What Is East Oakland? a Mixed-Methods Study Conceptualizing "Place" with Youth

Background and Purpose:

Place is an intrinsic aspect of life. Scholars from public health, social work, sociology, and urban planning have established the profound impact of one's environment on development. Nevertheless, places are not static entities but are influenced by the inhabitants, resource allocation, and governmental policies. Though the value of place has been well articulated throughout the literature, agreement on how to best define “place” remains a challenge. Research has recognized that places are perceived differently by individuals based on their experiences and interests. As such, scholarship has begun to move beyond defining “place” by simple geographic boundaries towards increasingly relational approaches. However, while the existing literature has largely focused on adult perspectives of “place”, there exists a dearth of investigation that incorporates youth insight. Our study addresses this gap, by assessing how East Oakland youth define their community using Agnew's three-pronged definition of place in response to the following research question: What is the youth-defined location, locale, and sense of place of East Oakland?

Methods:

This descriptive mixed methods study uses data drawn from semi-structured interviews and participatory mapping with 29 youth of color (aged 14-20) to develop a multifaceted definition of East Oakland, CA. Youth were recruited from 4 East Oakland youth-serving organizations. Each organization provided insight regarding the study design, recruitment plan, and applicability of study findings to their organizational mission. Participatory geographic information system mapping was implemented with a subset of the study sample to develop a geographic definition of East Oakland. A spatial average was calculated using the collected geospatial data to generate a youth-driven definition of East Oakland. Data drawn from semi-structured interviews provided a contextualized, qualitative description of East Oakland and were coded using a deductive thematic approach.

Results:

The findings of this study identify specific youth-defined geographic boundaries of East Oakland and suggest that youth made these determinations through assessments of socioeconomic standing. Participants included areas that were lower income in their geographic definitions, and excluded areas that were wealthier. Resources limitations were also observed, with no hospitals and a lack of spaces for youth recreation. Lastly, youth defined East Oakland as a place they felt they belonged. This was described in terms of racial and ethnic diversity, supportive relationships between residents, and a sense of loss due to encroaching gentrification which bonded residents through the erasure of familiar spaces.

Conclusions and Implications:

We find that youth define place in myriad ways, including geographically, structurally, and socially. This aligns with previous scholarship that posits place needs to be defined in ways beyond geography alone. Moreover, our findings hold practical value when developing place-based interventions specifically tailored to the needs of youth. By fostering a more holistic understanding of the factors that comprise a place, programs and services can be better designed to address the specific needs of youth within their unique geographical and social contexts. Additionally, this research contributes to a growing body of literature that seeks to uplift youth voice and further integrated methods for assessing flexible constructs of place.