Eclipsing Community? Neighborhood Disadvantage, Social Mechanisms, and Neighborly Attitudes and Behaviors

Abstract

This study investigates how objective neighborhood characteristics influence attitudinal and behavioral dimensions of community social organization. Grounded in ecological and neighborhood effects traditions, I extend prior inquiries by adjudicating the social mechanisms that link neighborhood disadvantage with residents' satisfaction and neighboring. Results from longitudinal data from the Los Angeles Family and Neighborhood Survey indicate that the neighborhood disadvantage perspective garners support when considering neighborhood satisfaction, while the systemic model marshals support for informal neighboring. Consistent with the local danger model, experiencing fearful feelings toward the neighborhood is detrimental to both satisfaction and neighboring. In addition, a cumulative disadvantage effect exists whereby individuals who live in highly disadvantaged areas and perceive the neighborhood as dangerous exhibit the highest levels of dissatisfaction. Having friendship ties living nearby buffers the impact of fear on neighborhood satisfaction, while being socially isolated exacerbates feelings of local danger. These findings suggest that community investment initiatives could mitigate the factors contributing to disadvantaged neighborhoods and foster local satisfaction and engagement as a result.

Results from a natural experiment: initial neighbourhood investments do not change objectively-assessed physical activity, psychological distress or perceptions of the neighbourhood

“…Neighbourhood satisfaction [50] was assessed by asking, "All things considered, would you say you are very satisfied, satisfied, dissatisfied, very dissatisfied or neutralneither satisfied nor dissatisfied, with your neighbourhood as a place to live?" Others have used this single item question to understand residents'overall perceptions of their neighborhood [51][52][53][54]. This item was dichotomized with the highest two levels (satisfied or very satisfied coded as 1, and neutral, dissatisfied or very dissatisfied coded as 0) .…”

Family Structure and Secondary Exposure to Violence in the Context of Varying Neighborhood Risks and Resources

“…One such resource, neighborhood ties (also referred to as “network interaction” and/or “reciprocated exchange”; Browning, Dirlam, and Boettner 2016) captures the extent to which community members engage in what Sharp (2018) calls “neighboring.” Neighboring includes behaviors such as doing favors for other residents, watching over one another’s property, asking each other for advice, and getting together in the community to socialize. In communities with stronger neighborhood ties, parents are more likely to know other parents, talk to other parents about the local youth, and intervene on behalf of other parents’ children.…”

Location, Location, Location? School District, Length of Residence and Attitudes Toward Diversity and Neighborhood Schools in the Upper South

“…Length of time lived in a school district also influences racial attitudes through its influence on attachment and entitlement (Sharp, 2018; Torunczyk-Ruiz & Martinovic, 2020). Scholars testing community attachment models found that living longer in one area leads to greater amounts of neighboring—which is “the extent to which neighbors do favors for each other, watch over each other’s property, and talk to and ask one another for advice” (Sharp, 2018, p. 628). Longer-term residents also tend to feel more entitled to making sure that neighborhood is protected and improved (Torunczyk-Ruiz & Martinovic, 2020).…”