Do neighborhoods effect on their residents? What neighborhoods?

Do neighborhoods have additional effects on one’s livelihood in addition to the person’s own background conditions (Buck 2001, 2252)? Most research on neighborhood effects have rather a pessimistic starting point, maintaining that the demographic context of poor neighborhoods instills “dysfunctional” norms, values and behavior into residents of these areas, triggering a social pathology, poverty and marginality (Bauder 2002, 85)

There are many possibilities of classifying neighborhood effects, but measuring is much more difficult as it would require standardizing all the externalities and background conditions prior to the moving to the neighborhood. Some suggestions to classify these effects are worth mentioning, as well as classifications of background variables.

Any satisfactory attempt to “measure” neighborhood effects requires the legitimized definition of neighborhood used, as neighborhood effects are area specific (Burrows & Bradshaw 2001, 1347). However, usually some other spatial concepts have been used synonymously with neighborhoods, such as electoral wards or even whole suburbs.

Andrew McCulloch – who uses electoral wards synonymously with neighborhoods - recognizes various problems when individual livelihoods are treated as dependant and the areal settings they live in as independent variables. Firstly: how to measure, define and circumcise the geographic/social units? Secondly, it may be difficult to identify and measure the decisive neighborhood conditions. Thirdly, it is difficult to separate the neighborhood effects from the individual and household characteristics. Finally, individuals are victimized in neighborhood studies as they indeed have some degree of choice regarding the neighborhoods they live in. (McCulloch 2001, 670; Buck 2001, 2276-2277.)

Using area as an explanation for individual’s choices and possibilities is problematic for three reasons. Firstly endogenous effects in the chosen social setting refer to the propensity for an individual to behave, somewhat varying with the prevalence of that behavior in the group. Secondly the contextual (exogenous) effects indicate that the propensity of an individual to behave in somewhat varies with the distribution of background characteristics in the group. Finally correlated effects indicate the similarity of behavior between individuals in the same group due to similar institutional environments. (Buck 2001, 2256.) However, neighborhood differences are not the same as neighborhood effects (ibid., 2252)!

McCulloch claims that the importance of neighborhoods is exaggerated and that individual and household indicators rather than area should dominate the explanation of individual’s livelihoods (McCulloch 2001, 676). Instead of assuming direct effects of neighborhoods, they might influence outcomes through intervening variables; e.g. related choices of tenure and mobility and household income and wealth (Friedrichs et al 2003, 800). The single most important area indicator is residency in social housing (McCulloch 2001, 680).

According to Burrows and Bradshaw (2001), the using of neighborhood is problematic as a basis for policies or research. Firstly, there are methodological problems as national level data and individual/household level data don’t discuss; neighborhood is somewhere in-between, in a grey area. Secondly, individual and household level indicators are not appropriate to measure small area deprivation as individual and area-level characteristics need to be seen in connection. (Burrows & Bradshaw 2001, 1346-1347.)

How to measure neighborhood effects? What effects?
According to Hastings, pathological, structural or areal explanations can be used for neighborhood effects. Pathological explanations are about the micro level conditions, the neighborhood assumed to cause pathological behavior amongst its residents. Structural explanations treat the neighborhood conditions as causes of wider societal conditions, these conditions being the real reason behind possible neighborhood problems. Areal perspective accepts the uniqueness of any given neighborhood, and any satisfactory explanation must take account into the unique micro-macro –relationships forming the place as it is. (Brattbakk 17.2.2009)

There are some models to “measure” neighborhood effects (based on the typology by Jencks and Mayer, originally 1990). Epidemic model is based on peer influences transmitted in the neighborhood. Collective socialization model relies on neighborhood role models, where adults pass their pathologies onto the youths in the neighborhood. Institutional model explains neighborhood effects through externalities, such as the provision and quality of local services. In the model of relative deprivation individuals reflect their status on comparable people in their closest vicinity. In competition model, neighbors complete for scarce neighborhood resources. Network model assumes these resources being essential, when pursuing for jobs and apartments, for instance. Expectations model relies on perception of likely success when pursuing opportunities. Insecurity model has as its starting point the felt insecurity. (Buck 2001, 2254-2255.)

Neighborhood effects transmit by peer effects and role models as mentioned by Buck, but Bauder adds to these the defective local physical infrastructure and the failure of local institutions to provide adequate services. (Bauder 2002, 86.)

Interestingly, Bauder refers to peer groups as well as role models as sources of neighborhood effects, stressing the transmittance of these effects, while Buck maintains that these sources can be used as a basis for measuring typology of these effects. It seems that the both scholars rely on the influential Jencks & Mayer –typology, instilling epistemologies of their own into it.

However, using neighborhoods as independent variables, explaining individual livelihoods is problematic. In the first place - according to Bauder - we don’t know how neighborhood effects really operate. Then, the idea of neighborhood effects is a product of ideological discourse, stigmatizing and pathologizing deviance. Thirdly, neighborhood effects are based on environmental determinism, victimizing the residents of neighborhoods, this concern also being shared by McCulloch and Buck. (Bauder 2001, 86-88; McCulloch 2001, 670; Buck 2001, 2276-2277)

Friedrichs et al present two basic approaches to measure neighborhood effects, readily recognizing that measuring is far from unproblematic. The first one is a neighborhood case study, using ethnographic methods. Second possibility is to conduct a statistical analysis of non-experimental, longitudinal databases. When comparing livelihoods of siblings, parental characteristics can be differenced out, leaving the independent impacts of varying residential conditions more visible. (Friedrichs et al 2003, 801-802.)

Neighborhood effects can be internal or external. Internal effects are about the social relationships of and socialization in the neighborhood. The socialization can take place by using role models, networks or just by mere infecting. External effects are caused by the evaluations from the outside. When some area is being stigmatized as a notoriously bad and hopeless place, also its residents become stigmatized. This can accelerate its stigmatization, leading to policy neglect of that area, as all interventions would be conceived as waste of space. When that area is emptied of services or its services are sub-standard, this furthermore leads to avoiding of the area. According to Bauder, if there is no firm grasp of the causal processes involved in neighborhood effects, urban policy and planning are prone to produce unintended consequences. For instance, policies may lead to minorities’ assimilation or marginality or accelerate segregation. (Bauder 2001, 89-90.) It may well be that neighborhood itself is not the explaining factor but it triggers another set of explanatory variables, such as externalities brought about by stigmatization of an area.

Unemployment or non-employment – permanent unemployment - is a frequently used indicator for areal deprivation. As usually the disadvantaged ones with least social or financial capital move the least, the local job markets are of greatest importance for them. When the local supply and demand fail to meet, occurs a spatial mismatch (Green 2001, 1362). However, as place is more than just a mere container of economic activities, another spatial mismatch occurs if the place is not up according to the resident’s cultural aspirations or lifestyle. However, spatial mismatch of this kind is largely neglected in neighborhood studies.

Individual background always sets the basis for individual livelihoods. Individual background variables used in neighborhood studies are such as age, sex, marital status, employment status, social class (how is it defined and measured?), highest qualification and housing tenure. (Buck 2002, 2258-2262.) Friedrichs et al propose the adding of ethnicity and dynamic treatment of socio-economic position and education to the list of indicators (Friedrichs et el 2003, 84).

In addition to individual and neighborhood characteristics, other socio-spatial levels need to be taken into account as externalities, provided that they have effects on the neighborhood. According to Friedrichs et al (2003, 804), these levels include:
- household characteristics: lifestyle, urban orientations, spatial mobility
- endogenous neighborhood variables: proportion of socially “weak” households, the physical attributes and housing structure conditions, the location in the metropolitan area
- exogenous neighborhood variables, including stigmatization: perceptions of service levels and physical conditions and valuation by financial institutions
- metropolitan area characteristics: dominant economic structure or path-dependant structure, political fragmentation, the attractiveness of the area to immigrants, the overall level of segregation
- welfare state regimes (which may have metropolitan level impacts)

According to Hirschmann, there are three possible different reactions to territorial stigmatizing. When one’s neighborhood is threatened or dilapidated, one possibility is always to exit, to leave. One can also try to express loyalty: once a Romsåsbo, always a Romsåsbo. Then one can become a vocal advocate of his or hers neighborhood through neighborhood activism.

According to a much cited classical study of Oscar Lewis, the poor neighborhoods instill poverty upon their residents, suggesting a learnt behavioral and cultural model. Lewis calls this as the culture of poverty; for instance, if no friends are at work, this affects the expectations and the perceptions of normality of the individual. (Buck 2002, 2258-2262.) However, Bauder thinks that “the idea of neighborhood effects is the product of ideological discourse” and that “the culture of poverty and underclass ideas lay the blame for marginality on the poor themselves, who do not conform to dominant norms”. Furthermore, he insists that “this literature makes ideological assumptions that (…) suburban middle-class lifestyles are normal, and inner-city, minority lifestyles are pathological.” (Bauder 2001, 87-89.) This stigmatizing of neighborhoods can reflect the norms and valuations of the affluent middle class, possibly leading to the acceptance of stigmatization and it can be used to legitimate policy decisions neglecting these areas seen as pathological.

Do area-based policies cure the neighborhood? Is the patient a wrong one?
Stigmatization of some area as deprived may legitimate area-based initiatives (ABIs), aimed at tackling the poverty thought to be spatially concentrated. There is a rich vein of literature on ABIs in UK, both supporting and criticizing these policies. For instance, if the majority of the target group indeed lives outside of the deprived areas where the policies are targeted to, these policies can “miss their targets” (Smith et al 2001, 1342-1343).

Richard Mitchell sees several methodological problems in using neighborhoods as basis for policy making and research. Although he accepts that geography is a means to understand and tackle inequalities, to him it follows that macroeconomic policies are the best means to tackle the problems. He furthermore iterates that there are no deprived places as such, as the people are the place; deprived people make deprived places. (Mitchell 2001, 1358-1359.)

However, ABIs can were originally meant to be only complementing individual-based approaches, not replacing them. If there is spatial variation in livelihoods and this variation is structural, not individually based, it has to be tackled structurally (Smith et al 2001, 1342-1344).

Heather Joshi defends ABIs with three arguments: firstly, localized action is the more appropriate the more localized the problem is. Secondly, mobility can lead to gentrification of areas. Thirdly, public services are always site specific. Fourthly, general-level policies can be “tested” locally in neighborhoods. Finally, local community participation is site specific. (Joshi 2001, 1350-1352.)

Charles Pattie sees pragmatic reasons to support or at least understand the existence of ABIs. How localities fare, is of relevance to the British two-party system. Pattie sees ABIs as sensible if they succeed in reaching the most of the targeted people, adding that controlling for individual problems must control to some extent the local context if the source of problems is to be tackled. (Pattie 2001, 1354-1355.)

Nick Buck summarizes the legitimation of area-based policies by maintaining that if there is a choice between spatially targeted policies and ones targeted at disadvantaged groups regardless of their location, it is only the existence of added effects of neighborhood which would justify choice of the spatial option (Buck 2001, 254.)

Neighborhoods, suburbs and ghettos
There are some differences between US and European traditions of studying neighbourhood / neighborhood effects, in addition to the spelling differences. Firstly, US studies emphasize race, it clearly being more of an issue there. Secondly, most US studies concentrate to the deprivation of inner-city, while in Europe it is mostly the urban outskirts that are associated with the neighbourhood hazards. In the US, the neighborhood impacts are seen as independent variables, presuming that they in turn affect directly those living in these in neighborhoods, while in Europe the significantly different housing supply and welfare policies limit the variation of neighbourhood conditions. In US studies neighborhoods are relatively large units, often whole ghettoized urban areas. Furthermore, in Europe segregation and separation levels are lower than in USA, making neighbourhood effects of lesser significance. (Friedrichs et al, 798-800.)

As most of the neighborhood hazards in European studies are associated with suburbs built in the 1960s and 1970s, these problems were already recognized at the early stages of suburbanization. As an alternative to the “traditional” suburbs with their alleged Simmelian alienating effects, some attempts for alternative suburban planning have been proposed since the 1970s. However, the most of European suburbs are not slums in the real sense of the word with only scarce prospects of a decent livelihood.

An attempt of a pilot project in suburban planning in Helsinki is to be found in the suburb of Malminkartano. Meant to be an alternative attempt, aiming to strengthen the neighborhood spirit by planning large gardens inside the blocks and to provide the locality with local services and jobs by including real estates suitable for local small businesses. However, the aims of the architect Heikki Kaitera largely failed to realize. (http://www.kaupunginosat.net/malminkartano/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2138&Itemid=212). How can a non-existent spirit be heightened? In a new suburb everyone is a newcomer to the area, being aliens to each other. Still, Malminkartano was to serve as an example for all suburban planning in Helsinki for the next 15 years

Neighborhood intolerance; Nimby and Lulu
As the majority of research on neighborhoods concentrate on their socializing effects, the other possible effects have been largely neglected in neighborhood studies. Amongst these effects can be mentioned the reactions towards threats of environmental changes in the vicinity. These changes are usually caused by construction plans of roads and buildings or land use changes. Most of the latest Finnish studies on neighborhoods have concentrated on neighborhood intolerance phenomena caused by some of the following. The undesired forms of land use are frequently labeled as “lulu” (Locally Unwanted Land Use; Kopomaa 2005,11; Kaplan et al., 2008, 223), and the forms of sociability it causes are referred as “nimby” (Not In My Backyard; ibid; Peltonen & Villanen 2004, 33.)

Especially vehement has local protesting been when the planned land use suggests buildings that play a function in dealing with social problems or it is associated with social problems (Kaplan et al 2008, 380). When sheltered housing units are erected for the disabled or those with mental health hazards, criminal record or drug problems, they are met with fear or disgust (Kopomaa 2005, ). The more esteemed the area is, the more projects of this kind are objected against (ibid., 12). The most usual NIMBY concern is the social stigmatization of their neighborhood brought about the project, this diminishing the value of their real estates. Other causes of concern are fear for safety and for diminishing quality of local environment (Peltonen & Villanen 2004, 33)

While Nimby and Lulu are the best known concepts of neighborhood intolerance, there is a whole classification of species of the same phenomenon:
NIMBY = Not In My Backyard
LULU = Locally Unwanted Land Use
NOOS = Not On Our Street
NOPE = Not On Planet Earth
YTESBY = Yes To Somebody Else´s Backyard
NIABY = Not In Anybody´s Backyard
CAVE = Citizens Against Virtually Everything
BANANA = Build Absolutely Nothing Anywhere Near Anyone (Snellman, 2002)

Another frequent form of unwanted land use is replacing a free area, public space, especially a green area in recreational use by land use of other kind. In fact, the urban parkland is really valuable, fuelling land use speculation, planning of park-side estates or even of park estates (USA Today). Examples of this are readily found; I have studied the green areas activism in Helsinki and Oslo for my doctoral thesis. (Perukangas 2008.)

Urban parks are – according to Jane Jacobs - in their purest form neighborhood parks, representing a "generalised public-yard use", then urban forests that outstretch any specific neighbourhoods (such as the Central Park of Helsinki) or are located outside the urban core (such as the Oslomarka) are generalised neighborhood parks. Jacobs thinks that the essence of parks stem from the way the immediate neighborhood uses and appreciates them. A successful park needs to be used by different kinds of people for different purposes at different times, it is not a vacuum between the built masses but it instead adds up to its surroundings an appreciated and a functional element. Neighborhood parks can celebrate the local sociality, but nevertheless they can’t substitute for it; neither can they bring about any forms of sociality not already inherent in the neighborhood (Jacobs 1961, 91-95.)

REFERENCES:
BAUDER, Harald (2001): "Neighbourhood Effects and Cultural Exclusion." In Urban Studies, vol. 39, s. 85-93
BRATTBAKK, Ingar: Lecture on the 17th Feb, 2009
BUCK, Nick (2001): Identifying Neighbourhood Effects on Social Exclusion. In Urban Studies vol. 38, number 12, Nov. 2001,pp. 2251-2277
BURROWS, Roger & BRADSHAW, Jonathan (2001): Evidence-based policy and practice. In Environment & Planning, vol. 33:8, pp.1345-1348
FRIEDRICHS, Jürgen, GALSTER, George & MUSTERD, Sako: Neighbourhood Effects on Social Opportunities: The European and American Research and Policy Context. In Housing Studies (2003), vol. 18, no 6, pp. 797-803
GREEN, Anne E (2001): Unemployment, nonemployment, and labour-market disadvantage. In Environment & Planning, vol. 33:8, pp.1361-1364
JACOBS, Jane (1961): The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Random House.
JOSHI, Heather (2001): Is there a place for area-based initiatives? In Environment & Planning, vol. 33:8, pp. 1349-1352
KAPLAN, D., WHEELER, J & HOLLOWAY, S. (2008) Urban Geography. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken
KOPOMAA, Timo (2005): Naapuruussuvaitsevaisuus. Tuetun asumisen ja palvelutoiminnan yhteys lähiympäristöön, asukasvaikuttamiseen ja kaupunkisuunnitteluun. Helsingin kaupunginsuunnitteluvirasto (Neighborhood Intolerance. The connection of sheltered housing services with environment, residential activism and urban planning. Planning Office of Helsinki)
MCCULLOCH, Andrew (2001): In Environment & Planning, vol. 33:4, pp.667-685
MITCHELL, Richard (2001): Multilevel modeling might not be the answer. In Environment & Planning, vol. 33:8, pp. 1357-1360
PATTIE, Charles (2001): On reinvented wheels. In Environment & Planning, vol. 33:8, pp. 1353-1356
PELTONEN, Lasse & VILLANEN, Sampo (2004): Maankäytön konfliktit ja niiden ratkaisumahdolliisuudet. Osa 1: Katsaus käsitteisiin ja kirjallisuuteen. Ympäristöministeriön julkaisusarja: Suomen ympäristö 723 (Conflicts in Land Use and attempts to solve them. Part One: A Literature and Conceptual Overview. A publication of the Ministery of Environment, number 723)
PERUKANGAS, Michael (2008): Right to the Urban Parks. An unpublished manuscript of a research proposal for a doctoral thesis. The University of Helsinki
SMITH, George, NOBLE, Michael Noble, WRIGHT, Gemma: Do we care about area effects? In Environment & Planning, vol. 33:8, pp. 1341-1344
SNELLMAN, Ritva Liisa: "Ei meidän nurkille" (Not In Our Backyard): an article in Helsingin Sanomat newspaper 30th June, 2002
(USA Today 14th April 2008).
http://www.kaupunginosat.net/malminkartano/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2138&Itemid=212. Downloaded at the 23rd Feb, 2009.