Healthy Development Measurement Toolkit

Indicator SC.1.c Residential mobility

Data Source

U.S. Census 2000, Geolytics software. Census variables used: ‘Persons 5+ years old residing in the same house five years ago' (SMHSE0N). Summary File 3, P24.

Map and table created by San Francisco Department of Public Health, Environmental Health Section using ArcGIS software.

Map data is presented at the level of the census tract. The map also includes planning neighborhood names, in the vicinity of their corresponding census tracts.

Table data is presented by planning neighborhood. Planning neighborhoods are larger geographic areas then census tracts. SF DPH used ArcGIS software and a 'centroids within' methodology to convert census tracts to geographic mean center points. We then assigned census tracts to planning neighborhoods based on the spatial location of those geographic mean center points and calculated the planning neighborhood totals for the table.

Detailed information regarding census data, geographic units of analysis, their definitions, and their boundaries can be found in the HDMT at the following links:

http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/Geographic_Units_of_Analysis.pdf

http://www.thehdmt.org/data_map_methods.php

Explanation and Limitations

Neighborhoods that experience less residential mobility are more likely to develop lasting, supportive social networks among residents than neighborhoods with high residential mobility. Social networks tend to be developed over time and frequent turnover of neighbors decreases the likelihood that existing residents will invest in relationship development with newer residents.

The map above illustrates the percentage of persons (5 years and older) living in the same house that they lived in five years ago. With a few notable exceptions, neighborhoods in the southern third of San Francisco have lower residential mobility than many other neighborhoods. Certain areas along Market Street, in the Western Addition and Civic Center areas, and Bayview have experienced significant residential turnover. Other neighborhoods that previously had low residential density have experienced a substantial growth in population over the past decade, including near Lakeshore and the Rincon Hill area in South of Market.

As illustrated on the map for Indicator HH.1.e http://www.thehdmt.org/indicators/view/197, residential mobility correlates closely with proportion of owner-occupied households. Recent events such as the dot-com boom in the late 1990s and the mortgage foreclosure crisis in 2007-2008 have significantly impacted residential demographics and mobility in the Bay Area. However, because the US Census is conducted only once every ten years there is limited comprehensive data to compare neighborhoods at the census block level over the past decade.

Increases in housing costs may precipitate gentrification and eviction. One of the most significant effects of residential displacement is the erosion of social capital and social cohesion—factors associated with health, education, and neighborhood safety. Strong social relationships and community cohesion are protective of health in multiple ways. Neighbors, friends, and family provide material as well as emotional support. Support, perceived or provided, can buffer stressful situations, prevents damaging feelings of isolation, and contributes to a sense of self-esteem and value. The magnitude of the effect of social support on health is substantial and has been illustrated by several prospective long term studies in the United States. For example, in one study in Alameda County, those with fewer social contacts (e.g. marriage, family, friends, and group membership) had twice the risk of early death, even accounting for income, race, smoking, obesity, and exercise. Social support and cohesion also serve to nurture children's development, strengthen family ties, and build trust, reciprocity and collective efficacy. (Berkman LF, Syme SL. Social networks, host resistance, and mortality: a nine-year follow-up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology. 1979;109(2):186-204)

In contrast, the erosion of neighborhoods as a result of forced displacement results in the reduction of long-term residents who are most likely to invest in their communities. In areas where residents feel less invested because of the continual threat of displacement, one can find depilated environmental conditions, such as broken windows on buildings, loitering and illegal disposing of hazardous substances, as well as higher high school drop out rates and higher crime rates. If displaced residents are forced to relocate outside of their neighborhood, valuable supportive family and community relationships can be lost both for those leaving and well as for those remaining behind.

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Households that are displaced often experience unhealthy situations due to the loss of social relationships within a community, the difficulties and stress associated with finding new housing that is affordable, as well as, the added time, energy and money needed to relocate. Frequent household moves have been linked with negative childhood events such as abuse, neglect, household dysfunction and increased likelihood of smoking and suicide in children.^a Frequent family relocation also leads to children repeating grades, school suspensions, and emotional and behavioral problems.^b Childhood residential instability has also been found to predict lifetime risk of depression.^c

In contrast, residential stability in childhood has shown to have positive effects on health at midlife.^d Creating opportunities for affordable and safe housing forms a stable and healthy household environment which has long-term positive health implications, particularly for children.

For additional information on the connections between housing and health, visit: The Case for Housing Impacts Assessment by SFDPH, Program on Health Equity and Sustainability. Accessed online on October 19, 2006: http://www.thehdmt.org/etc/004_HIAR-May2004.pdf