Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2024 Jun 1.
Published in final edited form as: Aging Ment Health. 2022 Jun 24;27(6):1077–1085. doi: 10.1080/13607863.2022.2084506

Ethnic Enclaves, Social Capital, and Psychological Well-being of Immigrants: The Case of Chinese Older Immigrants in Chicago

Man Guo 1, Yi Wang 1, Jinyu Liu 2, XinQi Dong 3
PMCID: PMC9789212  NIHMSID: NIHMS1834995  PMID: 35748884

Abstract

Objectives.

Using a large sample of Chinese older immigrants in Chicago, this study asked two questions: 1) Is living in Chinatown associated with better psychological well-being? 2) What is the role of social capital in such an association?

Methods.

Data were derived from the Population Study of Chinese Elderly in Chicago (N = 3,105). Depression and quality of life (QoL) were compared between those who lived in Chinatown and those who didn’t. Negative binomial regressions (for depression) and logistic regressions (for QoL) were performed to examine the associations between Chinatown residence, social capital, and the two outcomes

Results.

Net of social capital and the control variables, living in Chinatown was marginally associated with fewer depressive symptoms (β= −.137, p = .057), but a significantly lower likelihood of reporting good QoL (OR = .797, CI: .661-.962). Although various forms of social capital were projective of positive psychological well-being, given the overall low social capital of the Chinatown residents, they heightened the mental health risks of this population.

Discussion.

The neighborhood context may function to reproduce social disadvantage among aging immigrant populations. The findings point to the importance of intervention at the mezzo level to improve the psychological wellbeing of this population.

Keywords: Minority aging, living environments, social networks, social support, social capital

Introduction

United States is constantly transformed by successive waves of immigrants. In 2018, 45 million or 14% of the U.S. population were immigrants, and by 2065, more than a third (36%) of the U.S. population will be immigrants and their U.S.-born children (Budiman, 2020). Among immigrants, Asians are the fastest growing group. They accounted for 28% of the new arrivals in 2018, and will surpass Hispanics to become the largest immigrant group by 2055 (Budiman, 2020). The continuous influx of Asian immigrants, together with ongoing anti-Asian sentiments (Tessler et al., 2020) make it increasingly important to understand the mental health issues of this population.

Among many factors that influence mental health, neighborhood is an important context and social determinant of health for Asian immigrants. Like other ethnic minority groups, Asian Americans tend to cluster in neighborhoods with high ethnic concentration and strong ethnic ties (i.e., ethnic enclaves) (Logan et al., 2002). A social foundation of such ethnic neighborhoods that is believed to benefit the health of their residents is social capital (Yang et al., 2020). Generally defined as a stock of social connections and resources embedded in interpersonal relationships (Furstenberg & Kaplan, 2004), social capital provides trust, reciprocity, and shared value for immigrants, and can be transformed to tangible resources (e.g., information, support exchanges), promoting immigrants’ economic, social, and psychological well-being (Almeida et al., 2009).

Most immigrant studies on health implications of living in ethnic enclaves are based on Latino populations (Hong et al., 2014). It is widely believed that Latino health paradox – that despite their low SES, Latinos have better than expected health outcomes – is partially attributive to strong social capital and migrant network inherent in Latino ethnic enclaves (Weden et al., 2017). We know very little about the experience of Asian Americans. It remains unclear whether the theoretical underpinnings or the empirical findings of neighborhood ethnic density and health apply to Asian Americans (Yang et al., 2020).

To address the research gap, this study focused on Chinese Americans, the largest subgroup of Asian Americans, and asked two questions: is living in ethnic enclaves (i.e., Chinatown) associated with better or worse psychological well-being among older Chinese immigrants? What is the role of social capital in such an association?

Neighborhood ethnic density and mental health: underlying mechanisms

In a recent review article, White and Lawrence (2019) described competing mechanisms through which neighborhood racial/ethnic density may have both deleterious and salubrious effect on immigrants’ mental health. On the one hand, highly segregated neighborhoods are often characterized by poor economic and physical environments such as high poverty concentration, community disinvestment, physical decay, and safety concerns, all of which may be associated with heightened psychosocial stress and increased mental health risks (White & Lawrence, 2019). Related to poor economic environments, highly segregated neighborhoods may also have limited resources of mental health services (Dinwiddie et al., 2013). This affects service availability and quality of care, likely resulting in service underutilization and poorer mental health outcomes (White & Lawrence, 2019). However, on the other hand, living in ethnically dominated neighborhoods may facilitate access to information, affordable housing, language brokering, informal care, and culturally sensitive services, consequently promoting the mental health of their residents (Scheppers et al., 2006). Living in neighborhoods with people sharing the same cultural background may also reduce exposure to direct racial discrimination and provide buffer against acculturation related stress (Bécares et al., 2009; Jurcik et al., 2013).

Most of these protective factors speak to the concept of social capital. As a matter of fact, Kawachi and Berkman (2001) argued that the underlying mechanism between racial/ethnic density and health are comparable to the pathways between social capital and health. Despite of lack of an agreement on how to measure social capital (Yang et al., 2020), the concept emphasizes resources embedded in social relations rather than indivduals and its potential benefits are viewed as inherently the results of interaction with other people (Dinda, 2008). A variety of indicators such as social support, social engagement, and neighborhood cohesion have been used to tap on the multifaceted social capital in ethnic enclaves. Adopting the social network framework, some scholars have used social support to operationalize the social capital concept among immigrant populations (Ryan et al., 2008). Social support represents an important functional dimension of social network, serving as a major mechanism linking interpersonal network and enhanced health, particularly during stressful life events such as migration (Antonucci & Akiyama, 1995). It is widely believed that some immigrant groups have strong migrant network and social support both within the family and among the community members (Furstenberg & Kaplan, 2004). Social support in the family is one of the richest source of social capital for older immigrants, many of whom migrate for family reasons, live in multigenerational households, and rely heavily on their family members for adaptation and adjustment to the host society (Treas, 2008). In the neighborhood context, studies have shown that increasing percentage of co-ethnics in the neighborhood was assoicaetd with bigger social network and an increased likelihood of obtaining emotional and instrumental support among Latinos (Almeida et al., 2009; Lee, 2009).

While social support within the family and the co-ethnics may speak to “bonding” social capital, which is based on exclusive social ties built around homogeneity, social integration and social cohesion speak to the “bridging” social capital that involves voluntary associations and wider social relations that link individuals to the larger society (Putnam, 1993; Putnam, 2007). With regard to immigrants, social integration is generally defined as inclusion of immigrants in the primary social relationships and social networks in the host society (Tselios et al., 2015), whereas social cohesion indicates that all groups of society members have a sense of belonging, inclusion, engagement, trust, and legitimacy (Spoonley et al., 2005). Social integration and social cohesion are important components of immigrant’s social capital by helping them access resources in the wider society and promoting economic and social development (Cheong et al., 2007). For immigrants, ethnic enclaves often provide greater opportunity to engage in leisure activities, benefiting mental health by promoting a sense of purpose, meaning, belonging, and self-worth (Arévalo et al., 2015). Social engagement may be particularly beneficial for older immigrants who often experience disrupted and reduced social network (Guo et al., 2018). Living in an ethnic community with strong ethnic ties may also promote a sense of community, trust, reciprocity, and cohesion among its neighbors (Hong et al., 2014). A study showed that a higher Latino composition in the neighborhood was related to greater social integration and cohesion among Latino immigrants (Viruell-Fuentes et al., 2013).

Given the paramount protective role of social capital in ethnic enclaves, a few studies found that social capital advantages available in ethnic neighborhoods may outweigh the socioeconomic disadvantages in these neighborhoods (Eschbach et al., 2004; Gerst et al., 2011; Shell et al., 2013). However, two studies based on Hispanic populations concluded social capital indicators such as neighborhood cohesion or integration were not mediators between ethnic density and better mental health outcomes (Flores et al., 2021; Lee & Liechty, 2015). A fuller assessment of the concept of social capital relating to minority mental health is needed.

Empirical findings on neighborhood ethnic density and mental health

Although a burgeoning literature exists on neighborhood racial/ethnic density and mental health, the findings are highly inconclusive. Shell et al.’s study on Mexican Americans in Texas (2013) found that higher Hispanic density was associated with fewer depressive symptoms. Using data from National Latino and Asian American Study (NLAAS), Nobles et al (2017) also reported that residential segregation was associated with less mental distress. However, another NLAAS-based study found that greater ethnic density was associated with poorer self-rated mental health (Hong et al., 2014). Studies also reported null (Arévalo et al., 2015) or a curvilinear relationship (Denton et al., 2016) between ethnic density and depression. In addition, there is also evidence of divergent mental health implication of ethnic density by race (Mair et al., 2010; Vogt Yuan, 2007), ethnicity (Bécares, 2014; Lee, 2009), and immigrant status (Denton et al., 2015; Lee, 2009). Despite the mixed findings on Hispanic populations in general, large-scale national studies using cross-sectional (Gerst et al., 2011; Ostir et al., 2003) or longitudinal data (Flores et al., 2021) consistently reported salubrious effect of high neighborhood ethnic density on lower depression among older Hispanics.

Only a handful of studies focused on Asian Americans, and the findings are also equivocal. Using the NLAAS data, one study found that greater Asian density was associated with poorer self-rated mental health (Hong et al., 2014). By contrast, two other studies suggested protective effect of living in neighborhood with high Asian density, but only for certain outcomes and in certain subgroups of Asian Americans (i.e., decreased chances of mood dysfunction among men, Leu, 2011; lower stress among recent immigrants, Morey et al., 2020). Two studies further reported lack of association between ethnic density and depression among Asian immigrants (Mair et al., 2010; Roh et al., 2011). The mixed findings point to the importance of examining specific ethnicity/immigrant subgroups in understanding neighborhood ethnic density on minority mental health (White & Lawrence, 2019).

Several important gaps remain in the literature. First, there is a remarkable paucity of information on Asian Americans, the fastest growing segment of the U.S. immigrants. Second, although the neighborhood context may be more salient for older adults and immigrants given their greater dependence on community resources than younger non-immigrant populations, only a small fraction of the literature focused on older immigrants specifically. Third, despite the relevance of the concept social capital, existing research has not yet systematically investigated the concept of social capital, both within the family and the neighborhood contexts, in its role in the association between ethnic enclave residence and mental health. Fourth, the mental health outcome is largely limited to depression, which is often assessed within past weeks and more responsive to stressful life events. There is a lack of studies on global measures of psychological well-being such as quality of life.

The present study

To address these gaps, this study focused on Chinese older immigrants and asked two research questions: 1) Is living in Chinatown associated with better psychological well-being, in terms of fewer depressive symptoms and favorable quality of life? 2) Whether and to what extent do different aspects of social capital (i.e., family support, friend support, social engagement, neighborhood cohesion, and perceived neighborhood environment) play a role in such associations?

Chinatowns in North America are fairly segregated urban residential and commercial areas that often have overall community organizations coordinating kinship, clanship, hometown, local, or regional associations (Wong & Tan, 2013). Traditional Chinatowns in the Unites States formed in the mid- to late-1900 century as a response to racial discrimination and hardship encountered by Chinese immigrants to provide services (e.g., restaurants, grocery stores, laundry), mutual aid, and protection to fellow ethnic Chinese (Yamashita, 2013). While contemporary Chinese immigrants with higher socioeconomic status tend to settle in the suburbs, Chinatowns still serve as important sources of economic opportunities, social support, and cultural maintenance for new immigrants and immigrant with lower socioeconomic positions (Yamashita, 2013). For its residents, Chinatown function as agents of acculturation by providing employment assistance, language brokerage, social and health care services, and recreational activities (Wong & Tan, 2013). Chicago Chinatown, in which our data were collected, is in the South side of Chicago where the most established Chinese businesses, churches, schools, and community services are located (Ling, 2013). Fairly segregated from other racial/ethnic groups, it remains to be the commercial, cultural, and tourist center of the ethnic Chinese in the larger Chicago area (Dong, Chen, et al., 2014).

Methods

Sample

Data were derived from the Population Study of Chinese Elderly (PINE), the largest population-based epidemiological study of Chinese older adults in the United States. Between 2011 and 2013, a total of 3,157 Chinese older adults (60 or older) were recruited from more than 20 community-based social services agencies in the greater Chicago area. Interviews were conducted at respondents’ homes in their preferred language. PINE data were representative of Chinese older adults in the area (Simon et al., 2014). Given that less than 1% of the respondents were born in the United State, they were excluded from the analysis, yielding the working sample of 3,105 respondents who were foreign-born (i.e., immigrants).

Measures

Psychological well-being included depression and quality of life (QoL). Depression was assessed by Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) (Kroenke et al., 2001). Respondents rated how often they experienced nine depressive symptoms during the past two weeks (0 = not at all, 1 = several days, 2 = a week or more, 3 = nearly every day). Sum scores were calculated, ranging from 0 to 27, with higher scores indicating more depressive symptoms (α = .82). QoL was rated by the respondents as 1 = poor, 2 = fair, 3 = good, 4 = very good, and was recoded into a dummy variable indicating good/very good QoL (1 = yes, 0 = no).

Chinatown residence was coded as 1 (yes) if the respondents lived in the Chicago Chinatown area (zip code: 60616), and 0 (no) if the respondents lived in other parts of Chicago. The zip code 60616 was chosen to define the Chinatown area because 1) it is consistent with a prior study using the same dataset (Dong, Chen, et al., 2014), 2) geographically speaking, two major highways were built in this area in the 1930s, which, to some degree, “boxed” the area in, preventing it from growing outward, and 3) the Chinatown Special Service Area (SSA)1 falls within the boundary of 60616. In this sense, the 60616 zip code area is the closest neighborhood that approximates to a Chinese ethnic enclave in the Chicago area. The area is the only place one can live in the Chicago area and be surrounded by Chinese families, making it distinctive from all the other neighborhoods in this study.

Social Capital included family support, friend support, social engagement, neighborhood cohesion, and perceived neighborhood environment. Family and friend support was assessed by four questions drawn from the Health and Retirement Study (Juster & Suzman, 1995). Respondents reported the extent to which they liked to (1) open up to family, and (2) rely on family for help (1 = hardly ever, 2 = some of the time, 3 = often). The questions were repeated regarding friends. Because most of the respondents reported “often” for all the items, two dummy variables were created to indicate whether the respondent perceived strong family/friend support (1 = yes, 0 = no), if the answers were “3 = often” for both questions in the domain. Social engagement assessed the respondents’ frequency of participating in eight leisure activities in the community (going out to a movie/restaurant/sport event, visiting friends/neighbors, having friends over for a dinner, going on trips, visiting a museum, attending a concert, visiting a library, visiting a community center) on a five-point Likert scale (Dong, Li, et al., 2014). Sum scores were calculated (α = .64).

Neighborhood cohesion was measured by six questions assessing frequency that the respondents (1) see neighbors talk outside, (2) take care of each other, (3) watch out for each other, (4) the number of neighbors they know by name, (5) have a friendly talk with once a week, and (6) could call on for assistance (Cagney et al., 2009). Given that the first three items were measured on a three-point Likert scale (0 = never, 1 = rarely, 2 = sometimes, 3 = often) and the last three items were measured on a five-point-Likert scale (0 = none, 1 = 1–5, 2 = 6–10, 3 = 11–15, 4 = 16–20, 5 = 21 or more), each item was first converted to a Z-score and then averaged to create a composite score (α = .86). Perceived neighborhood environment was measured by eight questions assessing how frequently the respondents saw/experienced (1) trash/litter, (2) vandalism, (3) unknown people walking around, (4) loud noise, (5) unsafe traffic conditions, (6) unsafe to walk around, (7) poorly maintained sidewalks, and (8) inadequate lighting at night in the neighborhood on a 4-point scale (0 = Never, 1 = Rarely, 2 = Sometimes, 3 = Often) (Cagney et al., 2009). All the items were first reversely coded and then summed up to indicate favorable perception of neighborhood environment (α = .80). For all the composite scores, a higher score indicates a higher level of the concept measured. We also controlled for living arrangement (living alone, living with spouse only, living in multigenerational household, and others) and residential tenure (years in the neighborhood) when assessing social capital.

Control variables included four sets of variables that have been shown to affect mental health of Chinese older immigrants (Guo & Stensland, 2018): (1) demographic variables: age, gender (1 = women, 0 = men), marital status (1 = married, 0 = others), preferred language (Mandarin, Cantonese, and Taishanese); (2) socio-economic status (SES): years of education, material hardship (1 = yes, 0 = no); (3) physical health: functional limitations measured by Katz ADL Index (Katz et al., 1963) and Lawton IADL scales (Lawton & Brody, 1969); (4) immigration-related variables: years in the U.S., reasons for migration (1 = family reasons, 0 = other reasons), and level of acculturation, which was measured by 12 questions assessing the respondents’ preferred language and preferred ethnicity they interact (1 = only Chinese to 5 = only English/Americans) (Marín et al., 1987) (α = .92).

Data analysis

We provide sample characteristics and used Chi-square and T-tests to compare those who lived in Chinatown and those who lived in other parts of Chicago in all the variables. Negative binomial (for depression) and logistic regressions (for QoL) were carried out to examine the associations between Chinatown residence and the two outcomes. Negative binomial regressions were used because depression was highly skewed and thus treated as a count variable. All the regressions were carried out in three steps. Model 1 included Chinatown residence and control variables only. Models 2 and 3 added social capital in the family and neighborhood contexts, respectively. The hierarchical analysis approach enables us to examine the degree to which the influence of Chinatown residence on mental health may be attributed to social capital, above and beyond the effects of the control variables.

Results

Sample characteristics by Chinatown residence

Table 1 describes the sample characteristics by Chinatown residence. The results showed that the two groups differed significantly in most of the study variables. Chinatown residents were significantly older, more likely to be widowed, and were predominantly Cantonese (59%) or Taishanese (32%) speakers. On average, Chinatown residents had much lower education (more than 3-year difference) and were more likely to report functional limitations. Although Chinatown residents had lived in the U.S. for longer time (21 vs. 18 years), they reported significantly lower level of acculturation. Chinatown residents were more likely to live alone, but the two groups did not differ significantly in perceived family support. Despite longer stay in the neighborhood (13 vs. 10 yrs.), Chinatown residents fared less well in most neighborhood social capital indicators: despite reporting more neighborhood cohesion, they were significantly less likely to report strong friend support, had lower levels of social engagement, and perceived their neighborhood environment less favorably. The two groups also differed significantly in the two outcomes. Although Chinatown residents had significantly fewer depressive symptoms than non-Chinatown residents, they were less likely to report good/very good QoL.

Table 1.

Sample Characteristics (N = 3,105)

Entire Sample
(N = 3,055)		 Chinatown
(n = 1,837)		 Non-Chinatown
(n = 1,218)		 p value a
Demographic
 Age (59–104) 72.77 (8.26) 73.56 (8.62) 71.69 (7.49) <.001
 Women 57.86% 57.87% 57.55% n.s. b
 Married 71.06% 67.76% 75.56% <.001
 Preferred language
  Mandarin 22.57% 8.55% 43.76% <.001
  Cantonese 52.47% 59.39% 42.02% <.001
  Taishanese 24.46% 31.52% 13.22% <.001
Socioeconomic status
 Education (0–26) 8.72 (5.05) 7.38 (4.57) 10.75 (5.06) <.001
 Material hardship 34.08% 35.14% 32.92% n.s.
Physical health
 Any ADL difficulties 7.68% 9.05% 5.67% <.001
 Any IADL difficulties 50.20% 54.22% 44.76% <.001
Immigration related variables
 Years in the U.S. (0.1–72) 19.78 (12.69) 20.90 (12.71) 18.20 (12.46) <.001
 Family-oriented migration 73.87% 70.15% 79.31% <.001
 Level of acculturation (12–60) 15.15 (4.76) 14.34 (3.87) 16.31 (5.61) <.001
Family-level social capital
 Living arrangement
  Living alone 21.39% 26.80% 14.05% <.001
  Living with spouse only 37.95% 35.49% 35.99% <.01
  Multigeneration household 33.51% 25.22% 44.78% <.001
  Others 7.15% 8.50% 5.18% <.001
 Strong family support 45.76% 45.90% 46.42% n.s.
Neighborhood-level social capital
 Strong friend support 19.69% 18.03% 22.62% <.01
 Social engagement (0–22) 6.83 (4.04) 6.32 (6.14) 7.60 (7.36) <.001
 Neighborhood cohesion (−1.08–2.84) 0.00 (0.77) 0.02 (0.75) −0.03 (0.80) <.05
 Neighborhood environment (10–32) 28.03 (4.06) 27.41 (4.05) 28.86 (3.95) <.001
 Years in neighborhood (0.1–70) 11.94 (10.71) 13.22 (11.32) 10.09 (9.43) <.001
Psychological Well-being
 Depression (0–27) 2.65 (4.13) 2.51 (4.01) 2.88 (4.29) <.05
 Good/very good QoL 50.34% 46.96% 55.31% <.001
Open in a new tab

Note:

a.

Chi-square tests were used for dichotomous variables, T-tests were used for continuous variables

b.

n.s. = non-significant

Chinatown residence and Depression

Table 2 summarizes the results of negative binomial regressions on depression. When adjusting the control variables (Model 1), Chinatown residence was not associated with depression (β = −.108, p = .11), suggesting that the bivariate observation of Chinatown residents’ more depressive symptoms (Table 1) may be partially attributed to group differences in socio-demographic, physical health, and immigration-related variables. When family-level social capital indicators were further adjusted (Model 2), the association between Chinatown residence and depression remained to be non-significant (β = −.093, p = .017). In Model 2, strong family support was associated with fewer depressive symptoms (β = −.249, p <. 001).

Table 2.

Results of Negative Binomial Regressions on Depression among the PINE Respondents

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
β β β β
Chinatown residence −.108 −.093 −.139* −.137†
Control variables
 Age .005 .005 .003 .001
 Women .216** .254*** .268*** .273***
 Married −.226** −.285** −.176* −.240*
 Preferred language a
  Cantonese −.555*** −.515*** −.698*** −.682***
  Taishanese −.697*** −.636*** −.806*** −.881***
 Education −.009 −.011 −.003 −.004
 Material hardship .781*** .764*** .690*** .685***
 Any ADL difficulties .583*** .607*** .496*** .517***
 Any IADL difficulties .567*** .544*** .528*** .509***
 Years in the United States .002 −.001 .008* .008*
 Family-oriented migration .106 .098 .060 .056
 Level of acculturation .004 −.001 .001 −.002
Family-level social capital
 Living arrangement b
  Living with spouse only .087 .100
  Multigeneration household .081 .022
  Others −.109 −.132
 Strong family support −.249*** −.176**
Neighborhood-level social capital
 Strong friend support −.169* −.116
 Social engagement −.050*** −.049***
 Neighborhood cohesion −.088* −.092*
 Neighborhood environment −.030*** −.029***
 Years in the neighborhood −.014*** −.014***
Open in a new tab

Note:

a.

Reference is Mandarin

b.

Reference is living alone

†

p<.01

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

In Model 3, neighborhood-level social capital indicators were adjusted in addition to control variables. The results showed that living in Chinatown was associated with significantly fewer depressive symptoms and all the social capital indicators were significantly associated with fewer depressive symptoms (β = −.139, p < .05). Given that Chinatown residents overall fared less well on neighborhood social capital indicators (Table 1), the findings suggest a possible suppression effect of low social capital of Chinatown residents, that is, if having comparable social capital as non-Chinatown residents, Chinatown residents would have reported even fewer depressive symptoms. When adjusting both family- and neighborhood-level social capital indicators (Model 4), Chinatown residence was associated with fewer depressive symptoms and the association was marginally significant (β = −.137, p =. 057). Variance inflation factors (VIF) ranged from 1.095 to 2.794 in Model 4, indicating that multicollinearity is not a major concern in the analyses.

Chinatown residence and Quality of Life

Table 3 summarizes logistic regression results on quality of life (QoL). Different from results on depression, Chinatown residence was consistently associated with a lower likelihood of reporting good/very good QoL across all the models. Results from Model 2 showed that living with family members (OR = 1.374, CI: 1.039–1.834 for living with spouse only; OR = 1.451, CI: 1.105–1.905 for multigenerational household) and having strong family support (OR = 1.624, CI: 1.390–1.900) were associated with a higher chance of reporting good/very good QoL. Model 3 further showed that strong friend support (OR = 2.564, CI: 2.070–3.177), high social engagement (OR = 1.066, CI: 1.041–1.091), and positive neighborhood perception (OR = 1.039, CI: 1.016–1.061) were associated with a higher likelihood of reporting good/very good QoL. Although Chinatown residents were ranked lower on all the three indicators (Table 1), controlling for such differences didn’t fully explain the negative association between Chinatown residence and QoL (OR = 0.797, CI: 0.661–0.962). The results of the full model remained largely the same.

Table 3.

Results of Logistic Regressions on Good/very good Quality of Life among the PINE Respondents

Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4
OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI) OR (CI)
Chinatown residence 0.718 (0.603–0.854)*** 0.744 (0.621–0.891)** 0.749 (0.625–0.897)** 0.797 (0.661–0.962)*
Control variables
 Age 1.020 (1.008–1.032)** 1.022 (1.010–1.035)*** 1.027 (1.013–1.040)*** 1.029 (1.015–1.042)***
 Women 1.351 (1.139–1.602)*** 1.259 (1.062–1.492)* 1.299 (1.090–1.547)** 1.272 (1.062–1.522)**
 Married 1.014 (0.836–1.230) 0.847 (0.655–1.095) 1.091 (0.893–1.332) 0.921 (0.706–1.202)
 Preferred language a
  Cantonese 0.932 (0.725–1.199) 0.834 (0.661–1.050) 1.078 (0.844–1,.378) 1.037 (0.792–1.358)
  Taishanese 1.587 (1.181–2.134)** 1.436 (1.101–1.873) 2.024 (1.528–2.683)*** 1.960 (1.431–2.683)***
 Education 1.014 (0.994–1.035 1.009 (0.987–1.031) 1.003 (0.981–1.025) 1.000 (0.978–1.023)
 Material hardship 0.429 (0.362–0.509)** 0.435 (0.366–0.517)*** 0.491 (0.410–0.588)*** 0.489 (0.408–0.587)***
 Any ADL difficulties 0.425 (0.301–0.574)*** 0.404 (0.291–0.560)*** 0.515 (0.367–0.725)*** 0.501 (0.356–0.706)***
 Any IADL difficulties 0.961 (0.808–1.143) 0.966 (0.811–1.150) 1.032 (0.859–1.239) 1.037 (0.862–1.246)
 Years in the United States 0.993 (0.986–1.001) 0.995 (0.988–1.003) 0.996 (0.887–1.006) 0.998 (0.989–1.008)
 Family-oriented migration 0.690 (0.577–0.824)*** 0.693 (0.579–0.830)*** 0.740 (0.613–0.892)** 0.732 (0.606–0.885)**
 Level of acculturation 1.034 (1.013–1.056)** 1.042 (1.020–1.063)*** 1.032 (1.010–1.054)*** 1.036 (1.013–1.059)**
Family-level social capital
 Living arrangement b
  Living with spouse only 1.374 (1.039–1.834)* 1.328 (0.984–1.791)
  Multigeneration household 1.451 (1.105–1.905)** 1.515 (1.138–2.016)**
  Others 1.227 (0.863–1.743) 1.210 (0.842–1.740)
 Strong family support 1.624 (1.390–1.900)*** 1.267 (1.070–1.500)**
Neighborhood-level social capital
 Strong friend support 2.564 (2.070–3.177)*** 2.346 (1.876–2.934)***
 Social engagement 1.066 (1.041–1.091)*** 1.061 (1.036–1.086)***
 Neighborhood cohesion 0.964 (0.860–1.079) 0.996 (0.886–1.119)
 Neighborhood environment 1.039 (1.016–1.061)*** 1.023 (1.001–1.046)***
 Years in the neighborhood 0.996 (0.986–1.006) 0.965 (0.986–1.006)
Open in a new tab

Note: OR = Odds Ratio, CI = Confidence Interval

a

Reference is Mandarin

b

Reference is living alone

*

p < .05

**

p < .01

***

p < .001

Discussion

Is living in Chinatown associated with better psychological well-being?

Using a large population-based and representative sample of Chinese older immigrants in Chicago, this study addressed a fundamental question: is living in an ethic enclave a good or bad thing for older immigrants’ psychological well-being. Before addressing the question, we found it imperative to understand the “inherent” differences between those who live in ethnic enclaves and those who don’t. In our study, compared to non-Chinatown residents, Chinatown residents were disadvantaged in many aspects including advanced age, poorer health, and low socioeconomic status and acculturation level (despite of longer residence in the U.S.). Together, these factors may have formed their decision of where to live (e.g., Chinatown vs suburb) in the first place. In this sense, it’s difficult to discern whether it’s where they live that makes a difference in their mental health, or it’s who they are that influences where they live as well as their health outcomes. Such potential self-selection effect needs to be borne in mind when examining the health implications of ethnic enclave residence.

By including both negative (depression) and positive (QoL) indicators of psychological well-being, our findings showed that the mental health implications of living in an ethnic enclave may vary by specific outcome. For depression, which is the most extensively examined outcome, although the overall crude association between Chinatown residence and depression was negative, it did not reach statistical significance after adjusting for social capital and control variables. The finding is consistent with those from Mair et al. (2010), indicating a small and marginal protective effect of high ethnic density on depressive symptoms. It’s likely that other explanatory variables that are not included in the analyses such as access to culturally sensitive mental health services available in Chinatown areas accounted for the potential protective effect. In another study based on the same dataset (i.e., PINE), it was reported that living in Chinatown was associated with a higher likelihood of seeking mental health help from informal sources (relative to not seeking help at all) [Kong et al., 2021].

In contrast, we found an inverse relationship between Chinatown residence and quality of life, regardless of whether demographic, SES, health, immigration factors, and social capital indicators were controlled for. The contrasting findings on depression versus QoL demonstrate the importance of including additional indicators of psychological well-being besides depression in fully understanding the complex influence of neighborhood structural context on minority health. Compared to depression, quality of life is a much broader assessment of one’s overall life situation, encompassing not only psychological, but also social and economic well-being (Fallowfield, 2009). The robust negative association between Chinatown residence and QoL may indicate the overall low socioeconomic resources/status of Chinatown residents that may partly have prevented them from moving out of the Chinatown.

In this sense, living in segregated neighborhoods indicate lack of spatial assimilation among Chinatown residents, which is generally defined as residential mobility from high immigrant concentration, high poverty neighborhood to more racially integrated, lower-poverty neighborhoods (Jargowsky, 2009). Special assimilation is viewed as an integral part of structural assimilation among immigrants (Jargowsky, 2009). Some scholars also distinguished ethnic enclaves, which is supposed to be a transitional and temporary living arrangement for new immigrants, from ethnic communities, which is a result of personal intention (Logan et al., 2002). Being segregated from the mainstream society may limit Chinatown residents’ acculturation progress and access to economic, informational, and social opportunities available in racially integrated areas that may facilitate upward mobility in the long run (Yang et al., 2020). Thus, it’s likely that Chinatown residents may have a sense of “left behind” or “being stuck”, both in space and time, compared to their counterparts living in other areas of Chicago, and consequently have poorer assessment of their overall quality of life.

Chinatown residence, social capital, and psychological well-being

In this study, we also tested the role of family- and neighborhood-level social capital in explaining the potential protective effect of high ethnic density on mental health. One surprising finding of this study is – contrary to the widely held belief of high social capital inherent in ethnic enclaves such as Chinatowns (Wong & Tan, 2013), Chinese older immigrants living in Chicago Chinatown had overall lower social capital in domains of friend support, social engagement, and perceived neighborhood environment than their counterparts living in other parts of Chicago. Together with the lower socioeconomic status and acculturation level of the Chinatown residents, the results seem to reflect the pattern of compound disadvantage– that disadvantaged persons living in disadvantaged neighborhoods (Wheaton & Clarke, 2003). Together, the personal and neighborhood attributes of Chinatown residents in this study likely predispose them to high mental health risks.

Several explanations may account for the low social capital among Chinatown residents. Social disorganization theory states that poorer neighborhood environment erodes positive social resources and processes in the community and engenders fear and disconnection among residents (Almeida et al., 2009). When residents experience public deviance such as the presence of litter, vandalism, and unknown people walking around, they tend to retreat socially and psychologically from their communities (Aneshensel et al., 2011). The poorer perception of Chinatown neighborhood environment captured many factors mentioned above, possibly hindering its residents’ engagement in support exchanges and leisure activities in the neighborhood. The lower SES of Chinatown residents may also play a role. Studies have shown unequal distribution of social capital resources across SES (Furstenberg & Kaplan, 2004). The social network of individuals of lower SES may be limited to individuals of lower SES as well, which may not be readily translated into greater support exchanges as in high-SES networks do (Furstenberg & Kaplan, 2004). Lastly, Chinatown residents were also more likely to live alone, which is an additional challenge that may lead to social isolation and less engagement in the community (Fung, 2016)

Our findings should be interpreted in the light of several limitations. The data are from older immigrants in Chicago. The findings may not speak to the experience of residents in other U.S. Chinatowns or younger immigrants. Due to small numbers of respondents living in other neighborhoods besides Chinatown, we were not able to calculate ethnic density as most prior studies did. Treating Chinatown residence as a binary variable likely overlooked the heterogeneity among the non-Chinatown neighborhoods. The secondary data used for this analysis did not contain information of neighborhood economic status or movement between different neighborhoods, two important factors that were assessed in this study. The PINE data only contain one indicator of overall psychological well-being – Quality of Life – and it was measure by a single question. More comprehensive measures of positive and overall psychological well-being are needed in future studies. The cross-sectional data also prevent us from testing causal relationships. It is likely that older immigrants with poorer mental health may be more likely to live in Chinatown which provides familiar environment and easy access to daily support. In addition, by using hierarchical regressions, we indirectly assessed the potential role of social capital in high ethnic density and mental health. Analysis such as structural equation models with longitudinal data will be able to directly test this underlying mechanism.

Despite these limitations, by focusing on the understudied Asian immigrants, the study will help strengthen the rigor and explanatory purview of social determinants of health among the diverse aging immigrant populations. Overall, the findings illustrate how the community systems may function to reproduce social disadvantage among aging immigrant populations. The findings have several research and practice implications. The findings of this study highlight the importance of parceling out self-selection bias and individual predispositions that shape neighborhood selection as well as individual well-being when examining the health implications of ethnic neighborhoods. Conceptual frameworks that reflect complex and dynamic interplay between different neighborhood environmental domains (e.g., neighborhood SES, social cohesion, disorganization, and decay) and psychological well-being are needed. While the relationship of Chinatown residence with psychological wellbeing seems to vary by different indicators, future research needs to expand the investigation to a broader range of psychological outcomes (e.g., stress, sense of loneliness, sense of hopefulness) to fully capture the influence of ethnic neighborhood on individuals.

These findings point to the importance of intervention at the mezzo level to improve the psychological wellbeing of this population. It is necessary to enhance ethnic neighborhood’s safety and walkability to boost the social capital and sense of thriving among their residents. The finding is helpful to inform the development of tailored programs to focus on improving social support, social engagement, neighborhood cohesion among enclave residents who are foreign-born. More culturally sensitive programs that “incorporate ethnic and cultural characteristics, experiences, norms, values, behavioral patterns and beliefs as well as relevant historical, environmental, and social forces” (Resnicow et al., 1999, p.11) are needed to promote the well-being of residents living in Chinatowns. To better serve older immigrants, practitioners and clinicians should consider their life-course experience, such as early life history, immigration journey, barriers of social mobility and the lack of SES resources.

Supplementary Material

Supp 1

Acknowledgement

This work was supported by the National Institute on Aging (grant number R21AG055804); and the Rutgers University Asian Resource Centers for Minority Aging Research under National Institutes of Health/National Institute on Aging (grant number P30-AG059304).

Footnotes

1

According to Illinois law, SSAs are local tax districts that fund enhanced services and programs within the area.

References

  1. Almeida J, Kawachi I, Molnar BE, & Subramanian SV (2009). A multilevel analysis of social ties and social cohesion among Latinos and their neighborhoods: results from Chicago. Journal of Urban Health, 86(5), 745–759. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Aneshensel CS, Ko MJ, Chodosh J, & Wight RG (2011). The urban neighborhood and cognitive functioning in late middle age. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 52(2), 163–179. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  3. Antonucci TC, & Akiyama H (1995). Convoys of social relations: Family and friendships within a life span context. In Blieszner R & Bedford VH (Eds.), Handbook of aging and the family (pp. 355–371). Greenwood. [Google Scholar]
  4. Arévalo SP, Tucker KL, & Falcón LM (2015). Beyond cultural factors to understand immigrant mental health: neighborhood ethnic density and the moderating role of pre-migration and post-migration factors. Social Science & Medicine, 138, 91–100. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bécares L (2014). Ethnic density effects on psychological distress among Latino ethnic groups: An examination of hypothesized pathways. Health & Place, 30, 177–186. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Bécares L, Nazroo J, & Stafford M (2009). The buffering effects of ethnic density on experienced racism and health. Health & Place, 15(3), 700–708. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Budiman A (2020). Key findings about U.S. immigrants. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/08/20/key-findings-about-u-s-immigrants/
  8. Cagney KA, Glass TA, Skarupski KA, Barnes LL, Schwartz BS, & de Leon CFM (2009). Neighborhood-level cohesion and disorder: Measurement and validation in two older adult urban populations. The Journals of Gerontology Series B: Psychological Sciences and Social Sciences, 64(3), 415–424. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Cheong PH, Edwards R, Goulbourne H, & Solomos J (2007). Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: A critical review. Critical social policy, 27(1), 24–49. [Google Scholar]
  10. Denton E.-g. D., Shaffer JA, Alcantara C, & Cadermil E (2016). Neighborhood matters: the impact of Hispanic ethnic density on future depressive symptoms 1-year following an ACS event among Hispanic patients. Journal of Behavioral Medicine, 39(1), 28–40. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  11. Denton E.-g. D., Shaffer JA, Alcantara C, Clemow L, & Brondolo E (2015). Hispanic residential ethnic density and depression in post–acute coronary syndrome patients: Re-thinking the role of social support. International Journal of Social Psychiatry, 61(3), 225–235. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Dinda S (2008). Social capital in the creation of human capital and economic growth: A productive consumption approach. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 2020–2033. [Google Scholar]
  13. Dinwiddie GY, Gaskin DJ, Chan KS, Norrington J, & McCleary R (2013). Residential segregation, geographic proximity and type of services used: evidence for racial/ethnic disparities in mental health. Social Science & Medicine, 80, 67–75. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  14. Dong X, Chen R, & Simon MA (2014). Experience of discrimination among US Chinese older adults. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 69(Suppl_2), S76–S81. 10.1093/gerona/glu150 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Dong X, Li Y, & Simon MA (2014). Social engagement among US Chinese older adults—findings from the PINE Study. Journals of Gerontology Series A: Biomedical Sciences and Medical Sciences, 69(Suppl_2), S82–S89. 10.1093/gerona/glu152 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  16. Eschbach K, Ostir GV, Patel KV, Markides KS, & Goodwin JS (2004). Neighborhood context and mortality among older Mexican Americans: is there a barrio advantage? American Journal of Public Health, 94(10), 1807–1812. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  17. Fallowfield L (2009). What is quality of life (What is…?, Issue. [Google Scholar]
  18. Flores M, Ruiz JM, Butler EA, & Sbarra DA (2021). Hispanic ethnic density may be protective for older Black/African American and Non-Hispanic White populations for some health conditions: An exploration of support and neighborhood mechanisms. Annals of Behavioral Medicine. 10.1093/abm/kaab014 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Fung SE (2016). The well-being of low-income, monolingual-Chinese senior residents: The impact of disinvestment and gentrification in Vancouver’s Chinatown Simon Fraser University; ]. [Google Scholar]
  20. Furstenberg FF, & Kaplan SB (2004). Social capital and the family. In Scott J, Treas J, & Richards M (Eds.), The Blackwell companion to the sociology of families (pp. 218–232). Blackwell Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gerst K, Miranda PY, Eschbach K, Sheffield KM, Peek MK, & Markides KS (2011). Protective neighborhoods: neighborhood proportion of Mexican Americans and depressive symptoms in very old Mexican Americans. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 59(2), 353–358. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  22. Guo M, Sabbagh Steinberg N, Dong XQ, & Tiwari A (2018). A cross-sectional study of coping resources and mental health of Chinese older adults in the United States. Aging & Mental Health, 22(11), 1448–1455. 10.1080/13607863.2017.1364345 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  23. Guo M, & Stensland M (2018). A systematic review of correlates of depression among older Chinese and Korean immigrants in the United States: What we know and don’t know Aging & Mental Health, 22(11), 1448–1455. 10.1080/13607863.2017.1383971 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Hong S, Zhang W, & Walton E (2014). Neighborhoods and mental health: Exploring ethnic density, poverty, and social cohesion among Asian Americans and Latinos. Social Science & Medicine, 111, 117–124. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  25. Jargowsky PA (2009). Immigrants and neighbourhoods of concentrated poverty: assimilation or stagnation? Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 35(7), 1129–1151. [Google Scholar]
  26. Jurcik T, Ahmed R, Yakobov E, Solopieieva-Jurcikova I, & Ryder AG (2013). Understanding the role of the ethnic density effect: Issues of acculturation, discrimination and social support. Journal of Community Psychology, 41(6), 662–678. [Google Scholar]
  27. Juster FT, & Suzman R (1995). An overview of the Health and Retirement Study. Journal of Human Resources, S7–S56. [Google Scholar]
  28. Katz S, Ford AB, Moskowitz RW, Jackson BA, & Jaffe MW (1963). Studies of illness in the aged: the index of ADL: a standardized measure of biological and psychosocial function. JAMA, 185(12), 914–919. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kawachi I, & Berkman LF (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Health, 78, 458–467. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kroenke K, Spitzer RL, & Williams JB (2001). The PHQ-9: validity of a brief depression severity measure. Journal of general internal medicine, 16(9), 606–613. 10.1046/j.1525-1497.2001.016009606.x. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Lawton MP, & Brody EM (1969). A ssessment of older people: self-maintaining and instrumental activities of daily living. Gerontologist, 9(3), 179–186. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. Lee M-A (2009). Neighborhood residential segregation and mental health: A multilevel analysis on Hispanic Americans in Chicago. Social Science & Medicine, 68(11), 1975–1984. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Lee M-J, & Liechty JM (2015). Longitudinal associations between immigrant ethnic density, neighborhood processes, and Latino immigrant youth depression. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 17(4), 983–991. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  34. Ling H (2013). The new trends in American Chinatowns: The case of the Chinese in Chicago. In Wong BP & Tan C-B (Eds.), Chinatowns around the World: Gilded Ghetto, Ethnopolis, and Cultural Diaspora (pp. 55–94). Brill. [Google Scholar]
  35. Logan JR, Zhang W, & Alba RD (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los Angeles. American Sociological Review, 67(2), 299–322. [Google Scholar]
  36. Mair C, Roux AVD, Osypuk TL, Rapp SR, Seeman T, & Watson KE (2010). Is neighborhood racial/ethnic composition associated with depressive symptoms? The multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Social Science & Medicine, 71(3), 541–550. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  37. Marín G, Sabogal F, Marin BV, Otero-Sabogal R, & Perez-Stable EJ (1987). Development of a short acculturation scale for Hispanics. Hispanic journal of behavioral sciences, 9(2), 183–205. 10.4135/9781412952668.n11 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Nobles CJ, Valentine SE, Zepeda ED, Wang Y, Ahles EM, Shtasel DL, & Marques L (2017). Residential segregation and mental health among Latinos in a nationally representative survey. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 71(4), 318–323. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  39. Ostir GV, Eschbach K, Markides KS, & Goodwin JS (2003). Neighbourhood composition and depressive symptoms among older Mexican Americans. Journal of Epidemiology & Community Health, 57(12), 987–992. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  40. Putnam R (1993). The prosperous community: Social capital and public life. The american prospect, 13, 35–42. [Google Scholar]
  41. Putnam RD (2007). E pluribus unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century the 2006 Johan Skytte Prize Lecture. Scandinavian political studies, 30(2), 137–174. [Google Scholar]
  42. Resnicow K, Baranowski T, Ahluwalia J, & Braithwaite R (1999). Cultural sensitivity in public health: defined and demystified. Ethnicity & Disease, 9, 10–21. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  43. Roh S, Jang Y, Chiriboga DA, Kwag KH, Cho S, & Bernstein K (2011). Perceived neighborhood environment affecting physical and mental health: A study with Korean American older adults in New York City. Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health, 13(6), 1005–1012. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  44. Ryan L, Sales R, Tilki M, & Siara B (2008). Social networks, social support and social capital: The experiences of recent Polish migrants in London. Sociology, 42(4), 672–690. [Google Scholar]
  45. Scheppers E, Van Dongen E, Dekker J, Geertzen J, & Dekker J (2006). Potential barriers to the use of health services among ethnic minorities: a review. Family Practice, 23(3), 325–348. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  46. Shell AM, Peek MK, & Eschbach K (2013). Neighborhood Hispanic composition and depressive symptoms among Mexican-descent residents of Texas City, Texas. Social Science & Medicine, 99, 56–63. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  47. Simon MA, Chang E-S, Rajan KB, Welch MJ, & Dong X (2014). Demographic characteristics of US Chinese older adults in the greater Chicago area: Assessing the representativeness of the PINE Study. Journal of Aging and Health, 26(7), 1100–1115. 10.1177/0898264314543472 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  48. Spoonley P, Peace R, Butcher A, & O’Neill D (2005). Social cohesion: A policy and indicator framework for assessing immigrant and host outcomes. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand, 24(1), 85–110. [Google Scholar]
  49. Tessler H, Choi M, & Kao G (2020). The anxiety of being Asian American: Hate crimes and negative biases during the COVID-19 pandemic. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 45(4), 636–646. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Treas J (2008). Transnational older adults and their families. Family Relations, 57(4), 468–478. [Google Scholar]
  51. Tselios V, Noback I, van Dijk J, & McCann P (2015). Integration of immigrants, bridging social capital, ethnicity, and locality. Journal of Regional Science, 55(3), 416–441. [Google Scholar]
  52. Viruell-Fuentes EA, Morenoff JD, Williams DR, & House JS (2013). Contextualizing nativity status, Latino social ties, and ethnic enclaves: an examination of the ‘immigrant social ties hypothesis’. Ethnicity & health, 18(6), 586–609. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  53. Vogt Yuan AS (2007). Racial composition of neighborhood and emotional well-being. Sociological Spectrum, 28(1), 105–129. [Google Scholar]
  54. Weden MM, Miles JN, Friedman E, Escarce JJ, Peterson C, Langa KM, & Shih RA (2017). The Hispanic paradox: Race/ethnicity and nativity, immigrant enclave residence and cognitive impairment among older US adults. Journal of the American Geriatrics Society, 65(5), 1085–1091. 10.1111/jgs.14806 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  55. Wheaton B, & Clarke P (2003). Space meets time: Integrating temporal and contextual influences on mental health in early adulthood. American Sociological Review, 68, 680–706. [Google Scholar]
  56. White K, & Lawrence JA (2019). Racial/ethnic residential segregation and mental health outcomes. In Medlock MM, Shtasel D, Trinh NT, & Williams DR (Eds.), Racism and Psychiatry (pp. 37–53). Springer. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wong BP, & Tan C-B (2013). Introduction: Chinatowns around the world In Wong BP & Tan C-B (Eds.), Chinatowns around the World: Gilded Ghetto, Ethnopolis, and Cultural Diaspora (pp. 1–18). Brill. [Google Scholar]
  58. Yamashita K (2013). A comparative study of Chinatowns around the world: Focusing on the increase in new Chinese immigrants and formation of new Chinatowns. Japanese Journal of Human Geography, 65(6), 527–544. [Google Scholar]
  59. Yang TC, Park K, & Matthews SA (2020). Racial/ethnic segregation and health disparities: Future directions and opportunities. Sociology Compass, e12794. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Supp 1
NIHMS1834995-supplement-Supp_1.docx (19.2KB, docx)

RESOURCES