Sense of Community and Its Association With the Neighborhood Built Environment

Abstract

We investigated the influence of neighborhood built form on sense of community in Perth, Western Australia. It was hypothesized that sense of community would be stronger in individuals living in pedestrian-friendly neighborhoods. Multivariate linear regression models explored associations between walking and sense of community, with progressive adjustment for objective and perceived neighborhood characteristics. Sense of community was positively associated with walking for transport and positive perceptions of neighborhood quality, and negatively associated with residential density. The findings highlight the influence of local area perceptions on sense of community that appeared to be more important than objective environment characteristics. However, the latter may influence perceptions, and this requires investigation.

Keywords

sense of community neighborhood design walkability

Introduction

There is growing research, policy, and planning interest in the impacts of the built environment and neighborhood design on health. Much of the research to date has focused on physical inactivity and obesity as health consequences linked to car-dependent urban form (Frank, Andresen, & Schmid, 2004; Lopez-Zetina, Lee, & Friis, 2006). Car-dominated urban sprawl mandates sedentary forms of travel and negates the ability to engage in active forms of transportation to access work, shopping, and other destinations. However, sprawled development and neighborhood built form may influence other community outcomes, and there is increasing interest in the impact of the built environment on measures of social and mental well-being such as sense of community, neighborhood cohesion, and social capital.

Sense of community is also a term used in everyday lexicon, commonly referred to in the context of its beneficial presence (“we have good sense of community here”) or notable by its absence (Pretty, Conroy, Dugay, Fowler, & Williams, 1996). Definitionally, sense of community has been described as a “feeling that members have of belonging and being important to each other and a shared faith that members’ needs will be met by the commitment to be together” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p.8). It is a concept that seeks to capture the collective value of the processes and attachments that exist between people and their social milieu, and can be experienced in geographic or other social entities (Davidson & Cotter, 1986; Nasar & Julian, 1995). In a neighborhood context, sense of community is not just a “social nicety” but has been linked to a range of community level outcomes, including fear of crime, neighborhood attachment, community involvement and participation, and improved community coping skills (Chavis & Wandersman, 1990). Although trends in globalization, communication, and mobility have challenged many traditional notions of “local community,” the corollary is that people are said to be increasingly searching for local belonging and identity in a modern and changeable world (Mackay, 2010). Thus, as noted by Francis, Giles-Corti, Wood, and Knuiman (2012), “identifying and creating the conditions that foster and strengthen sense of community within residential neighborhoods is an important task for researchers and planners alike” (p. 402).

Enhancing sense of community is a key aim of New Urbanist planning principles (Joongsub & Kaplan, 2004), which posit that the way in which street patterns divide and connect a neighborhood influences people’s movements and interactions within that space (Southworth & Owens, 1993). Several studies support this, with a more walkable environment and street network design found to promote neighborly interactions, social capital (Leyden, 2003; Rogers, Halstead, Gardner, & Carlson, 2011), and sense of community (Lund, 2002, 2003). Similarly, other perceived neighborhood characteristics that encourage walking can enhance sense of community by increasing opportunities for interaction with neighbors. For example, perceiving the neighborhood to be safe, seeing neighbors when out, and having local interesting sites in the neighborhood have been shown to be positively associated with sense of community (Leyden, 2003; Lund, 2002; Wood, Frank, & Giles-Corti, 2010).

Although it may seem intuitive that a more walkable built environment would lead to increased sense of community, evidence to date is mixed, and little is known about the specific features of the built environment that contribute to sense of community and under what circumstances. The relationship between social interaction, sense of community, and the built environment is complex, and some built environment characteristics may actually reduce sense of community. For example, Wood et al. (2010) found that mixed land use was negatively associated with sense of community in Atlanta, USA. However, mixed-use environments in Atlanta predominantly comprise car-dependent retail centers located adjacent to residential areas. This form of land use mix may actually minimize opportunities for local residents to walk and interact, and attract more strangers into the neighborhood, which may explain the findings.

The purpose of local walking behavior may also influence the development of sense of community. In the physical activity literature, studies often distinguish between walking for transport and walking for recreation or leisure, and have generally found that environmental correlates of types of walking differ (Frank & Engelke, 2001; Frank, Engelke, & Schmid, 2003). Similarly, it is plausible that the purpose and frequency of walking from home may influence sense of community, as people walking for transport (i.e., task focused) may be less amenable to social interactions. Indeed, Wood et al. (2010) found that sense of community was associated with leisurely walking, but not brisk walking that is more likely for transport purposes (Wood et al., 2010).

This article explores the influence of walking and walkability on sense of community. We hypothesized that living in neighborhoods with characteristics conducive to walking would increase sense of community.

Method

Study Context

This study involved a cross-sectional subset of baseline participants (n = 1,655) of the Australian RESIDential Environments Project (RESIDE). The RESIDE project is a longitudinal study evaluating the impact of urban design on health. The RESIDE study design and selection of participants is reported elsewhere (Giles-Corti et al., 2008). Participants were residents from the Perth metropolitan area aged 18 to 78 years. The data presented in this article were collected in 2003 prior to participants relocating to homes purchased and built in newly developed estates. Participants completed a self-report questionnaire and geographic information systems (GIS) were used to generate individual-level objective measurement of each participant’s neighborhood. The questionnaire defined the neighborhood as a 10- to 15-min walk from home and GIS measures assessed this as 1,600 m road network distance from each participant’s house. The study protocol was approved by the Human Research Ethics Committee at The University of Western Australia.

Measures

Sense of community

The outcome variable was sense of community. This was based on a modified version of the Neighborhood Cohesion Index (NCI; Buckner, 1988). Psychological sense of community is the dominant structure measured in the NCI (Buckner, 1988; Robinson & Wilkinson, 1995). The scale was developed to capture the collective-level attribute of sense of community as it exists specifically in a neighborhood context (Buckner, 1988). As noted by Buckner (1988), “one decided advantage to the NCI construct is that it helps focus attention on the systemic variables that may play an important role in creating a sense of community among people” (p. 787).

The RESIDE Neighborhoods Sense of Community scale comprised 16 five-point Likert-type scale items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; see appendix). Two items (“Given the opportunity, I would like to move out of this neighborhoods” and “I plan to remain a resident of this neighborhood for a number of years”) were excluded because they were not relevant to this study as participants were preparing to relocate. Each participant’s psychological of sense of community was reported as the mean score for the 16 items.

Demographics

Demographic variables included gender, age, education, employment status, household income, presence of children in the household, and years of residence in the neighborhood. These characteristics are consistently associated with sense of community (Pendola & Gen, 2008).

Walking

Self-reported minutes spent walking within the neighborhoods over a usual week was measured using the previously validated Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire (Giles-Corti et al., 2006). This measure differentiated between time spent walking for transport and time spent walking for recreation.

Objective measures of the built environment

Built-environment measures included land use mix, density, connectivity, and commercial floor ratio (Frank et al., 2006; Frank et al., 2010; Owen et al., 2007). Measures were calculated for each participant’s neighborhood area, which was defined as 1,600 m (1 mile) road network service area around participants’ residential address.

Land use mix was calculated using a formula similar to the entropy formula created by Frank et al. (2005; Leslie et al., 2007) based on relative proportions of “residential,” retail,” “office,” “health, welfare, and community,” and “entertainment, culture, and recreation” land use classes within the neighborhood area. Connectivity measures the connectedness of the street network within the neighborhood. Connectivity was measured by the number of intersections with three or more nodes per square kilometer within the neighborhood area. Residential density was defined as the number of dwellings per acre within the neighborhood. The commercial floor area ratio was calculated as the ratio of commercial floor area to area of the land parcel on which the commercial building sits (Learnihan, 2007). Commercial businesses included the following three planning land use codes: “office/business,” “shop/retail,” and “other retail.” Areas of low commercial floor area ratio often contain expanses of unused land or land not conducive to walking such as large areas allocated to car parking. Whereas areas with a high relative commercial floor ratio have less unused land, and are more likely to have commercial area closer the street, such areas are considered to be more conducive to walking.

Perception of neighborhood

Perceptions of the neighborhood’s physical environment were assessed using a modified version of the abbreviated Neighborhood Environment and Walking Scale (NEWS-A; Cerin, Saelens, Sallis, & Frank, 2006). The scale measures perception of neighborhood design features hypothesized to be related to physical activity, and consequently movement around the neighborhoods. These include of perceptions of neighborhood’s land use mix, street connectivity, density, cycling and walking infrastructure, neighborhood’s aesthetics, and traffic and crime safety. The measures comprised 5-point Likert-type scale items (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree; see appendix). Perceptions were reported as the average score for the items in each category.

Data Analysis Method

Data were analyzed using SPSS Version 18. Univariate associations between individual demographics and sense of community were examined. All significant (p < .05) demographic variables, plus gender, were adjusted for in subsequent analyses. Gender was considered a key demographic characteristic and despite not reaching statistical significance it remained in the models.

Linear regression models examined the correlates of sense of community as follows: Model 1 examined the association between demographic factors and sense of community, Model 2 includes walking for recreation and walking for transport variables, Model 3 adds objective measures of the physical environment, and Model 4 includes perceptions of the environment. Given the exploratory nature of this study variables were not eliminated between the models.

Results

The mean age of the participants was 40 years (SD = 11.7 years) and on average, participants had resided in their neighborhoods for 5.2 years (SD = 6.9). Females were slightly overrepresented (59%). The majority of respondents were employed (83%) and around two thirds (67%) had at least one dependent child in the household. The mean sense of community among participants was 3.03 (SD = 0.63), scores were normally distributed and ranged from 1.06 to 4.75.

Table 1 presents the univariate associations between the demographic characteristics and sense of community. Age (p = .00) and duration of residence (p = .00) in the neighborhood were positively associated with sense of community. Participants without children in the household (p = .00) and those who held a bachelor’s degree or higher level of education (p = .00) had a lower sense of community compared with others. Retirees also reported higher levels of sense of community compared with those working and those not in paid employment (p = .00).

Table 1.

Sociodemographic Variables: Descriptive Information and Univariate Association With Sense of Community.

	n	%	Sense of community M (SD)	p
Gender				.40
Male	682	41.2	3.01 (0.59)
Female	973	58.8	3.04 (0.66)
Dependent children in household				.00
No response	57	3.4	3.06 (0.65)
One of more	1,110	67.1	3.07 (0.63)
None	488	29.5	2.95 (0.64)
Education level				.00
Secondary or less	640	38.7	3.08 (0.61)
Trade/apprenticeship/certificate/other	629	38.0	3.04 (0.65)
Bachelor or higher	386	23.3	2.93 (0.63)
Employment status				.00
Retired	75	4.5	3.28 (0.55)
No work	210	12.7	3.10 (0.64)
Work	1,370	82.8	3.01 (0.63)
Marital status				.13
Married/de facto	1,353	81.8	3.03 (0.63)
Separated/widow	127	7.7	2.93 (0.64)
Single	174	10.5	3.08 (0.64)
Income (per annum)				.32
Less than US$50,000	399	24.1	3.07 (0.64)
US$50,000-US$69,999	396	23.9	3.02 (0.63)
US$70,000-US$89,999	375	22.7	2.98 (0.62)
US$90,000 or more	402	24.3	3.01 (0.65)
No response	83	5.0	3.20 (0.56)
	n	M (SD)	Sense of community (β)	p
Age	1,655	39.82 (11.77)	.005	.00
Length of residence (years)	1,655	5.23 (6.99)	.002	.00

Note: Beta coefficients are reported for continuous dependent variables.

Bold text denotes p<0.05.

Table 2 outlines the univariate associations between (a) walking behaviors, (b) objective neighborhood characteristics, and (c) perceived neighborhoods characteristics, and sense of community, controlling for demographic characteristics. Walking for transport and recreation had positive associations with sense of community (p = .00). Of the objective environment measures, participants residing in areas with medium level commercial floor area ratio reported lower sense of community compared with those with no commercial area (p = .00), and residential density had a weak a negative association with sense of community (p = .08). All neighborhoods perceptions were significantly associated with sense of community.

Table 2.

Univariate Associations Between Walking Behaviors, Objective and Perceived Neighborhood Characteristics, and Sense of Community.

	Descriptive (n = 1,655)	Association with sense of community
Walking in neighborhood (hours per week)	M (SD)	Coefficient	p
Transport	0.43 (0.95)	0.06	.00
Recreation	1.14 (1.64)	0.04	.00
Urban form
Land use mix			.59
Low 0.0-0.30	22.5%	−0.02	.84
Low–Medium 0.31-0.44	44.4%	−0.01	.87
Medium–High 0.45-0.60	29.8%	0.08	.73
High 0.61-1.0	3.3%	0
Commercial floor area			.00
Nil 0	12.8%	0
Low 0.001-0.100	45.1%	−0.02	.66
Medium 0.101-0.249	38.5%	−0.13	.01
Medium–High 0.25-1.0	3.5%	0.03	.70
Connectivity	61.48 (16.19)	0.00	.49
Residential density (dwellings/acre)	6.36 (3.02)	−0.01	.08
Perception of neighborhood walkability
Land use mix—Access^a
Land use mix—Access (shops, public transport, or destinations within walking distance from home)	3.4 (0.9)	0.57	.00
Street connectivity^a
Street connectivity (distribution between intersect short, alternative routes for walking)	3.4 (0.6)	0.13	.00
Infrastructure for walking and cycling^a
Infrastructure for walking and cycling (footpaths, lighting, pedestrian crossing)	3.1 (0.6)	0.19	.00
Traffic hazards^a
Presence of traffic hazards (heavy traffic, speeding traffic)	2.40 (0.76)	−0.02	.00
Aesthetics^a
Aesthetics (attractive builds, green, natural)	3.48 (0.77)	0.31	.00
Crime hazards^a
Risk of crime (a lot of crime, unsafe to walk)	2.47 (0.78)	−0.20	.00
Land use mix—Destinations
Land use mix—Destinations (total number destinations)	8.80 (4.65)	0.01	.02

Note: Model includes adjustment for gender, age, dependent children, education, employment status, and years lived in neighborhood.

1 = strongly disagree through 5 = strongly agree.

Results for each of the multivariate models are presented in Table 3. Both walking for transport (p = .01) and walking for recreation (p = .00) were positively associated with sense of community (Model 2). However, walking for transport (β = .044) had a slightly greater influence on the magnitude of increase in level of sense of community compared with walking for recreation (β = .038). After full adjustment (Model 4), the association between walking for recreation and sense of community attenuated slightly (p = .06), whereas walking for transport remained significant (p = .04).

Table 3.

Multivariate Associations Between Demographic, Walking, Urban Form, and Perceptions of Respondents and Sense of Community.

GLM	Model 1—Demographics		Model 2—Demographics, walking		Model 3—Demographics, walking, objective built environment		Model 4—Demographics, walking, objective built environment, perception
Demographics	β	p	β	p	β	p	β	p
Gender		.683		.988		.853		.814
Male	−.013		.000		.006		.007
Female (ref.)	0		0		0		0
Age	−.001	.611	−.002	.342	−.002	.344	−.001	.512
Dependent children in household		.036		.018		.029		.026
No response	.102	.240	.093	.278	.097	.260	.094	.231
One or more	.096	.011	.106	.005	.099	.008	.092	.008
None (ref.)	0		0		0		0
Education level		.061		.063		.098		.018
Secondary or less	.094	.021	.093	.021	.086	.033	.156	.005
Trade/apprenticeship/certificate/other	.073	.069	.072	.071	.062	.120	.082	.038
Bachelor or higher (ref.)	0		0		0		0
Employment status		.021		.067		.059		.026
Retired	.211	.011	.174	.035	.178	.031	.148	.039
No work	.063	.194	.054	.071	.055	.258	.081	.063
Work (ref.)	0		0		0		0
Years reside in neighborhood	.020	.000	.021	.000	.021	.000	.022	.000
Walking within neighborhood
Transport (hours/week)			.044	.006	.050	.002	.031	.041
Recreation (hours/week)			.038	.000	.037	.000	.017	.060
Urban form
Land use mix (tertiles)						.513		.445
High 0.61-1.0 (ref.)					.057	.534	.000	.997
Medium–High 0.45-0.60					.061	.159	.022	.587
Low–Medium 0.31-0.44					.012	.770	−.027	.450
Low 0.0-0.30					0		0
Connectivity					.001	.140	.001	.566
Net residential density (dwell/acre)					−.011	.048	−.012	.019
Commercial floor area						.003		.167
High 0.25-1.0					−0.012	.893	.036	.675
Medium 0.101-0.249					−.147	.004	−.034	.483
Low .001-.100					−.042	.396	.034	.465
Nil 0 (ref.)					0		0
Perception of neighborhood
Land use mix—Access (shops, public transport, or destinations within walking distance from home)^a							.000	.980
Street connectivity (distance between intersect short, alternative routes for walking)^a							.055	.015
Infrastructure for walking and cycling (footpaths, lighting, pedestrian crossing)^a							.080	.003
Presence of traffic hazards (heavy traffic, speed)^a							−.065	.001
Aesthetics (attractive buildings, green, natural)^a							.231	.000
Crime hazard (a lot of crime, unsafe to walk)^a							−.077	.000
Land use mix—destinations (total number destinations)^a							−.001	.841

Note: Linear regression models. N for each model = 1,655. Outcome: sense of community (M). Bold values denote statistically significant findings (p < .05).

1 = strongly disagree through 5 = strongly agree GLM = Generalized Linear Model.

Model 3 presents the associations between sense of community and four objective measures of the built environment. Consistent with the univariate results, residential density was negatively associated with sense of community (p = .05) and this association remained significant after further adjustment for neighborhood perceptions (Model 4). Participants living in areas with medium commercial floor area ratio (0.101-0.249) had a lower sense of community compared with others. However, this attenuated after adjustment for neighborhood perceptions (p = .17), suggesting that the influence of commercial floor area ratio may be mediated by neighborhood perceptions.

Neighborhood perceptions appear to play an important role in sense of community as these associations remained significant despite full adjustment (Model 4). Perceived street connectivity (p = .01), infrastructure for walking and cycling (p = .00), and neighborhood aesthetics (p = .00) were all positively associated with neighborhood sense of community. Presence of traffic hazards (p = 0.00) and crime hazard (p = .00) were negatively associated with sense of community.

Discussion

It is often lamented that sense of community is on the decline (Putnam, 2000). The reasons for this are complex, as lifestyles and household structures have changed considerably over the past half century. However, researchers have also hypothesized that changes in the way neighborhoods are built may contribute to this loss of sense of community (Frumkin, Frank, & Jackson, 2004), and greater elucidation of the mechanisms through which this occurs is required. In this study, we have sought to add to current understanding of the ways in which the built environment affects sense of community, looking at objective and perceived measures of the neighborhood environment, and at associations with walking behavior, distinguishing between walking for recreation and transport.

Previous research has highlighted the importance of a walkable neighborhood to the development of social capital and sense of community (Leyden, 2003; Lund, 2002). A more walkable neighborhood can encourage people “getting out and about,” and is a conduit for social interaction. Our findings in this study support a connection between walking and sense of community. Walking for transport and walking for recreation were positively associated with sense of community. However, walking for recreation attenuated after full adjustment. This contradicts other studies (Lund, 2002; Wood et al., 2010) who found that brisk or destination walking was either not associated or inversely associated with sense of community, whereas leisurely walking or strolling was positively associated. Nonetheless, our findings are consistent with Du Toit (2007), who examined neighborhood walking and sociability in a similar Australian context and found transport walking, rather than recreation walking, explained the observed association between sense of community and neighborhood walkability.

Residential density was the only objective measure of the built environment associated with sense of community. This inverse association is supported by other research suggesting residents favor less social interaction in denser neighborhoods (Brueckner & Largey, 2008; Nguyen, 2010; Yang, 2008). For example, Nguyen (2010) found that compact living, high population density, and street accessibility at the county level in the USA were inversely associated with social interaction, bonding, and bridging social capital (Nguyen, 2010). One rationale is that in lower density neighborhoods, residents must seek out neighbors for interaction, whereas in higher density people are exposed to frequent incidental contacts with a greater number of unfamiliar people, and consequently withdraw to minimize these interactions (Appleyard & Lintell, 1982; Brueckner & Largey, 2008; Jacobs, 1961). Moreover, Brueckner and Largey (2008) also posited that low density environments can increase opportunities for informal social encounters as larger lot sizes lead to more outdoor activities (e.g., gardening).

Although our findings and the aforementioned studies reported negative associations between residential density and sense of community, scale of measurement and context are likely to influence the impact of density and land use on sense of community. For example, a study in a smart growth community in the United States found that higher density and mixed land use measured at a neighborhood scale were associated with greater neighborhood satisfaction, whereas the opposite was true for sprawling suburbs (Yang, 2008). Furthermore, Pendola & Gen (2008) study of four San Francisco neighborhoods found that the areas exhibiting characteristics of a main street had higher sense of community than the high density and the suburban style neighborhoods. In our study, density is a relative measure and based on comparisons between neighborhoods sampled from a city that has relatively low residential density (mean for this study was 6.36 [SD = 3.02] dwellings/acre) compared with cities in much of Asia, some of Europe and the United States (e.g., Los Angeles: 48 dwellings/acre; Layard, Davoudi, & Batty, 2001). This too has implications for the generalizability of findings and how they should be interpreted.

The importance of including objective and perceived measures of the built environment in this type of research was confirmed by the mixed nature of our findings—whereby only perceived neighborhood characteristics that reflected suitability for walking emerged as positively associated with sense of community in the final models. In particular, positive perceptions of infrastructure for walking, neighborhood aesthetics, and safety were all associated with greater sense of community. Our findings regarding the role of neighborhood environment perceptions in sense of community, corroborates those of Moustafa et al. (2009) who reported that social elements provided more explanation for sense of community than environmental elements. The importance of perceptions of the built environment on sense of community should not be underestimated because appearance of dwelling or neighborhood features lead people to make inferences about residents (Foster, Giles-Corti, & Knuiman, 2010; Wood et al., 2008) and this influences interactions within the neighborhood and ultimately sense of community.

Consistent with the literature, poorer perceptions of safety from crime and traffic were negatively associated with sense of community. Appleyard and Lintell (1982) found people living on busy roads would withdraw in response to the higher traffic volume, thus minimizing contact with neighbors, and others have linked the presence of traffic and car parking with reduced perceptions of area friendliness and safety (Mullan, 2003). Indeed, the association between perceived safety from crime and sense of community (or similar concepts) is well established (Baum & Palmer, 2002; Wood et al., 2008). Residents who feel unsafe in their local neighborhood may constrain their physical and social activities (Skogan & Maxfield, 1981), which can affect the formation of social ties (Ross & Jang, 2000) and social participation (Stafford, De Silva, Stansfeld, & Marmot, 2008), and deter residents from walking in their neighborhood (Foster & Giles-Corti, 2008; Foster, Giles-Corti, & Knuiman, 2014). Indeed, it appears that the physical environment, perceived safety, and sense of community are intertwined.

Our findings highlight that residents’ perceptions of the neighborhood were stronger predictors of sense of community than objective measures of the built environment, and this warrants discussion. It is plausible that some perceptions may mediate the association between the objective environment and sense of community. For instance, the nonresidential land uses intrinsic to a more walkable neighborhood have been associated with more physical disorder (Taylor, Koons, Kurtz, Greene, & Perkins, 1995), and residents’ tend to interpret physical disorder as an indicator of local crime (Perkins, Meeks, & Taylor, 1992), which was negatively associated with sense of community in our study. Furthermore, land uses that attract more “strangers” to a neighborhood can detract from sense of community, as residents find it difficult to distinguish who belongs from who does not (Wood et al., 2010). Therefore, although the built environment may not directly affect sense of community, it may influence residents’ perceptions, which in turn affect sense of community.

Moreover, objective and perceived measures that purport to capture the same attribute may actually differ somewhat. For example, our objective measure of street connectivity is based on the count of three-way intersections in each participants 1,600 m neighborhood, whereas the subjective measure combines items about (a) shorter distances between intersections and (b) many alternative routes for getting from place to place. It is possible that the subjective interpretation of street connectivity incorporates an informal network of paths and cut-throughs (e.g., public parks, pedestrian access ways, laneways, and vacant land) that are not captured by the objective measure and this may contribute to the stronger positive association between subjective connectivity and residents’ sense of community. These issues highlight the need for more studies that include objective and subjective measures to advance our understanding of the complex interplay between the two.

Limitations

This study had several limitations. First, our study is cross-sectional and therefore causality cannot be inferred. Second, there was limited variability in the objective environmental measures that may have limited detection of significant associations between the built environment and sense of community. Other studies have stratified their samples (Leyden, 2003; Wood et al., 2010; Yang, 2008) to increase variance in the built environment measures such as residential density, or walkability, and the application of a similar approach in this study may have been advantageous. Third, we did not explore the role of other social influences, such as participation in community groups, which may be important influences on social interaction and sense of community (Moudon et al., 2006). Furthermore, as noted by Talen (2000), although physical attributes may facilitate interaction among neighbors, development of the phenomenon of sense of community may never come about. Therefore is it important to consider other social influences on neighborhood dynamics. Finally, Perth is largely characterized by low density suburban development, which may limit the generalizability of the findings.

The study also has certain strengths. First, the sense of community measure was based on the comprehensive scale (Buckner, 1988), whereas other studies such as Hanibuchi et al. (2011) have used a more simplistic measure such as general trust. Second, the data were measured in a defined neighborhood boundary (1,600 m service area around home), rather than relying on composite-level data such as aggregated data from suburbs or census tracts. This enabled more accurate reflection of the study participants and neighborhood environment.

Conclusion

Although numerous studies indicate that the built environment can affect residents’ physical activity levels, relatively few studies have examined the built environment as an influence on social interactions or psychosocial constructs such as sense of community, neighborhood cohesion, social support, and community connectedness. This study adds to our understanding of the mechanisms through which the neighborhood built environment can influence sense of community, and in particular exemplifies the importance of people’s perceptions of their neighborhood. The intertwined relationship observed between walking behavior, neighborhood perceptions of walkability, and sense of community merits further longitudinal investigation, but also has implications for the way in which neighborhoods are planned and designed. In turn, greater attention to the built form as an influence on physical and mental health is warranted. Given increasing awareness of the connection between psychosocial constructs and mental health, the built environment may prove a viable setting to improve mental health outcomes and to invoke protective factors for mental health within the environments in which people live.

Footnotes

Appendix

List of Items

Items included in the Sense of Community scale

1. Overall, I am very attracted to living in this neighborhood

2. I feel like I belong to this neighborhood

3. I visit with my neighbors in their homes

4. The friendships and associations I have made with other people in my neighborhood mean a lot to me

5. If the people in my neighborhood were planning something, I’d think of it as something we were doing rather than they were doing

6. If I needed advice about something, I could go to someone in my neighborhood

7. I think I agree with most people in my neighborhood about what is important in life

8. I believe my neighbors would help me in an emergency

9. I feel loyal to the people in my neighborhood

10. I borrow things and exchange favors with my neighbors

11. I would be willing to work together with others on something to improve my neighborhood

12. I like to think of myself as similar to the people who live in this neighborhood

13. I rarely have neighbors over to my house to visit (reverse coded)

14. I feel that there is a bond between me and other people in this neighborhood

15. I regularly stop and talk with people in my neighborhood

16. Living in this neighborhood gives me a sense of community

Items included in perception of neighborhood

Land use mix—Access

There are many shops within easy walking distance of my home

There are many places to go within easy walking distance of my home

It is easy to walk to a public transport stop (bus, train) from my home

Street connectivity

The distance between intersections in my local area is usually short

There are many alternative routes for getting from place to place when walking in my local area

Infrastructure for walking and cycling

There are footpaths on most of the streets in my local area

There is a grass/dirt strip that separates the roads from the footpaths in my local area

The footpaths in my local area are separated from the road/traffic by parked cars

Busy streets in my local area have pedestrian crossings and traffic signals to help walkers cross

Streets in my local area are well lit at night

Traffic hazards

There is so much traffic along most nearby streets that it makes it difficult or unpleasant to walk in my local area

The speed of traffic on most nearby streets is usually slow (50 kph or less)

Aesthetics

There is lots of greenery around my local area

There are many interesting things to look at while walking in my local area

There are attractive buildings and homes in my local area

There are pleasant natural features in my local area

Crime hazards

There is a lot of petty crime in my local area

There is a lot of major crime in my local area

The level of crime in my local area makes it unsafe to go on walks during the day

The level of crime in my local area makes it unsafe to go on walks at night

Land use mix—Diversity

Total number of transport, retail and recreation destinations within 15-min walk

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

This research was funded by a Western Australian Health Promotion Foundation (Healthway) (#11828) and an Australian Research Council (ARC) Linkage grant (#LP0455453). The Western Australian Land Information Authority and Western Australian Department of Planning provided the spatial data for the objective built environment measures. The first author was supported by an NHMRC Population Health Capacity Building grant (#458668). The second and third authors are supported by Healthway Health Promotion Research Fellowships (#20693 and #21363 respectively), and the fourth author is supported by an NHMRC Principal Research Fellow Award (#1004900).

Author Biographies

Sarah French holds a master of public health from The University of Western Australia and is a research associate within the Centre for the Built Environment and Health. She has worked across a variety of public health research areas, including evaluation, sense of community, and social network analysis.

Lisa Wood is the deputy director of the Centre for the Built Environment and Health, within the School of Population Health at The University of Western Australia. Her research interests include the impact of the built and social environment on health and well-being, sense of community, and social capital across the life course.

Sarah Alexandra Foster is based at the Centre for the Built Environment and Health, at The University of Western Australia. Her research focuses on the impact of the urban environment on a range of social outcomes and health behaviors.

Billie Giles-Corti is the director of the McCaughey Centre: VicHealth Centre for the Promotion of Mental Health and Community Well-Being and former director of the Centre for the Built Environment and Health (based at the University of Western Australia). Her key research interests are urban design and health behaviors (physical activity), health outcomes (mental health, obesity), and social determinants of health.

Lawrence Frank is the Bombardier chairholder in Sustainable Transportation at the University of British Columbia and holds a joint appointment with the School of Population and Public Health. He specializes in the interaction between land use, travel behavior, air quality, and health, and has published widely on the effects of urban form and neighborhood walkability on travel patterns and sustainability.

Vincent Learnihan holds a master of public health from The University of Western Australia. His research interests include understanding the influence of urban planning and design on individual and community health and well-being, as well as the application of Geographic Information Systems in this research field.

References

Appleyard

Lintell

(1982). The environment quality of city streets: the residents viewpoint. Humanscape: Environments for People. S. Kaplan and R. Kaplan. North Scituate, Massachusetts, Duxbury Press. 233-258.

Baum

Palmer

(2002). “Opportunity structures”: Urban landscape, social capital and health promotion in Australia. Health Promotion International, 17, 351-361. doi:10.1093/heapro/17.4.351

Brueckner

J. K.

Largey

A. G.

(2008). Social interaction and urban sprawl. Journal of Urban Economics, 64, 18-34.

Buckner

J. C.

(1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion. American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771-791. doi:10.1007/bf00930892

Cerin

Saelens

B. E.

Sallis

J. F.

Frank

L. D.

(2006). Neighborhood Environment Walkability Scale: Validity and development of a short form. Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise, 38, 1682-1691.

Chavis

D. M.

Wandersman

(1990). Sense of community in the urban-environment: A catalyst for participation and community-development. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55-77.

Davidson

Cotter

(1986). Measurement of sense of community within the sphere of city. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 608-619.

du Toit

Cerin

Leslie

Owen

(2007). Does walking in the neighbourhood enhance local sociability? Urban Studies, 44(9), 1677-1695.

Foster

Giles-Corti

(2008). The built environment, neighborhood crime and constrained physical activity: An exploration of inconsistent findings. Preventive Medicine, 47, 241-251.

10.

Foster

Giles-Corti

Knuiman

(2010). Neighborhood design and fear of crime: A social-ecological examination of the correlates of residents’ fear in new suburban housing developments. Health & Place, 16, 1156-1165.

11.

Foster

Giles-Corti

Knuiman

(2014). Does fear of crime discourage walkers? A social-ecological exploration of fear as a deterrent to walking in new suburbs. Environment and Behavior, 46(6), 698-717.

12.

Francis

Giles-Corti

Wood

Knuiman

(2012). Creating sense of community: The role of public space. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 32, 401-409.

13.

Frank

L. D.

Andresen

M. A.

Schmid

T. L.

(2004). Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 27, 87-96.

14.

Frank

L. D.

Engelke

P. O.

(2001). The built environment and human activity patterns: Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal of Planning Literature, 16, 202-218. doi:10.1177/08854120122093339

15.

Frank

L. D.

Engelke

(2005). Multiple impacts of the built environment on public health: walkable places and the exposure to air pollution. International Regional Science Review, 28(2), 193-216.

16.

Frank

L. D.

Engelke

P. O.

Schmid

(2003). Health and community design: The impacts of the built environment on physical activity. Washington, DC: Island Press.

17.

Frank

L. D.

Sallis

J. F.

Conway

T. L.

Chapman

J. E.

Saelens

B. E.

Bachman

(2006). Many pathways from land use to health: Associations between neighborhood walkability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72, 75-87. doi:10.1080/01944360608976725

18.

Frank

L. D.

Sallis

J. F.

Saelens

B. E.

Leary

Cain

Conway

T. L.

Hess

P. M.

(2010). The development of a walkability index: Application to the neighborhood quality of life study. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 44, 924-933. doi:10.1136/bjsm.2009.058701

19.

Frumkin

Frank

L. D.

Jackson

(2004). Urban sprawl and public health: Designing, planning and building for healthy communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.

20.

Giles-Corti

Knuiman

Timperio

Van Niel

Pikora

T. J.

Bull

F. C. L.

Bulsara

(2008). Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community design policy aimed at increasing local walking: Design issues and baseline results from RESIDE, Perth Western Australia. Preventive Medicine, 46, 46-54.

21.

Giles-Corti

Timperio

Cutt

Pikora

T. J.

Bull

F. C. L.

Knuiman

Shilton

(2006). Development of a reliable measure of walking within and outside the local neighborhood: RESIDE’s Neighborhood Physical Activity Questionnaire. Preventive Medicine, 42, 455-459.

22.

Hanibuchi

Kondo

Nakaya

Shirai

Hirai

Kawachi

(2011). Does walkable mean sociable? Neighborhood determinants of social capital among older adults in Japan. Health & Place, 18(2), 229-239.

23.

Jacobs

(1961). The death and life of the Great American Cities. New York, NY: Random House.

24.

Joongsub

Kaplan

(2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community. Environment and Behavior, 36, 313-340. doi:10.1177/0013916503260236

25.

Layard

Davoudi

Batty

(Eds.). (2001). Planning for a sustainable future. London, England: Routledge.

26.

Learnihan

(2007). The physical environment as an influence of walking in the neighborhood: objective measurement and validation. Perth: The University of Western Australia.

27.

Leslie

Coffee

Frank

Owen

Bauman

Hugo

(2007). Walkability of local communities: Using geographic information systems to objectively assess relevant environmental attributes. Health & Place, 13, 111-122.

28.

Leyden

K. M.

(2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1546-1551.

29.

Lopez-Zetina

Lee

Friis

(2006). The link between obesity and the built environment. Evidence from an ecological analysis of obesity and vehicle miles of travel in California. Health & Place, 12, 656-664.

30.

Lund

(2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 301-312. doi:10.1177/0739456x0202100307

31.

Lund

(2003). Testing the claims of New Urbanism. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 414.

32.

Mackay

(2010). What makes us tick. Sydney: Hachette Australia.

33.

McMillan

D. W.

Chavis

D. M.

(1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6-23.

34.

Moudon

A. V.

Lee

Cheadle

A. O.

Garvin

Johnson

Schmid

T. L.

Lin

(2006). Operational definitions of walkable neighborhood: Theoretical and empirical insights. Journal of Physical Activity & Health, 3, S99-S117.

35.

Moustafa

(2009). Design and neighborhood sense of community: an integrative and cross-culutrally valid theoretical framework. International Journal of Architectural Research, 3(1), 71-91.

36.

Mullan

(2003). Do you think that your local area is a good place for young people to grow up? The effects of traffic and car parking on young people’s views. Health & Place, 9, 351-360.

37.

Nasar

J. L.

Julian

D. A.

(1995). The psychological sense of community in the neighborhood. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 178-184.

38.

Nguyen

(2010). Evidence of the impacts of urban sprawl on social capital. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37, 610-627.

39.

Owen

Cerin

Leslie

duToit

Coffee

Frank

L. D.

Sallis

J. F.

(2007). Neighborhood walkability and the walking behavior of Australian adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33, 387-395.

40.

Pendola

Gen

(2008). Does “Main Street” promote sense of community? A comparison of San Francisco neighborhoods. Environment and Behavior, 40, 545-574.

41.

Perkins

D. D.

Meeks

J. W.

Taylor

R. B.

(1992). The physical environment of street blocks and resident perceptions of crime and disorder: Implications for theory and measurement. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 21-34.

42.

Pretty

G. M. H.

Conroy

Dugay

Fowler

Williams

(1996). Sense of community and its relevance to adolescents of all ages. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 365-379.

43.

Putnam

R. D.

(2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American democracy. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

44.

Robinson

Wilkinson

(1995). Sense of community in a remote Mining Town: Validating a Neighborhood Cohesion Scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 137-148.

45.

Rogers

S. H.

Halstead

J. M.

Gardner

K. H.

Carlson

C. H.

(2011). Examining walkability and social capital as indicators of quality of life at the municipal and neighborhood scales. Applied Research in Quality of Life, 6, 201-213.

46.

Ross

C. E.

Jang

S. J.

(2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 401-420.

47.

Skogan

Maxfield

(1981). Coping with crime: Individual and neighborhood reactions. Beverley Hills, CA: Sage.

48.

Southworth

Owens

(1993). The evolving metropolis: Studies of community, neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association, 59, 271-287.

49.

Stafford

De Silva

Stansfeld

Marmot

(2008). Neighborhood social capital and common mental disorder: Testing the link in a general population sample. Health & Place, 14, 394-405.

50.

Talen

(2000). The problem with community in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 15, 171-183.

51.

Taylor

R. B.

Koons

Kurtz

Greene

Perkins

D. D.

(1995). Street blocks with more non-residential land use have more physical deterioration. Urban Affairs Review, 31, 120-136.

52.

Wood

Frank

L. D.

Giles-Corti

(2010). Sense of community and its relationship with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 1381-1390.

53.

Wood

Shannon

Bulsara

Pikora

McCormack

Giles-Corti

(2008). The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: An exploratory study of the built environment, social capital and residents perceptions of safety. Health & Place, 14, 15-31.

54.

Yang

(2008). A tale of two cities: Physical form and neighborhood satisfaction in metropolitan Portland and Charlotte. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74, 307-323.