Neighborhood homogeneity and cohesion in sustainable community development

Does owner heterogeneity matter in the management of multi-owned housing?

“…On the one hand, this kind of interaction reminds them of themselves, which contributes directly to their utility of well-being. It also creates a sense of fairness, which makes interactions sustainable (Cheung & Leung, 2011). The above views are supported by the empirical study which found individual participation in social activities was lower in more heterogeneous groups (Alesina & Ferrara, 2000).…”

“…Compared to a homogenous group, it is easier for a heterogeneous group to find a subgroup of members who are highly resourceful and highly interested in collective goods to shoulder the costs of goods production (Olson, 1965). The last, but not the least, way is by social capital (Cheung & Leung, 2011). Social capital usually refers to "generalized trust, norms of reciprocity, and networks" (Forrest & Kearns, 2001).…”

Are You Pleased With Your Neighborhood? A Fuzzy Cognitive Mapping-Based Approach for Measuring Residential Neighborhood Satisfaction in Urban Communities

“…Specifically, in analyzing the effects of neighborhood conditions on residents' satisfaction, previous studies have analyzed many variables such as: local jurisdiction effect, crime, physical decay and other activities and land uses (Greenberg, Crossney 2007); noise, green areas, naturalness and openness (Bonaiuto et al 2003;Gidlöf-Gunnarsson, Öhrström 2007;Hur et al 2010;Jong et al 2012); effects of place scale (Bonaiuto et al 2003;Lewicka 2010); perceived neighborhood social cohesion, welfare, friendliness of neighbors, ethnic, racial and economic composition (Lansing, Marans 1969;Cheung, Leung 2011); architectural-planning space, landscaping, housing services, style and condition, children's playgrounds, community halls, organization, car parks, security and disability facilities, neighborhood facilities and environment (Lansing, Marans 1969;Bonaiuto et al 2003;Salleh 2008;Youssoufi, Foltête 2013); communal services such as roads, transport services, sewer system and basic utilities within the housing area (Mohit, Azim 2012); and symbolic factors (e.g. sense of identity and prestige values) (Lansing, Marans 1969) (for further discussion, see also Zehner 1971;Türkoğlu 1997;Ukoha, Beamish 1997;Liu 1999;Westaway 2006;Stronegger et al 2010;Rioux, Werner 2011;Gupta et al 2012;oshio, urakawa 2012).…”

Social capital and assimilation of migrant workers and foreign wives in South Korea: The case of Wongok community

“…Social capital between different racial/ethnic groups can reduce inequality and lead to more successful assimilation by improving migrants' access to information, recommendations, mentoring, preparation, and other keys from out-group people in the host country (Dickens, 1999;Lin, 1999;Putnam, 2000). In addition, as racial/ethnic diversity often leads to more dissenting views and conflicts, thereby hindering agreement on community improvements, bridging social capital is also indispensable for sustainable community development (Alesina, Baqir, & Easterly, 1999;Boix & Posner, 1998;Boss, 2008;Cheung & Leung, 2011;Knack, 2002;Putnam, 2007). As a strategy for promoting bridging social capital, proponents of the contact hypothesis argue that contact between different ethnic group members reduces prejudice toward each other, thereby overcoming the negative effects of ethnic diversity and enhancing bridging social capital (Gordon, 1954;Hughes, Campbell, & Jenkins, 2011;Paolini, Hewstone, Cairns, & Voci, 2004;Stolle, Soroka, & Johnston, 2008).…”