• Home
  • A Statistical Meta-Analysis of the Neighborhood Design Elements on Social Capital

Share To

Article Url


Manuscript ID : SOIJ-2208-1511 Visit : 73 Page: 1 - 18

10.22094/soij.2022.1964894.1511

Article Type: Original Research

A Statistical Meta-Analysis of the Neighborhood Design Elements on Social Capital

Subject Areas : Space Ontology International Journal

Mahdieh  Seifikaran 1 (Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Design, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.)
Marjan A.  Nemati Mehr 2 (Department of Urban and Regional Planning and Design, School of Architecture and Urban Planning, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran.)

Received: 2022-08-17 Accepted : 2022-10-12 Published : 2022-09-01

Keywords: meta-analysis, Social capital, sense of community, neighborhood design elements, community participation,

Abstract :

Following the decline of social capital after the spread of urban sprawl, in the last two decades in various fields, including urban design and planning, growing empirical studies have been conducted to examine the relationship between "built environment" and "social capital. These studies have different and sometimes inconsistent and contradictory results, and researchers do not have comprehensive and sufficient information about the results of findings obtained from all researches.The purpose of this research is to classify aspects of the built environment related to social capital at the neighborhood scale and to find their effect size on social capital. In order to investigate the main purpose of the research based on meta-analysis method, keywords related to neighborhood design elements and social capital were searched in ISI Web of Science and Scopus databases in the period of 2000 to 2019.After identifying and screening the articles, based on the inclusion and exclusion criteria, 33 articles were included in the meta-analysis.After extracting the statistical data of each article, social capital data were coded in two behavioral and cognitive dimensions and neighborhood design elements data were coded in building, density, land use, street and public space dimensions. After analyzing the results using CMA (V.2) software and checking the heterogeneity between the studies with the I2 test, the random model was used to extract the average effect size.Therefore, among the neighborhood design elements the street dimension (ES=0.306) and then the land use dimension (ES=0.120) have the highest impact on the behavioral dimension of social capital and the public space dimension (ES=0.2) has the greatest impact on the cognitive dimension of the social capital.

References:


  1. Aldridge, S., Halpern,D., & Fitzpatrick S.(2002). Social Capital: A Discussion Paper. London, England: Performance and Innovation UN
    2.
  2. Arundel, R., & Ronald, R. (2017). The role of urban form in sustainability of community: The case of Amsterdam. Environment and Planning B: Urban Analytics and City Science, 44(1), 33-53.
    3.
  3. Bjornstrom, E. E., & Ralston, M. L. (2014). Neighborhood built environment, perceived danger, and perceived social cohesion. Environment and behavior, 46(6), 718-744.
    4.
  4. Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: a confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and urban planning, 65(1-2), 41-52.
    5.
  5. Bottini, L. (2018). “The effects of built environment on community participation in urban neighbourhoods: an empirical exploration”, Cities, 81, 108-114.
    6.
  6. Borenstein, M., Cooper, H., Hedges, L., & Valentine, J. (2009). Effect sizes for continuous data. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2, 221-235.
    7.
  7. Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New urban and standard suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67(4), 402-419.
    8.
  8. Brueckner, J.K., Largey, A.G., 2008. Social interaction and urban sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics 64, 18–34.
    9.
  9. Cabrera, J. F., & Najarian, J. C. (2015). How the built environment shapes spatial bridging ties and social capital. Environment and Behavior, 47(3), 239-267.
    10.
  10. Carmona, m., heath, t., oc, t. and tiesdell, s. (2003), Public Places Urban Spaces: The Dimensions of Urban Design, Oxford, Architectural Press
    11.
  11. Cervero, R., & Kockelman, K. (1997). “Travel demand and the 3Ds: Density, diversity, and design”, Transportation Research Part D: Transport and Environment, 2(3), 199-219.
    12.
  12. Chung, K. C., Burns, P. B., & Kim, H. M. (2006). A practical guide to meta-analysis. The Journal of hand surgery, 31(10), 1671–1678.
    13.
  13. Cohen, D. A., Inagami, S., & Finch, B. (2008). “The built environment and collective efficacy”, Health & Place, 14(2), 198-208.
    14.
  14. Cooper, C. H., Fone, D. L., & Chiaradia, A. J. (2014). Measuring the impact of spatial network layout on community social cohesion: a cross-sectional study. International Journal of Health Geographics, 13(1), 1-14.
    15.
  15. Cowen, C., Louderback, E. R., & Roy, S. S. (2019). The role of land use and walkability in predicting crime patterns: A spatiotemporal analysis of Miami-Dade County neighborhoods, 2007–2015. Security Journal, 32(3), 264-286.
    16.
  16. Dempsey, N. (2009). Are Good-Quality Environments Socially CohesiveƧ̣ Measuring Quality and Cohesion in Urban Neighbourhoods. The Town Planning Review, 80(3), 315–345.
    17.
  17. Ding, D., & Gebel, K. (2012). Built environment, physical activity, and obesity: what have we learned from reviewing the literature?. Health & place, 18(1), 100-105.
    18.
  18. Du Toit, L., Cerin, E., Leslie, E., & Owen, N. (2007). “Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability? “, Urban Studies, 44(9), 1677-1695.
    19.
  19. French, S., Wood, L., Foster, S. A., Giles-Corti, B., Frank, L., & Learnihan, V. (2013). “Sense of community and its association with the neighborhood built environment”, Environment and Behavior, 46(6), 677-697.
    20.
  20. Francis, J., Giles-Corti, B., Wood, L., & Knuiman, M. (2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of environmental psychology, 32(4), 401-409.
    21.
  21. Hagen, B., Nassar, C., & Pijawka, D. (2017). The social dimension of sustainable neighborhood design: comparing two neighborhoods in Freiburg, Germany. Urban Planning, 2(4), 64-80.
    22.
  22. Handy, S. L. (1996). Urban form and pedestrian choices: study of Austin neighborhoods. Transportation research record, 1552(1), 135-144.
    23.
  23. Hanibuchi, T., Kondo, K., Nakaya, T., Shirai, K., Hirai, H., & Kawachi, I. (2012). “Does walkable mean sociable? Neighborhood determinants of social capital among older adults in Japan”, Health & Place, 18(2), 229-239. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2011.09.015.
    24.
  24. Hipp, J. R., Corcoran, J., Wickes, R., & Li, T. (2014). ”Examining the social porosity of environmental features on neighborhood sociability and attachment”, PLoS One, 9(1).
    25.
  25. Hong, A., Sallis, J. F., King, A. C., Conway, T. L., Saelens, B., Cain, K. L. ,  ... & Frank, L. D. (2018). Linking green space to neighborhood social capital in older adults: The role of perceived safety. Social Science & Medicine, 207, 38-45.
    26.
  26. Hopkins, D. J., & Williamson, T. (2012).” Inactive by design? Neighborhood design and political participation”, Political Behavior, 34(1), 79-101.
    27.
  27. Holtan, M. T., Dieterlen, S. L., & Sullivan, W. C. (2015). Social life under cover: tree canopy and social capital in Baltimore, Maryland. Environment and behavior, 47(5), 502-525.
    28.
  28. Hunter, J. E., & Schmidt, F. L. (2004). Methods of meta-analysis: Correcting error and bias in research findings. Sage
    29.
  29. Jabareen, Y., & Zilberman, O. (2017). Sidestepping physical determinism in planning: the role of compactness, design, and social perceptions in shaping sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 37(1), 18-28.
    30.
  30. Jenks, M., & Jones, C. (Eds.). (2010). Dimensions of the sustainable city. London: Springer.
    31.
  31. Johnson, C. A. (2010). Do public libraries contribute to social capital? : A preliminary investigation into the relationship. Library & information science research, 32(2), 147-155.
    32.
  32. Jun, H. J., & Hur, M. (2015). The relationship between walkability and neighborhood social environment: The importance of physical and perceived walkability. Applied Geography, 62, 115-124.
    33.
  33. Kamruzzaman, M., Wood, L., Hine, J., Currie, G., Giles-Corti, B., & Turrell, G. (2014). Patterns of social capital associated with transit oriented development. Journal of Transport Geography, 35, 144-155.
    34.
  34. Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). “Physical and psychological factors in sense of community New Urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village”, Environment and Behavior, 36(3), 313-340.
    35.
  35. Leyden, K. M. (2003). “Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods”, American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546-1551.
    36.
  36. Lee, S., Yoo, C., Ha, J., & Seo, J. (2017). Are perceived neighbourhood built environments associated with social capital? Evidence from the 2012 Seoul survey in South Korea. International Journal of Urban Sciences, 22(3), 349-365.
    37.
  37. Lim, T. S. Y., Hassan, N., Ghaffarianhoseini, A., & Daud, M. N. (2017). The relationship between satisfaction towards neighbourhood facilities and social trust in urban villages in Kuala Lumpur. Cities, 67, 85-94.
    38.
  38. Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Planning education and Research, 21(3), 301-312.
    39.
  39. Lund, H. (2003). “Testing the claims of New Urbanism: Local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring behaviors”, Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 414-429.
    40.
  40. Mason, S. G. (2010). Can community design build trust? A comparative study of design factors in Boise, Idaho neighborhoods. Cities, 27(6), 456-465.
    41.
  41. Mazumdar, S., Learnihan, V., Cochrane, T., & Davey, R. (2018). The built environment and social capital: A systematic review. Environment and Behavior, 50(2), 119-158.
    42.
  42. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of community psychology, 14(1), 6-23.
    43.
  43. Moudon, A. V. (1997). Urban morphology as an emerging interdisciplinary field. Urban morphology, 1(1), 3-10.
    44.
  44. Nguyen, D. (2010). Evidence of the impacts of urban sprawl on social capital. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 610-627.
    45.
  45. Oidjarv, H. (2018). “The Tale of Two Communities: Residents’ Perceptions of the Built Environment and Neighborhood Social Capital”, Sage open, 8(2), 2158244018768386.
    46.
  46. Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers, beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts and how they get you through the day. New York: Paragon House.
    47.
  47. Özkan, D. G., Özkan, S. D., & Akyol, D. (2019). Place Satisfaction, Place Attachment And Sense Of Community In Neighborhoods: A Case Study On Trabzon, Turkey. Management Research & Practice, 11(3).
    48.
  48. Pendola, R., & Gen, S. (2008). Does “Main Street” promote sense of community? A comparison of San Francisco neighborhoods. Environment and behavior, 40(4), 545-574.
    49.
  49. Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B. J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291–318). Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers. 
    50.
  50. Podobnik, B. (2011). Assessing the social and environmental achievements of New Urbanism: evidence from Portland, Oregon. Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability, 4(2), 105-126.
    51.
  51. Putnam, R. D. (2001). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community.New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
    52.
  52. Raman, S. (2010). Designing a liveable compact city: physical forms of city and social life in urban neighbourhoods. Built environment, 36(1), 63-80.
    53.
  53. Rogers, G. O., & Sukolratanametee, S. (2009).”Neighborhood design and sense of community: Comparing suburban neighborhoods in Houston Texas”, Landscape and urban Planning, 92(3-4), 325-334.
    54.
  54. Rosenthal, R. (1995). Writing meta-analytic reviews. Psychological Bulletin, 118(2), 183–192
    55.
  55. Ross, A., & Searle, M. (2019). A conceptual model of leisure time physical activity, neighborhood environment, and sense of community. Environment and Behavior, 51(6), 749-781.
    56.
  56. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (1996). Paths to community empowerment: Organizing at home. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24(4), 517-550.
    57.
  57. Schellenberg, G., Lu, C., Schimmele, C., & Hou, F. (2018). The correlates of self-assessed community belonging in Canada: Social capital, neighbourhood characteristics, and rootedness. Social Indicators Research, 140(2), 597-618.
    58.
  58. Southworth, M., & Owens, P. M. (1993). The evolving metropolis: Studies of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59(3), 271-287.
    59.
  59. Talen, E. (2000). Measuring the public realm: A preliminary assessment of the link between public space and sense of community. Journal of Architectural andPlanning Research, 17, 344e360.
    60.
  60. Theall, K. P., Scribner, R., Cohen, D., Bluthenthal, R. N., Schonlau, M., & Farley, T. A. (2009). Social capital and the neighborhood alcohol environment. Health & place, 15(1), 323-332.
    61.
  61. Thorleifsdottir, K. (2008). Neighborhood design: Associations between suburban neighborhood morphology and children's outdoor, out-of-school, physical activities. North Carolina State University.
    62.
  62. Tsai, T. I. A. (2014). Strategies of building a stronger sense of community for sustainable neighborhoods: Comparing neighborhood accessibility with community empowerment programs. Sustainability, 6(5), 2766-2785.
    63.
  63. Vemuri, A. W., Morgan Grove, J., Wilson, M. A., & Burch Jr, W. R. (2011). A tale of two scales: Evaluating the relationship among life satisfaction, social capital, income, and the natural environment at individual and neighborhood levels in metropolitan Baltimore. Environment and Behavior, 43(1), 3-25.
    64.
  64. Walsh, S. E., & LaJoie, A. S. (2018). Influence of built environment and social capital on mental health of residents of assisted living communities in Louisville, KY.
    65.
  65. Wilkerson, A., Carlson, N. E., Yen, I. H., & Michael, Y. L. (2012). Neighborhood physical features and relationships with neighbors: Does positive physical environment increase neighborliness?. Environment and Behavior, 44(5), 595-615.
    66.
  66. Wood, L., Shannon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G., & Giles-Corti, B. (2008). The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: an exploratory study of the built environment, social capital and residents' perceptions of safety. Health & place, 14(1), 15–31.
    67.
  67. Wood, L., & Giles-Corti, B. (2008). Is there a place for social capital in the psychology of health and place? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 28(2), 154-163. 
    68.
  68. Wood, L., Frank, L. D., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social science & medicine, 70(9), 1381-1390.
    69.
  69. Wood, L., Giles-Corti, B., & Bulsara, M. (2012). Streets apart: Does social capital vary with neighbourhood design?. Urban Studies Research, 2012.
    70.
  70. Yoo, C., & Lee, S. (2016). Neighborhood built environments affecting social capital and social sustainability in Seoul, Korea. Sustainability, 8(12), 1346.
    71.
  71. Zhang, H., Matsuoka, R. H., & Huang, Y. J. (2018). How do community planning features affect the place relationship of residents? An investigation of place attachment, social interaction, and community participation. Sustainability, 10(8), 2726.
    72.
  72. Zhang, Z., & Zhang, J. (2017). Perceived residential environment of neighborhood and subjective well-being among the elderly in China: A mediating role of sense of community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 51, 82-94.
    73.
  73. Zhu, X., Yu, C. Y., Lee, C., Lu, Z., & Mann, G. (2014). A retrospective study on changes in residents' physical activities, social interactions, and neighborhood cohesion after moving to a walkable community. Preventive medicine, 69, S93-S97.
    74.
  74. Zhu, Y. (2015). “Toward community engagement : Can the built environment help ? Grassroots participation and communal space in Chinese urban communities”, Habitat International, 46, 44–53.
    75.
  75. Zumelzu, A., & Barrientos-Trinanes, M. (2019). Analysis of the effects of urban form on neighborhood vitality: five cases in Valdivia, Southern Chile. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 34(3), 897-925.
    76.

 

Related articles

The rights to this website are owned by the Raimag Press Management System.
Copyright © 2021-2024

Home| Login| About Us| Contact Us|
[فارسی] [العربية] [fa] [ar]