Mapping Connections between Neighborhoods and Community-Based Social Needs

Version	Summary	Created by	Modification	Content Size	Created at	Operation
1		Carmelina Bevilacqua	--	1946	2024-01-18 15:19:55	\|
2	format correct	Catherine Yang	Meta information modification	1946	2024-01-19 01:59:41	\|

This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/su15064898

Geographic proximity might not be the only factor influencing the connections between neighborhoods within the same city. Most likely, the community’s needs and behaviors play a role in facilitating or hindering any connections between these urban areas. Accordingly, relationships between communities may differ or be similar based on their respective characteristics.

neighborhood connections participation community behavior social needs

1. Introduction

In the same city, there are diverse socioeconomic characteristics among neighborhoods that may influence residents’ needs ^[1]^[2]. Shared needs can enhance the sense of proximity between residents and help them to become recognized as a community ^[3]^[4]. It is arguable that geographical proximity is not the only factor influencing the connections between neighborhoods within the same city. Neighborhoods are places where people live or work near each other. Neighbors are residents who share the same spatial geographical area, but also include shop owners and their employees. In other words, people who frequently visit the neighborhood ^[5]^[6]. It is possible to build the connections between different neighborhoods due to human activities and commutes between them, even though they are not directly adjacent to each other. On the one hand, the affective attachment of residents to a neighborhood may vary based on the amount of time that neighbors spend in the area, the local facility usage, and/or its demographic patterns (e.g., the number of children, non-working adults, and elderly people who live in the community). On the other hand, the intensity of the connection between neighborhoods could also depend on the sharing of the same social needs. For example, community behavior is influenced by several factors, including, but not limited to, socioeconomic status, social networks, education, ethnicity, working conditions, physical environment, and health ^[7]. Therefore, taking into account the diverse characteristics of different neighborhoods would ensure that policies are tailored to the unique needs of the local residents in each neighborhood.

A key element to a better understanding of citizens’ needs is encouraging them to share these needs. This will help to strengthen the relationship between institutions and communities, which involves the possibility for citizens to contribute to the decision making process and planning activity. Recent years have seen a resurgence in the interest in involving society in the coproduction or the planning and implementation of government development programs ^[8]^[9]. Already, cities like Boston have built service centers and mobile applications that allow for residents to report problems and then track the status of these problems ^[10]. For example, the 311 system in the US is designed to create “the human touch of small-town life in the context of a vast metropolis” ^[11]. The 311 service was created to transfer and receive the non-emergency calls coming into 911 systems. Nevertheless, the “311 is now used for performance measurement, economic development and community engagement” ^[10]. The system has grown to not only respond to complaints but to tackle urban problems before they get bigger.

2. City like a Network of Neighborhoods: Applying the Concept of Proximity Based on Communities’ Needs

During the last decade, the city networks concept was introduced into regional science, particularly within regional and urban geography ^[12]^[13]. It is a geographical concept that describes the interconnectivity of the urban structure ^[12]^[14]. City networks could be useful for understanding the spatial phenomena that cannot be analyzed by the usual tools—spatial interaction, urban hierarchy, and social capital—that facilitate urban policies ^[12]. These networks are generated from the interactions and the exchanges of goods, services, information, and contacts among places and people ^[12]^[15].

In the city, everything is interconnected and related to each other, and the main goal of this study is to focus on building a neighborhood network to show a wide range of social realities, and consequently, community needs. Neighborhoods have developed and are defined through historical processes and continue to be influenced by circumstances, individual behavior, and the activities of businesses, governments, social services, and development agencies, and other corporate actors ^[16]. Despite the administrative structure that characterizes each city that is organized by well-bordered neighborhoods, their definition in terms of the area where people live and engage in activities ^[17], or residents’ proximity to public transport and to work, as well as their walking distances to a range of services ^[7]^[18], is challenging, because they could be described based on different features ^[16]. Other factors, however, should also be considered when connecting neighborhoods. For example, social aspects should be one of the factors that has to be taken into consideration ^[19].

It is claimed by the authors that the proximity or the closeness between different neighborhoods can be described if two or more neighborhoods share the same social needs. As long as the same event occurs in different places at the same time, then this probably means that the two communities have similar needs and problems to deal with. The proposed method allows for the mutual interactions taking place to be shown, irrespective of geographic proximity. Thinking of a city in these terms can be an innovative way of addressing the urban problem. In fact, identifying the problem’s typology, place, time, and frequency can allow us to use the same solution for different places.

3. Community Participation Is a Tool to Better Understand Each Community’s Needs

In recent years, the debate on urban development shows that traditional planning methods are inadequate for tackling the ongoing problems, challenges, and opportunities that are facing our cities and regions ^[20]. In this respect, one of the key challenges for planning is to be able to critically assess what type of planning is most appropriate as a way to deal—in an innovative/emancipatory and transformative way—with the problems and challenges that are facing societies ^[21]. Problem solving needs causal mechanisms like collective action, which could be differentially implemented depending on the context ^[22].

Citizens’ participation in community development, whether by participating in local community institutions and organizations, or by reporting the problems in their neighborhoods, is increasingly being considered to be vital for effective urban service delivery ^[23]. It is a way to share problems with authorities and is a vital part of any community development process ^[24]. Throughout history, it has been an important method for improving the quality of the physical environment, enhancing the urban services, and solving problems in many fields such as health and crime ^[7].

Civic participation stems from a sense of responsibility towards solving neighborhood problems or improving its services for the whole community ^[25]. If the residents have a sense of community, that can have a catalytic effect on local action. Participation in solving community problems happens based on various factors, such as the residents’ feelings about their locality when they know that their reports will be addressed by the authorities ^[26]^[27]. Hence, community satisfaction is treated as a key variable that influences community participation ^[28]^[29]. Acknowledging residents and stimulating collective action between these residents and the authorities appears to have a significant impact on citizens’ sense of identity and community ^[18]. Therefore, it is important to understand which factors motivate residents’ participation ^[30]. Scholars have claimed that participation is conditioned by culture, politics, and social structure ^[24]. The different levels of attachment that residents have to their community are factors for the differences in community participation ^[31]^[32]^[33]. It is important to understand why individuals choose to participate or not in a given program when implementing community-based programs. In fact, programs that involve the public are unlikely to be effective without public participation.

Chavis and Wandersman claimed that there are three components that influence an individual’s voluntary participation in neighborhood development ^[7]. Those components are “the perception of the environment, one’s social relations, and one’s perceived control and empowerment within the community”. Nevertheless, citizens’ networks and their sense of community may differ between different types of groups. Moreover, urban researchers have noted the relationship between the overall well-being of a neighborhood and their participation in developing their neighborhood (e.g., ^[34]). Neighborhoods with higher well-being typically have elevated social participation outcomes.

Other studies that have emphasized individual-level socioeconomic variables identified gender, age, education, income, religious affiliation, and length of residence as the factors influencing community participation ^[35]^[36]^[37]. For example, societies that have a higher percentage of women, married couples, and people with higher incomes and education tend to have broader, dispersed, and more casual neighborhood networks. However, those communities that are less integrated, such as ones with singles, children, elderly people, and more lower income and less educated people, are more likely to have smaller, more engaged relationships within the neighborhood. Therefore, understanding the context of the neighborhood will allow for us to interpret the different aspects of it.

Multiple motivations for coproduction were first recognized by Alford ^[38]. He identified three types of nonmaterial rewards that might increase one’s willingness to participate: intrinsic rewards, such as increased self-esteem as a result of effective action; solidary incentives, resulting from a desire to contribute to the group; and expressions of values, such as normative beliefs.

Moreover, the physical environment may play a role in local sentiments, such as attachment to the place. It was argued that deprived neighborhoods were less satisfied with their neighborhoods and had a lower emotional response to their neighborhoods. The difference in neighborhood quality, including perceived safety, noise, and place attachment, may still lead to lower levels of neighborhood satisfaction and low emotional responses to neighborhoods, even when green space, public transportation, and local amenities are evenly distributed ^[37]. Earlier theorists such as Jacobs argued that residents’ sense of public responsibility was essential to maintaining a neighborhood. The notion that the residents of a particular neighborhood are concerned about managing or personalizing the appearance of their neighborhood is rooted in their capacity for territoriality ^[34]. The resident identifies with the local space and feels a sense of attachment to it.

Community participation can enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of services. However, this is only true if the efforts of these two entities are complementary and not interchangeable ^[39]. Great transparency will help in boosting citizen engagement and empowerment within the city they live in ^[10]. For example, in a 311 system, the government and the public are responsible for maintaining the urban commons. People who live in cities can observe and report instances of the deterioration and denigration of public spaces, and city agencies can provide the professional expertise and equipment to fix them. It is an example of a highly involved system, since 311 services are not automatic but must be requested through the general reporting of problems.

To sum up, through sharing their needs with authorities, residents are able to direct and shape the development of their neighborhoods. As an example, complaints about graffiti and illegal dumping are among the examples that indicate that citizens are seeking to redirect any degrowth they see in their communities ^[40]. When community members are active, responsible, and have opportunities to speak, they are more likely to foster their civic engagement in that community. Increasing the opportunities for local interactions and civic engagement for both individuals and communities at the local level would have the potential for growth and empowerment ^[16]. Higher levels of response from the authorities to residents’ complaints would be associated with higher levels of citizens’ confidence and participation ^[28].

It is believed that a feeling of belonging can have a catalytic effect on local action and development participation, which could later influence social relations, one’s perception of the environment, and one’s sense of control and empowerment within their community ^[7]. Policymakers and practitioners must remain aware of the importance of the use of neighborhoods as organizing and action units that can be used to achieve effective results ^[18]. This study aims to facilitate a better reading and interpretation of neighborhoods through the spatialization of community participation. In this sense, it is arguable to consider a neighborhood to be a social, spatial, and experiential unit that can be applied to a variety of programmatic challenges ^[18].

References

Odoi, A.; Wray, R.; Emo, M.; Birch, S.; Hutchison, B.; Eyles, J.; Abernathy, T. Inequalities in Neighbourhood Socioeconomic Characteristics: Potential Evidence-Base for Neighbourhood Health Planning. Int. J. Health Geogr. 2005, 4, 20.
Ruiz, C.; Hernández-Fernaud, E.; Rolo-González, G.; Hernández, B. Neighborhoods’ Evaluation: Influence on Well-Being Variables. Front. Psychol. 2019, 10, 1736.
Farahani, L.M. The Value of the Sense of Community and Neighbouring. Hous. Theory Soc. 2016, 33, 357–376.
Nowell, B.; Boyd, N. Viewing Community as Responsibility as Well as Resource: Deconstructing the Theoretical Roots of Psychological Sense of Community. J. Community Psychol. 2010, 38, 828–841.
Cox, D.A.; Streeter, R.; Abrams, S.J.; Lee, B.; Popky, D. Public Places and Commercial Spaces: How Neighborhood Amenities Foster Trust and Connection in American Communities, Survey Center on American Life. 2021. Available online: https://policycommons.net/artifacts/1859929/public-places-and-commercial-spaces/2607448/ (accessed on 17 February 2023).
Hannerz, U. Exploring the City: Inquiries Toward an Urban Anthropology; Columbia University Press: New York, NY, USA, 1980.
Chavis, D.M.; Wandersman, A. Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development. In A Quarter Century of Community Psychology; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2002; pp. 265–292.
Osborne, S.P.; Strokosch, K. It Takes Two to Tango? Understanding the C o-Production of Public Services by Integrating the Services Management and Public Administration Perspectives. Br. J. Manag. 2013, 24, S31–S47.
Jakobsen, M. Can Government Initiatives Increase Citizen Coproduction? Results of a Randomized Field Experiment. J. Public Adm. Res. Theory 2013, 23, 27–54.
Newcombe, T. Is the Cost of 311 Systems Worth the Price of Knowing. Governing, 24 February 2014. Available online: https://www.governing.com/archive/gov-311-systems-cost.html(accessed on 6 August 2022).
Johnson, S. What a Hundred Million Calls to 311 Reveal about New York. Wired Mag. 2010. Available online: https://www.wired.com/2010/11/ff_311_new_york/ (accessed on 6 August 2022).
Castells, M. The Information Age: Economy, Society and Culture. In The Rise of the Network Society; Wiley: Cambridge, MA, USA; Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 1997; Volume 1, ISBN 978-0-631-22140-1.
Ducruet, C. Urban Network. In AAG. International Encyclopedia of Geography; Wiley: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020.
Pflieger, G.; Rozenblat, C. Introduction. Urban Networks and Network Theory: The City as the Connector of Multiple Networks. Urban Stud. 2010, 47, 2723–2735.
De Losada, A.F.; Abdullah, H. Rethinking the Ecosystem of International City Networks: Challenges and Opportunities; CIDOB Edicions: Barcelona, Spain, 2019.
Procentese, F.; Gatti, F. Sense of Responsible Togetherness, Sense of Community, and Civic Engagement Behaviours: Disentangling an Active and Engaged Citizenship. J. Community Appl. Soc. Psychol. 2022, 32, 186–197.
Coulton, C.J.; Jennings, M.Z.; Chan, T. How Big Is My Neighborhood? Individual and Contextual Effects on Perceptions of Neighborhood Scale. Am. J. Community Psychol. 2013, 51, 140–150.
Chaskin, R.J. Perspectives on Neighborhood and Community: A Review of the Literature. Soc. Serv. Rev. 1997, 71, 521–547.
Jia, Y.; Zheng, Z.; Zhang, Q.; Li, M.; Liu, X. Associations of Spatial Aggregation between Neighborhood Facilities and the Population of Age Groups Based on Points-of-Interest Data. Sustainability 2020, 12, 1692.
Eraydin, A.; Taşan-Kok, T. Resilience Thinking. In Urban Planning; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2013; pp. 17–37.
Albrechts, L. Reframing Strategic Spatial Planning by Using a Coproduction Perspective. Plan. Theory 2013, 12, 46–63.
Sampson, R.J. Networks and Neighbourhoods. Demos Collect. 2004, 155–166. Available online: http://www.demos.co.uk/files/File/networklogic12sampson.pdf (accessed on 26 January 2023).
Rich, R.C. The Roles of Neighborhood Organizations in Urban Service Delivery. Urban Aff. Pap. 1979, 81–93.
Mansuri, G.; Rao, V. Can Participation Be Induced? Some Evidence from Developing Countries. Crit. Rev. Int. Soc. Polit. Philos. 2013, 16, 284–304.
Doolittle, A.; Faul, A.C. Civic Engagement Scale. SAGE Open 2013, 3, 1–7.
Morris, D.; Gilchrist, A. Communities Connected, Inclusion, Participation and Common Purpose; Royal Society for the Encouragement of Arts, Manufactures and Commerce: London, UK, 2011; pp. 1–13.
Dalton, R.J. The Participation Gap: Social Status and Political Inequality; Oxford University Press: Oxford, UK, 2017.
Grillo, M.C.; Teixeira, M.A.; Wilson, D.C. Residential Satisfaction and Civic Engagement: Understanding the Causes of Community Participation. Soc. Indic. Res. 2010, 97, 451–466.
Sánchez-Franco, M.J.; Buitrago-Esquinas, E.M.; Yñiguez, R. How to Intensify the Individual’s Feelings of Belonging to a Social Networking Site? Contributions from Community Drivers and Post-Adoption Behaviours. Manag. Decis. 2012, 50, 1137–1154.
Gamo, B.R.; Park, D.-B. Community Sentiment Influences Community Participation: Evidence from Ethiopia. Contemp. Soc. Sci. 2022, 1–17.
Jennings, B.M.; Krannich, R.S. A Multidimensional Exploration of the Foundations of Community Attachment among Seasonal and Year-Round Residents. Rural Sociol. 2013, 78, 498–527.
Matarrita-Cascante, D.; Luloff, A.E.; Krannich, R.S.; Field, D.R. Community Participation in Rapidly Growing Communities in Southern Utah. Community Dev. 2006, 37, 71–87.
Sapoetra, N.D.; Ridwan, R.; Sahide, M.A.K.; Masuda, K. Local Community’s Perception, Attitude, and Participation towards Different Level Management of Geopark: A Comparison Geosite Case Study, between Muroto Cape and Rammang-Rammang Geosite. IOP Conf. Series: Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 343, 012044.
Jacobs, J. The Death and Life of Great American Cities; Penguin: Harmondsworth, UK, 1961.
Theodori, G.L. Community Attachment, Satisfaction, and Action. Community Dev. 2004, 35, 73–86.
Ayorekire, J.; Mugiri, F.; Obua, J. Factors Affecting Local Participation in Tourism in Murchinson Fall Conservation Area-Uganda’. J. Environ. Sci. Eng. A 2017, 6, 209–223.
Filkins, R.; Allen, J.C.; Cordes, S. Predicting Community Satisfaction among Rural Residents: An Integrative Model. Rural Sociol. 2000, 65, 72–86.
Alford, J. Why Do Public-Sector Clients Coproduce? Toward a Contingency Theory. Adm. Soc. 2002, 34, 32–56.
Ostrom, E. Crossing the Great Divide: Coproduction, Synergy, and Development. World Dev. 1996, 24, 1073–1087.
Stanley, J.K.; Hensher, D.A.; Stanley, J.R. Place-Based Disadvantage, Social Exclusion and the Value of Mobility. Transp. Res. Part Policy Pract. 2022, 160, 101–113.

© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.

Upload a video for this entry

Information

Subjects: Urban Studies

Contributors MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :

Carmelina Bevilacqua

Poya Sohrabi

Nourhan Hamdy

Federica Mangiulli

View Times: 78

Update Date: 19 Jan 2024

Table of Contents

Video Upload Options

Confirm

1. Introduction

2. City like a Network of Neighborhoods: Applying the Concept of Proximity Based on Communities’ Needs

3. Community Participation Is a Tool to Better Understand Each Community’s Needs

References