Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Developing Residential Social Cohesion Index for High-Rise Group Housing Complexes in India

  • Published:
Social Indicators Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This study aimed to develop a social cohesion index for understanding the social relation between residents in high-rise group housing complexes through a self-reported questionnaire. As a background of the study, literature on social cohesion and related literature on residents’ social relation in high-rise housing were reviewed. Later, we selected different high-rise group housings of Kolkata, a city in the eastern region of India. We conducted few focus group surveys involving the residents of those high-rises and also conducted expert opinion surveys to identify a context-specific list of statements for evaluating residential social cohesion. Finally, based on the responses of interviews from 652 residents of the identified high-rise housings from the same city, followed by confirmatory factor analyses, three factors of residential social cohesion were identified with adequate reliability and validity. This index holds huge potential to explore residential social relation in high-rise housing and carry out empirical studies, across various disciplines, in other cities in the country and outside the country of similar socio-economic and cultural context.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. The research considers ten storeys and more than ten storeys high buildings as high-rises. As per National Building Code of India (2005), group housing is ‘Housing for more than one dwelling unit, where land is owned jointly, and the construction is undertaken by one Agency’. Again, a residential complex comprises of a building or buildings with more than twelve residential units (place of residence in the form of house or apartment), a common area and one or more facilities or services, located within a premises and the entire layout is approved by any legal authority; however, a residential complex is not intended for personal use of an individual (Ministry of Finance, Government of India 2016).

References

  • Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Housinglayout, social interaction, and the place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 41–73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bernard, P. (1999). Social cohesion: A critique. CPRN Discussion Paper No. F09. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa.

  • Bottoni, G. (2016). A multilevel measurement model of social cohesion. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1470-7.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, E. E. (2001). Conceptualization of a model to build cohesion in multi-ethnic neighborhoods. Ph.D. thesis. Athens: University of Georgia.

  • Brown, G., Brown, B. B., & Perkins, D. D. (2004). New housing as neighborhood revitalization: Place attachment and confidence among residents. Environment and Behavior, 36(6), 749–775.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brown, M. W., & Cudeck, R. (1993). Alternative ways of assessing model fit. In K. A. Bollen & J. S. Long (Eds.), Testing structural equation models (pp. 445–455). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruhn, J. (2009). The group effect: Social cohesion and health outcomes. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighbourhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–791.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chan, J., To, H.-P., & Chan, E. (2006). Reconsidering social cohesion: Developing a definition and analytical framework for empirical research. Social Indicators Research, 75(2), 273–302. doi:10.1007/s11205-005-2118-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chatterjee, M. (2009). Perception of housing environment among high rise dwellers. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 85–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chattopadhyay, S. (2000). Residential satisfaction in public housing—A study. Ph.D. thesis. Kharagpur: Indian Institute of Technology.

  • Conroy, K. M., Elliott, D., & Burrell, A. R. (2013). Developing content for a process-of-care checklist for use in intensive care units: A dual-method approach to establishing construct validity. BMC Health Services Research, 13, 380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • De Vet, E., Brug, J., De Nooijer, J., Dijkstra, A., & De Vries, N. K. (2005). Determinants of forward stage. Health Education Research, 20(2), 195–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deilmann, H., Bickenbach, G., & Pfeiffer, H. (1977). Housing groups. Stuttgart: Karl Kramer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dickes, P., Valentova, M., & Borsenberger, M. (2010). Construct validation and application of a common measure of social cohesion in 33 European countries. Social Indicators Research, 98(3), 451–473. doi:10.1007/s11205-009-9551-5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiStefano, C., & Hess, B. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 225–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ebbesen, E. B., Kjos, G. L., & Konechi, V. J. (1976). Saptial ecology: Its effect on the choice of friends and enemies. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12, 505–518.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giannarou, L., & Zervas, E. (2014). Using Delphi technique to build consensus in practice. International Journal of Business Science and Applied Management, 9(2), 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ginsberg, Y., & Churchman, A. (1985). The pattern and meaning of neighbor relations in high-rise housing in Israel. Human Ecology, 13, 467–484.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grange, A. L. (2011). Neighbourhood and class: A study of three neighbourhoods in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 46, 1181–1200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hair, J. F., Black, W. C., Babin, B. J., & Anderson, R. E. (2010). Multivariate data analysis (7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hoogland, C. (2000). Semi-private zones as a facilitator of social cohesion. Research on Social Science and Environmental Science, Nijmegen University.

  • Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang, S. L. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 193–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of canadian research. Canadian Policy Research Networks Study, Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.

  • Hochschild, Jr., T. R. (2011). Neighbors by design: Determinants and effects of residential social cohesion. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.

  • Kittell-Limerick, P. (2005). Perceived barriers to completion of the academic doctorate: A Delphi study. Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University-Commerce.

  • Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lee, S. (2005). Spatial order and sense of community in high-rise apartment developments in Bundang, the Metropolitan area of Seoul, Korea. Master of architecture thesis, The University of New South Wales Faculty of Built Environment.

  • Lee, J. (2011). Quality of life and semipublic spaces in high-rise mixed-use housing complexes in South Korea. Journal of Asian Architecture and Building Engineering, 10(1), 149–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mak, W. W. S., Cheung, R. Y. M., & Law, L. S. C. (2009). Sense of community in Hong Kong: Relations with community-level characteristics and residents’ well-being. Americal Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 80–92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482–501.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meshkat, B., et al. (2014). Using an e-Delphi technique in achieving consensus across disciplines for developing best practice in day surgery in Ireland. Journal of Hospital Administration, 3(4), 1–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ministry of Finance, Government of India (2016). Service tax act. Chapter V of the Finance Act, 1994, updated as per Finance Act 2016. http://www.cbec.gov.in/resources//htdocs-servicetax/st-finact-062016.pdf. Accessed 18 Nov 2016.

  • National Building Code of India (2005). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.

  • Newsom, J. T., Rook, K. S., Nishishiba, M., Sorkin, D. H., & Mahan, T. L. (2005). Understanding the relative importance of positive and negative social exchanges: Examining specific domains and appraisals. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 60B(6), 304–312.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Penning, M. J., Liu, G., & Chou, P. H. B. (2014). Measuring loneliness among middle-aged and older adults: The UCLA and de Jong Gierveld Loneliness Scales. Social Indicators Research, 118, 1147–1166. doi:10.1007/s11205-013-0461-1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Participation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83–115.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social capital: A multi-level analysis. In A. Fisher, C. Sonn, & B. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological sense of community: Research, applications, and implications (pp. 291–318). New York: Plenum.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pfeiffer, Y., Briner, M., Wehner, T., & Manser, T. (2013). Motivational antecedents of incident reporting: Evidence from a survey of nurses and physicians. Swiss Medical Weekly, 143, w13881. doi:10.4414/smw.2013.13881.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 41–51.

    Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R., et al. (2004). Using social capital to help integrate planning theory, research, and practice: Preface. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70, 142–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660. doi:10.1079/PNS2004399.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raskin, M. S. (1994). The Delphi study in field instruction revisited: Expert consensus on issues and research priorities. Journal of Social Work Education, 30(1), 75–89. doi:10.1080/10437797.1994.10672215.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J. (2000). Building consensus using the policy Delphi method. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice, 1(4), 308–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reddy, K. N. (1996). Urban redevelopment: A study of high-rise buildings. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rollwagen, H. (2016). The relationship between dwelling type and fear of crime. Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 365–387. doi:10.1177/0013916514540459.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rook, K. S. (1984). The negative side of social interaction: Impact on psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 46(5), 1097–1108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schiefer, D., & Noll, J. (2016). The essentials of social cohesion: A literature review. Social Indicators Research. doi:10.1007/s11205-016-1314-5.

    Google Scholar 

  • Skjaeveland, O., Gilding, T., & Maeland, J. G. (1996). A multidimensional measure of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 413–435.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomas, L., MacMillan, J., McColl, E., Hale, C., & Bond, S. (1995). Comparison of focus group and individual interview methodology in examining patient satisfaction with nursing care. Social Sciences in Health, 1, 206–219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Unger, D. G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive, and affective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 139–169.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Verhagen, A. P., et al. (1998). The Delphi list: A criteria list for quality assessment of randomized clinical trials for conducting systematic reviews developed by Delphi consensus. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 51(12), 1235–1241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • von der Gracht, H. A. (2012). Consensus measurement in Delphi studies review and implications for future quality assurance. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 79, 1525–1536.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woudenberg, F. (1991). An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 40, 131–150.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yau, Y. (2010). Sense of community and homeowner participation in housing management: A study of Hong Kong. Urbani izziv, 21, 126–135.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We sincerely thank the Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), Kharagpur for providing the necessary facilities and also the Ministry of Human Resource and Development (MHRD), India, for funding the research programme carried out in the Institute.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal, India

    Soumi Muhuri & Sanghamitra Basu

Authors
  1. Soumi Muhuri
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sanghamitra Basu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Soumi Muhuri.

Appendix

Appendix

  • Factor score of sense of belonging (SOB) = (Z value of item 6.1.1 + Z value of item 6.1.2 + Z value of item 6.1.3 + Z value of item 6.1.5 + Z value of item 6.1.6 + Z value of item 6.1.7 + Z value of item 6.2.2 + Z value of item 6.3.1 + Z value of item 6.3.3)/9.

  • Factor score of strength of tie (SOT) = (Z value of item 6.2.7 + Z value of item 6.2.8 + Z value of item 6.2.11)/3.

  • Factor score of strength of help (H) = (Z value of item 6.2.12 + Z value of item 6.2.13 + Z value of item 6.2.14)/3.

  • Factor score of neighbourliness (N) = (Factor score of strength of tie (SOT) + Factor score of strength of help (H))/2.

  • Factor score of neighbour annoyance (NA) = (Z value of item 6.4.1 + Z value of item 6.4.2 + Z value of item 6.4.3)/3.

  • Residential social cohesion = (Factor score of sense of belonging (SOB) + Factor score of neighbourliness (N) + Factor score of neighbour annoyance (NA))/3.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Muhuri, S., Basu, S. Developing Residential Social Cohesion Index for High-Rise Group Housing Complexes in India. Soc Indic Res 137, 923–947 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1633-1

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11205-017-1633-1

Keywords

Search

Navigation