Activity locations, residential segregation and the significance of residential neighbourhood boundary perceptions

Abstract

The inadequacies of residential census geography in capturing urban residents’ routine exposures have motivated efforts to more directly measure residents’ activity spaces. In turn, insights regarding urban activity patterns have been used to motivate alternative residential neighbourhood measurement strategies incorporating dimensions of activity space in the form of egocentric neighbourhoods – measurement approaches that place individuals at the centre of their own residential neighbourhood units. Unexamined, however, is the extent to which the boundaries of residents’ own self-defined residential neighbourhoods compare with census-based and egocentric neighbourhood measurement approaches in aligning with residents’ routine activity locations. We first assess this question, examining whether the boundaries of residents’ self-defined residential neighbourhoods are in closer proximity to the coordinates of a range of activity location types than are the boundaries of their census and egocentric residential neighbourhood measurement approaches. We find little evidence that egocentric or, crucially, self-defined residential neighbourhoods better align with activity locations, suggesting a division in residents’ activity locations and conceptions of their residential neighbourhoods. We then examine opposing hypotheses about how self-defined residential neighbourhoods and census tracts compare in socioeconomic and racial composition. Overall, our findings suggest that residents bound less segregated neighbourhoods than those produced by census geography, but self-defined residential neighbourhoods still reflect a preference towards homophily when considering areas beyond the immediate environment of their residence. These findings underscore the significance of individuals’ conceptions of residential neighbourhoods to understanding and measuring urban social processes such as residential segregation and social disorganisation.

Neighborhoods, Activity Spaces, and the Span of Adolescent Exposures

“…Although critique of the census tract as a proxy for neighborhoods has been extensive (Sperling 2012), neighborhood researchers have yet to establish consensus on a more constructive approach to bounding urban neighborhoods. Systematic empirical evaluation of alternative neighborhood operationalizations with respect to time-allocation patterns remains an important direction for future research on the intersection of activity spaces and neighborhoods (Pinchak et al forthcoming).…”

‘My neighbourhood is fuzzy, not hard and fast’: Individual and contextual associations with perceived residential neighbourhood boundaries among ageing Americans

“…Jones and Pebley (2014) observed that census tracts in Los Angeles County (California) generally did not adequately represent the social environments in which participants moved. Pinchak et al (2021) found that participants’ self-defined neighbourhoods were more socio-economically and racially diverse than their residential census tract. Another common approach is to create buffer zones centred on home addresses with differing radii (e.g.…”

“…Many urban planning, geography, and population health researchers simplify assumptions about neighbourhood boundaries by relying upon predefined administrative definitions (e.g., census blocks, block groups, and census tracts; zip codes; municipally-named neighbourhoods) to operationalise this critical unit of interest (Coulton et al, 2013). However, these boundaries may not accurately capture what ‘neighbourhood’ means to individuals, nor the routine activities or social ties of residents (Pinchak et al, 2021). Municipally-named neighbourhoods have not been well validated as constituting ‘real’ neighbourhoods, while zip codes were constructed for the explicit purpose of delivering mail (Hipp et al, 2012).…”

“…This paper conceptualises neighbourhoods through an egocentric residential neighbourhood approach (Pinchak et al, 2021): placing individuals at the centre of their own self-defined neighbourhoods through their activities, social ties, place attachments, and perceptions (Campbell et al, 2009; Colburn et al, 2020; Spilsbury et al, 2009). Vallée et al’s (2015) caution against the ‘constant size neighbourhood trap’ fails to account for the unique ways that residents experience and conceptualise their neighbourhoods.…”

“…This paper expands the evidence base on the definition of neighbourhoods by focusing on the experiences and perspectives of diverse older adults. Previous person-centred studies of neighbourhood perceptions and experiences have largely focused on children or adolescents (e.g., Pratt et al, 2020; Spilsbury et al, 2009) and parents in early to middle age (e.g., Campbell et al, 2009; Pinchak et al, 2021). There is a knowledge gap on older adults, who are often overlooked in urban research (Finlay and Finn, 2021).…”