Abstract
This study looks at the relation of attributes of the neighborhood and satisfaction with them to evaluate the overall neighborhood satisfaction. The concept of neighborhood has been severely blurred if not lost as a result of the development practices of the last several decades. So research must first come to a conclusion regarding how to define a neighborhood. Then it will reveal the concept of satisfaction and the term in neighborhood scale. Since Neighborhood satisfaction refers to residents’ overall evaluation of their neighborhood and dimensions of satisfaction consist different issues which refer to the aspects, characteristics, and features of the residential environment, so several factors that influence the neighborhood satisfaction will be introduced in various categories as the result of the essay.
Keywords: neighborhood, satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, dimensions of neighborhood satisfaction
Introduction
Neighborhoods are the localities in which people live and are an appropriate scale of analyzing local ways of living. They can have an enormous influence on our health, wellbeing, and quality of life (Hancock 1997; Barton 2000; Srinivasan, O’Fallon, and Dearry 2003; Barton, Grant and Guise 2003).
The urban neighborhoods were once thriving communities with a variety of residents. Although racial segregation was prevalent in the majority of neighborhoods, many communities offered economic diversity (Bright, 2000). In the industrial era, they can be characterized as early establishments of quaint villages or in some instances attractive old suburbs of the cities. As cities grew and annexed these communities to the cities, they continued to thrive as a homogeneous part of the city, resulting in a habitat of diverse choices and opportunities. However, as the economy changed they experienced decline and reduced attention. The phenomenon called suburbanization, and later \”edge cities\”, made center cities less attractive, at least for living in the urban neighborhoods. As there were policies that created this situation, there were efforts to keep the interest in neighborhoods too. Despite the efforts for revitalization though, the neighborhoods continue to be in distress. The process of continued decline points out the deficiencies in the approaches and programs (Vyankatesh, 2004: 22-23).
Islamic Azad University, Salmas Branch
A good neighborhood is described as a healthy, quiet, widely accessible and safe community for its residents. Neighborhood satisfaction refers to residents’ overall evaluation of their neighborhood. Researchers from many disciplines have examined neighborhood satisfaction. A neighborhood is thus more than just a physical unit. One chooses to live in a housing unit after careful considerations of the many factors, which comprise the surrounding environment. Desirability of the neighborhood is decided on the factors such as location – from jobs, shopping, recreation, accessibility, vailability of transportation, \”quality of life\”.
We aim to discover the factors that influence residents’ satisfaction with their neighborhoods. The basic question is as follows:
What neighborhood elements influence satisfaction and how do they do so in general?
Literature Review
Literature on Neighborhoods
Neighborhood Settings
Ebenezer Howard (1898) based his design of the Garden City on the neighborhood units, which were relatively self-sufficient units that merged. While Howard’s idea focused in the suburbs, Clarence Perry (1929) attempted it in the city. His neighborhood unit was a self-contained residential area bounded by major streets, with shopping districts in periphery and community center and an elementary school located at the center of the neighborhood unit. In 1966, Clarence Stein altered Perry’s ideal concept in Radburn’s design. It had an elementary school at the center and park spaces flowed through the neighborhood, but it was larger than Perry’s concept and introduced the residential street design with cul-de-sac to eliminate through traffic.
At World War II, the massive suburbs developed and the concepts of neighborhood as a basic unit in land development changed. Since 2000, New Urbanists have called for traditional neighborhood development (TND) and transit-oriented development (TOD) models. They propose a neighborhood unit with a center and a balanced mix of activities; and they gave priority to the creation of public space.
Defining Neighborhood
The literature on neighborhoods defines neighborhood in many ways. While there is little broad agreement on the concept of neighborhood, few geographers would contradict the idea that neighborhood is a function of the inter-relationships between people and the physical and social environments” Knox & Pinch, 2000, p. 8). Brower (1996) explains that its form is derived from a particular pattern of activities, the presence of a common visual motif, an area with continuous boundaries or a network of often traveled streets. Soja (1980, p. 211) coined the term sociospatial dialectic for this phenomenon where “people create and modify urban spaces while at the same time being conditioned in various ways by the spaces in which they live and work.” It seems that research uses multiple definitions of a neighborhood simultaneously to reflect the fact that neighborhood is not a static concept but rather a dynamic one (Talen & Shah, 2007)
Park states that “Proximity and neighborly contact are the basis for the simplest and most elementary form of association which we have in the organization of city life. Local interests and associations breed local sentiment, and, under a system which makes residence the basis for participation in the government, the neighborhood becomes the basis of political control … it is the smallest local unit … The neighborhood exists without formal organization” (Park, 1925, p. 7).
Keller emphasizes on Boundaries, social character, unity or belonging, local facility use. He declines “The term neighbourhood … refers to distinctive areas into which larger spatial units may be subdivided such as gold coast and slums … middle class and working class areas. The distinctiveness of these areas stems from different sources whose independent contributions are difficult to assess: geographical boundaries, ethnic or cultural characteristics of the inhabitants, psychological unity among people who feel that they belong together, or concentrated use of an area’s facilities for shopping, leisure and learning… Neighborhoods containing all four elements are very rare in modern cities … geographical and personal boundaries do not always coincide” (Keller, 1968, p. 87).
While Wilkenson’s definition of neighborhood is based on its Place-orientated process, partial social relations, shared interest characteristics as he states “Community is not a place, but it is a place-orientated process. It is not the sum of social relationships in a population but it contributes to the wholeness of local social life. A community is a process of interrelated actions through which residents express their shared interest in the local society” (Wilkenson, 1989, p. 339), Kitagawa and Taeubeur emphasize on area history, name, local awareness, local organizations, and local business issues of the neighborhoods. They argue that “When community area boundaries were delimited… the objective was to define a set of sub-areas of the city each of which could be regarded as having a history of its own as a community, a name, an awareness on the part of its inhabitants of community interests, and a set of local businesses and organizations orientated to the local community” (Kitagawa and Taeubeur, 1963, p. xiii).
Glass believes physical and social characters both, take place in a Territorial group which he defines as neighborhood: “A neighbourhood is a distinct territorial group, distinct by virtue of the specific physical characteristics of the area and the specific social characteristics of the inhabitants” (Glass, 1948, p. 18).
Research commissions other than authors have their own neighborhood definition. As a result US National Research Commission on Neighborhoods and US National Research Council has revealed definitions as follows:
“A community consists of a population carrying on a collective life through a set of institutional arrangements. Common interests and norms of conduct are implied in this definition” (US National Research Commission on Neighborhoods, 1975, p. 2).
“In last analysis each neighborhood is what the inhabitants think it is. The only genuinely accurate delimitation of neighborhood is done by people who live there, work there, retire there, and take pride in themselves as well as their community” (US National Research Council, 1975, p. 2).
Forrest and Kearns (2004, p. 2126) argue the concept of neighborhood in an increasingly globalizing society and state impact of the information/technological age on neighborhood: “new virtuality in social networks and a greater fluidity and superficiality in social contact are further eroding the residual bonds of spatial proximity and kinship.”
Different definitions serve different interests, so that the neighborhood may be seen as a source of place-identity, an element of urban form, or a unit of decision making. This codependence between the spatial and social aspects of neighborhood is arguably one of the main reasons why the concept is so difficult to define.
Categorizing Neighborhood
Blowers conceptualizes neighborhood not as a static spatial entity but as existing along a continuum yielding five neighborhood types (Figure 1). Proceeding left to right in the continuum additional characteristics or dimensions are cumulatively added yielding more complex neighborhoods:
Figure 1 – The Neighborhood Continuum (Blowers 1973)
1. Arbitrary neighborhood: Blowers describes these neighborhoods as having “no integrating feature other than the space they occupy.” These districts have few homogeneous qualities and exhibit low social interaction (Blowers, 1973: p.55).
2. physical neighborhood: The boundaries of physical neighborhoods despite the arbitrary’s ill – defined boundaries are delineated by natural or built barriers such as major roads, railways, waterways or large tracts of non-residential land use (e.g. industrial parks, airports, etc.) The inhabitants residing within the boundaries of a physical neighborhood may share few characteristics in common. Blowers’ cautions that occupying the same physical area does not automatically imply a high degree of social interaction (Butler, 2008: 8).
3. Homogeneous neighborhood: These neighborhoods are the most familiar type of neighborhood in Blowers typology which has distinct spatial boundaries and the residents share common demographic, social or class characteristics.
4. Functional neighborhood: Blowers describes these neighborhoods as “functional areas are those within which activities such as shopping, education, worship, leisure, and recreation take place.” Like any functional region in geography, they are organized around a central node with surrounding linked to it through activities, service interchanges and associations (Blowers, 1973, p. 59).
5. Community neighborhood: Blowers sees the community neighborhood as “close-knit, socially homogeneous, territorially defined group engaging in primary contacts.” (Blowers, 1972, p. 60). Chaskin defines neighborhood as “clearly a spatial construction denoting a geographical unit in which residents share proximity and the circumstances that come with it… communities are units in which some set of connections is concentrated, either social connections (as in kin, friend or acquaintance networks), functional connections (as in the production, consumption, and transfer of goods and services), cultural connections (as in religion, tradition, or ethnic identity), or circumstantial connections (as in economic status or lifestyle)” (Chaskin, 1997, p. 522). Blower (1972, p, 61) contends that the community neighborhood can be seen as a culmination of the characteristics of the
environment, the socio-economic homogeneity of the population, and the functional interaction that takes place will contribute to the cohesiveness of the community neighborhood.” (Blower, 1972, p, 61)
Some researches demonstrate other classifications of neighborhoods. For instance Ladd, 1970; Lansing & Marans, 1969; Lansing et al., 1970; Marans, 1976; Zehner, 1971 introduce micro and macro neighborhoods based on walkability. They agree that a neighborhood should comprise a for the New preceding neighborhood types on the continuum by stating that “the distinctiveness of the geographical walkable distance . However, the actual walkable distance considered has varied from a quarter-mile to one mile from center to edge (Calthorpe, 1993; Choi et al., 1994; Colabianchi et al., 2007; Congress Urbanism, 2000; Hoehner et al., 2005; Hur & Chin, 1996; Jago, Baranowski, Zakeri, & Harris, 2005; Lund, 2003; Perry, 1939; Pikora et al., 2002; Stein, 1966; Talen & Shah, 2007; Western Australian Planning Commission, 2000). Micro-neighborhood is an area that a resident could see from his/her front door, that is, the five or six homes nearest to their house. Similarly, Appleyard (1981) used the term, home territory. He looked at residents’ conception of personal territory in three streets with different traffic hazard. The results showed that residents drew their territorial boundaries to a maximum of a street block (between intersections with approximately 6-10 buildings each side), and to a minimum their own apartment building. Research showed that the micro-neighborhood deals more with social relationships among neighbors than the physical environment.
In a slight adaptation of Suttles’ (1972) schema, we might say that the neighbourhood exists at three different scales (Table 1):
Table 1. Scales of Neighborhood
Scale Predominant function Mechanism(s)
Home area Psycho-social benefits
(for example, identity; belonging)
Familiarity
Community
Locality Residential activities
Social status and position Planning
Service provision
Housing market
Urban district or region Landscape of social and
economic opportunities
Employment connections
Leisure interests
Social networks
The smallest unit of neighbourhood, here referred to as the ‘home area’, is typically defined as an area of 5–10 minutes walk from one’s home. Here, we would expect the psycho-social purposes of neighbourhood to be strongest. As shown elsewhere (Kearns et al., 2000), the neighbourhood, in terms of the quality of environment and perceptions of co-residents, is an important element in the derivation of psycho-social benefits from the home. In terms of Brower’s (1996) outline of the ‘good neighbourhood’ , the home area can serve several functions, most notably those of relaxation and re-creation of self; making connections with others; fostering attachment and belonging; and demonstrating or reflecting one’s own values.
Some neighbourhoods and localities (in addition to individuals and groups) can be seen to be subject to discrimination and social exclusion as places and communities (Madanipour et al., 1998; Turok et al., 1999).
Once the urban region (the third level of neighbourhood in Table 1) is viewed as a landscape of social and economic opportunities with which some people are better engaged than others (for example, by reasons of employment, leisure activities or family connections), then the individual’ s expectations of the home area can be better understood (Kearns & Parkinson, 2001: 2104-2105).
Not only researchers have described several categories for neighborhoods but also different stratifications of neighborhood consumers have been developed. Four distinct types of user potentially reap benefits from the consumption of neighbourhood: households, businesses, property owners and local government. Households consume neighbourhood through the act of occupying a residential unit and using the surrounding private and public spaces, thereby gaining some degree of satisfaction or quality of residential life. Businesses consume neighbourhood through the act of occupying a non-residential structure (store, office, factory), thereby gaining a certain flow of net revenues or profits associated with that venue. Property owners consume neighbourhood by extracting rents and/or capital gains from the land and buildings owned in that location. Local governments consume neighbourhood by extracting tax revenues, typically from owners based on the assessed values of residential and non-residential properties (Galster, 2001: 2113)
Literature on satisfaction
Mesch and Manor (1998) define satisfaction as the evaluation of features of the physical and social environment.
Canter and Rees have argued that people interact with the environment at different levels— from the bedroom to the neighborhood and to the entire city. In their model of housing satisfaction, Canter and Rees (1982) referred to these levels of environment as levels of environmental interaction and defined them as scales of the environment that have a hierarchical order. They specified different levels at which people may experience satisfaction such as the house and the neighborhood. They also argued that the experience of satisfaction is similar and yet distinct at different levels of the environment. Similarly, Oseland (1990) and Gifford (1997, p. 200) stressed that other responses such as the experience of space and privacy also vary in different rooms in a home. Oseland’s study supported the hypothesis that users’ conceptualization of space depends on the location of the space. Some models of residential satisfaction (Weidemann & Anderson, 1985; and Francescato, Wiedemann, & Anderson, 1989) have also suggested that it is important to consider different levels of environment in the study of satisfaction.
Some studies, however, have examined how residential satisfaction varies at different levels of the environment (Paris & Kangari, 2005; Mccrea, Stimson, & Western, 2005). Most of these studies have examined residential satisfaction at two or three levels, namely the housing unit and the neighborhood level. For example, Mccrea et al., (2005) examined residential satisfaction at three levels; the housing unit, the neighborhood, and the wider metropolitan region. Although the manner in which levels of environment have been defined in these studies has depended on the context of the research and on the interest of the researcher, the most common levels of environment have been the housing unit and the neighborhood (Amole, 2009:867).
Discussion
Neighborhood satisfaction
What is a good neighborhood? A common answer could describe it as a healthy, quiet, widely accessible and safe community for its residents, wherever they may live, in the suburbs or in the city. However Brower believes a good neighborhood is not an ideal neighborhood, but it is a place with minimum problems and defects (Brower, 1996). Practically, a neighborhood is defined by the psychology of its 4 types of consumers which includes households, businesses, property owners and local government as described above. The boundaries drawn are often based on these and other factors such as history, politics, geography and economics.
Whether there is a relative homogeneity in socioeconomic character, historic conditions such as annexations, political boundaries of wards and councils, or whether the place is divided by natural geographic features or by rails, streets etc all counts in deciding the ‘goodness’ of the neighborhood (Vyankatesh, 2004:20).
Neighborhood satisfaction refers to residents’ overall evaluation of their neighborhood. Researchers from many disciplines have examined neighborhood satisfaction (Amerigo, 2002; Amerigo & Aragones, 1997; Carvalho et al., 1997; Francescato, 2002; Hur & Morrow-Jones, 2008; Lipsetz, 2001; Marans, 1976; Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Mesch & Manor, 1998; Weidemann & Anderson, 1985). They have used a variety of terms such as, residential satisfaction, community satisfaction, or satisfaction with residential communities for it (Amerigo & Aragones, 1997; Cook, 1988; Lee, 2002; Lee et al., 2008; Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Miller et al., 1980; Zehner, 1971). (Hur, 2008a: 8)
High neighborhood satisfaction increases households’ sense of community and vice versa (Brower, 2003; Mesch & Manor, 1998). Studies often mention that residential and neighborhood satisfaction also influences people’s intentions to move (Brower, 2003; Droettboom, McAllister, Kaiser, & Butler, 1971; Kasl & Harburg, 1972; Lee, Oropesa, & Kanan, 1994; Nathanson, Newman, Moen, & Hiltabiddle, 1976; Newman & Duncan, 1979; Quigley & Weinberg, 1977). High satisfaction among residents encourages them to stay on and induces others to move in, and low satisfaction with the neighborhood environment urges current residents to move out. Marans and Rodgers (1975) and Marans and Spreckelmeyer (1981) find that the relationship between neighborhood satisfaction, decisions to move, and quality of life is a sequential process, with neighborhood satisfaction predicting mobility and mobility affecting quality of life (Hur, 2008b: 620).
Francescato et al. (1989) noted that “the construct of residential satisfaction can be conceived as a complex, multidimensional, global appraisal combining cognitive, affective, and cognitive facets, thus fulfilling the criteria for defining it as an attitude. (p.189)”
Dimensions of Neighborhood Satisfaction
Dimensions of satisfaction are similar at the different levels of the environment. The term “dimensions of satisfaction” refers to the aspects, characteristics, and features of the residential environment (such as design aspects, social characteristics, facilities provided, or management issues) to which the users respond in relation to satisfaction (Francescato, 2002). This is important because it would inform researchers about the important dimensions and relevant research questions at different levels of the environment.
A neighborhood is thus more than just a physical unit. One chooses to live in a housing unit after careful considerations of the many factors, which comprise the surrounding environment. Desirability of the neighborhood is decided on the factors such as location – from jobs, shopping, recreation, accessibility, vailability of transportation, \”quality of life\”, however ambiguous that term may be, depicted in countless expressions or terms of public and private services, sewer, water, police schools, neighbors, entertainment facilities etc., (Ahlbrandt and Brophy, 1975). Availability of housing of a desirable choice is yet another factor influencing the choice of neighborhood. The desired lot sizes and architectural styles play their role in the choice. These livability features hold a key to the future viability of a neighborhood (Vyankatesh, 2004: 22).
Residents in neighborhoods where most homeowners are satisfied with their neighborhoods focus on different aspects of their neighborhoods than those where most are dissatisfied; and finally, we hypothesize that the two neighborhood groups differ in terms of features that affect neighborhood satisfaction.
The findings of neighborhood satisfaction research are sometimes contradictory because of the compound nature of “satisfaction.”
Since neighborhood characteristics vary; there are spatial differences in satisfaction across areas. Also length of residence, amount of social interaction, satisfaction with traffic, and satisfaction with appearance or aesthetics are important variables in neighborhood satisfaction. Thus complex characteristics of neighborhood satisfaction have been pointed in our research:
Where Residents Live
Research found different circumstances affecting neighborhood satisfaction depending on where the residents live (Cook, 1988; Hur & Morrow-Jones, 2008; Zehner, 1971). For example, Zehner (1971) examined residents’ neighborhood satisfaction in new towns and less planned areas. New town residents were more likely to mention attributes of the larger area, the physical factors; and the less planned town residents were focused on the micro-residential features with emphases on the social characteristic of the neighborhood (Hur, 2008a: 17).
Socio-Demographic Characteristics
There were a number of studies that indicate the importance of sociodemographic characteristics on neighborhood satisfaction. They have found positive influences of longer tenure in the neighborhood (Bardo, 1984; Galster, 1987; Lipsetz, 2001; Potter & Cantarero, 2006; Speare, 1974), and homeownership (Lipsetz, 2001). Young, educated, and wealthy urban residents were found to be more satisfied than others (Miller et al., 1980). St. John (1984a, 1984b, 1987) found no evidence of racial differences in neighborhood evaluation, but Morrow-Jones, Wenning, and Li (2005) found that Satisfaction with a community’s racial homogeneity is another predictor of residential satisfaction.
Social Factors in Neighborhood
Social and psychological ties to a place such as having friends or family living nearby (Brower, 2003; Lipsetz, 2001; Speare, 1974) were an important social factor in neighborhood satisfaction. Brower (2003) finds having friends and relatives living nearby is a factor that increases neighborhood satisfaction; Lipsetz (2000), on the other hand, finds that it has a largely negative effect on urbanites’ satisfaction but has no effect on that of suburbanites’.
The findings agree that residents were satisfied when they considered their neighbors as friendly, trusting, and supportive. People reported satisfaction was higher when they reported talking to their neighbors often and supporting each other formally and informally, especially for the residents who have lived in the neighborhood longer (Potter & Cantarero, 2006).
In addition to the positive social interactions factors, the other factors that decrease neighborhood satisfaction include crime rate, social incivilities such as harassing neighbors, teenagers hanging out, noise, fighting, and arguing.
Physical Factors in Neighborhood
I. Physical environmental characteristics
Planners can more directly shape the neighborhood physical features and policy can apply the physical features effectively. Although planners support the importance of physical characteristics, residents consider social factors more important in judging a neighborhood (Lansing & Marans, 1969).
Research often finds physical characteristics a strong influence on neighborhood satisfaction compared to social or economic characteristics (Sirgy & Cornwell, 2002). Neotraditonal and New Urbanist approaches focus on physical features as a media to decrease dependence on the automobile, foster pedestrian activity, and provide opportunities for interaction among residents (Marans & Rodgers, 1975; Rapoport, 1987).
There are several physical environmental features that research has considered. Some relate to neighborhood satisfaction and the others have connections to the factors that may link to neighborhood satisfaction. Hur (2008a) has categorized Physical environmental characteristics to 3 types:
1. Physical disorder (incivilities):
It promotes fear of crime, makes people want to leave the area, and diminishes residents’ overall neighborhood satisfaction. Physical incivilities can be grouped into three kinds:
• Fixed feature elements (such as, a vacant house and dilapidated building): Fixed feature elements “change rarely and slowly” (p. 88). Individual housing and the building lot are fixed-feature elements of the neighborhood.
• Semi-fixed feature elements (such as, graffiti and broken feature on public property): semi-fixed feature elements “can, and do, change fairly quickly and easily” (p. 89), which Rapoport says, “become particularly important in environmental meaning…where they tend to communicate more than fixed-feature elements” (p. 89).
• Non-fixed (movable) elements (such as, litter and abandoned cars): Rapoport (1982) also suggested non-fixed feature elements, which include people and their nonverbal behaviors (p. 96).
2. Defensible space features :
“Defensible Space” is a program that “restructures the physical layout of communities to allow residents to control the areas around their homes (U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, 1996, p.9).” This supports an action to foster territoriality, natural surveillance, a safe image, and a protected milieu:
• Foster territoriality: Territoriality, another defensible feature, involves territorial symbols such as yard barriers (G. Brown et al., 2004; Perkins et al., 1993), block watch signs, security alarm stickers, and evidence of dogs (Perkins et al., 1993). Although they may reduce crime and fear of crime, research has not looked at the connection to residents’ neighborhood satisfaction. Litter and graffiti, which are also incivilities, affect image and milieu.
• Natural surveillance: Natural surveillance involves windows facing the streets, and place to sit outside (front porches). If provide eyes on the street (B. Brown et al., 1998; MacDonald & Gifford, 1989; Perkins et al., 1992, 1993), give residents opportunities to have informal contacts with their neighbors to help formation of local ties (Bothwell, 1998; B. Brown et al., 1998; Plas & Lewis, 1996), and affects non-verbal messages of monitoring (Easterling, 1991; Taylor & Brower, 1985). Research reported that a less visible street from neighboring houses had more crime (G. Brown et al., 2004; Perkins et al., 1993) indicating the importance of surveillance system in neighborhood. Despite of its significance, Bothwell et al. (1998) was the only study looking at natural surveillance as an influence on neighborhood satisfaction. The study showed how public housing residents in Diggs town have become known to each other, restored the sense of belongingness, and built strong neighborhood satisfaction via front porches.
• A safe image: The safe image conveys an impression of a safe and invulnerable neighborhood. If the image is negative, “the project will be stigmatized and its residents castigated and victimized (Newman, 1972, p. 102).”
• A protected milieu: A safe milieu is a neighborhood situated in the middle of a wider crime-free area, which is thus insulated from the outside world by a moat of safety (Burke, 2005, p.202).
3. Built or natural characteristics:
The third type of physical environmental features includes the degree to which a place looks built or natural. Studies have measured residential density, land use and vegetation. Lansing et al. (1970) was the only study to look at density-related characteristics (e.g., frequency of hearing neighbors, and privacy in yard from neighbors) on neighborhood satisfaction. But those elements were more social than physical, and thus may only get at physical density in the neighborhood indirectly. Lee et al. (2008) found that residents’ neighborhood satisfaction was associated with natural landscape structure: tree patches in the neighborhood environment that were less fragmented, less isolated, and well connected positively influenced the neighborhood satisfaction. Some research has looked at the associations between multiple attributes. Ellis et al. (2006) looked at relationships between land use, vegetation, and neighborhood satisfaction. While the amount of nearby retail land use has a negative correlation with neighborhood satisfaction, they found that the amount of trees moderated the negative effect (Hur, 2008a: 19-22)
II. Perceived and evaluative physical environmental characteristics
One set of studies identifies physical appearance as the most important factor for increasing neighborhood satisfaction and quality of life (Kaplan, 1985; Langdon, 1988, 1997; Sirgy & Cornwell, 2002). Nasar’s (1988) survey of residents and visitors found that their visual preferences related to five likable features: naturalness, upkeep/civilities, openness, historic significance, and order. People liked the visual quality of areas that had those attributes and they disliked the visual quality of areas that did not have them. Newly arrived residents point out that physical appearance is the most important factor for residential satisfaction, but long-time residents mention stress factors (e.g., tension with neighbors, level of income of the neighborhood, inability to communicate with others, racial discrimination, crime, etc.) as the most important factors (Potter & Cantarero, 2006).
Emotional and temporal dimensions of the environmental experience
These are recognized as a component part of the people–environment relationship and therefore residential satisfaction. Residential satisfaction is indeed strongly associated with one’s attachment to the living space.
Conclusion
Several studies have constructed comprehensive models of residential satisfaction. The complex attributes of neighborhoods can be categorized to 7 types, each have several characteristics. These are the main features which should be studied, measured and rated to estimate the residential satisfaction of their neighborhoods.
We must point that each group of neighborhood satisfaction dimension has to deliberate separately by the 4 types of the consumers of the neighborhood which have been mentioned before. The total rank will demonstrate the neighborhood satisfaction status.
As the result of the essay we introduce a classification of the satisfaction dimensions. This can make a comprehensive base for evaluating almost all the features that influence the residential satisfaction in neighborhood scale.
The 7 types of the neighborhood attributes and satisfaction dimensions are presented in the table below (table 2):
Table 2. Complex Attributes of Neighborhoods
Satisfaction dimension Assessment factors Sub-factors
Spatial characteristics Proximity characteristics access to major destinations of employment
both distance and transport infrastructure
Local facility use Local interests
Open spaces
Access to recreational opportunities
Entertainment, shopping, etc
Mass – void –
Neighborhood boundaries
Unity
Pedestrian access to stores
Place – oriented design process
Legibility
Physical characteristics Structural characteristics of the residential and non-residential buildings Type
scale
materials,
design, state of repair
density, landscaping, etc.
Infrastructural characteristics roads
sidewalks
streetscaping
utility services, etc.
traffic –
Aesthetics / appearance Naturalness
Upkeep / civilities
Openness
Historic significance
Order
color
Density of housing –
Building type Apartment
Villa, etc.
Environmental characteristics degree of land
topographical features
views, etc. –
pollution
air,
water
noise
cleanliness –
Climatic design Architecture
Wind tunnels
Sunny / too hot
Sentimental characteristics Place identification
Historical significance of buildings or district, etc.
length of residence
proximity to problem areas
name/ area pride
local awareness
–
Living space
New towns
Less planned areas
cognition
Place identity
Sense of place
Sense of Belonging to place
Social characteristics Local friend and kin networks
Degree of interhousehold familiarity
Type and quality of interpersonal associations
Residents’ perceived commonality Participation in locally based voluntary associations
Strength of socialization and social Control forces
Social support
Racial homogeneity
Neighborhood cohesion
–
Collective life
Interaction with communities
Interaction through favors
Interaction through social activity
Amount of social interaction
Territorial group
Common interests
Participation: informal social participation & participation in formal neighborhood organizations
Common conduct
Physical disorder (incivilities) Fixed feature elements (such as, a vacant house and dilapidated building)
Semi-fixed feature elements (such as, graffiti and broken feature on public property)
Non-fixed (movable) elements
Defensible space features Foster territoriality (such as block watch signs, security alarm stickers, and evidence of dogs)
Natural surveillance (such as windows facing the streets, and place to sit outside)
Built or natural characteristics Residential density
Land use
Vegetation
Demographic- economic characteristics Age distribution,
Family composition,
Ethnic
Religious Types
Tenure period / Home ownership
Wealthy / Poor
Ratio of owners / renters
Gender
Marital status
Cultural characteristics
–
Age
Young
Old
Children under 18
etc.
Education
educated
Uneducated
education composition
Occupation
Local business workers / retried
Income
Family / friend nearby
Friendly / trusting and supportive neighbors
Crime rate
Teenagers hanging out
Noise
Fighting / arguing –
Management – political characteristics The quality of safety forces
Public schools
Public administration
Parks and recreation, etc.
Residents exert influence in local affairs through spatially rooted Channels or elected representatives
Local government service
Local associations
Political control
Local organizations –
References
- Amole, Dolapo, 2009, Residential Satisfaction and Levels of Environment in Students’ Residences, Environment and Behavior, Volume 41, No. 6, P 867.
- Barton, Hugh, 2000, Sustainable Communities: The Potential for Eco; neighborhoods- Earthscan Publications Ltd.
- Blowers, A. (1973). The neighbourhood: exploration of a concept, Open Univ. Urban Dev. Unit 7, Pp 49-90.
- Bright, Elise M., 2000, Reviving America’s Forgotten Neighborhoods: An Investigation of Inner City Revitalization Efforts. New York: Garland Publishing, Inc.
- Brower, Sidney. (1996). Good neighborhoods: Study of in-town and suburban residential environments. Westport, CT: Praeger Publishers.
- Butler, Kevin A., 2008, A Covariance Strucyural Analysis Of A Conceptual Nehghborhood Model, A dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy submitted to Kent State University, P 8.
- Canter, D, & Rees, K.A. (1982). Multivariate model of housing satisfaction. International Review of Applied Psychology, 32, Pp 185-208.
- Chaskin, Robert J., 1997, Perspectives on Neighborhood and Community: A Review of the Literature, The Social Service
- Review, Vol. 71, No. 4, pp. 521-547. p. 522.
- Churchman, A. (1999, May). Disentangling the concept of density. Journal of Planning Literature, 13(4), Pp 389-411.
- Ellis, C. D., Lee, S. W., & Kweon, B. S. (2006). Retail land use, neighborhood satisfaction and the urban forest: An investigation into the moderating and mediating effects of trees and shrubs. Landscape and Urban Planning, 74, Pp 70-78.
- Fleury-Bahi, Ghozlane & Félonneau, Line, 2008, Processes of Place Identification and Residential Satisfaction, Environment and Behavior, Volume 40, No.5, pp 669-682.
- Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2004). Who Cares About Neighbourhood? Paper presented at the Community, Neighbourhood, Responsibility. From http://www.neighbourhoodcentre.org.uk.
- Forrest, Ray & Kearns, Ade, 2001, Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood, Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 12, pp.2125–2143.
- Galster, George, 2001, On the Nature of Neighbourhood, Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 12, Pp 2113.
- Gifford, R. (1997). Environmental psychology: Principles and practices. Boston: Allyn and Bacon, p. 200
- Hur, Misun & Morrow-Jones, Hazel, 2008, Factors That Influence Residents’ Satisfaction with Neighborhoods, Environment and Behavior, Volume 40, No. 5, Pp 620.
- Hur, Misun, 2008a, Neighborhood satisfaction, physical and perceived characteristics, A dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy submitted to Ohio state university, Pp 8- 17 – 20,21,22,19.
- Johnson , Philip, 2008, Comparative Analysis of Open-Air and Traditional Neighborhood Commercial Centers, A dissertation for the degree of MASTER OF Master of Community Planning submitted to the University of Cincinnati.
- Kaplan, R. (1985). Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, Pp 115-127.
- Kearns, Ade & Parkinson, Michael, 2001, The Significance of Neighbourhood, Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 12, pp. 2103–2110.
- Keller, Suzanne, 1968, The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective, Random House, p. 87
- Ladd, F. C. (1970). Black youths view their environment: Neighborhood maps. Environment and Behavior, 2, Pp 74-99.
- Lansing, J. B., Marans, R. W., & Zehner, R. B. (1970). Planned residential environments. Ann Arbor, Michigan: Institute for Social Research, The University of Michigan.
- Lee, B. A., Oropesa, R. S., & Kanan, J. W. (1994). Neighborhood context and residential mobility. Demography, 31, Pp 249-270.
- Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, Pp 504-519.
- Morrow-Jones, H.,Wenning, M. V., & Li,Y. (2005). Differences in neighborhood satisfaction between African American and White homeowners. Paper presented at the Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning (ACSP46), Kansas City, MO.
- Nasar, J. L. (1988). Perception and evaluation of residential street scenes. In J. L. Nasar (Ed.), Environmental aesthetics: Theory, research, and applications (pp. 275- 289). New York: Cambridge University Press.
- Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space; crime prevention through urban design. New York: The MacMillian Company.
- Oseland, N. A. (1990). An evaluation of space in new homes. Proceedings of the IAPS Conference Ankara, Turkey, Pp 322-331.
- Park, Robert E. & Burgess, Ernest W., (1967) or (1984) or (1992), The City; Suggestions for Investigation of Human Behavior in the Urban Environment,
- Potter, J., & Cantarero, R. (2006). How does increasing population and diversity affect resident satisfaction? A small community case study. Environment and Behavior, 38, Pp 605-625.
- Rapoport, A. (1982). The meaning of the built environment: a nonverbal communication approach. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
- Sizemore, Steve, 2004, Urban Eco-villages as an Alternative Model to Revitalizing Urban Neighborhoods: The Eco-village Approach of the Seminary Square/Price Hill Eco-village of Cincinnati, Ohio, A dissertation for the degree of MASTER OF COMMUNITY PLANNING submitted to The University of Cincinnati.
- Soja, E. (1980). The socio-spatial dialectic. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 70, Pp 207-225.
- Talen, E., & Shah, S. (2007). Neighborhood evaluation using GIS: An exploratory study. Environment and Behavior, 39(5), Pp 583-615.
- Vyankatesh, Terdalkar Sunil, 2004, Revitalizing Urban Neightborhoods: A Realistic Approach to Develop Strategies, A dissertation for Master of Community Planning submitted to University of Cincinnati, Pp 22-23-20-22.
- Wilkinson, Derek, 2007, The Multidimensional Nature of Social Cohesion: Psychological Sense of Community, Attraction, and Neighboring, Springer Science+Business Media, pp. 214–229.
- Zehner, R. B. (1971, November). Neighborhood and community satisfaction in new towns and less planned suburbs. Journal of the American Institute of Planners (AIP Journal), Pp 379-385.
2017-5-16-1494940409