Current Environmental Health Reports

, Volume 4, Issue 1, pp 51–60 | Cite as

“Contextualizing Context”: Reconciling Environmental Exposures, Social Networks, and Location Preferences in Health Research

  • Yan KestensEmail author
  • Rania Wasfi
  • Alexandre Naud
  • Basile Chaix
Methods in Environmental Epidemiology (EF Schisterman and AZ Pollack, Section Editors)
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Topical Collection on Methods in Environmental Epidemiology


Purpose of Review

The aim of this paper is to review the recent advances in health and place research and discuss concepts useful to explore how context affects health. More specifically, it reviews measures and tools used to account for place; concepts relating to daily mobility and multiple exposure to places, and further points to the intertwining between social and spatial networks to help further our understanding of how context translates into health profiles.

Recent Findings

Significant advances in environmental or neighborhood effects have been made in the last decades. Specifically, conceptual and methodological developments have improved our consideration of spatial processes, shifting from a residential-based view of context to a more dynamic activity space and daily mobility paradigm. Yet, such advances have led to overlooking other potentially important aspects related to social networks and decision-making processes.


With an increasing capacity to collect high-precision data on daily mobility and behavior, new possibilities in understanding how environments relate to behavior and health inequalities arise. Two overlooked aspects need to be addressed: the questions of “with or for whom”, and “why”. While the former calls for a better consideration of social networks and social interactions, the latter calls for refining our understanding of place preference and decision-making leading to daily mobility and multiple exposures.


Environmental exposure Neighborhood effects Social networks Causality Spatial decision-making Daily mobility 



Yan Kestens holds a Canadian Institute of Health Research Applied Public Health Chair in Urban Interventions and Population Health. Rania Wasfi holds a post-doctoral fellowship from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec—Société et culture (FRQ-SC). Alexandre Naud holds a doctoral fellowship from the Fonds de Recherche du Québec—Santé (FRQ-S).

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Yan Kestens, Rania Wasfi, Alexandre Naud and Basile Chaix declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent

This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.


Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance

  1. 1.
    Gordon D. Area-based deprivation measures—a U.K. perspective. In: Kawachi I, Berkman L, editors. Neighbourhoods and health. Oxford: Oxford university press; 2003. p. 179–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Susser M, Susser E. Choosing a future for epidemiology: I. Eras and paradigms. Am J Public Health. 1996;86(5):668–73.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Meade M, Earickson R. Medical geography. New York: Guilford Press; 2000.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dorling D. Death in Britain. How local mortality rates have changed 1950s-1990s. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation; 1997.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Duncan C, Jones K, Moon G. Psychiatric morbidity: a multi level approach to regional variations in the UK. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1995;49:290–5.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Slogget A, Joshi H. Deprivation indicators as predictors of life events. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:228–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Diez Roux A. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1783–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Leventhal T, Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhoods they live in: the effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol Bull. 2000;126(2):309–37.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sampson RJ, Morenoff JD, Gannon-Rowley T. Assessing “neighborhood effects”: social processes and new directions in research. Annu Rev Sociol. 2002;28:443–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Cummins S, et al. Understanding and representing ‘place’ in health research: a relational approach. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:1825–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Macintyre S, Ellaway A, Cummins S. Place effects on health: how can we conceptualise, operationalise, and measure them? Soc Sci Med. 2002;55:125–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Marmot M. Improvement of social environment to improve health. Lancet. 1998;351:57–60.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ross C, Mirowsky J. Neighbourhood socioeconomic status and health: context or composition? City & Community. 2008;7(2):163–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Siergrist J. Place, social exchange and health: proposed sociological framework. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:1283–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Frohlich K, Ross N, Richmond C. Health disparities in Canada today: some evidence and a theoretical framework. Health Policy. 2006;79(2–3):132–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Axhausen P, Urry P, Larsen PJ. Mobilities, networks, geographies. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd; 2012.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    •• Berkman LF, Krishna A. Social network epidemiology. In: Berkman LF, Kawachi I, Glymour M, editors. Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press ; 2014.This book chapter reviews key concepts of social relations and social networks and their relevance for social epidemiology CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Marmot M, et al. Employment grade and coronary heart disease in British civil servants. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1978;32:244–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Curtis S, Jones IR. Is there a place for geography in the analysis of health inequality? Sociology of Health & Illness. 1998;20(5):645–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Jones K, Moon G. Health, disease and society. London: Routledge; 1987.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bernard P, et al. Health inequalities and place: a theoretical conception of neighbourhood. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65(9):1839–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Sewell W. A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. Amercian Journal of Sociology. 1992;98:1–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rainham D, et al. Conceptualizing the healthscape: contributions of time geography, location technologies and spatial ecology to place and health research. Soc Sci Med. 2010;70:668–76.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ward Thompson C. Linking landscape and health: the recurring theme. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;99(3–4):187–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kearns RA, Gesler WM. Introduction. In: Kearns RA, Gesler WM, editors. Putting heath into place: landscape, identity and well being. Syraacse: Syracuse Urniversity Press; 1998. p. 1–1.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Smyth F. Medical geography: therapeutic places spaces and networks. Prog Hum Geogr. 2005;29(4):488–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Braveman PA, et al. Socioeconomic disparities in health in the United States: what the patterns tell us. Am J Public Health. 2010;100(S1):S186–96.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Evans GW, Kantrowitz E. Socioeconomic status and health: the potential role of environmental risk exposure. Annu Rev Public Health. 2002;23(1):303–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:103–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Macintyre S, Maciver S, Sooman A. Area, class and health: should we be focusing on places or people? Journal of Social Policy. 1993;22(2):213–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Larsen K, Merlo J. Appropriate assessment of neighborhood effects on individual health: integrating random and fixed effects in multilevel logistic regression. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;161(1):81–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Li F, et al. Multilevel modelling of built environment characteristics related to neighbourhood walking activity in older adults. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2005;59:558–64.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pickett KE, Pearl M. Multilevel analyses of neighbourhood socioeconomic context and health outcomes: a critical review. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2001;55:111–22.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Merlo J, et al. A brief conceptual tutorial of multilevel analysis in social epidemiology: using measures of clustering in multilevel logistic regression to investigate contextual phenomena. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2006;60:290–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diez-Roux A. Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:171–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Hajna, S., et al., Associations between neighbourhood walkability and daily steps in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Public Health, 2015. 15(1).Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wasfi RA, et al. Exposure to walkable neighbourhoods in urban areas increases utilitarian walking: longitudinal study of Canadians. Journal of Transport & Health. 2016;3(4):440–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Wasfi RA, et al. Neighborhood walkability and body mass index trajectories: longitudinal study of Canadians. Am J Public Health. 2016;106(5):934–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Hirsch JA, et al. Change in walking and body mass index following residential relocation: the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. Am J Public Health. 2014;104(3):e49.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Berry TR, et al. Changes in BMI over 6 years: the role of demographic and neighborhood characteristics. Int J Obes. 2010;34(8):1275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Eid J, et al. Fat city: questioning the relationship between urban sprawl and obesity. J Urban Econ. 2008;63:385.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Riva M, Gauvin L, Barnett T. Toward the next generation of research into small area effects on health: a synthesis of multilevel investigations published since July 1998. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2007;61(10):853–61.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Gauvin L, et al. Conceptualizing and operationalizing neighbourhoods: the conundrum of identifying territorial units. Can J Public Health. 2007;98(Suppl 1):S18–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Owen G, Harris R, Jones K. Under examination: multilevel models, geography and health research. Prog Hum Geogr. 2016;40(3):394–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Næss Ø, Leyland AH. Analysing the effect of area of residence over the life course in multilevel epidemiology. Scandinavian Journal of Public Health. 2010;38(5 suppl):119–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Rasbash, J., Cross-Classified and Multiple Membership Models. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, 2005. p. 1–9.Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Anselin L. Exploring spatial data with GeoDaTM : a workbook. Illinois: Center for Spatially Integrated Social Science; 2005.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Fotheringham S, Brunsdon C, Charlton M. Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons Inc; 2002.Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Feuillet, T., et al., Built environment in local relation with walking: why here and not there? Journal of Transport & Health, 2016.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Chaix B, et al. 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. Am J Epidemiol. 2005;162(2):171–82.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Apparicio P, et al. Comparing alternative approaches to measuring the geographical accessibility of urban health services: distance types and aggregation-error issues. Int J Health Geogr. 2008;7(1):7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Carlos HA, et al. Density estimation and adaptive bandwidths: a primer for public health practitioners. Int J Health Geogr. 2010;9(1):39.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Cummins S. Commentary: investigating neighbourhood effects on health—avoiding the ‘local trap’. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(2):355–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Chaix B, et al. Neighbourhoods in eco-epidemiologic research: delimiting personal exposure areas. A response to Riva, Gauvin, Apparicio and Brodeur. Soc Sci Med. 2009;69(9):1306–10.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Openshaw, S., The modifiable areal unit problem. CATMOG–Concepts and Techniques in Modern Geography, ed. o.t.I.o.B.G. Study Group in Quantitative methods. Vol. 38. 1984, Norwich: Geo Books, Regency House.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kwan M-P. The uncertain geographic context problem. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2012;102(5):958–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vallée, J., et al., The ‘constant size neighbourhood trap’ in accessibility and health studies. Urban Studies, 2014.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Hurvitz PM, Moudon AV. Home versus nonhome neighborhood: quantifying differences in exposure to the built environment. Am J Prev Med. 2012;42(4):411–7.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Duncan DT, et al. Quantifying spatial misclassification in exposure to noise complaints among low-income housing residents across New York City neighborhoods: a global positioning system (GPS) study. Ann Epidemiol. 2016; doi: 10.1016/j.annepidem.2016.09.017.Google Scholar
  60. 60.
    Kestens Y, et al. Comments on Melis et al. the effects of the urban built environment on mental health: a cohort study in a large northern Italian city. Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2015;12:14898–915. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2016. 13(3): p. 250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Perchoux C, et al. Assessing patterns of spatial behavior in health studies: their socio-demographic determinants and associations with transportation modes (the RECORD cohort study). Soc Sci Med. 2014;119:64–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Manaugh K, El-Geneidy AM. What makes travel ‘local’: defining and understanding local travel behavior. The Journal of Transport and Land Use. 2012;5(3):15–27.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hillier A, et al. How far do low-income parents travel to shop for food? Empirical evidence from two urban neighborhoods. Urban Geography. 2011;32(5):712–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Manaugh K, El-Geneidy AM. Validating walkability indices: how do different households respond to the walkability of their neighbourhood? Transportation research Part D: Tranport and Environment. 2011;16(4):309–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Setton E, et al. The impact of daily mobility on exposure to traffic-related air pollution and health effect estimates. J Expos Sci Environ Epidemiol. 2011;21(1):42–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Kwan M-P. Beyond space (as we knew it): toward temporally integrated geographies of segregation, health, and accessibility. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2013;103(5):1078–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Chaix B, et al. Neighborhood environments, mobility, and health: towards a new generation of studies in environmental health research. Rev Epidemiol Sante Publique. 2013;61(Suppl 3):S139–45.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Perchoux C, et al. Conceptualization and measurement of environmental exposure in epidemiology: accounting for activity space related to daily mobility. Health & Place. 2013;21:86–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Miller HJ. A measurement theory for time geography. Geogr Anal. 2005;37(1):17–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Hagerstrand T. What about people in regional science? Regional Science Association. 1970;24:7–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment. J Am Plan Assoc. 2010;76(3):265–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Saelens B, Handy S. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(7):550–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Anton CE, Lawrence C. Home is where the heart is: the effect of place of residence on place attachment and community participation. J Environ Psychol. 2014;40:451–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Matthews SA, Detwiler JE, Burton LM. Geo-ethnography: coupling geographic information analysis techniques with ethnographic methods in urban research. Cartographica. 2005;40(4):75–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Golledge R, Stimson R. Spatial behavior: a geographic perspective. New York: The Guilford Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  76. 76.
    Matthews, S.A., Spatial polygamy and the heterogeneity of place: studying people and place via egocentric methods, in Communities, Neighborhoods, and Health, L. Burton, et al., Editors. 2010, Springer: New York. p. 35–55.Google Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wasfi, R.A., N.A. Ross, and A.M. El-Geneidy, Achieving recommended daily physical activity levels through commuting by public transportation: unpacking individual and contextual influences. Health Place, 2013. 23.Google Scholar
  78. 78.
    Steinmetz-Wood M, Kestens Y. Does the effect of walkable built environments vary by neighborhood socioeconomic status? Prev Med. 2015;81:262–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Besser LM, Dannenberg AL. Walking to public transit: steps to help meet physical activity recommendations. Am J Prev Med. 2005;29(4):273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kestens Y, et al. Association between activity space exposure to food establishments and individual risk of overweight. PLoS One. 2012;7(8):e41418.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Lebel A, et al. Local context influence, activity space, and foodscape exposure in two Canadian metropolitan settings: is daily mobility exposure associated with overweight? J Obes. 2012;2012:1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Chaix B, et al. An interactive mapping tool to assess individual mobility patterns in neighborhood studies. Am J Prev Med. 2012;43(4):440–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Stewart T, et al. A novel assessment of adolescent mobility: a pilot study. Int J Behav Nutr Phys Act. 2015;12(1):18.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Haney WG, Knowles ES. Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban residents. Hum Ecol. 1978;6(2):201–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Vallee J, et al. 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. 2010;16(5):838–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Stewart, T., et al., Adolescent school travel: is online mapping a practical alternative to GPS-assessed travel routes? Journal of Transport & Health, 2016.Google Scholar
  87. 87.
    Birenboim A, Shoval N. Mobility research in the age of the smartphone. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 2016;106(2):283–91.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Gustafson A, et al. Food venue choice, consumer food environment, but not food venue availability within daily travel patterns are associated with dietary intake among adults, Lexington Kentucky 2011. Nutr J. 2013;12(17):1–11.Google Scholar
  89. 89.
    Zenk SN, et al. Activity space environment and dietary and physical activity behaviors: a pilot study. Health & Place. 2011;17(5):1150–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Shearer C, et al. Measuring food availability and accessibility among adolescents: moving beyond the neighbourhood boundary. Soc Sci Med. 2015;133:322–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Kestens Y, et al. Using experienced activity spaces to measure foodscape exposure. Health & Place. 2010;16(6):1094–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Tribby CP, et al. Assessing built environment walkability using activity-space summary measures. J Transp Land Use. 2016;9(1):187–207.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Chaix B, et al. A GPS-based methodology to analyze environment-health associations at the trip level: case-crossover analyses of built environments and walking. Am J Epidemiol. 2016;184(8):570–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Shareck, M., et al., The added value of accounting for activity space when examining the association between tobacco retailer availability and smoking among young adults. Tobacoo Control, 2015: p. 1–7.Google Scholar
  95. 95.
    Vallée J, et al. The role of daily mobility in mental health inequalities: the interactive influence of activity space and neighbourhood of residence on depression. Soc Sci Med. 2011;73(8):1133–44.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Vallée J, et al. 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. 2010;16(5):838–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  97. 97.
    Wang, D. and F. Li, Daily activity space and exposure: a comparative study of Hong Kong’s public and private housing residents’ segregation in daily life. Cities, 2015.Google Scholar
  98. 98.
    James P, et al. “Spatial energetics”: integrating data from GPS, accelerometry, and GIS to address obesity and inactivity. Am J Prev Med. 2016;51(5):792–800.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Chaix, B., et al., GPS tracking in neighborhood and health studies: a step forward for environmental exposure assessment, a step backward for causal inference? Health Place, 2013. 21. This article discusses how selective daily mobility may limit causal inference in research on environmental exposure and health when using GPS and GIS technologies.Google Scholar
  100. 100.
    Berkman LF, Glass T. Social integration, social networks, social support, and health. Social epidemiology. 2000;1:137–73.Google Scholar
  101. 101.
    Levasseur M, et al. Inventory and analysis of definitions of social participation found in the aging literature: proposed taxonomy of social activities. Soc Sci Med. 2010;71(12):2141–9.PubMedPubMedCentralCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Cohen, S. and S.L. Syme, eds. Social support and health. 1985, Academic Press Social support and health: San Diego. xvii 390.Google Scholar
  103. 103.
    Kaplan BH, Cassel JC, Gore S. Social support and health. Med Care. 1977;15(5):47–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Cohen S. Social relationships and health. Am Psychol. 2004;59(8):676–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    House J, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988;241(4865):540–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Seeman TE. Social ties and health: the benefits of social integration. Ann Epidemiol. 1996;6(5):442–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Seeman TE, et al. Social relationships, social support, and patterns of cognitive aging in healthy, high-functioning older adults: MacArthur studies of successful aging. Health Psychol. 2001;20(4):243–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Fratiglioni L, et al. Influence of social network on occurrence of dementia: a community-based longitudinal study. Lancet. 2000;355(9212):1315–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Axhausen K. Social networks and travel: some hypotheses. In: Donaghy K, Poppelreuter S, Rudinger G, editors. Social aspects of sustainable transport: transatlantic perspectives. England: Ashgate Publishing Limited; 2005. p. 90–110.Google Scholar
  110. 110.
    Carrasco JA, et al. Collecting social network data to study social activity-travel behavior: an egocentric approach. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2008;35(6):961–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Larsen J, Axhausen KW, Urry J. Geographies of social networks: meetings, travel and communications. Mobilities. 2006;1(2):261–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Huckfeldt RR. Social contexts, social networks, and urban neighborhoods: environmental constraints on friendship choice. Am J Sociol. 1983;89(3):651–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Axhausen KW. Social networks, mobility biographies, and travel: survey challenges. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design. 2008;35(6):981–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Kestens Y, et al. Understanding the role of contrasting urban contexts in healthy aging: an international cohort study using wearable sensor devices (the CURHA study protocol). BMC Geriatr. 2016;16(96):1–12.Google Scholar
  115. 115.
    Auld J, et al. An automated GPS-based prompted recall survey with learning algorithms. Transportation Letters. 2009;1(1):59–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Paul MJ, Dredze M. A model for mining public health topics fromtwitter. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University; 2011. p. 1–7.Google Scholar
  117. 117.
    Paul, M.J. and M. Dredze. You are what you tweet: analyzing twitter for public health. in Fifth International AAAI Conference on Weblogs and Social Media. 2011. Barcelona, Spain: The AAAI Press, Menlo Park, California.Google Scholar
  118. 118.
    Barrat A, et al. Measuring contact patterns with wearable sensors: methods, data characteristics and applications to data-driven simulations of infectious diseases. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014;20(1):10–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Slingsby A, Beecham R, Wood J. Visual analysis of social networks in space and time using smartphone logs. Pervasive and Mobile Computing. 2013;9(6):848–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Phithakkitnukoon, S., et al., Activity-aware map: identifying human daily activity pattern using mobile phone data. in Human Behavior Understanding: First International Workshop, HBU 2010, Istanbul, Turkey, August 22, 2010. Proceedings, A.A. Salah, et al., Editors. 2010, Springer Berlin Heidelberg: Berlin, Heidelberg. p. 14–25.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Jason Wiese, et al. You Never Call, You Never Write: Call and SMS Logs Do Not Always Indicate Tie Strength in Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW). 2015. Vancouver, BC, Canada.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Frank L, et al. Stepping towards causation: do built environments or neighborhood and travel preferences explain physical activity, driving, and obesity? Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:1898–914.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Handy S, Cao X, Mokhtarian PL. Self-selection in the relationship between the built environment and walking: empirical evidence from Northern California. J Am Plan Assoc. 2006;72(1):55–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Castiglione, J., M. Bradley, and J. Gliebe, Activity-based travel demand models: A primer, in the second strategic highway research program (SHRP 2). 2015, Transportation Research Board: Washington, DC.Google Scholar
  125. 125.
    Ramadier T, Lee-Gosselin M, Frenette A. Conceptaul perspectives for explainning spatio-temporal behaviour in urban areas. In: Lee-Gosselin M, Doherty S, editors. Integrated land use and transportation models: Behavioural foundations. Amsterdam; Boston: Elsevier; 2005.Google Scholar
  126. 126.
    Simon HA. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev. 1956;63(2):129–38.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yan Kestens
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Rania Wasfi
    • 1
    • 2
  • Alexandre Naud
    • 1
    • 2
  • Basile Chaix
    • 3
    • 4
  1. 1.Montreal University Hospital Research Center (CRCHUM)MontréalCanada
  2. 2.École de Santé Publique de l’Université de Montréal (ESPUM)MontréalCanada
  3. 3.Inserm, UMR-S 1136, Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health, Nemesis teamParisFrance
  4. 4.UPMC Univ Paris 06, UMR-S 1136, Pierre Louis Institute of Epidemiology and Public Health, Nemesis teamSorbonne UniversitésParisFrance

Personalised recommendations