Article
Defining Neighborhood Boundaries for Urban Health Research

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amepre.2007.02.034Get rights and content

Abstract

The body of literature exploring neighborhood effects on health has increased rapidly in recent years, yet a number of methodologic concerns remain, including preferred methods for identification and delineation of study neighborhoods. In research combining census or other publicly available data with surveys of residents and/or street-level observations, questions regarding neighborhood definition take on added significance. Neighborhoods must be identified and delineated in such a way as to optimize quality and availability of data from each of these sources.

IMPACT (Inner-City Mental Health Study Predicting HIV/AIDS, Club and Other Drug Transitions), a multilevel study examining associations among features of the urban environment and mental health, drug use, and sexual behavior, utilized a multistep neighborhood definition process including development of census block group maps, review of land use and census tract data, and field visits and observation in each of the targeted communities. Field observations were guided by a preidentified list of environmental features focused on the potential for recruitment (e.g., pedestrian volume), characteristics commonly used to define neighborhood boundaries (e.g., obstructions to pedestrian traffic, changes in land use), and characteristics that have been associated in the literature with health behaviors and health outcomes (such as housing type and maintenance and use of open spaces). This process, implemented in February through July 2005, proved feasible and offered the opportunity to identify neighborhoods appropriate to study objectives and to collect descriptive information that can be used as a context for understanding study results.

Introduction

The body of literature exploring neighborhood effects on health has increased rapidly in recent years.1, 2, 3 Social, institutional, and physical characteristics of neighborhoods are being linked to a variety of health behaviors4, 5, 6 and outcomes7 including substance abuse,8, 9 asthma,10 cardiovascular disease,11, 12 birth outcomes,13, 14, 15 respiratory infections,16 sexually transmitted diseases,17 cancer,18 and all-cause mortality.19, 20, 21, 22 Methodologic concerns remain,3, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28 however, including specification of social, institutional, and physical characteristics of neighborhoods that should be included in such research, appropriate methods for collecting neighborhood data (e.g., resident surveys, secondary source data, and/or direct, systematic observation), and guidelines for identification and delineation of study neighborhoods.

Interest in neighborhoods and the impact they have on residents has spanned decades and disciplines,29, 30, 31, 32 including sociology, child development, and public health. There is a general, if not unanimous, consensus within the literature that neighborhood refers to a geographic unit of limited size, with relative homogeneity in housing and population, as well as some level of social interaction and symbolic significance to residents.33, 34 The subjectivity of neighborhood boundaries, demonstrated repeatedly in empirical research,35, 36 is also widely accepted.37 Social connections, common use of public facilities (e.g., schools, shopping areas), and physical barriers (e.g., major thoroughfares) may contribute to overlap in residents’ neighborhood definitions, but their perceptions are also affected by individual characteristics, such as gender, age, and daily activities.34, 38, 39 Particularly in cities, where local travel is easy and frequent, neighborhood boundaries are likely to be malleable.

Given the difficulties inherent in neighborhood delineation, public health researchers have most often opted for predefined boundaries consistent with sociodemographic and health data available from secondary sources (e.g., census tracts in the United States, electoral wards in the United Kingdom).26 Predefined boundaries are easily identified, replicable, and obviously allow for the use of secondary source data. Their disadvantage rests in possible discrepancies with contemporary settlement patterns and resident perceptions of neighborhood boundaries. Local-level variability may be obscured within these preselected units, particularly if they are too large.26 In addition, exclusive reliance on secondary source boundaries may be inefficient for studies involving primary data collection, as it may be impossible to discern, prior to the start of data collection, if factors of interest are present in the selected geographic areas. Despite these limitations, there is little in the public health literature suggesting that alternative methods for delineating neighborhood boundaries have been attempted.26 Direct observations and elicitation of resident perceptions of neighborhood boundaries represent alternatives to predefined boundaries but are generally dismissed as subjective, inconsistent (internally and with respect to secondary source data), and/or labor intensive.17, 23, 25

This article describes methods used for defining neighborhood boundaries for research purposes that supplement census block group information with reviews of publicly available land-use data and systematic observation. The objective in combining these methods was the selection of neighborhood boundaries consistent with census data, study recruitment goals, and residence patterns. A secondary objective was to ensure that the range of environmental characteristics to be examined in the research was present in study neighborhoods.

Section snippets

Background

Inner-City Mental Health Study Predicting HIV/AIDS, Club and Other Drug Transitions (IMPACT) is a 5-year, multilevel neighborhood study aimed at (1) identifying associations among features of the social and physical urban environment, sexual and drug use risk behavior, and HIV prevalence in New York City (NYC) neighborhoods and (2) evaluating interrelations between features of the urban social and physical environment that shape individual sexual and drug use risk behavior and that may

Methods

An essential step in the implementation of the study was to delineate boundaries for each of the 36 neighborhoods that could then be used to establish sampling frames and as key units of analytic interest. Consistency regarding census data was considered necessary, so that sociodemographic and other publicly available data could be incorporated into analyses. The degree to which any particular census-defined area was appropriate for study purposes could not be determined from secondary source

Results

Defined neighborhoods range from 1 to 8 census block groups, with populations (according to the 2000 census)44 ranging from 2252 to 11,503 (mean=5320) (Table 1). Most neighborhoods included in the study had a majority black (12 neighborhoods) or Latino (17 neighborhoods) population. The percent of population below poverty ranged from 9.7% to 65.9% (mean=40.0%), compared with 21.2% for NYC as a whole.45 Eighteen neighborhoods included public housing, in all (five neighborhoods) or in part

Discussion

Despite the growing body of literature exploring neighborhood effects on health, little attention has been paid to processes for neighborhood delineation. Most researchers use predefined boundaries consistent with secondary source data, despite shortcomings, which include possible obfuscation of local level variability and inconsistency with respect to the social or environmental factors being examined. For research involving primary data collection, including surveys or systematic

Conclusion

Neighborhood boundary definitions are subjective, varying even among residents. Consequently, there is no one precise way to delineate a “neighborhood.” A multistep process that begins with the development of census maps and reviews of published land use as well as census data for targeted communities, and continues with systematic street-level observations, is a relatively efficient methodology that allows for consideration of a range of factors commonly used in neighborhood definition,

References (46)

  • C. Kadushin et al.

    The substance use system: social and neighborhood environments associated with substance use and misuse

    Subst Use Misuse

    (1998)
  • R.J. Wright et al.

    Putting asthma into context: community influences on risk, behavior, and intervention

  • A.V. Diez Roux

    Residential environments and cardiovascular risk

    J Urban Health

    (2003)
  • A.V. Diez Roux et al.

    Neighborhood of residence and incidence of coronary heart disease

    N Engl J Med

    (2001)
  • P.J. O’Campo et al.

    Neighborhood risk factors for low birthweight in Baltimore: a multilevel analysis

    Am J Public Health

    (1997)
  • N.A. Ponce et al.

    Preterm birth: the interaction of traffic-related air pollution with economic hardship in Los Angeles neighborhoods

    Am J Epidemiol

    (2005)
  • P. Vliet et al.

    Motor vehicle exhaust and chronic respiratory symptoms in children living near freeways

    Environ Res

    (1997)
  • D. Cohen et al.

    “Broken windows” and the risk of gonorrhea

    Am J Public Health

    (2000)
  • J. Litt et al.

    Examining Urban brownfields through the public health “macroscope.”

    Environ Health Persp

    (2002)
  • S. Jackson et al.

    The relation of residential segregation to all-cause mortality: a study in black and white

    Am J Public Health

    (2000)
  • H. Bosma et al.

    Neighborhood socio-economic status and all-cause mortality

    Am J Epidemiol

    (2001)
  • M. Haan et al.

    Poverty and health: prospective evidence from the Alameda County Study

    Am J Epidemiol

    (1987)
  • N. Waitzman et al.

    Phantom of the area: poverty-area residence and mortality in the United States

    Am J Public Health

    (1998)
  • Cited by (94)

    • The availability of local primary care services, satisfaction with health services and self-rated health in older English adults: A population-based study

      2022, Preventive Medicine Reports
      Citation Excerpt :

      The quantity of primary care services was measured at LSOA level. Although LSOAs have been widely used in the UK census and small area statistics, the boundaries of this area unit might not reflect activity spaces of individuals (Weiss et al., 2007). People could travel outside of their local areas to access GP practices and other primary care services or use private healthcare services.

    • Location Choice Models

      2021, International Encyclopedia of Transportation: Volume 1-7
    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text