Abstract
Background
Over the past 10 years, there has been a surge of interest in studying small-area characteristics as determinants of population and individual health. Accumulating evidence indicates the existence of variations in the health status of populations living in areas that differ in affluence and shows that selected small-area characteristics are associated with the occurrence of selected health behaviours. These variations cannot be attributed solely to differential characteristics of populations living within small areas. One vexing problem that confronts researchers is that of conceptualizing and operationalizing neighbourhoods through delineation of small territorial units in health research.
Goals and Methods
The aims of this paper are to selectively overview conceptual definitions of neighbourhoods and to illustrate the challenges of operationalizing neighbourhoods in urban areas by describing our attempts to map out small territorial units on the Island of Montreal and in the City of Calgary.
Conclusion
We outline guiding principles for the construction of a methodology for establishing small-area contours in urban areas and formulate recommendations for future research.
MeSH terms: Residence characteristics, social conditions, social environment, urban health, methods
Résumé
Introduction
Au cours des 10 dernières années, il y a eu un intérêt accru pour la recherche portant sur les caractéristiques de petites unités territoriales comme déterminants de la santé des populations et des individus. Plusieurs études démontrent l’existence de variations dans l’état de santé des populations en fonction du degré de favorisation dans différents territoires et d’associations entre certaines caractéristiques des territoires et la pratique de différentes habitudes de vie. Ces variations ne semblent pas pouvoir être attribuées uniquement aux caractéristiques différentielles des populations qui y vivent. Un des problèmes de recherche les plus vexant dans ce domaine se rapporte à la conceptualisation et l’opérationnalisation de la notion de quartiers à travers la délimitation d’unités territoriales.
Buts et méthodes
Les buts de cet article sont de sélectivement énumérer les définitions conceptuelles du quartier et d’illustrer les défis associés à l’opérationnalisation de la notion de quartiers dans des milieux urbains en décrivant nos propres tentatives de cartographier de petites unités territoriales sur l’île de Montréal et dans la ville de Calgary.
Conclusion
Nous proposons des lignes directrices pour le développement d’une méthodologie pour établir les contours de quartiers dans des milieux urbains et formulons des recommandations pour la recherche future.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements: Data-based portions of this paper were supported by a Canadian Population Health Initiative grant from the Canadian Institute for Health Information entitled “Inventory and Linkage of Databases for Studying the Relationships between Place and Health in Urban Setting” awarded to Louise Potvin, Penny Hawe and collaborators.
References
- 1.Berkman LF, Kawachi I, editors. Neighbourhoods and Health. New York, NY: Oxford University Press; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 2.Diez-Roux AV. Estimating neighborhood health effects: the challenges of causal inference in a complex world. Soc Sci Med. 2004;58(10):1953–60. doi: 10.1016/S0277-9536(03)00414-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 3.Pickett KE, Pearl M. Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:111–22. doi: 10.1136/jech.55.2.111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 4.Riva M, Gauvin L, Barnett TA. Toward the next generation of research into small area effects on health: a synthesis of multilevel investigations published since 1998. J Epidemiol Community Health, in press. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed]
- 5.Diez Roux AV. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91:1783–89. doi: 10.2105/ajph.91.11.1783. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 6.Cummins S, Macintyre S, Davidson S, Ellaway A. Measuring neighbourhood social and material context: generation and interpretation of ecological data from routine and non-routine sources. Health Place. 2005;11:249–60. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2004.05.003. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 7.Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cummins S. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise and measure them? Soc Sci Med. 2002;55(1):125–39. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(01)00214-3. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 8.Forrest R, Kearns A. Joined-up Places? Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood Regeneration. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 9.Galster G. On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban Studies. 2001;38:2111–24. [Google Scholar]
- 10.Meegan R, Mitchell A. It’s not community round here, it’s neighbourhood: neighbourhood change and cohesion in urban regeneration policies. Urban Studies. 2001;38:2167–94. [Google Scholar]
- 11.Davies WKD, Herbert DT. Communities within Cities: an Urban Social Geography. London: Belhaven Press; 1993. [Google Scholar]
- 12.Statistics Canada. 2001 Census Dictionary. Ottawa: Census Operations Division, Statistics Canada; 2002. [Google Scholar]
- 13.Ross NA, Tremblay S, Graham K. Neighbourhood influences on health in Montréal, Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2004;59:1485–94. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.01.016. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 14.Coulton C, Korbin J. Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. Am J Comm Psychol. 2001;29(2):371–83. doi: 10.1023/A:1010303419034. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 15.Connor S, Brink S. Understanding the Early Years: Community Impacts on Child Development. Hull, Quebec: Applied Research Branch Strategic Policy Human Resources Development Canada; 1999. [Google Scholar]
- 16.Lebel A, Pampalon R, St-Hilaire R. Le repérage des unités de voisinage: contribution d’une approche historique en milieu urbain, périurbain et rural dans la région de Québec. Cahiers de géographie du Québec. 2005;49:191–206. [Google Scholar]
- 17.Germain A, Gagnon JE. Is neighbourhood a black box? A reply to Galster, Metzger and Waite. Can J Urban Res. 1999;8(2):172–84. [Google Scholar]
- 18.Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T. Assessing “neighborhood effects”: social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol. 2002;28:443–78. [Google Scholar]
- 19.Séguin A-M, Divay G. Pauvreté urbaine: la promotion de communautés viables. Ottawa: Canadian Policy Research Networks; 2003. [Google Scholar]
- 20.O’Campo P. Invited commentary. Advancing theory and methods for multilevel models of residential neighborhoods and health. Am J Epidemiol. 2003;157:9–13. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwf171. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 21.Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Race/ethnicity, gender, and monitoring socioeco-nomic gradients in health: a comparison of area-based socioeconomic measures — the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Public Health. 2003;93:1655–71. doi: 10.2105/ajph.93.10.1655. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 22.Statistics Canada . Postal Code Conversion File, Reference Guide. Ottawa, Ontario: Statistics Canada; 2003. p. 46. [Google Scholar]
- 23.Pumain D, Saint-Julien T. L’analyse spatiale, Cursus. Série “Géographie”. Paris, France: Armand Colin; 1997. [Google Scholar]
- 24.Langlois A, Kitchen P. Identifying and measuring dimensions of urban deprivation in Montreal: an analysis of the 1996 Census data. Urban Studies. 2001;38(1):119–39. [Google Scholar]
- 25.Pampalon R, Raymond G. Un indice de défavo-risation pour la planification de la santé et du bien-être au Québec. Chron Dis Can. 2001;21(3):113–22. [Google Scholar]
- 26.Robinson GM. Methods and Techniques in Human Geography. New York, Toronto: J. Wiley; 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 27.MapInfo Corporation. MapInfo Software. Troy, NY.
- 28.Openshaw S. A geographical solution to scale and aggregation problems in region-building, partitioning and spatial modelling. Trans Instit Brit Geographers. 1977;2:459–72. [Google Scholar]
- 29.Concepts Techniques Modern Geog. 1984.
- 30.Reynolds DH. The Modifiable Area Unit Problem: Empirical Analysis by Statistical Simulation. 1998. [Google Scholar]
- 31.Tranmer M, Steel DG. Using census data to investigate the causes of the ecological fallacy. Environ Plan A. 1998;30(5):817–31. doi: 10.1068/a300817. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 32.Jelinski DE, Wu J. The modifiable areal unit problem and implications for landscape ecology. Landscape Ecol. 1996;11:129–40. [Google Scholar]
- 33.Fotheringham AS, Wong DSW. The modifiable areal unit problem in multivariate statistical analysis. Environ Plan A. 1991;23:1025–45. [Google Scholar]
- 34.Monmonier MS. How to lie with maps. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1991. [Google Scholar]
- 35.Blakely TA, Woodward AJ. Ecological effects in multi-level studies. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2000;54:367–74. doi: 10.1136/jech.54.5.367. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 36.Franzini L, Spears W. Contributions of social context to inequalities in years of life lost to heart disease in Texas, USA. Soc Sci Med. 2003;57:1847–61. doi: 10.1016/s0277-9536(03)00018-2. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 37.Hou F, Myles J. Neighbourhood inequality, neighbourhood affluence and population health. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:1557–69. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.033. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 38.Krieger N. Theories for social epidemiology in the 21st century: an ecosocial perspective. Int J Epidemiol. 2001;30:668–77. doi: 10.1093/ije/30.4.668. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 39.Reijneveld SA. Neighbourhood socioeconomic context and self reported health and smoking: a secondary analysis of data on seven cities. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2002;56:935–42. doi: 10.1136/jech.56.12.935. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 40.Wrigley N, Holt D, Steel DG, Tranmer M. Spatial modelling and the ecological fallacy. In: Longley P, Batty M, editors. Spatial Analysis: Modelling in a GIS Environment. Cambridge: GeoInformation International; 1996. [Google Scholar]
- 41.Cockings S, Martin D. Zone design for environment and health studies using pre-aggregated data. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60(12):2729–42. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.11.005. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 42.Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, et al. Geocoding and monitoring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: Does the choice of area-based measure and geographic level matter? The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol. 2002;156(5):471–82. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwf068. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 43.Haining R, Wise S, Ma J. Providing spatial statistical data analysis functionality for the GIS user: the SAGE project. Int J Geog Information Sci. 2001;15:239–54. [Google Scholar]
- 44.Palladini S. Arcobjects development in zone design using Visual Basic for applications. Lecture Notes in Computer Science. 2004;3044:1057–68. [Google Scholar]
- 45.van Drukker M, Os J. Mediators of neighbourhood socioeconomic deprivation and quality of life. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2003;38:698–706. doi: 10.1007/s00127-003-0690-8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 46.Veenstra G. Location, location, location: contextual and compositional health effects of social capital in British Columbia, Canada. Soc Sci Med. 2005;60:2059–71. doi: 10.1016/j.socscimed.2004.08.064. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 47.Veugelers PJ, Yip AM, Kephart G. Proximate and contextual socioeconomic determinants of mortality: multilevel approaches in a setting with universal health care coverage. Am J Epidemiol. 2001;154:725–32. doi: 10.1093/aje/154.8.725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 48.Galea S, Ahern J. Invited commentary: considerations about specificity of associations, causal pathways, and heterogeneity in multilevel thinking. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:1079–82. doi: 10.1093/aje/kwj177. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 49.Diez-Roux A. Commentary: estimating and understanding area health effects. Int J Epidemiol. 2005;34(2):284–5. doi: 10.1093/ije/dyi020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 50.Sampson RJ, Raudenbush SW, Earls F. Neighborhoods and violent crime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science. 1997;277(5328):918–24. doi: 10.1126/science.277.5328.918. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 51.Frank LD, Sallis JF, Conway TL, et al. Many pathways from land use to health. J Am Planning Assoc. 2006;72(1):75–87. [Google Scholar]
- 52.Humpel N, Marshall AL, Leslie E, et al. Changes in neighborhood walking are related to changes in perceptions of environmental attributes. Ann Behav Med. 2004;27(1):60–7. doi: 10.1207/s15324796abm2701_8. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
- 53.Handy S, Cao X, Mokhtarian PL. Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: evidence from northern California. J Am Planning Assoc. 2006;72(1):55–74. [Google Scholar]