Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant

Page created by Helen Baker
 
CONTINUE READING
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
Examining	
  Sociospatial	
  Polarization	
  in	
  
          Halifax:	
  What	
  Scale	
  Matters?	
  
                                 	
  
	
                              Victoria	
  Prouse	
  
          	
         PLAN6000	
  Independent	
  Project	
  
          	
  
                 Dalhousie	
  University	
  School	
  of	
  Planning	
  
          	
  
          	
            Supervisor:	
  Dr.	
  Jill	
  Grant	
  
          	
       Course	
  Instructor:	
  Farhana	
  Ferdous	
  
          	
                   December	
  2013	
  
          	
  
                                           	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
 
                                                                            	
  
                                                    ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS	
  
                                                                            	
  
               Generous	
  funding	
  support	
  for	
  this	
  project	
  was	
  provided	
  by	
  the	
  Social	
  Sciences	
  
and	
  Humanities	
  Research	
  Council	
  of	
  Canada	
  through	
  a	
  Joseph	
  Armand	
  Bombardier	
  
Graduate	
  Scholarship	
  (Master’s).	
  This	
  research	
  contributes	
  to	
  the	
  Neighbourhood	
  
Change	
  Research	
  Partnership	
  (NCRP),	
  led	
  by	
  Dr.	
  David	
  Hulchanski	
  of	
  the	
  University	
  of	
  
Toronto.	
  The	
  Social	
  Sciences	
  and	
  Humanities	
  Research	
  Council	
  of	
  Canada	
  also	
  provides	
  
funding	
  for	
  the	
  NCRP	
  and	
  its	
  initiatives.	
  
               I	
  am	
  exceedingly	
  grateful	
  for	
  Dr.	
  Jill	
  Grant’s	
  guidance	
  and	
  feedback	
  throughout	
  
this	
  project,	
  and	
  throughout	
  the	
  Master	
  of	
  Planning	
  Program.	
  I	
  am	
  thankful	
  for	
  Dr.	
  
Howard	
  Ramos’	
  assistance	
  with	
  the	
  quantitative	
  components	
  of	
  the	
  study.	
  I	
  extend	
  
much	
  appreciation	
  to	
  Siobhan	
  Witherbee	
  and	
  Kirk	
  Brewer	
  for	
  creating	
  GIS	
  maps	
  to	
  show	
  
my	
  data,	
  and	
  to	
  Paul	
  Shakotko’s	
  and	
  Dr.	
  Martha	
  Radice’s	
  valuable	
  insight	
  that	
  influenced	
  
the	
  conceptual	
  foundation	
  for	
  this	
  project.	
  
               Finally,	
  I	
  am	
  appreciative	
  of	
  my	
  parents’	
  endless	
  love	
  and	
  support	
  in	
  all	
  my	
  
endeavours.	
  I	
  am	
  deeply	
  indebted	
  to	
  my	
  grandmother,	
  Marilyn	
  Coffman,	
  for	
  her	
  
indispensible	
  direction	
  with	
  assignments	
  throughout	
  my	
  university	
  career.	
  I	
  would	
  also	
  
like	
  to	
  thank	
  Aron	
  Coccimiglio	
  for	
  his	
  constant	
  encouragement	
  throughout	
  this	
  project.	
  
                                                                            	
  
	
                                                                                                                                 ii	
  
	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
EXECUTIVE	
  SUMMARY	
  	
  
	
  
	
          Due	
   to	
   privacy	
   concerns,	
   individual-­‐level	
   census	
   data	
   is	
   unavailable	
   for	
   public	
  
use.	
   Aggregated	
   census	
   data	
   –	
   compiled	
   at	
   the	
   census	
   tract	
   and	
   dissemination	
   area	
  
levels	
   –	
   is	
   used	
   as	
   a	
   proxy	
   to	
   portray	
   socioeconomic	
   conditions	
   within	
   these	
  
administrative	
   units.	
   Literature	
   shows	
   that	
   despite	
   widespread	
   usage	
   of	
   aggregated	
  
census	
   data,	
   researchers	
   and	
   policymakers	
   fail	
   to	
   critically	
   assess	
   the	
   limitations	
   and	
  
embedded	
   assumptions	
   of	
   this	
   method.	
   How	
   does	
   the	
   aggregation	
   of	
   data	
   to	
   arbitrarily	
  
defined	
  geographic	
  units	
  affect	
  the	
  socioeconomic	
  portrait	
  they	
  produce?	
  	
  
	
          My	
  research	
  elaborates	
  on	
  findings	
  from	
  Prouse	
  et	
  al’s	
  (Forthcoming)	
  report	
  for	
  
the	
  Neighbourhood	
  Change	
  Research	
  Partnership	
  (NCRP)	
  exploring	
  Halifax’s	
  geography	
  
of	
   income	
   inequality	
   and	
   polarization.	
   The	
   report	
   revealed	
   mixed	
   trends	
   in	
   the	
   overall	
  
CMA,	
   with	
   no	
   strong	
   evidence	
   of	
   increasing	
   income	
   polarization	
   at	
   the	
   census	
   tract	
  
level.	
   In	
   many	
   cases,	
   trends	
   were	
   ambiguous	
   and	
   diverged	
   from	
   hypotheses	
   derived	
  
from	
   local	
   understandings	
   of	
   the	
   lived	
   reality	
   of	
   these	
   spaces.	
   Though	
   Halifax	
   is	
  
consistently	
   portrayed	
   in	
   literature	
   as	
   a	
   relatively	
   egalitarian	
   city	
   compared	
   to	
   larger	
  
Canadian	
   CMAs,	
   observed	
   circumstances	
   –	
   including	
   concentrated	
   poverty	
   in	
   Halifax’s	
  
public	
  housing	
  projects	
  and	
  gentrification	
  in	
  the	
  North	
  End	
  –	
  suggest	
  otherwise.	
  	
  
	
          Prouse	
  et	
  al	
  hypothesized	
  that	
  the	
  study	
  parameters	
  –	
  using	
  census	
  tracts	
  as	
  the	
  
units	
   of	
   analyses	
   –	
   could	
   explain	
   discrepancies	
   between	
   census	
   data	
   indicators	
   and	
  
qualitative	
   observations	
   of	
   socioeconomic	
   conditions.	
   Hence,	
   in	
   this	
   study,	
   I	
   explore	
   the	
  
dynamics	
   and	
   nature	
   of	
   sociospatial	
   polarization	
   at	
   the	
   dissemination	
   area	
   level.	
   In	
  
particular,	
  I	
  sought	
  to	
  determine	
  whether	
  greater	
  evidence	
  of	
  sociospatial	
  polarization	
  is	
  
evident	
   at	
   the	
   DA	
   level	
   than	
   at	
   the	
   CT	
   level:	
   thus	
   determining	
   which	
   scale	
   is	
   more	
  
appropriate	
  to	
  observe	
  Halifax’s	
  socioeconomic	
  conditions.	
  	
  
            Using	
   the	
   Modifiable	
   Areal	
   Unit	
   Problem	
   (MAUP)	
   as	
   a	
   theoretical	
   lens,	
   I	
   analyzed	
  
differences	
   between	
   conditions	
   at	
   the	
   CT	
   and	
   DA	
   levels.	
   The	
   MAUP	
   is	
   a	
   phenomenon	
  
occurring	
  when	
  census	
  data	
  is	
  collected	
  for	
  individuals	
  but	
  is	
  reported	
  for	
  administrative	
  
units	
   possessing	
   modifiable	
   boundaries.	
   Data	
   aggregation	
   mutes	
   extreme	
   values	
   and	
  
obscures	
  diverse	
  socioeconomic	
  conditions	
  occurring	
  within	
  these	
  units.	
  The	
  MAUP	
  is	
  a	
  
particular	
  issue	
  for	
  smaller	
  municipalities	
  and	
  rural	
  areas,	
  since	
  administrative	
  units	
  are	
  
formed	
   on	
   a	
   larger	
   scale	
   than	
   in	
   big	
   cities	
   with	
   higher	
   population	
   densities.	
   Hence,	
  
homogeneous	
   clusters	
   of	
   individuals	
   often	
   form	
   at	
   a	
   scale	
   smaller	
   than	
   the	
  
administrative	
  unit	
  boundaries,	
  causing	
  diverse	
  clusters	
  of	
  socioeconomic	
  conditions	
  to	
  
form	
  within	
  them1.	
  
            I	
   conducted	
   statistical	
   and	
   spatial	
   analyses	
   on	
   ten	
   socioeconomic	
   indicators,	
  
comparing	
   their	
   characteristics,	
   relationships,	
   and	
   spatial	
   patterning	
   at	
   the	
   CT	
   and	
   DA	
  
levels.	
   Descriptive	
   statistics	
   showed	
   that	
   for	
   all	
   indicators,	
   DA	
   level	
   data	
   is	
   more	
  
dispersed	
  from	
  the	
  CMA	
  average	
  than	
  at	
  the	
  CT	
  level;	
  many	
  DAs	
  have	
  extreme	
  values	
  
that	
   are	
   muted	
   when	
   these	
   values	
   are	
   aggregated	
   with	
   adjacent	
   DAs	
   to	
   form	
   CTs.	
  

	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
1	
  Lebel,	
  A.,	
  R.	
  Pampalon,	
  and	
  P.	
  Villeneuve.	
  2007.	
  A	
  multi-­‐perspective	
  approach	
  for	
  defining	
  neighbourhood	
  units	
  in	
  
the	
  context	
  of	
  a	
  study	
  on	
  health	
  inequalities	
  for	
  the	
  Quebec	
  City	
  region.	
  International	
  Journal	
  of	
  Health	
  Geographers	
  

	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                 iii	
  
	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
Percentages	
   of	
   visible	
   minorities	
   across	
   DAs	
   had	
   the	
   greatest	
   difference	
   in	
   dispersion	
   of	
  
all	
  indicators	
  with	
  DA	
  level	
  proportions	
  being	
  81%	
  more	
  dispersed	
  than	
  at	
  the	
  CT	
  level.	
  	
  
               I	
  also	
  compared	
  differences	
  in	
  relationships	
  between	
  indicators	
  using	
  Pearson’s	
  
Bivariate	
  Correlations	
  and	
  Ordinary	
  Least	
  Squares	
  Regression	
  tests.	
  Results	
  from	
  these	
  
tests	
  were	
  consistent	
  with	
  those	
  in	
  literature,	
  thus	
  affirming	
  the	
  influence	
  of	
  the	
  MAUP	
  
on	
   Halifax’s	
   census	
   data.	
   At	
   the	
   CT	
   level,	
   we	
   obtain	
   stronger	
   correlations	
   between	
  
variables	
  and	
  a	
  more	
  robust	
  regression	
  model	
  than	
  at	
  the	
  DA	
  level.	
  The	
  muted	
  CT	
  values	
  
follow	
  more	
  consistent	
  trends	
  than	
  engendered	
  by	
  the	
  extreme	
  outliers	
  at	
  the	
  DA	
  level	
  
where	
  it	
  becomes	
  more	
  difficult	
  to	
  generalize	
  relationships	
  with	
  definitive	
  conclusions.	
  
However,	
   the	
   tests	
   show	
   a	
   more	
   complex	
   portrait	
   of	
   socioeconomic	
   conditions	
   and	
  
relationships	
  at	
  the	
  DA	
  level;	
  more	
  relationships	
  are	
  deemed	
  ‘statistically	
  significant’	
  –	
  
we	
  can	
  confidently	
  ascertain	
  a	
  linear	
  relationship	
  exists	
  between	
  them	
  –	
  than	
  at	
  the	
  CT	
  
level.	
  	
  
               I	
   observed	
   similar	
   trends	
   in	
   the	
   spatial	
   analysis.	
   Stronger	
   dichotomies	
   between	
  
contrasting	
   conditions	
   emerged	
   in	
   the	
   CT	
   level	
   maps,	
   with	
   categories	
   split	
   at	
   a	
   large	
  
scale.	
  The	
  DA	
  level	
  maps	
  show	
  a	
  diverse	
  mosaic	
  with	
  DAs	
  displaying	
  adjacent	
  contrasting	
  
socioeconomic	
   conditions.	
   At	
   the	
   DA	
   level,	
   we	
   observe	
   polarized	
   adjacencies:	
   spatially	
  
proximal	
   concentrated	
   clusters	
   of	
   contrasting	
   conditions.	
   Polarized	
   adjacencies	
   are	
  
obscured	
  when	
  the	
  extreme	
  DA	
  values	
  are	
  combined	
  to	
  create	
  values	
  for	
  the	
  overall	
  CT.	
  
               Sociospatial	
   polarization	
   emerges	
   much	
   more	
   frequently	
   through	
   polarized	
  
adjacencies	
   at	
   the	
   DA	
   level.	
   Though	
   the	
   CT	
   and	
   DA	
   level	
   values	
   have	
   relatively	
   similar	
  
frequency	
  distributions	
  across	
  indicators,	
  the	
  extreme	
  cases	
  at	
  the	
  DA	
  level	
  are	
  crucial	
  
determinants	
   of	
   the	
   nature	
   and	
   severity	
   of	
   Halifax’s	
   sociospatial	
   polarization.	
   They	
  
contribute	
   to	
   polarized	
   conditions	
   in	
   many	
   of	
   the	
   city’s	
   CTs,	
   causing	
   areas	
   exhibiting	
  
extreme	
   deprivation	
   and	
   poor	
   socioeconomic	
   conditions	
   to	
   appear	
   less	
   severe.	
   Thus,	
  
the	
   CT	
   model	
   is	
   suitable	
   for	
   economists	
   and	
   statisticians	
   who	
   seek	
   a	
   stronger	
   general	
  
model	
  with	
  a	
  more	
  parsimonious	
  causal	
  structure,	
  or	
  for	
  the	
  NCRP	
  researchers	
  wishing	
  
to	
  derive	
  general	
  comparative	
  paradigms	
  for	
  neighbourhood	
  change.	
  However,	
  for	
  the	
  
purposes	
   of	
   policymakers,	
   scholars,	
   and	
   practitioners	
   concerned	
   with	
   socioeconomic	
  
inequality	
   and	
   polarization	
   trends,	
   polarization	
   is	
   portrayed	
   much	
   more	
   intricately	
  
through	
  the	
  DA	
  level.	
  All	
  indicators,	
  their	
  relationships	
  with	
  each	
  other,	
  and	
  their	
  spatial	
  
manifestations	
   are	
   recognized,	
   even	
   if	
   their	
   impact	
   is	
   relatively	
   small	
   when	
   tests	
   are	
  
conducted	
  for	
  the	
  CMA	
  as	
  a	
  whole.	
  When	
  we	
  restrict	
  analysis	
  to	
  conditions	
  within	
  the	
  
CT,	
  these	
  weaker	
  relationships	
  encourage	
  extreme	
  polarized	
  adjacencies	
  between	
  DAs	
  
and	
  have	
  significant	
  implications	
  on	
  the	
  lived	
  experiences	
  of	
  residents.	
  	
  
               Therefore,	
  researchers	
  and	
  policymakers	
  must	
  be	
  wary	
  of	
  the	
  embedded	
  
limitations	
  of	
  using	
  administrative	
  unit	
  data	
  to	
  represent	
  individual-­‐level	
  conditions.	
  In	
  
urban	
  policy,	
  census	
  data	
  is	
  used	
  for	
  informing	
  policy	
  changes,	
  forecasting	
  growth	
  
projections,	
  allocating	
  community	
  infrastructure,	
  amenities,	
  and	
  services,	
  and	
  creating	
  
sustainable	
  municipal	
  visions	
  for	
  the	
  future.	
  Misrepresentation	
  of	
  these	
  data	
  yields	
  
deleterious	
  consequences,	
  including	
  the	
  misallocation	
  of	
  services.	
  Findings	
  emphasize	
  
the	
  importance	
  of	
  robust	
  data	
  collection	
  measures	
  for	
  small	
  geographic	
  units.	
  	
  
	
  
	
                                                                                                                                            iv	
  
	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
TABLE	
  OF	
  CONTENTS	
  	
  
	
  
1.0 Introduction	
  .........................................................................................	
  1	
  
2.0 Background	
  ..........................................................................................	
  4	
  
         2.1 Socioeconomic	
  Conditions	
  in	
  Canadian	
  Cities:	
  Situating	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                Halifax	
  in	
  the	
  Literature	
  .................................................................	
  4	
  
         2.2 Conceptualizing	
  “Neighbourhood”	
  ................................................	
  6	
  
         2.3 Neighbourhood	
  Scale	
  and	
  the	
  Modifiable	
  Areal	
  Unit	
  Problem	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                (MAUP)	
  	
  .........................................................................................	
  7	
  
         2.4 Sociospatial	
  Polarization	
  and	
  its	
  Micro-­‐Determinants	
  ..................	
  	
  10	
  
         2.5 Neighbourhood	
  Polarization	
  and	
  the	
  Modifiable	
  Areal	
  Unit	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                Problem	
  	
  ........................................................................................	
  11	
  
         2.6 CMA	
  Size	
  and	
  the	
  MAUP	
  ................................................................	
  12	
  
         2.7 Socioeconomic	
  Trends	
  in	
  Halifax:	
  A	
  Media	
  Review	
  .......................	
  13	
  	
  
3.0 Purpose	
  ................................................................................................	
  14	
  
         3.1 Research	
  Questions	
  	
  ......................................................................	
  15	
  
4.0 Method	
  ................................................................................................	
  15	
  
         4.1 Study	
  Rationale	
  ..............................................................................	
  15	
  
                    4.1.1 Study	
  Concept	
  ..............................................................	
  15	
  
         4.2 Data	
  Organization	
  ..........................................................................	
  16	
  	
  
                    4.2.1 Data	
  Collection	
  .............................................................	
  16	
  	
  
                    4.2.2 Data	
  Selection	
  ..............................................................	
  16	
  	
  
                    4.2.3 Data	
  Preparation	
  ..........................................................	
  18	
  	
  
                                  4.2.3.1 Statistical	
  Analysis	
  ............................................	
  18	
  	
  
                                  4.2.3.2 Spatial	
  Analysis	
  ................................................	
  18	
  	
  
         4.3 Data	
  Analysis	
  .................................................................................	
  18	
  	
  
                    4.3.1 Statistical	
  Analysis	
  ........................................................	
  18	
  	
  
                                  4.3.1.1 Descriptive	
  Statistics	
  ........................................	
  18	
  
                                  4.3.1.2 Pearson’s	
  Bivariate	
  Correlation	
  .......................	
  18	
  
                                  4.3.1.3 Ordinary	
  Least	
  Squares	
  Regression	
  ..................	
  19	
  
                    4.3.2 Spatial	
  Analysis	
  ............................................................	
  19	
  	
  
5.0 Findings	
  ................................................................................................	
  20	
  	
  
         5.1 Statistical	
  Analysis	
  .........................................................................	
  20	
  	
  
                    5.1.1 Descriptive	
  Statistics	
  ....................................................	
  20	
  	
  
                    5.1.2 Pearson’s	
  Bivariate	
  Correlation	
  ...................................	
  22	
  
                    5.1.3 Ordinary	
  Least	
  Squares	
  Regression	
  ..............................	
  25	
  	
  
         5.2 Spatial	
  Analysis	
  ..............................................................................	
  26	
  	
  
                    5.2.1 Description	
  of	
  Spatial	
  Trends	
  .......................................	
  48	
  	
  
                                  5.2.1.1 Relative	
  proportion	
  of	
  individuals	
  classified	
  as	
  low-­‐income	
  
                                             (LICO)	
  ...............................................................	
  48	
  	
  
                                  5.2.1.2 Relative	
  employment	
  rate	
  for	
  residents	
  over	
  15	
  (EMPLOY)	
  
                                  5.2.1.3 Relative	
  proportion	
  of	
  individuals	
  over	
  25	
  without	
  a	
  high	
  
                                             school	
  diploma	
  (NOHSD)	
  ..................................	
  48	
  	
  

	
                                                                                                                                                                                                   v	
  
	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
5.2.1.4 Relative	
  average	
  individual	
  income	
  for	
  residents	
  over	
  15	
  
                                              (AVGINC)	
  ..........................................................	
  49	
  
                                  5.2.1.5 Relative	
  proportion	
  of	
  residents	
  over	
  15	
  separated,	
  
                                              divorced,	
  or	
  widowed	
  (SDW)	
  ...........................	
  49	
  
                                  5.2.1.6 Relative	
  proportion	
  of	
  persons	
  living	
  alone	
  (PLA)	
   	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                                              ………………………………………………………………………49	
  	
  
                                  5.2.1.7 Relative	
  proportion	
  of	
  lone-­‐parent	
  families	
  (LPF)	
  
                                              ………………………………………………………………………50	
  	
  
                                  5.2.1.8 Relative	
  proportion	
  of	
  visible	
  minorities	
  (VM)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                                              ………………………………………………………………………50	
  
                                  5.2.1.9 Relative	
  proportion	
  of	
  owned	
  private	
  dwellings	
  (OWNED)	
  
                                              ………………………………………………………………………50	
  	
  	
  
                                  5.2.1.10                Relative	
  dwelling	
  density	
  (DWELDENS)	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  	
  
                                              ………………………………………………………………………50	
  	
  
6.0 Discussion	
  ............................................................................................	
  51	
  	
  
         6.1 Scale	
  Discrepancies	
  and	
  the	
  Modifiable	
  Areal	
  Unit	
  Problem	
  ........	
  51	
  	
  
         6.2 Understanding	
  the	
  nature	
  and	
  dynamics	
  of	
  sociospatial	
  polarization	
  in	
  Halifax
             	
  .......................................................................................................	
  52	
  	
  
                       6.2.1 Case	
  Studies	
  of	
  Polarized	
  Dissemination	
  Areas	
  within	
  Census	
  
                                  Tracts	
  ...........................................................................	
  57	
  
                                  6.2.1.1 Census	
  Tract	
  10	
  ................................................	
  57	
  
                                  6.2.1.2 Census	
  Tract	
  108	
  ..............................................	
  58	
  
                                  6.2.1.3 Census	
  Tract	
  21	
  ................................................	
  59	
  
                                  6.2.1.4 Census	
  Tract	
  25.01	
  ...........................................	
  60	
  
                                  6.2.1.5 Census	
  Tract	
  114	
  ..............................................	
  61	
  	
  	
  
7.0 Conclusion	
   ...........................................................................................	
  63	
  
Works	
  Cited	
  ...............................................................................................	
  66	
  

	
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                   vi	
  
	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
 
LIST	
  OF	
  TABLES	
  AND	
  FIGURES	
  	
  
Unless	
  otherwise	
  specified,	
  tables	
  and	
  figures	
  are	
  created	
  by	
  the	
  author.	
  	
  
	
  
Reference	
  Table	
  of	
  Socioeconomic	
  Indicators	
  ................................................	
  vii	
  
1.1 Settlement	
  Density	
  of	
  Halifax	
  Regional	
  Municipality,	
  2012	
  ......................	
  1	
  
1.2 Neighbourhood	
  Map	
  of	
  Halifax	
  CMA	
  core	
  	
  ...............................................	
  2	
  
1.3 Distribution	
  of	
  Census	
  Tracts	
  by	
  Income	
  Category	
  of	
  Individuals	
  ages	
  15	
  and	
  over,	
  
          1970-­‐2010	
  ..................................................................................................	
  3	
  
1.4 Change	
  in	
  Census	
  Tract	
  Average	
  Individual	
  Income,	
  1980-­‐2010	
  ...............	
  3	
  
2.1	
  Gini	
  Coefficient	
  Values	
  for	
  NCRP	
  Study	
  Cities	
  ...........................................	
  5	
  	
  
2.2	
  Testing	
  for	
  the	
  Modifiable	
  Areal	
  Unit	
  Problem:	
  Methodological	
  Approaches	
  in	
  the	
  
Literature	
  .........................................................................................................	
  9	
  
4.1	
  Reference	
  Table	
  of	
  Socioeconomic	
  Indicators	
  ..........................................	
  17	
  	
  
5.1	
  Descriptive	
  Statistics	
  by	
  Scale	
  ....................................................................	
  20	
  
5.2	
  CT	
  Level	
  Pearson’s	
  Bivariate	
  Correlation	
  Coefficients	
  ...............................	
  22	
  
5.3	
  DA	
  Level	
  Pearson’s	
  Bivariate	
  Correlation	
  Coefficients	
  ..............................	
  22	
  
5.4	
  Comparing	
  Linear	
  Relationships	
  between	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Low-­‐Income	
  Residents	
  and	
  
Percentage	
  of	
  Owned	
  Dwellings	
  at	
  the	
  CT	
  and	
  DA	
  Level	
  ................................	
  23	
  	
  
5.5	
  Comparing	
  LICO	
  Bivariate	
  Correlation	
  Coefficients	
  at	
  CT	
  and	
  DA	
  Level	
  ....	
  24	
  	
  
5.6	
  OLS	
  Regression	
  of	
  LICO	
  on	
  Material,	
  Social,	
  and	
  Physical	
  Characteristics	
  .	
  25	
  	
  
5.7	
  Beta	
  Coefficients	
  of	
  Independent	
  Variables	
  at	
  CT	
  and	
  DA	
  Level	
  for	
  OLS	
  Regression	
  
             with	
  Y=LICO	
  ............................................................................................	
  26	
  
5.8	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Low-­‐Income	
  Residents	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  ......................	
  28	
  
5.9	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Low-­‐Income	
  Residents	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  ......................	
  29	
  
5.10	
  Relative	
  Employment	
  Rate	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  ...................................................	
  30	
  	
  
5.11	
  Relative	
  Employment	
  Rate	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  ..................................................	
  31	
  
5.12	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Residents	
  Without	
  a	
  High	
  School	
  Diploma	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006
	
  .........................................................................................................................	
  32	
  
5.13	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Residents	
  Without	
  a	
  High	
  School	
  Diploma	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006
	
  .........................................................................................................................	
  33	
  
5.14	
  Relative	
  Average	
  Individual	
  Income	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  .....................................	
  34	
  
5.15	
  Relative	
  Average	
  Individual	
  Income	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  ....................................	
  35	
  
5.16	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Individuals	
  Separated,	
  Divorced,	
  or	
  Widowed	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
   	
  
	
  .........................................................................................................................	
  36	
  
5.17	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Individuals	
  Separated,	
  Divorced,	
  or	
  Widowed	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  	
  
	
  .........................................................................................................................	
  37	
  
5.18	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Individuals	
  Living	
  Alone	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  ...................	
  38	
  
5.19	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Individuals	
  Living	
  Alone	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  ..................	
  39	
  	
  
5.20	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Lone	
  Parent	
  Families	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  .......................	
  40	
  	
  
5.21	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Lone	
  Parent	
  Families	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  .......................	
  41	
  
5.22	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Visible	
  Minorities	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  ...........................	
  42	
  
5.23	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Visible	
  Minorities	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  ............................	
  43	
  
5.24	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Owned	
  Dwellings	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  .............................	
  44	
  

	
                                                                                                                                 vii	
  
	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
5.25	
  Relative	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Owned	
  Dwellings	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  ............................	
  45	
  
5.26	
  Relative	
  Dwelling	
  Density	
  by	
  CT,	
  2006	
  ....................................................	
  46	
  
5.27	
  Relative	
  Dwelling	
  Density	
  by	
  DA,	
  2006	
  ....................................................	
  47	
  
6.1	
  Relative	
  Proportions	
  of	
  Socioeconomic	
  Indicators	
  at	
  CT	
  Level	
  .................	
  53	
  
6.2	
  Relative	
  Proportions	
  of	
  Socioeconomic	
  Indicators	
  at	
  DA	
  Level	
  .................	
  53	
  
6.3	
  Proportion	
  of	
  Visible	
  Minority	
  Residents	
  in	
  2005	
  ......................................	
  55	
  
6.4	
  DA	
  Indicator	
  Values	
  in	
  Census	
  Tract	
  10	
  .....................................................	
  57	
  
6.5	
  DA	
  Indicator	
  Values	
  in	
  Census	
  Tract	
  108	
  ...................................................	
  58	
  
6.6	
  DA	
  Indicator	
  Values	
  in	
  Census	
  Tract	
  21	
  .....................................................	
  59	
  
6.7	
  DA	
  Indicator	
  Values	
  in	
  Census	
  Tract	
  25.01	
  ................................................	
  60	
  
6.8	
  DA	
  Indicator	
  Values	
  in	
  Census	
  Tract	
  114	
  ...................................................	
  61	
  
	
  
                         Reference	
  Table	
  of	
  Socioeconomic	
  Indicator	
  Acronyms	
  
Component	
  	
   Indicator	
                Description	
  	
  
Material	
  	
          LICO	
               Percentage	
  of	
  individuals	
  classified	
  as	
  low-­‐income	
  (after	
  tax)	
  

                        NOHSD	
              Percentage	
  of	
  individuals	
  over	
  25	
  without	
  a	
  high	
  school	
  diploma	
  	
  

                        EMPLOY	
             Employment	
  rate	
  for	
  individuals	
  ages	
  15	
  and	
  over	
  

                        AVGINC	
             Average	
  individual	
  income	
  for	
  individuals	
  ages	
  15	
  and	
  over	
  	
  

Social	
  	
            SDW	
                Percentage	
  of	
  individuals	
  classified	
  as	
  separated,	
  divorced,	
  or	
  widowed	
  	
  

                        PLA	
                Percentage	
  of	
  individuals	
  not	
  in	
  census	
  families	
  living	
  alone	
  	
  

                        LPF	
                Percentage	
  of	
  economic	
  families	
  classified	
  as	
  single	
  parent	
  

                        VM	
  	
             Percentage	
  of	
  individuals	
  classified	
  as	
  a	
  visible	
  minority	
  	
  

Structural	
  	
        OWNED	
              Percentage	
  of	
  private	
  dwellings	
  that	
  are	
  owned	
  

                        DWELDENS	
           Dwelling	
  density	
  (total	
  number	
  of	
  private	
  dwellings	
  divided	
  by	
  total	
  land	
  
                                             area	
  in	
  square	
  kilometers)	
  	
  

Title	
  Page	
  Image	
  Source:	
  Google	
  Maps,	
  2012	
                                                                     	
  

	
                                                                                                                                                  viii	
  
	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
“The	
  ultimate	
  question	
  is	
  whether	
  a	
  geographical	
  area	
  is	
  an	
  entity	
  possessing	
  traits,	
  or	
  
         merely	
  one	
  characteristic	
  of	
  a	
  trait	
  itself”	
  (Gelhke	
  and	
  Biehl,	
  1934,	
  170)	
  
         	
  
         1.0	
  INTRODUCTION	
  	
  
         	
           This	
  report	
  is	
  part	
  of	
  a	
  larger	
  study	
  on	
  neighbourhood	
  change	
  across	
  Canada.	
  The	
  
         “Neighbourhood	
   Change	
   Research	
   Partnership”	
   (NCRP)	
   examines	
   changing	
  
         neighbourhood	
   trends	
   in	
   income	
   inequality	
   and	
   polarization	
   in	
   six	
   Canadian	
   Census	
  
         Metropolitan	
   Areas	
   (CMAs):	
   Toronto,	
   Vancouver,	
   Calgary,	
   Winnipeg,	
   Montréal,	
   and	
  
         Halifax	
  Regional	
  Municipality.	
  
         	
           In	
   2010,	
   the	
   NCRP	
   released	
   the	
   Three	
   Cities	
   of	
   Toronto,	
   a	
   report	
   documenting	
  
         patterns	
   of	
   sociospatial	
   polarization	
   in	
   the	
   city	
   from	
   1970	
   to	
   2005.	
   Using	
   time-­‐series	
  
         analysis	
   of	
   census	
   data	
   indicators	
   –	
   age,	
   household	
   structure,	
   immigrant,	
   ethnicity,	
  
         income,	
   employment,	
   and	
   housing	
   (Hulchanski,	
   2011)	
   –	
   the	
   report	
   illustrates	
   the	
  
         changing	
  socioeconomic	
  welfare	
  of	
  neighbourhoods	
  throughout	
  this	
  35-­‐year	
  period.	
  The	
  
         report	
   relies	
   on	
   what	
   they	
   define	
   as	
   the	
   “Three	
   Cities”	
   framework	
   to	
   explain	
  
         neighbourhood	
   change	
   on	
   a	
   more	
   general	
   level,	
   where	
   each	
   “city”	
   represents	
   census	
  
         tracts	
  that	
  are	
  experiencing	
  either	
  increasing,	
  decreasing,	
  or	
  stable	
  income	
  trajectories.	
  	
  
                                                                                                                             	
               In	
      2013,	
  
                                                                                                                             using	
   the	
   same	
  
                                                                                                                             methodology,	
   the	
  
                                                                                                                             Halifax	
   research	
  
                                                                                                                             team	
   –	
   comprised	
  
                                                                                                                             of	
   academics	
   and	
  
                                                                                                                                               community	
  
                                                                                                                             stakeholders	
                       –	
  
                                                                                                                             launched	
  a	
  study	
  of	
  
                                                                                                                             the	
   Halifax	
   CMA	
  
                                                                                                                             (Prouse	
   et	
   al,	
  
                                                                                                                                       Forthcoming).	
  
                                                                                                                             Halifax	
   Regional	
  
                                                                                                                             Municipality	
   (HRM)	
  
                                                                                                                             is	
   the	
   largest	
   city	
   in	
  
                                                                                                                             Atlantic	
   Canada,	
  
                                                                                                                             with	
   a	
   population	
  
                                                                                                                             of	
            413	
         700	
  
                                                                                                                             (Statistics	
   Canada,	
  
                                                                                                                             2012).	
   In	
   1996,	
   the	
  
                                                                                                                             City	
   of	
   Halifax	
  
                                                                                                                             amalgamated	
   with	
  
                                                                                                                             the	
             City	
          of	
  
                                                                                                                             Dartmouth,	
   Town	
  
                                                                                                                             of	
   Bedford,	
   and	
  
Figure	
  1.1	
  Settlement	
  Density	
  of	
  Halifax	
  Regional	
  Municipality,	
  2012,	
  Calculated	
                Halifax	
               County.	
  
from	
  HRM	
  Civic	
  Address	
  Point	
  Data	
  (Witherbee,	
  2013,	
  in	
  Prouse	
  et	
  al,	
  Forthcoming)	
   Figure	
                          1.1	
  

         	
                                                                                                                                                         1	
  
         	
  
Examining Sociospatial Polarization in Halifax: What Scale Matters? - Jill Grant
illustrates	
   the	
   disparity	
   in	
   settlement	
   patterns	
   throughout	
   the	
   region.	
   HRM	
   is	
  
remarkably	
   diverse,	
   comprised	
   of	
   over	
   200	
   distinct	
   communities	
   of	
   urban,	
   suburban,	
  
and	
  rural	
  character.	
  Figure	
  1.2	
  shows	
  some	
  of	
  Halifax’s	
  neighbourhoods.	
  
                                                                                                                      	
  
       Figure	
  1.2	
  Neighbourhood	
  map	
  of	
  Halifax	
  Census	
  Metropolitan	
  Area	
  core	
  (Witherbee,	
  2013)	
  

           Study	
  findings	
  (See	
  Figure	
  1.3	
  and	
  1.4)	
  revealed	
  mixed	
  trends	
  in	
  the	
  CMA	
  overall,	
  
with	
  no	
  strong	
  evidence	
  of	
  increasing	
  income	
  polarization	
  at	
  census	
  tract	
  level.	
  Equally	
  
mixed	
  findings	
  emerged	
  through	
  analysis	
  of	
  Halifax	
  through	
  the	
  “Three	
  Cities”	
  paradigm,	
  
as	
  Halifax’s	
  census	
  tracts	
  showed	
  surprisingly	
  slight	
  changes	
  in	
  income	
  levels	
  from	
  1980	
  
to	
  2010.	
  In	
  many	
  cases,	
  trends	
  were	
  ambiguous	
  and	
  diverged	
  from	
  hypotheses	
  derived	
  
from	
  local	
  understandings	
  of	
  the	
  lived	
  reality	
  of	
  these	
  spaces.	
  	
  

	
                                                                                                                                    2	
  
	
  
 
      	
  
      Figure	
  1.3	
  Distribution	
  of	
  Census	
  Tracts	
  by	
  Income	
  Category	
  of	
  Individuals	
  ages	
  15	
  and	
  over,	
  1970-­‐2010	
  
      (Prouse	
  et	
  al,	
  Forthcoming)	
  	
  

Figure	
  1.4	
  Change	
  in	
  Census	
  Tract	
  Average	
  Individual	
  Income,	
  1980-­‐2010	
  (Cities	
  Centre,	
  2013;	
  in	
  Prouse	
  et	
  al,	
  
Forthcoming)	
  

      	
           	
  

      	
                                                                                                                                                        3	
  
      	
  
The	
   research	
   team	
   speculated	
   whether	
   the	
   parameters	
   of	
   the	
   study	
   –	
  
specifically,	
   census	
   tracts	
   as	
   the	
   units	
   of	
   analyses–	
   were	
   responsible	
   for	
   discrepancies	
  
between	
   study	
   findings	
   and	
   observations	
   of	
   on-­‐the-­‐ground	
   conditions.	
   The	
   NCRP	
   uses	
  
census	
   tracts	
   as	
   proxies	
   for	
   neighbourhoods	
   for	
   all	
   CMAs	
   included	
   in	
   the	
   study.	
   The	
  
Halifax	
  research	
  team	
  identified	
  ambiguous	
  census	
  tract	
  (CT)	
  level	
  data	
  as	
  an	
  indicator	
  
that	
  this	
  geographic	
  unit	
  is	
  an	
  unsuitable	
  lens	
  through	
  which	
  to	
  interpret	
  neighbourhood	
  
change	
  in	
  smaller	
  municipalities	
  like	
  Halifax.	
  The	
  team	
  theorized	
  CT	
  level	
  findings	
  do	
  not	
  
accurately	
   reflect	
   on-­‐the-­‐ground	
   conditions	
   in	
   Halifax’s	
   neighbourhoods.	
   Rather,	
   they	
  
suggest	
   a	
   moderated	
   portrait	
   of	
   Halifax’s	
   geography	
   of	
   income	
   created	
   by	
   data	
  
smoothing	
  from	
  aggregation	
  of	
  more	
  diverse	
  conditions	
  visible	
  at	
  a	
  finer	
  scale.	
  Further	
  
investigation	
   is	
   required	
   to	
   determine	
   if	
   the	
   scale	
   of	
   aggregation	
   of	
   census	
   data	
   yields	
   a	
  
crucial	
  methodological	
  limitation.	
  	
  
                Examining	
  data	
  at	
  the	
  CT	
  level	
  reveals	
  very	
  high-­‐income	
  census	
  tracts	
  clustered	
  
in	
   the	
   South	
   End	
   and	
   in	
   Bedford,	
   and	
   low-­‐income	
   census	
   tracts	
   grouped	
   in	
   the	
   North	
  
End	
   and	
   Halifax’s	
   postwar-­‐era	
   suburbs.	
   Census	
   tracts	
   with	
   average	
   individual	
   income	
  
levels	
   consistent	
   with	
   the	
   CMA	
   average	
   comprise	
   the	
   rest	
   of	
   HRM.	
   However,	
   contextual	
  
research	
  of	
  the	
  lived	
  reality	
  of	
  Halifax’s	
  neighbourhoods	
  challenges	
  the	
  legitimacy	
  of	
  this	
  
simple	
   pattern.	
   	
   In	
   Halifax,	
   CT	
   boundaries	
   frequently	
   encompass	
   heterogeneous	
  
conditions	
  –	
  particularly	
  in	
  Halifax’s	
  suburbs	
  where	
  census	
  tracts	
  are	
  especially	
  large	
  and	
  
administrative	
   boundaries	
   lag	
   behind	
   contemporary	
   patterns	
   of	
   population	
   growth	
  
between	
   census	
   periods.	
   How	
   does	
   this	
   heterogeneity	
   impact	
   aggregated	
   census	
   data	
  
values	
  for	
  each	
  CT?	
  Prouse	
  et	
  al	
  posit	
  that	
  dissemination	
  area	
  level	
  analysis	
  may	
  reveal	
  a	
  
more	
   fine-­‐grained,	
   complex,	
   and	
   accurate	
   portrait	
   of	
   Halifax’s	
   geography	
   of	
   income	
  
inequality	
   and	
   polarization	
   across	
   neighbourhoods.	
   The	
   inconclusive	
   findings	
  
engendered	
  the	
  following	
  theoretical	
  questions:	
  how	
  are	
  neighbourhoods	
  defined,	
  and	
  
do	
  neighbourhoods	
  function	
  at	
  the	
  same	
  scale	
  regardless	
  of	
  city	
  size?	
  	
  
	
  
2.0	
  BACKGROUND	
  	
   	
  
	
  
2.1	
   Socioeconomic	
   Conditions	
   in	
   Canadian	
   Neighbourhoods:	
   Situating	
   Halifax	
   in	
   the	
  
Literature	
  
                Neighbourhoods	
   are	
   highly	
   complex	
   and	
   peculiar	
   entities.	
   For	
   more	
   than	
   a	
  
century,	
  the	
  study	
  of	
  these	
  spaces	
  and	
  their	
  trajectories	
  has	
  captivated	
  and	
  perplexed	
  
scholars	
  –	
  both	
  in	
  terms	
  of	
  socioeconomic	
  and	
  cultural	
  transformations	
  occurring	
  within	
  
these	
   spaces,	
   and	
   in	
   creating	
   theoretical	
   parameters	
   defining	
   the	
   neighbourhood	
   unit	
  
itself.	
  	
  
                Framed	
   through	
   key	
   themes,	
   studies	
   examining	
   neighbourhood	
   conditions	
   and	
  
change	
   in	
   Canadian	
   cities	
   have	
   expanded	
   over	
   the	
   past	
   thirty	
   years.	
   In	
   the	
   1980s,	
  
research	
  emerged	
  examining	
  cities	
  through	
  the	
  lens	
  of	
  urban	
  renewal	
  –	
  specifically	
  inner	
  
city	
   revitalization.	
   Ley’s	
   national	
   studies	
   on	
   inner	
   city	
   revitalization	
   (1988)	
   and	
  
gentrification	
  (1985)	
  provide	
  comparative,	
  macro-­‐level	
  data	
  on	
  socioeconomic	
  change	
  in	
  
Canada’s	
   large	
   cities.	
   Filion	
   and	
   Bunting	
   (1990)	
   examine	
   change	
   occurring	
   in	
   the	
   older	
  
housing	
  stock	
  of	
  large	
  CMAs.	
  Bourne	
  (1982),	
  Bunting	
  (1984),	
  Filion	
  and	
  Bunting	
  (1990),	
  
and	
   Millward	
   and	
   Bunting	
   (1998;	
   1999)	
   contributed	
   to	
   early	
   Canadian	
   neighbourhood	
  

	
                                                                                                                                                 4	
  
	
  
You can also read