Neighborhood Walking and Social Connectedness

Glover, Troy D.; Todd, Jose; Moyer, Luke

doi:10.3389/fspor.2022.825224

Cited by 11 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 65 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…While research about place attachment at individual places within neighborhoods is less extensive, findings resonate with neighborhood‐level studies. The two factors most consistently associated with attachment at individual places are (1) frequency and duration of exposure to place (Glover et al, 2022; Scott et al, 2020; Tumanan & Lansangan, 2012; Ujang & Zakariya, 2015), and (2) shared and/or social experience of places (Altman & Low, 1992; Cattell et al, 2008; Shamai & Ilatov, 2005).…”

Section: Place Attachment: Prior Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Place type or place function: What matters for place attachment?

Zahnow

2023

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Place attachment at neighborhood places can facilitate social ties and community belonging, reduce social isolation and improve physical and mental health outcomes. Research highlights the benefits of place attachment at traditional third places such as cafes and parks but is yet to examine place attachment across a broader suite of highly frequented neighborhood places. Drawing on survey data from a sample of Australian residents (N = 892) with a median age of 55−64 years, this study examines the influence of place form and function on place attachment at everyday places. Findings reveal that places where individuals go to participate in specific and unique activities (e.g., exercise at a gym, prayer at a temple) alongside a defined group of other community members, such as places of worship or gyms, engender stronger place attachment than places of economic consumption, such as large shops and cafes. This is important in its capacity to inform neighborhood planning and policies to reduce risk of social isolation.

show abstract

Section: Place Attachment: Prior Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Place type or place function: What matters for place attachment?

Zahnow

2023

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…examines how possibilities for frequent, sometimes happenstance, encounters enabled by neighbourhood walking facilitate the development of social ties. This kind of largely unquantifiable "incidental sociability" (Glover et al, 2023) is important for social cohesion. With similar interest in social cohesion, in "Geographies of Encounter, Public Space, and Social Cohesion: Reviewing Knowledge at the Intersection of Social Sciences and Built Environment Disciplines," Patricia Aelbrecht and Quentin Stevens provide a systematic review of literatures criss-crossing the social sciences, architecture, and urban design, focusing especially on intersections between research on social cohesion and urban design literature.…”

Section: Convivialitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Entanglements of Improvisation, Conviviality, and Conflict in Everyday Encounters in Public Space

Horgan,

Liinamaa

2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The everyday life of public space is characterised by many kinds of convivial, conflictual, and improvisational encounters between people of diverse backgrounds and experiences. Because public spaces are, in principle at least, freely accessible to all, they are of central importance to everyday life and intrinsically interesting to social scientists. This thematic issue brings together a range of disciplinary and interdisciplinary perspectives on everyday encounters in public space. In the introduction to this thematic issue, we appeal to urban scholars of all backgrounds to take the social life of public space seriously; as essential social infrastructure, public space is key to the collective well-being of city-dwellers, and it provides a crucial bridge between urban planning and the social sciences. Here, we briefly survey research on everyday encounters and introduce each of the contributions to the issue. While the articles in this issue are organised around the three core themes of conviviality, conflict, and improvisation, we argue for the entanglements of each within the everyday life of public spaces.

show abstract

“…Neighborhoods are popular settings where adults walk (12)(13)(14)(15). The creation of walkable neighborhood built environments is an intervention strategy that can increase walking and increase physical activity (16)(17)(18), social connectedness (19), and improve health (20,21). Walkable neighborhoods include several built attributes such as connected street layouts, pedestrian infrastructure, amenities, and safety, making walking an easy and convenient option (22).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Associations between neighborhood walkability and walking following residential relocation: Findings from Alberta's Tomorrow Project

McCormack

Koohsari²,

Vena³

et al. 2023

Front. Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionCross-sectional studies consistently find that the neighborhood built environment (e.g., walkability) is associated with walking. However, findings from the few existing longitudinal residential relocation studies that have estimated associations between changes in neighborhood built characteristics and walking are equivocal. The study objective was to estimate whether changes in neighborhood walkability resulting from residential relocation were associated with leisure, transportation, and total walking levels among adults.MethodsThis study included longitudinal data from the “Alberta's Tomorrow Project”—a province-wide cohort study (Alberta, Canada). The analysis included data collected at two time points (i.e., baseline and follow-up) from 5,977 urban adults. The International Physical Activity Questionnaire (IPAQ) captured self-reported walking. We estimated neighborhood walkability, an index capturing intersection, destination, and population counts for the 400 m Euclidean buffer around participants' homes. Using household postal codes reported at baseline and follow-up, we categorized participants into three groups reflecting residential relocation (“non-movers:” n = 5,679; “movers to less walkability:” n = 164, and; “movers to more walkability:” n = 134). We used Inverse-Probability-Weighted Regression Adjustment to estimate differences [i.e., average treatment effects in the treated (ATET)] in weekly minutes of leisure, transportation, and total walking at follow-up between residential relocation groups, adjusting for baseline walking, sociodemographic characteristics, and walkability. The median time between baseline and follow-up was 2-years.ResultsThe three residential relocation groups mainly included women (61.6–67.2%) and had a mean age of between 52.2 and 55.7 years. Compared to “non-movers” (reference group), weekly minutes of transportation walking at follow-up was significantly lower among adults who moved to less walkable neighborhoods (ATET: −41.34, 95 CI: −68.30, −14.39; p < 0.01). We found no other statistically significant differences in walking between the groups.DiscussionOur findings suggest that relocating to less walkable neighborhoods could have detrimental effects on transportation walking to the extent of adversely affecting health. Public health strategies that counteract the negative impacts of low walkable neighborhoods and leverage the supportiveness of high walkable neighborhoods might promote more walking.

show abstract

Neighborhood Walking and Social Connectedness

Cited by 11 publications

References 65 publications

Place type or place function: What matters for place attachment?

Place type or place function: What matters for place attachment?

Entanglements of Improvisation, Conviviality, and Conflict in Everyday Encounters in Public Space

Associations between neighborhood walkability and walking following residential relocation: Findings from Alberta's Tomorrow Project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About