IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cen/wpaper/18-11.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Who are the people in my neighborhood? The ‘contextual fallacy’ of measuring individual context with census geographies

Author

Listed:
  • Christopher S. Fowler
  • Nathan Frey
  • David C. Folch
  • Nicholas Nagle
  • Seth Spielman

Abstract

Scholars deploy census-based measures of neighborhood context throughout the social sciences and epidemiology. Decades of research confirm that variation in how individuals are aggregated into geographic units to create variables that control for social, economic or political contexts can dramatically alter analyses. While most researchers are aware of the problem, they have lacked the tools to determine its magnitude in the literature and in their own projects. By using confidential access to the complete 2010 U.S. Decennial Census, we are able to construct—for all persons in the US—individual-specific contexts, which we group according to the Census-assigned block, block group, and tract. We compare these individual-specific measures to the published statistics at each scale, and we then determine the magnitude of variation in context for an individual with respect to the published measures using a simple statistic, the standard deviation of individual context (SDIC). For three key measures (percent Black, percent Hispanic, and Entropy—a measure of ethno-racial diversity), we find that block-level Census statistics frequently do not capture the actual context of individuals within them. More problematic, we uncover systematic spatial patterns in the contextual variables at all three scales. Finally, we show that within-unit variation is greater in some parts of the country than in others. We publish county-level estimates of the SDIC statistics that enable scholars to assess whether mis-specification in context variables is likely to alter analytic findings when measured at any of the three common Census units.

Suggested Citation

  • Christopher S. Fowler & Nathan Frey & David C. Folch & Nicholas Nagle & Seth Spielman, 2018. "Who are the people in my neighborhood? The ‘contextual fallacy’ of measuring individual context with census geographies," Working Papers 18-11, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.
  • Handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:18-11
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www2.census.gov/ces/wp/2018/CES-WP-18-11.pdf
    File Function: First version, 2018
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. S Openshaw, 1984. "Ecological Fallacies and the Analysis of Areal Census Data," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 16(1), pages 17-31, January.
    2. Per Kropp & Barbara Schwengler, 2016. "Three-Step Method for Delineating Functional Labour Market Regions," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 50(3), pages 429-445, March.
    3. A S Fotheringham & D W S Wong, 1991. "The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem in Multivariate Statistical Analysis," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 23(7), pages 1025-1044, July.
    4. Katz, Lawrence & Duncan, Greg J. & Kling, Jeffrey R. & Kessler, Ronald C. & Ludwig, Jens & Sanbonmatsu, Lisa & Liebman, Jeffrey B., 2008. "What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment?," Scholarly Articles 2766959, Harvard University Department of Economics.
    5. Douglas J. Krupka, 2007. "Are Big Cities More Segregated? Neighbourhood Scale and the Measurement of Segregation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 44(1), pages 187-197, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Daniel H. Weinberg & John M. Abowd & Robert F. Belli & Noel Cressie & David C. Folch & Scott H. Holan & Margaret C. Levenstein & Kristen M. Olson & Jerome P. Reiter & Matthew D. Shapiro & Jolene Smyth, 2017. "Effects of a Government-Academic Partnership: Has the NSF-Census Bureau Research Network Helped Improve the U.S. Statistical System?," Working Papers 17-59r, Center for Economic Studies, U.S. Census Bureau.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yolande Pottie-Sherman & Rima Wilkes, 2017. "Does Size Really Matter? On the Relationship between Immigrant Group Size and Anti-Immigrant Prejudice," International Migration Review, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(1), pages 218-250, March.
    2. Tamás Dusek, 2005. "The modifiable areal unit problem in regional economics," ERSA conference papers ersa05p357, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Qiurong Xu & Xinqi Zheng & Chunxiao Zhang, 2018. "Quantitative Analysis of the Determinants Influencing Urban Expansion: A Case Study in Beijing, China," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-16, May.
    4. Abdel-Aty, Mohamed & Lee, Jaeyoung & Siddiqui, Chowdhury & Choi, Keechoo, 2013. "Geographical unit based analysis in the context of transportation safety planning," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 62-75.
    5. Yiming Wang, 2011. "White flight in Los Angeles county, 1960–1990: a model of fuzzy tipping," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer;Western Regional Science Association, vol. 47(1), pages 111-129, August.
    6. Andresen, Martin A., 2011. "Estimating the probability of local crime clusters: The impact of immediate spatial neighbors," Journal of Criminal Justice, Elsevier, vol. 39(5), pages 394-404.
    7. Dionissi Aliprantis, 2017. "Assessing the evidence on neighborhood effects from Moving to Opportunity," Empirical Economics, Springer, vol. 52(3), pages 925-954, May.
    8. Lansley, Guy & Longley, Paul, 2016. "Deriving age and gender from forenames for consumer analytics," Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, Elsevier, vol. 30(C), pages 271-278.
    9. Fenne M. Pinkster, 2014. "Neighbourhood Effects as Indirect Effects: Evidence from a Dutch Case Study on the Significance of Neighbourhood for Employment Trajectories," International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 38(6), pages 2042-2059, November.
    10. Spielman, Seth E. & Yoo, Eun-hye, 2009. "The spatial dimensions of neighborhood effects," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 68(6), pages 1098-1105, March.
    11. Bala, Alain Pholo & Peeters, Dominique & Thomas, Isabelle, 2014. "Spatial issues on a hedonic estimation of rents in Brussels," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 104-123.
    12. Cheshire, Paul, 2009. "Policies for mixed communities: faith-based displacement activity?," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 30783, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    13. Bryan S. Graham, 2018. "Identifying and Estimating Neighborhood Effects," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 56(2), pages 450-500, June.
    14. Aliprantis, Dionissi & Martin, Hal & Tauber, Kristen, 2024. "What determines the success of housing mobility programs?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).
    15. Michal Bernard Pietrzak, 2014. "Redefining The Modifiable Areal Unit Problem Within Spatial Econometrics, The Case Of The Scale Problem," Equilibrium. Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, Institute of Economic Research, vol. 9(2), pages 111-132, June.
    16. Lekkas, Peter & Howard, Natasha J & Stankov, Ivana & daniel, mark & Paquet, Catherine, 2019. "A Longitudinal Typology of Neighbourhood-level Social Fragmentation: A Finite Mixture Model Approach," SocArXiv 56x9c, Center for Open Science.
    17. Juergen Bitzer & Erkan Goeren, 2018. "Foreign Aid and Subnational Development: A Grid Cell Analysis," Working Papers V-407-18, University of Oldenburg, Department of Economics, revised Mar 2018.
    18. Ortega, Emilio & López, Elena & Monzón, Andrés, 2014. "Territorial cohesion impacts of high-speed rail under different zoning systems," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 34(C), pages 16-24.
    19. Mergele, Lukas & Weber, Michael, 2020. "Public employment services under decentralization: Evidence from a natural experiment," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 182(C).
    20. Mikhail Golosov & Michael Graber & Magne Mogstad & David Novgorodsky, 2024. "How Americans Respond to Idiosyncratic and Exogenous Changes in Household Wealth and Unearned Income," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 139(2), pages 1321-1395.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cen:wpaper:18-11. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Dawn Anderson (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/cesgvus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.