The Impact of Street Accessibility on Community Relations and Health in Residential Neighbourhoods (Case Study: Penang, Malaysia)

Subject Areas :

Massoomeh  Hedayati Marzbali ¹ (Senior Lecturer, School of Housing, Building & Planning, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia)
Mohammad Javad  Maghsoodi Tilaki ² (Senior Lecturer, School of Humanities, Universiti Sains Malaysia, Penang, Malaysia)
Mahsan  Zareei ³ (PhD Student in Architecture, Islamic Azad University, Arak Branch, Arak, Iran)

Received: 2017-02-14 Accepted : 2017-08-19 Published : 2019-05-22

Keywords: permeability, Health, Malaysia, accessibility, community relations,

Abstract :

Increasing community relations in residential neighbourhoods is part of mechanisms of improving residents’ health and wellbeing. It provides a great opportunity for designers and planners to achieve high quality and sustainable residential developments. Certain characteristics of the neighbourhood can affect residents’ behaviour in the neighbourhood environment. The current study focuses on the impact of street permeability and accessibility on residents’ social cohesion and health in a sample of 271 residents in Penang, Malaysia. The study is quantitative in nature and is based on both descriptive and inferential statistics. The required information was collected based on on-site observation and a questionnaire survey. Four research hypotheses were advanced and tested using the structural equation modelling on a priori hypothesised conceptual model. We also investigated the mediating effect of social cohesion on the relationship between permeability and health. This study employed the structural equation modelling approach to analyse the data using SPSS and AMOS software. The results of analysis indicated that permeability has significant impacts on social cohesion and health. Findings also indicated that social cohesion mediates the relationship between permeability and health. Residents living in highly permeable streets are more likely to receive a low social cohesion and health, meaning that those living in cul-de-sacs perceived higher levels of social cohesion and subsequently, higher health than those living in through roads. This suggests that road hierarchy in residential areas has positive impact on social cohesion and health. Therefore, based on the study findings, we suggest that local planning authorities need to pay attention to some important matters of neighbourhoods such as street permeability and road hierarchy.

References:

 

1. امینی، ا.، برومند، م. و روح افزا، ف. 1393. ارزیابی عوامل مؤثر بر افزایش کیفیت فضاهای عمومی در شهرهای جدید نمونه موردی: شهر جدید پرند، آمایش محیط، دوره 7، شماره 26، 89-110.


2. رجبی، آ. 1396. کاربرد نظریه CPTED در کاهش جرایم شهری ، آمایش محیط، دوره 10، شماره 38، 27-46. 


3. نسترن، م. و میرزایی، ع. 1394، تحلیل کمی عوامل مؤثر بر سلامتی به منظور تحقق اهداف برنامه‌ریزی شهری و منطقه‌ای مطالعه‌ی موردی: شهرستان‌های استان اصفهان، آمایش محیط، دوره 8، شماره 30، 39-61.
   
   
   1. Abdullah, A., Hedayati-Marzbali, M., & Maghsoodi-Tilaki, M. J. (2013). Predicting the Influence of CPTED on Perceived Neighbourhood Cohesion: Considering Differences across Age. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 36(4), 54-64.
   
   
   2. Abdullah, A., Hedayati-Marzbali, M., Maghsoodi-Tilaki, M. J., & Bahauddin, A. (2015). Territorial features, disorder and fear of crime in residential neighbourhoods in Malaysia: testing for multigroup invariance. Global Crime, 16(3), 197-218.
   
   
   3. Abdullah, A., Hedayati-Marzbali, M., Ramayah, T., Bahauddin, A., & Maghsoodi-Tilaki, M. J. (2016). Territorial functioning and fear of crime: Testing for mediation in structural equation modeling. Security Journal, 29(3), 461–484.
   
   
   4. Appleyard, D., & Lintell, M. (1972). The environmental quality of city streets: the residents' viewpoint. Journal of the American Institute of Planners, 38(2), 84-101.
   
   
   5. Arahan Teknik Jalan. (1989). A Guide on Geometric Design of Roads. (8/86). Kuala Lampur: JKR.
   
   
   6. Babbie, E. R. (2007). The practice of social research (Eleventh ed.). California, USA: Wadsworth Publication Company.
   
   
   7. Baum, F. E., Zierscha, A. M., Zhangb, G., & Osborne, K. (2009). Do perceived neighbourhood cohesion and safety contribute to neighbourhood differences in health? Health and Place, 15(4), 925–934.
   
   
   8. Beavon, D. J. K., Brantingham, P. L., & Brantingham, P. J. (1994). The influence of street networks on the patterning of property offenses. Crime prevention studies, 2, 115-148.
   
   
   9. Bentler, P. M., & Bonett, D. G. (1980). Significance tests and goodness of fit in the analysis of covariance structures. Psychological Bulletin, 88(3), 588-606.
   
   
   10. Bentley, I., Alcock, A., Murrain, P., McGlynn, S., & Smith, G. (1985). Responsive environments: a manual for designers. London: Architectural Press.
   
   
   11. Berkman, L. F., Glass, T., Brissette, I., & Seeman, T. E. (2000). From social integration to health: Durkheim in the new millennium. Social Science & Medicine, 51(6), 843-857.
   
   
   12. Bollen, K. A., & Stine, R. A. (1992). Bootstrapping goodness-of-fit measures in structural equation models. Sociological Methods & Research, 21(2), 205-229.
   
   
   13. Brown, B. B., & Werner, C. M. (1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality, and holiday decorations: The influence of cul-de-sacs. Environment and behavior, 17(5), 539-565.
   
   
   14. Can, I., & Heath, T. (2016). In-between spaces and social interaction: a morphological analysis of Izmir using space syntax. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 31(1), 31-49.
   
   
   15. Carmines, E. G., & McIver, J. P. (1981). Analyzing models with unobserved variables. In G. W. Bohrnstedt & E. F. Borgatta (Eds.), Social measurement: current issues (pp. 65-115). Beverly Hills: Sage Publications, Inc.
   
   
   16. Cerin, E. (2011). Statistical approaches to testing the relationships of the built environment with resident-level physical activity behavior and health outcomes in cross-sectional studies with cluster sampling. Journal of Planning Literature, 26(2), 151-167.
   
   
   17. Cohen, D. A., Inagami, S., & Finch, B. (2008). The built environment and collective efficacy. Health and Place, 14(2), 198-208.
   
   
   18. Cozens, P. M. (2008). New urbanism, crime and the suburbs: a review of the evidence. Urban Policy and Research, 26(4), 429-444.
   
   
   19. Dovey, K. (1998). Safety and danger in urban design. Paper presented at the conference Safer Communities: Strategic Directions in Urban Planning. Convened jointly by the Australian Institute of Criminology and the Victorian Community Council Against Violence, Melbourne, 10-11 Sep.
   
   
   20. Foster, S., Giles-Corti, B., & Knuiman, M. (2010). Neighbourhood design and fear of crime: A socio-ecological examination of the correlates of residents' fear in new suburban housing developments. Health and Place, 16(6), 1156–1165.
   
   
   21. Gans, H. J. (1967). The Levittowners: How People Live and Politic in Suburbia. New York: Pantheon.
   
   
   22. Gehl, J. (1986). “Soft edges” in residential streets. Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 3(2), 89-102.
   
   
   23. Gehl, J. (2011). Life between buildings: using public space. Washington, USA: Island Press.
   
   
   24. Hedayati-Marzbali, M., Abdullah, A., & Maghsoodi-Tilaki, M. J. (2016). The effectiveness of interventions in the built environment for improving health by addressing fear of crime. International Journal of Law, Crime and Justice, 45(2), 120-140.
   
   
   25. Hedayati-Marzbali, M., Abdullah, A., Razak, N. A., & Maghsoodi-Tilaki, M. J. (2012b). The relationship between socio-economic characteristics, victimization and CPTED principles: evidence from the MIMIC model. Crime, law and social change, 58(3), 351-371.
   
   
   26. Hedayati-Marzbali, M., Abdullah, A., Razak, N. A., & Maghsoodi-Tilaki, M. J. (2012a). The Influence of Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design on Victimisation and Fear of Crime. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32(2), 79-88.
   
   
   27. Hillier, B. (2004). Can streets be made safe? Urban Design International, 9(1), 31-45.
   
   
   28. Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 6(1), 1-55.
   
   
   29. Hulland, J. (1999). Use of partial least squares (PLS) in strategic management research: A review of four recent studies. Strategic management journal, 20(2), 195-204.
   
   
   30. Kent, J., & Wheeler, A. (2016). What can Built Environment and Health Professionals Learn from Crime Prevention in Planning? Introducing ‘HPTED’. Urban Policy and Research, 34(1), 39-54.
   
   
   31. Kline, R. B. (2016). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (Fourth ed.). New York: Guilford publications.
   
   
   32. Lorenc, T., Clayton, S., Neary, D., Whitehead, M., Petticrew, M., Thomson, H., ... Renton, A. (2012). Crime, fear of crime, environment, and mental health and wellbeing: mapping review of theories and causal pathways. Health and Place, 18(4), 757–765.
   
   
   33. Maghsoodi-Tilaki, M. J., Mustafa, R. A., Hedayati-Marzbali, M., Abdullah, A., & Arrifin, J. (2011). Challenges of the Informal Settlements in Developing Countries’ Cities: A Case Study of Iran. World Applied Science Journal, 12(2), 160-169.
   
   
   34. Mason, S. G. (2010). Can community design build trust? A comparative study of design factors in Boise, Idaho neighborhoods. Cities, 27(6), 456-465.
   
   
   35. Newman, O. (1972). Defensible space; crime prevention through urban design New York: Macmillan.
   
   
   36. Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American journal of community psychology, 28(4), 401-420.
   
   
   37. Royal Malaysian Police. (2010). Index Crime Statistics Police Headquarters, Police Department. Kuala Lampur, Bukit Aman: Polis Diraja Malaysia (PDRM).
   
   
   38. Salleh, A. G. (2008). Neighbourhood factors in private low-cost housing in Malaysia. Habitat International, 32(4), 485-493.
   
   
   39. Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 633-660.
   
   
   40. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
   
   
   41. Shu, C. F. (2009). Spatial Configuration of Residential Area and Vulnerability of Burglary: Case Studies from UK and Taiwan. Paper presented at the 7th International Space Syntax Symposium, Stockholm.
   
   
   42. Stokols, D., Grzywacz, J. G., McMahan, S., & Phillips, K. (2003). Increasing the health promotive capacity of human environments. American Journal of Health Promotion, 18(1), 4-13.
   
   
   43. Taylor, R. B. (1997). Social order and disorder of street blocks and neighborhoods: Ecology, microecology, and the systemic model of social disorganization. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 34(1), 113-155.
   
   
   44. Wallace, D. (2012). Examining Fear and Stress as Mediators Between Disorder Perceptions and Personal Health, Depression, and Anxiety. Social Science Research, 41(6), 1515–1528.