The neighbourhood: Where Wilson, Schelling and Hägerstrand meet

There is a longstanding interest in the causes and consequences of socio-spatial inequalities in cities. A large literature has emerged on so-called neighbourhood effects, which seeks to understand how living in neighbourhoods of concentrated poverty affects a range of individual outcomes, such as health, income, education and general wellbeing (Galster, 2012). The literature on neighbourhood effects has developed rapidly in the last three decades. It is now common practice that studies of neighbourhood effects use geocoded longitudinal individual-level data and employ a variety of (often econometric) approaches in an attempt to reduce bias from non-random sorting into neighbourhoods (Knies et al. 2021). Studies of neighbourhood effects have also increasingly looked to incorporate more personal geographic contexts replacing ‘off the shelf’ administrative units with bespoke neighbourhoods (Johnston et al., 2005; Andersson & Malmberg, 2014; Petrović et al. 2022). The most common example of bespoke neighbourhoods are egohoods – neighbourhoods placing everyone at the centre of their own personal residential space (Hipp & Boessen, 2013). More recently, multiscale approaches have been used, whereby neighbourhood characteristics are measured at multiple scales of bespoke neighbourhoods (Petrović et al., 2022). It has been argued that for both theoretical and empirical reasons, the term ‘neighbourhood effects’ should be replaced by the more encompassing term ‘spatial context effects’, as many of the assumed spatial effects are not confined to residential neighbourhoods and the contestable meaning of neighbourhood distracts (Petrović et al. 2019).