Influences on the Sense of Neighborhood

Abstract

A significant amount of research has been done in the United States and Western European countries regarding influences on the sense of neighborhood. However, it is less clear whether the influences discovered in the Western context also apply to Eastern European countries. Slovenia is a post-communist country which means that potentially different processes have been significant. In this article, the influence of individual and contextual factors on the sense of neighborhood in Slovenia is tested and compared. The analysis is made on the basis of a survey carried out in 2005 on a representative sample of Slovenian households. The findings are in some ways similar to those of the Western research. However, certain findings ran contrary to some of the cited research, like the absence of gender differences and the opposite influence of education and income. This might indicate different processes of establishing a sense of neighborhood in Central and Eastern Europe.

Measuring urban quality of life: case study of Ljubljana

“…Marans and Kweon (2011) The results of SEM and the first of both regression analyses also draw attention to the greater meaning of satisfaction with the dwelling as one of the dimensions of quality of life compared to satisfaction with the neighbourhood and with living in the city, which corresponds to the findings of other similar studies (Sirgy and Cornwell 2002;McCrea, Stimson and Western 2005;Filipović 2008;Marans and Kweon 2011;Türkoğlu et al 2011). As Mandič (1999) states, the dwelling fulfils many needs in the life of an individual: in addition to its fundamental function as a shelter, it covers needs regarding privacy, location, assets, social contact, partner relationships, and others.…”

Sense of community-belonging and health-behaviour change in Canada

“…This question captures ‘sense’ of belonging, which may potentially differ from actual community-belonging, as it incorporates perceptions, feeling and relationships within a subjective community 31. Nevertheless, this item is conceptually consistent with theories linking individuals and context.…”

Changing approaches to urban development in South Korea

“…2 Urban design can strengthen social cohesion by creating inclusive and shared places where social groups of different economic, social and cultural backgrounds can meet and where the local everyday practices and values are maintained and reproduced, thus affecting the civic culture, social control and collective identities in cities. In practice, urban design can often be instrumental in facilitating social cohesion by creating opportunities for social interaction in public space and strengthening the sense of neighbourhood and community attachment (Filipović, 2008;Manzi et al, 2010). However, the use and meaning of public space also depend on the economic, social or political power of the dominant social groups, which urban design alone cannot easily overcome and even, in the case of a competitive urban policy, intentionally reproduces (Smith, 2002;Cho, 2010;Križnik, 2011).…”

“…The second approach emphasises the importance of social equity and political rights in order to sustain existing social and cultural structures in the long run. According to this view, the traditional understanding of sustainable urban development has to be complemented by theoretical and practical approaches including, but not limited to, social cohesion, social inclusion, social capital, shared responsibility, liveability, a sense of neighbourhood, community attachment, the quality of everyday life, or civic participation in decisionmaking (Filipović, 2008;Manzi et al, 2010). The other reason for the comparatively less attention that social sustainability has gained thus far is the rather intangible nature of social and cultural consequences, caused by unrestricted economic growth and speculative urban development, as well as the unclear relationship between the different dimensions of sustainable urban development, which poses difficulties not only for urban theory but also for the practical implementation of social sustainability in urban policy (Portney, 2003).…”