Demography

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 727–752 | Cite as

Redefining Neighborhoods Using Common Destinations: Social Characteristics of Activity Spaces and Home Census Tracts Compared

Article

Abstract

Research on neighborhood effects has focused largely on residential neighborhoods, but people are exposed to many other places in the course of their daily lives—at school, at work, when shopping, and so on. Thus, studies of residential neighborhoods consider only a subset of the social-spatial environment affecting individuals. In this article, we examine the characteristics of adults’ “activity spaces”—spaces defined by locations that individuals visit regularly—in Los Angeles County, California. Using geographic information system (GIS) methods, we define activity spaces in two ways and estimate their socioeconomic characteristics. Our research has two goals. First, we determine whether residential neighborhoods represent the social conditions to which adults are exposed in the course of their regular activities. Second, we evaluate whether particular groups are exposed to a broader or narrower range of social contexts in the course of their daily activities. We find that activity spaces are substantially more heterogeneous in terms of key social characteristics, compared to residential neighborhoods. However, the characteristics of both home neighborhoods and activity spaces are closely associated with individual characteristics. Our results suggest that most people experience substantial segregation across the range of spaces in their daily lives, not just at home.

Keywords

Neighborhood Activity spaces Isolation Segregation GIS methods 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (Grants R01HD35944 and R01HD41486) and by the Russell Sage Foundation.

Supplementary material

13524_2014_283_MOESM1_ESM.docx (158 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 158 kb)

References

  1. Acevedo-Garcia, D. (2000). Residential segregation and the epidemiology of infectious diseases. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 1143–1161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Acevedo-Garcia, D., Osypuk, T. L., McArdle, N., & Williams, D. R. (2008). Toward a policy-relevant analysis of geographic and racial/ethnic disparities in child health. Health Affairs, 27, 321–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aneshensel, C. S., & Sucoff, C. A. (1996). The neighborhood context of adolescent mental health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 37, 293–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beyer, H. L. (2011). Spatial ecology: Geospatial modeling environment 0.5.5 Beta. Retrieved from http://www.spatialecology.com
  5. Boardman, J. D., Finch, B. K., Ellison, C. G., Williams, D. R., & Jackson, J. S. (2001). Neighborhood disadvantage, stress, and drug use among adults. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 151–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Braveman, P. A., Cubbin, C., Egerter, S., Williams, D. R., & Pamuk, E. (2010). Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: What the patterns tell us. American Journal of Public Health, 100(Suppl. 1), S186–S196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Buliung, R. N., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2006a). A GIS toolkit for exploring geographies of household activity/travel behavior. Journal of Transport Geography, 14, 35–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buliung, R. N., & Kanaroglou, P. S. (2006b). Urban form and household activity-travel behavior. Growth and Change, 37, 172–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Burdick-Will, J., Ludwig, J., Raudenbush, S., Sampson, R. J., Sanbonmatsu, L., & Sharkey, P. (2011). Converging evidence for neighborhood effects on children’s test scores: An experimental, quasi-experimental, and observational comparison. In G. J. Duncan & R. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity? Rising inequality, schools, and children's life chances (pp. 255–276). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  10. Chaskin, R. J., & Joseph, M. L. (2011). Social interaction in mixed-income developments: Relational expectations and emerging reality. Journal of Urban Affairs, 33, 209–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Cho, W. K. T., Gimpel, J. G., & Dyck, J. J. (2006). Residential concentration, political socialization, and voter turnout. Journal of Politics, 68, 156–167.Google Scholar
  12. Clampet-Lundquist, S., & Massey, D. S. (2008). Neighborhood effects on economic self-sufficiency: A reconsideration of the moving to opportunity experiment. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 107–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Covington, K. L. (2009). Spatial mismatch of the poor: An explanation of recent declines in job isolation. Journal of Urban Affairs, 31, 559–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Crowder, K., & South, S. J. (2011). Spatial and temporal dimensions of neighborhood effects on high school graduation. Social Science Research, 40, 87–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. DiPrete, T. A., Gelman, A., McCormick, T., Teitler, J., & Zheng, T. (2011). Segregation in social networks based on acquaintanceship and trust. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1234–1283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Ellis, M., Wright, R., & Parks, V. (2004). Work together, live apart? Geographies of racial and ethnic segregation at home and at work. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 94, 620–637.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ellison, C. G., Shin, H., & Leal, D. L. (2011). The contact hypothesis and attitudes toward Latinos in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 92, 938–958.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Entwisle, B. (2007). Putting people into place. Demography, 44, 687–703.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. ESRI (Environmental Systems Resource Institute). (2011). ArcMap 10.0. Redlands, CA: ESRI.Google Scholar
  20. Fauth, R. C., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2007). Welcome to the neighborhood? Long-term impacts of moving to low-poverty neighborhoods on poor children’s and adolescents’ outcomes. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 17, 249–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Frey, W. H. (2012). New racial segregation measures for large metropolitan areas: Analysis of the 1990–2010 decennial censuses. Retrieved from http://www.psc.isr.umich.edu/dis/census/segregation2010.html
  22. Hägerstrand, T. (1967). Innovation diffusion as a spatial process. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  23. Horton, F. E., & Reynolds, D. R. (1971). Effects of urban spatial structure on individual behavior. Economic Geography, 47, 36–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Huckfeldt, R. R. (1979). Political participation and the neighborhood social context. American Journal of Political Science, 23, 579–592.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Huckfeldt, R. R. (1983). Social contexts, social networks, and urban neighborhoods: Environmental constraints on friendship choice. American Journal of Sociology, 89, 651–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Inagami, S., Cohen, D. A., & Finch, B. K. (2007). Non-residential neighborhood exposures suppress neighborhood effects on self-rated health. Social Science & Medicine, 65, 1779–1791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ioannides, Y. M., & Topa, G. (2010). Neighborhood effects: Accomplishments and looking beyond them. Journal of Regional Science, 50, 343–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jargowsky, P. A. (2003). Stunning progress, hidden problems: The dramatic decline of concentrated poverty in the 1990s. In B. Katz, R. Lang, & A. Berube (Eds.), Redefining urban and suburban America: Evidence from Census 2000 (Vol. 1). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  29. Jones, M. (2012). Accumulating neighborhood stress exposure: Effects on hypertension, obesity, and depression (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). University of California, Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  30. Jones, M., Pebley, A. R., & Sastry, N. (2011). Eyes on the block: Measuring urban physical disorder through in-person observation. Social Science Research, 40, 523–537.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Joseph, M. L., Chaskin, R. J., & Webber, H. S. (2007). The theoretical basis for addressing poverty through mixed-income development. Urban Affairs Review, 42, 369–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kestens, Y., Lebel, A., Daniels, M., Thériault, M., & Pampalon, R. (2010). Using experienced activity spaces to measure foodscape exposure. Health & Place, 16, 1094–1103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kohen, D. E., Leventhal, T., Dahinten, V. S., & McIntosh, C. N. (2008). Neighborhood disadvantage: Pathways of effects for young children. Child Development, 79, 156–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kwan, M. P. (1999). Gender and individual access to urban opportunities: A study using space-time measures. Professional Geographer, 51, 210–227.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kwan, M. P. (2012). The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 102, 958–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, B. A., Farrell, C. R., & Link, B. C. (2004). Revisiting the contact hypothesis: The case of public exposure to homelessness. American Sociological Review, 69, 40–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2000). The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychological Bulletin, 126, 309–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Liu, C. Y., & Painter, G. (2012). Immigrant settlement and employment suburbanisation in the US: Is there a spatial mismatch? Urban Studies, 49, 979–1002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Matthews, S. A. (2011). Spatial polygamy and the heterogeneity of place: Studying people and place via egocentric methods. In L. M. Burton, S. P. Kemp, M. Leung, S. A. Matthews, & D. T. Takeuchi (Eds.), Communities, neighborhoods, and health: Expanding the boundaries of place (Vol. 1, pp. 35–55). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Matthews, S. A., Detwiler, J., & Burton, L. M. (2005). Geoethnography: Coupling geographic information analysis techniques with ethnographic methods in urban research. Cartographica, 40, 75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. McClurg, S. D. (2006). Political disagreement in context: The conditional effect of neighborhood context, disagreement and political talk on electoral participation. Political Behavior, 28, 349–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Newsome, T., Walcott, W., & Smith, P. D. (1998). Urban activity spaces: Illustrations and application of a conceptual model for integrating the time and space dimensions. Transportation, 25, 357–377.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ong, P., Firestine, T., Pfeiffer, D., Poon, O., & Tran, L. (2008). The state of South LA (Report). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA School of Public Affairs.Google Scholar
  44. Ong, P. M., & Miller, D. (2005). Spatial and transportation mismatch in Los Angeles. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, 43–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Palmer, J. (2012, May). Activity-space segregation: Understanding social divisions in space and time. Paper presented at the annual meetings of the Population Association of America, San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  46. Palmer, J. R. B., Espenshade, T. J., Bartumeus, F., Chung, C. Y., Ozgencil, N. E., & Li, K. (2013). New approaches to human mobility: Using mobile phones for demographic research. Demography, 50, 1105–1128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pebley, A. R., & Sastry, N. (2004). Neighborhoods, poverty and children’s well-being. In K. Neckerman (Ed.), Social dimensions of inequality (pp. 119–146). New York, NY: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Pettigrew, T. F. (2008). Future directions for intergroup contact theory and research. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 32, 187–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922–934.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reardon, S. F., & Bischoff, K. (2011). Income inequality and income segregation. American Journal of Sociology, 116, 1092–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Rocha, R. R., & Espino, R. (2010). Segregation, immigration, and Latino participation in ethnic politics. American Politics Research, 38, 614–635.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Ross, C. E. (2000). Neighborhood disadvantage and adult depression. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 41, 177–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Ross, C. E., & Mirowsky, J. (2001). Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and health. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 42, 258–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Sampson, R. J. (2011). Neighborhood effects, causal mechanisms, and the social structure of the city. In P. Demeulenaere (Ed.), Analytical sociology and social mechanisms (pp. 227–250). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Sampson, R. J. (2012). Great American city: Chicago and the enduring neighborhood effect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Sastry, N., Ghosh-Dastidar, B., Adams, J., & Pebley, A. R. (2006). The design of a multilevel survey of children, families, and communities: The Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey. Social Science Research, 35, 1000–1024.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sastry, N., & Pebley, A. R. (2003). Non-response in the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey (Labor and Population Working Papers, DRU-2400/7). Retrieved from http://www.rand.org/content/dam/rand/pubs/drafts/2006/DRU2400.7.pdf
  58. Sastry, N., & Pebley, A. R. (2010). Family and neighborhood sources of socioeconomic inequality in children’s achievement. Demography, 47, 777–800.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Sastry, N., Pebley, A. R., & Zonta, M. (2002). Neighborhood definitions and the spatial dimension of daily life in Los Angeles (CCPR Working Paper 033-04). Los Angeles: California Center for Population Research, University of California–Los Angeles.Google Scholar
  60. Schönfelder, S., & Axhausen, K. W. (2003). Activity spaces: Measures of social exclusion? Transport Policy, 10, 273–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sherman, J. E., Spencer, J., Preisser, J. S., Gesler, W. M., & Arcury, T. A. (2005). A suite of methods for representing activity space in a healthcare accessibility study. International Journal of Health Geographics, 4, 24. doi: 10.1186/1476-072X-4-24 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. StataCorp. (2011). Stata statistical software: Release 11. College Station, TX: StataCorp LP.Google Scholar
  63. Stoll, M. A. (1999). Spatial job search, spatial mismatch, and the employment and wages of racial and ethnic groups in Los Angeles. Journal of Urban Economics, 46, 129–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Stoll, M. A., & Covington, K. (2012). Explaining racial/ethnic gaps in spatial mismatch in the US: The primacy of racial segregation. Urban Studies, 49, 2501–2521.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000a). 2000 decennial census, summary file 3. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/
  67. U.S. Census Bureau. (2000b). Census TIGER/Line data. Retrieved from http://arcdata.esri.com/data/tiger2000/tiger_download.cfm
  68. Vallee, J., Cadot, E., Grillo, F., Parizot, I., & Chauvin, P. (2010). The combined effects of activity space and neighbourhood of residence on participation in preventive health-care activities: The case of cervical screening in the Paris metropolitan area (France). Health & Place, 16, 838–852.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Wong, D., & Shaw, S. L. (2011). Measuring segregation: An activity space approach. Journal of Geographical Systems, 13, 127–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Zenk, S. N., Schulz, A. J., Matthews, S. A., Odoms-Young, A., Wilbur, J., Wegrzyn, L., . . . Stokes, C. (2011). Activity space environment and dietary and physical activity behaviors: A pilot study. Health Place, 17, 1150–1161.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Population Association of America 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Prevention Research, Department of Preventive MedicineKeck School of Medicine of USCLos AngelesUSA
  2. 2.UCLA Fielding School of Public Health, Department of Community Health Sciences and the California Center for Population ResearchUniversity of California, Los AngelesLos AngelesUSA

Personalised recommendations