Standardized observation of neighbourhood disorder: does it work in Canada?

Abstract

BackgroundThere is a growing body of evidence that where you live is important to your health. Despite numerous previous studies investigating the relationship between neighbourhood deprivation (and structure) and residents' health, the precise nature of this relationship remains unclear. Relatively few investigations have relied on direct observation of neighbourhoods, while those that have were developed primarily in US settings. Evaluation of the transferability of such tools to other contexts is an important first step before applying such instruments to the investigation of health and well-being. This study evaluated the performance of a systematic social observational (SSO) tool (adapted from previous studies of American and British neighbourhoods) in a Canadian urban context.MethodsThis was a mixed-methods study. Quantitative SSO ratings and qualitative descriptions of 176 block faces were obtained in six Toronto neighbourhoods (4 low-income, and 2 middle/high-income) by trained raters. Exploratory factor analysis was conducted with the quantitative SSO ratings. Content analysis consisted of independent coding of qualitative data by three members of the research team to yield common themes and categories.ResultsFactor analysis identified three factors (physical decay/disorder, social accessibility, recreational opportunities), but only 'physical decay/disorder' reflected previous findings in the literature. Qualitative results (based on raters' fieldwork experiences) revealed the tool's shortcomings in capturing important features of the neighbourhoods under study, and informed interpretation of the quantitative findings.ConclusionsThis study tested the performance of an SSO tool in a Canadian context, which is an important initial step before applying it to the study of health and disease. The tool demonstrated important shortcomings when applied to six diverse Toronto neighbourhoods. The study's analyses challenge previously held assumptions (e.g. social 'disorder') regarding neighbourhood social and built environments. For example, neighbourhood 'order' has traditionally been assumed to be synonymous with a certain degree of homogeneity, however the neighbourhoods under study were characterized by high degrees of heterogeneity and low levels of disorder. Heterogeneity was seen as an appealing feature of a block face. Employing qualitative techniques with SSO represents a unique contribution, enhancing both our understanding of the quantitative ratings obtained and of neighbourhood characteristics that are not currently captured by such instruments.

The Neighbourhood Effects on Health and Well-being (NEHW) study

“…The extent to which those findings apply to the Canadian context is unknown. For example, the concentrated poverty and high levels of urban social disorder documented in U.S. cities is present to a lesser degree in Canada (Sampson et al, 1997;Oreopoulos, 2008;Parsons et al, 2010). Yet, like many cities globally, income inequalities between neighbourhoods in Toronto have been widening for the past several decades (Oreopoulos, 2008;Hulchanski, 2010).…”

The reliability of naturalistic observations of social, physical and economic environments of bars

“…Previous sociological research hypothesizing the influence of neighborhood social disorganization on various health outcomes resulted in the development of reliable methods for systematically assessing a range of neighborhood environments (Raudenbush & Sampson, 1999). Systematic Social Observation and similar types of instruments have subsequently been utilized to assess spatial effects in small scale settings (Bader et al, 2015; Cunningham-Myrie et al, 2015; Kwarteng, Schulz, Mentz, Zenk, & Opperman, 2014; Parsons et al, 2010; Schaefer-McDaniel, O'Brien Caughy, O'Campo, & Gearey, 2010). Although studies have indicated the importance of other types of micro-environments on health outcomes --for example, homes (Sirard, Laska, Patnode, Farbakhsh, & Lytle, 2010) or recreational facilities (Shores & West, 2008)—very few studies have attempted to systematically assess such micro-environments in a way that could be replicated.…”

Enumerating informal housing: A field method for identifying secondary units

“…Field tools have been used in health geography and criminology, albeit in different contexts and for different purposes than presented in this paper. One method that has been established is the use of checklists to inventory the variables of interest (Raudenbush and Sampson 1999;Parsons et al 2010;Chow et al 2014;Hwang and Sampson 2014;Morrison et al 2016;Lafontaine et al 2017). These studies illustrate how field tools and visual information can be used; they still, however, need to be adapted considerably for our present purposes.…”