Neighbourhoods: Evolving Ideas, Evidence and Changing Policies

Chapter

Abstract

A major issue for those interested in developing policy from research is that the vast majority of the academic contributions to the neighbourhood effects debates have come from work conducted in the United States of America. More often than not, the case studies have evolved from the Chicago school. In contrast policy makers are increasingly requiring more locally sourced examples from which to develop interventions and policies. In exploring why neighbourhood effects research has failed to have the expected impact on urban policy the first section of the chapter suggests a set of issues that need to be addressed in order for research to link directly with policy outcomes. Firstly, the broad area of work that is defined as neighbourhood effects consists of multiple disciplines researching from their own, often competing experiences and perspectives making it easy for policy makers to ignore the research. Secondly, researchers need to have a convincing story to tell policy makers. Thirdly, the research needs to integrate the multiple aspects of individual life courses and the range of residential contexts through which people move. Thus, a better understanding of the processes behind neighbourhood effects is called for: This includes understanding better what can constitute a neighbourhood and neighbourhood space and whether they need to be spatially and temporally contiguous. Similarly, we need to know much more about how individuals choose their living environments, how they search for housing, what trade-offs they make and what cost structures they use when making their decisions. There are symmetries in the need to understand the effects of partial and missing information on these processes. Finally, we need to better understand the processes that are missing in the black-boxes that are used mediate neighbourhood effects. What mechanisms are important, for whom, when are they important and where. Only when we can thread all of these competing facets together will the academic discipline be in a better shape to deliver a more coherent story to policy makers and move beyond the policy mistakes of the past.

Keywords

Social Housing Neighbourhood Effect Place Policy Neighbourhood Attribute Housing Choice 
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.

Notes

Acknowledgements 

I am grateful to Alice Oldfield for comments on this chapter and to David Manley for the incisive comments he made on an earlier draft. Remaining errors are all my own.

References

  1. Aalbers, M. (2013). How do mortgage lenders influence neighbourhood dynamics? Redlining and predatory lending. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Understanding neighbourhood dynamics: New insights for neighbourhood effects research (pp. 63–86). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  2. Andersson, R., & Musterd, S. (2005). Housing mix, social mix and social opportunities. Urban Affairs Review, 40(6), 761–790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Atkinson, R., & Kintrea, K. (2001). Disentangling area effects: Evidence from deprived and non-deprived neighbourhoods. Urban Studies, 38(11), 2277–2298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atkinson, R., & Kintrea, K. (2002). Area effects: What do they mean for British housing and regeneration policy? European Journal of Housing Policy, 2(2), 147–166.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Buck, N. (2001). Identifying neighbourhood effects on social exclusion. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2251–2275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Butler, T., & Lees, L. (2006). Super-gentrification in Barnsbury, London. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 32, 467–487.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cheshire, P., & Sheppard, S. (2005). The introduction of price signals into land use planning decision-making: a proposal. Urban studies, 42(4), 647–663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cheshire, P. (2012). Are mixed community policies evidence based? A review of the research on neighbourhood effects. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  10. Downs, R. M., & Stea, D. (Eds.). (1973). Image and environment: Cognitive mapping and spatial behaviour. Edward Arnold: Sevenoaks, Kent.Google Scholar
  11. Ellen, I. G., & Turner, M. A. (1997). Does neighborhood matter? Assessing recent evidence. Housing Policy Debate, 8(4), 833–866.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2125–2143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Friedrichs, J., Galster, G. C., & Musterd, S. (2003). Neighbourhood effects on social opportunities: The European and American research and policy context. Housing Studies, 18(6), 797–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Galster, G. C. (1986). What is neighbourhood? An externality-space approach. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 10(2), 243–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Galster, G. (2008). A stock/flow model of defining racially integrated neighborhoods. Journal of Urban Affairs, 20(1), 43–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38(12), 2111–2124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Galster, G. C. (2007). Neighbourhood social mix as a goal of housing policy: A theoretical analysis. European Journal of Housing Policy, 7(1), 19–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Galster, G. C. (2012). The mechanism(s) of neighbourhood effects theory, evidence, and policy implications. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  19. Glaeser, E. L., & Gottlieb, J. D. (2008). The economics of place-making policies (Working paper 14373). Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Graham, E., Manley, D., Hiscock, R., Boyle, P., & Doherty, J. (2009). Mixing housing tenures: Is it good for social well-being? Urban Studies, 46(10), 139–165.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Green, A. E., & Owen, D. (1998). The geography of poor skills and access to work. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  22. Grigsby, W., Baratz, M., Galster, G. C., & Maclennan, D. (1987). The dynamics of neighbourhood change and decline. Oxford: Pergamon.Google Scholar
  23. Grigsby, W. G. (1963). Housing markets and public policy. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  24. Hägerstrand, T. (1978). Survival and arena: On the life-history of individuals in relation to their geographic environments. In T. Carlstein, J. Parkes, & N. J. Thrift (Eds.), Human activity and time geography. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  25. Hägerstrand, T. (1988). Some unexplored problems in the modeling of culture transfer and transformation. In The transfer and transformation of ideas and material culture (pp. 217–232). College Station, TX: A & M University Press.Google Scholar
  26. Hardin, R. (2009). How do you know. The economics of ordinary knowledge. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Harvey, D. (1973). Social justice and the city. Melbourne: Edward Arnold Press.Google Scholar
  28. Hedman, L. (2011). The impact of residential mobility on measurement of neighbourhood effects. Housing Studies, 26(4), 501–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Hedman, L., & van Ham, M. (2012). Understanding neighbourhood effects: Selection bias and residential mobility. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 79–100). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Heisz, A., & MacLeod, L. (2004). Low income in census metropolitan areas. Perspectives on Labour and Income, 5(5). Ottawa: Statistics Canada.Google Scholar
  31. Hoyt, H. (1939). Structure and growth of residential neighbourhoods in American cities. Washington, DC: FHA.Google Scholar
  32. Hulchanski, D. (2010). The three cities within Toronto. Income polarization among Toronto’s neighbourhoods, 1970–2005. Toronto: University of Toronto.Google Scholar
  33. Hunter, A. (1979). The urban neighbourhood: Its analytical and social contexts. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14(3), 267–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kintrea, K., Gibb, K., & Conchua, C. H. (1996). An evaluation of GRO grants for owner occupiers. Edinburgh: CRU, Scottish Office.Google Scholar
  35. Lebel, A., Pampalon, R., & Villeneuve, P. Y. (2007). A multi-perspective approach for defining neighbourhood units in the context of a study on health inequalities in the Quebec City region. International Journal of Health Geographics, 6, 27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lupton, R. (2003). ‘Neighbourhood Effects’: Can we measure them and does it matter? (CASE paper 73). London: Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion London School of Economics.Google Scholar
  37. Lupton, R., Kneale, D. (2012). Theorising and measuring place in neighbourhood effects research: the example of teenage parenthood in England. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 121–146). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Maclennan, D. (1982). Housing economics: An applied approach. London: Longman.Google Scholar
  39. Maclennan, D. (1986). Maintenance and modernization of urban housing. OECD Urban Affairs Programme (mimeo.).Google Scholar
  40. Maclennan, D. (1998). Urban regeneration in Britain: new times, new challenges. In: B. Badcock and K. Harris, Proceedings of the National Urban Renewal Seminar, Department of Human Services, Adelaide.Google Scholar
  41. Maclennan, D. (2000). Changing places, engaging people. York: JRF.Google Scholar
  42. Maclennan, D. (2006). Remaking neighbourhood renewal: Towards creative neighbourhood renewal policies for Britain. Ontario: Caledon Institute.Google Scholar
  43. Maclennan, D. (2012). Understanding housing markets: Real progress or stalled agendas. In D. Clapham, W. Clark, & K. Gibb (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of housing studies. London/Thousand Oaks: SAGE.Google Scholar
  44. Maclennan, D., & McGregor, A. (1992). Strategic approaches to urban regeneration in Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.Google Scholar
  45. Mallett, S. (2004). Understanding home: A critical review of the literature. The Sociological Review, 52(1), 62–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Malpezzi, S. (2002). Hedonic pricing models: A selective and applied review. In T. O’Sullivan & K. Gibb (Eds.), Housing economics and public policy. New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Malpezzi, S. (2003). Urban regulation, the “new economy”, and housing prices. Housing Policy Debate, 13(2), 323–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Manley, D., & van Ham, M. (2011). Choice-based letting, ethnicity and segregation in England. Urban Studies, 48(14), 3125–3143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Manley, D., & van Ham, M. (2012a). Occupational mobility and neighbourhood effects. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (chap. 7, pp. 147–174). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  50. Manley, D., & van Ham, M. (2012b). Neighbourhood effects, housing tenure and individual employment outcomes. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  51. Manley, D., van Ham, M., Bailey, N., Simpson, L., & Maclennan, D. (Eds.). (2013). Neighbourhood effects or neighbourhood based problems? A policy context. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  52. McGregor, S. L. T. (1999). Socializing consumers in a global marketplace. Journal of Consumer Studies & Home Economics, 23(1), 37–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Meen, G., Nygaard, C., & Meen, J. (2013). The causes of long-term neighbourhood change. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Understanding neighbourhood dynamics: New insights for neighbourhood effects research (pp. 43–62). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  54. Murie, A., & Forrest, R. (1980). Housing market processes and the inner city. New York: Social Science Research Council.Google Scholar
  55. Nutley, S. M., Davies, H. T., & Smith, P. C. (2000). What works: Evidence-based policy and practice in public services. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
  56. Oreopoulos, P. (2003). The long-run consequences of living in a poor neighbourhood. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118, 1533–1575.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Pacione, M. (1997). Local Exchange Trading Systems as a response to the globalisation of capitalism. Urban Studies, 34(8), 1179–1199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Quigley, J. M. (2002). Transaction costs and housing markets. In A. O'Sullivan & K. Gibb (Eds.), Housing economics and public policy. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  59. Robson, B. T. (1969). Urban analysis: A study of city structure with special reference to Sunderland CUP archive. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  60. Robson, B. (1988). Those Inner Cities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  61. Slater, T. (2013). Capitalist urbanization affects your life chances: Exorcising the ghosts of ‘Neighbourhood Effects’. In D. Manley, M. van Ham, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects or neighbourhood based problems? A policy context (chap. 6). Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  62. Suttles, G. D. (1972). The social construction of communities. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  63. Segal, D. (Ed.). (1979). The economics of neighbourhood. New York: Academic press.Google Scholar
  64. Schelling, T. C. (1971). Dynamic models of segregation. Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 1(2), 143–186.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Small, M. L., & Feldman, J. (2012). Ethnographic evidence, heterogeneity, and neigbourhood effects after moving to opportunity. In M. van Ham, D. Manley, N. Bailey, L. Simpson, & D. Maclennan (Eds.), Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives (pp. 57–77). Dordrecht: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal. London: Cabinet Office.Google Scholar
  67. Turok, I., & Edge, N. (1999). The jobs gap in Britain’s cities. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.Google Scholar
  68. van Ham, M., & Manley, D. (2010). The effect of neighbourhood housing tenure mix on labour market outcomes: A longitudinal investigation of neighbourhood effects. Journal of Economic Geography, 10(2), 257–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. van Ham, M., & Manley, D. (2012). Neighbourhood effects research at a crossroads. Ten challenges for future research. Environment and Planning A, 44, 2787–2793.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. van Ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L., & Maclennan, D. (Eds.). (2012). Understanding neighbourhood dynamics: New insights for neighbourhood effects research. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar
  71. van Ham, M., Manley, D., Bailey, N., Simpson, L., & Maclennan, D. (Eds.). (2013). Neighbourhood effects research: New perspectives. Dordrecht: Springer.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science and Business Dordrecht. 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Housing Research, School of Geography and GeosciencesUniversity of St AndrewsSt Andrews, FifeScotland, UK

Personalised recommendations