Measuring a neighborhood affluence-deprivation continuum in urban settings: Descriptive findings from four US cities

Abstract

BACKGROUNDIn the United States (US), the area-based measure of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics used in health research varies considerably from one study to another. However, it is unclear whether different area-based measures capture the same or different dimension of neighborhood context. OBJECTIVEThe purpose of this study is to examine the relationships between single measures (i.e., area-based median household income and median family income) and composite measures (i.e., area-based measures derived from a combination of multiple variables) of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics. METHODSArea-based socioeconomic data at the census tract level were obtained from the 2005-09 American Community Survey (ACS) for St. Louis, Missouri; Chicago, Illinois; San Diego, California; and Los Angeles, California. Single measures of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics were simply taken from the ACS data, and composite measures were derived from the computational methods described in previous studies. Separate correlation statistics were then conducted for four US cities. RESULTSDespite the differences in how selected area-based measures of neighborhood socioeconomic characteristics were derived from the ACS data, they were highly correlated (either negatively or positively) with one another. In other words, selected area-based measures capture the same dimension of neighborhood context. CONCLUSIONSA neighborhood affluence-deprivation continuum in US cities may be captured by an area-based median household (or family) income. Nevertheless, to ensure the http://www.demographic-research.org generalizability and transportability of results from four US cities, further comparisons of area-based measures (not limited to those considered in this study) are needed in different US cities.

Census-Tract-Level Median Household Income and Median Family Income Estimates: A Unidimensional Measure of Neighborhood Socioeconomic Status?

“…Similar to previous studies conducted in the US [3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][27][28][29], census tracts were used to denote neighborhoods for two main reasons: (i) some area-level socioeconomic indicators comprised in the construction of area-based indexes [20][21][22][23][24] were not available at the block group level (i.e., a subdivision of census tracts), and (ii) census tracts are a manifestation of national democratic governance informed by local input, and historically created in accordance with uniform standards [39]. Note that block groups have been used in some US studies, but block-group-level estimates are generally quite unreliable with relatively large margins of error than the census-tract-level estimates.…”

“…While the findings from three previous studies [27][28][29] may have collectively shed some light on the potential use of MHI or MFI in the context of data analytics and multilevel analyses, its application in research studies remains questionable not only for the study of neighborhood effects on health [1,2], but also for the evidence-based decision making in public health [30][31][32][33]. In particular, spatial-temporal variations in the size and internal structure of geographic ranges [34] have been known to influence the consistency of a measurement of interest.…”

“…indicators and carrying out complicated computational analysis necessary for deriving a composite measure of neighborhood SES (or deprivation) [27]. To support this suggestion, MHI has been shown to yield very similar results as a composite measure of neighborhood SES (or deprivation) in an empirical study [28] and in a simulation study [29].…”

“…From a dissemination and implementation science standpoint, a detail-oriented approach to health research is likely to improve the quality of research synthesis [30][31][32][33] in the US since the geographic and population characteristics vary from state to state as well as across urban, suburban, and rural areas within each state. To better understand the usefulness of MHI and MFI [27] and its application [28,29] in research studies, therefore, the relationships between simple measures and composite measures of neighborhood SES (or deprivation) were examined in the State of California and its seven Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) at four time periods.…”

El análisis de la desigualdad urbana. Propuesta y validación de un índice de nivel socio-económico en áreas urbanas españolas (1991-2001)

“…Lalloué et al (2013) llegan a conclusiones similares para el caso francés, proponiendo un índice socio-económico a partir del análisis factorial de 48 indicadores referidos a distintas dimensiones (hogares, inmigración, empleo e ingresos, educación y vivienda). A este respecto, Oka (2015) analiza la consistencia de una serie de indicadores entre sí, y además, su relación con la renta media en las secciones censales, mostrando que este último se relaciona estrechamente con indicadores más complejos (que incluyen más indicadores y/o dimensiones). En gran medida, estos acercamientos al análisis de la desigualdad urbana han partido de la premisa de que el estatus socio-económico, como resumen del conjunto de recursos que poseen los residentes, es el factor más importante para analizar la desigualdad socio-espacial, el elemento que da cuenta de las pautas de diferenciación y segregación residencial, tal y como también muestra algún caso analizado en España Leonardo (1989) Básicamente, tanto la perspectiva más clásica de la Escuela de Chicago, como de la perspectiva de la economía política que supuso la 'nueva sociología urbana', sostienen que los recursos socio-econó-micos son el principal factor para explicar por qué ciertos grupos y/o actividades se localizan en distintos espacios urbanos.…”