IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/sagope/v5y2015i2p2158244015589438.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Land Use in Public Health Research

Author

Listed:
  • Katherine E. King

Abstract

Public health researchers have identified numerous health implications associated with land use. However, it is unclear which of multiple methods of data collection most accurately captures land use, and “gold standard†methods vary by discipline. Five desirable features of environmental data sources are presented and discussed (cost, coverage, availability, construct validity, and accuracy). Potential accuracy issues are discussed by using Kappa statistics to evaluate the level of agreement between data sets collected by two methods (systematic social observation [SSO] by trained raters and publicly available data from aerial photography coded using administrative records) from the same blocks in Chicago, Illinois. Significant Kappa statistics range from 0.19 to 0.60, indicating varying levels of intersource agreement. Most land uses are more likely to be reported by researcher-designed direct observation than in the publicly available data derived from aerial photography. However, when cost, coverage, and availability outweigh a marginal improvement in accuracy and flexibility in land-use categorization, coded aerial photography data may be a useful data source for health researchers. Greater interdisciplinary and interorganization collaboration in the production of ecological data is recommended to improve cost, coverage, availability, and accuracy, with implications for construct validity.

Suggested Citation

  • Katherine E. King, 2015. "A Comparison of Two Methods for Measuring Land Use in Public Health Research," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(2), pages 21582440155, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015589438
    DOI: 10.1177/2158244015589438
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2158244015589438
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/2158244015589438?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. King, Katherine, 2012. "Aggravating conditions: Cynical hostility and neighborhood ambient stressors," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 75(12), pages 2258-2266.
    2. Katherine King & Christin Ogle, 2014. "Negative Life Events Vary by Neighborhood and Mediate the Relation between Neighborhood Context and Psychological Well-Being," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-10, April.
    3. Flowerdew, Robin & Manley, David J. & Sabel, Clive E., 2008. "Neighbourhood effects on health: Does it matter where you draw the boundaries?," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 66(6), pages 1241-1255, March.
    4. Bjornstrom, Eileen E.S., 2011. "The neighborhood context of relative position, trust, and self-rated health," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 73(1), pages 42-49, July.
    5. Schaefer-McDaniel, Nicole & O'Brien Caughy, Margaret & O'Campo, Patricia & Gearey, Wayne, 2010. "Examining methodological details of neighbourhood observations and the relationship to health: A literature review," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 70(2), pages 277-292, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Scott Orford & Charlotte Leigh, 2014. "The Relationship between Self-reported Definitions of Urban Neighbourhood and Respondent Characteristics: A Study of Cardiff, UK," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 51(9), pages 1891-1908, July.
    2. Wayne M. Tsuang & Maeve MacMurdo & Jacqueline Curtis, 2022. "Application of Place-Based Methods to Lung Transplant Medicine," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(12), pages 1-9, June.
    3. Eleonore M Veldhuizen & Karien Stronks & Anton E Kunst, 2013. "Assessing Associations between Socio-Economic Environment and Self-Reported Health in Amsterdam Using Bespoke Environments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(7), pages 1-10, July.
    4. Katherine King, 2013. "Jane Jacobs and ‘The Need for Aged Buildings’: Neighbourhood Historical Development Pace and Community Social Relations," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(12), pages 2407-2424, September.
    5. Martin Gaechter & Peter Schwazer & Engelbert Theurl, 2012. "Stronger Sex but Earlier Death: A Multi-level Socioeconomic Analysis of Gender Differences in Mortality in Austria," DANUBE: Law and Economics Review, European Association Comenius - EACO, issue 1, pages 1-23, March.
    6. Hamidreza Rabiei‐Dastjerdi & Stephen A. Matthews, 2021. "Who gets what, where, and how much? Composite index of spatial inequality for small areas in Tehran," Regional Science Policy & Practice, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 13(1), pages 191-205, February.
    7. Steffen Andreas Schüle & Gabriele Bolte, 2015. "Interactive and Independent Associations between the Socioeconomic and Objective Built Environment on the Neighbourhood Level and Individual Health: A Systematic Review of Multilevel Studies," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(4), pages 1-31, April.
    8. Christoph Lambio & Tillman Schmitz & Richard Elson & Jeffrey Butler & Alexandra Roth & Silke Feller & Nicolai Savaskan & Tobia Lakes, 2023. "Exploring the Spatial Relative Risk of COVID-19 in Berlin-Neukölln," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(10), pages 1-22, May.
    9. Danny Wende, 2019. "Spatial risk adjustment between health insurances: using GWR in risk adjustment models to conserve incentives for service optimisation and reduce MAUP," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 20(7), pages 1079-1091, September.
    10. Samantha Cockings & Andrew Harfoot & David Martin & Duncan Hornby, 2013. "Getting the Foundations Right: Spatial Building Blocks for Official Population Statistics," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(6), pages 1403-1420, June.
    11. Anthony Buttaro & Ludovica Gambaro & Heather Joshi & Mary Clare Lennon, 2021. "Neighborhood and Child Development at Age Five: A UK–US Comparison," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(19), pages 1-16, October.
    12. Stephen Matthews & Daniel M. Parker, 2013. "Progress in Spatial Demography," Demographic Research, Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research, Rostock, Germany, vol. 28(10), pages 271-312.
    13. Neutens, Tijs, 2015. "Accessibility, equity and health care: review and research directions for transport geographers," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 43(C), pages 14-27.
    14. Hongwei Xu & John Logan & Susan Short, 2014. "Integrating Space With Place in Health Research: A Multilevel Spatial Investigation Using Child Mortality in 1880 Newark, New Jersey," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 51(3), pages 811-834, June.
    15. Jianwei Deng & Zhennan Wu & Tianan Yang & Yunfei Cao & Zhenjiao Chen, 2020. "Effect of Work Environment on Presenteeism among Aging American Workers: The Moderated Mediating Effect of Cynical Hostility," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(13), pages 1-14, July.
    16. Chunzhu Wei & Pablo Cabrera-Barona & Thomas Blaschke, 2016. "Local Geographic Variation of Public Services Inequality: Does the Neighborhood Scale Matter?," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 13(10), pages 1-20, October.
    17. Samantha Cockings & Andrew Harfoot & David Martin & Duncan Hornby, 2011. "Maintaining Existing Zoning Systems Using Automated Zone-Design Techniques: Methods for Creating the 2011 Census Output Geographies for England and Wales," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 43(10), pages 2399-2418, October.
    18. Lauren P. Grant & Chris Gennings & Edmond P. Wickham & Derek Chapman & Shumei Sun & David C. Wheeler, 2018. "Modeling Pediatric Body Mass Index and Neighborhood Environment at Different Spatial Scales," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 15(3), pages 1-19, March.
    19. Hirsch, Jana A. & Grengs, Joe & Schulz, Amy & Adar, Sara D. & Rodriguez, Daniel A. & Brines, Shannon J. & Diez Roux, Ana V., 2016. "How much are built environments changing, and where?: Patterns of change by neighborhood sociodemographic characteristics across seven U.S. metropolitan areas," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 169(C), pages 97-105.
    20. Castelli, Adriana & Jacobs, Rowena & Goddard, Maria & Smith, Peter C., 2013. "Health, policy and geography: Insights from a multi-level modelling approach," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 92(C), pages 61-73.

    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:sae:sagope:v:5:y:2015:i:2:p:2158244015589438. 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: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    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.