Table 2.
Distribution of perceived neighborhood measures across extrinsic neighborhood measures.
| Poor neighborhood quality | Dissatisfied with neighborhood | Disorderly neighborhood | Unsafe neighborhood | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| No (N = 531) |
Yes (N = 141) |
No (N = 668) |
Yes (N = 98) |
No (N = 718) |
Yes (N = 48) |
No (N = 656) |
Yes (N = 110) |
|
| N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | N (%) | |
| ICE income | ||||||||
| Low (most disadvantaged) | 143 (27%) | 75 (53%) | 185 (28%) | 65 (66%) | 224 (31%) | 25 (52%) | 58 (53%) | 191 (29%) |
| Medium | 189 (36%) | 32 (23%) | 233 (35%) | 20 (20%) | 242 (34%) | 12 (25%) | 21 (19%) | 233 (36%) |
| High (least disadvantaged) | 199 (37%) | 34 (24%) | 250 (37%) | 13 (13%) | 252 (35%) | 11 (23%) | 31 (28%) | 232 (35%) |
| Area Deprivation Index | ||||||||
| Low (least disadvantaged) | 252 (47%) | 50 (35%) | 308 (46%) | 31 (32%) | 326 (45%) | 14 (29%) | 302 (46%) | 38 (35%) |
| Medium | 122 (23%) | 29 (21%) | 153 (23%) | 18 (18%) | 159 (22%) | 12 (25%) | 149 (23%) | 22 (20%) |
| High (most disadvantaged) | 153 (29%) | 62 (44%) | 202 (30%) | 49 (50%) | 228 (32%) | 22 (46%) | 200 (30%) | 50 (45%) |
| Urban displacement | ||||||||
| Exclusive | 175 (86.6%) | 27 (13.4%) | 211 (94.2%) | 13 (5.8%) | 218 (97.3%) | 6 (2.7%) | 201 (89.7%) | 23 (10.3%) |
| Stable | 250 (82.2%) | 54 (17.8%) | 320 (91.4%) | 30 (8.6%) | 332 (94.6%) | 19 (5.4%) | 309 (88.0%) | 42 (12.0%) |
| Ongoing gentrification | 94 (6.2%) | 58 (32.8%) | 124 (70.1%) | 53 (29.9%) | 155 (88.1%) | 21 (11.9%) | 131 (74.4%) | 45 (25.6%) |
Percentages may not sum to 100 due to rounding. Perceived neighborhood quality is a composite measure of neighborhood dissatisfaction, disorderly neighborhood, unsafe neighborhood, and collective efficacy.