Health-related regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration: A systematic review RESEARCH ARTICLE Health-related regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration: A systematic review Joseph G. L. Lee 1*, Thomas Wimark2, Kasim S. Ortiz3, Kerry B. Sewell4 1 Department of Health Education and Promotion, College of Health and Human Performance, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, United States of America, 2 Department of Human Geography, Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden, 3 Department of Sociology & Criminology, University of New Mexico, Albuquerque, New Mexico, United States of America, 4 Laupus Health Sciences Library, East Carolina University, Greenville, North Carolina, United States of America * leejose14@ecu.edu Abstract Background A growing literature explores spatial patterns of regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority (e.g., lesbian, gay, bisexual) concentration. Such patterns have implications for health and wellbeing if there are differences in health-promoting or health-hindering resources in neighborhoods or regions. We conducted a systematic review to assess sexual minority concentration in relation to area unit characteristics. Methods We included only records published after 1973 and made no exclusions by geography or language. We searched 11 databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Embase, GeoBase, GeoRef, LGBT Life, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science) on November 19–21, 2016. We searched reference lists of included records. We used the following inclusion criteria: (1) Record is a quantitative study (that is, it uses statistics to describe or associate two or more variables); (2) Record is about (a) migration or internal migration of, (b) area unit selection by, or (c) concentration of sexual minority people (defined by identity, behavior, or attraction); (3) Criterion 2 is linked to the characteristics of regions or neighborhoods (at any spatial scale). Results Dual independent coding resulted in 51 records meeting inclusion criteria from the original pool of 5,591. From these records, we identified the 647 reported results linking sexual minority concentration with area unit characteristics. Of these, 132 were unadjusted relation- ships between sexual minority concentration and four theory-informed domains of neighbor- hood influence on health. We identified greater concentration of sexual minorities in regions with more resources and in more urban regions. A limited but troubling literature at the PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 1 / 17 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 a1111111111 OPEN ACCESS Citation: Lee JGL, Wimark T, Ortiz KS, Sewell KB (2018) Health-related regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration: A systematic review. PLoS ONE 13(6): e0198751. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 Editor: Nguyen Tien Huy, Institute of Tropical Medicine (NEKKEN), Nagasaki University, JAPAN Received: August 21, 2017 Accepted: May 24, 2018 Published: June 27, 2018 Copyright: © 2018 Lee et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited. Data Availability Statement: All files are available from the University of North Carolina Dataverse (accession number doi:10.15139/S3/GVAIWD) available at https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataverse/ SGM-geography. Funding: The authors received no specific funding for this work. Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0198751&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-06-27 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0198751&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-06-27 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0198751&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-06-27 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0198751&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-06-27 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0198751&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-06-27 http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1371/journal.pone.0198751&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2018-06-27 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/GVAIWD https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataverse/SGM-geography https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataverse/SGM-geography neighborhood level suggested potentially higher concentrations of sexual minorities in neighborhoods with fewer resources. Conclusions There are substantial gaps in the literature. We discuss the implications of our findings and gaps in relation to key theories of sexual minority health. Registration The review was not registered with PROSPERO because it was not eligible for registration at the time of the research project’s initiation due to the outcome of interest. Introduction Where a person lives can influence their health in a myriad of ways [1–8]. Where people live is not random. Opportunities and constraints at the macro level as well as resources and restric- tions at the micro level have created and sustained segregation by socioeconomic status and racial/ethnic identity. Economic and social forces have driven migration within countries and regions. Similar forces shape neighborhood selection, preference, and access. Thus, when these economic and social forces differ by identity or class, they can shape the population distribu- tion of exposure to health harming or health promoting neighborhoods [3, 9] and policies [10–12]. Clear evidence suggests residential segregation impacts the health of racial/ethnic minorities, for example [9]. A growing literature extends this work to examine the spatial patterning of sexual minority (e.g., lesbian, gay, and bisexual [LGB]) people. While reviews have mapped the relationship between neighborhoods, ethnic minorities, and health [9] and to a lesser extent the relation- ship between neighborhoods and sexual minority health [4], we know much less about where sexual minority populations live [13]. In fact, a systematic synthesis of this relationship is miss- ing from the extant literature [14]. Spatial patterns of sexual minority populations are important for understanding the sub- stantial health inequities that exist for sexual minority individuals and for developing popula- tion health interventions thereon [14, 15]. If, for example, the average sexual minority individual is living in a region or neighborhood with fewer health-promoting resources, this could contribute to worse health for sexual minority populations. Regional migration may change exposure to policies that influence health, including tax regulations (e.g., state cigarette taxes). For example, the demographic distribution of race and ethnicity in the U.S.A. results in unequal coverage of clean indoor air laws and cigarette tax exposure by race/ethnicity [16, 17]. Differing social climates (e.g., protections from discrimination) could exacerbate minority stress and stigma [18]. Neighborhood access or selection within a region may also influence exposure to other health-related resources and problems. For example, some neighborhoods have more tobacco marketing [19]. Census-tracts with high proportions of same-sex partners are more likely than those with low proportions to have greater amounts of hazardous air pol- lutants [20]. Living in a neighborhood with a larger visible sexual minority population could lead to decreased, as well as potentially increased, homophobic harassment and violence [21– 25]. However, it is difficult for researchers to hypothesize these relationships without knowing correlates of where sexual minority people live. Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 2 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 A substantial amount of research has examined the formation and characteristics of gay and lesbian neighborhoods using largely qualitative approaches. These studies have argued or shown that gay men’s communal history is linked to urban spaces [26] and that LGB individu- als migrate to larger cities [27–31], to specific tolerant cities [32, 33], and to specific “safe” enclaves in cities [34, 35, 36]. However, a line of research has questioned these conclusions by arguing that the relationship with urban areas is more complex [37, 38–42]. Thus, we sought to systematically identify and assess the existing peer-reviewed quantitative literature on the association between the concentration of sexual minority individuals and regional- and neighborhood-level characteristics. We conducted a systematic review with four aims to identify: (1) spatial scales at which previous research has examined spatiality and migration of sexual minority individuals, (2) correlates of where sexual minority individuals live or migrate to at larger spatial scales (e.g., regions), (3) correlates of where sexual minority individuals live or migrate to at smaller spatial scales (e.g., neighborhoods), and (4) use of lon- gitudinal data and assessment of race/ethnicity. Methods Note that we use the following terminology: A study is a research project from which multiple papers (i.e., records) can be published and in which individual results are reported. We write generally about sexual minority people for readability. When writing about a specific record, we use more precise terminology (e.g., male same-sex couples, lesbian women). We shorthand ways of measuring the density, rate, count, or percentage of sexual minority people as concen- tration; this should not be confused with the formal definition of concentration used in the segregation literature. Also for readability, we write generally about area units in two catego- ries: We shorthand larger spatial scales as regions and smaller spatial scales as neighborhoods. We define regions as larger area units equal to or larger than the equivalent of a U.S. county (e.g., city, census place, municipality, metropolitan statistical area). We define neighborhoods as smaller area units that, while often imperfect, can provide meaningful information about the health of communities [43–45]. These include the census block (U.S.A.), tract (U.S.A.), data zone (U.K.), dissemination area (Canada), output area (U.K.), and postal code. Our inclusion criteria were: (1) Record is a quantitative study (that is, it uses statistics to describe or associate two or more variables); (2) Record is about (a) migration or internal migration of, (b) area unit selection by, or (c) concentration of sexual minority (defined by identity, behavior, or attraction) people; (3) Criterion 2 is linked to the characteristics of regions or neighborhoods (at any spatial scale). One author (KBS), an information specialist/librarian, iteratively designed the search strat- egy using recommended keywords for sexual minority-related searches [46] in PubMed/MED- LINE and translated controlled vocabulary to other databases. The final PubMed/MEDLINE search is available online (Online Data Repository Link, 10.15139/S3/GVAIWD, https:// dataverse.unc.edu/dataverse/SGM-geography). We implemented the search strategy Novem- ber 19–21, 2016, in 11 academic databases (Academic Search Complete, CINAHL, Embase, GeoBase, GeoRef, LGBT Life, PsycINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, Scopus, Sociological Abstracts, Web of Science). No language, geography, or date limitations were included in the search. One author (KBS) also searched for published books. We excluded all records published prior to 1973 (the year homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual in the United States). Records were de-duplicated with reference management software and manu- ally. We used Covidence cloud-based software (covidence.org) to manage the coding process. The title/abstract of each record was independently reviewed for inclusion or exclusion by two authors (JGLL, KSO, KBS, TW). Conflicts were moved to full-text review or resolved by Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 3 / 17 https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataverse/SGM-geography https://dataverse.unc.edu/dataverse/SGM-geography https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 discussion. The full text of each included record was then independently reviewed for inclu- sion or exclusion by two authors (JGLL, KSO, TW). Conflicts in coding were resolved by dis- cussion. We did not calculate reliability in inclusion coding as our goal in dual, independent coding was to be as sensitive as possible in the inclusion process. References in each included record were examined for additional eligible records. A systematic review protocol is available online (Online Data Repository Link, doi:10.15139/S3/GVAIWD). One author (JGLL or TW) abstracted study characteristics (e.g., setting area unit[s], time, analysis strategy, and results of interest to this review), and a second author (JGLL or TW) then verified and cleaned the evidence table. Each result was classified by its statistical signifi- cance at the p>0.05 threshold. Records not in English were only reviewed by one person, and these records were included and abstracted if they met inclusion criteria. One author (JGLL) reviewed included records for risk of bias. To do this, we utilized a four-item index based on the Downs and Black checklist [47]. We could not identify a risk of bias tool that worked for the etiological, descriptive studies included in this review, as most such tools are designed for assessing intervention studies. We selected one item to reflect external validity (“Were the par- ticipants asked to participate in the study representative of the entire population from which they were recruited?”) and three items to reflect internal validity (“Were the LGB participants recruited from the same population as the comparison group?”, “Were the LGB participants recruited during the same time period as the comparison group?”, and “Were the statistical tests used to assess the main outcomes appropriate?”). We coded these so a study with a score of zero was highly biased and a study a score of four was minimally biased. We present all results in an evidence table (Supplemental File 1). We conduct a narrative review of the results and graphically display results using a modified harvest plot [48]. For the harvest plot, we identified results that provided (1) a statistical test with significance and direc- tion, (2) that were not repeated comparisons against a reference category, (3) that were not adjusted for other covariates, (4) that scored a three or four in our risk of bias index, and, (5) that had a clear relevance for health and resources. Thus, we excluded measures such as the age of the housing stock in a neighborhood as it was not clear to us if this was an indicator of valuable historic properties or an indicator of older, distressed housing. We also excluded mea- sures of segregation that simply described the area unit’s segregation as these did not meet our study aims. To create the harvest plot [48], we utilized SPSS v. 24 (IBM, Chicago, Illinois) to plot the sig- nificance and direction of each included result stratified by area unit size, gender, and domains of neighborhood characteristics. That is, the harvest plot presents a count of results by positive, negative, or non-significant effect. We reverse the signs of reported results as necessary to match the harvest plot’s theoretical framework, which is described next. The categorization of the results for the harvest plots builds on theoretical ideas on how neighborhood characteristics affect individuals’ health and socioeconomic trajectories [1, 3]. In line with Galster’s identification of mechanisms for how neighborhood characteristics mat- ter to human development [1], we use his four top-level categories: Social-interactive, Environ- ment, Geographical, and Institutional, as shown in Table 1. Following Bernard et al. [3], we refer to them as domains instead of mechanisms as most of the variables in the articles are not explicitly conceptualized as mechanisms. Drawing on both Galster and Bernard, we categorize results within the categories as follows: Social-interactive domain refers to social processes in neighborhoods [1]. Under the Social-interactive domain, we locate deprivation (e.g., housing values, poverty and income), social cohesion (e.g., vacant housing, rental housing), and diver- sity (e.g., race, ethnicity, foreign-born). The Environment domain signifies the human and physical aspects of the neighborhood [1]. In this category, we find variables related to exposure to violence (e.g., hate crimes, crime), toxic exposure (e.g., air pollution), and minority stress Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 4 / 17 https://doi.org/10.15139/S3/GVAIWD https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 (e.g., % voting conservative, lack of other sexual minority populations). The Geographical domain includes factors that can be located at a larger scale than the immediate neighborhood [1]. In this category, we locate the two subcategories; public services (e.g., antidiscrimination legislation/policies) and rurality. The Institutional domain contains decisions and actions by individuals and institutions outside of the neighborhood [1]. In this category, we locate local institutional resources (e.g., schools, parks, theatres, health clinics) and local market actors (e.g., tobacco retailers, health-harming marketing). The harvest plot’s pattern of results did not differ in a substantive way when stratified by same-sex couples versus sexual minority individuals. We thus report results of aggregated gen- ders, female, and male. Due to the heterogeneity of study designs, time periods, and measures in the literature, we did not conduct a meta-analysis. We follow the preferred reporting items for sysemtatic reviews and meta-analyses (PRISMA) guideline [49]. Results We identified 51 records as shown in Fig 1. The mean risk of bias score was 3.37 (sd = 0.80) and ranged from 1 to 4 with 4 being the lowest risk of bias. These records contained 647 results of which 132 (from 36 records) met criteria for the harvest plot. There are distinct quantitative literatures on the spatial patterns of sexual minority lives from different disciplines ranging from HIV studies to transportation planning. The earliest identified record was published in 1985 in response to the HIV epidemic [50]. Most articles were conducted in the United States (76%), but Australia [51], China [52, 53], France [54], Germany [55], Netherlands [56], New Zealand [57], Norway [58], Sweden [31, 58, 59], and the United Kingdom [60, 61] were repre- sented. Seven records reported on migration [29, 52, 62–66]. Five reported on segregation [29, 54, 67–69]. Only 1 record reported on sexual minority lives by racial/ethnic identity [66]. The seven records on migration included work comparing same-sex sexual behaviors of Chinese rural-to-urban migrants against rural and urban non-migrants [52], reasons for mov- ing to or remaining in a sexual minority enclave [62], legal environment of top in- and out- migration by sexual minorities Public Use Microdata Areas (PUMAs) [63], regional character- istics associated with same-sex couple net migration [29], assessing changes in rurality over time in a study comparing risks of depression over time based on changes in neighborhood characteristics among sexual minority adolescents in the National Longitudinal Study of Ado- lescent Health (AddHealth) [64], rurality at age 14–16 and at the time of the survey by sexual behavior [65], and the odds of migration from the birth state by partnership status [66]. The five records on segregation identified dissimilarity indices by partnership type in the USA in Table 1. Categorization and example indicators of neighborhood domains of influence on health. Galster-Bernard Domain Indicator Example Measures Social-interactive Deprivation Housing values, creative class, poverty, income Lack of social cohesion Vacant houses, rental housing Lack of diversity Race/ethnicity, foreign-born, language Environmental Poor physical environment - Toxic exposure Air pollution Violence/crime Hate crimes Social sources of minority stress Conservative votes, concentration of other sexual minorities Geographical Rurality Population density, RUCA, RUCC, city size Limited public services/protections Hate crime legislation, laws Institutional Limited local institutional resources Schools, parks, cultural organizations, health clinics, transportation stations Harmful local market actors Tobacco retailers, marketing of health-harming products https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751.t001 Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 5 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751.t001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 Fig 1. Inclusion flow diagram, Nov. 19–21, 2016. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751.g001 Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 6 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751.g001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 2000 [29], changes in segregation (concentration index) of gay men (operationalized as mail- ing addresses for a gay magazine’s subscribers) from heterosexual men in Paris over time [54], correlations between same-sex partner prevalence rates and city same-sex couple exposure indices [67], and changes over time in same-sex couple segregation in the USA [68, 69]. The one record on race/ethnicity identified odds of migration from birth state by the racial compo- sition of partnerships [66]. Studies measured sexual orientation or a proxy thereof in a variety of ways. Twenty-six rec- ords defined sexual orientation by cohabitating same-sex partners [13, 28, 29, 32, 56, 63, 66– 85]. Eleven used individual sexual orientation identity [50, 51, 53, 55, 60, 62, 64, 86–89]. Five used individual sexual behavior [52, 61, 65, 90, 91]. Two used marriage/legal partnership rec- ords [58, 92]. Two used subscriber lists or mailing lists [54, 93]. Five used multiple measures of sexual orientation, including marriage, identity, attraction, behavior, web site membership, and mailing lists [31, 57, 59, 94, 95]. We excluded two innovative studies [96, 97] using real estate listings in gay/lesbian newspapers because they did not meet our inclusion criteria. We first report the spatial scales used in the identified records. We follow with correlates of sexual minority concentration at regional and neighborhood area units. Lastly, we report on the use of longitudinal data and racial/ethnic identity in the literature. Area units Reflecting the heavy influence of U.S. records, the most common area unit was the census tract, which was used in 13 records [68, 73, 76, 77, 79–83, 89, 90, 92, 93]. The second most common area unit was the Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA) used in 11 records [13, 28, 32, 71, 72, 74, 84, 85, 88, 91, 95]. Five records used cities or U.S. census places [31, 56, 61, 67, 69]. Four used postal codes [51, 78, 86, 94]. Four used PUMAs [63, 66, 75, 80]. Two used counties [70, 89], and one used block groups [64]. One record used a sampling grid [52]. Data zones were used in Scotland [60], arrondissements in France [54], labor market regions in Sweden [59], and one U.S. record reported using Bureau of Economic Analysis areas [29]. Other stud- ies did not provide a clear definition of the area unit used [50, 53, 55, 57, 58, 62, 65, 87, 89]. Correlates of spatial patterning In the harvest plot (Fig 2) we show significance and direction of unadjusted associations between sexual minority concentration and area unit characteristics. Fig 2a shows these associ- ations at larger area units (e.g., cities, metropolitan statistical areas), and Fig 2b shows these associations at smaller area units (e.g., census tracts, postal codes). The height of the bar can be read as the weight of the evidence for a negative (-), non-significant (NS), or positive associa- tion (+). In the absence of publication bias and in the absence of a “true” relationship between the variables, one would expect just 2.5% of results to fall into the negative and positive catego- ries, respectively, when p was set to 0.05. Several findings are striking: Much research has focused on deprivation and rurality. At the regional level, there is a clear pattern of findings showing sexual minority people are more likely to live in better-resourced regions and more urban regions. Similarly, sexual minority people are more likely to live in regions with more progressive values, thus potentially reduc- ing exposure to minority stressors. At the neighborhood level, there is a clear trend towards a greater diversity of neighborhood residents and toward living in more urban neighborhoods. Given the greater resources at the regional level, it is concerning that the clear pattern of greater resources is not present in the results reported at the neighborhood level. Also con- cerning is that one record reported greater levels of toxic air pollution [77] and evidence sug- gested more limited institutional resources in neighborhoods with greater concentration of Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 7 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 gay men [73]. There are several notable differences between men and women in the studies, mainly visible through the lack of studies of women on the neighborhood scale. A number of the domains had few or no studies. Longitudinal data and within-group racial/ethnic identity Only three of the papers used longitudinal data [64, 68, 69]. One study used two waves of Add Health data to examine different county characteristics of sexual minority participants over time [64]. One used census data from two time points to assess past same-sex couple Fig 2. Harvest plot (count) of unadjusted relationship between sexual minority concentration and (a) regional area unit characteristics and (b) neighborhood area unit characteristics, by gender, n = 132 results from n = 36 records. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751.g002 Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 8 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751.g002 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 concentration with future neighborhood characteristics [68]. One used census data from two times points to associate census place characteristics with future same-sex couple concentra- tion [69]. The remainder used cross-sectional designs, although sometimes with retrospective reporting [29, 63, 65]. Only one record reported by the racial/ethnic identity of sexual minori- ties [66]. Discussion Principal findings Most of our knowledge on the spatial patterning of sexual minority populations comes from the U.S.A. The available information on the spatial patterning of sexual minority individuals is clearest at larger area units (i.e., regions); there are consistent patterns indicating greater con- centrations of sexual minority populations in more urban regions and in wealthier regions. At the neighborhood level, however, this pattern is not clear. Researchers have long recognized the modifiable area unit problem [98, 99]; that is, the use of different area units may result in different results that may not generalize to other area units. It is not clear to us, given the exist- ing literature, if living in regions with more resources translates into living in better resourced neighborhoods for sexual minority people. What is clear is that there are substantial gaps in the literature regarding health-promoting or health-hindering area characteristics associated with sexual minority concentration. Our results can be used to strengthen the existing literature. For example, work on struc- tural stigma [100] and syndemic theory [101] is tied closely to exposure to policy and internal migration, respectively. Similarly, the commonly used minority stress model [102] suggests (but does not state directly) the importance of where people live: General and distal stressors include the role of policy and the social/political climate in which one lives. Life course and cumulative dis/advantage approaches are linked to the resources and environmental character- istics present at critical developmental stages [103, 104]. Research addressing spatial gaps in this literature could give a clearer population-level view of the role of policy and migration for studies assessing structural stigma, syndemics, and minority stress. A clearer sense of regional and neighborhood patterns across the life-course could inform research on sexual minority aging as well as adolescent development. Further work could be used to refine these theories, identify within-group resiliencies, and address gaps in the literature—particularly the limited quantitative literature about sexual minority internal migration. Notably, our findings show a similar pattern of results by gender. Substantial theorizing has focused on the role of gender in sexual minority neighborhood formation [35]. While our focus on unadjusted, quantitative associations limits what conclusions we can draw, it may be that patterns of regional and neighborhood characteristics by gender are the same but the mag- nitude of the pattern differs. Methods Regarding methods, it is clear that future reviews would benefit from authors and journals fol- lowing reporting guidelines for observational studies that explicitly call for reporting of unad- justed results [105]. We would also suggest greater attention to the perspective that statistically holding constant other neighborhood characteristics produces a counterfactual neighborhood that does not reflect lived experience on the ground [106]. Controlling for neighborhood racial/ethnic composition, for example, may help isolate the contribution of another variable. However, real life is not held constant, and adjusted models can mask disparities that truly exist. Hand-in-hand with the limited use of longitudinal designs and despite substantial quali- tative and theoretical work on migration, there is minimal assessment of migration in the Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 9 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 identified records. We were surprised by this as longitudinal register data on legalized same- sex partnerships/marriages has been available since the late 1990s in many countries in West- ern Europe, and researchers could make use of this to study migration. Measurement of sexual orientation also presents a challenge. Sexual orientation is considered to have three domains, identity, behavior, and attraction [107], and same-sex partnered individuals should not be equated with LGB individuals [31]. Use of different sexual orientation domains can result in different results even in the same dataset [108]. While HIV researchers typically focus on behavior, tobacco control researchers, for example, typically focus on identity as industry mar- keting is targeted to LGB-identified individuals. This means that the definition of sexuality needs to be critically assessed in future studies. Gaps in the literature By analyzing the different categories in line with Galster [1] and Bernard [3], we can locate several gaps in the evidence base. For example, in the Social-interactive domain, there is a lack of studies that include variables connected to social networks and family support. These are two factors that theoretical studies have argued are important for understanding the wellbeing of sexual minority populations [36, 39, 41]. Further, in the Environment domain, studies highlighting the physical environment and crime are missing. This is surprising for two reasons: (1) there is a substantial “broken windows” line of research in sociology and city plan- ning and (2) there is a theoretical and qualitative literature on gay men as agents of gentrifica- tion [109, 110]. Crime and perceptions of crime are important in how neighborhoods are viewed and change [111]. Furthermore, the social epidemiological literature connects percep- tions of neighborhoods (e.g., perceived neighborhood social cohesion) to a multitude of health outcomes; this has not been explored in the identified literature. However, one recent paper published after our search revealed that sexual minority adults report lower levels of percep- tions of living in close-knit neighborhoods, of the ability to count on their neighbors, of trust of their neighbors, and of people in their neighborhoods helping each other out compared to their heterosexual counterparts [112]. In the Geographical domain, there is a gap of studies emphasizing spatial mismatch between jobs and residential location. There is evidence that sexual minority individuals sort into certain occupations and are subject to employment dis- crimination [113]. Future research should investigate if sexual minority people are forced to look for employment options across larger geographic scales compared to the general popula- tion. For example, how might employment-related factors be driving forces shaping migration patterns across multiple geographic scales? Finally, variables measuring stigmatization are also missing in these studies from the Institutional domain. Beyond these domains, it is clear that very little quantitative work has examined the spatial patterning of racial/ethnic identity within LGB populations. Nor has work examined other within-group variability (e.g., immigration or socioeconomic status) in spatial patterning beyond gender and sexual orientation. The spatial patterns of bisexually-identified or trans- gender people are largely absent, which likely represents a limitation of many data sources to study these populations meaningfully. Strengths and limitations of this review This review had a number of strengths including systematic searching developed by a profes- sional medical librarian, implementation of the search in 11 academic databases, citation searching, dual independent coding, and an interdisciplinary team of authors. However, like all systematic reviews, it has limitations. The results are limited by biases in what is published Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 10 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 versus what is filed away for not being “exciting enough” (i.e., publication bias). We did not conduct a search of the grey literature or solicit unpublished papers. We visually report only unadjusted results, and a substantial portion of the records did not report their unadjusted results. For example, the classic Gay and Lesbian Atlas reports rich quantitative data but pro- vides no inferential statistical test results [78]. Our results come largely from the U.S.A. and may not generalize to other parts of the world. Because of the limited available literature, we opted to focus on narrow measures of risk of bias. Our risk of bias index rated records as hav- ing high quality based largely on indicators of sampling and statistical methods. This is in part due to the heavy use of census and registry data, which fared well in our risk of bias index. Future reviews should consider unique indicators of risk of bias for spatial studies. Addition- ally, we conducted this research from a post-positivist perspective, and it does not represent other interpretive or critical [114] ways of knowing. Conclusion Even small associations can have a substantial population-level impact [115]. We know more about the regions in which sexual minority individuals live than about the characteristics of neighborhoods. We identified little quantitative evidence regarding the characteristics of neighborhoods or regions associated with sexual minority migration. Large gaps in knowledge remain. While it is promising for health that sexual minority individuals’ regional location is associated with greater resources, it is concerning—given the potential for ecological fallacy— that there is little knowledge about their location within those regions. Supporting information S1 Table. Evidence table. (PDF) Acknowledgments Our thanks to Mellanye Lackey, University of Utah, who kindly helped with developing our LGBT search keywords and Megan DeMarco and Ashley Cabacungan, East Carolina Univer- sity, who helped with finding records and data management. Author Contributions Conceptualization: Joseph G. L. Lee, Thomas Wimark, Kasim S. Ortiz, Kerry B. Sewell. Data curation: Thomas Wimark, Kerry B. Sewell. Formal analysis: Joseph G. L. Lee, Thomas Wimark, Kasim S. Ortiz. Investigation: Joseph G. L. Lee, Thomas Wimark, Kasim S. Ortiz, Kerry B. Sewell. Methodology: Joseph G. L. Lee, Thomas Wimark, Kasim S. Ortiz, Kerry B. Sewell. Project administration: Joseph G. L. Lee. Supervision: Joseph G. L. Lee, Kerry B. Sewell. Writing – original draft: Joseph G. L. Lee, Thomas Wimark, Kerry B. Sewell. Writing – review & editing: Joseph G. L. Lee, Thomas Wimark, Kasim S. Ortiz. Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 11 / 17 http://www.plosone.org/article/fetchSingleRepresentation.action?uri=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751.s001 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 References 1. Galster GC. The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects: Theory, evidence, and policy implications. In: van Ham M, Manley D, Bailey N, Simpson L, Maclennan D, editors. Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. New York, NY: Springer; 2012. p. 23–56. 2. Malmberg B, Andersson EK. Multi-scalar residential context and recovery from illness: An analysis using Swedish register data. Health & place. 2015; 35:19–27. 3. Bernard P, Charafeddine R, Frohlich KL, Daniel M, Kestens Y, Potvin L. Health inequalities and place: a theoretical conception of neighbourhood. Soc Sci Med. 2007; 65(9):1839–52. Epub 2007/07/07. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.037 PMID: 17614174. 4. Bauermeister JA, Connochie D, Eaton L, Demers M, Stephenson R. Geospatial Indicators of Space and Place: A Review of Multilevel Studies of HIV Prevention and Care Outcomes Among Young Men Who Have Sex With Men in the United States. J Sex Res. 2017:1–19. Epub 2017/02/01. https://doi. org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1271862 PMID: 28135857. 5. Lewis NM. Mental health in sexual minorities: recent indicators, trends, and their relationships to place in North America and Europe. Health Place. 2009; 15(4):1029–45. Epub 2009/06/12. https://doi.org/ 10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.05.003 PMID: 19515600. 6. Diez Roux AV, Mair C. Neighborhoods and health. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2010; 1186:125–45. Epub 2010/ 03/06. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05333.x PMID: 20201871. 7. Macintyre S, Ellaway A. Ecological approaches: rediscovering the role of the physical and social envi- ronment. In: Berkman L, Kawachi I, editors. Social epidemiology. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; 2000. p. 332–48. 8. Ennett ST, Foshee VA, Bauman KE, Hussong A, Faris R, Hipp JR, et al. A social contextual analysis of youth cigarette smoking development. Nicotine Tob Res. 2010; 12(9):950–62. Epub 2010/08/07. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq122 PMID: 20688870. 9. Landrine H, Corral I. Separate and unequal: residential segregation and black health disparities. Ethn Dis. 2009; 19(2):179–84. Epub 2009/06/20. PMID: 19537230. 10. Hatzenbuehler ML, McLaughlin KA, Keyes KM, Hasin DS. The impact of institutional discrimination on psychiatric disorders in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: a prospective study. Am J Public Health. 2010; 100(3):452–9. Epub 2010/01/16. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815 PMID: 20075314. 11. Cramer R, Hexem S, LaPollo A, Cuffe KM, Chesson HW, Leichliter JS. State and local policies related to sexual orientation in the United States. J Public Health Policy. 2017; 38(1):58–79. Epub 2016/09/25. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-016-0037-9 PMID: 28275249. 12. Golden SD, Kong AY, Lee JGL, Ribisl KM. Disparities in cigarette tax exposure by race, ethnicity, pov- erty status and sexual orientation, 2006–2014, USA. Prev Med. 2018; 108:137–44. Epub 2018/01/01. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.017 PMID: 29289642. 13. Gates GJ. Demographic perspectives on sexual orientation. In: Patterson CJ, D’Augelli AR, editors. Handbook of psychology and sexual orientation. New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press; 2013. p. 69–84. 14. Lewis NM. Researching LGB health and social policy: methodological issues and future directions. J Public Health Policy. 2017; 38(1):80–7. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-016-0039-7 PMID: 28275248 15. Hawe P, Potvin L. What is population health intervention research? Can J Public Health. 2009; 100(1): Suppl I8–14. Epub 2009/03/07. PMID: 19263977. 16. Gonzalez M, Sanders-Jackson A, Song AV, Cheng KW, Glantz SA. Strong smoke-free law coverage in the United States by race/ethnicity: 2000–2009. Am J Public Health. 2013; 103(5):e62–6. Epub 2013/03/16. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301045 PMID: 23488507 17. Golden SD, Kong AY, Lee JGL, Ribisl KM. Disparities in cigarette tax exposure by race, ethnicity, pov- erty and sexual orientation, 2006–2014, USA. Prev Med. 2017:Published advance access on Decem- ber 28, 2017. Epub 2018/01/01. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.017 PMID: 29289642. 18. Pitoňák M. Mental health in non-heterosexuals: Minority stress theory and related explanation frame- works review. Mental Health & Prevention. 2017; 5:63–73. 19. Ribisl KM, D’Angelo H, Feld AL, Schleicher NC, Golden SD, Luke DA, et al. Disparities in tobacco mar- keting and product availability at the point of sale: Results of a national study. Prev Med. 2017; 105:381–8. Epub 2017/04/11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.010 PMID: 28392252. 20. Collins TW, Grineski SE, Morales DX. Environmental injustice and sexual minority health disparities: A national study of inequitable health risks from air pollution among same-sex partners. Soc Sci Med. 2017; 191:38–47. Epub 2017/09/10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.040 PMID: 28888127. Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 12 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2007.05.037 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17614174 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1271862 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499.2016.1271862 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28135857 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.05.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2009.05.003 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19515600 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2009.05333.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20201871 https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntq122 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20688870 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19537230 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2009.168815 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20075314 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-016-0037-9 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28275249 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.017 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289642 https://doi.org/10.1057/s41271-016-0039-7 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28275248 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19263977 https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2012.301045 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23488507 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.12.017 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29289642 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ypmed.2017.04.010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28392252 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2017.08.040 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28888127 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 21. Davis T. The diversity of queer politics and the redefinition of sexual identity and community in urban spaces. In: Bell D, Valentine G, editors. Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities. London: Rout- ledge; 1995. p. 284–303. 22. Green DP, Strolovitch DZ, Wong JS, Bailey RW. Measuring gay populations and antigay hate crime. Social Science Quarterly. 2001; 82(2):281–96. 23. Knopp L. Sexuality and Urban Space: A Framework for Analysis. In: Bell D, Valentine G, editors. Map- ping desire: Geographies of sexualities. London: Routledge; 1995. p. 136–49. 24. Reed C. We’re from Oz: marking ethnic and sexual identity in Chicago. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2003; 21(4):425–40. 25. Sibalis M. Urban space and homosexuality: The example of the Marais, Paris’ ‘gay ghetto’. Urban studies. 2004; 41(9):1739–58. 26. Skeggs B, Moran L, Tyrer P, Binnie J. Queer as folk: Producing the real of urban space. Urban Stud- ies. 2004; 41(9):1839–56. 27. Black D, Gates G, Sanders S, Taylor L. Demographics of the gay and lesbian population in the United States: Evidence from available systematic data sources. Demography. 2000; 37(2):139–54. PMID: 10836173 28. Black D, Gates GJ, Sanders S, Taylor L. Why do gay men live in San Francisco? Journal of Urban Economics. 2002; 51:54–76. https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2237 29. Cooke TJ, Rapino M. The migration of partnered gays and lesbians between 1995 and 2000. Profes- sional Geographer. 2007; 59(3):285–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00613.x 30. Weston K. Get thee to a big city: Sexual imaginary and the great gay migration. GLQ: A Journal of Les- bian and Gay Studies. 1995; 2(3):253–77. 31. Wimark T, Östh J. The city as a single gay male magnet? Gay and lesbian geographical concentration in Sweden. Population, Space and Place. 2014; 20(8):739–52. https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1825 32. Florida R. The economic geography of talent. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 2002; 92(4):743–55. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00314 33. Florida R. Cities and the creative class. City & Community. 2003; 2(1):3–19. 34. Almgren H. Community with/out pro-pink-uity. In: Whittle S, editor. The margins of the city: Gay men’s urban lives. Farnham, Surry: Ashgate Publishing; 1994. p. 45–59. 35. Castells M. The city and the grassroots: A cross-cultural theory of urban social movements. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press; 1983. 36. Rothenberg T. ‘And she told two friends’: Lesbians creating urban social space. In: Bell D, Valentine G, editors. Mapping desire: Geographies of sexualities. New York, NY: Routledge; 1995. p. 165–81. 37. Gorman-Murray A. Rethinking queer migration through the body. Social & Cultural Geography. 2007; 8(1):105–21. 38. Gorman-Murray A. Intimate mobilities: Emotional embodiment and queer migration. Social & Cultural Geography. 2009; 10(4):441–60. 39. Wimark T. The impact of family ties on the mobility decisions of gay men and lesbians. Gender, Place & Culture. 2016; 23(5):659–76. 40. Wimark T. Migration motives of gay men in the new acceptance era: a cohort study from Malmö, Swe- den. Social & Cultural Geography. 2016; 17(5):605–22. 41. Lewis NM. Remapping disclosure: gay men’s segmented journeys of moving out and coming out. Social & Cultural Geography. 2012; 13(3):211–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2012.677469 42. Gieseking JJ. Queering the meaning of ‘neighborhood’: Reinterpreting the lesbian-queer experience of Park Slope, Brooklyn, 1983–2008. In: Taylor Y, Addison M, editors. Queer presences and absences. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan; 2013. p. 178–200. 43. U.S. Census Bureau. Local Census Statistical Areas Committees and other local assistance. Geo- graphic Areas Reference Manual. Washington, DC: U. S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, Bureau of the Census; 1994. p. 3–1 to 3–14. 44. Krieger N, Chen JT, Waterman PD, Soobader MJ, Subramanian SV, Carson R. Geocoding and moni- toring of US socioeconomic inequalities in mortality and cancer incidence: does the choice of area- based measure and geographic level matter?: the Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project. Am J Epidemiol. 2002; 156(5):471–82. Epub 2002/08/28. PMID: 12196317. 45. Grubesic TH. Zip codes and spatial analysis: Problems and prospects. Socioecon Plann Sci. 2008; 42(2):129–49. Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 13 / 17 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10836173 https://doi.org/10.1006/juec.2001.2237 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9272.2007.00613.x https://doi.org/10.1002/psp.1825 https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-8306.00314 https://doi.org/10.1080/14649365.2012.677469 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12196317 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 46. Lee JG, Ylioja T, Lackey M. Identifying Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Search Terminology: A Systematic Review of Health Systematic Reviews. PLoS One. 2016; 11(5):e0156210. Epub 2016/ 05/25. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156210 PMID: 27219460. 47. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Com- munity Health. 1998; 52(6):377–84. Epub 1998/10/09. PMID: 9764259. 48. Ogilvie D, Fayter D, Petticrew M, Sowden A, Thomas S, Whitehead M, et al. The harvest plot: a method for synthesising evidence about the differential effects of interventions. BMC Med Res Metho- dol. 2008; 8:8. Epub 2008/02/27. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-8 PMID: 18298827. 49. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta- analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009; 6(7):e1000097. Epub 2009/07/22. https://doi.org/ 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 PMID: 19621072. 50. Ernst RS, Houts PS. Characteristics of gay persons with sexually transmitted disease. Sex Transm Dis. 1985; 12(2):59–63. PMID: 4002093 51. Smith AMA, Rissel CE, Richters J, Grulich AE, Visser RO. Sex in Australia: Sexual identity, sexual attraction and sexual experience among a representative sample of adults. Australian and New Zea- land Journal of Public Health. 2003; 27(2):138–45. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2003. tb00801.x PMID: 14696704 52. Chen X, Yu B, Zhou D, Zhou W, Gong J, Li S, et al. A Comparison of the Number of Men Who Have Sex with Men among Rural-To-Urban Migrants with Non-Migrant Rural and Urban Residents in Wuhan, China: A GIS/GPS-Assisted Random Sample Survey Study. PloS one. 2015; 10(8): e0134712. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134712 PMID: 26241900 53. Guo C, Pang L, Zhang L, Chen G, Wang Z, Zheng X. Disparities of sexual orientations by sex and urban or rural residence among youth in China. Sexual health. 2016;(Journal Article). https://doi.org/ 10.1071/SH16041 PMID: 27537775 54. Giraud C. Residential Spaces: Looking at Where Homosexual Men in Paris Choose to Live. Societes Contemporaines. 2011; 81(1):151–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/soco.081.0151. 55. Marcus U, Schmidt AJ, Hamouda O, Bochow M. Estimating the regional distribution of men who have sex with men (MSM) based on Internet surveys. BMC Public Health. 2009; 9:180. https://doi.org/10. 1186/1471-2458-9-180 PMID: 19519888 56. Croes MM. [Same-sex cohabitation]. Maandstat Bevolking. 1996; 44(10):24–6. PMID: 12347759 57. Hughes A, Saxton P. Geographic Micro-Clustering of Homosexual Men: Implications for Research and Social Policy. Social Policy Journal of New Zealand/Te Puna Whakaaro. 2006;(28):158–78. 58. Andersson G, Noack T, Seierstad A, Weedon-Fekjær H. The Demographics of Same-Sex Marriages in Norway and Sweden. Demography. 2006; 43(1):79–98. https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2006.0001 PMID: 16579209 59. Wimark T. Is it really tolerance? Expanding the knowledge about diversity for the creative class. Tijds- chrift voor economische en sociale geografie. 2014; 105(1):46–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12044 60. Matthews P, Besemer K. The “Pink Pound” in the “Gaybourhood”? Neighbourhood Deprivation and Sexual Orientation in Scotland. Housing, Theory & Society. 2015; 32(1):94–111. https://doi.org/10. 1080/14036096.2014.991809 61. Wadsworth J, Hickman M, Johnson AM, Wellings K, Field J. Geographic variation in sexual behaviour in Britain: Implications for sexually transmitted disease epidemiology and sexual health promotion. AIDS. 1996; 10(2):193–9. https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-199602000-00010 PMID: 8838708 62. Compton DR, Baumle AK. Beyond the Castro: the role of demographics in the selection of gay and les- bian enclaves. J Homosex. 2012; 59(10):1327–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.724633 PMID: 23153023. 63. Cooke TJ. Migration of same-sex couples. Population, Space and Place 2005; 11(5):401–9. 64. Everett BG. Changes in Neighborhood Characteristics and Depression Among Sexual Minority Young Adults. Journal of the American Psychiatric Nurses Association. 2014; 20(1):42–52. https://doi.org/10. 1177/1078390313510319 PMID: 24217448 65. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. Homosexuality. The Social Organization of Sexu- ality. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 1994. p. 283–320. 66. Rosenfeld MJ. The age of independence: interracial unions, same-sex unions, and the changing American family. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press; 2007. 67. Baumle AK, Compton DR, Poston DL. The residential segregation of gay males and lesbians from het- erosexuals. Same-sex partners: The demography of sexual orientation. Albany: SUNY Press; 2009. p. 59–71. Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 14 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0156210 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27219460 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9764259 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-8-8 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18298827 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19621072 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4002093 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2003.tb00801.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-842X.2003.tb00801.x http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14696704 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0134712 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26241900 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH16041 https://doi.org/10.1071/SH16041 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27537775 http://dx.doi.org/10.3917/soco.081.0151 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-180 https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2458-9-180 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19519888 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12347759 https://doi.org/10.1353/dem.2006.0001 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16579209 https://doi.org/10.1111/tesg.12044 https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2014.991809 https://doi.org/10.1080/14036096.2014.991809 https://doi.org/10.1097/00002030-199602000-00010 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8838708 https://doi.org/10.1080/00918369.2012.724633 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23153023 https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390313510319 https://doi.org/10.1177/1078390313510319 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24217448 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 68. Fanning JM, Ruther M. Gayborhoods: Economic development and the concentration of same-sex cou- ples in neighborhoods within large American cities. In: Nijkamp P, Rose A, Kourtit K, editors. Regional Science Matters. Switzerland: Springer; 2015. p. 399–420. 69. Spring AL. Declining Segregation of Same-Sex Partners: Evidence from Census 2000 and 2010. Popu- lation Research and Policy Review. 2013; 32(5):687–716. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9280-y PMID: 24187412 70. Anacker KB, Morrow-Jones HA. Neighborhood factors associated with same-sex households in US cities. Urban Geography. 2005; 26(5):385–409. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.5.385 71. Baumle AK. Border identities: Intersections of ethnicity and sexual orientation in the U.S.–Mexico bor- derland. Soc Sci Res. 2010; 39(2):231–45. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.005 72. Baumle AK, Compton DR, Poston DL. Patterns of same-sex partnering in metropolitan and nonmetro- politan America. Same-sex partners: The demography of sexual orientation. Albany: SUNY Press; 2009. p. 41–58. 73. Bereitschaft B, Cammack R. Neighborhood diversity and the creative class in Chicago. Applied Geog- raphy. 2015; 63(Journal Article):166–83. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.020 74. Chen X. Tolerance and Economic Performance in American Metropolitan Areas: An Empirical Investi- gation. Sociological Forum. 2011; 26(1):71–97. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01225.x 75. Christafore D, Leguizamon JS, Leguizamon S. Are black neighborhoods less welcoming to homosex- uals than white neighborhoods? Regional Science and Urban Economics. 2013; 43(4):579–89. https:// doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.02.006 76. Christafore D, Leguizamon S. The influence of gay and lesbian coupled households on house prices in conservative and liberal neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Economics. 2012; 71(2):258–67. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jue.2011.09.004 77. Collins TW, Grineski SE, Morales DX. Sexual Orientation, Gender, and Environmental Injustice: Unequal Carcinogenic Air Pollution Risks in Greater Houston. Annals of the American Association of Geographers. 2017; 107(1):72–92. https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1218270 PMID: 29098204 78. Gates GJ, Ost J. The gay & lesbian atlas. Washington, D.C: Urban Institute Press; 2004. 79. Hayslett KL, Kane MD. "Out" in Columbus: A Geospatial Analysis of the Neighborhood-Level Distribu- tion of Gay and Lesbian Households. City and Community. 2011; 10(2):131–56. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1540-6040.2010.01353.x 80. Klein NJ, Smart MJ. Travel mode choice among same-sex couples. Transportation Research Part A: Policy & Practice. 2016; 90:1–13. 81. Lee JG, Goldstein AO, Pan WK, Ribisl KM. Relationship Between Tobacco Retailers’ Point-of-Sale Marketing and the Density of Same-Sex Couples, 97 US Counties, 2012. International Journal of Envi- ronmental Research and Public Health. 2015; 12(8):8790–810. https://doi.org/10.3390/ ijerph120808790 PMID: 26225987 82. Lee JG, Pan WK, Henriksen L, Goldstein AO, Ribisl KM. Is There a Relationship Between the Concen- tration of Same-Sex Couples and Tobacco Retailer Density? Nicotine & tobacco research. 2016; 18(2):147–55. https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntv046 PMID: 25744959 83. Smart MJ, Klein NJ. Neighborhoods of Affinity Social Forces and Travel in Gay and Lesbian Neighbor- hoods. J Am Plann Assoc. 2013; 79(2):110–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2013.883227 84. Walther CS, Poston J DL. Patterns of gay and lesbian partnering in the larger metropolitan areas of the United States. J Sex Res. 2004; 41(2):201–14. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552228 PMID: 15326545 85. Walther CS, Poston J, Dudley L., Gu Y. Ecological Analyses of Gay Male and Lesbian Partnering in the Metropolitan United States in 2000. Population Research and Policy Review. 2011; 30(3):419–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-010-9195-9 86. Bennett K, McElroy JA, Johnson AO, Munk N, Everett KD. A Persistent Disparity: Smoking in Rural Sexual and Gender Minorities. LGBT Health. 2015; 2(1):62–70. https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2014. 0032 PMID: 26000317. 87. Doan P, Higgins H. Cognitive dimensions of way-finding: the implications of habitus, safety, and gen- der dissonance among gay and lesbian populations. Environment and Planning A. 2009; 41(7):1745– 62. https://doi.org/10.1068/a4159 88. Farmer GW, Blosnich JR, Jabson JM, Matthews DD. Gay Acres: Sexual Orientation Differences in Health Indicators Among Rural and Nonrural Individuals. J Rural Health. 2016; 32(3):321–31. https:// doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12161 PMID: 26625172 Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 15 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-013-9280-y http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24187412 https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.26.5.385 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ssresearch.2009.08.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2015.06.020 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1573-7861.2010.01225.x https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.02.006 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2011.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2011.09.004 https://doi.org/10.1080/24694452.2016.1218270 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29098204 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2010.01353.x https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6040.2010.01353.x https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120808790 https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120808790 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26225987 https://doi.org/10.1093/ntr/ntv046 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25744959 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944363.2013.883227 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224490409552228 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15326545 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11113-010-9195-9 https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2014.0032 https://doi.org/10.1089/lgbt.2014.0032 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26000317 https://doi.org/10.1068/a4159 https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12161 https://doi.org/10.1111/jrh.12161 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26625172 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 89. Minnis AM, Catellier D, Kent C, Ethier KA, Soler RE, Heirendt W, et al. Differences in chronic disease behavioral indicators by sexual orientation and sex. Journal of Public Health Management and Prac- tice. 2016; 22:S25–S32. https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000350 PMID: 26599026 90. Bauermeister JA, Eaton L, Andrzejewski J, Loveluck J, VanHemert W, Pingel ES. Where You Live Matters: Structural Correlates of HIV Risk Behavior Among Young Men Who Have Sex with Men in Metro Detroit. AIDS and behavior. 2015; 19(12):2358–69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1180-1 PMID: 26334445 91. Binson D, Michaels S, Stall R, Coates TJ, Gagnon JH, Catania JA. Prevalence and social distribution of men who have sex with men: United States and its urban centers. J Sex Res. 1995; 32(3):245–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499509551795 92. Elder G, Rothblum ED, Solomon SE. The geography of civil union households. Journal of GLBT Fam- ily Studies. 2010; 6(1):58–67. https://doi.org/10.1080/15504280903472519 93. Adler SY, Brenner J. Gender and Space: Lesbian and Gay Men in the City. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research. 1992; 16(1):24. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1992.tb00463.x 94. Bailey RW. Identity, urban space, and political action. New York: Columbia University Press; 1999. p. 49–95. 95. Fasula AM, Oraka E, Jeffries WLt, Carry M, Banez Ocfemia MC, Balaji AB, et al. Young Sexual Minor- ity Males in the United States: Sociodemographic Characteristics And Sexual Attraction, Identity and Behavior. Perspectives on sexual and reproductive health. 2016; 48(1):3–8. https://doi.org/10.1363/ 48e7016 PMID: 26742996 96. Smart MJ, Whittemore AH. There goes the gaybourhood? Dispersion and clustering in a gay and les- bian real estate market in Dallas TX, 1986–2012. Urban Studies. 2017; 54(3):600–15. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/0042098016650154 97. Whittemore AH, Smart MJ. Mapping gay and lesbian neighborhoods using home advertisements: Change and continuity in the Dallas-Fort Worth Metropolitan Statistical Area over three decades. Envi- ronment and Planning A. 2016; 48(1):192–210. 98. Fotheringham AS, Rogerson PA. GIS and spatial analytical problems. International Journal of Geo- graphical Information Systems. 1993; 7(1):3–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/02693799308901936 99. Diez-Roux AV. Bringing context back into epidemiology: variables and fallacies in multilevel analysis. Am J Public Health. 1998; 88(2):216–22. Epub 1998/03/10. PMID: 9491010. 100. Hatzenbuehler ML. Structural stigma: Research evidence and implications for psychological science. Am Psychol. 2016; 71(8):742–51. Epub 2016/12/16. https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000068 PMID: 27977256. 101. Stall R, Friedman M, Catania JA. Interacting epidemics and gay men’s health: a theory of syndemic production among urban gay men. In: Wolitski RJ, Stall R, Valdiserri RO, editors. Unequal opportunity: health disparities affecting gay and bisexual men in the United States. New York: Oxford University Press; 2008. p. 251–74. 102. Meyer IH. Prejudice, social stress, and mental health in lesbian, gay, and bisexual populations: con- ceptual issues and research evidence. Psychol Bull. 2003; 129(5):674–97. Epub 2003/09/06. https:// doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 PMID: 12956539. 103. Thorpe J, Roland J, Kelley-Moore J. Life course theories of race disparities: a comparison of cumula- tive dis/advantage perspective and the weathering hypothesis. In: Laveist TA, Isaac LA, editors. Race, Ethnicity, and Health 2nd ed Hoboken, NJ: Jossey-Bass; 2012. p. 355–75. 104. Fredriksen-Goldsen KI, Simoni JM, Kim HJ, Lehavot K, Walters KL, Yang J, et al. The health equity promotion model: Reconceptualization of lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) health dis- parities. Am J Orthopsychiatry. 2014; 84(6):653–63. Epub 2014/12/30. https://doi.org/10.1037/ ort0000030 PMID: 25545433. 105. von Elm E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(10):e296. Epub 2007/10/19. https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pmed.0040296 PMID: 17941714. 106. Kaufman JS, Cooper RS. Seeking causal explanations in social epidemiology. Am J Epidemiol. 1999; 150(2):113–20. Epub 1999/07/21. PMID: 10412955. 107. Laumann EO, Gagnon JH, Michael RT, Michaels S. The social organization of sexuality: Sexual prac- tices in the United States. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press; 1994. 108. Matthews DD, Blosnich JR, Farmer GW, Adams BJ. Operational Definitions of Sexual Orientation and Estimates of Adolescent Health Risk Behaviors. LGBT Health. 2014; 1(1):42–9. Epub 2014/08/12. PMID: 25110718. Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 16 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1097/PHH.0000000000000350 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26599026 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10461-015-1180-1 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26334445 https://doi.org/10.1080/00224499509551795 https://doi.org/10.1080/15504280903472519 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-2427.1992.tb00463.x https://doi.org/10.1363/48e7016 https://doi.org/10.1363/48e7016 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26742996 https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016650154 https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098016650154 https://doi.org/10.1080/02693799308901936 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9491010 https://doi.org/10.1037/amp0000068 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27977256 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.129.5.674 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12956539 https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000030 https://doi.org/10.1037/ort0000030 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25545433 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.0040296 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17941714 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10412955 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25110718 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 109. Collins A. Sexual dissidence, enterprise and assimilation: Bedfellows in urban regeneration. Urban Studies. 2004; 41(9):1789–806. https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000243156 110. Knopp L. Some theoretical implications of gay involvement in an urban land market. Political Geogra- phy Quarterly. 1990; 9(4):337–52. 111. Temkin K, Rohe W. Neighborhood Change and Urban Policy. Journal of Planning Education and Research. 1996; 15(3):159–70. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9601500301 112. Henning-Smith C, Gonzales G. Differences by Sexual Orientation in Perceptions of Neighborhood Cohesion: Implications for Health. J Community Health. 2017:Published advance access on Decem- ber 8, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0455-z PMID: 29222737 113. Schmitt ED. Discrimination Versus Specialization: A Survey of Economic Studies on Sexual Orienta- tion, Gender and Earnings in the United States. Journal of Lesbian Studies. 2008; 12(1):17–30. https://doi.org/10.1300/10894160802174250 PMID: 19042290 114. Knopp L, Brown M. Queer diffusions. Environment and Planning D: Society and Space. 2003; 21(4):409–24. 115. Rose G. The strategy of preventive medicine. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1993. Regional and neighborhood correlates of sexual minority concentration PLOS ONE | https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751 June 27, 2018 17 / 17 https://doi.org/10.1080/0042098042000243156 https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456X9601500301 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10900-017-0455-z http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29222737 https://doi.org/10.1300/10894160802174250 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19042290 https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0198751