The inadequacies of residential census geography in capturing urban residents’ routine exposures have motivated efforts to more directly measure residents’ activity spaces. In turn, insights regarding urban activity patterns have been used to motivate alternative residential neighbourhood measurement strategies incorporating dimensions of activity space in the form of egocentric neighbourhoods – measurement approaches that place individuals at the centre of their own residential neighbourhood units. Unexamined, however, is the extent to which the boundaries of residents’ own self-defined residential neighbourhoods compare with census-based and egocentric neighbourhood measurement approaches in aligning with residents’ routine activity locations. We first assess this question, examining whether the boundaries of residents’ self-defined residential neighbourhoods are in closer proximity to the coordinates of a range of activity location types than are the boundaries of their census and egocentric residential neighbourhood measurement approaches. We find little evidence that egocentric or, crucially, self-defined residential neighbourhoods better align with activity locations, suggesting a division in residents’ activity locations and conceptions of their residential neighbourhoods. We then examine opposing hypotheses about how self-defined residential neighbourhoods and census tracts compare in socioeconomic and racial composition. Overall, our findings suggest that residents bound less segregated neighbourhoods than those produced by census geography, but self-defined residential neighbourhoods still reflect a preference towards homophily when considering areas beyond the immediate environment of their residence. These findings underscore the significance of individuals’ conceptions of residential neighbourhoods to understanding and measuring urban social processes such as residential segregation and social disorganisation.
AllenJPTurnerE (1995) Ethnic differentiation by blocks within census tracts. Urban Geography16(4): 344–364.
2.
AndersonE (1999) Code of the Street: Decency, Violence, and the Moral Life of the Inner City. New York, NY: W.W. Norton.
3.
ApplegateDLBixbyREChvátalV, et al. (2006) The Traveling Salesman Problem: A Computational Study. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
4.
BastaLARichmondTSWiebeDJ (2010) Neighborhoods, daily activities, and measuring health risks experienced in urban environments. Social Science & Medicine71(11): 1943–1950.
5.
BoettnerBBrowningCRCalderCA (2019) Feasibility and validity of geographically explicit ecological momentary assessment with recall-aided space–time budgets. Journal of Research on Adolescence29(3): 627–645.
6.
BrowningCRSollerB (2014) Moving beyond neighborhood: Activity spaces and ecological networks as contexts for youth development. Cityscape (Washington, D.C.)16(1): 165.
7.
BrowningCRCalderCAKrivoLJ, et al. (2017) Socioeconomic segregation of activity spaces in urban neighborhoods: Does shared residence mean shared routines?RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences3(2): 210–231.
8.
Burdick-WillJ (2018) School location, social ties, and perceived neighborhood boundaries. City & Community17(2): 418–437.
9.
CampbellEHenlyJRElliottDS, et al. (2009) Subjective constructions of neighborhood boundaries: Lessons from a qualitative study of four neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Affairs31(4): 461–490.
10.
ChettyRHendrenNKatzLF (2016) The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the moving to opportunity experiment. American Economic Review106(4): 855–902.
11.
CoultonCJKorbinJChanT, et al. (2001) Mapping residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: A methodological note. American Journal of Community Psychology29(2): 371–383.
12.
CoultonCJZane JenningsMChanT (2013) How big is my neighborhood? Individual and contextual effects on perceptions of neighborhood scale. American Journal of Community Psychology51(1–2): 140–150.
13.
CrawfordTWJilcott PittsSBMcGuirtJT, et al. (2014) Conceptualizing and comparing neighborhood and activity space measures for food environment research. Health & Place30: 215–225.
14.
DownsRMSteaD (1973) Image and Environment: Cognitive Mapping and Spatial Behavior. Chicago, IL: Aldine Publishing.
15.
Du BoisWEB (1899) The Philadelphia Negro: A Social Study. Philadelphia, PA: University of Pennsylvania Press.
16.
DurkheimÉ (1951) Suicide: A Study in Sociology. New York, NY: The Free Press.
17.
ESRI (2011) ArcGIS Desktop: Release 10. Redlands, CA: Environmental Systems Research Institute.
18.
FarisRELDunhamHW (1939) Mental Disorders in Urban Areas: An Ecological Study of Schizophrenia and Other Psychoses. Chicago, IL, and London: University of Chicago Press.
19.
GierynTF (2000) A space for place in sociology. Annual Review of Sociology26(1): 463–496.
GómezJEJohnsonBASelvaM, et al. (2004) Violent crime and outdoor physical activity among inner-city youth. Preventive Medicine39(5): 876–881.
22.
GrannisR (2009) From the Ground Up: Translating Geography into Community through Neighbor Networks. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
23.
GuestAMLeeBA (1984) How urbanites define their neighborhoods. Population and Environment7(1): 32–56.
24.
HaneyWGKnowlesES (1978) Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban residents. Human Ecology6(2): 201–214.
25.
HasanzadehKBrobergAKyttäM (2017) Where is my neighborhood? A dynamic individual-based definition of home ranges and implementation of multiple evaluation criteria. Applied Geography84: 1–10.
26.
HippJRBoessenA (2013) Egohoods as waves washing across the city: A new measure of neighborhoods. Criminology51(2): 287–327.
27.
HippJRPerrinAJ (2009) The simultaneous effect of social distance and physical distance on the formation of neighborhood ties. City & Community8(1): 5–25.
28.
HunterA (1974) Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Change of Chicago’s Local Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
29.
IossifovaD (2015) Borderland urbanism: Seeing between enclaves. Urban Geography36(1): 90–108.
30.
JacksonEBensonM (2014) Neither ‘deepest, darkest Peckham’ nor ‘run-of-the-mill’ East Dulwich: The middle classes and their ‘others’ in an inner-London neighbourhood. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research38(4): 1195–1210.
31.
JacobsJ (1961) The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random House.
32.
JanowitzM (1967) The Community Press Is an Urban Setting. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
33.
JonesMPebleyAR (2014) Redefining neighborhoods using common destinations: Social characteristics of activity spaces and home census tracts compared. Demography51(3): 727–752.
34.
KornhauserR (1978) Social Sources of Delinquency. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
KrivoLJWashingtonHMPetersonRD, et al. (2013) Social isolation of disadvantage and advantage: The reproduction of inequality in urban space. Social Forces92(1): 141–164.
36.
KrysanM (2002) Community undesirability in black and white: Examining racial residential preferences through community perceptions. Social Problems49(4): 521–543.
37.
KwanM-P (2009) From place-based to people-based exposure measures. Social Science & Medicine69(9): 1311–1313.
38.
KwanM-P (2012) The uncertain geographic context problem. Annals of the Association of American Geographers102(5): 958–968.
39.
LeeBAFarrellCRReardonSF, et al. (2018) From census tracts to local environments: An egocentric approach to neighborhood racial change. Spatial Demography7(1): 1–26.
40.
LeeBAReardonSFFirebaughG, et al. (2008) Beyond the census tract: Patterns and determinants of racial segregation at multiple geographic scales. American Sociological Review73(5): 766–791.
41.
LeventhalTDupéréVBrooks-GunnJ (2009) Neighborhood influences on adolescent development. In: LernerRMSteinbergL (eds) Handbook of Adolescent Psychology. Vol. 2. New York, NY: Wiley, pp. 411–443.
42.
LynchK (1960) The Image of the City. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
43.
McPhersonMSmith-LovinLCookJM (2001) Birds of a feather: Homophily in social networks. Annual Review of Sociology27(1): 415–444.
44.
MatthewsSAYangT-C (2013) Spatial Polygamy and Contextual Exposures (SPACEs): Promoting activity space approaches in research on place and health. American Behavioral Scientist57(8): 1057–1081.
45.
MujahidMSDiezRouxAVShenM, et al. (2008) Relation between neighborhood environments and obesity in the multi-ethnic study of atherosclerosis. American Journal of Epidemiology167(11): 1349–1357.
46.
O’BrienDTSampsonRJWinshipC (2015) Ecometrics in the age of big data: Measuring and assessing ‘broken windows’ using large-scale administrative records. Sociological Methodology45(1): 101–147.
47.
ParkRE (1915) The city: Suggestions for the investigation of human behavior in the city environment. American Journal of Sociology20(5): 577–612.
48.
ParkREBurgessEW (1925 [1984]) The City. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
49.
PebesmaEBivandRRacineE, et al. (2019) Sf: Simple Features for R. R package version 0.6-3. Available at: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=sf (accessed March 2020).
50.
PerchouxCChaixBBrondeelR, et al. (2016) Residential buffer, perceived neighborhood, and individual activity space: New refinements in the definition of exposure areas – The RECORD cohort study. Health & Place40: 116–122.
51.
PrattMKingMBurashJ, et al. (2019) What differences do they see? Using mixed methods to capture adolescent perceptions of neighborhood contexts. American Journal of Community Psychology65(3–4): 320–321.
52.
RaudenbushSWBrykAS (2002) Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
53.
RaudenbushSWSampsonRJ (1999) Ecometrics: Toward a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic social observation of neighborhoods. Sociological Methodology29(1): 1–41.
54.
SampsonRJ (2012) Great American City: Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
55.
SampsonRJRaudenbushSWEarlsFJ (1997) Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science277(5328): 918–924.
56.
SastryNPebleyARZontaM (2002) Neighborhood Definitions and the Spatial Dimension of Daily Life in Los Angeles. Working Paper No. CCPR-033-04. UCLA: California Center for Population Research.
57.
ShawCMcKayHD (1969) Juvenile Delinquency and Urban Areas. Revised edition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
58.
SimmelG (1903 [1950]) The metropolis and mental life. In: WolffK (ed.) The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York, NY: The Free Press, pp. 409–424.
59.
SmallMLMcDermottM (2006) The presence of organizational resources in poor urban neighborhoods: An analysis of average and contextual effects. Social Forces84(3): 1697–1724.
60.
SperlingJ (2012) The tyranny of census geography: Small-area data and neighborhood statistics. Cityscape14(2): 219–223.
StataCorp (2017) Stata Statistical Software: Release 15. College Station, TX: StataCorp LLC.
63.
SuttlesGD (1972) The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
64.
Tana KwanM-PChaiY (2016) Urban form, car ownership and activity space in inner suburbs: A comparison between Beijing (China) and Chicago (United States). Urban Studies53(9): 1784–1802.
65.
TaylorRBGottfredsonSDBrowerS (1984) Neighborhood naming as an index of attachment to place. Population and Environment7(2): 103–125.
66.
WangQPhillipsNESmallML, et al. (2018) Urban mobility and neighborhood isolation in America’s 50 largest cities. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences115(30): 7735–7740.
67.
WieheSECarrollAELiuGC, et al. (2008) Using GPS-enabled cell phones to track the travel patterns of adolescents. International Journal of Health Geographics7(1): 22.
68.
WilsonWJ (1987) The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
69.
WirthL (1938) Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology44(1): 1–24.
70.
ZenkSNKraftANJonesKK, et al. (2019) Convergent validity of an activity-space survey for use in health research. Health & Place56: 19–23.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
