Multiscale spatial contexts and neighbourhood effects
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.7480/abe.2020.15.5194Abstract
This thesis has developed alternative methods of operationalising neighbourhoods at multiple spatial scales and used them to advance our understanding of spatial inequalities and neighbourhood effects. The underlying problem that motivated this thesis is that many empirical studies use predefined administrative units, and this does not often align with the underlying theory or geography. Despite the extensive literature on neighbourhood effects and, more generally, on sociospatial inequalities, spatial scale remains an under-analysed concept. As a response to this research gap, this thesis takes a multiscale approach to both theory and empirical analysis of neighbourhood effects, highlighting the multitude of spatial processes that may affect individual outcomes of people. To operationalise this, we created bespoke areas (centred around each location) at a range of one hundred scales representing people’s residential contexts, primarily in the Netherlands but also in multiple European capitals. Using microgeographic data and a large number of scales combined with small distance increments revealed subtle changes in sociodemographic characteristics across space. In doing so, we provided new insights into ethnic segregation, potential exposures to poverty, and neighbourhood effects on income, all in light of the fundamental issue of spatial scale: The analyses of sociospatial inequalities are substantially affected by the scale used to operationalise spatial context, and this varies within and between cities and urban regions. The aim of this thesis was therefore not to find a single, ‘true’ scale of neighbourhood, but to acknowledge, operationalise, and better understand the multiplicity of spatial scales.
References
Aalbers, M. B. (2012). How do mortgage lenders influence neighbourhood dynamics? Redlining and predatory lending Understanding neighbourhood dynamics (pp. 63-85): Springer.
Alders, M. (2001). Classification of the population with a foreign background in The Netherlands. Paper presented at the “The measure and mismeasure of populations. The statistical use of ethnic and racial categories in multicultural societies”, Paris.
Analyse für Deutschland: Wie sich Menschen mit niedrigen Löhnen in Großstädten verteilen (IABKurzbericht 12/2014). Nürnberg.
Anand, S. (1983). Inequality and poverty in Malaysia: Measurement and decomposition: The World Bank.
Andersson, E. K., & Malmberg, B. (2014). Contextual effects on educational attainment in
Andersson, R., & Musterd, S. (2010). What scale matters? Exploring the relationships between individuals’ social position, neighbourhood context and the scale of neighbourhood. Geografiska Annaler: Series B, Human Geography, 92(1), 23-43.
Bäckman, O. (2009). Institutions, Structures and Poverty: A Comparative Study of 16 Countries, 1980-2000. European Sociological Review, 25(2), 251-264.
Bakker, B. F. (2002). Statistics Netherlands’ approach to social statistics: The social statistical dataset. Statistics Newsletter, 11(4), 6.
Bakker, B. F. (2002). Statistics Netherlands’ approach to social statistics: The social statistical dataset. Statistics Newsletter, 11(4), 6.
Bala, V., & Goyal, S. (1998). Learning from neighbours. The review of economic studies, 65(3), 595-621.
Bolster, A., Burgess, S., Johnston, R., Jones, K., Propper, C., & Sarker, R. (2007). Neighbourhoods, households and income dynamics: a semi-parametric investigation of neighbourhood effects. Journal of Economic Geography, 7(1), 1-38.
Bolt, G., & Van Kempen, R. (2003). Escaping poverty neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. Housing, Theory and Society, 20(4), 209-222.
Bolt, G., Phillips, D., & Van Kempen, R. (2010). Housing policy, (de)segregation and social mixing: An international perspective: Taylor & Francis.
Bolt, G., Van Kempen, R., & Van Weesep, J. (2009). After urban restructuring: relocations and segregation in Dutch cities. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 100(4), 502-518.
Brännström, L. (2005). Does neighbourhood origin matter? A longitudinal multilevel assessment of neighbourhood effects on income and receipt of social assistance in a Stockholm birth cohort. Housing, Theory and Society, 22(4), 169-195.
Buck, N. (2001). Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2251-2275.
Catney, G. (2016). The changing geographies of ethnic diversity in England and Wales, 1991–2011. Population, space and place, 22(8), 750-765.
Chaix, B., Merlo, J., Subramanian, S., Lynch, J., & Chauvin, P. (2005). Comparison of a spatial perspective with the multilevel analytical approach in neighborhood studies: the case of mental and behavioral disorders due to psychoactive substance use in Malmö, Sweden, 2001. American journal of epidemiology, 162(2), 171-182.
Chetty, R., & Hendren, N. (2018). The impacts of neighborhoods on intergenerational mobility II: Countylevel estimates. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 133(3), 1163-1228.
Clark, W. A., Anderson, E., Östh, J., & Malmberg, B. (2015). A Multiscalar Analysis of Neighborhood Composition in Los Angeles, 2000–2010: A Location-Based Approach to Segregation and Diversity. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 105(6), 1260-1284.
Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: a methodological note. American journal of community psychology, 29(2), 371-383.
Dietz, R. D. (2002). The estimation of neighborhood effects in the social sciences: An interdisciplinary approach. Social Science Research, 31(4), 539-575.
Diez Roux, A. V. (2004). Estimating the neighborhood health effects: The challenges of casual inference in a complex world. Social science & medicine, 58, 1953–1960.
Dixon, J., & Macarov, D. (2002). Poverty: A persistent global reality: Routledge.
Duncan, D. T., Kawachi, I., Subramanian, S., Aldstadt, J., Melly, S. J., & Williams, D. R. (2014). Examination of how neighborhood definition influences measurements of youths’ access to tobacco retailers: a methodological note on spatial misclassification. American journal of epidemiology, 179(3), 373-381.
Durlauf, S. N. (2004). Neighborhood effects. Handbook of regional and urban economics, 4, 2173-2242.
Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (1997). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), 833-866.
Flowerdew, R., Manley, D. J., & Sabel, C. E. (2008). Neighbourhood effects on health: does it matter where you draw the boundaries? Social science & medicine, 66(6), 1241-1255.
Fotheringham, A. S. (1981). Spatial structure and distance-decay parameters. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 71(3), 425-436.
Fowler, C. S. (2015). Segregation as a multiscalar phenomenon and its implications for neighborhood-scale research: the case of South Seattle 1990–2010. Urban Geography(ahead-of-print), 1-25.
Fowler, C. S. (2018). Key assumptions in multiscale segregation measures: How zoning and strength of spatial association condition outcomes. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(6), 1055-1072.
Fritzell, J., & Ritakallio, V. M. (2010). Societal shifts and changed patterns of poverty. International Journal of Social Welfare, 19(s1).
Galster, G. (2002). An economic efficiency analysis of deconcentrating poverty populations. Journal of housing economics, 11(4), 303-329.
Galster, G. C. (1986). What is neighbourhood? An externality‐space approach. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10(2), 243-263.
Galster, G. C. (2008). Quantifying the effect of neighbourhood on individuals: challenges, alternative approaches, and promising directions. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 128(1), 7-48.
Galster, G. C. (2012). The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 23-56): Springer.
Galster, G. C. (2012). The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications.
Gehlke, C., & Biehl, K. (1934). Certain effects of grouping upon the size of the correlation coefficient in census tract material. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 29(185A), 169-170.
George, V. (1980). Explanations of Poverty and Inequality’. Poverty and inequality in common market countries, 2.
Goedemé, T., & Rottiers, S. (2011). Poverty in the enlarged European Union. A discussion about definitions and reference groups. Sociology Compass, 5(1), 77-91.
Grannis, R. (1998). The importance of trivial streets: Residential streets and residential segregation. American journal of sociology, 103(6), 1530-1564.
Hagenaars, A. J. (2017). The definition and measurement of poverty Economic Inequality and Poverty: International Perspectives (pp. 148-170): Routledge.
Hedman, L., Manley, D., Van Ham, M., & Östh, J. (2015). Cumulative exposure to disadvantage and the intergenerational transmission of neighbourhood effects. Journal of Economic Geography, 15(1), 195-215.
Hennerdal, P., & Nielsen, M. M. (2017). A Multiscalar Approach for Identifying Clusters and Segregation Patterns That Avoids the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 1-20.
Hipp, J. R., & Boessen, A. (2013). Egohoods as waves washing across the city: a new measure of “neighborhoods”. Criminology, 51(2), 287-327.
Horner, M. W. (2004). Exploring metropolitan accessibility and urban structure. Urban Geography, 25(3), 264-284.
Houbiers, M. (2004). Towards a social statistical database and unified estimates at Statistics Netherlands. Journal of Official Statistics - Stockholm, 20(1), 55-76.
Houbiers, M. (2004). Towards a social statistical database and unified estimates at Statistics Netherlands. Journal of Official Statistics - Stockholm, 20(1), 55-76.
Hunter, A. (1974). Symbolic communities: The persistence and change of Chicago’s local communities: University of Chicago Press.
Ihlanfeldt, K. R., & Sjoquist, D. L. (1998). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Housing Policy Debate, 9(4), 849-892.
ILO. (2013). Decent work indicators. Guidelines for producers and users of statistical and legal framework indicators ILO Manual. Geneva.
In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 23-56): Springer.
individualised, scalable neighbourhoods: Differences across gender and social class. Urban Studies, 0042098014542487.
Johnston, R., Pattie, C., Dorling, D., MacAllister, I., Tunstall, H., & Rossiter, D. (2000). The neighbourhood effect and voting in England and Wales: real or imagined? British Elections & Parties Review, 10(1), 47-63.
Johnston, R., Poulsen, M., & Forrest, J. (2015). Increasing diversity within increasing diversity: The changing ethnic composition of London’s neighbourhoods, 2001–2011. Population, space and place, 21(1), 38-53.
Johnston, R., Propper, C., Burgess, S., Sarker, R., Bolster, A., & Jones, K. (2005). Spatial scale and the neighbourhood effect: multinomial models of voting at two recent British general elections. British journal of political science, 35(03), 487-514.
Jones, K., Manley, D., Johnston, R., & Owen, D. (2018). Modelling residential segregation as unevenness and clustering: A multilevel modelling approach incorporating spatial dependence and tackling the MAUP. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 45(6), 1122-1141.
MacPherson, S., & Silburn, R. (2002). The meaning and measurement of poverty. In J. Dixon & D. Macarov (Eds.), Poverty: A persistent global reality (pp. 17-19): Routledge.
Manley, D. (2014). Scale, Aggregation, and the Modifiable Areal Unit Problem. In M. Fischer & P. Nijkamp (Eds.), Handbook of Regional Science (pp. 1157-1171). Berlin, Heidelberg: Springer.
Manley, D., Flowerdew, R., & Steel, D. (2006). Scales, levels and processes: Studying spatial patterns of British census variables. Computers, environment and urban systems, 30(2), 143-160.
Marlier, E. (2007). The EU and social inclusion: Facing the challenges. Bristol: Policy Press.
Musterd, S., & Ostendorf, W. (2008). Integrated urban renewal in The Netherlands: a critical appraisal. Urban Research & Practice, 1(1), 78-92.
Najib, K. (2019). Socio‐spatial inequalities and dynamics of rich and poor enclaves in three French cities: A policy of social mixing under test. Population, space and place.
Openshaw, S. (1984). The modifiable areal unit problem, CATMOG 38. Geo Abstracts, Norwich.
Openshaw, S., & Taylor, P. J. (1979). A million or so correlation coefficients: three experiments on the modifiable areal unit problem. Statistical applications in the spatial sciences, 21, 127-144.
Permentier, M., Van Ham, M., & Bolt, G. (2009). Neighbourhood reputation and the intention to leave the neighbourhood. Environment and planning A, 41(9), 2162-2180.
Petrović, A., Manley, D., & van Ham, M. (2019). Freedom from the tyranny of neighbourhood: Rethinking sociospatial context effects. Progress in human geography, 0(0), 0. doi: 10.1177/0309132519868767
Petrović, A., van Ham, M., & Manley, D. (2018). Multiscale Measures of Population: Within- and between-City Variation in Exposure to the Sociospatial Context. Annals of the American Association of Geographers, 108(4), 1057-1074. doi: 10.1080/24694452.2017.1411245
Sampson, R. J. (2001). How do Communities Undergird or Undermine Human Development? Relevant Contexts and Social Mechanisms. Does It Take A Village?: Community Effects on Children, Adolescents, and Families, 1.
Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect: University of Chicago Press.
Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Gannon-Rowley, T. (2002). Assessing” neighborhood effects”: Social processes and new directions in research. Annual review of sociology, 443-478.
Tammaru, T., van Ham, M., Marcińczak, S., & Musterd, S. (2016). Socio-economic segregation in European capital cities: East meets West (Vol. 89): Routledge.
Taylor, M. (1998). Combating the social exclusion of housing estates. Housing studies, 13(6), 819-832.
Theil, H. (1967). Economics and information theory. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing Company.
Van der Klaauw, B., & Van Ours, J. C. (2003). From welfare to work: does the neighborhood matter? Journal of Public Economics, 87(5), 957-985.
Van Ham, M., & Clark, W. A. (2009). Neighbourhood mobility in context: household moves and changing neighbourhoods in the Netherlands. Environment and planning A, 41(6), 1442-1459.
van Ham, M., Hooimeijer, P., & Mulder, C. H. (2001). Urban form and job access: disparate realities in the Randstad. Tijdschrift voor economische en sociale geografie, 92(2), 231-246.
Van Ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L., & Maclennan, D. (2012). Neighbourhood effects research: new perspectives: Springer.
Van Kempen, R., & Priemus, H. (1999). Undivided cities in the Netherlands: Present situation and political rhetoric. Housing studies, 14(5), 641-657.
vom Berge, P., Schanne, N., Schild, C.-J., Trübswetter, P., Wurdack, A., & Petrovic, A. (2014). Eine räumliche
Vrooman, C., Hoff, S., & Otten, F. (2014). Armoedesignalement 2014: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau; Centraal Bureau voor de Statistiek.
Wacquant, L. J. (1993). Urban outcasts: stigma and division in the black American ghetto and the French urban periphery. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 17(3), 366-383.
White, P. (1998). Ideologies, social exclusion and spatial segregation in Paris. Urban Segregation and the Welfare State, London, Routledge, 148-167.
Wilkinson, R. G., & Pickett, K. E. (2006). Income inequality and population health: a review and explanation of the evidence. Social science & medicine, 62(7), 1768-1784.
Williamson, J. G. (1965). Regional inequality and the process of national development: a description of the patterns. Economic development and cultural change, 13(4, Part 2), 1-84.
