Neighbourhood Social Capital and Residential Mobility

  • Beate Völker
  • Gerald Mollenhorst
  • Veronique Schutjens
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter reports findings from research in the Netherlands that links the change in neighbourhood social capital between 2002 and 2006 with resident’s moving intentions and their actual mobility outcomes. The underlying hypothesis is that those who live in a neighbourhood with high levels of macro level social capital are better off than others, even when they themselves do not have many actual social ties themselves. If neighbourhoods with high levels of macro social capital are good for you, than it can be hypothesised that those living in neighbourhoods that lack of macro level social capital are more likely to develop an intention to leave their neighbourhood and act on this desire. Using data from the Netherlands, the chapter shows that low and decreasing neighbourhood social capital stimulates moving intentions and actual moving behaviour. It is suggested that to get a better understanding of the interactions between moving intentions, moving behaviour and social capital, future work should inquire more deeply into the conditions which cause social capital in neighbourhoods to change.

Keywords

Social Capital Residential Mobility Neighbourhood Level Place Attachment Neighbourhood Social Capital 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Andersen, H. S. (2008). Why do residents want to leave deprived neighborhoods? The importance of residents’ subjective evaluations of their neighborhood and its reputation. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 23(2), 79–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bourdieu, P. (1980). Le capital social. Actes de la recherche en sciences sociales, 31, 2–3.Google Scholar
  3. Brown, L. A., & Moore, E. G. (1970). The intra-urban migration process: A perspective. Geografiska Annaler, 52B, 1–13.Google Scholar
  4. Burt, R. S. (1992). Structural holes: The social structure of competition. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Clark, W. A. V., & Dieleman, F. M. (1996). Households and housing: Choice and outcomes in the housing market. New Brunswick: Canter for Urban Policy Research.Google Scholar
  6. Clark, W. A. V., & Huang, Y. (2003). The life course and residential mobility in British housing markets. Environment and Planning A, 35(2), 323–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioural sciences. Mahwah: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  8. Coleman, J. S. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge: Bellknap Press.Google Scholar
  9. Collins, J. L., & Wellman, B. (2010). Small town in the internet society: Chapleau is no longer an island. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(9), 1344–1366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Coulter, R., van Ham, M., & Feijten, P. (2011). Partner (dis)agreement on moving desires and the subsequent moving behaviour of couples. IZA discussion paper no. 5612. www.iza.org
  11. Deane, G. D. (1990). Mobility and adjustments: Paths to the resolution of residential stress. Demography, 27(1), 65–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. DiPasquale, D., & Glaeser, E. (1999). Incentives and social capital: Do homeowners make better citizens? Journal of Urban Economics, 45(2), 354–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feijten, P., & van Ham, M. (2009). Neighbourhood change… reason to leave? Urban Studies, 46(10), 2103–2122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Glaeser, E. L., Gyourko, J., & Saiz, A. (2008). Housing supply and housing bubbles. Journal of Urban Economics, 64 (2), 198–217.Google Scholar
  15. Halpern, D. (2005). Social capital. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Hirschman, A. O. (1970). Exit, voice and loyalty. Responses to decline in firms, organizations and states. Cambridge/Massachusetts/London: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  17. Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. (2003). Neighborhoods and health. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kearns, A., & Parkes, A. (2005). Living in and leaving poor neighborhood conditions. In J. Friedrichs, G. C. Galster, & S. Musterd (Eds.), Life in poverty neighborhoods (pp. 31–56). London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  19. Kendig, H. L. (1990). A life course perspective on housing attainment. In D. Myers (Ed.), Housing demography: Linking demographic structure and housing markets (pp. 133–156). Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  20. Kleinhans, R. (2009). Does social capital affect resident’s prospensity to move from restructured neighborhoods? Housing Studies, 24(5), 629–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kley, S. A., & Mulder, C. H. (2010). Considering, planning, and realizing migration in early adulthood. The influence of life-course events and perceived opportunities on leaving the city in Germany. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(1), 73–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lee, B. A., & Guest, A. (1983). Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction: A metropolitan-level analysis. The Sociological Quarterly, 24(2), 287–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lin, N. (2001). Reputation and social capital: The rational basis for social exchange. In N. Lin (Ed.), Social capital. A theory of social structure and action (pp. 143–164). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Livingstone, M., Bailey, N., & Kearns, A. (2010). Neighbourhood attachment in deprived areas: Evidence from the north of England. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(4), 409–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lyons, W. E., & Lowery, D. (1989). Citizen responses to dissatisfaction in urban communities. Journal of Politics, 51(4), 841–868.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Markowitz, F. E., Bellair, P. E., Liska, A. E., & Liu, J. H. (2001). Extending social disorganization theory: Modeling the relationships between cohesion, disorder, and fear. Criminology, 39(2), 293–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Mohnen, S., Groenewegen, P., Völker, B., & Flap, H. (2011). Neighborhood social capital and individual health. Social Science & Medicine, 72(5), 660–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Moore, S., Sheila, A., Hawed, P., & Haines, V. A. (2005). The privileging of communitarian ideas: Citation practices and the translation of social capital into public health research. American Journal of Public Health, 95(8), 1330–1337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Morenoff, J. D., Sampson, R., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2001). Neighborhood inequality, collective efficacy and the spatial dynamics of urban violence. Criminology, 39(3), 17–559.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Mujahid, M. S., Diez-Roux, A. V., Morenoff, J. D., & Raghunathan, T. (2007). Assessing the measurement properties of neighborhood scales: From psychometrics to ecometrics. American Journal of Epidemiology, 165(8), 858–867.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mulder, C. H. (1993). Migration dynamics: A life course approach. Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers.Google Scholar
  32. Musterd, S., & van Kempen, R. (2007). Trapped or on the springboard? Housing careers in large housing estates in European cities. Journal of Urban Affairs, 29(3), 311–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making democracy work. Civic traditions in modern Italy. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of civic America. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  35. 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
  36. Rabe, B., & Taylor, M. (2010). Residential mobility, quality of neighborhood and life course events. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society A, 173(3), 531–555.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Raudenbush, S., & Sampson, R. (1999). Ecometrics: Towards a science of assessing ecological settings, with application to the systematic observations of neighbourhoods. Sociological Methodology, 29(1), 1–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rossi, P. H. (1980 [1955]). Why families move. Beverly Hills/London: Sage.Google Scholar
  39. Sampson, R., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime. Testing social-disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94(4), 774–802.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. The American Journal of Sociology, 105(3), 603–651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sampson, R., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacy for children. American Sociological Review, 64(5), 633–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Schaake, K., Burgers, J., & Mulder, C. H. (2010). Ethnicity at the individual and neighborhood level as an explanation for moving out of the neighborhood. Population Research and Policy Review, 29(4), 593–608.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  45. Siermann, C., Van Teeffelen, P., & Urlings, L. (2004). Equivalentiefactoren. The Hague: Statistics Netherlands.Google Scholar
  46. Sjaastad, L. A. (1962). The costs and returns of human migration. Journal of Political Economy, 70(1), 80–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Smith, W. R., Frazee, S. G., & Davison, E. L. (2000). Furthering the integration of routineactivity and social disorganization theories: Small units of analysis and the study of street robbery as a diffusion process. Criminology, 38(2), 489–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. South, S. J., & Crowder, K. D. (1997). Escaping distressed neighborhoods: Individual, community and metropolitan influences. The American Journal of Sociology, 102(4), 1040–1084.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van der Land, M., & Doff, W. (2010). Voice, exit and efficacy: Dealing with perceived neighborhood decline without moving out. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 25(4), 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Van Ham, M. (2012). Housing behaviour. In D. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark & K. Gibb (Eds.), Handbook of housing studies. Chapter 4. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  51. Van Ham, M., & Clark, W. A. V. (2009). Neighborhood mobility in context: Household moves and changing neighborhoods in the Netherlands. Environment and Planning A, 41(6), 1442–1459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Van Ham, M., & Feijten, P. (2008). Who wants to leave the neighborhood? The effect of being different from the neighborhood population on wishes to move. Environment and Planning A, 40(5), 1151–1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Wellman, B. (1979). The community question. The intimate networks of east Yorkers. The American Journal of Sociology, 85(5), 1201–1231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Wilson, W. J. (1996). When work disappears. The world of the new urban poor. New York: Alfred Knopf.Google Scholar
  55. Wolpert, J. (1965). Behavioral aspects of the decision to migrate. Papers in Regional Science, 15(1), 159–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht. 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Beate Völker
    • 1
  • Gerald Mollenhorst
    • 1
  • Veronique Schutjens
    • 2
  1. 1.Faculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, SociologyUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Faculty of GeosciencesUtrecht UniversityUtrechtThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations