Hindawi Publishing CorporationUrban Studies ResearchVolume 2012, Article ID 507503, 11 pagesdoi:10.1155/2012/507503

Research Article

Streets Apart: Does Social Capital Vary withNeighbourhood Design?

Lisa Wood,1 Billie Giles-Corti,2 and Max Bulsara3

1Centre for the Built Environment and Health, School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, Perth,WA 6009, Australia

2McCaughey VicHealth Centre for Community Wellbeing, Melbourne School of Population Health,University of Melbourne, Melbourne, VIC 3010, Australia

3 Institute of Health and Rehabilitation Research, University of Notre Dame Australia, Fremantle, Perth, WA 6959, Australia

Correspondence should be addressed to Lisa Wood, lisa.wood@uwa.edu.au

Received 7 February 2012; Revised 20 May 2012; Accepted 30 May 2012

Academic Editor: Annette Hastings

Copyright 2012 Lisa Wood et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

While neighbourhood dierences in social capital have been mapped, few empirical studies have considered the nexus betweenspecific physical characteristics of communities and social capital. In this study we hypothesised that social capital wouldbe positively associated with a more walkable street network design, but inversely associated with negative experiences andperceptions of neighbourhood environments. Data was gathered through a random cross-sectional telephone survey of adults(n = 339) from three suburbs with diering street network design. Although there was some relationship between street networklayout and social capital, this was not always as hypothesised by previous studies. Perceived incivilities, lower levels of trust andsupport were among factors that may have countered some of the positive influences of a walkable street network design on socialcapital. Overall, our findings suggest that the built environment may influence neighbourhood social capital at both a real andperceived level. While the actual presence and type of facilities, neighbourhood design and walkability may impact on socialcapital formation and maintenance, so too can perceptions of the physical and social environment. Understanding the complexintertwining of physical neighbourhood features, perceptions and social dynamics is relevant to growing public policy interest instrengthening social capital for enhanced community wellbeing.

. . .things which we see are not by themselves what we see . . . Immanuel Kant

1. Introduction

Over the last two decades, social capital has engenderedincreasing political and social policy attention, and therehas been a proliferation of literature across a range of disci-plines, including sociology, psychology, economics, politicalsciences, anthropology, developmental studies, education,and health. While there are varying definitions, the commonessence of these is well captured in the definition proered byCohen and Prusak, who define social capital as the stock ofactive connections among people such as the trust, mutual

understanding, and shared values and behaviors that bindthe members of human networks and communities andmake cooperative action possible [[1], page 4].

One of the reasons for social capitals rapid rise toconceptual popularity seems to be that it imputes a capitalor calculable value to those human aspects of community,organizations, policies, and family life that are sometimesoverlooked, but are nonetheless vital to individual andcollective wellbeing [2, 3]. Social capital seeks to capturesomething over and above the measurement of individualsocial connections [4], hence distinguishing it from concepts

2 Urban Studies Research

such as social support. It also draws attention to themesolevel social structures of neighborhoods or other groupswhich are said to sometimes get lost between individual andbroader social systems orientations [5].

While researchers and public policy makers concur thatthere is value in building and preserving social capital, farless is known about how to go about this. For instance,social capital has been shown to be influenced by sociode-mographic characteristics of communities such as ethnicdiversity [6], but such determinants are not readily orethically amenable to intervention. However, a growingbody of research suggests that other contextual aspects of acommunitys environment may shape social capital in a waythat is not explained by demographic variables. For example,neighborhood dierences in social capital have remainedafter adjusting for individual factors such as age, sex, maritalstatus, race and socioeconomic factors such as income andeducation [79].

What does then help to account for observed area orneighborhood dierences in social capital? The general tenorof the literature suggests that social capital is likely to beinfluenced by both the physical and social characteristicsof a neighborhood, and by the interplay between the two.This parallels discourse around the dual and interactiveeect of material, structural, and social facets of placeon health [10]. While area dierences in social capitalare well documented [8, 9, 11], few empirical studies todate have considered the nexus between specific physicalcharacteristics of communities and social capital. Pioneeringexceptions include the work of Macintyre and Ellaway inUK [12] and studies of the relationship between housingand social capital emanating from USA [13]. Neighborhoodperceptions also appear to matter, as exemplified in researchby Ziersch et al. [14] that found that favorable perceptionsof a neighborhood (in terms of cleanliness and noise) wereassociated with neighborhood connections, trust, and safety.Conversely, negative perceptions of the physical or socialenvironment, such as those relating to incivilities or crime,have a well-documented impact on sense of community [1517], but have been less explored explicitly in relation to socialcapital in research to date.

Social capital may also be influenced by the way inwhich the physical neighborhood environment is plannedand designed. While sense of community is the conceptmost often linked to New Urbanism, there is some emerginginterest in whether neighborhoods designed according toNew Urbanist principles are conducive to social capital [1820]. More walkable and pedestrian oriented neighborhoodsare one of the hallmarks of New Urbanism, a urbanplanning paradigm that grew out of concerns about thesustainability of post-WWII urban planning, characterizedby disconnected streets, high vehicle dependency, segregatedland use, and low residential density [21]. Based uponmore traditional planning paradigms, the principles ofNew Urbanism aim to promote walking and sense ofcommunity by planning higher-density communities withinterconnected grid-style streets and mixed land use [7, 22].

So how might a more walkable neighborhood designrelate to social capital? The potential for unplanned or casual

social interactions with neighbors and others while outand about is one mechanism, and this has found supportin several studies. Lund, for example, found that residentswho walked more within their neighborhoods were morelikely to have unplanned interactions with neighbors and todevelop social ties [23], whilst a more walkable environmentand street network design was found by Leyden to promoteneighborly interactions, and through this, the developmentof social capital [19]. Similarly, another study by Lund foundthat sense of community was higher among residents livingin a traditional design neighborhood (which reflected NewUrbanist principles of walkability), compared with residentsliving in amore automobile oriented suburb [24].Walking tolocal destinations rather than driving not only increases thelikelihood of social encounters, but could also contribute tosocial capital in a number of other ways, including increasedfamiliarity with the neighborhood, which may in turnenhance the extent to which residents feel that they belongand feel connected to it. Seeing people out and aboutwalking can also symbolically signal positive cues about thecommunity ambience and safety of the neighborhood, ahypothesis that has been borne out in research into dogwalking as a catalyst for strengthening community socialfabric [25].

The potential impact of designing more walkable neigh-borhoods on the social fabric of communities is not merelyof academic interest, as it converges with growing policyand intervention interest in how we can make our citiesand suburbs more conducive to quality of life, livability, andenvironmental sustainability [26].

This study sought to build on and add to the work ofLund [23, 24] and Leyden [19] to empirically investigatesocial capital in three suburbs with diering street networkdesign. While Leyden determined walkability subjectively,this study used objective measures of street connectivity andlayout to categorize and select study suburbs, hypothesizingthat the traditional neighborhood design (characterizedby grid street networks) would provide a more walkableenvironment, which in turn would promote the developmentof social capital. The study also sought to build on Lundsobservations about the importance of peoples perceptionsabout their local environment [23]. In particular, we pos-tulated that the mechanisms by which fear of crime andperceptions of safety have been shown to aect sense ofcommunity [27] may be transferable to social capital; ifpeople are fearful, they may be less likely to go out oftheir home, use local facilities, attend clubs or functions, orinteract with strangers or people they meet in the street,particularly at night [28].

2. Study Aims

This study explored the potential associations between socialcapital, and the design and characteristics of the builtenvironment in which people live. In this context, char-acteristics of the built environment include street networkdesign and connectivity, perceived availability and adequacyof local facilities and amenities, and resident perceptions of

Urban Studies Research 3

safety, crime, suburban problems, and incivilities. This paperfocuses on two specific hypotheses that were informed byour review of the literature and formative qualitative research(focus groups) undertaken in the three study suburbs:

(H1) a more walkable neighborhood street network designis positively associated with social capital.

(H2) Negative experiences and perceptions of the neigh-borhood environment are negatively associated withsocial capital.

3. Methods

3.1. Sample and Sudy Design. To examine the relationshipbetween social capital and neighborhood design, a cross-sectional survey of adults (n = 339) was undertaken inApril 2002. The sample of residents was randomly selectedfrom three Perth suburbs (n = 119 for each suburb)whose inclusion in the study was based on dierentiatedstreet network and connectivity patterns commonly usedin planning in Australia and USA [29]. These distinguishsuburbs in metropolitan Perth and are typically referredto as traditional, conventional, and hybrid as illustratedin Table 1. An area with a high level of connectivityor permeability is considered a more walkable suburb,as it provides direct routes between destinations as wellas choices of routes between destinations. Of the streetdesign patterns in Table 1, the Traditional suburb has thehighest connectivity, whilst the nongrid layout and cul-de-sacs characterizing conventional suburbs render them ashaving the lowest connectivity. Hybrid suburbs, as the nameimplies, lies between traditional and conventional in terms ofconnectivity.

The three study suburbs represented each of the streetnetwork and connectivity patterns (traditional, conventional,hybrid) and also diered on factors such as mixed landuse and availability of community facilities. Distinguishingneighborhood design characteristics of the three studysuburbs are summarized in Table 1, which also includessummary information about the availability of key facilitiesand public amenities within each suburb (such as parks,schools, and shops).

The selected suburbs were matched on socioeconomicstatus to control for the potential influence of socio-economic variations on suburb characteristics and residents.They all fell within the lower-mid socio-economic rankingon the Australian Bureau of Statistics [30].

The telephone survey was undertaken by the Universityof Western Australian Survey Research Centre using theCATI (computer-assisted telephone information) system,and a randomized sampling method was used that balancedthe chances of selecting a mix of gender and age groups.Eligibility for the study included being 18 years of age orolder, and living in the current suburb for at least 12 months.The response rate was 34.3%. For each of the study suburbs,there were 113 survey respondents (total n = 339). The agedistribution of participants was comparable with that of theWestern Australian population overall [31], but men wereslightly underrepresented (40%).

3.2. Measures. The survey instrument included items thatmeasured social capital and perceptions of the physicalsuburban environment, including adequacy of local facilities,feelings of safety, and perceived incivilities (see Table 2).The instrument incorporated or adapted items from pre-vious studies where possible, with new original items alsodeveloped based on the literature and formative qualitativeresearch. The items were subjected to test retest reliability,and were found to have moderate-to-excellent test retestreliability. Intraclass correlation coecients (ICCs) for scalesranged from 0.74 to 0.92.

Survey items were factor analyzed and a number of scalescreatedthese related to conceptual elements of social cap-ital (e.g., trust, reciprocity) incivilities feelings of safety, andadequacy of local facilities. These scales and their componentitems and key factorial structures are summarized in Table 2.Further factor analysis produced an overall social capitalscale, comprising a composite of subscales for trust, civicengagement, community concern, reciprocity, friendliness,support, and social networks, with possible scores rangingbetween 12 and 89. Demographic questions included homeownership, dependent children, employment status, level ofeducation, age, and gender.

3.3. Data Analysis. Suburb dierences in the mean socialcapital score were examined using one-way analysis of vari-ance (ANOVA). To adjust for demographic and confoundingfactors, multivariate analysis was undertaken using logisticregression for variables with binary outcome measures andordinal logistic regression (proportional odds model) forordinally distributed variables. The multivariate analysisadjusted for age, gender, education, children living athome (defined as children under the age of 18 living athome), type of dwelling (house, duplex/unit, townhouse,and apartment/flat), and years living in suburb. Ordinalregression enabled analysis of associations with suburb asan independent variable, as well as providing an estimate ofeect (odds ratio) [33]. Ordinal regression as a proportionalodds model was considered appropriate for the conceptualnature of the social capital scale, which provides a ranking ofscores relative to each other, but without necessarily an abso-lute or equal dierence between varying scores [33, 34]. Theordinal regression was conducted using both the Traditionaland Hybrid suburb designs as separate reference categories,to include all comparative permutations of suburb pairs.Continuous dependent variables were recoded into tertilesfor the purposes of the ordinal regression.

4. Results

Associations between suburb design and social capital andbetween social capital and perceptions of the neighborhoodenvironment are described below.

4.1. Neighborhood Street Network Design and Layout andSocial Capital. It was hypothesized from the literaturethat the traditional neighborhood design (characterized bygrid street networks) would provide the most walkable

4 Urban Studies Research

Table 1: Characteristics of study suburbs.

Suburb Conventional Traditional Hybrid

Suburb street network

Cul-de-sac and curvedlayout

Predominantly grid layout Mix of grid and cul-de-sacs

Suburb description

Grid-style street network,with a variety of shops and

other services locatedprimarily on a major

central road.

Street network combined traditionalgrid system with circular roads andcul-de-sacs. A large shopping mallcomplex present but not centrally

located, other community facilities aregenerally scattered throughout the

suburb.

Cul-de-sac street network typical ofurban sprawl and low residential

density. Many community facilitieswere located centrally but also a

dispersion of several small shoppingcomplexes.

Suburb area (km)8.98 4.94 5.07

Number of cul-de-sacs 304 39 119

Number of 3 way or greaterintersections

448 134 267

Intersections per sq. km1 49.89 39.27 52.66

Density of cul-de-sacs persq. km2

33.85 7.89 23.47

Dwelling typePredominantly single

detached housesNumber of high rise apartments, along

with separate housesPredominantly single detached

houses

Bakeries, newsagents, deli 8 7 5

Retail-essential services(e.g., hairdressers, petrolstations, banks, andlaunderettes)

13 16 19

Bus stops 91 73 71

Primary schools 4 1 3

Parks 22 10 221Intersections per sq. km: number of 3 way intersections/area.

2Cul-de-sacs per sq. km: number of cul-de-sacs/area.

environment, and that this in turn would contribute tohigher social capital through opportunities for residents tomeet and engage in their suburb. However, when the meansocial capital scores were compared between suburbs (usingANOVA), conventional suburb residents had a higher meansocial capital score (60.30 8.48 SD) compared with Hybrid(55.73 8.24 SD) and Traditional (55.25 9.46 SD) suburbresidents (P < 0.001). In the ordinal regression analysis, bothTraditional and Conventional suburb residents were almosttwice as likely or more to score higher on the social capitalscale than Hybrid suburb residents (see Table 3).

4.2. Experiences and Perceptions of the Neighborhood Environ-ment and Social Capital. It was hypothesized that negativeexperiences and perceptions of the physical neighborhoodenvironment would be negatively associated with social

capital. Several aspects of the perceived physical and socialenvironment were assessed:adequacy of facilities; presence ofincivilities (e.g., grati, unkempt gardens, and crime); andfeelings of safety.

The adequacy of facilities scale assessed respondentssatisfaction with a range of fifteen types of facilities withintheir suburb, including parks, shops, and medical servicesand activities for young people. The ordinal regressionmodelshowed that compared with residents in the Hybrid suburb,Conventional suburb residents were nearly twice as likely toperceive local facilities as more adequate (OR 1.83; 95% CI1.122.99), as wereTraditional suburb residents (see Table 3).Traditional suburb residents were also more likely to doso, but this did not reach statistical significance. Greatersatisfaction with local amenities was also associated withsocial capital overall, with those who rated adequacy of

Urban Studies Research 5

Ta

ble2:

Scales

andco

mpo

nen

titem

s.

Scale

Com

ponen

titem

sNo.

Item

s,resp

onse

catego

ries

Cro

nba

chs

Alpha

ICC

Origin

Rec

ipro

city

Favo

rsdo

ne(a)foror

(b)by

neighb

or)ov

erlast12

mon

ths;look

edafter

hou

seor

gard

en;m

inde

dor

walke

dpe

t;Le

nthou

sehold/

gard

enitem

s;lis

tened

toth

eirpr

oblem

s;helpe

dwithod

djobs

;pro

vide

dalift

ortran

spor

t;minde

dach

ildor

other

family

mem

ber

14(yes/n

o)0.83

80.92

3M

odified

item

s[3

0]

Trust

Gen

erally,towha

texten

tdoyo

uag

ree/disagree

that

youcantrustm

ost

peop

le:livingin

yoursectionof

yourstreet

orbloc

k;liv

ingin

your

subu

rb;g

enerally

3(5

pointlik

ert

)0.61

10.80

3M

odified

item

s[4

,32]

Subu

rbfriendliness

Peop

lewholiv

ehereusu

ally

sayhello

toea

chot

her

ifou

twalking

neigh

bors

areoftenseen

chattingto

each

other;a

strange

rm

oving

into

this

subu

rbwou

ldbe

mad

eto

feel

welco

me

3(5

pointlik

ert)

0.64

10.86

2Original

Civic

enga

gemen

t

Invo

lvem

entinfollo

wingin

subu

rbin

pastyear:a

tten

dedloca

lcou

ncil

mee

ting;

votedin

loca

lelection;c

ontacted

councila

boutloca

lissue;

contacted

mem

berof

parliam

ent;sign

edpetition;a

tten

dedpr

otestor

loca

lactionm

eeting;

written

letter

toed

itor

abou

taloca

lissue;

pick

edupot

her

peop

lesru

bbish;d

oneso

methingab

outgr

atior

vanda

lism;m

adeach

aritydo

nation

10(yes,n

o,not

sure)

0.56

60.70

4M

odified

item

s[3

0,32

]

Com

munity

concern

Iam

interested

inloca

lissues

that

aec

tth

issu

burb

;ifa

loca

lparkor

facilit

ywas

tobe

clos

eddo

wn,r

esiden

tswou

ldpu

lltoge

ther

todo

som

ethingab

outit;itis

impo

rtan

tforpe

ople

toge

tinvo

lved

inth

eir

loca

lsubu

rb

3(5

pointlik

ert)

0.56

60.70

4Original

Feelings

ofsafety

Ifeel

safe

inthissubu

rb:w

alkingalon

ein

theda

ytim

e;walkingalon

eat

night;walkingwithan

other

perso

nat

night;usingpa

rksan

dfacilit

ies;

inmyow

nhom

ePe

ople

inthissubu

rb:g

enerally

feel

itis

asafe

plac

eto

live

6(5

pointlik

ert)

0.77

40.87

9Original

Social

supp

ort

Freque

ncyof

feelings

rega

rdinglone

linessan

dsupp

ort:feltlonely;

foundithardto

getto

know

peo

ple;

wished

that

youhad

mor

ehelp

orsu

ppor

tfrom

othe

rpeo

ple

3(5

pointlik

ert)

0.61

80.83

1Original

6 Urban Studies Research

Ta

ble2:

Con

tinued

.

Scale

Com

ponen

titem

sNo.

Item

s,resp

onse

catego

ries

Cro

nba

chs

Alpha

ICC

Origin

Incivilit

iesan

dpr

oblems

Phy

sicalinc

ivilities:g

ra

tion

public

prop

erty;g

ra

tion

private

prop

erty

Van

dalis

m;litteran

dru

bbish

4(5

pointlik

ert)

0.73

90.75

7

Original

Upk

eepof

prop

erty:u

nke

mpt

gard

ensor

hou

ses;

vaca

ntor

run-d

own

build

ings;h

omes

andga

rden

sge

nerally

look

nice(rev

erse

scor

ed)

4(5

pointlik

ert)

0.64

50.75

7

Percep

tion

sof

illicitdr

uguse:

discarde

dnee

dles

orsyringe

s;dr

ug

dealing

2(5

pointlik

ert)

0.70

60.85

4

Civilob

edienc

e-relatedprob

lems:tra

csp

eedor

volum

e;inad

equate

polic

eserv

ices;lev

elof

crim

e;pe

destrian

safety

when

walking;

youth

loiteringin

public

plac

es5(5

pointlik

ert)

0.63

20.82

4

Ade

quac

yof

facilit

ies

Towha

texten

tagree

thefollo

wingad

equa

tely

availablein

subu

rb:p

arks

andop

ensp

aces;p

lace

sto

walkdo

gs;p

ublic

plac

eswherepe

ople

can

mee

t;sh

ops;

postbo

xes;

com

munityfacilit

ies(e.g.,co

mmunity

centre,

library

);ch

ildca

re;h

ealthan

dm

edical

serv

ices;p

ublic

tran

spor

t;teleph

onebo

xes;

schoo

ls;r

ecreational

facilit

ies;

plac

esto

eatou

tor

hav

eadr

ink;

things

forch

ildren(