Substance Use, Social Networks, and the Geography of Urban Adolescents

Abstract

This article demonstrates a research strategy and prevention methodology for substance using urban youth that incorporates individual, social, and geographical parameters to systematically understand the ecology of risk and protection for urban youth. The primary goal of this study was to describe and analyze substance using and nonusing urban adolescents' social networks; risky and protective settings where they socialize; and the relationship to health outcomes such as substance use, depression, and stress. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) derived spatial relationships and analyses between the specific locations where the teens are active, their subjective ratings of these locations, and objective environmental risk data. These social network and GIS data were merged to form a detailed description and analysis of the social ecology of urban adolescent substance use. A case study was constructed to illustrate the methodology of creating a three-dimentional ecological profile that helps explain these relationships and provides preventive applications. Linear distances were computed between the homes of the users and the risky and safe places that they identified. On average, the distance between users' homes and their identified safe places was three times the distance between their homes and their identified risky places. This study provides support for understanding urban adolescent substance use through the detailed and multiple dimensional analysis of teens' social ecologies.

Young adolescents' perceived activity space risk, peer networks, and substance use

“…The Ecological Interview produces accurate and valid geographic data with previous studies successfully identifying (geocoding specific locations) 90% of the collected location data (Mason et al, 2004). For this study, participants were asked to "Think of your typical week and about the places you go, excluding your home."…”

“…The Ecological Interview (Mason, Cheung, & Walker, 2004) is a measure that produces a geographical listing of the participant’s routine activity locations, as well as evaluative descriptions of these various environments which are used to characterize their geography of risk and protection. The Ecological Interview produces accurate and valid geographic data with previous studies successfully identifying (geocoding specific locations) 90% of the collected location data (Mason et al, 2004).…”

“…More broadly, activity spaces are the manifestation of our spatial lives, serving as an index representing routine locations and all the accompanying psychological, social, and health-related experiences of these places (Golledge & Stimson, 1997; Sherman et al, 2005). Multiple approaches to measuring activity space have been used to capture location data within a given time-frame such as travel diaries (Goodchild & Janelle 1984), structured interviews (Mason, Cheung, & Walker, 2004), and using Geographic Information System (Kwan, 2013). …”

Dimensions of Religiosity and Access to Religious Social Capital: Correlates with Substance Use Among Urban Adolescents

“…The ecological interview (Mason, Cheung, & Walker, 2004) was used to identify the home and routine locations of participants in order to determine their proximity to religious institutions. The ecological interview is a structured interview that uses “free listing” (Weller & Romney, 1998) of weekly routine locations that each adolescent frequents.…”

Moving Parts and Balancing Acts: Building and Maintaining a Collaborative Community-Based Research Partnership in Detroit

“…Social relationships do not exist in a vacuum, but are themselves embedded within particular areas or communities (Cromley, 1999;Takahashi, Wiebe, & Rodriguez, 2001). Neighborhood contexts and residential patterns may shape the likelihood of drug use on the one hand (Singer et al, 2000;Alegria et al, 2004;Mason, Cheung, & Walker, 2004), and the availability of alternative networks and structures of opportunity on the other (Briggs, 2005). Residential and social segregation has been shown to be significantly associated with negative economic and health outcomes for African-Americans (Massey & Denton, 1993;Williams & Collins, 2001;Cutler & Glaeser, 1997).…”