Elsevier

Landscape and Urban Planning

Volume 170, February 2018, Pages 231-240
Landscape and Urban Planning

Research paper
White picket fences & other features of the suburban physical environment: Correlates of neighbourhood attachment in 3 australian low-density suburbs

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.10.004Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Neighbourhood attachment is significantly associated with y physical design characteristics.

  • Only length of residency significantly predicted neighbourhood attachment.

  • Traditional layout suburbs have higher neighbourhood attachment.

  • Open spaces within walking distance and more trees coverage enhance perception of attachment.

  • Both subjective and objective factors are the main determinants of neighbourhood attachment.

Abstract

This study examines the relationship between neighbourhood attachment and five groups of physical characteristics of low-density suburbs: (1) street layout, (2) pedestrian environment, (3) neighbourhood connectivity, (4) public space provision, and (5) dwelling form. Although much research has investigated whether neighbourhood attachment is influenced by the urban design characteristics of high density contexts, there is little evidence of the impact of such characteristics in suburban environments with lower population densities, such as the types of low-density suburbs that ring Australian cities. Surveys were conducted in Victoria, Australia, to examine how these five groups of characteristics might impact residents’ neighbourhood attachment in three suburbs with equivalent socioeconomic profiles. Questionnaires were delivered to eight streets of different layout in each suburb, and via on-street face-to-face surveys in public spaces adjacent to neighbourhood libraries. The results of five separate regression models indicated that all five groups of physical neighbourhood characteristics significantly predicted neighbourhood attachment. Home ownership, length of residence and age were also found to have strong correlation with neighbourhood attachment. When length of residency is controlled for, it was found that five physical variables were the best predictors of neighbourhood attachment: provision of open spaces, street type, trees coverage, sidewalk provision and number of community spaces. Only the provision of open spaces had greater impact on attachment than length of residency. Hence, the study findings suggest that both social and physical factors should be considered in the planning of suburban neighbourhoods.

Introduction

This paper investigates the relationship between neighbourhood attachment and the presence of a number of physical characteristics of suburban neighbourhoods in Australia. Neighbourhood attachment is one domain of sense of community (Kim & Kaplan, 2004), is one dimension of social cohesion (Dempsey, 2009, Wilkinson, 2007), is a significant determinant of neighbourhood satisfaction (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999; Fried, 1982), and has even been suggested to be second only to satisfaction with family in determining a person’s satisfaction with life itself (Fried, 1982).

The study described in this paper asks, what physical design characteristics of neighbourhoods predict neighbourhood attachment in low-density Australian suburbs, and which are the best contributors when socioeconomic factors are controlled for? These research questions are in line with the argument that liveable neighbourhoods are beneficial for social life (Raman, 2010), and, as Dempsey reports (2009), that the provision of some physical characteristics contributes to socially cohesive communities. Neighbourhood attachment in this paper is measured using the Neighbourhood Attachment scale developed by Bonaiuto et al. (1999) and further validated by (Comstock et al., 2010). Both the role of neighbourhood form and dwelling form in impacting neighbourhood attachment are considered.

The findings suggest that neighbourhood attachment in low-density suburbs is affected by eight physical variables: (1) street layout, (2) tree-coverage, (3) number of community spaces with walking 5 min and open spaces (4) dwelling type, (5) fence height, (6) connectivity by walking, (7) the provision of sidewalks, and (8) access to on-street parking. Moreover, neighbourhood attachment is shown to be positively correlated with term of habitat, home ownership, and age. The implications of this research can inform strategies for architects, urban designers and planners concerning the provision of physical neighbourhood design characteristics that can improve neighbourhood attachment and social environment in suburban contexts.

Section snippets

Background

As two identified dimensions of attachment to place are social bonding and physical rootedness (Riger & Lavrakas, 1981; Taylor, Gottfredson, & Brower, 1985), neighbourhood attachment is associated with social and physical connectedness between individuals and their residential environment (Arnberger and Eder, 2012, Bonaiuto et al., 2003). Physically, neighbourhood is most commonly understood to refer to a residential area, while socially it is the place of social interactions (Jenks & Dempsey,

Methodology

Three types of data were collected: (1) measurement of the independent variables i.e., physical urban design features such as tree coverage and fence height; (2) collection of the sociodemographic data of residents; and (3) measurement of the dependent variable neighbourhood attachment using the NA scale. Objective data of the physical environment was collected using on-street photography and high-resolution satellite Photomaps. Subjective data on demographics and neighbourhood attachment was

Independent variables – the physical urban design characteristics

As mentioned, the survey data was provided by inhabitants in three suburbs in the southwest of Geelong, Australia. Geelong is the second largest city in Victoria, developing significantly after growth of the southwest of the city after the Second World War. The three suburbs were selected not just for socio-economic equivalence, but also for design variability as each was developed during different periods of residential growth. Thus, the three suburbs vary in urban design layout and

Discussion

The results indicate that residents in older more established neighbourhoods with layouts categorised as traditional have higher neighbourhood attachment than residents in newer conventional loop (curvilinear) suburban neighbourhoods. No significant neighbourhood attachment differences were found between traditional type and conventional loop and cul-de-sac streets. This result is consistent with previous research finding that attachment varies between residents from different residential

Conclusion

This study investigated the relationship between neighbourhood attachment and a number of urban design characteristics to provide an understanding of how neighbourhood design might affect neighbourhood attachment. The survey of residents explored their perceptions of their social and physical bonds towards their neighbourhood. The findings suggest that neighbourhood attachment was affected by physical design characteristics in all three suburbs in Geelong. Street type, public and open spaces,

References (54)

  • K. Lovejoy et al.

    Neighborhood satisfaction in suburban versus traditional environments: An evaluation of contributing characteristics in eight California neighborhoods

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2010)
  • D.J. Nowak et al.

    Measuring and analyzing urban tree cover

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (1996)
  • C.M. Raymond et al.

    The measurement of place attachment: Personal, community, and environmental connections

    Journal of Environmental Psychology

    (2010)
  • G.O. Rogers et al.

    Neighborhood design and sense of community: Comparing suburban neighborhoods in Houston Texas

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2009)
  • J.R. Wolch et al.

    Urban green space, public health, and environmental justice: The challenge of making cities ‘just green enough’

    Landscape and Urban Planning

    (2014)
  • M. Al-Homoud et al.

    Social interactions at the neighborhood-level as a function of external space enclosure

    Journal of Architectural and Planning Research

    (2004)
  • D. Appleyard et al.

    The environmental quality of city streets: The residents’ viewpoint

    Journal of the American Institute of Planners

    (1972)
  • M. Bonnes et al.

    A transactional perspective on residential satisfaction

    Housing Surveys: Advances in Theory and Methods

    (1997)
  • G. Bramley et al.

    Urban form and social sustainability: The role of density and housing type Environment and planning. B

    B, Planning & Design

    (2009)
  • K. Brookfield

    Residents’ preferences for walkable neighbourhoods

    Journal of Urban Design

    (2016)
  • S. Brower

    Neighbors and neighborhoods: Elements of successful community design

    (2013)
  • J.C. Buckner

    The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion

    American Journal of Community Psychology

    (1988)
  • I. Can

    In-between space and social interaction: A case study of three neighbourhoods in Izmir

    (2012)
  • A. Davison

    Stuck in a cul-de-sac? Suburban history and urban sustainability in Australia

    Urban Policy and Research

    (2006)
  • K. Dekker

    Social capital, neighbourhood attachment and participation in distressed urban areas. A case study in The Hague and Utrecht, the Netherlands

    Housing Studies

    (2007)
  • N. Dempsey

    Are good-quality environments socially cohesive?

    TPR: Town Planning Review

    (2009)
  • M. Fried

    Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community satisfaction

    Journal of Social Issues

    (1982)
  • Cited by (16)

    • Navigating sense of home: Migration experiences of home and community

      2023, International Journal of Intercultural Relations
    • Neighborhood environments and inclusive cities: An empirical study of local residents’ attitudes toward migrant social integration in Beijing, China

      2022, Landscape and Urban Planning
      Citation Excerpt :

      Recent social and political sentiments against immigrants in Western Europe and the United States serve as a reminder of the daunting challenges faced by planners and policy makers to design and build a “city for all” (Creighton & Jamal, 2022; Williams, 2015). Numerous studies have investigated the effects of the presence, accessibility, and use of public spaces and amenities at the neighborhood level on place attachment (Abass & Tucker, 2018; Rogers & Sukolratanametee, 2009; Sun, Fang, Yung, Chao, & Chan, 2020), social ties (Kaźmierczak, 2013; Van den Berg, Arentze, & Timmermans, 2015), social cohesion (Mouratidis & Poortinga, 2020), and subjective well-being (Ayala-Azcárraga, Diaz, & Zambrano, 2019; Liu, Zhang, Wu, Liu, & Li, 2017). However, empirical evidence on the effects of public spaces on intergroup inclusion has been less systematic or conclusive, with some studies even finding negative intergroup experiences and attitudes arising from public encounters in many public spaces (Matejskova & Leitner, 2011; Orum et al., 2009; Piekut & Valentine, 2017; Pincher et al., 2014).

    • Exploring sense of place in relation to urban facilities – evidence from Lisbon

      2022, Cities
      Citation Excerpt :

      Scholars have paid relatively little attention to how functional factors influence sense of place at this meso level, that is, how a functional context formed by a set of points of interest (POIs) affects sense of place. There have been studies investigating external factors relating to the built environment of locales, and personal characteristics in isolation (e.g. Abass & Tucker, 2018; van Vliet & Hammond, 2021; Youssef & Tsenkova, 2016). Also, certain intentional functions of places such as utilizing them for health promotion (e.g. Gesler, 2005; Heinkel, 2018; Kistemann, 2016) or in a marketing context via place branding (e.g. Gieling et al., 2019; Insch & Walters, 2018; Sadeque et al., 2020) have been investigated.

    • Place attachment through interaction with urban parks: A cross-cultural study

      2021, Urban Forestry and Urban Greening
      Citation Excerpt :

      To make participants comparable in terms of their length of stay, and to control for the well-known driver “length of residency” (Lewicka, 2011), all participants were required to have lived in Iran for more than five years. The five-year cut-off is the same as that used in Abass and Tucker’s (2018) study. In this way, we selected long-term residents and bi-cultural migrants who not only live in Iran temporarily, but who have moved their centre of life to Iran for a longer period.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text