| Literature DB >> 29474393 |
Yingqi Guo1, Shu-Sen Chang1,2,3, Feng Sha1, Paul S F Yip1,3.
Abstract
Previous investigations of geographic concentration of urban poverty indicate the contribution of a variety of factors, such as economic restructuring and class-based segregation, racial segregation, demographic structure, and public policy. However, the models used by most past research do not consider the possibility that poverty concentration may take different forms in different locations across a city, and most studies have been conducted in Western settings. We investigated the spatial patterning of neighborhood poverty and its correlates in Hong Kong, which is amongst cities with the highest GDP in the region, using the city-wide ordinary least square (OLS) regression model and the local-specific geographically weighted regression (GWR) model. We found substantial geographic variations in small-area poverty rates and identified several poverty clusters in the territory. Factors found to contribute to urban poverty in Western cities, such as socioeconomic factors, ethnicity, and public housing, were also mostly associated with local poverty rates in Hong Kong. Our results also suggest some heterogeneity in the associations of poverty with specific correlates (e.g. access to hospitals) that would be masked in the city-wide OLS model. Policy aimed to alleviate poverty should consider both city-wide and local-specific factors.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2018 PMID: 29474393 PMCID: PMC5825023 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0190566
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Map of Hong Kong (data in S1 File).
Fig 2Mapping the poverty rates (%) of 1,620 LSBs in Hong Kong, 2011 (data in S2 File).
Fig 3LISA map of the poverty rates of 1,620 LSBs, Hong Kong, 2011 (data in S3 File).
Fig 4LISA maps of the independent variables of 1,620 LSBs in Hong Kong, 2011 (data in S4 File).
Comparison of OLS and GWR for neighborhood poverty rate, Hong Kong, 2011.
| LSB% | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adjusted | Adjusted | ||||||||
| AIC = 2892.4 | AIC = 2769.0 | ||||||||
| Coefficient | VIF | Min | Lower Quartile | Median | Upper Quartile | Max | Negative association with poverty | Positive association with poverty | |
| 0.168 | 1.215 | 0.003 | 0.117 | 0.155 | 0.183 | 0.231 | 0.00 | 93.82 | |
| 0.180 | 4.992 | -0.066 | 0.071 | 0.188 | 0.300 | 0.449 | 0.00 | 55.81 | |
| 0.321 | 5.497 | -0.019 | 0.231 | 0.377 | 0.463 | 9.566 | 0.00 | 89.39 | |
| 0.137 | 1.187 | 0.004 | 0.053 | 0.083 | 0.159 | 0.303 | 0.00 | 53.87 | |
| 0.080 | 1.251 | -0.067 | 0.027 | 0.066 | 0.124 | 0.179 | 0.00 | 45.32 | |
| 0.080 | 1.471 | -0.104 | 0.005 | 0.081 | 0.115 | 0.204 | 0.00 | 45.32 | |
| 0.090 | 1.339 | -0.072 | 0.025 | 0.077 | 0.133 | 0.228 | 0.00 | 48.75 | |
| 0.015 | 1.496 | -0.061 | -0.010 | 0.020 | 0.044 | 0.126 | 0.00 | 2.06 | |
| 0.153 | 1.573 | -0.036 | 0.082 | 0.145 | 0.210 | 0.303 | 0.00 | 68.29 | |
| 0.055 | 1.644 | -0.158 | -0.143 | 0.023 | 0.082 | 0.178 | 5.12 | 17.04 | |
| -0.010 | 1.135 | -0.257 | -0.093 | 0.076 | 0.206 | 0.465 | 11.30 | 18.23 | |
| 0.011 | 1.103 | -0.391 | -0.095 | -0.007 | 0.085 | 0.608 | 0.00 | 0.81 | |
**: p < 0.01
***: p < 0.001.
Fig 5Local regression coefficient values from the GWR model in Hong Kong, 2011 (data in S4 File).
Fig 6Local R2 calculated from the GWR model of the correlates of neighborhood poverty rate in Hong Kong (data in S5 File).
Proportion of LSBs where potential correlates were significantly associated with neighborhood poverty rates in seven poverty clusters, Hong Kong, 2011.
| Variables (%) | Cluster 1 | Cluster 2 | Cluster 3 | Cluster 4 | Cluster 5 | Cluster 6 | Cluster 7 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 100 (+) | 100 (+) | non-significant | 100 (+) | 67 (+) | 100 (+) | 99 (+) | |
| 100 (+) | 80 (+) | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 17 (+) | |
| 100 (+) | 100 (+) | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | |
| non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 98 (+) | 90 (+) | |
| 100 (+) | 100 (+) | non-significant | 100 (+) | 83 (+) | non-significant | 58 (+) | |
| 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | 9 (+) | |
| 100 (+) | 84 (+) | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 50 (+) | 76 (+) | 53 (+) | |
| non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | 5 (+) | |
| 100 (+) | 80 (+) | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 100 (+) | 87 (+) | 90 (+) | |
| 100 (-) | non-significant | non-significant | 100 (+) | 33 (+) | non-significant | non-significant | |
| Access to hospitals | 100 (-) | 8 (+) | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | 1 (+) | 29 (+) |
| Access to physical activities | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant | non-significant |
Note: in each LSB of the seven clusters, the association between neighborhood poverty rates and potential correlates can be: “positively significant,” “non-significant,” or “negatively significant.” In the table, the percentages are the proportions of LSBs that were significantly associated with neighborhood poverty rate.
“+” indicates positively significant association and “-” indicates negatively significant association.
“Non-significant” indicates that there was no significant association between neighborhood poverty rates and the potential correlates in any LSB in a particular cluster.