Table 2.

Categorization of the four studied neighbourhoods by socio-territorial organization and health status.

Variables			Scale of Variables	Guet Ndar	Pikine	Ndioloffène	Léona
Socio-spatial context	Age of the neighbourhood		Neighbourhood level	Precolonial district: traditional Wolof fishing neighbourhood	Precolonial village of fishermen and farmers: late integration to Saint-Louis as an administrative district (1980s)	Created during the colonial period (beginning of the 19th century): socially and ethnically mixed neighbourhood with some gentrification	Created during the colonial period (mid-20th century): middle to upper class households, historically served as colonial civil servants
	Length of residence in Saint-Louis (percentage of people born in the city)		Individual level	96.20%	60.50%	83.00%	78.70%
	Spatial Heterogeneity	Built density	Neighbourhood level	Very high	Low	Low	Medium
		Physical proximity to health care structures		Very good	Poor	Very poor	Good
		Availability of water and electricity		Household access to water and electricity	Ongoing plans to improve for municipal water and electric supply systems	Household access to water and electricity	Household access to water and electricity
	Economic status	Poor	Household level	58.50%	34.20%	20.30%	19.50%
		Middle class		31.30%	33.70%	28.90%	38.60%
		Upper class		10.20%	32.10%	50.80%	41.90%
	Education level	Not educated	Individual level	69.20%	50.80%	21.40%	28.00%
Socio-territorial organization	Perceptions of the neighbourhood (verbatim records from interviews)		Neighbourhood level	“There is a boundary between Saint-Louis and Guet Ndar.”	“They are sectarian people. It is a neighbourhood of fishermen: they are very close.”	“The neighbourhood is one the hubs of Saint-Louis’ intelligentsia.”	“It is a neighbourhood of intellectuals. […] in Léona, we are urban dwellers, with proper urban practices.”
	Organization of political actors and network for local development		Neighbourhood level	Cooperation between the local council and the municipal government which directs external funds to Guet Ndar. But lack of legitimacy of the local council among residents who use their own networks to finance neighbourhood projects.	No representation of Sor Diagne residents in the local council. Modest and sporadic projects of local development led by community associations.	Omnipresence of powerbrokers who govern the local council according to their own political ends. They secure significant amounts of external and internal funding for major projects.	Omnipresence of the local council which coordinates local actors for various large projects. Increasing autonomy from the municipal government thanks to tremendous fundraising capacity.
	Presence of health promotion and prevention projects		Neighbourhood level	Several days of free medical consultations have been organized, and an ambulance was purchased by external donors through a key powerbroker.	A small dispensary was built with external financing. Free medical consultations have been organized for non-communicable diseases screening, implemented by the greater Pikine council at the Sor Daga health post.	Several days of free medical consultations and follow-up for chronic disease patients have been organized and financed by local powerbrokers.	Several campaigns for health prevention and follow-up for chronic disease patients were funded by international donors. Renovation of the local health post was paid for by external funding.
Variables			Scale of Variables	Guet Ndar	Pikine	Ndioloffène	Léona
Health status	Overweight		Neighbourhood level	77.10%	56.50%	59.80%	56.50%
	Prevalence of high blood pressure			42.50%	32.50%	38.40%	28.50%
	Prevalence of hyperglycaemia			12.60%	6.80%	8.90%	7.50%