Indicator SC.1.d Proportion of households likely to move away from San Francisco in the next three years

SC.1.d Proportion of households likely to move away from San Francisco in the next three years

Download PDF map.

Proportion of households likely to move away from San Francisco in the next three years (2009)
Supervisoral District Neighborhoods Very Likely   Somewhat Likely   Not too Likely   Not Likely at All  
San Francisco  12%    19%    25%    44%  
1 Richmond, Laurel Heights   10%    19%    20%    51%  
2 Marina, Presidio, Cow Hollow, Pacific Heights   13%    26%    27%    34%  
3 North Beach, Chinatown, Russian Hills, Nob Hill, Downtown   13%    23%    21%    43%  
4 Outer Sunset, Parkside   14%    18%    24%    44%  
5 Western Addition, Haight-Ashbury, Cole Valley   11%    17%    35%    37%  
6 SOMA, Rincon Hill, Civic Center  12%    19%    32%    36%  
7 Merced, Inner Sunset, Forest Hill, Lakeside   7%    16%    18%    58%  
8 Castro, Noe Valley, Dolores Heights, Diamond Heights, Duboce Triangle  10%    15%    27%    47%  
9 Mission, Bernal Heights   17%    18%    22%    43%  
10 Potrero Hill, Bay View Hunters Point, Visitation Valley   18%    13%    22%    47%  
11 Excelsior, Mission Terrace, Ingleside, Oceanview, Merced Heights   5%    16%    26%    53%  

Data Source

Data from the San Francisco City Survey Report 2009 by the City and County of San Francisco, Office of the Controller. Available at: http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=904

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

Table data is presented by supervisoral district. Detailed information regarding 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

The map and table represent answers given by San Francisco residents to a question on the 2009 City Survey.

According to the City Survey Report 2009, the City Survey (formerly called Citizen Survey) is conducted by the San Francisco Controller's Office in order to measure residents' opinions about the quality and level of City services.  A total of 2,770 randomly selected San Francisco residents were surveyed, including 1,821 who filled out a mailed questionnaire (representing a cooperation rate of 17%) and 802 who were contacted by telephone (representing a cooperation rate of 33%).  The survey was available in English, Spanish, and Chinese.  Cooperation rates in 2009, the number of surveys returned out of the total number of valid attempts (i.e. valid addresses and valid phone numbers), dropped from the 2007 cooperation rates (which was 27% by mail and 40% by phone).

According to the report, the characteristics of survey respondents, both in 2009 and in previous years, do not perfectly match the characteristics of the general population in San Francisco. Compared to the general population, the survey respondents were more educated, more likely to identify as White/Caucasian and less likely to identify as African American/Black, Asian or Pacific Islander, or Latino/Hispanic; more likely to be over 44 years old; and less likely to live alone.  
    
The question used to construct this map and table was, "In the next three years, how likely are you to move out of San Francisco?" The possible answers were "very likely," "somewhat likely," "not too likely," or "not at all likely." A total of 2,703 respondents answered this question; the number of responses in each supervisoral district ranged from 128 to 309. The table shows the percent of respondents in each supervisoral district who gave each answer. Because of rounding, some of the rows may not add to 100%. The map shows the percent of respondents in each supervisoral district who answered that they were either "very likely" or "somewhat likely" to move out of San Francisco in the next three years.

Since each supervisoral district contains several neighborhoods, it is not possible compare the answers given by people living in different neighborhoods within the districts. It is also important to remember that different respondents may have given the same answers, but for different reasons: for example, some residents may plan to stay in the same community because they are happy there, while others may feel they lack the resources to move.

Lastly, this indicator does not give any information about residents' plans to move within the city of San Francisco. For more information, the City Survey Report 2009—including information about the survey responses and methodology and a sample survey questionnaire—is available at: http://co.sfgov.org/webreports/details.aspx?id=904

Neighborhood social cohesion is not a time-static concept; movement of residents, organizations, and businesses into and out of a neighborhood can impact the social dynamics among neighbors and other components of social cohesion. While this indicator provides a snapshot of one aspect of social cohesion, it does not provide any information about long-term trends. Residents' plans to stay in their communities represent one among many possible indicators of social cohesion within a neighborhood.

Taken alone, the fact that residents do not think they are likely to leave San Francisco does not necessarily mean that a neighborhood is socially cohesive. Similarly, it is possible for a neighborhood to be socially cohesive even if residents do not plan to stay in San Francisco. In general, neighborhood-level indicators may obscure ethnic, class, or other differences among the neighborhood population. For example, residents' plans to stay in San Francisco may indicate good social cohesion among some groups, but others may not feel integrated into the social fabric for a variety of reasons, such as the language(s) spoken, cultural or religious preferences, or physical accessibility. Thus social cohesion may be advanced for some groups while others may feel excluded.

Why is this a Community Health Indicator?

Residents' plans to stay in their communities may reflect social networks and feelings of belonging among community members. 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 and social integration are beneficial to health: Healthy People 2010 asserts that the social environment—including interactions with family, friends, coworkers, and others in the community—has a "profound effect on individual health."a For example, social support can buffer people from the negative psychological effects of life stress.b One review of over 100 studies concluded that social support for pregnant women improves fetal growth.c Other studies have found that women who receive social support have healthier babies, fewer complications in pregnancy and birth, and less postpartum depression.d

Emile Durkheim's work on suicide showed that the lowest rates of suicide occurred in societies with the highest degrees of social integration.e In Alameda County in 1979, researchers found that men and women who lacked ties to others were 1.9 to 3.1 times more likely to die during the follow-up period than those who had many contacts.f Other studies have linked specific health conditions—such as strokes, death from cardiovascular disease, and the common cold—to having fewer social ties.c,g

  1. Healthy People 2010, Office of Disease Prevention and Health Promotion, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Available at: http://www.healthypeople.gov/
  2. Cohen S, Underwood LG, Gottlieb BH, eds. 2000. Social Support Measurement and Intervention: A Guide for Health and Social Scientists. New York: Oxford University Press.
  3. Kawachi I, Colditz GA, Ascherio A, Rimm EB, Giovannucci E, Stampfer MJ, Willett WC. 1999. A Prospective study of social networks in relation to total mortality and cardiovascular disease incidence in men in the United States. Pp. 184-194 in The Society and Population Health Reader. Volume I: Income Inequality and Health, eds. I. Kawachi, BP Kennedy, RG Wilkinson. New York: The New Press.
  4. Berkman LF. 1999. The Role of social relations in health promotion. Pp. 172-183 in The Society and Population Health Reader. Volume I: Income Inequality and Health, eds. I. Kawachi, BP Kennedy, RG Wilkinson. New York: The New Press.
  5. Berkman LF, Kawachi I. 2000. A Historical Framework for Social Epidemiology. Chapter 1 in Social Epidemiology. New York: Oxford University Press.
  6. Berkman LF, Syme SL. 1979. Social networks, host resistance and mortality: a nine-year follow up study of Alameda County residents. American Journal of Epidemiology 109:186-204.
  7. Cohen C, Doyle WJ, Skoner DP, Rabin BS, Gwaltney JM. 1997. Social ties and susceptibility to the common cold. JAMA 277(24):1940-1944.