Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban residents

Haney, Wava G.; Knowles, Eric S.

doi:10.1007/bf00889095

Cited by 55 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 3 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These attributes are commonly noted in the literature on urban neighborhoods. 11,18,[23][24][25][26] Thus, our findings suggest the concept of neighborhood is relevant even in the more sparsely populated rural areas outside of the small towns that characterize the rural South. A second area of exploration focused on whether the size and boundaries of self-defined neighborhoods corresponded with measures used in neighborhood walkability research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Neighborhood size and boundaries were assessed by asking participants to draw a map of their neighborhoods on a blank sheet of paper, including its boundaries, the location of their home within the neighborhood, and some of the places important to them within the neighborhood. [23][24][25] To learn about walking destinations in rural neighborhoods, participants described the places they considered within walking distance of where they lived. They were also asked how long it would take them to walk to a convenience store, a restaurant, a place of worship, a public park, and a recreational facility.…”

Section: Semi-structured Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rural Neighborhood Walkability: Implications for Assessment

Kegler¹,

Alcantara²,

Haardörfer³

et al. 2015

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background:Physical activity levels, including walking, are lower in the southern U.S., particularly in rural areas. This study investigated the concept of rural neighborhood walkability to aid in developing tools for assessing walkability and to identify intervention targets in rural communities.Methods:Semi-structured interviews were conducted with physically active adults (n = 29) in rural Georgia. Mean age of participants was 55.9 years; 66% were male, 76% were white, and 24% were African American. Participants drew maps of their neighborhoods and discussed the relevance of typical domains of walkability to their decisions to exercise. Comparative analyses were conducted to identify major themes.Results:The majority felt the concept of neighborhood was applicable and viewed their neighborhood as small geographically (less than 0.5 square miles). Sidewalks were not viewed as essential for neighborhood-based physical activity and typical destinations for walking were largely absent. Destinations within walking distance included neighbors’ homes and bodies of water. Views were mixed on whether shade, safety, dogs, and aesthetics affected decisions to exercise in their neighborhoods.Conclusions:Measures of neighborhood walkability in rural areas should acknowledge the small size of self-defined neighborhoods, that walking in rural areas is likely for leisure time exercise, and that some domains may not be relevant.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Semi-structured Interviewsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Rural Neighborhood Walkability: Implications for Assessment

Kegler¹,

Alcantara²,

Haardörfer³

et al. 2015

Journal of Physical Activity and Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When we calculated the size of these administrative neighbourhood areas, we observed that they were larger in the suburban areas than in Paris per se (mean area of 3.1 km² and 0.6 km², respectively). This difference appeared to correspond to the difference in perceivedneighbourhood size, since suburbanites tend to consider their neighbourhood at a larger scale than do city dwellers, as shown recently by Humain-Lamoure in the Paris metropolitan area (2008) and previously by Haney and Knowles (1978). To take into account differences in the perceived neighbourhoods according urban and suburban location, we controlled for neighbourhood location in the Paris metropolitan area in the regression models.…”

Section: About the Administrative Neighbourhood Delimitationmentioning

confidence: 91%

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)

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To cite this version:Julie Vallée, Emmanuelle Cadot, Francesca Grillo, Isabelle Parizot, Pierre Chauvin. 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, Elsevier, 2010, 16 (5) AbstractEstimates from multilevel regression of 1768 women living in the Paris metropolitan area showed that women who reported concentrating their daily activities in their perceived neighbourhood of residence had a statistically greater likelihood of not having undergone cervical screening during the previous two years. Furthermore, the characteristics of the administrative neighbourhood of residence (such as the practitioner density or the proportion of residents with a recent preventive consultation) had a statistically greater impact in terms of delayed cervical screening on women who concentrated the vast majority of their daily activities within their perceived neighbourhood of residence than among those who did not.The residential environment might promote or damage, to a greater extent, the health behaviour of people whose daily activities are concentrated within their perceived neighbourhood, since we can assume that their exposure to their neighbourhood characteristics is stronger.It could thus be useful to study more often the combined effects of activity space and neighbourhood of residence on participation in preventive health-care activities.Keywords activity space; daily mobility; neighbourhood of residence; cross-level interaction; preventive health care.2

show abstract

“…The question wording does not specify what is meant by the term "neighborhood." This means that residents from the same geographic area may have different concepts in mind when answering questions about their neighborhood, and that these areas almost certainly differ from the confines of the area from which the sample was drawn, defined by postal routes (Haney and Knowles, 1978;Connerly and Marans, 1988;Bonnes et al, 1991;Sawicki and Flynn, 1996;Amérigo and Aragonés, 1997;Handy, 2002). However, we expect the concept of neighborhood to be consistent for any one respondent throughout the survey and therefore across the dependent and explanatory variables in our models (Marans and Rodgers, 1975;Galster and Hesser, 1981;Weidemann and Anderson, 1985;Lu, 1999).…”

Section: Variable Descriptionsmentioning

confidence: 99%