Neighborhood Effects on an Individual’s Health Using Neighborhood Measurements Developed by Factor Analysis and Cluster Analysis

Abstract

This study suggests a multivariate-structural approach combining factor analysis and cluster analysis that could be used to examine neighborhood effects on an individual's health. Data were from the Taiwan Social Change Survey conducted in 1990, 1995, and 2000. In total, 5,784 women and men aged over 20 years living in 428 neighborhoods were interviewed. Participants' addresses were geocoded with census data for measuring neighborhood-level characteristics. The factor analysis was applied to identify neighborhood dimensions, which were used as entities in the cluster analysis to generate a neighborhood typology. The factor analysis generated three neighborhood dimensions: neighborhood education, age structure, and neighborhood family structure and employment. The cluster analysis generated six types of neighborhoods with combinations of the three neighborhood dimensions. Multilevel binomial regression models were used to assess the effects of neighborhoods on an individual's health. The results showed that the biggest health differences were between two neighborhood types: (1) the highest concentration of inhabitants younger than 15 years, a moderate education level, and a moderate level of single-parent families and (2) the highest educational level, a median level of single-parent families, and a median level of elderly concentrations. Individuals living in the first type had significantly higher chances of having functional limitations and poor self-rated health than the individuals in the second neighborhood type. Our study suggests that the multivariate-structural approach improves neighborhood measurements by addressing neighborhood diversity and examining how an individual's health varies in different neighborhood contexts.

Leisure-time physical activity and sedentary behavior clusters and their associations with overweight in middle-aged French adults

“…Integrating these two methods may better explain the diversity and natural grouping of behaviors and may help overcome limitations of only using either factor or cluster analysis. 45 This same approach has been used to define primary health-care patterns in children, 46 to propose a neighborhood socioeconomic typology based on the social characteristics of the population, 45 and to identify accident patterns at work 47 or on the road. 48 One of the strengths of this study is that we used a detailed physical activity questionnaire specifying the types of LTPAs performed during the preceding year and the duration of each reported activity.…”

Modeling and Simulation of the Future Impacts of Urban Land Use Change on the Natural Environment by SLEUTH and Cluster Analysis

“…Previous empirical studies [30,51] have suggested that the K-means is best for recovering the true groupings of data if a non-randomized starting point is assigned. A K-means clustering method does not require the computation of all possible distances of analyst neighborhoods.…”

Understanding Immigrants' Travel Behavior in Florida: Neighborhood Effects and Behavioral Assimilation

“…Particular neighborhood type(s) are responsible for causing a variety of social problems, including crimes [39]. The same can be true for the inhabitants' propensity to catch different types of mental or physical diseases [40]. Moreover, the emotional trauma of living in a high crime neighborhood changes children's outlook and influences their behavior towards violence, danger, and unjust acts [41].…”

“…and physical condition, and behavioral and psychological characteristics), and their vulnerability towards chronic diseases could be investigated by exploring neighborhood effects [40]. While developing a mode choice model, this study tends to reflect the interrelationships between people's characteristics, social ties, and family bonding that may fluctuate on their spatial distribution.…”

“…A two-stage cross validation method was followed for the determination of actual cluster numbers [66,67]. Chow, and Li and Chuang recommended this method to provide confidence of stability after the successful implementation [39,40]. The method is initiated with the random division of the entire dataset into two samples, test sample, and validation sample.…”