Defined (Used in Model 6) |
---|---|---|---|---|
Census Variable | ||||
Proportion of Germans | 0.82 (0.06; 0.65–0.87) | 0.79 (0.03; 0.73–0.87) | 0.81 (0.07; 0.63–0.91) | 0.82 (0.07; 0.48–0.97) |
People per household | 1.77 (0.26; 1.39–2.06) | 1.77 (0.18; 1.54–2.22) | 1.77 (0.33; 1.38–2.55) | 1.82 (0.48; 1.19–2.91) |
Homes per building | 4.75 (0.69; 4.05–5.81) | 4.29 (1.11; 2.28–5.85) | 4.65 (1.27; 1.95–7.78) | 4.93 (1.75; 1.93–9.10) |
Proportion of seniors | 0.14 (0.03; 0.08–0.20) | 0.14 (0.02; 0.07–0.17) | 0.18 (0.06; 0.05–0.34) | 0.14 (0.08; 0.01–0.70) |
Overlap with self-defined neighborhood | ||||
0.29 (0.33; 0.00–1.00) | 0.11 (0.15; 0.00–0.77) | 0.28 (0.28; 0.00–1.00) | ||
Correlation with self-defined neighborhood | ||||
Proportion of Germans | r = 0.37 *** | r = 0.11 | r = 0.42 *** | |
People per household | r = 0.61 *** | r = 0.78 *** | r = 0.82 *** | |
Homes per building | r = 0.18 ** | r = −0.07 | r = 0.09 | |
Proportion of seniors | r = 0.12 | r = 0.27 *** | r = 0.46 *** |
Model 1 | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|
Model Information | ||||
AIC | −49.45 | |||
Nagelkerke’s Pseudo R2 | 0.78 | |||
B (SE) | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | t | |
Constant term | ||||
0.59 (0.21) | 0.18 | 1.00 | 2.83 ** | |
Neighborhood parameters | ||||
Neighborhood relations | 0.02 (0.01) | 0.00 | 0.05 | 1.67 |
Demographic variables and self-reported living conditions | ||||
Gender: men | . | . | . | . |
Gender: other | −0.11 (0.02) | −0.43 | 0.20 | −0.73 |
Gender: women | −0.02 (0.03) | −0.04 | 0.07 | 0.54 |
Children: one or more | . | . | . | . |
Children: no children | −0.01 (0.04) | −0.07 | 0.09 | 0.26 |
Mother tongue: German | . | . | . | . |
Mother tongue: other | −0.002 (0.05) | −0.10 | 0.11 | 0.04 |
Age | −0.003 (0.001) | −0.01 | 0.00 | −2.91 ** |
Years of residency | 0.001 (0.001) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.95 |
People in household | −0.04 (0.01) | −0.07 | −0.02 | −3.17 ** |
People in building | 0.00 (0.001) | 0.00 | 0.00 | 0.74 |
Census-based variables | ||||
Proportion of Germans | −0.53 (0.24) | −0.99 | −0.06 | −2.23 * |
People per household | 0.06 (0.05) | −0.04 | 0.17 | 1.20 |
Homes per building | −0.02 (0.01) | −0.04 | −0.01 | −2.65 ** |
Proportion of seniors | 0.95 (0.32) | 0.32 | 1.58 | 2.96 ** |
Model 2 | Model 3 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Neighborhood boundary | Statistical block | 500 m buffer | ||||||
Model information | ||||||||
AIC | 828.2 | 827.7 | ||||||
Nagelkerke’s R2 | 0.176 | 0.178 | ||||||
B (SE) | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | t | B (SE) | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | t | |
Constant term | ||||||||
−8.74 (37.50) | −82.24 | 64.76 | −0.23 | −13.37 (6.65) | −26.42 | −0.33 | −2.01 * | |
Census-based variables | ||||||||
Proportion of Germans | 5.29 (25.04) | −43.79 | 54.38 | 0.21 | 10.78 (4.46) | 2.04 | 19.52 | 2.42 * |
People per household | 3.01 (5.43) | −7.63 | 13.66 | 0.56 | 3.60 (1.17) | 1.31 | 5.89 | 3.08 ** |
Homes per building | 0.63 (2.86) | −4.98 | 6.24 | 0.22 | −0.27 (0.23) | −0.18 | 0.72 | 1.18 |
Proportion of seniors | −1.83 (42.67) | −85.46 | 81.81 | −0.04 | 7.03 (4.18) | −1.16 | 15.21 | 1.68 |
Model 4 | Model 5 | |||||||
Neighborhood boundary | 208 m buffer | Self-defined neighborhood | ||||||
Model information | ||||||||
AIC | 829.2 | 817.1 | ||||||
Nagelkerke’s R2 | 0.173 | 0.211 | ||||||
B (SE) | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | t | B (SE) | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | t | |
Constant term | ||||||||
−0.38 (1.29) | −2.90 | 2.15 | −0.29 | 0.19 (0.86) | −1.49 | 1.87 | 0.22 | |
Census-based variables | ||||||||
Proportion of Germans | 4.86 (1.45) | 2.02 | 7.71 | 3.35 *** | 1.22 (1.04) | −0.82 | 3.26 | 1.17 |
People per household | 0.69 (0.26) | 0.18 | 1.21 | 2.65 ** | 1.35 (0.19) | 0.99 | 1.72 | 7.26 *** |
Homes per building | −0.14 (0.06) | −0.26 | −0.02 | −2.24 * | −0.10 (0.04) | −0.18 | −0.03 | −2.74 ** |
Proportion of seniors | −2.84 (1.81) | −6.38 | 0.71 | −1.57 | 3.58 (1.20) | 1.22 | 5.94 | 2.97 ** |
Model 6 | Model 7 | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Model Information | ||||||||
AIC | 773.57 | 747.69 | ||||||
Nagelkerke’s R2 | 0.366 | 0.447 | ||||||
B (SE) | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | t | B (SE) | Lower 95% CI | Upper 95% CI | t | |
Constant term | ||||||||
1.37 (.62) | 2.02 | 3.43 | 7.59 *** | 0.63 (0.95) | −1.24 | 2.49 | 0.66 | |
Demographic variables and self-reported living conditions | ||||||||
Gender: men | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Gender: other | 0.59 (0.75) | −0.89 | 2.06 | 0.78 | 0.57 (0.73) | −0.86 | 2.01 | 0.78 |
Gender: women | 0.30 (0.13) | 0.04 | 0.56 | 2.25 * | 0.35 (0.13) | 0.11 | 0.60 | 2.81 ** |
Children: one or more | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Children: no children | −0.66 (0.18) | −1.03 | −0.30 | −3.60 *** | −0.34 (0.18) | −0.70 | 0.02 | −1.89 |
Mother tongue: German | . | . | . | . | . | . | . | . |
Mother tongue: other | −0.68 (0.25) | −1.18 | −0.19 | −2.70 ** | −0.49 (0.24) | −0.97 | −0.01 | −2.01 * |
Age | 0.02 (0.00) | 0.01 | 0.03 | 4.58 *** | 0.01 (0.00) | 0.00 | 0.02 | 2.14 * |
Years of residency | 0.003 (0.01) | −0.01 | 0.02 | .46 | 0.01 (0.01) | 0.00 | 0.03 | 2.01 * |
People in household | 0.10 (0.06) | −0.02 | 0.23 | 1.61 | 0.02 (0.06) | −0.11 | 0.14 | 0.28 |
People in building | −0.003 (0.002) | −0.01 | 0.00 | −1.15 | −0.003 (.002) | −0.01 | 0.00 | −1.05 |
Census-based variables | ||||||||
Proportion of Germans | 0.44 (1.09) | −1.68 | 2.58 | 0.41 | ||||
People per household | 1.16 (0.23) | 0.71 | 1.61 | 5.05 *** | ||||
Homes per building | -0.07 (0.04) | −0.15 | 0.00 | −1.92 | ||||
Proportion of seniors | 2.36 (1.47) | −0.52 | 5.24 | 1.61 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2022 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
von Stülpnagel, R.; Findler, F.; Brand, D. Census-Based Variables Are Informative about Subjective Neighborhood Relations, but Only When Adjusted for Residents’ Neighborhood Conceptions. Sustainability 2022, 14, 4434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084434
von Stülpnagel R, Findler F, Brand D. Census-Based Variables Are Informative about Subjective Neighborhood Relations, but Only When Adjusted for Residents’ Neighborhood Conceptions. Sustainability. 2022; 14(8):4434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084434
Chicago/Turabian Stylevon Stülpnagel, Rul, Franziska Findler, and Daniel Brand. 2022. "Census-Based Variables Are Informative about Subjective Neighborhood Relations, but Only When Adjusted for Residents’ Neighborhood Conceptions" Sustainability 14, no. 8: 4434. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14084434