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

Abstract

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.

Summary

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Fig. 1

References

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.

    Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  6. 6.

    Slogget A, Joshi H. Deprivation indicators as predictors of life events. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:228–33.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. 7.

    Diez Roux A. Investigating neighborhood and area effects on health. Am J Public Health. 2001;91(11):1783–9.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. 10.

    Cummins S, et al. Understanding and representing ‘place’ in health research: a relational approach. Soc Sci Med. 2007;65:1825–38.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  12. 12.

    Marmot M. Improvement of social environment to improve health. Lancet. 1998;351:57–60.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  13. 13.

    Ross C, Mirowsky J. Neighbourhood socioeconomic status and health: context or composition? City & Community. 2008;7(2):163–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. 14.

    Siergrist J. Place, social exchange and health: proposed sociological framework. Soc Sci Med. 2000;51:1283–93.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  16. 16.

    Axhausen P, Urry P, Larsen PJ. Mobilities, networks, geographies. Hampshire: Ashgate Publishing, Ltd; 2012.

  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

    Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  22. 22.

    Sewell W. A theory of structure: duality, agency, and transformation. Amercian Journal of Sociology. 1992;98:1–29.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  24. 24.

    Ward Thompson C. Linking landscape and health: the recurring theme. Landsc Urban Plan. 2011;99(3–4):187–95.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  29. 29.

    Brulle RJ, Pellow DN. Environmental justice: human health and environmental inequalities. Annu Rev Public Health. 2006;27:103–24.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  35. 35.

    Diez-Roux A. Multilevel analysis in public health research. Annu Rev Public Health. 2000;21:171–92.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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).

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  Article  Google Scholar 

  41. 41.

    Eid J, et al. Fat city: questioning the relationship between urban sprawl and obesity. J Urban Econ. 2008;63:385.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  46. 46.

    Rasbash, J., Cross-Classified and Multiple Membership Models. Encyclopedia of Statistics in Behavioral Science, 2005. p. 1–9.

  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.

  49. 49.

    Feuillet, T., et al., Built environment in local relation with walking: why here and not there? Journal of Transport & Health, 2016.

  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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  53. 53.

    Cummins S. Commentary: investigating neighbourhood effects on health—avoiding the ‘local trap’. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36(2):355–7.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

  56. 56.

    Kwan M-P. The uncertain geographic context problem. Ann Assoc Am Geogr. 2012;102(5):958–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. 57.

    Vallée, J., et al., The ‘constant size neighbourhood trap’ in accessibility and health studies. Urban Studies, 2014.

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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. 250

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. 69.

    Miller HJ. A measurement theory for time geography. Geogr Anal. 2005;37(1):17–45.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. 70.

    Hagerstrand T. What about people in regional science? Regional Science Association. 1970;24:7–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  71. 71.

    Ewing R, Cervero R. Travel and the built environment. J Am Plan Assoc. 2010;76(3):265–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  72. 72.

    Saelens B, Handy S. Built environment correlates of walking: a review. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2008;40(7):550–66.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google Scholar 

  84. 84.

    Haney WG, Knowles ES. Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban residents. Hum Ecol. 1978;6(2):201–14.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  91. 91.

    Kestens Y, et al. Using experienced activity spaces to measure foodscape exposure. Health & Place. 2010;16(6):1094–103.

    Article  Google 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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google 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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

  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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

  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.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Article  Google 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.

  103. 103.

    Kaplan BH, Cassel JC, Gore S. Social support and health. Med Care. 1977;15(5):47–58.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  104. 104.

    Cohen S. Social relationships and health. Am Psychol. 2004;59(8):676–84.

    PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  105. 105.

    House J, Landis KR, Umberson D. Social relationships and health. Science. 1988;241(4865):540–5.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

  106. 106.

    Seeman TE. Social ties and health: the benefits of social integration. Ann Epidemiol. 1996;6(5):442–51.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  111. 111.

    Larsen J, Axhausen KW, Urry J. Geographies of social networks: meetings, travel and communications. Mobilities. 2006;1(2):261–83.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  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.

    PubMed  Article  Google 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.

    Article  Google 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.

  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.

  126. 126.

    Simon HA. Rational choice and the structure of the environment. Psychol Rev. 1956;63(2):129–38.

    CAS  PubMed  Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

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).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yan Kestens.

Ethics declarations

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.

Additional information

This article is part of the Topical Collection on Methods in Environmental Epidemiology

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kestens, Y., Wasfi, R., Naud, A. et al. “Contextualizing Context”: Reconciling Environmental Exposures, Social Networks, and Location Preferences in Health Research. Curr Envir Health Rpt 4, 51–60 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40572-017-0121-8

Download citation

Keywords

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