Ghetto Youths Rise Again We Visualize My Friend

Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2022 Sep; thirteen(ix): 844.

Mapping the Racial Inequality in Place: Using Youth Perceptions to Place Unequal Exposure to Neighborhood Ecology Hazards

Samantha Teixeira

¹Boston College School of Social Work, 219 McGuinn Hall, Chestnut Hill, MA 02467, United states of america

Anita Zuberi

²Department of Sociology, Duquese University, 519 College Hall, Pittsburgh, PA 15219, USA; ude.qud@airebuz

Jayajit Chakraborty, Bookish Editor, Sara Due east. Grineski, Academic Editor, and Timothy West. Collins, Bookish Editor

Received 2022 Jul 1; Accepted 2022 Aug 17.

Abstract

Black youth are more than likely than white youth to grow up in poor, segregated neighborhoods. This racial inequality in the neighborhood environments of black youth increases their contact with hazardous neighborhood environmental features including violence and toxic exposures that contribute to racial inequality in youth wellness and well-being. While the concept of neighborhood effects has been studied at length by social scientists, this work has non been as oftentimes situated within an environmental justice (EJ) epitome. The present study used youth perceptions gained from in-depth interviews with youth from ane Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania neighborhood to identify neighborhood environmental health hazards. We then mapped these youth-identified features to examine how they are spatially and racially distributed beyond the city. Our results suggest that the intersection of race and poverty, neighborhood disorder, housing abandonment, and offense were salient issues for youth. The maps prove support for the youths' assertions that the environments of blackness and white individuals across the metropolis of Pittsburgh differ in noteworthy means. This multi-lens, mixed-method analysis was designed to claiming some of the assumptions we make almost addressing environmental inequality using youths' ain opinions on the issue to bulldoze our research.

Keywords: ecology justice, neighborhood, poverty, youth, inequality, race

one. Introduction

Black youth in the United States are much more probable than white youth to abound upward in poor neighborhoods and to confront the double disadvantage of being from a poor family and living in a poor neighborhood [1,2,3]. In 2000, 45% of poor black youth were living in distressed neighborhoods compared to only v% of poor white youth [two]. This stark racial inequality in the neighborhood environments of youth not only limits their access to high-quality schools and services, but likewise increases their contact with chancy neighborhood environmental features including violence, physical and social disorder, and toxic exposures which contribute to racial inequality in youth health and well-being [4,5,half-dozen,7,viii,9]. While a dandy deal of research has examined how the neighborhood environment affects youth, less has focused on how individual young people perceive, engage with, and "brand meaning" of neighborhood-level environmental disparities [ten]. This study aims to address this gap using a mixed-methods approach and an environmental justice (EJ) framework to explore what aspects of the neighborhood built and social environment matter for youth well-being.

Neighborhood ecology disparities accept been characterized as "dull violence"; a miracle that exerts its injurious impact more than gradually than traditional acts of violence merely has like enduring effects on its victims [11,12]. Research suggests that among blacks, the dull violence of poverty and deleterious social/institutional contexts is passed through generations [3]. In addition to broader structural issues, subtler environmental factors that are difficult to capture using traditional surveys may exist contributing to neighborhood inequality [3,13,fourteen]. These "subtle factors" manifest in vast differences in the experiences of neighborhood poverty amid black and white Americans. Sampson and Wilson [15] summed up these stark contextual and racial differences past suggesting that, "The worst urban context in which whites reside is considerably better than the average context of black communities".

While the concept of neighborhood effects has been studied at length by social scientists, this work has not as frequently been situated within an EJ paradigm. The existing work on ecology injustices and children has focused largely on toxic exposure (east.g., lead) and its disparate effects on children's developing bodies [16,17,18,nineteen,xx]; toxic settings that children inhabit within their neighborhoods (e.thousand., schools) [8,21,22]; and on organizing with youth around traditional environmental issues such as pollution and its relationship to health outcomes like asthma [23,24,25]. Situating neighborhood ecology disparities as an EJ issue expands beyond traditional environmentalism, which focuses primarily on the preservation of rural, remote natural environments, to recognize that many urban issues are cogitating of environmental injustices [26,27]. An EJ framework allows us to examine the neighborhood environmental disparities faced past black youth equally one part of an intersection of oppressions that include poverty, spatial segregation, and exposure to environmental hazards; all of which accept implications for wellness and well-being.

In lodge to better sympathize these subtler neighborhood features related to inequality, the present study builds on prior work past using youth perceptions to delve into more granular and potentially more malleable-aspects of the built and social neighborhood environment, identified past youth from a disadvantaged community in Pittsburgh.

We utilize qualitative data from a sample of blackness youth living in a disadvantaged neighborhood to place aspects of the neighborhood's congenital and social environment they deem important to their well-being, and then use quantitative information to map these indicators across all neighborhoods in the metropolis of Pittsburgh with detail attending to how they are spatially concentrated past race. The focus of the manuscript is on environmental features defined past the youth in our qualitative sample. The youth focused on the firsthand physical environment, rather than factors such every bit pollution and exposure to toxins; a trend noted in other studies, possibly attributable to the perception that it is more distal than visible aspects of neighborhoods [28]. Thus, we report on youth-identified primal aspects of the neighborhood´s built and social environments which include housing conditions, land vacancy, and community violence, and examine whether they are unduly full-bodied in the neighborhoods with a greater share of Pittsburgh'south black population.

This multi-lens, mixed-method analysis was designed to challenge some of the assumptions we make near addressing inequality by using youths' ain opinions on the issue to drive our inquiry. Considering black youth are disproportionately exposed to the double disadvantage of being poor and living in a poor neighborhood, learning from their experiences volition assistance capture aspects of the neighborhood surroundings that may non be accounted for in big sample quantitative studies. Further, residents' connections to identify are under-examined in urban EJ scholarship and may play an of import role in helping us sympathise how young people interpret and respond to environmental disparities [29].

Background

Research suggests that poverty exerts a harmful effect non only through resource deprivation at the private and family level, just besides through a unique geography of poverty, which includes multiple other systems that people in poverty interact with, including neighborhoods [xxx,31]. The legacy of segregation in the United States has entrenched poor blacks in neighborhoods with reduced access to social capital and political services, and they are far more probable to live in (or virtually) neighborhoods characterized by chancy environmental features [1,2,iii,32,33,34,35,36] including factors such as pollution and toxic sites besides equally dilapidated and dangerous housing, litter, disorder, and undesirable land uses [37]. Farther, they are less likely to live in neighborhoods with desirable land uses and wellness-promoting amenities like parks, trees, and light-green spaces [38]. These visual environmental cues, in addition to their direct harmful effects (e.g., asthma, injury), have been associated with a variety of negative indirect outcomes, including feet, hopelessness, and low [6,39]. EJ scholarship has shown that poor, racial and ethnic minority neighborhoods disproportionately comport the brunt of environmental harm in the United states of america [37,40] and information technology is well established that neighborhoods thing when it comes to explaining racial disparities in health and well-existence [5,vii,39,41]. Less clear, yet, is what it is about neighborhoods that accounts for these disparities and, more importantly, how neighborhood ecology features tin can be inverse to improve youth health and well-existence [14,31].

In order to better understand these concrete, environmental settings, the present study aimed to understand, from the perspective of immature people themselves, how they translate neighborhood environmental disparities. It is especially important to learn from the direct perspectives of youth because, in addition to existence physiologically and behaviorally more vulnerable to contaminants than adults, the research suggests that they, "have a unique way of understanding the proximal neighborhood surroundings that often eludes objective structural descriptions of a neighborhood" [19,42]. Youth may differ significantly in their descriptions of their neighborhoods from their parents and bookkeeping for these different perspectives allows us to recognize the unique autonomy and opinions of young people, thereby creating a pathway through which youth can exist given the opportunity to advocate for their neighborhoods [43,44]. Adolescents are more autonomous than younger children, whose parents may take measures to protect and supervise them within the neighborhood environment, and they are more than likely than younger children to actively commute to school and have unsupervised journeys on human foot through their neighborhoods [45,46]. These unique experiences brand adolescents strong reporters on their neighborhood surround.

In addition to being a function of a marginalized population due to their race, the youth in the sample for this study were as well function of several other uniquely vulnerable populations due to their gender, socioeconomic condition, and neighborhood of origin. EJ draws on a civil rights framework and recognizes the relationship between race, place, space and the distribution of resources and hazards. Increasingly, research using an EJ framework has expanded to go beyond examining race and class to incorporating intersecting identities and multiple dimensions of inequality, including, for example, age and gender [47]. While we know that distressed neighborhood environments are characterized by more than poverty alone, and that the perceptions of neighborhood residents may matter even more for their outcomes than considerately measured neighborhood features, virtually studies rely on demography-based measures of poverty and disadvantage (e.g., unemployment, education, and single-mother families) to narrate neighborhood level ecology inequality [48]. Few EJ studies specifically focus on the perspectives of youth (noteworthy exceptions include [17,18]), even though youth in these neighborhoods are perhaps the most likely to come across these incivilities in their daily routine and may have a smashing bargain to contribute to our knowledge of the everyday feel of living in a poor, environmentally marginalized community [18,49]. It is important to go beyond income-based measures of poverty to understand what information technology is about a poor neighborhood that curtails life chances and leads to and then many deleterious outcomes, and to identify what aspects might be malleable and thus addressed using locally relevant policy strategies.

2. Materials and Methods

two.one. Study Setting

The research for this study takes place in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. Despite beingness named America'south about livable metropolis by Forbes Magazine in 2014, Pittsburgh is habitation to stark racial disparities. Pittsburgh is primarily a blackness and white metropolis, where less than ten% of youth residents betwixt the ages of v and 17 years old are of other races. Davis and Bangs [50], who authored a study of racial demographics in Pittsburgh noted, "African Americans in our region remain at the bottom of every measure of the quality of life, which include indicators of economic condition, educational achievement, family stability, and violence" (para. i).

Using information from the American Community Survey (2005-09), we estimated the disparity in exposure to neighborhood poverty among Pittsburgh's black and white urban youth. Black youth, both poor and non-poor, are more likely than white youth to live in high-poverty neighborhoods (i.e., neighborhoods where more than 30% of residents are below the poverty line). Even more startling is that a greater share of not-poor blackness youth (42%) live in these high-poverty neighborhoods than poor white youth (25%). Furthermore, just 3% of poor white children live in Pittsburgh'south highest (>forty%) poverty neighborhoods, compared to nearly 40% of poor black children. These statistics suggest that Pittsburgh is an ideal place to study the racial inequality in neighborhood contexts amid youth. Our qualitative data are fatigued from a sample of youth who resided in Homewood, a low-income black community on the east end of Pittsburgh. The census tracts that make up Homewood are classified by the Pennsylvania Department of Ecology Protection every bit environmental justice areas. According to PA statutes, an EJ area is any demography tract with more than twenty% of individuals in poverty and/or xxx% minority population [51]. Despite many institutional assets, Homewood is plagued by gun violence, high rates of school failure, and asymmetric social service systems involvement. Homewood's built surroundings is amid the most blighted in Pittsburgh [52]. More than than half of the parcels (57%), including land and structures, are vacant and almost a quarter (22.3%) of all buildings in Homewood had code violations in 2010 [53]. Homewood residents experience multiple forms of marginalization along personal and environmental dimensions and, therefore, are a stiff source of reporting on the feel of environmental disparities in this community.

2.two. Data Sources and Analysis

ii.two.1. Qualitative Information and Methods

We began past analyzing qualitative data nerveless in partnership with a group of black youth (age 14–nineteen) from Homewood. This dataset was nerveless from 2010–2014 using a mixed-methods community-based participatory approach that included participatory photo mapping (due north = 10), which combines photography and youth-led neighborhood tours; in-depth interviews with youth (due north = 21), and spatial analysis [54]. The products of this inquiry include more than than 15 h of transcribed interviews, over 100 youth-authored photos of neighborhood strengths and weaknesses, youth-generated customs maps, and presentations the youth created to highlight their enquiry findings (The data reported in this report include qualitative comments fabricated by the youth during in-depth interviews and other structured research activities. More detail on the participatory nature of the qualitative information collection and how photographic information were used tin be institute in previous publications [52,53]). Because of the unique, long-term appointment methods the first author utilized inside the Homewood customs, the qualitative information from this study were drawn solely from Homewood. The youth who made upward this qualitative sample were members of two summer youth programs located in the Homewood customs. The majority of the youth (due north = 27) were in a summer programme that included daily activities related to environmental bug such as litter clean ups and instruction on environmental sustainability. These youth were purposively sampled based on their participation in Homewood-based programs, and may have been more in melody with environmental issues than their peers due to their exposure to environmental didactics. The remaining youth (n = iv) were recruited from a program focused on academic enrichment.

These data were used to identify what aspects of low-income communities matter to youth and allowed united states of america to translate youth-defined signs of poverty and ecology inequality into quantitative measures using neighborhood-level indicators data.

We analyzed the qualitative data using a multi-cycle coding process. Coding is designed to reduce large amounts of data into small, meaningful labels to make connections betwixt various concepts. We began the process with outset cycle, or open coding, and created a codebook using ATLAS.ti 7.0 software (ATLAS.ti Scientific Software Development GmbH, Berlin, Deutschland) [55]. Using the existing codebook, we engaged in 2d bike or axial coding, which was more focused and immune united states of america to reduce the data to represent the most essential trends [56,57]. The qualitative data allowed the states to identify what aspects of poor, racially segregated communities had the largest detrimental impact on immature people, and shaped our assay of the quantitative information.

ii.two.2. Quantitative Information and Methods

We used the youth-identified themes to map the occurrence and concentration of indicators of neighborhood environmental inequality across Pittsburgh's 90 neighborhoods (n = 141 census tracts). Information sources included demographic and poverty-related data from the American Community Survey (ACS) (2005-09). The administrative data were drawn from the Southwest Pennsylvania Community Profiles, which include a wide range of property-related neighborhood indicators at the state parcel level, including tax delinquency status, property ownership, and edifice inspection lawmaking violations obtained in their raw format through a information-sharing understanding [52]. It should be noted that due to changes in census geography betwixt 2000 and 2010, some demography tract boundaries within Pittsburgh no longer conformed to established neighborhood boundaries. Since some of the local data we use in this analysis come from before 2010, we opted to utilize the most contempo information available prior to the change in census tract boundaries, which is the 2005–2009 ACS data. These data remained relatively abiding across the urban center of Pittsburgh and therefore should adequately capture youths' exposure to poverty and demographic variables during the time of information collection. While our data are Pittsburgh specific, similar measures are bachelor in many cities beyond the U.S. through efforts like the Urban Institute's National Neighborhood Indicators Partnership, and so the report will be replicable and transferrable to other contexts. Locally collected neighborhood indicator data are particularly useful because they are collected at a more granular level than census data and tin exist used to amend understand features of neighborhood context related to poverty and ecology disparities [58,59,sixty,61].

We used these information to map the intersection of income-based measures of poverty and youth-identified aspects of environmental poverty to descriptively show the distribution of these indicators. We began by creating descriptive bivariate choropleth maps, or maps that use different colors or shades to represent categories or classed values, to illustrate neighborhood demographic makeup, housing weather, and occupancy.

Bivariate choropleth mapping is a technique in which you can visualize variation in two separate variables simultaneously [62]. Using ArcMap 10.3 (esri, Redlands, CA, USA), nosotros created variables and obtained shapefiles for each of the youth-divers ecology indicators including race, poverty, housing vacancy, illegal dumpsites, and vehement crime. We so created maps using a two-variable, 3-class by iii-grade design to visualize the human relationship between sets of two variables. Nosotros chose to visualize the data with a three-by-three class blueprint to simplify visualization for the reader; cartographic conventions suggest that utilizing more than than ix classes would risk making the classes more than hard to distinguish from one another [62,63]. We determined class information ranges for each variable using the "classify" tool in ArcMap ten.three, and then created new variables that separated each existing variable into three classes based on these data ranges. The classes were created using the "quantile" selection in ArcMap 10.three which separates the variable into classes based on iii equal count breakpoints. The "field calculator" tool was then used to create a tertiary variable that symbolizes the combination of the two variables (for example, poverty and race) by its position in the nine-class color scheme [62]. This new variable was used to populate each of the class combinations and allowed us to match each with its appropriate position and color in the sequential color scheme. We then used the "symbology" tool to visualize a ix-form sequential color scheme that included one color for each form combination [62,64].

We also used kernel density mapping techniques, which use color gradations to illustrate the spatial variations in the density of an attribute, to analyze hotspots of illegal dumpsites and whether they are spatially concentrated in low-income minority neighborhoods.

2.3. Ethical Argument

All subjects gave their informed consent for inclusion earlier they participated in the report. The study was conducted in accord with the Proclamation of Helsinki, and the protocol was approved by the Ideals Committee of the University of Pittsburgh (PRO11050246).

three. Results

Through the qualitative analysis, we uncovered several primal features that defined the neighborhood environment in Homewood for young people. These youth-identified themes will exist further described and situated within metropolis-level administrative data to illustrate their prevalence and distribution beyond Pittsburgh neighborhoods. Nosotros begin by describing the human relationship between race and poverty in Pittsburgh using a bivariate choropleth map. This description helps to frame the word of neighborhood environmental disparities as one of item importance to poor black youth in the city of Pittsburgh. We then describe the results which highlight the well-nigh important themes divers by our youth participants including stereotypes about race and poverty and their relationship to neighborhood environmental disparities, high prevalence of vacant and deteriorated land and housing, symbols of disorder including litter, and exposure to violence. The results presented are descriptive in nature.

3.1. Race and Poverty

In guild to better understand the intersection of poverty and race in Pittsburgh, we created a bivariate choropleth map (come across Figure i). This map overlays the percent poverty with the percentage blackness for each of Pittsburgh'south 90 neighborhoods, with the lightest colors reflecting low levels of poverty and a small blackness population (light grey, bottom left corner of legend), and the darkest colors representing the highest concentrations of both poverty and black population (nighttime blue, pinnacle correct corner of legend).

Map illustrating poverty and percent black across Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

As is the example in many communities, race and poverty are correlated in Pittsburgh. The correlation between percent black and per centum poverty was 0.48 (p = 0.000). While there are 20 low-poverty, predominantly white neighborhoods (visualized in lite grey), there is only one depression-poverty predominantly blackness neighborhood in Pittsburgh (visualized in orangish). Just 2 predominantly white neighborhoods in Pittsburgh are high poverty and these ii neighborhoods are dwelling to the University of Pittsburgh, where there is a big, transient college educatee population. In stark contrast, there are 17 high-poverty, predominantly black neighborhoods (visualized in dark blue).

The youth noted that Homewood and other predominantly black neighborhoods in Pittsburgh are stereotyped equally being poor and disorderly. They used terms with distinct racial undertones such equally "ghetto" and "ratchet" to depict how Homewood is viewed by the eyes of outsiders. For instance, i youth noted, "A lot of people say it'south ratchet. Like ghetto. Loud. Crazy. Just ever wantin' to fight, always beingness rowdy and everything". The areas of the neighborhood that the youth defined every bit proficient and rubber were likewise defined in racial terms, but in terms of their perceived similarity to white neighborhoods. For case, i youth described his cake, which is physically located inside Homewood, "to me, it's non that bad to alive in Homewood. Cause, like, the place I live, like there's nobody around it. It's just like a white neighborhood". The youth used racial descriptors to define different areas of the neighborhood and discussed how racial stereotypes shape outsiders' perceptions of those who reside in Homewood:

The majority of Homewood is black people and people already recall the mentality of black people are bad. Cause that's all you hear about, gang bangin' and that's it. Gang bangin' and shooting and drinkin' and doin' drugs. And that's all they retrieve that we're about.

These quotes help provide context to better empathize the experience of living in a neighborhood that is predominantly poor and blackness; a neighborhood that is highly stigmatized. Viewed from a social justice perspective, environmental justice issues are seen as function of the larger problems of racial, social, and economic justice and tin can be used to further describe the touch of race, politics, and class on quality of life [65]. The youth described the stigma and attitudes towards poor black individuals in general, and Homewood in particular, as 1 of the reasons they see disparities in the environmental factors described beneath.

iii.2. Disorder

Another issue that the youth described is the perception that the metropolis does non fairly intendance for public property and that residents of Homewood practise not care most the physical status of the neighborhood. The social context of neighborhoods dictates the amenities and services the neighborhood receives and is a crucial gene in the distribution of resources and risks in the urban center. Historically, black neighborhoods take been denied public amenities and today, segregated lower-income, minority neighborhoods may notwithstanding receive lower-quality, less frequent municipal services [32,66]. Youth were attuned to environmental inequities and expressed frustration nigh the lack of response to litter and dumping by the urban center and adults in their community. They reported that the presence of litter and garbage farther stigmatized the community and described how information technology affected the overall perception of Homewood and its residents. For example, one youth stated, "They basically similar refer information technology on black people. Like, those black people are dingy, Homewood people are dirty, like they don't take care of their neighborhood". The youth noted the intersection between race and ecology issues, touching on the notion that when outsiders encounter litter and disorder, they see it as an embodiment of negative stereotypes about blackness neighborhoods [67]. Another, who had been involved in community clean-upward activities, expressed frustration at her swain community members for the neighborhood'southward environmental conditions:

Like, I detest information technology how when we clean, similar, it just gets dirty once again. There volition be a trash tin can on the corner and we'll walk by and we'll see a whole bunch of trash next to the garbage can and I'm like, are you lot serious? The trash can is right there.

They described litter and waste as a major problem in the customs and a visual indicator of both environmental problems and a lack of response to these problems. As a proxy for litter, we mapped the prevalence of illegal dumpsites in Pittsburgh neighborhoods. While illegal dumpsites are an imperfect proxy for the presence of trash and litter, and it is of import to make the distinction between the etiology of litter [67] and illegal dumping [68], in our observations over the grade of several years working in Homewood, Homewood was the site of both high levels of litter and illegal dumpsites. These information were obtained from Allegheny Cleanways, a Pittsburgh-based non-profit that works to eliminate and clean up illegal dumping and litter in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. In their well-nigh recent report, Allegheny Cleanways described the nigh common types of waste in Pittsburgh'southward illegal dumpsites every bit tires and household waste (particularly hard-to-dispose-of items such as televisions) [69]. The following map (Figure 2) uses kernel density mapping to create a "estrus map" that shows the density of occurrence of illegal dumpsites across Pittsburgh.

Heat map of illegal dumpsites across the urban center of Pittsburgh.

Though there was not a statistically significant correlation between the number of illegal dumpsites in a community and the percent of black residents, the map shows several hotspots with high density of illegal dumpsites. The neighborhoods surrounding Homewood show medium levels of illegal dumpsite density. The dumpsites, like the litter and garbage that the youth noted, ostend that the "hotspot" communities are largely unregulated by formal and informal control mechanisms. The youth reported that the urban center lacks a formal response to accost dumping in their community and their fellow residents are not exercising breezy control mechanisms or setting social norms that prevent litter and household waste product dumping, leaving environmental hazards unchecked within the community. Housing abandonment is another characteristic noted past the youth that points to institutional and intra-neighborhood disinvestment and environmental degradation.

3.iii. Housing Abandonment

Our qualitative information indicated that Homewood youth were concerned nigh the condition of the built environment in Homewood, particularly housing. They reported that much of the housing in Homewood is in a battered status and identified housing vacancy and abandonment as i of the most serious issues in Homewood [lxx]. They described vacant buildings and vacant country as not only an eyesore, but as a place in the community that facilitates crime, delinquency, and negative health behaviors:

(If) we were able to get like, crackheads and stuff, and become rid of these abandoned houses that they go in, like they'll suspension into the abandoned houses. I could say, like if we didn't have all these abased houses and people started moving here…Homewood would be a much ameliorate identify.

The youth to a higher place described how abandoned houses attract drug users who proceed to farther damage the community. They besides described how housing abandonment makes them feel. Many described abandoned housing as making them feel fearful, anxious, and lamentable. One youth stated, "Similar, it has a peachy effect on your mood, you lot know? It only doesn't brand anything amend. It'south just these open spaces filled with nothin". They described the vacant lots left in the wake of razing abandoned homes as another environmental feature that cues negative emotions, promotes deleterious health behaviors, and stigmatizes their neighborhood. The presence of abandoned homes and lots stirred visceral responses in the youth, akin to the phenomenon of "root shock", which is the traumatic stress associated with witnessing destruction and deportation [71].

Our maps betoken that housing vacancy is associated with neighborhood racial makeup. The post-obit bivariate choropleth map (run into Figure 3) illustrates the percent of total neighborhood parcels that are vacant alongside the percent of the neighborhood population that is blackness.

Map of vacancy by percent black across Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

The youth noted that they felt that poor black communities like Homewood are marginalized by local government agencies and that people are forced to abandon their homes in the face of poverty and violence. The correlation between percentage black and percent vacant was 0.61 (p = 0.00). While at that place are nineteen predominantly white, low-vacancy neighborhoods (visualized in low-cal grey), there are merely iii low-vacancy, predominantly black neighborhoods in Pittsburgh (visualized in orangish). Only three predominantly white neighborhoods in Pittsburgh are high vacancy. In stark contrast, at that place are 21 high-vacancy, predominantly blackness neighborhoods (visualized in night blue). The youth were also particularly attuned to the relationship between environmental features like housing abandonment and the prevalence of violent criminal offense in Homewood.

iii.4. Vehement Crime

Ecology hazards in Homewood including overgrown vacant lots, abased houses that are open to entry, and a lack of formal and informal social control facilitate and compound issues of violent crime in Homewood. The youth in our Homewood-based sample reported extensively on how crime and violence marker their daily lives. The youth described fright of shootings and many had experienced or witnessed gun violence themselves. 1 boyfriend described:

I seen my first shootout when I was in unproblematic…I was similar, 10–15 feet abroad from it and I was watchin' like I didn't know what to do and I was just like watchin' and my mom yelled at me, similar, come in the house! (laughs)

In addition to describing lifelong exposure to criminal offense and violence, they described how information technology changes the way they interact with their surround. Many, like the youth below, described the unpredictability of gun violence in Homewood:

If I'1000 riding (my bike) down the street I just don't want to get shot on my bike for no reason "cause they're trying to shoot somebody else…it is something I really do think almost because…when me and my friend be ridin" out in the street we merely exist thinkin' like, y'all never know what can happen.

This young man described how he and his friends fear riding their bikes because of the potential to exist victimized. This has a diverseness of wellness implications, including the potential for serious injury if they are victimized as well as potential mental health issues related to fright and anxiety and the inability to safely exercise outdoors. They expressed worry for their safety and described feelings of helplessness related to unpredictable gun violence. In order to better illustrate the prevalence and concentration of violence in Pittsburgh, this bivariate choropleth map illustrates the relationship between the percent blackness population in Pittsburgh neighborhoods and the trigger-happy crime rate (see Figure 4).

Map of fierce criminal offence rate past percent black across Pittsburgh neighborhoods.

The violent crime rate includes all Part ane crimes against persons (homicide, sexual assault, robbery, aggravated assault) from 2005–2011. Rates were averaged between the years of 2005 and 2011 and were calculated by the number of instances per 1000 people based on population information from the 2010 census [52]. The map indicates that there are 21 depression-violence, predominantly white neighborhoods whereas at that place is merely 1 depression-violence, predominantly black neighborhood. Conversely, 20 of the neighborhoods with the highest rates of violent law-breaking are predominantly black and only three predominantly white neighborhoods have high levels of tearing crime. Fierce crimes appear to be concentrated in black neighborhoods in Pittsburgh. The youth reported a fell cycle in which criminal offense and violence drive residents to abandon their homes and get out Homewood. This and then leaves the abandoned houses and lots to become sites that facilitate the commission of such crimes. Thus, violent crime compounds the issues of neighborhood stigma and drives environmental inequality and further exposure to neighborhood hazards.

4. Discussion

The present report examines racial inequality in the built and social neighborhood environment of urban youth, extending the prior literature in two key ways. First, we use youth perceptions to inform our agreement of what aspects of a neighborhood's built and social environment shape youth well-beingness. Second, nosotros use local level data to create indicators of the features of the neighborhood environment that youth describe as important (e.g., illegal dumping, vacancy, and violence). We map these features beyond Pittsburgh neighborhoods to examine racial disparities in exposure to these features of the neighborhood environment and to identify ecology inequities. The maps provide descriptive evidence to support the youths' assertions that the environments of black and white individuals in Pittsburgh differ in noteworthy ways. The evidence suggests that environmental inequities are cardinal visual indicators of inequality for youth.

The youth in this study identified environmental hazards that they believed were unique to Homewood and our maps illustrate that these issues were prevalent beyond blackness communities in Pittsburgh. They identified micro-level hazards [27] nowadays in their neighborhoods and on their blocks, and described how it afflicted their perceptions of their neighborhood and outsiders' perceptions and responses to the neighborhood. The youth recognized that Homewood residents are unduly exposed to negative environmental features and the lack of a formal response to the neighborhoods' concerns left them to unanimously express the concern that no one cares virtually their neighborhood.

Our study is limited by the fact that our qualitative data are drawn from a sample of youth from one Pittsburgh neighborhood, which may not exist representative of all EJ communities within the urban center of Pittsburgh. The first writer spent several years building rapport and working in partnership with youth in Homewood, so it was non within the telescopic of this manuscript to aggrandize the qualitative sample beyond this community. Time to come inquiry should consider how youth from other EJ communities in Pittsburgh perceive environmental inequities to gain further insight from youth in other types of neighborhoods.

5. Conclusions

Our results suggest that the intersection of race and poverty, neighborhood disorder, housing abandonment, and crime are especially salient issues for the youth in our qualitative sample. Our multi-lens, mixed-method assay was designed to challenge some of the assumptions we brand about addressing inequality using youths' own opinions on the issue to bulldoze our inquiry. It provides evidence to better empathize what aspects of neighborhoods are important and may be addressed to promote condom and supportive neighborhood environments for youth. Currently, urban bug like housing discrimination, segregation, and issues in the built environment are oftentimes segregated into disciplinary silos exterior of the environmental justice literature, despite the fact that they are deeply interconnected bug [72]. Hereafter inquiry can address this gap by taking an interdisciplinary approach to environmental justice inquiry and carefully because the opinions of residents, particularly immature people, who are affected almost by these problems.

This piece of work lends itself to policy and practice-related implications. Our enquiry may provide show to better understand what aspects of neighborhoods are important for immature people's well-being, and which of those aspects may be addressed to promote neighborhoods that support young people'south well-beingness. Future research can connect this evidence to interventions that may aid non-turn a profit organizations, local governments, and community groups to leverage funding that promotes community-driven interventions that support residents' needs and accost features of neighborhood inequality like the congenital and natural environment. For example, this research can help target programs and policies that eliminate neighborhood bane, provide support to stabilize existing residents in their homes (east.g., through taxation abatement, etc.), and provide a guide for improving the physical surroundings of communities without displacement.

The environmental justice movement is start to tackle the challenges of deportation, gentrification, and congenital ecology bug in urban neighborhoods [26,73]. Some promising approaches include improving community engagement, particularly among youth. Though the contributions of children and youth to community movements take been noted in the literature, their opinions are notwithstanding sought less frequently than those of adults. Engaging youth in addressing customs-level ecology disparities can have the dual positive bear on of helping youth developmentally/interpersonally and helping to better the community [74]. Promoting ecology literacy amongst young people can also meliorate health literacy and, in effect, empower youth to address environmental wellness disparities [75]. Multiple approaches that nourish to the intersections of social, economic, and environmental justice issues might be necessary. While one intervention may be necessary to target issues in the built and physical environment, others may simultaneously target social connections, the experience of neighborhood stigma, and beingness cut off from urban center services, for instance [10].

1 youth from our qualitative sample in Homewood stated, "I but remember like, if yous could be raised here and make it out, you tin do anything. It's simply a big motivation for me, like I know where I don't want to cease up". In many urban neighborhoods, one of the hallmarks of youth success is leaving the neighborhood.

Programs aimed at reducing environmental health hazards can help create communities where people can stay and thrive, through responsible redevelopment and policies that stabilize existing residents and reduce ecology features that facilitate crime and violence.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully admit the contributions of the immature people from Homewood who provided invaluable insight into this project.

Author Contributions

Samantha Teixeira and Anita Zuberi jointly conceived and designed the experiments; Samantha Teixeira performed the GIS analysis; Anita Zuberi and Samantha Teixeira wrote the paper.

Conflicts of Involvement

The authors declare no conflict of involvement.

References

ane. Logan J., Stults B. Split up and Unequal: The Neighborhood Gap for Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians in Metropolitan American. Brown University; Providence, RI, USA: 2011. [Google Scholar]

2. O'Hare Due west.P., Mather M. The Growing Number of Kids in Severely Distressed Neighborhoods: Bear witness from the 2000 Demography. Annie Due east. Casey Foundation; Baltimore, MD, USA: 2003. [Google Scholar]

iii. Sharkey P. Stuck in Place: Urban Neighborhoods and the End of Progress toward Racial Equality. University of Chicago Press; Chicago, IL, USA: 2013. [Google Scholar]

4. Ewart C.K., Suchday South. Discovering how urban poverty and violence affect health: Development and validation of a neighborhood stress index. Health Psychol. 2002;21:254–262. doi: 10.1037/0278-6133.21.3.254. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

5. Leventhal T., Brooks-Gunn J. The neighborhoods they live in: The effects of neighborhood residence on child and adolescent outcomes. Psychol. Bull. 2000;126:309–337. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.126.2.309. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

6. Evans Chiliad.W., English K. The environs of poverty: Multiple stressor exposure, psychophysiological stress, and socioemotional aligning. Child Develop. 2002;73:1238–1248. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00469. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

7. Jencks C., Mayer S.E. Inner-Metropolis Poverty in the United states. National Academy Press; Washington, DC, United states of america: 1990. The social consequences of growing up in a poor neighborhood; pp. 111–186. [Google Scholar]

8. Mohai P., Kweon B.-Southward., Lee S., Ard K. Air pollution around schools is linked to poorer student health and bookish operation. Health Affair. 2011;xxx:852–862. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.2011.0077. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

9. Sampson N. Ecology justice at schoolhouse: Understanding research, policy, and practice to better our children's wellness. J. Sch. Wellness. 2012;82:246–252. doi: x.1111/j.1746-1561.2012.00694.x. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

10. Coulton C.J., Spilsbury J.C. Handbook of Child Well-Being. Springer; Heidelberg, Germany: 2014. Community and place-based agreement of child well-beingness; pp. 1307–1334. [Google Scholar]

xi. Nixon R. Boring Violence and the Environmentalism of the Poor. Harvard University Press; Cambridge, MA, USA: 2011. [Google Scholar]

12. Stretesky P., Lynch M.J. Corporate environmental violence and racism. Crime Constabulary Soc. Chang. 1998;30:163–184. doi: 10.1023/A:1008393401769. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

13. Sharkey P. The intergenerational manual of context1. Am. J. Sociol. 2008;113:931–969. doi: x.1086/522804. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

14. Sharkey P., Faber J.Westward. Where, when, why, and for whom do residential contexts matter? Moving abroad from the dichotomous understanding of neighborhood furnishings. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 2014;40:559–579. doi: 10.1146/annurev-soc-071913-043350. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

15. Sampson R.J., Wilson W.J. Race, Crime, and Justice: A Reader. Routledge; New York, NY, USA: 1995. Toward a theory of race, law-breaking, and urban inequality; pp. 177–190. [Google Scholar]

xvi. Landrigan P.J., Carlson J.E., Bearer C.F., Cranmer J.S., Bullard R.D., Etzel R.A., Groopman J., McLachlan J.A., Perera F.P., Reigart J.R. Children's health and the environment: A new calendar for prevention research. Environ. Health Perspect. 1998;106:787. doi: ten.1289/ehp.98106787. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

17. Schwartz N.A., Von Glascoe C.A., Torres Five., Ramos Fifty., Soria-Delgado C. "Where they (live, work and) spray": Pesticide exposure, childhood asthma and environmental justice amidst Mexican-American farmworkers. Wellness Identify. 2015;32:83–92. doi: 10.1016/j.healthplace.2014.12.016. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

eighteen. Postma J., Peterson J., Ybarra Vega G.J., Ramon C., Cortes 1000. Latina youths' perceptions of children's environmental wellness risks in an agricultural community. Public Health Nurs. 2014;31:508–516. doi: 10.1111/phn.12112. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

19. Grandjean P., Landrigan P.J. Neurobehavioural effects of developmental toxicity. Lancet Neurol. 2014;thirteen:330–338. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(thirteen)70278-3. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

20. Landrigan P.J., Goldman L.R. Children's vulnerability to toxic chemicals: A claiming and opportunity to strengthen health and environmental policy. Health Affair. 2011;30:842–850. doi: ten.1377/hlthaff.2011.0151. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

21. Pastor M., Morello‐Frosch R., Sadd J.L. Breathless: Schools, air toxics, and ecology justice in california. Policy Stud. J. 2006;34:337–362. doi: 10.1111/j.1541-0072.2006.00176.10. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

22. Guidry V.T., Lowman A., Hall D., Businesswoman D., Wing S. Challenges and benefits of conducting environmental justice research in a school setting. New Solut.: J. Environ. Occup. Health Policy. 2014;24:153–170. doi: 10.2190/NS.24.2.c. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

23. Sze J., Prakash Southward., Mcintosh A. Empowering youth and creating healthy environments in Northern Manhattan: We act'southward youth programs. Child. Youth Environ. 2005;fifteen:265–277. [Google Scholar]

24. Loh P., Sugerman-Brozan J. Environmental justice organizing for environmental health: Case study on asthma and diesel exhaust in Roxbury, Massachusetts. Annal. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 2002;584:110–124. doi: ten.1177/0002716202584001008. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

25. Landrigan P.J., Schecter C.B., Lipton J.M., Fahs Yard.C., Schwartz J. Environmental pollutants and affliction in american children: Estimates of morbidity, mortality, and costs for lead poisoning, asthma, cancer, and developmental disabilities. Environ. Wellness Perspect. 2002;110:721–728. doi: 10.1289/ehp.02110721. [PMC gratis commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

26. Shutkin W. The State That Could be: Environmentalism and Democracy in the Xx-First Century. MIT Press; Cambridge, MA, United states: 2000. [Google Scholar]

27. Grineski Due south.Eastward. Man-surroundings interactions and environmental justice: How practice diverse parents of asthmatic children minimize hazards? Soc. Natur. Resour. 2009;22:727–743. doi: 10.1080/08941920802001077. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

28. Shmool J.50.C., Yonas M.A., Newman O.D., Kubzansky 50.D., Joseph E., Parks A., Callaway C., Chubb L.G., Shepard P., Clougherty J.E. Identifying perceived neighborhood stressors across diverse communities in New York city. Am. J. Commun. Psychol. 2015;56:145–155. doi: 10.1007/s10464-015-9736-ix. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

29. Anguelovski I. From environmental trauma to prophylactic haven: Identify zipper and place remaking in iii marginalized neighborhoods of Barcelona, Boston, and Havana. Metropolis Commun. 2013;12:211–237. doi: x.1111/cico.12026. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

30. Edin Chiliad., Kissane R.J. Poverty and the American family unit: A decade in review. J. Union Fam. 2010;72:460–479. doi: 10.1111/j.1741-3737.2010.00713.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

31. Evans G.Westward. The surround of childhood poverty. Am. Psych. 2004;59:77. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.59.ii.77. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

32. Massey D.South., Denton N.A. American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass. Harvard Academy Press; Cambridge, MA, Usa: 1993. [Google Scholar]

33. Pattillo M. Black middle-class neighborhoods. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 2005;31:305–329. doi: x.1146/annurev.soc.29.010202.095956. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

34. Wilson W.J. The Truly Disadvantaged: The Inner City, the Underclass, and Public Policy. Academy of Chicago Press; Chicago, IL, USA: 1987. [Google Scholar]

35. Acevedo-Garcia D., Osypuk T.L., McArdle N., Williams D.R. Toward a policy-relevant analysis of geographic and racial/indigenous disparities in child health. Health Aff. 2008;27:321–333. doi: 10.1377/hlthaff.27.two.321. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

36. Pais J., Crowder K., Downey L. Unequal trajectories: Racial and form differences in residential exposure to industrial take chances. Soc. Forces. 2014;92:1189–1215. doi: 10.1093/sf/sot099. [PMC free commodity] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

37. Brown P. Race, grade, and ecology wellness: A review and systematization of the literature. Environ. Res. 1995;69:15–30. doi: ten.1006/enrs.1995.1021. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

38. Landry Due south.1000., Chakraborty J. Street trees and disinterestedness: Evaluating the spatial distribution of an urban assiduities. Environ. Plann. A. 2009;41:2651–2670. doi: 10.1068/a41236. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

39. Sampson R.J., Morenoff J.D., Gannon-Rowley T. Asessing "neighborhood effects": Social processes and new directions in inquiry. Ann. Rev. Sociol. 2002;28:443–478. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.28.110601.141114. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

40. Bullard R.D., Mohai P., Saha R., Wright B. Toxic wastes and race at twenty: Why race still matters later on all of these years. Environ. Law. 2008;38:371. [Google Scholar]

41. Evans One thousand.Due west. Child development and the physical surroundings. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 2006;57:423–451. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190057. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

42. Anthony E.K., Nicotera Due north. Youth perceptions of neighborhood hassles and resources: A mixed method analysis. Child. Youth Serv. Rev. 2008;30:1246–1255. doi: 10.1016/j.childyouth.2008.03.009. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

43. Spilsbury J.C., Korbin J.E., Coulton C.J. Mapping children's neighborhood perceptions: Implications for child indicators. Child Indic. Res. 2009;2:111–131. doi: 10.1007/s12187-009-9032-z. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

44. Ben-Arieh A. Where are the children? Children's role in measuring and monitoring their well-beingness. Soc. Indic. Res. 2005;74:573–596. doi: 10.1007/s11205-004-4645-6. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

45. Babey Due south.H., Hastert T.A., Huang Westward., Brown E.R. Sociodemographic, family unit, and environmental factors associated with active commuting to school among U.S. adolescents. J. Public Health Policy. 2009;30:S203–S220. doi: ten.1057/jphp.2008.61. [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

46. Zuberi A. Feeling safe in a unsafe place: Exploring the neighborhood condom perceptions of a sample of low-income African American youth. J. Adolesc. Res. 2016 accustomed. [Google Scholar]

47. Sze J., London J.K. Environmental justice at the crossroads. Soc. Compass. 2008;ii:1331–1354. doi: 10.1111/j.1751-9020.2008.00131.x. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

48. Coulton C.J., Korbin J.E. Indicators of child well-beingness through a neighborhood lens. Soc. Indic. Res. 2007;84:349–361. doi: 10.1007/s11205-007-9119-1. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

49. Checkoway B.Northward., Gutierrez L.K. Youth participation and community change. J. Commun. Pract. 2006;xiv:one–9. doi: 10.1300/J125v14n01_01. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

50. Davis 50., Bangs R. Sunday forum: Pittsburgh's shame. Pittsburgh Post Gazette. Jun 29, 2007.

52. Zuberi A., Hopkinson R., Gradeck B., Duck W. Pittsburgh Neighborhood Distress and Health Study: Neighborhood Profiles. University of Pittsburgh; Pittsburgh, PA, USA: 2015. [Google Scholar]

53. PGHSNAP . Pghsnap Asset Profiles and Activity Planning Data. Metropolis of Pittsburgh Department of City Planning; Pittsburgh, PA, USA: 2010. [Google Scholar]

54. Teixeira S. "It seems similar no 1 cares": Participatory photograph mapping to sympathise youth perspectives on property vacancy. J. Adolesc. Res. 2015;30:390–414. doi: 10.1177/0743558414547098. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

55. Charmaz One thousand. Constructing Grounded Theory: A Practical Guide through Qualitative Analysis. Sage Publications Limited; Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: 2006. [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

56. Saldana J. Fundamentals of Qualitative Research. Oxford University Printing, United states of america; New York, NY, USA: 2011. [Google Scholar]

57. Strauss A., Corbin J. Basics of Qualitative Research. SAGE Publications, Inc.; Thousand Oaks, CA, U.s.: 1998. [Google Scholar]

58. Coulton C.J. The place of customs in social piece of work practice inquiry: Conceptual and methodological developments. Soc. Work Res. 2005;29:73–86. doi: 10.1093/swr/29.two.73. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

59. Hillier A. Why social work needs mapping. J. Soc. Work Educ. 2007;43:205–222. doi: ten.5175/JSWE.2007.200500524. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

60. Teixeira S., Wallace J. Data driven organizing: A community-university partnership to address vacant and abandoned property. J. Commun. Pract. 2013;21:248–262. doi: 10.1080/10705422.2013.811621. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

61. Zuberi A., Duck W., Gradeck B., Hopkinson R. Neighborhoods, race, and health: Examining the relationship betwixt neighborhood distress and nativity outcomes in Pittsburgh. J. Urban Aff. 2015 doi: 10.1111/juaf.12261. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

63. Geography and Geospatial Scientific discipline Working Grouping . Cartographic Guidelines for Public Health. Geography and Geospatial Science Working Group; Atlanta, GA, USA: 2012. [Google Scholar]

64. Buckley A., Field K. Making beautiful maps; Proceedings of the 2013 ESRI International User Conference; San Diego, CA, United states. 12 August 2013. [Google Scholar]

65. Agyeman J. Sustainable Communities and the Challenge of Environmental Justice. New York University Press; New York, NY, USA: 2005. [Google Scholar]

66. Geronimus A.T. To mitigate, resist, or undo: Addressing structural influences on the wellness of urban populations. Am. J. Public Wellness. 2000;ninety:867–872. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

67. Potato A.K. "Litterers": How objects of physical disorder are used to construct subjects of social disorder in a suburb. Ann. Am. Acad. Polit. Soc. Sci. 2012;642:210–227. doi: 10.1177/0002716212438210. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

68. Pellow D.Northward. The politics of illegal dumping: An ecology justice framework. Qual. Soc. 2004;27:511–525. doi: 10.1023/B:QUAS.0000049245.55208.4b. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

69. PA CleanWays . Illegal Dump Survey Last Report City of Pittsburgh. PA CleanWays; Greensburg, PA, U.s.a.: 2009. [Google Scholar]

70. Teixeira S. Across broken windows: Youth perspectives on housing abandonment and its bear on on individual and customs well-being. Child Indic. Res. 2015;ix:581–607. doi: ten.1007/s12187-015-9327-ane. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

71. Fullilove M. Root Shock: How Fierce upwards City Neighborhoods Hurts America, and What Nosotros Tin can Do About Information technology. Random House; New York, NY, The states: 2004. [Google Scholar]

72. Schweitzer L., Stephenson M. Correct answers, wrong questions: Environmental justice equally urban research. Urban Stud. 2007;44:319–337. doi: 10.1080/00420980601074961. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

73. Agyeman J. Introducing Just Sustainabilities: Policy, Planning, and Practice. Zed Books; New York, NY, USA: 2013. [Google Scholar]

74. Ohmer M.Fifty. Denizen participation in neighborhood organizations and its relationship to volunteers' self- and collective efficacy and sense of community. Soc. Work Res. 2007;31:109–120. doi: x.1093/swr/31.two.109. [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]

75. Delgado M. Customs Practice and Urban Youth: Social Justice Service-Learning and Borough Engagement. Routledge, Ltd.; New York, NY, USA: 2015. [Google Scholar]

farrandleaved.blogspot.com

Source: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5036677/