Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 25, Issue 4, pp 409–427 | Cite as

Neighbourhood attachment in deprived areas: evidence from the north of England

Original Paper

Abstract

Those living in deprived areas may have a greater reliance on the neighbourhood as a setting for social activity. However, the reduced quality of deprived neighbourhoods may make attachment in such places less likely. Other factors, like high turnover and social mix, may also act to reduce an individual’s attachment in these neighbourhoods. Using qualitative methods, this study examines both emotional and functional attachment to deprived neighbourhoods, specifically considering the impact of high turnover and of social mix. Social mix is broadly defined, including but not limited to ethnic and tenure mix. Many respondents reported strong emotional attachments to their communities, with the presence of strong social networks and a sense of security the most important contributing factors. Functional attachments and attachments to the physical environment were weak or absent. High turnover in deprived areas was found to reduce place attachment by undermining social networks, lowering social interaction, and eroding trust and feelings of security. There was little evidence that social mix in any dimension reduced attachment significantly. However, high residential turnover and a rapidly changing (ethnic) mix in one area had led to increased anxieties and reduced attachments. The research shows that rather than systemic factors being dominant, place attachment in deprived areas is very context dependent (e.g. in terms of where the neighbourhood is located in relation to others). For an individual, also experiential, historical and personal factors are strong determinants of attachment.

Keywords

Place attachment Deprivation Population turnover Social mix Social cohesion 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Joseph Rowntree Foundation for funding and supporting the research on which the paper is based and to the members of the advisory board who gave their time and invaluable advice. We are also grateful to all those who gave up their time to be interviewed, without which this research would not be possible. Thanks also to PH Research for their support in recruiting respondents.

References

  1. Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  2. Audit Commission. (2007). Crossing borders. London: Audit Commission.Google Scholar
  3. Bailey, N., & Livingston, M. (2007). Population turnover and area deprivation. Bristol: Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  4. Bailey, N., & Livingston, M. (2008). Selective migration and area deprivation: Evidence from 2001 Census migration data for England and Scotland. Urban Studies, 45(4), 943–961.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blokland, T. (2003). Urban bonds. Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
  6. Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identity. London: Methuen.Google Scholar
  7. Breakwell, G. M. (Ed.). (1992). Social psychology of identity and the self-concept. Surrey: Surrey University Press.Google Scholar
  8. Charles, C. Z. (2003). Dynamics of residential segregation. American Review of Sociology, 29, 167–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dekker, K., & Bolt, G. (2005). Social cohesion in post-war estates in the Netherlands: Differences between socioeconomic and ethnic groups. Urban Studies, 42, 2447–2470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Field, J. (2003). Social capital. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzpatrick, S. (2004). Poverty of place. Keynote address of JRF Centenary Conference.Google Scholar
  12. Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (1999). Social cohesion and urban inclusion for disadvantaged neighbourhoods. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  13. Giuliani, M. V. (2003). Theory of attachment and place attachment. In M. Bonnes, T. Lee, & M. Bonainto (Eds.), Psychological theories for environmental issues (pp. 137–170). Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  14. Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. Oxford: Open University, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  15. Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 233–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kearns, A., & Parkinson, M. (2001). The significance of neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38, 2103–2110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kleinhans, R., Priemus, H., & Engbersen, G. (2007). Understanding social capital in recently restructured urban neighbourhoods: Two case studies in Rotterdam. Urban Studies, 44(5/6), 1069–1091.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lawless, P. (2003). New deal for communities. The national evaluation. Annual report 2002/03. London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.Google Scholar
  21. Livingston, M., Bailey, N., & Kearns, A. (2008). People’s attachment to place: The influence of neighbourhood deprivation. Coventry: Chartered Institute for Housing/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Low, S. M., & Altman, I. (1992). Place attachment: A conceptual inquiry. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 1–12). London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  23. Lyons, W. E., & Lowery, D. (1989). Citizen responses to dissatisfaction in urban communities. Journal of Politics, 51, 841–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A. E., & Liu, J. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: Modelling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39, 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Office, Home. (2001). Building cohesive communities: A report of the ministerial group on public order and community cohesion. London: Home Office.Google Scholar
  26. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). Sustainable communities: Building for the future. London: ODPM.Google Scholar
  27. Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2004). The English indices of deprivation 2004 (revised). London: ODPM.Google Scholar
  28. Orbell, J. M., & Uno, T. (1972). A theory of neighbourhood problem solving: Political action versus residential mobility. American Political Science Review, 66, 471–489.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone.Google Scholar
  30. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. The 2006 Johan Skytte prize lecture. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Reardon, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. (2002). Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology, 52, 33–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Robinson, D. (2005). The search for community cohesion: Key themes and dominant concepts of the public policy agenda. Urban Studies, 42, 1411–1427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rojek, C., & Urry, J. (1997). Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory. London: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Rubinstein, R. L., & Parmelee, P. A. (1992). Attachment to place and the representation of the life course by the elderly. In I. Altman & S. M. Low (Eds.), Place attachment (pp. 139–160). London: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  35. Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (2004). Crime, social capital and community participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 219–233.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sampson, R., & Groves, W. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal Sociology, 94, 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal: National strategy action plan. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  39. Spencer, S., Ruhs, M., Anderson, B., & Rogaly, B. (2007). Migrants’ lives beyond the workplace. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  40. Taylor, R. B., Gottfredson, S. D., & Brower, S. (1985). Attachment to place: Discriminant validity and impact of disorder and diversity. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 525–542.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tunstall, R., & Fenton, A. (2006). In the mix. A review of mixed income, mixed tenure and mixed communities, English partnerships. London: Joseph Rowntree Foundation/Housing Corporation.Google Scholar
  42. Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205–220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Uzzell, D., Pol, E., & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion and environmental sustainability. Environment and Behaviour, 34, 26–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Williams, D. R., Patterson, M. E., Roggenbuck, J. W., & Watson, A. E. (1992). Beyond the commodity metaphor: Examining emotional and symbolic attachment to place. Leisure Science, 14, 29–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Woolcock, R. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Woolever, C. (1992). A contextual approach to neighbourhood attachment. Urban Studies, 29, 99–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban StudiesUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations