1 / 24

Ned English Presented at Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting

Using Mental Maps to study Neighborhood Movement in the Inner-City: Formal vs. Informal Definitions. Ned English Presented at Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting. Introduction. Making Connections longitudinal, in-person study Targets ten specific Inner City Neighborhoods

janicewalton
Download Presentation

Ned English Presented at Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Using Mental Maps to study Neighborhood Movement in the Inner-City: Formal vs. Informal Definitions Ned English Presented at Association of American Geographers Annual Meeting

  2. Introduction • Making Connections longitudinal, in-person study • Targets ten specific Inner City Neighborhoods • Questions concerning neighborhood life • Programs to improve neighborhood life for children • Two waves thus far (2002-’04; 2005-’07) • Found considerable movement between waves • ~ 50% households left wave 1 housing unit • What are implications for survey, programs?

  3. Introduction contd. • Would like to know: • Who moved • Where moved • Survey, “Out-movement” examined re official or “formal” boundaries • e.g, “Is this a good neighborhood for raising children” • Formal definition may not be appropriate unit of interpretation • Respondents idea of “neighborhood” may differ • Different area could have differential effect on perceptions, interpretation • How can we quantify respondents understanding of “neighborhood”? • Can we extract the neighborhood map in their mind? • A “mental map”?

  4. Summary • What are “mental maps”; how can capture in survey context? • How can mental maps inform study of neighborhood movement? • How does movement re mental map relate to formal neighborhood? • Who moves within mental map? Who leaves? • What if interpreted mental map as neighborhood instead of formal neighborhood? • Argue shouldn’t assume common understanding of “neighborhood” definition in urban survey research • Could have unpredictable effects on data interpretation • Integrate survey methods, GIS, urban research

  5. Methodology • Making Connections targeted 700 - 800 in-person completed interviews at wave 1 • Wave 1 location recorded and geocoded • Respondents given basic paper map template • Asked to sketch “neighborhood” boundary • Paper maps digitized for all respondents (6226 maps) • We define “mental map” as digitized version of sketched neighborhood • In wave 2, study followed movers with children (approx 25% of wave 1) • Wave 2 location recorded and geocoded • Processed wave 2 location re: • Wave 1 location • Formal neighborhood boundaries • Mental map e.g., “informal” neighborhood boundaries

  6. Denver, CO example

  7. Example Mental Maps

  8. Example Mental Maps contd.

  9. Exceptions

  10. Coincident Mental Maps

  11. Example of Mental Map Integration

  12. Example of Mental Map Integration

  13. Example of Mental Map Integration

  14. Background: Destinations

  15. Neighborhood Movement: Formal vs. Informal • Potential discrepancy between respondent’s understanding of leaving • and researcher

  16. Neighborhood Definition and Movement Agreement

  17. “Undetected” Movers vs. Agreed Neighborhood Stayers • Difference could influence survey data, interpretation

  18. Movers Never in Mental Map …

  19. Discussion • Mental maps permit nuanced approach to analysis of urban movers • Can quantify respondent’s perception of leaving, staying • Thus not dependent solely on formal boundaries as unit • “Finer grained” method of comparison • Potentially problematic to group all movers who remained in formal neighborhood • Those who left “mental map” but not formal neighborhood differ from others • “Undetected movers” • Discrepancies will influence data collected describing “neighborhood” • “How long have you lived in the neighborhood” • Neighborhood services • Neighborhood improvement, decline

  20. Discussion contd. • Map understanding non-trivial issue • Questionable group who were not in mental map at wave 1 • Hypothesis One: “Churners” who move annually • Hypothesis Two: Did not understand map • Low educational attainment could describe both • Limited by cell sizes thus far: • Left formal neighborhood but not mental map (2) • Moved “into” mental map from outside (5)

  21. Conclusions • Demonstrated issues with assuming common understanding of “neighborhood” definition • Possible to collect mental maps instead • Explicitly define “custom” areas of concern for survey questions • Moving forward to wave 3, intend to focus on: • Specific training to improve item response • Consistent map design • Experiment on effect of composition, scale

  22. Thanks… Ned English english-ned@norc.org

More Related