Subjective Constructions of Neighborhood Boundaries: Lessons from a Qualitative Study of Four Neighborhoods

Abstract

This article explores the boundaries of neighborhoods as subjectively constructed by 37 adolescents and 33 parents across four census-defined block groups in a Western city. We examine the degree of consensus among participants on the spatial boundaries of their neighborhoods, the stability of participants' subjectively constructed neighborhood definitions, and the overlap between subjectively constructed definitions and census block group and tract definitions. Through an analysis of qualitative interviews, we isolate four factors that appear to influence how participants define their neighborhood boundaries: physical and institutional characteristics of the neighborhood, its class, race, and ethnic composition, perceived criminal threats from within and outside the neighborhood, and symbolic neighborhood identities. These factors can operate to facilitate or compromise consensus and stability about neighborhood boundaries and identity. The study findings are exploratory but suggest several avenues for further investigation into how parents and adolescents construct neighborhood boundaries and the possible influences that subjective neighborhood definitions have on families.Neighborhood has long been recognized as a defining social context of American life (e.g.,

The Prospects and Problems of Integrating Sketch Maps with Geographic Information Systems to Understand Environmental Perception: A Case Study of Mapping Youth Fear in Los Angeles Gang Neighborhoods

“…Prior to the advent of GIS, a number of researchers employed the sketch map to ascertain the boundary of neighborhoods and perceptions of places (Haney and Knowles, 1978;Karan et al, 1980;Ladd, 1970;Lee, 1968;Mathews, 1980;Maurer and Baxter, 1972 Ceccato and Snickars, 2000 620 respondents (18 -75 years) to a mailed survey on quality of life; the survey included a paper map participants given a survey which asked them to define their neighborhood, to identify places they visit regularly, and perceptions of these areas; they could also mark places they avoided overlay and description of the patterns Doran and Lees, 2005 234 participants who work in the Central Business District (CBD) participants were asked to mark on a map of the CBD areas where they feared certain types of crime and therefore avoided the area; they were also asked what time they avoided the area and how hard they tried to avoid the area visual comparison with physical disorder and crime intensity Dennis, 2006 neighborhood youth some youth drew maps of the neighborhood to illustrate spatial aspects; youth also took photographs to complement narratives about the neighborhood description Campbell et al, 2009 37 adolescents (10 -20 years) and 33 parents in four censusblock groups with varying socioeconomic status and adolescent outcomes semistructured interviews began with participants drawing their definition of their neighborhood on maps that were provided to them; they could also mark issues of concern on the maps overlay from five schools that varied in socioeconomic status map of surrounding school area was provided to each student on A3 paper and a pack of color pens; they were asked to mark X at the following locations and in the assigned colors: black = residence, purple = active play area in past week, blue = playspace most utilized, green = walking/biking locations in neighborhood with adult; accompanying; survey asked them to list the locations they marked on the map maps used to measure distance from residence to sites of physical activity Kohm, 2009 394 adult participants from a high crime, inner-city area face-to-face interviews that collected demographic data and used map instrument to capture places in the neighborhood where they felt 'unsafe'; 11"×17" neighborhood maps; instructed to draw circles around areas where they felt unsafe; asked why they felt unsafe in these areas aggregation of areas of perceived fear were created in ArcGIS [using Platt (2005) method of 'topological clean and build']; perceived fear map as ratio with (a) signs of disorder and (b) crime against the person Spilsbury et al, 2009 60 children (7 -11 years) and one parent of each child; 5 study neighborhoods (census tracts); must live in neighborhood for a...…”

“Perceived neighbourhood” and tolerance relations: the case of Arabs and Jews in Jaffa, Israel

“…Though the spatial -physical properties of the neighbourhood (including its street network and various land-uses) can potentially influence how residents perceive it (e.g. Aitken and Prosser 1990, Campbell et al 2009, Minnery et al 2009), this perception often reflects social, economic, cultural and ethnic characteristics of the residents (Sastry et al 2002, Pebley and Sastry 2009, Rich 2009, as well as different emotions, attitudes, beliefs and inter-group tolerance relations (Unger andWandersman 1985, Curtis 2013, Omer, forthcoming). These differences are particularly manifested in mixed residential areas, where different social groups share the same residential environment.…”

“…Though several studies have examined the different physical and social factors associated with perceived neighbourhoods (e.g. Campbell et al 2009, Pebley and Sastry 2009, Rich 2009, there is still a lack of knowledge regarding its formation among residents in mixed areas and its reflection of the complex social life, perceptions and attitudes associated with these areas.…”

Coalitional affiliation as a missing link between ethnic polarization and well-being: An empirical test from the European Social Survey

“…However, this perception-based measurement of diversity might also fail to capture objective characteristics of neighborhoods that might influence well-being, regardless of whether or not individuals perceive them. Previous research indicates that while perceptions of neighborhood composition overlaps to a certain degree with the objective composition calculations based on census tracts or blocks, there is also considerable variation between the objective and subjective measures (Campbell et al, 2009;Coulton et al, 2001). Therefore, objective neighborhood characteristics still remain an important contextual factor.…”