Social Ties, Environmental Perception, And Local Attachment

Abstract

This article investigates the determinants of place attachment. The community of limited liability argues that local attachment is the result of local relationships neighbors develop through time. The liberated community argues that only a minority of individual social ties are local. Therefore, people will not experience attachment. The authors argue that local attachment might result from a positive perception of the neighborhood environment. Using a randomly selected sample from one large city in Israel, the differential contributions of these models to the understanding of local attachment are investigated. The results show that attachment to place is expressed by a majority of urban residents. The higher the number of close friends and neighbors that are known and live nearby, the higher the attachment to the neighborhood. Perceptions of the local environment have a direct and independent effect on neighborhood attachment. Implications for the understanding of place attachment are discussed.

Greenspace and Place Attachment: Do Greener Suburbs Lead to Greater Residential Place Attachment?

“…Increasing evidence suggests that people who report higher levels of place attachment to their geographic communities have greater access to social capital (Fried, 1982;Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974;Mesch and Manor, 1998) and positive mental health outcomes (Ross, Reynolds and Greis, 2000 ). Further, communities with higher levels of place attachment have greater levels of civic engagement (Comstock et al, 2010;Sampson, 1988), are more effective at collective lobbying and crime control (Manzo and Perkins, 2006;Vorkin and Riese, 2001), and are more environmentally responsible (Scannell and Gifford, 2010a;Vorkin and Riese, 2001).…”

“…For example, some studies indicate that belonging to an ethno-racial minority or having a different language background is associated with lower place attachment (Austin and Baba, 1990;Bailey, Kearns, and Livingston, 2012;Theodori, 2004). Poverty, renting and residential mobility are also linked to reduced place attachment (Austin and Baba, 1990;Bonaiuto et al, 1999;Brown, Perkins and Brown, 2003;Comstock et al, 2010;Fried, 1982;Mesch and Manor, 1998;Parkes, Atkinson and Kearns, 2002;Ringel and Finkelstein, 1991). Lastly, local social ties mediate the relationship between these socio-demographic characteristics and place attachment (Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974;Lewicka, 2010).…”

“…Lastly, local social ties mediate the relationship between these socio-demographic characteristics and place attachment (Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974;Lewicka, 2010). Indeed, one of the strongest predictors of place attachment is the availability of local social ties (Austin and Baba, 1990;Fried, 1982;Kasarda and Janowitz, 1974;Lewicka, 2010;Mesch and Manor, 1998;Ringel and Finkelstein, 1991).…”

Place attachment, place satisfaction and pro-environmental behaviour: a comparative assessment of multiple regression and structural equation modelling

“…Place affect is emotional bond which is developed between an individual and the place (Kals & Maes, 2002). Place social bonding has been conceived as social ties developed through shared experiences in a place (Mesch & Manor, 1998). Although researchers have attempted to refine place attachment as a multidimensional, there remains a paucity a studies investigating the construct with its four sub-constructs (dependence, identity, affect, social bonding) and its relationship with place satisfaction and proenvironmental behaviour.…”

Continuation of exchange with neighbors in later life: The importance of the neighborhood context

“…People whose networks are based more in the neighborhood feel more attached to it (Adams, 1992;Mesch & Manor, 1998). Stronger orientation to neighbors is also associated with longer residence (Campbell & Lee, 1992;Mesch & Manor, 1998;Phillipson, Bernard, Phillips, & Ogg, 1999;Wenger, 1993), home ownership (Logan & Spitze, 1994), and presence of close kin in the neighborhood (Campbell & Lee, 1992;Logan & Spitze, 1994;Phillipson et al, 1999;Wenger, 1993), as well as frequent church attendance (Greenbaum & Greenbaum, 1985).…”