Local social engagement, satisfaction, and embeddedness in the Netherlands: which effects matter and for whom?

Abstract

This paper examines to what extent, and for whom, different geographical characteristics affect the levels of local social engagement, satisfaction, and embeddedness in the Netherlands. We employ a uniquely detailed dataset of individuals in Dutch neighbourhoods and municipalities, which is examined using a multilevel hierarchical model with spatial interaction effects. The analysis shows that living in a neighbourhood with a high ethnic concentration and low economic development has negative consequences for actual engagement, satisfaction, and embeddedness. However, this effect is more relevant for natives than for immigrants (ie, Turks, Moroccans, Surinamese, and Antilleans). In addition, we4 find no evidence that the relationship between locality and engagement, satisfaction, and embeddedness varies between first-generation and second-generation immigrants.

Neighbourhood cohesion under the influx of migrants in Shanghai

“…In addition, migrants are also less likely to feel attached to the neighbourhood although they express the wish to stay in the locality. Similar to empirical evidence from the Global North (Tselios et al, 2015;Twigg et al, 2010), Wu's (2012) findings indicate that neighbourhood poverty is a negative indicator of social cohesion in urban China. Based on international and Chinese findings, our second hypothesis is that low-income neighbourhoods are negatively associated with the neighbourhood cohesion.…”

“…The current debate on neighbourhood cohesion revolves around whether it is residential diversity or neighbourhood deprivation or both that lead to its decline (Mennis et al, 2013;Putnam, 2007;Stafford et al, 2003;Tselios et al, 2015;Twigg et al, 2010). Increased competition for limited public resources and fears of being discriminated against or being exploited are the main reasons why residents in poor neighbourhoods feel less cohesive (Gijsberts et al, 2012;Putnam, 2007;Stafford et al, 2003).…”

“…Finally, residents in more diverse neighbourhoods tend to have stronger feelings of anomie due to lack of shared experiences and diversity in social norms and practices (Alesina and La Ferrara, 2002;McPherson et al, 2001). Although claims from different studies are often contradictory, the majority of studies found that both diversity and deprivation are negative determinants, whereby the effect of poverty is comparatively more detrimental (Stafford et al, 2003;Tselios et al, 2015;Twigg et al, 2010). In the UK, Twigg et al (2010) found that social cohesion is negatively affected by higher ethnic diversity and stronger deprivation of a neighbourhood although poverty is of greater significance.…”

“…In the UK, Twigg et al (2010) found that social cohesion is negatively affected by higher ethnic diversity and stronger deprivation of a neighbourhood although poverty is of greater significance. Tselios et al (2015), on the other hand, found that community engagement and sense of belonging are negatively affected by both ethnic diversity and poverty and that native residents are more affected compared to immigrants.…”

“…Housing reforms and the subsequent proliferation of private commodity estates are said to have significantly altered interpersonal relations as neighbourhood-based ties are diminishing (Hazelzet and Wissink, 2012;Wu and Logan, 2016;Yip, 2012). In the Global North, low-income neighbourhoods and areas with many minority residents have traditionally been associated with weaker neighbourhood cohesion although there is no clear consensus on their respective effects (Gijsberts et al, 2012;Mennis et al, 2013;Putnam, 2007;Stafford et al, 2003;Tselios et al, 2015;Twigg et al, 2010). Migrant-dominated neighbourhoods and migrant enclaves are also forming in many Chinese cities due to the privatisation of housing and hukou restrictions preventing migrants from accessing public housing (Liao and Wong, 2015;Li and Wu, 2008).…”