Advertisement

Social Indicators Research

, Volume 137, Issue 3, pp 923–947 | Cite as

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

  • Soumi MuhuriEmail author
  • Sanghamitra Basu
Article

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.

Keywords

CFA Delphi Expert opinion survey Focus group survey High-rise group housing Index Residential social cohesion 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Abu-Ghazzeh, T. M. (1999). Housinglayout, social interaction, and the place. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 41–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bernard, P. (1999). Social cohesion: A critique. CPRN Discussion Paper No. F09. Canadian Policy Research Networks, Ottawa.Google Scholar
  3. Bottoni, G. (2016). A multilevel measurement model of social cohesion. Social Indicators Research. doi: 10.1007/s11205-016-1470-7.Google Scholar
  4. Brown, E. E. (2001). Conceptualization of a model to build cohesion in multi-ethnic neighborhoods. Ph.D. thesis. Athens: University of Georgia.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. Bruhn, J. (2009). The group effect: Social cohesion and health outcomes. New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buckner, J. C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighbourhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–791.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chatterjee, M. (2009). Perception of housing environment among high rise dwellers. Journal of the Indian Academy of Applied Psychology, 35, 85–92.Google Scholar
  11. Chattopadhyay, S. (2000). Residential satisfaction in public housingA study. Ph.D. thesis. Kharagpur: Indian Institute of Technology.Google Scholar
  12. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Dalkey, N., & Helmer, O. (1963). An experimental application of the Delphi method to the use of experts. Management Science, 9(3), 458–467.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Deilmann, H., Bickenbach, G., & Pfeiffer, H. (1977). Housing groups. Stuttgart: Karl Kramer.Google Scholar
  16. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DiStefano, C., & Hess, B. (2005). Using confirmatory factor analysis for construct validation: An empirical review. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 225–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. Friedkin, N. E. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409–425. doi: 10.1146/annurev.soc.30.012703.110625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Ginsberg, Y., & Churchman, A. (1985). The pattern and meaning of neighbor relations in high-rise housing in Israel. Human Ecology, 13, 467–484.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Grange, A. L. (2011). Neighbourhood and class: A study of three neighbourhoods in Hong Kong. Urban Studies, 46, 1181–1200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78(6), 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 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
  25. Hoogland, C. (2000). Semi-private zones as a facilitator of social cohesion. Research on Social Science and Environmental Science, Nijmegen University.Google Scholar
  26. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Huang, S. L. (2006). A study of outdoor interactional spaces in high-rise housing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 78, 193–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jenson, J. (1998). Mapping social cohesion: The state of canadian research. Canadian Policy Research Networks Study, Renouf Publishing Co. Ltd.Google Scholar
  29. Hochschild, Jr., T. R. (2011). Neighbors by design: Determinants and effects of residential social cohesion. Ph.D. thesis, University of Connecticut.Google Scholar
  30. Kittell-Limerick, P. (2005). Perceived barriers to completion of the academic doctorate: A Delphi study. Ph.D. thesis, Texas A&M University-Commerce.Google Scholar
  31. Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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.Google Scholar
  33. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Marsden, P. V., & Campbell, K. E. (1984). Measuring tie strength. Social Forces, 63(2), 482–501.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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.
  39. National Building Code of India (2005). New Delhi: Bureau of Indian Standards.Google Scholar
  40. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 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
  45. Putnam, R. (2001). Social capital: Measurement and consequences. Canadian Journal of Policy Research, 2, 41–51.Google Scholar
  46. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Rabiee, F. (2004). Focus-group interview and data analysis. Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, 63, 655–660. doi: 10.1079/PNS2004399.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rayens, M. K., & Hahn, E. J. (2000). Building consensus using the policy Delphi method. Policy, Politics, and Nursing Practice, 1(4), 308–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Reddy, K. N. (1996). Urban redevelopment: A study of high-rise buildings. New Delhi: Concept Publishing Company.Google Scholar
  51. Rollwagen, H. (2016). The relationship between dwelling type and fear of crime. Environment and Behavior, 48(2), 365–387. doi: 10.1177/0013916514540459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 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
  54. Skjaeveland, O., Gilding, T., & Maeland, J. G. (1996). A multidimensional measure of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 413–435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 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
  56. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Woudenberg, F. (1991). An evaluation of Delphi. Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 40, 131–150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Yau, Y. (2010). Sense of community and homeowner participation in housing management: A study of Hong Kong. Urbani izziv, 21, 126–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Indian Institute of TechnologyKharagpurIndia

Personalised recommendations