This document summarizes a study that examined the relationship between residential ethno-religious diversity, social capital, and health perceptions among residents in England. The study used data from the 2009-2012 Citizenship Survey merged with 2011 Census data to analyze over 18,000 individuals across nearly 2,000 neighborhoods. Multilevel modeling was used to assess whether health perceptions varied by ethnicity and religion in diverse neighborhoods, and whether neighborhood social capital and relationships mediated the association between diversity and individual health perceptions. Key explanatory variables included diversity measures, socioeconomic status, and scales assessing social cohesion, informal social interaction, diverse social networks, social trust, and institutional trust.

1. Residential ethno-religious diversity, social
capital & health perceptions among residents
in England.
K.S Russell Jonsson

2. Why residential diversity?
Projections indicate that residential diversity & plural
residential areas will be the norm in the future
Mixed ethnic group almost doubled bet. 2001 & 2011 census
1 in 8 households report more than one ethnic group
Geographic spread of ethnic groups has changed

3. DIVERSITY & SOCIAL CAPITAL
Increased social interaction through increased inter-marriage &
interethnic friendships (Muttarak 2013)
Enhanced labour market outcomes, diversified networks, brings
about different connections & information ( Muttarak 2014)
Increased levels of social cohesion; greater feelings that people
get on well; reduced expressions & experiences of discrimination
& greater tolerance of individual difference (Becares et al.2012)
Increased interethnic trust (Laurance 2009)

4. Diversity,social capital & health
Diversity associated with better mental & self-reported health
after controlling for area deprivation(Becares et al. 2012)
Religious diversity ???
Modest positive relationship between social capital & self-
reported health(Kawachi 2006;Gilbert 2008)
Mixed results on relationship between diversity & social
capital (Lancee & Dronkers 2010; Letki 2008; Putnam 2007;
Tolsma et al. 2009)

5. Proposed contribution
Policy and public health debate given diversity is increasing.
Disentangle the mixed findings on ethnic health inequalities.
Use of a hybrid definition of diversity.

6. Questions
(1)Does health perceptions vary among individuals living in
diverse neighbourhoods by ethnicity and religion?
(2) What is the effect of neighbourhood level social capital on
the health perceptions of individuals living in a diverse
neighbourhood?
(3) Does neighborhood relationships mediate the association
between living in diverse neighbourhood environments and
individual health perceptions?

7. Data & Analysis
 Geocoded data from the 2009-2012 Citizenship Survey
Diversity scores derived from 2011 Census Data, merged to
CS by means of neighbourhood codes
The final sample 18,441 individuals across 1,993
neighbourhood
MSOAs=neighbourhood
Fractionalisation=diversity
Statistical Analysis =Multilevel modelling

8. Controls: Age, gender, marital status, level of education attainment, indicator for 1st generation migrants, ethnicity, religion

9. Controls: Age, gender, marital status, level of education attainment, indicator for 1st generation migrants, ethnicity, religion

10. Conclusion
Ethno-religious neighbourhood diversity associated with
negative health perceptions
Effect is attenuated with the inclusion of neighbourhood level
socioeconomic status
Institutional, social trust and social cohesion is associated with
good health.
civic participation, having a diverse and informal social networks
is related to small but more negative perceptions of health.
With the exception of blacks and Muslims individuals of all
ethnicity have bad health perceptions in homogeneous
neighbourhoods in comparison to whites.

11. THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION

12. Explanatory Variables
Individual level explanatory variables
included in all models were : Age, gender,
marital status, level of education attainment,
indicator for 1st generation migrants, ethnicity,
religion.
Neighbourhood socio-economic status
was measured by the Income domain of
the index of deprivation. This variable is
coded so that lower scores indicate less
deprivation and more advantage, thus
higher score indicate the reverse.
middle super output layer (MSOAs):residential size of 5,000 individuals &
3,000 households, with an average population size of 7,500
Neighbourhood residential diversity was
measured using a hybrid measure of two
dimensions of individual level identity, ethnicity
and religion (ethno-religious diversity). Only
groups deemed to have a large presence were
used, that is groups that were greater than
30,000. Ethnoreligious composition of each
neighbourhood was measured by the index of
fractionalisation (ELF) & this represents the
proportion of each ethno-religious group
residing in each MSOA.
The index of fractionalization: produces a single score
based on the relative sizes of all the different groups within
a given area and this ranges from 0 to 1. A high score
means that there is a high probability that two people
drawn randomly from the area will belong to different
groups & therefore that the area is highly diverse.

13. Table 1. Scale Measures for Neighbourhood Relationship Variables
Social cohesion
Whether agrees that the local area is a place where people from different
backgrounds get on well together
Informal social interaction
Whether have mixed socially with people at least once a month in the past year
including while volunteering (formally or informally)?
Whether have mixed socially with people at least once a month in the past year
including while volunteering (formally or informally)?
Diverse social Network
What proportion of your friends are of the same ethnic group as you?
What proportion of your friends are of the same religious as you?
What proportion of your friends are of the same age as you?
Social trust
I'd now like to ask you how you view other people. Generally speaking, would
you say that most people can be trusted, or that you can't be too careful in
dealing with people?
Would you say that (1) many of the people in your neighbourhood can be
trusted,(2) some can be trusted, (3) a few can be trusted,(4) or that none of the
people in your neighbourhood can be trusted? (5) SPONTANEOUS ONLY:
Just moved here
Institutional trust
How much do you trust.... (1)Your local council, (2) Parliament and (3) the
Police? Possible responses provided were (a) a lot (b) A fair amount (c) not
very much and (d) not at all
Civic participation
Whether given any informal voluntary help in last 12m
Whether given any informal voluntary help in last 12m
Whether gave voluntary help through employer scheme in last 12m
Whether participated in any civic participation activity in last 12m
Any civic activism or consultation in past 12 months
Note: Neighbourhood level variables were derived from aggregating individual
level responses.