How to Capture Neighborhood Change in Small Cities

Abstract

Small cities across North America are experiencing rapid changes, but methodological obstacles hamper researchers’ ability to analyze them. This research note explores some of the methodological challenges faced by researchers and offers solutions. Using Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island, as a case study, we show that a major challenge lies in choosing meaningful geographic units for small city neighborhoods; we evaluate the benefits and drawbacks of several geographical options. Another major challenge is that the boundaries of existing units change between census years, demanding an approach to reconstruct them and allow for analyses over time. We propose two feasible solutions for re-creating neighborhood geographic units over time: “moving forward” and “going backward.” Both involve selecting units from a particular census year to serve as a fixed point of reference for the re-creation of boundaries across multiple census years. We conclude by cautioning that studying changes in small cities over longer time periods in Canada is not feasible because of the extensive and complex boundary changes that have occurred between census years. Nonetheless, we offer an approach for looking at shorter time periods.

Résumé

Les petites villes d’Amérique du Nord connaissent des changements rapides, mais des obstacles méthodologiques entravent la capacité des chercheurs à les analyser. Cette note de recherche explore certains des défis méthodologiques rencontrés par les chercheurs et propose des solutions. En utilisant Charlottetown, à l’Île-du-Prince-Édouard, comme étude de cas, nous montrons qu’un défi majeur réside dans le choix d’unités géographiques significatives pour les quartiers de petites villes, et nous évaluons les avantages et les inconvénients de plusieurs options géographiques. Un autre défi majeur est que les limites des unités existantes changent entre les années de recensement, exigeant une approche spécifique pour les reconstruire et permettre des analyses temporelles dans le temps. Nous proposons deux solutions réalisables pour recréer des unités géographiques de quartier au fil du temps: «aller de l’avant» et «reculer». Les deux impliquent la sélection d’unités d’une année de recensement particulière pour servir de point de référence fixe pour la recréation des limites sur plusieurs années de recensement. Nous concluons en mettant en garde les chercheurs qu’il n’est pas possible d’étudier les changements dans les petites villes au Canada sur de longues périodes en raison des changements de limites vastes et complexes qui se sont produits entre les recensement. Néanmoins, nous proposons une approche pour examiner des périodes plus courtes.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

References

  1. Allen, J., & Taylor, Z. (2018). A new tool for neighbourhood change research: the Canadian longitudinal census tract database, 1971–2016. The Canadian Geographer, 62(4), 575–588.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Amrhein, C. G. (1995). Searching for the elusive aggregation effect: evidence from statistical simulations. Environment and Planning A, 27(1), 105–119.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Baldacchino, G. (2006). Settling in Charlottetown and PEI: recent settlers speak. Our Diverse Cities, 2, 106–111.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Barrieau, N., & Savoie, D. J. (2006). Creative class and economic development: the case of Atlantic Canada's urban centers. Canadian Institute for Research on Public Policy and Public Administration. https://www.idjs.ca/images/publications/pdf/creativeclassenglish_oct06.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2019.

  5. Everitt, J. C., & Gill, A. (1993). The social geography of small towns. In L. S. Bourne & D. F. Ley (Eds.), The changing social geography of Canadian cities (pp. 252–264). Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen’s University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Gehlke, C. E., & Biehl, K. (1934). Certain effects of grouping upon the size of the correlation coefficient in census tract material. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 29(185A), 169–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hulchanski, J. D. (2010). The three cities within Toronto: income polarization among Toronto’s neighbourhoods, 1970–2005. Toronto: Cities Centre, University of Toronto http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca/pdfs/curp/tnrn/Three-Cities-Within-Toronto-2010-Final.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Kaida, L., Ramos, H., Singh, D., Pritchard, P., Wijesingha, R. (2020). Can rust belt or three cities explain the sociospatial changes in Atlantic Canadian Cities? City & Community, 19(1), 191–216.

  9. Ley, D. (1986). Alternative explanations for inner-city gentrification: a Canadian assessment. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 76(4), 521–535.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Maaranen, R. (2015). Primer on postal code and census geography. Neighbourhood Change Research Partnership. http://neighbourhoodchange.ca/documents/2017/03/primer-postal-code-census-geography.pdf. Accessed 7 August 2019.

  11. MacKinnon, R., & Nelson, R. (2005). Urban and economic change in Kamloops: postindustrial adjustments in a staples economy. In W. F. Garrett-Petts (Ed.), The small cities book: on the cultural future of small cities (pp. 23–47). Vancouver: New Star Books.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Prouse, V., Ramos, H., Grant, J.L. & Radice, M. (2014). How and when scale matters: the modifiable areal unit problem and income inequality in Halifax. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, 23(1), 61–82.

  13. Skaburskis, A. (2012). Gentrification and Toronto’s changing household characteristics and income distribution. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(2), 191–203.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Statistics Canada. (2001). Geographic units: enumeration areas (EA). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Statistics Canada. (2007). Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island (Code105) (table). 2006 community profiles. 2006 Census. Statistics Canada (cat. No. 92–591-XWE). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Statistics Canada. (2016). The aggregate dissemination area (ADA): a new census dissemination geographic area. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

  17. Statistics Canada. (2017). Focus on geography series, 2016 census. Statistics Canada (cat. No. 98–404-x2016001. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

  18. Statistics Canada. (2018). Dictionary, census of population, 2016. Ottawa: Statistics Canada.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The analysis presented in this paper was conducted at the McMaster University Research Data Centre, part of the Canadian Research Data Centre Network (CRDCN). This research was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada as part of the Perceptions of Change Project (http://perceptionsofchange.ca). We would also like to thank Sai Chua (Choi) for her comments on earlier drafts.

Funding

This study was funded by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (grant number 435–2015-0787).

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Lisa Kaida.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Informed Consent

Not applicable.

Electronic Supplementary Material

ESM 1

(XLSX 48 kb).

ESM 2

(DOCX 18 kb).

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Kaida, L., Ramos, H., Singh, D. et al. How to Capture Neighborhood Change in Small Cities. Can. Stud. Popul. 47, 195–205 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s42650-020-00026-8

Download citation

Keywords

  • Neighborhood change
  • Small cities
  • Geographic unit
  • Dissemination area
  • Aggregated dissemination areas
  • Census tracts