The role of community
psychologists in community
development, neighborhood
revitalization and citizen
participation:
Background & 3 examples
Douglas D. Perkins, Ph.D.
Director, Center for Community Studies
http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/ccs
Vanderbilt University
Nashville, USA
Cos’è lo sviluppo di comunità?
► Politiche
governative, organizzazioni nonprofit
organizations (es, corporazione di sviluppo di
comunità (CDCs) & altre organizzazioni non
governative (NGOs)), associazioni volontarie di
cittadini, or partnerships publiche o private che
lavorano per migliorare la comunità:
 Ambiente economico (business & opportunità di lavoro)
 Ambiente fisico (es, abitazioni milgiori, servizi per I
cittadini, centri ricreativi, pulizia dei parchi & dei luoghi
inquinati)
 Ambiente politico (consigli della comunità attivi,
associazioni di quartiere)
 Ambiente sociale (strade più sicure, senso di comunità,
buon vicinato)
3 tipi maggiori di sviluppo di
comunità per area :
1.
2.
3.
Rivitalizzazione dei quartieri residenziali
urbani e suburbani
Ri-sviluppo del centro città (downtown)
Rurale: in risposta ai problemi globali
dell’economia (agricoltura) & delle
infrastrutture (abitazioni, strade, scuole,
servizi)
Current Concepts in Community
Development
►
Grassroots “Empowerment” Community Development
 “bottom-up” vs. “top-down”
 Residents organizing and acting collectively, on their own, or with
professional help
►
►
►
►
►
Social Capital (Housing Policy Debate, '98,#1);
www.worldbank.org/poverty/scapital )
Asset-based Community Development (ABCD: Kretzman &
McKnight; www.nwu.edu/IPR/abcd.html )
Sustainability: economically, environmentally (socially?
Politically?)
Capacity building
Learning communities
Una cornice ecologica per lo sviluppo di comunità [Perkins et al., (2004). Community development as a response to
community-level adversity: Ecological theory and research and strengths-based policy.
In Investing in children, youth, families and communities: Strengths-based research and policy. APA Books.]
scala più allargata
ruolo delle politiche pubbliche
Ambiente
Economico
Ambiente
Politico
Risorse e finanzaimenti a lungo termine:
 lavoro, paghe adeguate,  assistenza
alle piccole imprese,  assistenza alla
casa
sostegno & reazione alle
organizzazioni della comunità, alle
coalizioni,  sostegno alle politiche e
ai progetti di sviluppo,  abitazioni per
basso reddito, alloggi adeguati
scala più ristretta
ruolo dei cittadini e della comunità
sviluppo di comunità
processi e risultati
Investimenti a breve termine:
 case (riparazioni, miglioramenti)
 piccole imprese (assunzioni & patrocini)
Ecologico &
complessivo:
Partecipazione formale in:
 organizzazioni di comunità
 advocacy/azioni dei cittadini
 voto
 Economico
 Politico
 Sociael
Ambiente
Sociale
Programmi di comunità:
 cure sanitarie/prevenzione
 milgiori scuole nel vicinato
 programmi dopo-scuola
 politiche della comunità
 connessioni nella comunità
Comportamenti informali centrati sulla
cominità, atteggiamenti, emozioni:
 attaccamento al luogo, soddisfazione
 coesione sociale, coinvolgimento
 celebrazione delle diversità culturali
 empowerment/efficacia di comunità
 vicinato, sostegno, mentoring
 controllo sociale, prevenzione dei crimini
 Fisico
Focalizzato sui punti
di forzA:
Empowering
Risorse della
comunità
Ambiente
Fisico
 transito di persone, aree pedonali
 uso misto residenziale e commerciale
 creazione e protezione di spazi pubblici
 Infrastrutture: scuole, strade, luce
 Servizi: acqua, sanità, incendio,
emergenza
 protezione ambietnale
mantenimento abbellimento della
proprietà
 giardini pubblici, pulizie
uso e cura degli spazi pubblici
 cooperative agricole della comunità
 Fight highways, contaminazione
 sostegno alla casa, rivitalizzazione
sostenibile
Creazione di abilitò
Capitale sociale,
comunità formative
How can community psychologists
assist in community development,
neighborhood revitalization and
citizen participation?
► They
can help groups to define their
community and identify its assets as well as
problems:
 Q: qual è la tua “comunità?”
 Q: come la definiresti?
 Q: le comunità terrritoriali sono ancora
importanti (es, quartiere)? Perchè sì o perchè
no?
Da dove si inizia a organizzare la nostra
comunità? Quale tema sceglieresti? (see Kahn, 1992)
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
I temi devono essere “vincenti”, includendo chiare vittorie a breve termine.
L’umore e il clima politico sono favorevoli? Can it be made so?
La vittoria deve essere definita da reali miglioramenti nella vita delle persone.
La vittoria deve dare alle persone nuovo significato al loro “potere”.
La vittoria deve alterare le relazioni di potere nelle decisioni future.
I temi devono costruire e unire e non dividere l’organizzazione.
I temi devono essere gestibili, non troppo costosi in termini di tempo, sforzi e
denaro.
I temi devono essere sentiti in modo forte e profondo (consenso).
Semplicità: I temi devono essere facili da capire, idealmente con degli aspetti
bienche e neri, giusti e sbagliati, anche se questo può essere soggettivo.
I tempi devono essere urgenti e nuovi (non problemi a cui le persone si sono
abituate).
Ci deve essere uno spazio temporale chiaro e sufficiente ( per tutte le fasi
dell’azione e per piani di emergenza).
Ci deve essere un chiaro target per l’azione (idealmente, sia un "target
primario" sia "target secondario").
Aiuta essere in grado di trovare finanziamenti.
Per non perdere lo slancio, il tema dovrebbe condurre ad altri da affrontare.
CP can provide useful information
based on research & evaluation-- EG,
What works in neighborhood
revitalization?
►
1.
2.
►
Revitalization successes vary, but general themes include:
Resident involvement & strength building + commitment
& resources from higher levels & outside sources of funds
&/or expertise
Revitalization programs that target common problems of
urban areas: low sense of community & high crime & fear
of crime; housing & dilapidation problems; school & youth
program quality; economic opportunity
These general themes are consistent w/ theory & research
in community psychology & show that a collaborative
effort involving multiple agencies & citizens is necessary
CP provides concepts & theories to understand
community development & participation on
different dimensions:
Lynne C. Manzo & Douglas D. Perkins (2006). Finding common ground: The
importance of place attachment to community participation and planning.
Journal of Planning Literature
Community-Related Dimensions
Place
Social
Cognitive
Place Identity
Community Identity
Affective
Place Attachment
Sense of Community
Behavioral
Participation in
Neighboring Activities
Neighborhood Planning Participation in Crime Prevention
Protection and Improvement
Community Celebrations
Table 2. A framework for organizing psychological concepts that focuses on community
in both its physical and social aspects.
Community Environment &
Behavior Exercises
►
►
►
►
►
►
1. Draw a cognitive map of your current or hometown
neighborhood. Identify your home, streets and pedestrian paths you
take, neighborhood niches (stores, restaurants, etc.), anchoring
institutions (churches, schools, library, rec. centers, others?), public
green space (gardens, parks, playgrounds). Mark your favorite place(s).
2. More on favorite places:
A. What is your favorite place anywhere in the world? (Does not have to
be the one(s) marked above. You may mention more than one place if
you want.) Where is it located? What type of place is it?
B. What makes each of these places special to you?
C. How do you feel when you are in each of these places?
D. In what ways have each of these places influenced your personal
development or sense of identity as an individual or as a member of a
group?
Example 1:
“The Plan of Nashville:
Avenues to a great
city”
CP can work with NGOs to create a Collaborative Planning
process, connecting city leaders, planners, architects,
university, & community members:
Nashville Civic Design Center
www.CivicDesignCenter.org
Sample project: Plan of Nashville: Avenues to a Great City
www.PlanOfNashville.com
Suburban sprawl, “New
Urbanism,” and the Plan of
Nashville
Population
Density
This map illustrates the relative density
of Nashville neighborhoods, showing
which geographic areas have the
greatest potential for infill development
(2000 U.S. Census).
Transit Density
This map illustrates the areas
where people currently travel to
work via public transportation.
Why is transit usage so low in
Nashville?
Area H-I-J [Midtown-South] Workshop
Midtown-South Workshop Drawings
From Freeways to Greenways
10 principles of good planning &
design
1. Respect Nashville's natural and built environment: preserve & enhance the
landscape's natural features, historic preservation.
2. Treat the Cumberland River as central to Nashville's identity— an asset to be
treasured and enjoyed: protect riverbanks, public access.
3. Re-establish the streets as the principal public space of community and connectivity
within & between neighborhoods & downtown.
4. Develop a convenient and efficient transportation infrastructure: street system that
balances mobility & access needs; & needs of pedestrians, bicycles, mass transit,
cars & trucks; improved network of mass transit.
5. A comprehensive, interconnected greenway and park system linking neighborhoods
and the Cumberland River; parks for all neighborhoods equipped for a variety of
recreational, generational & cultural activities.
6. Develop a viable, vibrant & unique downtown as the heart of the region, with more
housing & a variety of uses that support workers, residents and visitors, e.g.,
schools, retail, after-hours and weekend activities.
7. Raise the quality of the public realm & civic pride with public structures and spaces
[e.g., Library, Frist, Courthouse Square].
8. Integrate public art into the design of the city, its buildings, streets & parks.
9. Strengthen the unique identity of neighborhoods with strong neighborhood centers &
boundaries, a mixture of land uses & residential diversity within each neighborhood,
& strong neighborhood organizations.
10. Infuse visual order into the city by strengthening vistas & sightlines to & from civic
landmarks and natural features.
Example 2:
An empirical test of a neighborhood
typology for community organizing
based on social interaction,
community identity, connections &
influence
by Douglas D. Perkins, Center for Community
Studies,
Vanderbilt University
and Véronique Dupéré, Department of Psychology,
University of Montreal
Based on the paper, “Six types of streetblocks: An empirical test of Warren & Warren’s neighborhood
typology for community organizing” presented at session 33 [Community organizing for power & change:
Critiques & alternatives]. 35th Annual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Assoc., Salt Lake City, 4/15/05. Original
data collection supported by NIMH grant from Center for Violent & Antisocial Behavior (Ralph Taylor,
principal investigator; Douglas Perkins, project director). Correspondence: d.perkins@vanderbilt.edu
Overview
►
Already applied block/neighborhood cluster analysis to mental
health:
 Dupéré, V., & Perkins, D.D. (in press). Block types and mental health:
An ecological study of local environmental stress and coping. American
Journal of Community Psychology.
►
This paper: Based on years observing grassroots community
organizations and 2 NIMH-funded studies of Detroit neighborhoods
in 1969 & 1974, Don & Rachelle Warren identified 6 neighborhood
types according to how "organizable" they are. To my knowledge,
this typology has never been independently validated or tested.
 Warren, D.I. (1969). Neighborhood structure and riot behavior in
Detroit: Some exploratory findings. Social Problems, 16, 464-484.
 Warren, D.I. (1975). Black neighborhoods: An assessment of
community power. University of Michigan Press.
 Warren, D.I., & Warren, R.B. (1975). Six types of neighborhoods.
PsychologyToday, 9(1), 74-79.
 Warren, R.B., & Warren, D.I. (1977). The neighborhood organizer's
handbook. University of Notre Dame Press.
Warren & Warren’s
6 Neighborhood Types:
►
The criterion variables they use are:
a) resident social interaction
b) community identity (identification, sense of community)
c) “linkages”: connections & influence with larger social &
political institutions
High and low values on each variable determine the six
neighborhood types they identified:
1. integral (high interaction, identity and influence)
2. parochial (high interaction, high identity and low influence)
3. diffuse (low interaction, high identity and low influence)
4. stepping-stone (high interaction, low identity and high
influence)
5. transitory (low interaction, low identity and high influence)
6. anomic (low interaction, low identity and low influence)
This Study
tests empirical validity of that classic typology
► using quantitative cluster analysis
► of 1987-88 survey data
► from 50 Baltimore city blocks representing 50
different neighborhoods
► compared by cluster/type for level of participation
in neighborhood improvement associations crosssectionally & 1 year later
► Block types also tested for demographic differences,
which are then used as control variables in
comparison of participation levels: income,
education, race, residential stability, home
ownership
►
Methods
► 412
residents surveyed (1 yr panel = 305)
►54% in-home; 46% telephone
►Time-1 response rate (contacted) = 84%
►Time-2 response rate (eligible) = 91%
► Systematic sampling of neighborhoods with
probability proportionate to population for
geographic dispersion throughout city
► Ecologically valid units (residential street
blocks) and analyses (nonlinear)
Operationalization of Warrens’
key criteria:
► interaction: During the past 12 months…
 have you done any of the following for a neighbor who lives within
a couple of blocks, and have they done each for you?
► Kept watch on a house or apartment while owner was away?
► Brought in newspapers or mail while neighbors were away?
► Been given a key by a neighbor so that animals could be fed,
plants watered, or the house checked on while they were away?
► Lent tools or household items to a neighbor?
 have you borrowed tools or household items from a neighbor?
 have you done any of the following with a neighbor who lives within
a couple of blocks?
► Spoken to a neighbor?
► Visited inside a neighbor's house?
► Gone out socially with a neighbor (for the evening, a vacation,
etc.)?
Operationalization of Warrens’
key criteria:
►identity:
 Do you feel that you are part of the block,
or that it's just a place to live?
 How much do you feel you share the same
interests and concerns with people on
your block?
 How attached do you feel to the block you
are now living on?
Operationalization of Warrens’
key criteria:
►“linkages”:
connections & influence with
larger social & political institutions
 I. Do you happen to be a member of any of the following
types of local organizations in your neighborhood? II.
Have you done any work for any of them? III. Is anyone
else in your household a member?
► Church
or synagogue groups?
► Community center or youth organizations?
► Local political or issue-oriented groups?
► Social groups or clubs?
► Other neighborhood organizations?
Cluster Analysis
Table 1. Hierarchical cluster analysis with Ward's method found 4 cluster solution
to best fit data:
Cluster Means:
Warrens’ 3 Factors:
1
2
3
4
1 - IDENTIFICATION
.38
.01
-.29
-.55
2 - INTERACTIONS
.06
.32
-.08
-.43
3 - INFLUENCE
.14
-.02
-.19
-.10
Cluster
1
2
3
4
# of Blocks Relationship to Warren typology:
19
Integral (but average interaction)
12
Parochial (but not really high identification or low influence)
9
Anomic (but not lowest interaction)
10
Anomic or Transitory (but influence doesn’t clearly fit either)
Cluster analysis forcing a 6 cluster
solution
TABLE 2. Characteristics of Block Types : Between-Group
Differences for Identification, Interaction and Influence
Block type*
N
Identification
Interactions
M
SD
M
SD
Influence
M
SD
1 Integral
4
0.50a
0.10
0.23a
0.05
0.45
0.22
2 Diffuse (with moderate
interaction & influence)
14
0.36a
0.19
0.00b
0.17
0.05a
0.09
3 Stepping-stone (with moderate
identification & influence)
10
0.07
0.22
0.37a
0.16
0.03a,b
0.11
4 Transitory (with moderate
influence)
8
-0.47
0.13
-0.47
0.19
-0.07b,c
0.17
5 Mildly Anomic
11
-0.22
0.15
-0.05b
0.15
-0.15c,d
0.09
6 Intensely Anomic
3
-0.73
0.29
-0.16b
0.23
-0.24d
0.04
Total
50
-0.01
0.41
0.00
0.31
-0.01
0.20
ANOVA (all p < .001)
F (5, 44)= 40.8 F (5, 44)= 24.8 F (5, 44)= 17.8
* No “parochial” cluster found (high interaction, high identity and low influence).
Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are not significantly different (p < .05).
TABLE 3. Characteristics of Block Types:
Between-Group Differences on Control Variables
Block
type
Income
(thousands $)
M
SD
Education
(years)
M
SD
Race
(% of whites)
M
SD
Residential
stability (years)
M
Home ownership
(% of owners)
SD
M
SD
1
28.9a,b
3.3
12.2
1.0
62.5
42.1
20.1a,b,c
6.6
91.0a,b
11.9
2
26.2c,d,e
12.1
12.5
2.7
37.1a
45.2
17.0d
6.2
73.3c,d
22.8
3
26.4f,g
8.7
12.2
1.6
85.0a,b,c,d 32.2
17.0e
6.2
83.8e,f
16.7
4
15.2a,c,f
6.2
11.3
1.5
16.7b
30.9
11.4a
7.0
16.8a,c,e
16.1
5
18.9d
6.2
12.1
1.6
45.7c
41.0
11.8b
7.2
48.4a,c,e,g
31.5
6
11.7b,e,g
8.7
12.0
2.9
25.0d
43.3
7.6c,d,e
1.7
4.2b,d,f,g
7.2
Total
22.2
9.9
12.1
2.0
46.6
43.8
14.6
7.0
58.1
34.7
F (5, 44)= 3.65**
F(5,44)= 0.35
F (5, 44)= 3.29*
F(5, 44)= 2.73*
*p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001
Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different (p < .05).
F(5,44)= 15.34***
TABLE 4. Mean Scores on Participation in Block
Organizations as a Function of Block Types
Time 1
Block type
1 Integral
M
0.44a,b,c,d
Time 2
SD
0.23
M
SD
0.46a,b,c, 0.31
d
2 Diffuse (with moderate interaction &
influence)
0.21a,c,d
0.21
0.23a,c
0.25
3 Stepping-stone (with moderate
identification & influence)
0.10b
0.08
0.21b
0.17
4 Transitory (with moderate influence)
0.02a
0.03
0.05a
0.07
5 Mildly Anomic
0.08c
0.11
0.07c
0.10
6 Intensely Anomic
0.01d
0.02
0.06d
0.06
Total
0.14
0.18
0.17
0.21
ANOVA
F (5, 44)= 6.35***
F (5, 44)= 3.89**
**p < .01; ***p < .001
Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different (p < .05).
TABLE 5. Mean comparison on participation in neighborhood
associations at time 1 and time 2, after controlling for income,
proportion of whites, residential stability and home ownership
Time 1
Block type
Time 2
M
SD
M
1 Integral
0.44a,b,c,d
0.23
0.46a,b,c,d,e
0.31
2 Diffuse (with moderate interaction &
influence)
0.21a
0.21
0.23a
0.25
3 Stepping-stone (with moderate
identification & influence)
0.10a
0.08
0.21b
0.17
4 Transitory (with moderate influence)
0.02b
0.03
0.05c
0.07
5 Mildly Anomic
0.08c
0.11
0.07d
0.10
6 Intensely Anomic
0.01d
0.02
0.06e
0.06
Total
0.14
0.18
0.17
0.21
ANOVA
†
F (5, 40)= 4.82**
SD
F (5, 40)= 2.14†
p < .10; **p < .01
Note. Means in a column sharing subscripts are significantly different (p < .05).
Conclusions
► Warren
neighborhood typology only partially
supported:
 Most of the types found, although not exactly as
prescribed
 4 cluster solution was best fit with data, none exactly
matching Warrens’ types, but partially matching
integral, parochial and anomic (2 clusters)
 6 cluster solution resembled Warren typology a little
better, but no parochial
 Cluster differences in participation levels supported,
with integral blocks highest, diffuse & stepping-stone in
middle, and anomic and transitory lowest; BUT
controlling for demographics, only integral blocks signif.
> rest
Implications for community
research using cluster analytic
techniques
►
►
►
►
Robust approach: can be applied to any level: individuals,
blocks, neighborhoods, cities, organizations…
Using same dataset, we also cluster-analyzed blocks based on
level of block stressors (disorder, fear of crime) & social
resources (org. participation, informal social ties) to identify
7 block types that differed signif. on well-being and
depression.
After controlling for aggregated personal stress and support
and demographics, significant block differences remained on
well-being, but not on depression.
Both analyses suggest that different urban community types
exist and can be identified and that those differences may
relate in complex, non-linear ways with community
participation and well being.
Conclusions, cont.
► Ecological
validity:
 Cluster analysis does not assume or depend on
linear relationships among variables; takes
groups as they are
 Street block (ecological niche) as behavior setting
 Longitudinal data
► Need
to replicate with more current data,
Warrens’ exact measures, and different cities
Implications
for:
theories of social organization
 Warrens’ typology, while partially validated, is too
simplistic; real urban neighborhoods are both
complex & varied
► community organizing practice
►
 Home ownership probably more important predictor of
neighborhood association participation
 It no doubt does help to learn about resident social
interaction, community identity, & connections & influence
with larger social & political institutions; and how to
enhance each of those.
 And there may be “anomic” communities that are too hard
to organize given time & resource constraints.
 But the neighborhood typology approach may be misused if
used to write off whole communities as unorganizable.
Example 3:
Psychological Predictors of
Neighborhood Revitalization:
A multi-level analysis
Douglas D. Perkins, Vanderbilt University
Barbara B. Brown, University of Utah
D. Adam Long, Vanderbilt University
Courtney Larsen, University of Utah
Graham Brown, University of British Columbia
Earlier versions of this paper presented to Urban Affairs Association, Detroit, 4/01, and
Environmental Design Research Association, Philadelphia, 5/02. Research supported by
grant 98IJCX0022 from National Institute of Justice. Points of view are the authors’ and do
not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Dept. of Justice.
All correspondence: Douglas D. Perkins, Dept. of Human and Organizational Development,
Box 90, Peabody College, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN 37203;
Email: doug.perkins@vanderbilt.edu Web: peabody.vanderbilt.edu/depts/hod
Figure 1: An Ecological Framework for Fear, Crime, &
Participation in Community Organizations
(analyzed
at individual
& community levels)
Distal / Stable
Proximal / Transient
Outcomes
Economic
Environment
Social
Environment
Physical
Environment
Resources / Long-term
Investment: Income,
Home Ownership /
New Housing
Demographic
Characteristics:
 Education;
 Length of Residence;
 Race;
 Religion


Built Environment
(Defensible Space)
Nonresidential
Land Use
Short-term Investments:
Home Repairs &
Improvements
Community Perceptions,
Attitudes, & Behaviors:
 Community Satisfaction;
 Communitarianism;
 Place Attachment;
 Organization Efficacy;
 Neighboring Behavior;
 Sense of Community;
 Informal Social Control;
 Community Problems
Territorial
Markers
Symbols of
Disorder
Participation in
Community
Organizations
Fear of
Crime
Crime
Anxiety and
Depression
Overview of Present Study
Study uses GIS mapping & hierarchical linear models to
examine individual & street block-level effects, over a 5year period, of:
• community psychological ties (place attachment,
collective efficacy, perceived neighborhood qualities),
• perceived quality-of-life and crime problems,
• & a large-scale neighborhood revitalization project (new
middle-income, subdivision of larger homes & lots)
On:
• incumbent upgrading (observed and self-reported)
• & home satisfaction
in adjacent urban neighborhoods on the decline,
physically and economically, in Salt Lake City, Utah.
Salt Lake City, Utah, USA
Neighborhood Revitalization Literature
►
Past studies found urban homesteading and other
revitalization spillover effects to be either negligible
(Varady, 1986) or geographically limited (Ginsberg,
1983):
 Varady (1984) found no community confidence effects of
HUD Urban Homesteading Demonstration.
 Ulusoy (1998), found block-level revitalization -> incumbent
upgrading but not residential stability (fixing up to sell).
 Taub, Taylor, & Dunham (1984), found that residents
upgraded more if they had neighbors who upgraded.
 Ginsberg (1982), found that home improvements within
1/16th mile instilled neighbors confidence enough to make
home improvements.
Latest policy trends:
The revitalization project studied represents 3 major
urban/housing policy directions:
1. the emphasis on home ownership for working-class
families,
2. the deconcentration of poverty through development of
mixed-income neighborhoods, and
3. the clean up and redevelopment of contaminated, former
industrial “brownfields.”
► #1 has been greatest & most influential policy direction:
Larger-scale, homeownership-based redevelopment
programs have swept the U.S.: e.g., HOPE-VI
► Studies of this latest round of revitalization are starting to
show that these projects are having significant spillover
effects on increased property values in the surrounding
neighborhood:
►



NYC: Nehemiah Homes, Partnership New Homes (Ellen, Schill,
Susin & Schwarz, 2001;
Nashville: HOPE-VI, Banc of Am. CDC (Ghosh; Perkins et al., 2002)
National HOPE-VI eval.?? (Urban Inst., 2002)
BUT:
►
►
Other than community confidence, psychological and
behavioral factors in revitalization-- such as place
attachment, collective efficacy (neighboring, informal
social control, sense of community), and perceived
crime, environmental disorder, and other quality-oflife problems-- have been largely ignored as
predictors of revitalization.
And thus far in the recent analyses, outcomes or
indicators of revitalization have been similarly limited:
 incumbent upgrading spillover effects have not been widely
examined.
 And psychological indicators, such as home satisfaction or
the social fabric variables above have not been considered.
Design
►
Longitudinal: 2 waves of data collection on 59 street blocks:
 Time 1 (collected by students during construction of subdivision): 1993-95,
complete data n of HH = 365.
 Time 2 (collected by professional survey firm 4 years post-construction):
1998-99, complete data n of HH = 593.
►
Panel sample limitations (individual-level longitudinal analyses
impossible):
 address matches at both Time 1 & Time 2: n = 315;
 same-household matches at both Time 1 & Time 2: n = 147;
 same-person matches at both Time 1 & Time 2: n = 78.
►
►
Present data mostly Time 2, but each Time 1 IV was aggregated to block
level and used both in raw form and to derive regression residuals on the
same variables at Time 2. This was done in order to test the effects of
unexpected block-level changes in each independent variable.
Sources of data:
 Revised Block Environmental Inventory (objectively observed conditions)
 Resident survey
 City building permit records
Block Environmental Inventory
“Street Block”: __| |
| |__
__ _______________________________ ___
| |
| |
Purpose: Objectively measure physical features of residential blocks and
individual property exteriors and yards associated with crime, fear, and
neighborhood vitality or decline.
Procedure: In-person observation by trained raters of specific block-level social
(number and description of users of outdoor space) and physical (e.g., vacant
homes, abandoned cars) cues. More detailed checklist of individual residential
(used here) and nonresidential properties includes defensible space features
(lighting, barriers), territorial markers (plantings, personalizations), and incivilities
(poor maintenance, litter).
Inter-rater agreement: All sampled homes were independently rated by two
raters at Time 1 (n = 365; Cronbach’s alpha ranged from .70 to .93 for different
items). At Time 2, a subsample were rated by two raters (n = 201; alpha ranged
from .92 to 1.00).
Resident Survey
How: 30-minute survey conducted in Spanish or English depending on
respondent preference.
Administered by telephone if a phone number was available, in-person if not.
At both Time 1 & Time 2, approx. ½ administered by telephone & ½ in person.
Compensation: None at Time 1; $25 at Time 2.
Response rate: For full Time-2 sample (including residents of new subdivision
who are not included in the present study), of 930 initial contacts for interviews,
13.7% refused and 16.8% were unresolved (no one at home for eight or more
contacts or no English or Spanish spoken). Thus 84.2% of English or Spanish
speakers contacted provided interviews, whereas 72.7% of all addresses
contacted yielded interviews. At Time 1, the response rate was 74%. At least
four residents were interviewed on each of the 59 blocks.
Dependent Variables
Observed Exterior Conditions: (inventoried by trained raters; alpha = .63)
Mean of 11 items with higher values indicating more positive conditions. Items
included such things, observable to the pedestrian, as litter on or in front of
property, peeling paint, graffiti, broken windows or fixtures, and house, yard or
window decorations.
Self-Reported Home Repairs & Improvements: (alpha = .86) Mean of 15 items
with higher scores indicating more improvements. “During the past 12 months,
have any of the following repairs or improvements been made." Examples of items
were, exterior: painting on the outside of the house, work on the roofing or gutters;
and interior: carpentry, electrical work, and plumbing fixtures.
Home Satisfaction: (alpha = .53) Mean of 2 items. Responses were (re)scaled as
1 = none to low home satisfaction, and 10 = high home satisfaction. Items were,
"How satisfied are you with your house as a place to live?" and "What best
describes the condition of your home/apartment (poor, acceptable, good,
excellent)?"
Demographic (control) Variables
Household income, Home ownership, and Length of residence
were used as controls in all multivariate analyses.
In addition, race (White, non-Hispanic - other), age, religion
(Mormon - other), and number of children in household were
examined at the bivariate level and in multivariate models in which
the particular demographic variable correlated significantly with the
dependent variable.
Community-focused Psychological Predictors
Each analyzed at individual & block levels. Alphas based on Time 2 raw data.
Place Attachment (alpha = .87) Mean of 7 items. Four items tapped
respondents' satisfaction and pride with their neighborhood and street block.
One item asked how attached the respondent felt to their block, one asked how
unhappy they would be if for any reason they had to move, and one item asked
whether the respondent would recommend the “neighborhood as a good place
for young families to move to now?"
Community Confidence Mean of two items (r (590) = .40, p < .000).
Respondents indicated "in the past 2 years (or since you moved in), have the
general conditions on your block gotten better, stayed about the same, or gotten
worse?" Using the same format, respondents also rated their prediction of
block conditions for the next two years.
Collective Efficacy (based on Sampson, et al., 1997; alpha = .65) Mean of 12
items, including knowing neighbors by name, informal borrowing/loaning with
neighbors, speaking with neighbors or government about a local problem,
feeling in control of the sidewalk in front of the home, having things in
common with neighbors.
Predictors (cont.)
Perceived Neighborhood Qualities (alpha = .78) Mean of a 7 items.
Respondents rated such neighborhood qualities as police protection, housing
quality and affordability, availability of child-care, friendliness of neighbors,
nearby parks and playgrounds, and the public image of the neighborhood.
Perceived Block Quality-of-life Problems (alpha = .56) Mean of 6 items,
including "In the past 12 months, has your block had any vacant homes or
buildings?" or "…any neighbors who don't keep up their property?" Other items
asked respondents to rate how big of problem graffiti, traffic, and loud neighbors
are.
Perceived Block Crime Problems (alpha = .73) Mean of 5 items. Respondents
were asked about incidents occurring within the past 12 months, such as whether
"your block had any house or place you suspect drug dealing occurs?" and
"…incidents of street robbery or assault?" and "…evidence of gang activity?"
Predictors (cont.)
Neighbors Improved Property. One item (1 = yes, 0 = no): "In the past 12
months, has your block had any neighbors who have improved their property?"
Psychological Proximity to New Subdivision (alpha = .58; r w/ Geographic
Proximity (below) = .34 (individual level)/ .71 (block level)) Mean of 4 items.
Items included such things as, "Are you aware of the [RP] subdivision?" and "Do
you personally know anyone who lives in this new subdivision?"
Aerial Proximity to New Subdivision (Reverse of GIS-calculated aerial
distances from centroid of subdivision to each block or to each sampled address
within 2 blocks). Due to its correlation with Psychological Proximity, this
variable was only used in testing interaction effects. In choosing between the
two for main effects, Psychological Proximity was thought to potentially have
more direct influence on upgrading.
North Temple St
Navajo St (1130 W)
GlendaleSt(1135 W)
800 S
50
800 S
IndianaAve (830S)
900 S
E mery St (1170 W )
18
Union Ave (900 S)
07
Hayes Ave (940 S)
Park
1100 W
02
IndianaAve (830S)
Glendale St (1140 W )
25
15
17
29
36
Smith's
Grocery
Genesee Ave (840 S)
05
School
900 S
Park
Jordan River
58
Brooklyn A ve ( 1025 S)
1200 W
Concord St (1250 W )
1300 W
N avajo St (1350 W)
1300 W
1400 W
P uebloS t (1440 W)
28
American Ave(960 S)
Mead Ave
M eadC ri ( 1145W)
American Ave
22
61
Emery St (1170 W )
1520 W
13
Mead Ave ( 980 S)
#
Dalton Ave (1050 S)
27
24
Fremont Ave (1100 S)
California Ave (1350 S)
26
500 ft
N
OntarioDr
Glendale St (1135 W )
1300 W
C oncord St (1250 W )
N avajo St
Lexington Ave (1230 S)
32
EmerySt(1170 W)
38
56
ModestoAve(1176S)
34
NewWest
Jordan River
Poplar Grove
T1-T2 Self-Reported
.19 - .29
.08 - .19
-.02 - .08
-.13 - -.02
-.23 - -.13
-.34 - -.23
ModestoCir
1300 W
IllinoisA ve (1150 S)
SantaCruz Cir
Illinoisave (1150 S )
1300 S
Genesee Ave (840 S)
Hayes Ave
American Ave (960 S)
16
LDS
Welfare
Square
57
Hayes Ave (940 S)
Hayes Ave
700 W
JeremySt (840 W)
700 S
800 W
Senate Cir
49
GoshenSt (1040W)
Park
23
Arapahoe Ave (640 S)
50
700 S
800 S
04
33
52
E mery St (1170 W )
37
Pioneer Cir (620 S )
Post St (940 W )
01
Wasatch Ave (750 S)
62
Arapahoe Ave (640 S)
1200 W
Navajo St (1335 W)
WasatchAve(750S)
Montgomery St ( 1575W )
Indiana Ave (830 S)
GlendaleSt(1140 W)
1200W
1400 W
StewartSt (1485W)
60
40
600 S
Jake Garn Blvd
51
Arapahoe Ave (640 S)
1300 W
35
P uebloS t (1440 W)
Camarilla Cir
(1550W)
Arapahoe Ave (640 S) 30
500 S
,.- 15
03
65
700 S
800 S
Post St(940W)
63
67
600 S
500 S
09
1000 W
45
Gillespie Ave (540 S)
39
Pacifi c Ave (440 S)
53
500 S
LDS
Church
20
400 S
10
EmeryCir
Mobile Park
47
JeremySt (840 W)
500 S
31
14
Tongan
United
Methodist
Church
19
400 S
James St ( 580 S )
44
GoshenSt (1040W)
Catholic
Church
06
Pacific Ave (440 S )
48
P uebloS t (1440 W)
S tewart S t (1485 W)
C heyenne St (1520 W)
Montgomery St ( 1575W )
59
School
900 W
12
School
Wright
Cir
(505 S)
300 S
Post St (940 W)
Navajo St (1335 W)
ConcordSt (1250W)
Iola Ave (340 S)
400 S
,-. 80
08
300 S
55
100 S
42
Euclid Ave (140 S)
Pierpont Ave (240 S)
15
1100 W
Park
400 S
1200 W
43
300 S
41
E mery St (1170 W )
300 S
1300 W
46
11
1400 W
1500 W
PuebloSt (1440W)
F oss S t (1541 W)
Montgomery St ( 1575W )
S hortridge St (1620 W )
R ea St ( 1690 W )
Redwood Rd (1700 W)
,-. 80
100 S
Questar
Gas
Company
.,-
Jeremy St (840 W)
South Temple St (100 S)
Folsom Ave (40 S)
Redwood Rd (1700 W)
GIS Map
of T1-T2
Change in
Self-reported
Home Repairs
and Improvements (All =
both interior
and exterior)
800 W
900 W
Chicago Street
Park 21
South Temple (100 S)
T1 to T2 Self-Reported All Change
1000 W
North Temple St
1300 S
W
California Ave (1350 S)
E
S
Observed Home Conditions
variance explained
Between Block Variance
44.0
56.0
Blocks
20%
Explained
Unexplained
Individual Variance
3.0
Individuals
80%
97.0
Explained
Unexplained
Self-reported Home Repairs & Improvements
variance explained
Between Block Variance
27.7
Blocks
10%
72.3
Explained
Unexplained
Individual Variance
9.7
Individuals
90%
90.3
Explained
Unexplained
Home Satisfaction
variance explained
Between Block Variance
77.0
Blocks
16%
23.0
Explained
Unexplained
Individual Variance
15.4
Individuals
84%
84.6
Explained
Unexplained
HLM: Observed Home Conditions
Standard
Coefficient
Approx.
T-ratio
Fixed Effect
Error
d.f.
P-value
Level 2 (Block):
INTERCEPT
0.563
0.008
67.966
52
0.000
T1 Place Attachment
-0.067
0.084
-0.797
52
0.429
T1 Block Problems
-0.216
0.099
-2.193
52
0.033
T1 Block Crime Problems
-0.027
0.062
-0.437
52
0.663
Increased Place Attachment
0.034
0.011
3.180
52
0.003
Increased Block Problems
-0.015
0.007
-2.225
52
0.030
Increased Block Crime
0.020
0.010
2.105
52
0.040
Level 1 (Individual):
Income
0.002
0.001
2.481
900
0.013
Home Ownership
0.015
0.010
1.461
900
0.144
Ethnicity (White)
0.017
0.008
2.090
900
0.036
Psych. Proximity to Subdiv.
0.017
0.014
1.194
900
0.233
Place Attachment
-0.000
0.021
-0.001
900
0.999
Block Problems
-0.022
0.019
-1.170
900
0.242
Block Crime Problems
0.003
0.014
0.199
900
0.842
Individual-level Interaction:
Years resident X psych. proximity 0.001
0.000
4.035
900
0.000
[Long-term residents have higher correlation betw. psychological proximity to new subdivision
& inventoried home conditions than do short-term residents]
HLM: Self-reported Home Repairs & Improvements
Standard
Coefficient Error
Fixed Effect
Level 2 (Block):
INTERCEPT
T1 Place Attachment
T1 Collective Efficacy
Increased Place Attachment
0.385
0.110
0.197
-0.040
0.011
0.112
0.183
0.014
Approx.
T-ratio
d.f.
36.088
0.979
1.077
-2.925
54
54
54
54
P-value
0.000
0.332
0.287
0.005
[suppression effect due to place attachment’s strong correlation with efficacy]
Increased Collective Efficacy
Level 1 (Individual):
Income
Length of Residence
Home Ownership
Psych. Proximity to Subdiv.
Collective Efficacy
Block Crime Problems
Cross-level Interaction Effect:
Place Attachment
By Block Aerial Distance
0.033 0.013
0.003
-0.001
0.053
0.058
0.210
0.094
2.498
54
0.016
0.002
0.000
0.020
0.029
0.058
0.024
1.592
-2.585
2.708
2.006
3.591
3.946
902
902
902
902
902
902
0.111
0.010
0.007
0.044
0.001
0.000
-0.016
0.044
0.723
-0.000 0.000
-1.988
-0.356
57
0.051
57
HLM: Home Satisfaction
Standard
Coefficient
Approx.
Error T-ratio
Fixed Effect
d.f.
P-value
Level 2 (Block):
INTERCEPT
7.581
0.059 128.930
54
0.000
T1 Place Attachment
0.993
0.691
1.438
54
0.156
T1 Block Problems
-0.716
0.647 -1.107
54
0.274
Increased Place Attachment
0.449
0.076
5.914
54
0.000
Increased Block Problems
-0.126
0.061 -2.058
54
0.044
Level 1 (Individual):
Income
0.043
0.012
3.740
904
0.000
Length of Residence
0.010
0.003
3.353
904
0.001
Home Ownership
0.433
0.129
3.360
904
0.001
Place Attachment
1.909
0.270
7.068
904
0.000
Block Problems
0.139
0.224
0.622
904
0.534
Neighborhood Qualities*
0.066
0.032
2.089
904
0.036
* police protection, housing quality & affordability, availability of child-care,
friendliness of neighbors, nearby parks & playgrounds, public image of neighborhood
Conclusions
►
►
►
►
►
►
Geographic patterns (GIS) suggest that the intervention had mixed
results.
But psychological proximity to the new subdivision was positively
related to objective exterior conditions and self-reported home repairs
and improvements, esp. for long-term residents.
Place attachment, block problems, collective efficacy, home
ownership, income, length of residence, and ethnicity all were
predictive of either objective or self-reported upgrading and home
satisfaction.
Both block and individual-level effects were significant in each
HLM.
Community confidence was not significantly related to upgrading.
Confirms importance in urban neighborhood research and policy of:
 psychological factors: e.g., place attachment, perceived crime &
disorder problems, collective efficacy
 multi-level analysis, in general, & street block level of analysis, in
particular.