Neighborhood Connections, Physical Disorder, and Neighborhood Satisfaction in Las Vegas

Abstract

This study helps to disentangle the mutual effects of neighborhood disorder and social cohesion on how residents evaluate their neighborhoods. We draw upon data from the 2009 Las Vegas Metropolitan Area Social Survey to understand how neighborhood cohesion, physical disorder, and perceptions of crime and safety influence neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood quality of life among residents in the dynamic, yet understudied, urban context of Las Vegas, Nevada. We use ordinary least squares and binary logistic regression to predict two measures of neighborhood satisfaction. Our results show that even with significant neighborhood disorder, social connectedness with neighbors remains a significant predictor of neighborhood satisfaction. We discuss implications of neighborhood satisfaction research for other fast-changing metropolitan areas.

Distress in the Desert

“…Residents typically use evaluative measures to judge the physical qualities of neighborhoods and are often keenly aware of neighborhood stressors that indicate physical and social disorder (Dassopoulos et al 2012; Hipp 2010; Nation, Fortney and Wandersman 2010; Taylor 1996; Ross and Mirowsky 1999; Sampson 2004). Physical decay, such as dirt, litter, graffiti, vandalism, and buildings that are vacant or in disrepair.…”

Breaking the chain: Understanding the association between foreclosure intensity and neighborhood satisfaction

“…Therefore social disorder associated with foreclosures decreases neighborhood satisfaction, reducing the residents' willingness to help their neighbors and the motivation to maintain their properties. Increased social disorder (regardless if it is real or perceived) and decreased connection and interaction with neighbors decrease neighborhood satisfaction of the residents (Batson & Monnat, 2014;Drassopoulos, Batson, Futrell, & Brents, 2012;Wallace et al, 2012). Decreased neighborhood satisfaction increases the tendency to move and therefore exacerbates residential instability resulting from foreclosures.…”

Comparing the quality of life of cities that gained and lost population: An assessment with DEA and the Malmquist index

“…Another branch of literature inspects how population change influences the level of cities' QoL as a consequence, for instance, of high crowding and pollution levels due to an increase of inhabitants (Baldassare & Wilson, 1995;Güneralp & Seto, 2008). In contrast, cities facing population loss have to deal with many vacant or abandoned buildings causing crime, vandalism and incivilities, which reduce QoL (Dassopoulos, Batson, Futrell, & Brents, 2012;Hipp, 2009). However, shrinking cities can sustain high liveability standards as cities that loose inhabitants face a decrease in their stressors, like traffic congestion and rush-hour problems to which the affordability of housing and the presence of natural amenities can be added (Hollander & Németh, 2011;Pallagst et al, 2009).…”