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.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Appadurai, A. (1996). Modernity at large: Cultural dimensions of globalization. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Audit Commission. (2007). Crossing borders. London: Audit Commission.
Bailey, N., & Livingston, M. (2007). Population turnover and area deprivation. Bristol: Policy Press/Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
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.
Blokland, T. (2003). Urban bonds. Cambridge: Polity.
Breakwell, G. M. (1986). Coping with threatened identity. London: Methuen.
Breakwell, G. M. (Ed.). (1992). Social psychology of identity and the self-concept. Surrey: Surrey University Press.
Charles, C. Z. (2003). Dynamics of residential segregation. American Review of Sociology, 29, 167–207.
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.
Field, J. (2003). Social capital. London: Routledge.
Fitzpatrick, S. (2004). Poverty of place. Keynote address of JRF Centenary Conference.
Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (1999). Social cohesion and urban inclusion for disadvantaged neighbourhoods. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
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.
Hannerz, U. (1996). Transnational connections: Culture, people, places. Oxford: Open University, Oxford University Press.
Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: Conceptual and empirical questions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273–281.
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.
Kasarda, J. D., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American Sociological Review, 39, 328–339.
Kearns, A., & Parkinson, M. (2001). The significance of neighbourhood. Urban Studies, 38, 2103–2110.
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.
Lawless, P. (2003). New deal for communities. The national evaluation. Annual report 2002/03. London: Neighbourhood Renewal Unit.
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.
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.
Lyons, W. E., & Lowery, D. (1989). Citizen responses to dissatisfaction in urban communities. Journal of Politics, 51, 841–868.
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.
Office, Home. (2001). Building cohesive communities: A report of the ministerial group on public order and community cohesion. London: Home Office.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2003). Sustainable communities: Building for the future. London: ODPM.
Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. (2004). The English indices of deprivation 2004 (revised). London: ODPM.
Orbell, J. M., & Uno, T. (1972). A theory of neighbourhood problem solving: Political action versus residential mobility. American Political Science Review, 66, 471–489.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Touchstone.
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.
Reardon, S. F., & Firebaugh, G. (2002). Measures of multigroup segregation. Sociological Methodology, 52, 33–67.
Robinson, D. (2005). The search for community cohesion: Key themes and dominant concepts of the public policy agenda. Urban Studies, 42, 1411–1427.
Rojek, C., & Urry, J. (1997). Touring cultures: Transformations of travel and theory. London: Routledge.
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.
Saegert, S., & Winkel, G. (2004). Crime, social capital and community participation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 34, 219–233.
Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766–779.
Sampson, R., & Groves, W. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal Sociology, 94, 774–802.
Social Exclusion Unit. (2001). A new commitment to neighbourhood renewal: National strategy action plan. London: Cabinet Office.
Spencer, S., Ruhs, M., Anderson, B., & Rogaly, B. (2007). Migrants’ lives beyond the workplace. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation.
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.
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.
Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205–220.
Uzzell, D., Pol, E., & Badenas, D. (2002). Place identification, social cohesion and environmental sustainability. Environment and Behaviour, 34, 26–53.
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.
Woolcock, R. (1998). Social capital and economic development: Toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory and Society, 27, 151–208.
Woolever, C. (1992). A contextual approach to neighbourhood attachment. Urban Studies, 29, 99–116.
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Livingston, M., Bailey, N. & Kearns, A. Neighbourhood attachment in deprived areas: evidence from the north of England. J Hous and the Built Environ 25, 409–427 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-010-9196-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10901-010-9196-3