Tenure structure and perceived social disorder in post-WWII suburban housing estates: A multi-level study with a representative sample of estates

Abstract

Studies on post-WWII housing estates have largely focused on problematic neighbourhoods, and there is scarcity of literature on housing estates across their entire social scale. Moreover, there is insufficient evidence on the extent to which tenure structure differentiates estates from each other in terms of social disorder. Using a large cluster sample of Finnish estates representing a wide variety of estate neighbourhoods, we examined the implications of tenure structure in terms of social disadvantage and perceived social disorder. We also studied how social interaction and normative regulation mediate the impact of structural estate characteristics. We found that rental domination is associated with social disadvantage, which exposes residents to social disorder, in line with social disorganisation theory. Differences in normative regulation partly explain this association. In contrast, social interaction in the neighbourhood is not associated with the level of perceived social disorder. The theoretical and practical implications of the results are discussed.

Involuntary staying and self-rated health: A multilevel study on housing, health and neighbourhood effects

“…In the present study, a housing estate consists of one or more adjacent statistical grids and is defined by the following criteria (Kemppainen et al 2018): 1. located outside the city centre, 2.…”

“…For example, an early version of the tenure-mixing policy was formulated in Helsinki in the 1960s, following episodes of youth unrest in one social housing estate; subsequently, the City of Helsinki adopted the objective to safeguard social order through a mixed tenure structure (Schulman, 2000). Owing to variation in the tenure-mixing policies, considerable socioeconomic differences exist among these areas, which in turn have implications for the local social order (Kemppainen et al, 2018). Moreover, given the unequal regional development and the increasing urban segregation, estate neighbourhoods have also become more differentiated from one another over the last three decades (Vaattovaara and Kortteinen, 2003; Stjernberg, 2015).…”

Collective efficacy and violent crime in suburban housing estates

“…In Finland, such housing estates are more socioeconomically disadvantaged compared with other neighbourhoods in terms of unemployment, educational level and income (Stjernberg, 2015) and have been subject to ethnic segregation caused by selective migration (Vilkama et al, 2013). Previous studies have also shown that residents living in rental-dominated housing estates are more likely to experience social disorder in their neighbourhood (Kemppainen et al, 2018).…”

“…In conclusion, studies on the relationship between collective efficacy and crime have thus far produced very heterogeneous results. Studies using survey-based information on crime and disorder have generally been supportive of the hypothesis but might struggle with method-induced problems, because the informants on collective efficacy are the same informants as those reporting perceived violence, disorder or victimization (see Kemppainen et al, 2018, andHardyns, 2009, for alternative approaches). Similarly, studies using homicide as the outcome have found evidence of the link between collective efficacy and violence, yet these results are restricted to the US, particularly Chicago.…”

School-level (dis)advantage and adolescents’ substance-use behaviours: The role of collective efficacy and norms

“…Under such circumstances, commonly agreed-upon behaviour may be harder to establish, and collective control functions may be less effective. Hence, as with neighbourhoods, it is not the indicators of disadvantage per se that are likely to increase a school’s concentration of problem behaviour, but the mechanisms that they activate and the social processes they influence (Bradshaw et al, 2009; Kemppainen et al, 2018). Moreover, as pointed out by Kirk (2009), the mechanisms recognised by collective efficacy theory as important for linking aspects of neighbourhood structure to various outcomes have much in common with those identified by school effectiveness researchers as central components of a well-functioning school (Bryk and Driscoll, 1988; Payne et al, 2003).…”