Perspectives on Neighborhood and Community: A Review of the Literature

Social Service Review

Volumn 71, Issue 4, 1997, Pages

  Chaskin, Robert J ^a  

^a NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0347800901     PISSN: 00377961     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1086/604277     Document Type: Review

References (156)

1. There are several perspectives on the possibilities for and essential elements of promoting collective action at the local level. John Davis suggests that local communities may act "on the basis of interests and solidarities that are endemic to the locality itself," such as to improve services or protect property values. John E. Davis, Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 5. David Chavis and Abraham Wandersman suggest that the existence of a "sense of community" can be a catalyst and can be both cause and effect of local action. David M. Chavis and Abraham Wandersman, "Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development," American Journal of Community Psychology 18, no. 1 (1990): 55-81. Charles Tilly stresses that criteria governing other forms of collective action apply to communities as well and that such criteria are more likely to apply in homogeneous communities where conditions favor circumscribed communication and where "control over land . . . is valuable but unstable." Charles Tilly, "Do Communities Act?" in The Community: Approaches and Applications, ed. M. P. Effrat (New York: Free Press, 1974), pp. 209-40, quote on p. 213.
2. There are several perspectives on the possibilities for and essential elements of promoting collective action at the local level. John Davis suggests that local communities may act "on the basis of interests and solidarities that are endemic to the locality itself," such as to improve services or protect property values. John E. Davis, Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 5. David Chavis and Abraham Wandersman suggest that the existence of a "sense of community" can be a catalyst and can be both cause and effect of local action. David M. Chavis and Abraham Wandersman, "Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development," American Journal of Community Psychology 18, no. 1 (1990): 55-81. Charles Tilly stresses that criteria governing other forms of collective action apply to communities as well and that such criteria are more likely to apply in homogeneous communities where conditions favor circumscribed communication and where "control over land . . . is valuable but unstable." Charles Tilly, "Do Communities Act?" in The Community: Approaches and Applications, ed. M. P. Effrat (New York: Free Press, 1974), pp. 209-40, quote on p. 213.
3. There are several perspectives on the possibilities for and essential elements of promoting collective action at the local level. John Davis suggests that local communities may act "on the basis of interests and solidarities that are endemic to the locality itself," such as to improve services or protect property values. John E. Davis, Contested Ground: Collective Action and the Urban Neighborhood (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991), p. 5. David Chavis and Abraham Wandersman suggest that the existence of a "sense of community" can be a catalyst and can be both cause and effect of local action. David M. Chavis and Abraham Wandersman, "Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development," American Journal of Community Psychology 18, no. 1 (1990): 55-81. Charles Tilly stresses that criteria governing other forms of collective action apply to communities as well and that such criteria are more likely to apply in homogeneous communities where conditions favor circumscribed communication and where "control over land . . . is valuable but unstable." Charles Tilly, "Do Communities Act?" in The Community: Approaches and Applications, ed. M. P. Effrat (New York: Free Press, 1974), pp. 209-40, quote on p. 213.
4. Howard W. Hallman, Neighborhoods: Their Place in Urban Life (Beverly Hills, Calif.: Sage, 1984), p. 13.
5. S. Keller, The Urban Neighborhood: A Sociological Perspective (New York: Random House, 1968), p. 87.
6. One exception identifies immigrant communities as embedded within neighborhoods that house several different immigrant groups. Although each community shares a common locality, they form separate units, each defined through networks of affiliation by common heritage, religion, and language. C. Golab, "The Geography of Neighborhood," in Neighborhoods in Urban America, ed. R. Bayor (Port Washington, N.Y.: Kennikat, 1982), pp. 70-85. Here, it is affective attributes of community, rather than organizational ones, that drive the distinction.
7. H. M. Choldin, Sociological Human Ecology: Contemporary Issues and Applications (Boulder, Colo.: Westview, 1984), p. 243.
8. B. Wellman and B. Leighton, "Networks, Neighborhoods, and Communities: Approaches to the Study of the Community Question," Urban Affairs Quarterly 14, no. 3 (1979): 363-90, quote on 366.
9. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
10. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
11. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
12. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
13. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
14. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
15. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
16. See, e.g., L. Wirth, "Urbanism as a Way of Life," American Journal of Sociology 44 (July 1938): 3-24; G. D. Suttles, The Social Order of the Slum: Ethnicity and Territory in the Inner City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1968); W. R. Freudenberg, "The Density of Acquaintanceship: An Overlooked Variable in Community Research?" American Journal of Sociology 92, no. 1 (1986): 27-63; C. S. Fischer, "Toward a Subcultural Theory of Urbanism," American Journal of Sociology 80, no. 6 (1975): 1319-41; C. S. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends: Personal Networks in Town and City (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1982); W. J. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1987); R. J. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A Multilevel Systemic Model," American Sociological Review 53 (October 1988): 766-79; and E. Anderson, Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990).
17. B. Wellman, "The Community Question: The Intimate Networks of East Yonkers," American Journal of Sociology 84, no. 5 (1979): 1201-31.
18. Z. L. Miller, "The Role and Concept of Neighborhood in American Cities," in Community Organization for Urban Social Change: A Historical Perspective, ed. R. Fisher and P. Romanofsky (Westport, Conn.: Greenwood, 1981), pp. 3-32, quote on p. 5.
19. That the city came to be understood through an organic analogy is consistent with the dominant sociological paradigm of the day, perhaps best exemplified by the works of Herbert Spencer and the translation of Darwinian theories of competition and selection to the dynamics of human society. This worldview reflected the social, political, and economic circumstances present in the decades surrounding the turn of the century, "where the dynamics of privatism and laissez-faire enterprise prevailed." W. P. Frisbie and J. D. Kasarda, "Spatial Processes," in Handbook of Sociology, ed. Neil J. Smelser (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1988), pp. 629-66, quote on p. 632. It was within this epistemological framework that the study of urban ecology developed.
20. R. McKenzie, "The Scope of Human Ecology" (1926), and R. E. Park, "Human Ecology" (1936), both in Urban Patterns: Studies in Human Ecology, ed. G. A. Theodorson (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1982), pp. 28-34, 20-27.
21. R. McKenzie, "The Scope of Human Ecology" (1926), and R. E. Park, "Human Ecology" (1936), both in Urban Patterns: Studies in Human Ecology, ed. G. A. Theodorson (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1982), pp. 28-34, 20-27.
22. R. McKenzie, "The Scope of Human Ecology" (1926), and R. E. Park, "Human Ecology" (1936), both in Urban Patterns: Studies in Human Ecology, ed. G. A. Theodorson (University Park: Pennsylvania State University, 1982), pp. 28-34, 20-27.
23. E. W. Burgess, "The Growth of the City" (1925), in Theodorson, ed. (n. 11 above), pp. 35-41.
24. H. Hoyt, "The Pattern of Movement of Residential Rental Neighborhoods" (1939), in Theodorson, ed. (n. 11 above), pp. 42-49.
25. A. H. Hawley, "Human Ecology, Space, Time, and Urbanization" (1971), in Theodorson, ed. (n. 11 above), pp. 111-14; M. J. White, American Neighborhoods and Residential Differentiation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1987).
26. A. H. Hawley, "Human Ecology, Space, Time, and Urbanization" (1971), in Theodorson, ed. (n. 11 above), pp. 111-14; M. J. White, American Neighborhoods and Residential Differentiation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1987).
27. These three models share some central characteristics and are not entirely incompatible. In his study of American neighborhoods, which is based on census data from 1980, Michael White suggests an integrated model, acknowledging that patterns of urban residential change may differ depending on the issue in question (White [n. 14 above]). Residential distribution by socioeconomic status, e.g., tends to adhere to the sectoral pattern, while distribution by race and ethnicity is clustered.
28. Park, "Human Ecology" (n. 11 above); H. Zorbough, "The Natural Areas of the City" (1926), and W. Firey, "Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological Variables" (1945), both in Theodorson, ed. (n. 11 above), pp. 50-54, 129-36.
29. Park, "Human Ecology" (n. 11 above); H. Zorbough, "The Natural Areas of the City" (1926), and W. Firey, "Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological Variables" (1945), both in Theodorson, ed. (n. 11 above), pp. 50-54, 129-36.
30. Park, "Human Ecology" (n. 11 above); H. Zorbough, "The Natural Areas of the City" (1926), and W. Firey, "Sentiment and Symbolism as Ecological Variables" (1945), both in Theodorson, ed. (n. 11 above), pp. 50-54, 129-36.
31. Golab (n. 4 above), p. 77; see also D. S. Massey, "Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review," Sociology and Social Research 69, no. 3 (1985): 315-50; and A. Portes and R. D. Manning, "The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Examples," in Competitive Ethnic Relations, ed. S. Olzak and J. Nagel (New York: Academic Press, 1986), pp. 47-68.
32. Golab (n. 4 above), p. 77; see also D. S. Massey, "Ethnic Residential Segregation: A Theoretical Synthesis and Empirical Review," Sociology and Social Research 69, no. 3 (1985): 315-50; and A. Portes and R. D. Manning, "The Immigrant Enclave: Theory and Empirical Examples," in Competitive Ethnic Relations, ed. S. Olzak and J. Nagel (New York: Academic Press, 1986), pp. 47-68.
33. Golab (n. 4 above), p. 80.
34. R. E. Park, Human Communities: The City and Human Ecology (New York: Free Press, 1952).
35. Miller (n. 9 above); R. Fisher, "From Grass-Roots Organizing to Community Service: Community Organization Practice in the Community Center Movement, 1907-1930," and P. M. Melvin, "'A Cluster of Interlacing Communities': The Cincinnati Social Unit Plan and Neighborhood Organization, 1900-1920," both in Fisher and Romanfosky, eds. (n. 9 above), pp. 33-58, 59-87; and P. M. Melvin, The Organic City: Urban Definition and Community Organization, 1880-1920 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987).
36. Miller (n. 9 above); R. Fisher, "From Grass-Roots Organizing to Community Service: Community Organization Practice in the Community Center Movement, 1907-1930," and P. M. Melvin, "'A Cluster of Interlacing Communities': The Cincinnati Social Unit Plan and Neighborhood Organization, 1900-1920," both in Fisher and Romanfosky, eds. (n. 9 above), pp. 33-58, 59-87; and P. M. Melvin, The Organic City: Urban Definition and Community Organization, 1880-1920 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987).
37. Miller (n. 9 above); R. Fisher, "From Grass-Roots Organizing to Community Service: Community Organization Practice in the Community Center Movement, 1907-1930," and P. M. Melvin, "'A Cluster of Interlacing Communities': The Cincinnati Social Unit Plan and Neighborhood Organization, 1900-1920," both in Fisher and Romanfosky, eds. (n. 9 above), pp. 33-58, 59-87; and P. M. Melvin, The Organic City: Urban Definition and Community Organization, 1880-1920 (Lexington: University Press of Kentucky, 1987).
38. Wirth (n. 7 above), pp. 20-21.
39. B. A. Lee, R. S. Oropesa, B. J. Metch, and A. M. Guest, "Testing the Decline-of-Community Thesis: Neighborhood Organizations in Seattle, 1929 and 1979," American Journal of Sociology 89, no. 5 (1984): 1161-88, quote on 1163.
40. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantage (n. 7 above); D. S. Massey, "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 2 (1990): 329-57; and P. A. Jargowsky and M. J. Bane, "Ghetto Poverty in the United States 1970-1980," in The Urban Underclass, ed. C. Jencks and P. E. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1991), pp. 235-73.
41. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantage (n. 7 above); D. S. Massey, "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 2 (1990): 329-57; and P. A. Jargowsky and M. J. Bane, "Ghetto Poverty in the United States 1970-1980," in The Urban Underclass, ed. C. Jencks and P. E. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1991), pp. 235-73.
42. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantage (n. 7 above); D. S. Massey, "American Apartheid: Segregation and the Making of the Underclass," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 2 (1990): 329-57; and P. A. Jargowsky and M. J. Bane, "Ghetto Poverty in the United States 1970-1980," in The Urban Underclass, ed. C. Jencks and P. E. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1991), pp. 235-73.
43. R. P. Taub, D. G. Taylor, and J. D. Dunham, Safe and Secure Neighborhoods: Territoriality, Solidarity and the Reduction of Crime (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1982).
44. Wilson The Truly Disadvantaged (n. 7 above); J. D. Kasarda, "Urban Change and Minority Opportunities," in The New Urban Reality, ed. P. E. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1985), pp. 33-68; and S. Lieberson, A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants since 1880 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).
45. Wilson The Truly Disadvantaged (n. 7 above); J. D. Kasarda, "Urban Change and Minority Opportunities," in The New Urban Reality, ed. P. E. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1985), pp. 33-68; and S. Lieberson, A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants since 1880 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).
46. Wilson The Truly Disadvantaged (n. 7 above); J. D. Kasarda, "Urban Change and Minority Opportunities," in The New Urban Reality, ed. P. E. Peterson (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1985), pp. 33-68; and S. Lieberson, A Piece of the Pie: Blacks and White Immigrants since 1880 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1980).
47. Wilson, The Truly Disadvantaged (n. 7 above).
48. J. D. Kasarda, "City Jobs and Residents on a Collision Course: The Urban Underclass Dilemma," Economic Development Quarterly 4, no. 4 (1990): 313-19, quote on 315.
49. Massey, "American Apartheid" (n. 23 above); and D. S. Massey and M. L. Eggars, "The Ecology of Inequality: Minorities and the Concentration of Poverty, 1970-1980," American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 5 (1990): 1153-88.
50. Massey, "American Apartheid" (n. 23 above); and D. S. Massey and M. L. Eggars, "The Ecology of Inequality: Minorities and the Concentration of Poverty, 1970-1980," American Journal of Sociology 95, no. 5 (1990): 1153-88.
51. Lieberson (n. 25 above).
52. J. M. Berry, K. E. Portney, and K. Thomson, "The Political Behavior of Poor People," in Jencks and Peterson, ed. (n. 23 above), pp. 357-72.
53. C. B. Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper & Row 1974); B. A. Lee, K. E. Campbell, and O. Miller, "Racial Differences in Urban Neighboring," Sociological Forum 6, no. 3 (1991): 525-50; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Neighbor Networks of Blacks and Whites" (1993, mimeographed); N. M. Bradburn, S. Sudman, and G. L. Gockel, Racial Integration in American Neighborhoods (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1970); and A. Lyons, Tenants in Community Relationships between People Living in Subsidized Housing and Their Surrounding Communities (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1990).
54. C. B. Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper & Row 1974); B. A. Lee, K. E. Campbell, and O. Miller, "Racial Differences in Urban Neighboring," Sociological Forum 6, no. 3 (1991): 525-50; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Neighbor Networks of Blacks and Whites" (1993, mimeographed); N. M. Bradburn, S. Sudman, and G. L. Gockel, Racial Integration in American Neighborhoods (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1970); and A. Lyons, Tenants in Community Relationships between People Living in Subsidized Housing and Their Surrounding Communities (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1990).
55. C. B. Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper & Row 1974); B. A. Lee, K. E. Campbell, and O. Miller, "Racial Differences in Urban Neighboring," Sociological Forum 6, no. 3 (1991): 525-50; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Neighbor Networks of Blacks and Whites" (1993, mimeographed); N. M. Bradburn, S. Sudman, and G. L. Gockel, Racial Integration in American Neighborhoods (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1970); and A. Lyons, Tenants in Community Relationships between People Living in Subsidized Housing and Their Surrounding Communities (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1990).
56. C. B. Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper & Row 1974); B. A. Lee, K. E. Campbell, and O. Miller, "Racial Differences in Urban Neighboring," Sociological Forum 6, no. 3 (1991): 525-50; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Neighbor Networks of Blacks and Whites" (1993, mimeographed); N. M. Bradburn, S. Sudman, and G. L. Gockel, Racial Integration in American Neighborhoods (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1970); and A. Lyons, Tenants in Community Relationships between People Living in Subsidized Housing and Their Surrounding Communities (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1990).
57. C. B. Stack, All Our Kin: Strategies for Survival in a Black Community (New York: Harper & Row 1974); B. A. Lee, K. E. Campbell, and O. Miller, "Racial Differences in Urban Neighboring," Sociological Forum 6, no. 3 (1991): 525-50; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Neighbor Networks of Blacks and Whites" (1993, mimeographed); N. M. Bradburn, S. Sudman, and G. L. Gockel, Racial Integration in American Neighborhoods (Chicago: National Opinion Research Center, 1970); and A. Lyons, Tenants in Community Relationships between People Living in Subsidized Housing and Their Surrounding Communities (Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University, Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research, 1990).
58. G. D. Suttles, The Social Construction of Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1972), pp. 8-9.
59. Ibid.; Miller (n. 9 above); and A. M. Guest and B. A. Lee, "The Social Organization of Local Areas," Urban Affairs Quarterly 19, no. 2 (December 1983): 217-40.
60. Ibid.; Miller (n. 9 above); and A. M. Guest and B. A. Lee, "The Social Organization of Local Areas," Urban Affairs Quarterly 19, no. 2 (December 1983): 217-40.
61. J. D. Kasarda and M. Janowitz, "Community Attachment in Mass Society," American Sociological Review 39 (1974): 328-39, quote on 329.
62. Guest and Lee, "The Social Organization of Local Areas" (n. 33 above), quote on p. 23.
63. A M. Guest, B. A. Lee, and L. Staeheli, "Changing Locality Identification in the Metropolis: Seattle, 1920-1978," American Sociological Review 47 (1982): 543-49; A. Hunter "The Loss of Community: An Empirical Test through Replication," American Sociological Review 40 (1975): 537-52; and A. Hunter, Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Changes of Chicago's Local Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974).
64. A M. Guest, B. A. Lee, and L. Staeheli, "Changing Locality Identification in the Metropolis: Seattle, 1920-1978," American Sociological Review 47 (1982): 543-49; A. Hunter "The Loss of Community: An Empirical Test through Replication," American Sociological Review 40 (1975): 537-52; and A. Hunter, Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Changes of Chicago's Local Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974).
65. A M. Guest, B. A. Lee, and L. Staeheli, "Changing Locality Identification in the Metropolis: Seattle, 1920-1978," American Sociological Review 47 (1982): 543-49; A. Hunter "The Loss of Community: An Empirical Test through Replication," American Sociological Review 40 (1975): 537-52; and A. Hunter, Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Changes of Chicago's Local Communities (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974).
66. Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above).
67. C. P. Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1960): R. J. Warren, The Community in America (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1978); and A. D. Edwards and D. G. Jones, Community and Community Development (The Hague: Mouton, 1976).
68. C. P. Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1960): R. J. Warren, The Community in America (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1978); and A. D. Edwards and D. G. Jones, Community and Community Development (The Hague: Mouton, 1976).
69. C. P. Loomis, Social Systems (Princeton, N.J.: Van Nostrand, 1960): R. J. Warren, The Community in America (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1978); and A. D. Edwards and D. G. Jones, Community and Community Development (The Hague: Mouton, 1976).
70. Warren (n. 38 above), p. 9.
71. J. L. McKnight, "Regenerating Community," Social Policy (Winter 1987): 54-58, quote on 56.
72. E. O. Moe, "Consulting with a Community System: A Case Study, Journal of Social Issues 15, no. 2 (1959): 28-35.
73. Warren (n. 38 above), pp. 163-64.
74. D. Bartelt, D. Elesh, I. Goldstein, G. Leon, and W. Yancey, "Islands in the Stream: Neighborhoods and the Political Economy of the City," in Neighborhood and Communitys Environment, ed. I. Altman and A. Wandersman, Human Behavior and Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, vol. 9 (New York: Plenum, 1987), pp 163-89, quote on p. 165.
75. A. Downs, Neighborhood and Urban Development (Washington, D.C.: Brookings, 1981).
76. H. Molotch, "The City as a Growth Machine: Toward a Political Economy of Place," American Journal of Sociology 82, no. 2 (1976): 309-32.
77. Network analysis provides methods by which the form, nature, intensity and extent of relationships among individuals and institutions can be formally modeled and quantified. The social network approach focuses on the types of links that define social actors relationships to one another rather than on the individual attributes of these actors (as does survey research) or on presumably bounded groups (as does institutional analysis). The network approach thus "allows us to dispense with the assumption of institutional integration" (J. C. Mitchell, "The Concept and Use of Social Networks," in Social Networks in Urban Situations, ed. J. Clyde Mitchell [Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1969], pp. 1-50, quote on p. 47). This, in Wellman's terms, enables us "to study both ties that do not form discrete groups and networks that are, in fact, sufficiently bounded and densely knit to be termed 'groups'" (B. Wellman "Structural Analysis: From Metaphor to Theory and Substance," in Social Structures: A Network Approach, ed. B. Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], pp. 19-61, quote on p. 37).
78. Network analysis provides methods by which the form, nature, intensity and extent of relationships among individuals and institutions can be formally modeled and quantified. The social network approach focuses on the types of links that define social actors relationships to one another rather than on the individual attributes of these actors (as does survey research) or on presumably bounded groups (as does institutional analysis). The network approach thus "allows us to dispense with the assumption of institutional integration" (J. C. Mitchell, "The Concept and Use of Social Networks," in Social Networks in Urban Situations, ed. J. Clyde Mitchell [Manchester: University of Manchester Press, 1969], pp. 1-50, quote on p. 47). This, in Wellman's terms, enables us "to study both ties that do not form discrete groups and networks that are, in fact, sufficiently bounded and densely knit to be termed 'groups'" (B. Wellman "Structural Analysis: From Metaphor to Theory and Substance," in Social Structures: A Network Approach, ed. B. Wellman and S. D. Berkowitz [Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988], pp. 19-61, quote on p. 37).
79. Wellman, "The Community Question" (n. 8 above), p. 1206.
80. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends (n. 7 above), p. 264.
81. Freudenburg (n. 7 above); and Wellman, "The Community Question" (n 8 above).
82. R. S. Ahlbrandt, Neighborhoods, People and Community (New York' Plenum 1984); Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above); Stack (n. 31 above); D. I. Warren, "The Helping Roles of Neighbors: Some Empirical Patterns," in Urban Neighborhoods: Research and Policy, ed. R. Taylor (New York: Praeger, 1986), pp 310-30; Wellman, "The Community Question" (n. 8 above); and B. Wellman and S. Wortley, "Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 3 (1990): 558-88.
83. R. S. Ahlbrandt, Neighborhoods, People and Community (New York' Plenum 1984); Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above); Stack (n. 31 above); D. I. Warren, "The Helping Roles of Neighbors: Some Empirical Patterns," in Urban Neighborhoods: Research and Policy, ed. R. Taylor (New York: Praeger, 1986), pp 310-30; Wellman, "The Community Question" (n. 8 above); and B. Wellman and S. Wortley, "Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 3 (1990): 558-88.
84. R. S. Ahlbrandt, Neighborhoods, People and Community (New York' Plenum 1984); Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above); Stack (n. 31 above); D. I. Warren, "The Helping Roles of Neighbors: Some Empirical Patterns," in Urban Neighborhoods: Research and Policy, ed. R. Taylor (New York: Praeger, 1986), pp 310-30; Wellman, "The Community Question" (n. 8 above); and B. Wellman and S. Wortley, "Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 3 (1990): 558-88.
85. R. S. Ahlbrandt, Neighborhoods, People and Community (New York' Plenum 1984); Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above); Stack (n. 31 above); D. I. Warren, "The Helping Roles of Neighbors: Some Empirical Patterns," in Urban Neighborhoods: Research and Policy, ed. R. Taylor (New York: Praeger, 1986), pp 310-30; Wellman, "The Community Question" (n. 8 above); and B. Wellman and S. Wortley, "Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 3 (1990): 558-88.
86. R. S. Ahlbrandt, Neighborhoods, People and Community (New York' Plenum 1984); Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above); Stack (n. 31 above); D. I. Warren, "The Helping Roles of Neighbors: Some Empirical Patterns," in Urban Neighborhoods: Research and Policy, ed. R. Taylor (New York: Praeger, 1986), pp 310-30; Wellman, "The Community Question" (n. 8 above); and B. Wellman and S. Wortley, "Different Strokes from Different Folks: Community Ties and Social Support," American Journal of Sociology 96, no. 3 (1990): 558-88.
87. R. J. Sampson, "Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions of Community Social Organization," Social Forces 70 (1991): 43-64; Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" (n. 7 above); and Kasarda and Janowitz (n. 34 above).
88. R. J. Sampson, "Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions of Community Social Organization," Social Forces 70 (1991): 43-64; Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" (n. 7 above); and Kasarda and Janowitz (n. 34 above).
89. Freudenburg (n. 7 above); and Fischer, To Dwell among Friends (n. 7 above).
90. Fischer, To Dwell among Friends (n. 7 above).
91. E. Crenshaw and C. St. John, "The Organizationally Dependent Community: A Comparative Study of Neighborhood Attachment," Urban Affairs Quarterly 24, no. 3 (1989): 412-33.
92. Indeed, Fischer argues that several factors have contributed to a net increase in Americans' commitments to their localities, despite the likely diminution of social ties-although here he includes not just urban dwellers but suburbanites as well. (C. S. Fischer, "Ambivalent Communities: How Americans Understand Their Localities," in America at Century's End, ed. A. Wolfe [Berkeley: University of California Press, 1991], pp. 79-90). In fact, the dispersal of the urban population into low-density suburbs with local governments is one major factor he cites as contributing to the overall increase in commitment. Others include the historical trend toward greater residential stability, the rise of "class-homogeneous neighborhoods," and increasing rates of home ownership.
93. R. P. Taub, Nuance and Meaning in Community Development: Finding Community and Development (New York: New School for Social Research, Community Development Research Center, 1990).
94. R. M. Downs and D. Stea, "Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products," in Image and Environment, ed. R. M. Downs and D. Stea (Chicago: Aldine, 1973), pp. 8-26; and P. Gould and R. White, Mental Maps (Middlesex: Penguin, 1974).
95. R. M. Downs and D. Stea, "Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products," in Image and Environment, ed. R. M. Downs and D. Stea (Chicago: Aldine, 1973), pp. 8-26; and P. Gould and R. White, Mental Maps (Middlesex: Penguin, 1974).
96. K. Lynch, Image of the City (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, Technology Press, 1960).
97. Gould and White (n. 57 above); and Suttles, The Social Construction of Communities (n. 32 above).
98. A. M. Guest and BA. Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods," Population and Environment 7, no. 1 (1984): 32-56; S. H. Haeberle, "People or Place: Variations in Community Leaders' Subjective Definitions of Neighborhood," Urban Affairs Quarterly 23, no. 4 (1988): 616-34; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Common Ground? Urban Neighborhoods as Survey Respondents See Them" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August 1990); and Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above).
99. A. M. Guest and BA. Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods," Population and Environment 7, no. 1 (1984): 32-56; S. H. Haeberle, "People or Place: Variations in Community Leaders' Subjective Definitions of Neighborhood," Urban Affairs Quarterly 23, no. 4 (1988): 616-34; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Common Ground? Urban Neighborhoods as Survey Respondents See Them" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August 1990); and Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above).
100. A. M. Guest and BA. Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods," Population and Environment 7, no. 1 (1984): 32-56; S. H. Haeberle, "People or Place: Variations in Community Leaders' Subjective Definitions of Neighborhood," Urban Affairs Quarterly 23, no. 4 (1988): 616-34; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Common Ground? Urban Neighborhoods as Survey Respondents See Them" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August 1990); and Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above).
101. A. M. Guest and BA. Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods," Population and Environment 7, no. 1 (1984): 32-56; S. H. Haeberle, "People or Place: Variations in Community Leaders' Subjective Definitions of Neighborhood," Urban Affairs Quarterly 23, no. 4 (1988): 616-34; B. A. Lee and K. E. Campbell, "Common Ground? Urban Neighborhoods as Survey Respondents See Them" (paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Sociological Association, Washington, D.C., August 1990); and Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above).
102. T. Lee, "Urban Neighboorhodd as a Socio-Spatial Scheme," Human Relations 21 (1968): 241-67; Guesr and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" (n. 60 above); and Lee and Campbell, "Common Ground?" (n. 60 above).
103. T. Lee, "Urban Neighboorhodd as a Socio-Spatial Scheme," Human Relations 21 (1968): 241-67; Guesr and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" (n. 60 above); and Lee and Campbell, "Common Ground?" (n. 60 above).
104. T. Lee, "Urban Neighboorhodd as a Socio-Spatial Scheme," Human Relations 21 (1968): 241-67; Guesr and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" (n. 60 above); and Lee and Campbell, "Common Ground?" (n. 60 above).
105. Guest and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" (n. 60 above).
106. The respondents in this study were residents of neighborhoods in Nashbille, Tennessee. However, a study of "community of leaders," in this case presidents of neighborhood associations in Birmingham, Alabama, presents somewhat different results. Here, black association presidents were more likely to use physical descriptors than were whites. Gender was an even greater predictor. Women were more likely than men to use "human interactive characteristics" as opposed to physical descriptors (Haeberle [n. 60 above]).
107. Lee and Campbell, "Common Ground?" (n. above), p. 8.
108. Guest and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" (n. 60 above).
109. W. G. Haney and E. C. Knowles, "Perception of Neighborhoods by City and Suburban Residents," Human Ecology 6, no. 2 (1978): 201-14, quote on 207-8. It should be noted that most of the studies examining issues of neighborhood definition and resident mapping focus on a neighborhood or set of neighborhoods in one particular city and therefore call into question our ability to generalize beyond the specific context of each study to urban neighborhoods. Indeed, another study in a diffenrent city found that residents of central neighborhoods were more likely to describe larger areas than were those in peripheral neighborhoods. The difference in the history and physical layout of the cities may provide one explanation for this discrepancy in findings. In addition, resident definitions of neighborhood are highly dependent on methodological issues, such as how the question is asked. Responses concerning the areal size of one's "neighborhood," e.g., had no relation to responses concerning the areal size of the "'part' of the incorporated community" in which a respondent lived (Guest and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" [n. 60 above]). This distinction was not examined in the Haney and Knowles study.
110. W. G. Haney and E. C. Knowles, "Perception of Neighborhoods by City and Suburban Residents," Human Ecology 6, no. 2 (1978): 201-14, quote on 207-8. It should be noted that most of the studies examining issues of neighborhood definition and resident mapping focus on a neighborhood or set of neighborhoods in one particular city and therefore call into question our ability to generalize beyond the specific context of each study to urban neighborhoods. Indeed, another study in a diffenrent city found that residents of central neighborhoods were more likely to describe larger areas than were those in peripheral neighborhoods. The difference in the history and physical layout of the cities may provide one explanation for this discrepancy in findings. In addition, resident definitions of neighborhood are highly dependent on methodological issues, such as how the question is asked. Responses concerning the areal size of one's "neighborhood," e.g., had no relation to responses concerning the areal size of the "'part' of the incorporated community" in which a respondent lived (Guest and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" [n. 60 above]). This distinction was not examined in the Haney and Knowles study.
111. Guest and Lee, "How Urbanites Define Their Neighborhoods" (n. 60 above),
112. Identification by neighborhood or community area and consensus on neighborhood names seem tied to class. Highly educated, higher-income people are much more likely to refer to and agree on community areas and neighborhoods by name than are lower-income people. (A. M. Guest and B. A. Lee, "Consensus on Locality Names within the Metropolis," Sociology and Social Research 67, no. 4 (1983): 375-91; and R. P. Taub, conservation with author, University of Chicago, 1993.
113. Identification by neighborhood or community area and consensus on neighborhood names seem tied to class. Highly educated, higher-income people are much more likely to refer to and agree on community areas and neighborhoods by name than are lower-income people. (A. M. Guest and B. A. Lee, "Consensus on Locality Names within the Metropolis," Sociology and Social Research 67, no. 4 (1983): 375-91; and R. P. Taub, conservation with author, University of Chicago, 1993.
114. Anderson (n. 7 above).
115. F. Ladd, "A Note on 'the World Across the Street,'" Harvard Graduate School of Education Bulletin 12 (1967): 47-48, cited in Gould and White (n. 57 above), pp. 31-34.
116. P. Orleans, "Differential Cognition of Urban Residents: Effects of Social Scale on Mapping," in Downs and Stea, eds. (n. 57 above), pp. 115-30.
117. R. P. Taub, G. P. Surgeon, S. Lindholm, P. B. Otti, and A. Bridges, "Urban Voluntary Association, Locality Based and Externally Induced," American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2 (1977): 425-42; P. Florin and J. Walker, eds., Nurturing the Grass Roots: Neighborhood Volunteer Organizations and America's Cities (New York: Citizens Committee for New York City, 1989); and S. M. Combs, From the Neighborhoods: A Sourcebook in Information and Skills Needed by Community Organizations in Chicago (Chicago: Chicago Catholic Charities, 1984).
118. R. P. Taub, G. P. Surgeon, S. Lindholm, P. B. Otti, and A. Bridges, "Urban Voluntary Association, Locality Based and Externally Induced," American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2 (1977): 425-42; P. Florin and J. Walker, eds., Nurturing the Grass Roots: Neighborhood Volunteer Organizations and America's Cities (New York: Citizens Committee for New York City, 1989); and S. M. Combs, From the Neighborhoods: A Sourcebook in Information and Skills Needed by Community Organizations in Chicago (Chicago: Chicago Catholic Charities, 1984).
119. R. P. Taub, G. P. Surgeon, S. Lindholm, P. B. Otti, and A. Bridges, "Urban Voluntary Association, Locality Based and Externally Induced," American Journal of Sociology 83, no. 2 (1977): 425-42; P. Florin and J. Walker, eds., Nurturing the Grass Roots: Neighborhood Volunteer Organizations and America's Cities (New York: Citizens Committee for New York City, 1989); and S. M. Combs, From the Neighborhoods: A Sourcebook in Information and Skills Needed by Community Organizations in Chicago (Chicago: Chicago Catholic Charities, 1984).
120. G. D. Suttles, The Man-Made City: The Land-Use Confidence Game in Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); and Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above).
121. G. D. Suttles, The Man-Made City: The Land-Use Confidence Game in Chicago (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990); and Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above).
122. Taub et al. (n. 72 above).
123. Taub, Taylor, and Dunham (n. 24 above).
124. Guest and Lee, "Consensus on Locality Names" (n. 68 above).
125. Suttles, The Social Construction of Communities (n. 32 above), p. 45.
126. One example of the community of limited liability is the "community area" defined in Chicago (and analogous constructions in some other American cities), which was delineated in order to "define a set of subareas of the city each of which could be regarded as having a history of its own as a community, a name, an awareness on the part of its inhabitants of common interests, and a set of local businesses and organizations oriented to the local community." Chicago Fact Book Consortium, Local Community Fact Book, Chicago Metropolitan Area, 1990 (Chicago: Chicago Fact Book Consortium, 1995), p. xvii.
127. Suttles, The Social Construction of Communities (n. 32 above).
128. Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above); and Guest and Lee, "Consensus on Locality Names" (n. 68 above).
129. Hunter, Symbolic Communities (n. 36 above); and Guest and Lee, "Consensus on Locality Names" (n. 68 above).
130. P. H. Rossi, "Community Social Indicators," in The Human Meaning of Social Change, ed. A. Campbell and P. E. Converse (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1972).
131. Warren, R. J. (n. 38 above).
132. K. E. Campbell and B. A. Lee, "Sources of Personal Neighbor Networks: Social Integration, Need or Time?" Social Forces 70, no. 4 (1992): 1077-1100; Lee, Campbell, and Miller (n. 31 above); and Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above).
133. K. E. Campbell and B. A. Lee, "Sources of Personal Neighbor Networks: Social Integration, Need or Time?" Social Forces 70, no. 4 (1992): 1077-1100; Lee, Campbell, and Miller (n. 31 above); and Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above).
134. Lee and Campbell, "Neighbor Networks" (n. 31 above).
135. Campbell and Lee (n. 83 above); and Sampson, "Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions" (n. 51 above).
136. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" (n. 7 above), and "Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions" (n. 51 above).
137. Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" (n. 7 above), and "Linking the Micro- and Macrolevel Dimensions" (n. 51 above).
138. C. J. Silverman, "Neighboring and Urbanism: Commonality versus Friendship," Urban Affairs Quarterly 22, no. 2 (1987): 312-28.
139. C. Keane, "Socioenvironmental Determinants of Community Formation," Environment and Behavior 23, no. 1 (1991): 27-46.
140. F. Furstenberg, "How Families Manage Risk and Opportunity in Dangerous Neighborhoods," in Sociology and the Public Agenda, ed. W. J. Wilson (Newbury Park, Calif.: Sage, 1993), pp. 231-58.
141. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above); and Suttles, The Social Construction of Communities (n. 32 above).
142. M. F. Lowenthal and B. Robinson, "Social Networks and Isolation," I. Rosow, "Status and Role Change through the Life Span," and F. M. Carp, "Housing and Living Environments of Older People," all in Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, ed. R. H. Binstock and E. Shanas (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1976), pp 432-56, 457-82, 244-73, respectively.
143. M. F. Lowenthal and B. Robinson, "Social Networks and Isolation," I. Rosow, "Status and Role Change through the Life Span," and F. M. Carp, "Housing and Living Environments of Older People," all in Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, ed. R. H. Binstock and E. Shanas (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1976), pp 432-56, 457-82, 244-73, respectively.
144. M. F. Lowenthal and B. Robinson, "Social Networks and Isolation," I. Rosow, "Status and Role Change through the Life Span," and F. M. Carp, "Housing and Living Environments of Older People," all in Handbook of Aging and the Social Sciences, ed. R. H. Binstock and E. Shanas (New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold, 1976), pp 432-56, 457-82, 244-73, respectively.
145. Keller (n. 3 above), p. 106.
146. Furstenberg (n. 89 above).
147. N. H. Nie, Community Studies of the Neighborhoods of Hegewisch and South Deering (Chicago: SPSS, 1991).
148. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above).
149. A. M. Guest and R. S. Oropesa, "Problem-Solving Strategies of Local Areas in the Metropolis," American Sociological Review 49 (1984): 828-40.
150. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above). Again, although the studies provide guidance as to how neighborhoods are denned, viewed, and used by residents and corporate actors, some caution must be raised with regard to the generalizability of their findings. In addition to the fact that the studies are bound to context, i.e., particular neighborhoods in particular cities, the unit taken as the "neighborhood" in each case varies. In some cases, neighborhood is defined by the respondent, and likely to be affected by the manner in which the question is asked. In others, the neighborhood is defined by the analyst, using various criteria. Examples of neighborhood definition for analytic purposes include the "statistical neighborhood" or census tract (White [14 above]; and C. J. Coulton and S. Pandey, "Geographic Concentration of Poverty and Risk to Children in Urban Neighborhoods," American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 3 [1992]: 238-57); the block (R. B. Taylor, S. D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower, "Block Crime and Fear: Defensible Space, Local Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21, no. 4 [1984]: 303-31); the area within a 15-minute walk from a respondent's home (Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" [n. 7 above]); school catchment areas and zip code areas (C. Jencks and S. Mayer, "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood," in Inner City Poverty in the United States, ed. L. Lynn and M. McGeary [Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990], pp. 111-86); codified composites of resident definitions (R. S. Ahlbrandt, Jr., M. K. Charney, and J. V. Cunningham, "Citizen Perceptions of Their Neighborhoods," Journal of Housing 34, no. 7 [1977]-338-41; and Ahlbrandt [n. 50 above]); and community areas (R. P. Taub, D. G. Taylor, and J. D. Dunham, Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]).
151. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above). Again, although the studies provide guidance as to how neighborhoods are denned, viewed, and used by residents and corporate actors, some caution must be raised with regard to the generalizability of their findings. In addition to the fact that the studies are bound to context, i.e., particular neighborhoods in particular cities, the unit taken as the "neighborhood" in each case varies. In some cases, neighborhood is defined by the respondent, and likely to be affected by the manner in which the question is asked. In others, the neighborhood is defined by the analyst, using various criteria. Examples of neighborhood definition for analytic purposes include the "statistical neighborhood" or census tract (White [14 above]; and C. J. Coulton and S. Pandey, "Geographic Concentration of Poverty and Risk to Children in Urban Neighborhoods," American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 3 [1992]: 238-57); the block (R. B. Taylor, S. D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower, "Block Crime and Fear: Defensible Space, Local Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21, no. 4 [1984]: 303-31); the area within a 15-minute walk from a respondent's home (Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" [n. 7 above]); school catchment areas and zip code areas (C. Jencks and S. Mayer, "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood," in Inner City Poverty in the United States, ed. L. Lynn and M. McGeary [Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990], pp. 111-86); codified composites of resident definitions (R. S. Ahlbrandt, Jr., M. K. Charney, and J. V. Cunningham, "Citizen Perceptions of Their Neighborhoods," Journal of Housing 34, no. 7 [1977]-338-41; and Ahlbrandt [n. 50 above]); and community areas (R. P. Taub, D. G. Taylor, and J. D. Dunham, Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]).
152. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above). Again, although the studies provide guidance as to how neighborhoods are denned, viewed, and used by residents and corporate actors, some caution must be raised with regard to the generalizability of their findings. In addition to the fact that the studies are bound to context, i.e., particular neighborhoods in particular cities, the unit taken as the "neighborhood" in each case varies. In some cases, neighborhood is defined by the respondent, and likely to be affected by the manner in which the question is asked. In others, the neighborhood is defined by the analyst, using various criteria. Examples of neighborhood definition for analytic purposes include the "statistical neighborhood" or census tract (White [14 above]; and C. J. Coulton and S. Pandey, "Geographic Concentration of Poverty and Risk to Children in Urban Neighborhoods," American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 3 [1992]: 238-57); the block (R. B. Taylor, S. D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower, "Block Crime and Fear: Defensible Space, Local Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21, no. 4 [1984]: 303-31); the area within a 15-minute walk from a respondent's home (Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" [n. 7 above]); school catchment areas and zip code areas (C. Jencks and S. Mayer, "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood," in Inner City Poverty in the United States, ed. L. Lynn and M. McGeary [Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990], pp. 111-86); codified composites of resident definitions (R. S. Ahlbrandt, Jr., M. K. Charney, and J. V. Cunningham, "Citizen Perceptions of Their Neighborhoods," Journal of Housing 34, no. 7 [1977]-338-41; and Ahlbrandt [n. 50 above]); and community areas (R. P. Taub, D. G. Taylor, and J. D. Dunham, Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]).
153. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above). Again, although the studies provide guidance as to how neighborhoods are denned, viewed, and used by residents and corporate actors, some caution must be raised with regard to the generalizability of their findings. In addition to the fact that the studies are bound to context, i.e., particular neighborhoods in particular cities, the unit taken as the "neighborhood" in each case varies. In some cases, neighborhood is defined by the respondent, and likely to be affected by the manner in which the question is asked. In others, the neighborhood is defined by the analyst, using various criteria. Examples of neighborhood definition for analytic purposes include the "statistical neighborhood" or census tract (White [14 above]; and C. J. Coulton and S. Pandey, "Geographic Concentration of Poverty and Risk to Children in Urban Neighborhoods," American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 3 [1992]: 238-57); the block (R. B. Taylor, S. D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower, "Block Crime and Fear: Defensible Space, Local Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21, no. 4 [1984]: 303-31); the area within a 15-minute walk from a respondent's home (Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" [n. 7 above]); school catchment areas and zip code areas (C. Jencks and S. Mayer, "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood," in Inner City Poverty in the United States, ed. L. Lynn and M. McGeary [Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990], pp. 111-86); codified composites of resident definitions (R. S. Ahlbrandt, Jr., M. K. Charney, and J. V. Cunningham, "Citizen Perceptions of Their Neighborhoods," Journal of Housing 34, no. 7 [1977]-338-41; and Ahlbrandt [n. 50 above]); and community areas (R. P. Taub, D. G. Taylor, and J. D. Dunham, Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]).
154. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above). Again, although the studies provide guidance as to how neighborhoods are denned, viewed, and used by residents and corporate actors, some caution must be raised with regard to the generalizability of their findings. In addition to the fact that the studies are bound to context, i.e., particular neighborhoods in particular cities, the unit taken as the "neighborhood" in each case varies. In some cases, neighborhood is defined by the respondent, and likely to be affected by the manner in which the question is asked. In others, the neighborhood is defined by the analyst, using various criteria. Examples of neighborhood definition for analytic purposes include the "statistical neighborhood" or census tract (White [14 above]; and C. J. Coulton and S. Pandey, "Geographic Concentration of Poverty and Risk to Children in Urban Neighborhoods," American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 3 [1992]: 238-57); the block (R. B. Taylor, S. D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower, "Block Crime and Fear: Defensible Space, Local Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21, no. 4 [1984]: 303-31); the area within a 15-minute walk from a respondent's home (Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" [n. 7 above]); school catchment areas and zip code areas (C. Jencks and S. Mayer, "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood," in Inner City Poverty in the United States, ed. L. Lynn and M. McGeary [Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990], pp. 111-86); codified composites of resident definitions (R. S. Ahlbrandt, Jr., M. K. Charney, and J. V. Cunningham, "Citizen Perceptions of Their Neighborhoods," Journal of Housing 34, no. 7 [1977]-338-41; and Ahlbrandt [n. 50 above]); and community areas (R. P. Taub, D. G. Taylor, and J. D. Dunham, Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]).
155. Ahlbrandt (n. 50 above). Again, although the studies provide guidance as to how neighborhoods are denned, viewed, and used by residents and corporate actors, some caution must be raised with regard to the generalizability of their findings. In addition to the fact that the studies are bound to context, i.e., particular neighborhoods in particular cities, the unit taken as the "neighborhood" in each case varies. In some cases, neighborhood is defined by the respondent, and likely to be affected by the manner in which the question is asked. In others, the neighborhood is defined by the analyst, using various criteria. Examples of neighborhood definition for analytic purposes include the "statistical neighborhood" or census tract (White [14 above]; and C. J. Coulton and S. Pandey, "Geographic Concentration of Poverty and Risk to Children in Urban Neighborhoods," American Behavioral Scientist 35, no. 3 [1992]: 238-57); the block (R. B. Taylor, S. D. Gottfredson, and S. Brower, "Block Crime and Fear: Defensible Space, Local Social Ties, and Territorial Functioning," Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 21, no. 4 [1984]: 303-31); the area within a 15-minute walk from a respondent's home (Sampson, "Local Friendship Ties" [n. 7 above]); school catchment areas and zip code areas (C. Jencks and S. Mayer, "The Social Consequences of Growing Up in a Poor Neighborhood," in Inner City Poverty in the United States, ed. L. Lynn and M. McGeary [Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1990], pp. 111-86); codified composites of resident definitions (R. S. Ahlbrandt, Jr., M. K. Charney, and J. V. Cunningham, "Citizen Perceptions of Their Neighborhoods," Journal of Housing 34, no. 7 [1977]-338-41; and Ahlbrandt [n. 50 above]); and community areas (R. P. Taub, D. G. Taylor, and J. D. Dunham, Paths of Neighborhood Change: Race and Crime in Urban America [Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1984]).
156. For a more detailed exploration of a heuristic approach to defining neighborhood, see Robert J. Chaskin, "Neighborhood as a Unit of Planning and Action: A Heuristic Approach" (University of Chicago, Chapin Hall Center for Children, Chicago, 1997), which builds on the current review and on the experience of a set of 25 neighborhood-based initiatives funded by private foundations.