Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions, collective efficacy, and gardening

Abstract

Neighborhood attachment relates to one’s emotional connection to physical and social environments. Such bonds are critical for shaping how people interact with their local environments, connect with others and may be vital for fostering sustainable health behavior change related to nutrition and physical activity. Using data from a population-based survey of neighborhood environments and health in Denver, Colorado (n = 410 respondents; n = 45 block-groups) and hierarchical linear modeling techniques, we examined the relationship between objective and perceived neighborhood conditions (e.g., crime, physical incivilities, sense of safety), social processes (e.g., collective efficacy) and recreational gardening and neighborhood attachment. Results indicate length of residency, collective efficacy, and home and community garden participation are associated with neighborhood attachment. Further research is warranted to consider neighborhood attachment as an intervening mechanism through which gardens and other outdoor everyday places may influence health behavior change.

Introduction

Community and home gardens represent examples of the neighborhood environment that connect people to place and have been identified as important for promoting a range of community and individual benefits. The “place-focus” of gardens has been deemed “central to their far-reaching benefits (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2005).” Moreover, because gardens are natural places that are activity-based, they require “action, responsibility and nurturing” (Kaplan & Kaplan, 2005). Such places promote connections between people and their local environment, which is important for fostering community engagement, environmental action and willingness to access local amenities and resources (Gobster et al., 2007, Manzo and Perkins, 2006). Such connections are also vital for promoting healthy lifestyles and more resilient neighborhoods (Cohen et al., 2006, Cohen et al., 2008, Hawe and Shiell, 2000, Semenza et al., 2006, Semenza and Krishnasamy, 2007).

The processes by which gardens lead to these social and health benefits are not well understood. In this paper, we explore neighborhood attachment, a psychological process that involves people’s emotional bonds to neighborhood surroundings. We explore its variation between neighborhoods and its individual and neighborhood correlates, including home and community garden participation.

Neighborhood attachment is a social-psychological process that captures one’s emotional connection to his or her social and physical surroundings (Brown et al., 2003, Brown et al., 2004a). Neighborhood attachment is shaped by features of the built environment and perceptions of that environment (Hummon, 1992). It promotes stability, involvement, and investment in the physical and social characteristics of the neighborhood, which can benefit both the resident and the neighborhood, especially in deprived neighborhoods (Galster and Hesser, 1982, Mesch and Manor, 1998, Twigger-Ross and Uzzell, 1996).

Residents with low attachment to their neighborhood have minimal ties and low investment, are more likely to move (Manzo and Perkins, 2006, Twigger-Ross and Uzzell, 1996, Vinsel et al., 1980). While neighborhoods typically tend to be homogeneous areas that attract residents with similar interests and lifestyles, neighborhood attachment can vary from block to block within a neighborhood (Brown et al., 2003). Although generally advantageous, high neighborhood attachment can also lead to detrimental consequences (Lewicka, 2005, Manzo, 2005, Manzo and Perkins, 2006, Wakefield et al., 2001) by inhibiting mobility and limiting individual progress in places that offer little economic growth (Fried, 2000). Our study, however, aims to explore people’s positive bonds to neighborhood places, which can lead to higher levels of community engagement (Manzo & Perkins, 2006) and serve as an important cognitive backdrop for human–environment interactions that are vital to health behaviors (Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983).

This section describes elements of the built environment that may affect neighborhood attachment, recognizing that the way in which our neighborhoods are designed and maintained shape place-based social and psychological processes, and in turn, affect health behaviors and health status (Davis et al., 2003, Jackson and Kochtitzky, 2003, Kweon et al., 1998, Pretty et al., 1994, Prezza et al., 2001, Skjaeveland and Garling, 1997). Residents who perceive their neighborhood as a safe place (perceived safety) may have higher levels of neighborhood attachment. In turn, residents who are more attached to the neighborhood tend to be more vigilant in guarding against crime in the neighborhood (Brown et al., 2003, Brown et al., 2004a, McGuire, 1997, Sampson, 1988). In contrast victimization and perception of crime are not associated with neighborhood attachment (Woldoff, 2002). It is plausible that residents living in a neighborhood with lower actual crime rates would have higher levels of neighborhood attachment; however, there are mixed findings in the literature (Taylor, 1996).

Physical incivilities include a variety of social and physical conditions that indicate deterioration within the neighborhood, such as litter, graffiti, homes in disrepair, and vacant or deserted houses or stores. Incivilities are often a sign of disinvestment and disadvantage in the neighborhood, both financially and socially (Reisig & Cancino, 2004), and have been linked to crime-related problems (Brown et al., 2004a, Brown et al., 2004b).

There have been inconsistent findings on the relationship between perceived and observed physical incivilities and neighborhood attachment, as some studies have found that residents who perceived fewer incivilities reported higher levels of neighborhood attachment and neighborhoods with lower observed incivilities had higher levels of neighborhood attachment (Brown et al., 2003, Brown et al., 2004, McGuire, 1997). Others have found higher levels of neighborhood attachment in deteriorating neighborhoods with more observed incivilities (Taylor, 1996).

Neighborhoods with high levels of collective efficacy may have residents with higher levels of neighborhood attachment (Brown et al., 2003). Collective efficacy is defined as “the link between mutual trust and a shared willingness to intervene for the common good of the neighborhood” (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997), and is comprised of two major components: levels of social cohesion and informal social control within a neighborhood. Social cohesion involves solidarity, trust, and social connections among neighbors. Higher neighborhood attachment levels have been observed in persons who have friendly relationships with their neighbors (Mesch and Manor, 1998, Sampson and Groves, 1989). Informal social control involves feelings of control over neighborhood happenings and conditions, and may be connected to neighborhood attachment, which has been theorized to provide individuals with a sense of security, identity, and control (Proshansky et al., 1983, Riger et al., 1981).

Length of residency, homeowner occupancy, race, ethnicity and other socio-economic indicators have been shown to relate to one’s attachment to neighborhood. Greater length of residence in a neighborhood promotes neighborhood stability and is a positive correlate of neighborhood attachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999, Brown et al., 2003, Knez, 2005, Sampson, 1988, Sampson, 1991, Taylor, 1996), although this relationship varies depending on the social and demographic background of residents. Bolan found that new migrants and chronic movers are just as willing as longer-term residents to develop feelings of neighborhood attachment (Bolan, 1997). Neighborhood attachment has been shown to be higher for blocks that have a higher proportion of homeowners (Brown et al., 2003). Higher neighborhood attachment levels have been seen among non-White and Hispanic residents when compared to White non-Hispanic residents (Brown et al., 2003, Brown et al., 2004). Other research, however, did not find a statistical relationship between neighborhood attachment and neighborhood racial/ethnic composition (Taylor, 1996). Evidence suggests that higher socio-economic status, as measured by education, was positively associated with neighborhood attachment (Mesch and Manor, 1998, Taylor, 1996). More affluent neighborhoods may be expected to have higher levels of neighborhood attachment compared to deprived neighborhoods, as deprived neighborhoods may have higher levels of crime, less residential stability, and fewer social networks; however, there is again conflicting evidence in the literature as people who report lower income levels have higher levels of neighborhood attachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999).

A community-based intervention such as gardening can be beneficial for both the social aspects of the neighborhood as well as the health of individuals. Gardening provides a way for residents to venture outside of their home, interact with others in the neighborhood, and develop social relationships. The quality and quantity of informal contacts is critical to the formation of neighborhood social ties (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998), which in turn, may influence place-based social processes such as collective efficacy and feelings of neighborhood attachment.

In general, gardens and public open spaces can hold special meanings to people throughout their lives (Francis, 1995) and can contribute to neighborhood satisfaction, sense of community belonging, and social contacts with others in the neighborhood, thereby advancing social networks (Clayton, 2007, Kearney, 2009, Kim and Kaplan, 2004, Kuo et al., 1998). Gardens also have been shown to benefit communities by improving relationships among people, increasing community pride, and serving as an impetus for broader community improvement and mobilization (Armstrong, 2000, Wakefield et al., 2007). Gardens have been shown to be a positive social influence within neighborhoods and act as a catalyst for other positive place-based social dynamics, such as the generation of collective efficacy (Teig et al., 2009). There is evidence that place-based interventions that promote social networks and community involvement will lead to stronger sense of neighborhood attachment (Mesch and Manor, 1998, Taylor, 1996). Moreover, interventions that promote cultural activities and support places for social interaction and green space are associated with higher levels of neighborhood attachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999).

The studies described above consider the community impacts of gardens through the gardener perspective. The present study allows us to compare people who participate in community and home gardening activities with people who do not garden. It is hypothesized that participation in recreational gardening is associated with higher levels of neighborhood attachment. The following analysis examines individual- and neighborhood-level correlates of neighborhood attachment and examines the role of recreational gardening as it relates to levels of neighborhood attachment.