Analytical approaches to neighbourhood theory
|
Neighbourhoods are important
The implications of the first three perspectives need to be considered in light of recent advances made in the fourth. That is, have the numerical advances in spatial analysis and in cluster analysis (the name generally given to those methods used to identify neighbourhoods) brought us any closer to actually representing the complexity inherent in the ecological or social perspectives of a neighbourhood? In traditional cluster analysis methods the rules are that every individual is assigned to one and only one neighbourhood, and deciding upon the number of neighbourhoods (clusters) is a very subjective process. Modern methods have, one the one hand, relaxed the rules--individuals can now belong to more than one neighbourhood, and not every individual has to be assigned to a neighbourhood--while on the other hand, there are now objective methods that can be used to statistically identify the significant number of neighbourhoods in a data set. Some of the newer methods even allow for uncertainty in the attributes and in the spatial locations of the individuals being clustered. However, this new freedom is not without its complications. Researchers now have such a wide array of methods available that the problem becomes not one of accepting the known faults of the limited number of alternatives available, but of deciding which of the multitude of different approaches best matches the problem domain at hand. The answer to this conundrum can only be found by considering the social and administrative domains as equals to the mathematical. Simply because we can create overlapping, nonhierarchical, non-exhaustive neighbourhoods doesn't mean that we are any closer to mathematically representing ecologically or socially perceived neighbourhoods. Are the statistically derived numbers of neighbourhoods truly representative of the best set of administrative neighbourhoods, or any reflection of the neighbourhoods perceived by those living in the community? The answers to such questions can best be found by reviewing several disparate literatures. For example, the literature on NIMBY (Not In My Backyard) should be considered, for how people react to perceived threats to their local environment tells us something about their concepts of neighbourhoods. As well, papers in landscape ecology, sociology, urban geography, computer science, Geographic Information Sciences, etc., need to be considered. Issues related to globalization also need to be considered, since the modern concept of neighbourhood appears to be very different from the past concept. We also need to consider that often the data available to a researcher is a poor surrogate and is typically collected at a different scale (i.e., grouped census data versus individual data). The newer cluster methods require evaluation in a number of 'real-life' situations wherein the results can be compared to known (or perceived) ecological, social and administrative neighbourhoods. REFERENCES Neighbourhoods in research Do Places Matter? A Multilevel Analysis of Geographic Variations in Child Behaviour in Canada From the UK: National neighbourhood statistics available online Social Aspects Mapping Social Exclusion/Inclusion in Developing Countries The Center for Spatially Integrated Social Sciences (CSISS) ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research LISC: Local Initiatives Support Corporation (US) Social Network Analysis Tools for R Cluster analysis references What is cluster analysis? (From Clustan) A more mathematical definition, and another. Selected Readable Cluster Analysis References Multivariate Data Analysis Software and Resources Online Software for Clustering ClusterSeer Software and their list of references Ecological references Assembly Rules for Ecological Communities (Welchel) Case, T.J. 1983. Niche overlap and the assembly of island lizard communities. Oikos, 41, 427-433. Connor, E.F. and Simberloff, D. 1979. The assembly of species communities: chance or competition? Diamond, J.M. 1975. Assembly of Species Communities, in Ecology and Evolution of Communities (eds. Drake, J.A. 1990. The mechanics of community assembly and succession. Journal of Theoretical Drake, J.A. 1991. Community-assembly mechanics and the structure of an experimental ensemble. Keddy, P.A. 1992. Assembly and response rules: two goals for predictive community ecology. Journal Moyle, P.B. and T. Light. 1996. Biological invasions of fresh water: empirical rules and assembly Nee, S. 1990. Community construction. Tree, 5, 337-340. Putnam, R.J. 1994. Community Ecology. Chapman & Hall, New York. pp. 89-106. Wilson, J.B. 1994. Who makes the assembly rules? Journal of Vegetative Science, 5, 275-278. Wilson, J.B. and R. J. Whittaker. 1995. Assembly rules demonstrated in a saltmarsh community. |