See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/266620692

Creating Sense of Community: The role of public space

Article  in  Journal of Environmental Psychology · December 2012

DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002

CITATIONS READS

241 16,086

4 authors, including:

Jacinta Francis Billie Giles-Corti

University of Western Australia University of Melbourne
18 PUBLICATIONS   816 CITATIONS    411 PUBLICATIONS   22,674 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Lisa Jane Wood

University of Western Australia
153 PUBLICATIONS   3,308 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

50 Lives 50 Homes Evaluation View project

Examining Neighbourhood Activities in Built Living Environments in London (ENABLE London) study View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Lisa Jane Wood on 21 November 2017.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jep

Creating sense of community: The role of public space

Jacinta Francis*, Billie Giles-Corti 1, Lisa Wood, Matthew Knuiman
Centre for the Built Environment and Health, School of Population Health, The University of Western Australia, 35 Stirling Hwy, Crawley 6009, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: A strong sense of community has been associated with improved wellbeing, increased feelings of safety
Available online 24 July 2012 and security, participation in community affairs and civic responsibility. Although interest in how the
broader built environment influences sense of community is gaining momentum, there is a dearth of
Keywords: empirical research examining the association between sense of community and the quality of public
Sense of community space. This study investigates the relationship between four public spaces e Public Open Space (POS),
Built environment
community centres, schools and shops e and sense of community in residents of new housing devel-
Public space
opments in the Perth metropolitan area, Western Australia. Data was obtained from a cross-sectional
Public open space
Health
survey (n ¼ 911), a POS audit, and Geographical Information Systems, and analysed using linear
Retail regression. The perceived quality of neighbourhood POS and shops was significantly and positively
associated with sense of community. This relationship appears to be unaffected by how frequently
people use these spaces. High quality public spaces may be important settings for enhancing sense of
community within residents of new housing developments.
Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction literature. Recent years have seen a number of attempts to better

define and interpret these constructs (Bow & Buys, 2003; Lewicka,
Feelings of safety and security, civic participation, voting, recy- 2011; Mannarini, Tartaglia, Fedi, & Greganti, 2006; Pretty et al.,
cling and volunteering (Sense of Community Partners, 2004), and 2003). Sense of community was chosen for this study as a particu-
improved wellbeing (Davidson & Cotter, 1991), have all been larly exhaustive measure of the peopleeplace relationship
associated with a strong sense of community. Sense of community (Mannarini et al., 2006). This reflects a focus on the social bonds
is often defined as “a feeling that members have of belonging, within and between people and place, as well as the physical,
a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and symbolic, political and cultural implications of ‘community’
a shared faith that members’ needs will be met through their (Mannarini et al., 2006).
commitment to be together” (McMillan & Chavis, 1986, p. 9). This In this age of advanced technology and mobility, sense of
emphasis on affiliation and belonging has been used to distinguish community is not limited to a geographical region. However, the
sense of community from other place constructs. For example, close proximity of neighbours provides unique opportunities for
place attachment has been identified with emotional bonding and social interaction and support, such as collecting mail, watching
behavioural commitment, while place dependence has been tied to children in emergencies, or surveillance of people’s homes (Ife,
available activities and quality comparisons with other communi- 1995). Furthermore, resources found within the neighbourhood,
ties (Pretty, Chipuer, & Bramston, 2003). Sense of place has been including neighbours, will always serve a function for less mobile
described as an umbrella term encompassing place attachment, residents such as people working from home, the elderly, parents of
place identity and place dependence (Jorgensen & Stedman, 2001). young children, single car households and the socio-economically
Although there is undoubtedly theoretical and phenomenological disadvantaged (Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley, 1998; Maas, van Dillen,
overlap between the different place constructs, there are varied, Verheij, & Groenewegen, 2009). Ironically, as our awareness of the
and sometimes contradictory, definitions within the published benefits of a strong sense of community grows, there are concerns
that sense of community is declining throughout the Western world
(Bonaiuto, Fornara, & Bonnes, 2003; Scopelliti & Giuliani, 2004). This
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ618 6488 7809; fax: þ618 6488 1188. decline is attributed to a variety of reasons, including smaller family
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Francis), b.giles-corti@ networks, suburbanisation, longer commutes, the prolonged inde-
unimelb.edu.au (B. Giles-Corti), [email protected] (L. Wood),
pendence of an ageing population, and the proliferation of leisure-
[email protected] (M. Knuiman).
1
Present address: McCaughy Centre, School of Population Health, Level 5, 207 time television and social media use (Freeman, 2001; House,
Bouverie Street, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. Landis, & Umberson, 1988; Oldenburg, 1989).

0272-4944/$ e see front matter Ó 2012 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2012.07.002
402 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409

Identifying and creating the conditions that foster and 2006). While he identifies a number of important physical
strengthen sense of community within residential neighbourhoods elements of public space, such as traffic reduction schemes, walking
is an important task for researchers and planners alike. In terms of paths, seating and spatial qualities, he emphasises the importance
the built environment, a stronger sense of community has been of first defining why and how people use public space (Gehl, 2006).
associated with less surface parking, higher levels of commercial Project for Public Spaces (PPS), an American organisation based on
floor space to land area ratios, lower levels of land use mix (Wood, the work of William H. Whyte, describe successful, or high quality,
Frank, & Giles-Corti, 2010), and living in neighbourhoods perceived spaces as those that address issues of accessibility, activity and use,
as safe and interesting (Lund, 2002). Moreover, Mullan (2003) comfort and image, and sociability. That is, they are easy to access
found vehicular traffic and car parking negatively affected and connected to the surrounding community; contain a range of
perceptions of helpfulness and area friendliness and safety. activities for a variety of users; feel safe, clean, and attractive, with
Public spaces, such as parks and piazzas, are another element adequate seating; and most importantly, act as venues for people to
of the built environment that may foster sense of community by interact socially (Project for Public Spaces, 2008). However, while
facilitating chance encounters between neighbours (Talen, 2000). these sources provide valuable insights into the design of vibrant
There are many definitions of public space within the published public spaces, many of their recommendations are based on
literature. ‘True’ public space is recognised as being accessible to personal experiences, case studies, interviews and observations.
all groups, providing freedom of action, temporary claim and Furthermore, data collection methods are not always described,
ownership (Altman & Zube, 1989; Carr, Francis, Rivlin, & Stone, making it difficult to generalise or reproduce findings. Frumkin
1992). In contemporary society however, it is increasingly diffi- (2003) suggests that in order to prompt public health action,
cult to distinguish between public and private space (Voyce, many commonly cited recommendations for successful public
2006). Indeed, many definitions of public space are said to be places need to be supported by rigorous empirical evidence. Simi-
“too narrow to be useful in an era of publiceprivate partnerships” larly, Ewing, Handy, Brownson, Clemente, and Winston (2006)
(Smithsimon, 1999, p. 2). Government-owned lands cannot emphasise the need to test the qualities for active street life that
always be accessed by the public, while privately owned and are often presumed to be important.
controlled land often appears to have public character (Voyce, Few studies have investigated the extent to which the associa-
2006). Thus, locations that constitute public space vary along tion between public space and sense of community is also influ-
a continuum ranging from public to private, and can be cat- enced by the frequency of public space use. Given passive, face-to-
egorised according to concepts of ownership, management and face contact of repeated and increasing length is found to be one
accessibility (Nemeth & Schmidt, 2007). Ray Oldenburg coined component of developing friendships (Halpern, 1995; Kuo, Sullivan,
the term “third places” to describe “a generic designation for Coley, & Brunson, 1998; Leyden, 2003), the frequent use of public
a great variety of public places that host the regular, voluntary, space is a plausible pathway through which public space influences
informal and happily anticipated gatherings of individuals chance encounters. Published studies have tended to examine
beyond the realms of home and work” (Oldenburg, 1989, p. 16). associations between sense of community and features of public
The definition of public space adopted for this study was space such as proximity to the home, accessibility and surrounding
informed by Oldenburg’s description of third places e i.e., the land use diversity (Lund, 2002; Nasar & Julian, 1995; Plas & Lewis,
meeting or gathering places that exist outside the home and 1996; Wilson & Baldassare, 1996; Wood et al., 2010). However,
workplace that are generally accessible by members of the public, the mere existence of public space does not guarantee its use.
and which foster resident interaction and opportunities for Rather, well designed public spaces tend to attract more users and
contact and proximity. The emphasis of this definition is on a greater range of activities than poor quality spaces, which tend to
public access, rather than public ownership or management, be used for “necessary” activities (Gehl, 2006). Although physical
although e as exemplified above e both the uses and users are activity researchers have studied indicators of high quality public
always limited (Smithsimon, 1999). Thus, public space includes space (Giles-Corti et al., 2005; Sugiyama, Francis, Middleton, Owen,
parks, plazas, sidewalks, shopping malls, community centres and & Giles-Corti, 2010), fewer empirical studies have examined the
schoolyards (Altman & Zube, 1989; Carr et al., 1992). In design of public space for social interaction (Frumkin, 2003).
particular, this study focuses on common places of interaction Quality features of the physical environment that have been
within the neighbourhood e parks, shops, community centres theoretically or empirically associated with influencing social
and schoolyards. interaction in public space include the presence of focal points such
While investigations into public places and concepts are the as public art, food outlets, connected pathways and seating
mainstay of environmental psychology, there are few published (Bedimo-Rung, Mowen, & Cohen, 2005; Evans, 2003; Semenza,
articles within the public health literature that refer to ‘public 2003); nature (Coley, Sullivan, & Kuo, 1997; Kuo et al., 1998);
space’ per se and not individual locations such as parks or attractive buildings and landscapes (Butterworth, 2000; Lund,
community centres. Of the four public spaces relevant to this study, 2002; Nasar, 1994); and the absence of incivilities, such as graffiti
parks have been most frequently investigated, although generally and litter (Francis, 1989; Kruger, Reischl, & Gee, 2007; Perkins &
in relation to physical activity rather than social interaction or sense Long, 2002).
of community. In contrast, a number of architects, urban designers, In this paper, we use a socio-ecological framework to explore
and sociologists have long investigated public space attributes that the association between sense of community, the presence of
facilitate social interaction (Carr et al., 1992; Francis, 2003; Gehl, quality public space and frequency of use (Fig. 1). A socio-ecological
2006; Jacobs, 1962; Lynch, 1960; Whyte, 1980). As well as phys- framework recognises that a range of factors can impact health and
ical environmental features, such as seating, food, shelter, people, wellbeing, interacting in complex ways with varying levels of
and activities, urban designers and architects often refer to more causality (Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care,
subjective qualities when describing successful public spaces. For 2000). The framework has been recognised as important in
example, Carr et al. (1992) note that good public space should be health research (Sallis et al., 2006; Stokols, 1996) and in the design
supportive, democratic and meaningful, and address basic human of health promotion and public health interventions and policy
needs, such as comfort, passive and active engagement, and (Green & Kreuter, 1999). This paper therefore recognises the
discovery. Architect Jan Gehl also advocates the importance of multiple levels of influence on health outcomes (i.e. individual,
designing public spaces for people and social interaction (Gehl, social, physical and socio-cultural environments) (Stokols, 1996).
 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409 403

Policy Factors

Physical Environmental Factors

Use of Public
Space Factors Sense of Community

Individual Factors

Social Factors

Fig. 1. Conceptual model of relationship between public space and sense of community.

2. Methods McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986). The Index is specifically designed

to measure sense of community within neighbourhoods, and is the
2.1. Study context most widely used measure of the concept (Pooley, Cohen, & Pike,
2005). The Internal Consistency Reliability of the SCI is high, with
This was a cross-sectional sub-study of the RESIDential Envi- studies reporting a Cronbach’s alpha coefficient of 0.80 (Perkins,
ronments (RESIDE) Project, a longitudinal study evaluating the Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990). Participants respon-
impact of a State-government sub-division code in Perth, Western ded true or false to 12 statements concerning their neighbourhood
Australia (Giles-Corti et al., 2007). All Perth residents building homes before responses were summed to provide an overall score ranging
in new housing developments between July 2003 and December between 0 and 12. The distribution of the data was assessed, with
2005 were invited to participate. Eligible participants were profi- low (score 0e6), medium (score 7e9) and high (score 10e12)
cient in English; aged 18 years or over; planning to move into their categories assigned to ensure a sufficient number of respondents
new home by December 2005; and willing to complete a survey and in each category.
wear a pedometer for seven days on three occasions over four years.
Study participants completed self-administered surveys before 2.2.1.2. Independent self-reported variables. The four public spaces
moving into their new home (T1; n ¼ 1813), and at 12 (T2; n ¼ 1379) chosen for this study were based on the results of formative focus
and 36 months (T3; n ¼ 1230) later. The sense of community sample groups, in which participants identified POS, shops, community
comprised 911 respondents who completed the T3 survey centres and schools as the most common sites for social interac-
between October 2006 and June 2008. The study was approved by tion within the neighbourhood. Of the independent self-reported
The University of Western Australia’s Human Research Ethics variables, physical environmental variables included subjective
Committee. A more detailed description of recruitment procedures proximity and quality of the four public spaces. Subjective quality
and methodology can be found elsewhere (Giles-Corti et al., 2008). was measured by asking participants the extent to which they
agreed or disagreed with statements about their local POS, shop,
2.2. Data collection community centre and school. Statements addressed the atmo-
sphere, comfort, safety, attractiveness and maintenance, the
A mixed-method approach was adopted, with data sources variety of things to do, and the presence of adequate seating,
including a cross-sectional survey, a Public Open Space (POS) audit public art and other people (including those known to the
and Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data. These instruments participant). After factor analysis, these items were summed to
and data sources were informed by a comprehensive literature create an overall score, which was dichotomised into low and high
review, the opinions of an expert panel and focus groups with quality.
residents of RESIDE neighbourhoods. The expert panel comprised Social environmental variables included whether participants
community developers, an urban geographer, a community agreed there was a high level of crime in the neighbourhood, and
psychologist, an environmental psychologist, a property developer, participation in neighbourhood groups or activities during the last
a local government representatives and academics. 12 months (i.e. school or work, service, art or cultural, sport or
recreation and neighbouring).
2.2.1. Survey instrument Public space ‘use’ variables included frequency of public space
A detailed description of all variables, including copies of the use and mode of POS use. The frequency with which participants
survey instrument, can be found elsewhere (Francis, 2010). The used public space was measured by asking participants how often
survey instrument sought information about participants’ they used these spaces, with ‘frequent’ use defined as at least once
psychosocial environment and use of public space, as well as a week, and ‘infrequent’ as less than once a week. ‘Mode of POS use’
neighbourhood and POS attributes. was measured by asking participants if they used POS to undertake
14 activities. Factor analysis reduced the activities to five under-
2.2.1.1. Dependent variable. Sense of community was measured lying dimensions (i.e., ‘watch or play sport’, ‘attend an event’, ‘walk
using the 12 item Sense of Community Index (SCI) (Chavis, Hogge, or jog’, ‘relax’ and ‘other activities’).
404 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409

Demographic variables included gender, age, marital status, Table 1

children less than 18 years at home, education, work status, Associations between demographic factors and sense of community (n ¼ 911).

number of hours worked and area-level socio-economic status. Characteristic % Mean (SD) Single factor model
Socio-Economic Status (SES) was measured using education as p-valuea
a proxy for individual SES and the 2006 Australian Bureau of
Gender
Statistics’ Socioeconomic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) score (ABS, Male 37.5 8.57 (2.48) 0.80
2008a) as area-level SES. SEIFA scores were based on the Female 62.5 8.61 (2.45)
combined Index of Relative Socio-economic Advantage and Disad- Age
20e39 years 41.6 8.50 (2.54) 0.63
vantage (ABS, 2008b).
40e59 years 44.7 8.66 (2.37) 0.37
60e79 years 13.7 8.66 (2.48) 0.52
2.2.1.3. Independent objective variables. Geographic Information Married or De-facto
Systems (GIS) were used to obtain POS size, the number of public Yes 86.2 8.69 (2.42) 0.00
spaces within a study participant’s neighbourhood, and the No 13.8 7.97 (2.60)
Children <18 yrs at home
network distances (i.e., the road or pedestrian networks) between
Yes 52.3 8.93 (2.39) 0.00
participants’ homes and their closest public space. ‘Neighbourhood’ No 47.7 8.23 (2.48)
was defined as a 10e15 min walk from the participants’ home. For Education
objective environmental data, a 1600 m road network buffer was Secondary or less 37.2 8.69 (2.36) 0.11
used to capture the neighbourhood within a 10e15 min walk Trade/Apprentice/Certificate 38.3 8.69 (2.62) 0.99
Bachelor or higher 24.5 8.30 (2.33) 0.06
(Giles-Corti et al., 2008). Work status
The objective quality of public space measure was based on an Work 78.2 8.46 (2.46) 0.00
audit of approximately 1900 public open spaces (i.e., parks, recre- No work 2.6 8.13 (2.66) 0.51
ational grounds, sports fields, commons, esplanades and bushland) Home duties 11.4 9.48 (2.15) 0.00
Retired 7.8 8.83 (2.54) 0.22
within the Perth and Peel metropolitan areas between November
No. of hours worked
2005 and February 2006. All POS  two acres, and within 1600 m of Half time or less 12.4 8.26 (2.35) 0.00
participants’ homes, were audited by trained assessors using an > Half time to 38 h/week 26.2 8.74 (2.38) 0.08
adapted version of the Public Open Space Tool (POST) (Broomhall, >38 to <60 h/week 35.1 8.42 (2.54) 0.54
1996; Giles-Corti et al., 2005). The quality of POS measure was 60þ hours/week 4.4 7.65 (2.39) 0.18
Not in workforce 21.8 9.08 (2.39) 0.00
computed as a weighted mean score of ten POS attributes, Suburb SES (SEIFA)
including walking paths, shade, water features, irrigated lawn, Lowest 21.2 8.65 (2.49) 0.85
birdlife, lighting, sporting facilities, playgrounds, type of Low 27.6 8.51 (2.45) 0.53
surrounding roads, and presence of nearby water (Broomhall, 1996; Middle 20.6 8.56 (2.46) 0.72
High 11.3 8.48 (2.47) 0.58
Giles-Corti et al., 2005). These attributes and their weights were
Highest 19.3 8.75 (2.43) 0.70
based on the opinions of an expert panel. A detailed description is
a
Overall p-values are italicised. p-values are bolded if p  0.10.
reported elsewhere (Broomhall, 1996). In addition to the quality
score, an incivilities score was created reflecting the presence of
litter, graffiti and vandalism within POS, while an amenities score
adjusted for the selected social environmental variables (Model 2),
reflected the presence of amenities conducive to social interaction,
while the third model further adjusted for the selected use of public
such as barbecues, seating, picnic tables, rubbish bins, club rooms,
space variables (Model 3).
toilets and public art.

2.3. Analyses 3. Results

Data analyses were undertaken using SPSS Version 15. General The mean sense of community score for the sample of 911
Linear Models were used to examine the demographic, social participants was 8.59 (SD 2.46). Of the eight demographic factors
environmental, use of public space and physical environmental examined, univariate analyses indicated that mean sense of
factors relating to sense of community. The impact of participants community was higher in participants who were married or de-
clustering within residential developments was assessed using facto, had children less than 18 years at home, were employed in
Generalised Estimating Equations (GEE) estimation, and subse- home duties and were not in the workforce (Table 1). Although
quently deemed unnecessary. there is suggestion of higher mean sense of community in people
Demographic factors were individually assessed in univariate with a Bachelor degree or higher (p ¼ 0.063), the overall p-value for
models (Table 1). All other variables were initially individually education was not significant (p ¼ 0.114). While the multivariate
assessed after adjustment for potential confounding by all demo- models forced the inclusion of the eight demographic factors, none
graphic variables. All physical environmental variables with p  0.1 remained significantly associated with sense of community in the
in the single factor models were then entered into a multivariate multivariate models.
model that also included forced entry of demographic variables. A Of the seven physical environmental factors included in the
backwards stepwise elimination procedure (p  0.05) was used to univariate models, sense of community was significantly associated
remove the redundant variables, thereby identifying the significant with subjective distance to closest park and school (negative
and independent correlates of sense of community. This strategy associations), and with subjective quality of parks, community
was repeated for the remaining blocks of variables (i.e., social centres shops and schools (positive associations). As shown in
environmental and use of public space). Table 2 (Model 1), these remained significant in the multivariate
Finally, a series of multivariate models were fitted to examine model resulting from the variable reduction strategy (and having
the relationship between sense of community and the selected adjusted for demographics). Mean sense of community was higher
physical environmental factors. The first of these models included in those who lived less than 5 min from their park (p ¼ 0.22) and
all physical environmental factors after adjustment for demo- who reported high rather than low quality of public space
graphic variables only (Model 1). The second model further (p < 0.001). However, only subjective distance to closest POS, and
 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409 405

Table 2
Final models of the association between physical environmental factors and sense of community (n ¼ 911).a

Characteristic % Model 1b Model 2c Model 3d

b pe
b pe
b pe
Subjective distance to closest POS
<5 min 68.8 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.06
5e15 min 26.1 0.47 0.00 0.43 0.01 0.40 0.02
>15 min/don’t know 5.0 0.43 0.25 0.16 0.66 0.20 0.57
Subjective quality of public space
POS
Low 53.3 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01
High 46.7 0.91 0.55 0.44
Community centres
Low 71.1 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.26 0.00 0.55
High 28.9 0.41 0.19 0.10
Shops
Low 53.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
High 47.0 0.97 0.80 0.72
Schools
Low 57.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.33 0.00 0.60
High 42.6 0.66 0.23 0.13
Incivilities in highest quality POS
0e1 28.9 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.13
2e3 71.1 0.40 0.24 0.26
Distance to closest school
84e799 m 44.5 0.00 0.03 0.00 0.09 0.00 0.12
800e1599 m 35.8 0.43 0.01 0.31 0.06 0.29 0.08
1600þ m 19.8 0.02 0.94 0.07 0.74 0.11 0.69
Social factors
High level of neighbourhood crime
Disagree 71.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00
Neutral 25.4 1.01 0.00 1.00 0.00
Agree 3.2 1.58 0.00 1.56 0.00
Neighbourhood groups or activities involved in during last 12 months
School or work activities
0 73.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.05
1þ 27.0 0.64 0.45
Service activities
0 74.0 0.00 0.047 0.00 0.156
1 16.5 0.36 0.092 0.25 0.241
2þ 9.5 0.66 0.026 0.54 0.069
Art or cultural activities
0 70.4 0.00 0.081 0.00 0.254
1 20.5 0.43 0.025 0.32 0.107
2þ 9.1 0.15 0.590 0.03 0.928
Neighbouring activities
0 68.7 0.00 0.000 0.00 0.000
1 21.0 0.40 0.035 0.37 0.048
2þ 10.3 1.10 0.000 1.08 0.000
Use of public space factors
Frequency use public space
Shops
Infrequent 25.7 0.00 0.117
Frequent 74.3 0.29
Child’s school
Infrequent 73.9 0.00 0.186
Frequent 26.1 0.32
Usually use POS to:
Undertake activities
No 53.4 0.00 0.628
Yes 46.6 0.09
Watch or play sport
No 67.4 0.00 0.484
Yes 32.6 0.12
Attend an event
No 60.9 0.00 0.162
Yes 39.1 0.25
Relax
No 70.0 0.00 0.039
Yes 30.0 0.35
a
Table only displays variables that were significantly associated with sense of community in the multivariate models.
b
Model 1: Adjusts for physical and demographic variables.
c
Model 2: Adjusts for physical, demographic, and social variables.
d
Model 3: Adjusts for physical, demographic, social and use of POS variables.
e
Overall p-values are italicised. p-values are bolded if p  0.05.
406 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409

the subjective quality of a local POS and shop, remained signifi- 4.1.1. Shops
cantly associated with sense of community in multivariate Model 2 Shop quality e a measure that incorporates both the presence
(Table 2). The relationship between sense of community and and quality of local shops e was positively associated with sense
subjective POS and shop quality attenuated in Model 3, but of community, supporting the notion that shops are important
remained highly significant (p < 0.01 and p < 0.001 respectively). meeting and gathering places within the neighbourhood,
Participants who claimed to live 5e15 min from POS reported providing opportunities for proximity to others, passive social
weaker sense of community than those living closer to POS, even contact, and casual interactions (Coley et al., 1997; Lund, 2003).
after adjustment for POS use (p ¼ 0.02). Nevertheless, this rela- Other studies have also linked the presence of neighbourhood
tionship attenuated in Model 3 suggesting the relationship shops to a greater sense of community (Lund, 2002; Plas & Lewis,
between POS proximity and sense of community is partly explained 1996) and casual interactions and territoriality among neighbours
by the fact POS is used for a variety of purposes involving social (Coley et al., 1997). As Joung and Miller (2002, p. 78) state,
interactions. “shopping centres often provide places where people meet
The objective measure of POS was not significantly associated friends, pass time, watch people and engage in other aspects of
with sense of community at any stage of the analysis. Subjective social exchange”.
and objective measures of POS quality were significantly, but only While this study found a strong association between shop
modestly, correlated (R ¼ 0.12; p < 0.001). quality and sense of community, further studies are needed to
Of the six social environmental factors that emerged as signifi- explore the full range of features that contribute to high quality
cant in the univariate analysis, all but involvement in sport or shopping environments. For example, there have been calls for
recreation activities remained significant in the multivariate measures of shop quality to include ratings of security, attractive-
models arising from the backward elimination process. Only ness of décor, courtesy of personnel, variety of services, merchan-
perceived neighbourhood crime and involvement in school or work dise quality, atmosphere and shop cleanliness (Bellenger,
and neighbouring activities remained significantly associated with Robertson, & Greenberg, 1977). Additional aspects of quality
sense of community in Model 3, with mean sense of community thought to encourage social interaction in public spaces include the
scores higher in participants’ who disagreed that there was a high presence of shaded plazas with benches positioned for conversa-
level of crime in the neighbourhood and who were involved in one tion, connected pedestrian pathways and meeting areas, and focal
or more activities (Table 2). points such as neutral territory, visual prospect (i.e., observing
All nine POS use variables appeared significantly associated with a space prior to committing to it), and activity generators (e.g., food)
sense of community in the univariate analyses, although frequent (Carr et al., 1992; Coley et al., 1997; Evans, 2003; Whyte, 1980).
use of parks, frequent use of community centres, and usually using Indeed, features of the built environment that contribute to
parks to walk or jog were removed in the backward elimination ‘atmosphere’ are potentially more appealing to customers of
process. Using POS to relax was the only activity to remain signif- grocery stores than the products available, with focus group
icantly associated with sense of community in Model 3, with participants describing their ideal store as a relaxing environment
participants who usually used POS to relax demonstrating a slightly that was spacious, bright, and green, with a nice atmosphere and
higher mean score (p < 0.05). Frequent use of POS was not signif- appropriate music (Geuens, Brengman, & S’Jegers, 2003). As retail
icantly associated with sense of community in the multivariate environments have often been associated with stressful experi-
models, suggesting that it did not influence the relationship ences full of distracting stimuli (Fram, 1994), Joye, Willems,
between POS quality and sense of community. It was not included Brengman, and Wolf (2010) argue that introducing greenery into
in the final models (Table 2). the retail environment may have a restorative effect on shoppers
(Joye et al., 2010). This follows research suggesting that exposure to
natural environments can assist people in recovering from stress
4. Discussion
and mental fatigue (Kaplan, 1995; Ulrich et al., 1991). Furthermore,
greenery within shopping centres has the potential to influence
This paper used a social-ecological framework to explore the
a number of outcomes related to sense of community, such as
potential correlates of sense of community in RESIDE study
increased helpfulness and friendliness towards customers (Joye
participants, emphasising the quality and attributes of public
et al., 2010), and has been associated with increased interaction
space. In particular, sense of community was significantly asso-
amongst people in the shopping centre (Buber, Ruso, Gadner,
ciated with the subjective quality of local shops and POS, as well
Atzwanger, & Gruber, 2007).
as perceived distance to POS, after adjusting for a range of
The impact of greenery and shop quality on sense of community
demographic, use of public space and social environmental
may also be influenced by the purpose of a shop visit, with shop
factors.
décor shown to have a greater impact on psychosocial outcomes for
people visiting shops for social or recreational purposes, rather
4.1. Correlates of sense of community than necessary or utilitarian shopping trips (Bellenger &
Korgaonkar, 1980; Pan & Zinkhan, 2006). Conversely, Joye et al.
The results support the study’s premise that public space quality (2010) suggest that the potentially restorative impact of plants in
is an equally, if not more important, correlate of sense of commu- retail environments is greater for people undertaking utilitarian
nity than public space size and number. Zhang and Lawson (2009) shopping trips, as their need for restoration may be greater than
also found the size and number of public spaces outside residential those people shopping for more enjoyable social or recreational
buildings were not significantly associated with social interaction, purposes (Joye et al., 2010).
concluding that the key to social interaction in public spaces was The study setting of new residential developments may also
the quality of the public space provided (Zhang & Lawson, 2009). explain the positive association found between shop quality and
The fact that only physical environmental variables relating to psychosocial outcomes. As new developments often lack a range of
shops and POS were significantly associated with sense of commercial options, and sense of community has been associated
community in this study may suggest these public spaces were with smaller population size (Wilson & Baldassare, 1996), it is
more relevant to participants’ life-stage than community centres or plausible that residents could form stronger attachments to exist-
schools. ing venues and proprietors.
 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409 407

4.1.2. Public open space 4.2. Pathways between environmental correlates and sense of
As with shops, the positive association between POS quality and community
sense of community is supported by published literature stating
that the presence of green space within the neighbourhood has This study showed that the frequency with which people use POS
been associated with a number of positive psychosocial outcomes, and shops only explained a small portion of the relationship between
including sense of community (Kearney, 2006; Kweon et al., 1998; POS or shop quality and sense of community. As direct associations
Lund, 2003; Mesch & Manor, 1998; Nasar & Julian, 1995; between POS or shop quality and sense of community were observed,
Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997; Sugiyama, Leslie, Giles-Corti, & Owen, this study may indicate that as long as people visit public space, the
2008). For example, Nasar and Julian (1995) found easy access to frequency with which they do so does not influence their sense of
common outdoor green space increased sense of community, while community. By contrast, Kuo et al. (1998) found that the relationship
Kim and Kaplan’s (2004) comparison of new urbanist and tradi- between green space and social ties was mediated by the use of
tional developments attributed a greater sense of community in common space in an inner-city housing development. Using the
new urbanist communities to more natural features and shared same study setting, Kweon et al. (1998) found that use of the space
spaces. Kuo et al. (1998) also found that residents living near high- predicted the strength of neighbourhood social ties and sense of
nature rather than low-nature areas were more socially active, community in older adults. A direct relationship has also been found
knew more neighbours, felt neighbours were more helpful and between sense of community and residents’ use of natural and semi-
supportive, and had a greater sense of belonging. More specifically, developed areas, such as playgrounds and ball fields (Kearney, 2006).
sense of community has been directly related to views of land- However, as views of nature from the home also predicted sense of
scaping and trails or pathways within natural areas, as well as the community, Kearney concluded that people may benefit from shared
availability of both less developed nature areas (e.g., nature nature spaces without physically using them. Other studies found
preserves and lakes) and areas containing amenities (e.g., play- significant associations between green space and supportive inter-
grounds and ball fields) (Kearney, 2006). actions were less to do with actual contacts with neighbours than
As with shop quality, POS quality may be more important for green space’s ability to strengthen sense of community via place
those people undertaking personal recreational activities, rather attachment and identity within its residents (Kweon et al., 1998;
than obligatory activities (e.g., exercising a dog) within the POS. Maas et al., 2009). To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first study to
Lund (2002) found that in the general neighbourhood, sense of investigate the role of frequent shop visits in the relationship
community was positively correlated with strolling trips, and between shop quality and sense of community.
negatively correlated with destination trips.
The modest, but positive, correlation between the subjective 4.3. Study limitations
and objective measures of POS quality in this study suggests the
two items were measuring correlated, but different aspects of POS As a cross-sectional study, one cannot determine whether high
quality. It may be that emotive, subjective qualities such as quality public space strengthens sense of community, or if people
perceived friendliness and safety have a stronger association with with a stronger sense of community rate quality higher. People who
sense of community than objective attributes, such as water spend more time in public spaces may also view them more
features, birdlife and reticulation. favourably. Indeed, people with larger social networks have been
said to visit shops more frequently as a result of their numerous
4.1.3. Other sense of community correlates social engagements, emphasis on personal appearance, and
This study’s finding of an association between perceived level of subsequent desire to purchase new clothes and beauty products
neighbourhood crime and sense of community reflects other (Crask & Reynolds, 1978; Hyun-Mee & Miller, 2002; Lumpkin, 1985).
research linking high crime or fear of crime with a lack of neigh- Longitudinal studies are also needed to clarify whether more
bourhood cohesion (Conklin, 1971; Rohe & Burby, 1988) and less affluent study participants have greater control over where they
neighbourhood attachment (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003). Ross live. As more advantaged socio-economic suburbs have been
and Jang (2000) also report that social ties with neighbours buffer shown to contain higher quality parks (Crawford et al., 2008), all
the effects of neighbourhood disorder on fear and mistrust. Thus, analyses within this study adjusted for individual and area-level
while perceptions of crime may influence sense of community, it socio-economic status.
may also be that people with weaker sense of community perceive This study has focused on subjective measures of public space
more crime in the neighbourhood. quality, although an objective measure of POS quality was also
Similarly, the finding that involvement in more neighbouring included. Given the limitations of self-administered surveys, such
activities (comprised of Residents’ Associations, street parties, as the potential for recall bias, future studies would benefit from
community action groups, welcome evenings and mothers’ objective measures of other public spaces, such as community
groups) and school or work activities was significantly and posi- centres, shops and schools (Schwarz, 1999). In addition to the
tively associated with sense of community reflects research presence of various public space features, new measures of quality
indicating leisure activities are highly social in nature and facili- should also consider the condition of these features (Bedimo-Rung
tate the expansion of social networks and the development of et al., 2005). Objective measures of public space quality can also
friendships (Coleman & Iso-Ahola, 1993). Involvement in the help to tease out those tacit features of public space that users
neighbourhood, such as in neighbourhood organisations, may also appreciate, but are not necessarily aware of. For example, Carmona,
contribute to a greater sense of community (Chavis & Heath, Oc, and Tiesdell (2010) note that an important aspect of
Wandersman, 1990; Kingston, Mitchell, Florin, & Stevenson, public space quality is visual and physical permeability e that is,
1999). Indeed, local social involvement, particularly with friends the ability to both move through an environment and see the routes
and family, has been described as “the most consistent and available to them (Carmona et al., 2010). Studies into the configu-
significant source of attachment to place” (Mesch & Manor, 1998, ration of space, i.e. space syntax, may also assist in this regard
p. 507). Alternatively, it may be that having a larger network, (Hillier, 1996; Hillier, Penn, Hanson, Gajewski, & Xu, 1993).
and stronger sense of community increases ones likelihood The value that different ethnic cultures place on public space
of becoming involved in neighbouring activities (Warde, and sense of community also warrants further investigation. While
Tampubolon, & Savage, 2005). home ownership, length of residence and ethnicity were
408 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409

potentially confounding variables of the association between Bellenger, D. N., Robertson, D. H., & Greenberg, B. A. (1977). Shopping center
patronage motives. Journal of Retailing, 53, 29e38.
physical environmental variables and sense of community, these
Bonaiuto, M., Fornara, F., & Bonnes, M. (2003). Indexes of perceived residential
variables could not be included in the analyses as study participants environment quality and neighbourhood attachment in urban environments: A
were all home owners, had been living in their homes for confirmation study on the city of Rome. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 41e52.
approximately the same amount of time, and the large majority Bow, V., & Buys, L. (2003). Sense of community and place attachment: The natural
environment plays a vital role in developing a sense of community. In Social
(87%) were born in English-speaking countries. change in the 21st century conference. Centre for Social Change Research,
As previously noted, while there have been a number of attempts Queensland University of Technology.
to distinguish between the many place concepts found within the Brodsky, A. E. (1996). Resilient single mothers in risky neighborhoods: Negative
psychological sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 347e363.
social research literature (Bow & Buys, 2003; Lewicka, 2011; Pretty Brodsky, A. E., O’Campo, P. J., & Aronson, R. E. (1999). PSOC in community context:
et al., 2003), definitions and measures of these concepts are yet to Multi-level correlates of a measure of psychological sense of community in low-
be standardised. Collaborations between researchers and practi- income, urban neighborhoods. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 659e679.
Broomhall, M. (1996). Study of the availability and environmental quality of urban
tioners working in the fields of community psychology, environ- open space used for physical activity. Unpublished Masters dissertation thesis.
mental psychology, planning and public health may help clarify Perth: The University of Western Australia.
these concepts and prevent the duplication of research. Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizing
neighborhood: Individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of Environmental
There is debate amongst researchers as to whether sense of Psychology, 23, 259e271.
community is best measured as a community or individual-level Buber, R., Ruso, B., Gadner, J., Atzwanger, K., & Gruber, S. (2007). Evolutionary store
attribute (Chavis & Pretty, 1999). Typically it is measured at the design. How water, plants, animals and sight protection affect consumer
behaviour. In Proceedings of the 2007 ANZMAC conference. Dunedin, New Zea-
individual level and interpreted accordingly (Brodsky, O’Campo, &
land: University of Otago.
Aronson, 1999; Townley & Kloos, 2009). This has been the Butterworth, I. (2000). The relationship between the built environment and wellbeing:
approach adopted in this study. However, researchers have also A literature review. Melbourne: Victorian Health Promotion Foundation.
argued that sense of community should be viewed as an ecological Carmona, M., Heath, T., Oc, T., & Tiesdell, S. (2010). Public places urban spaces: The
dimensions of urban design. Burlington: Elsevier.
attribute and, as such, measured as an aggregated, community- Carr, S., Francis, M., Rivlin, L. G., & Stone, A. M. (1992). Public space. Cambridge:
level characteristic (Hill, 1996; Lochner, Kawachi, & Kennedy, Cambridge University Press.
1999). Using multi-level statistical techniques to investigate the Caughy, M., O’Campo, P. J., & Muntaner, C. (2003). When being alone might be
better: Neighbourhood poverty, social capital, and child mental health. Social
association between public space and sense of community at the Science & Medicine, 57, 227e237.
community level may therefore be warranted. Researchers should Chavis, D. M., Hogge, J. H., McMillan, D. W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of
also recognise, however, that the most valid ways of measuring community through Brunswik lens: A first look. Journal of Community
Psychology, 14, 24e40.
collective attributes are yet to be determined (Lochner et al., 1999). Chavis, D. M., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1999). Sense of community: Advances in
This study has intentionally focused on the positive aspects of measurement and application. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 635e642.
sense of community. However, concepts such as sense of Chavis, D. M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban envi-
ronment: A catalyst for participation and community development. American
community can also be detrimental to physiological and psycho- Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 55e81.
logical health, particularly in lower socio-economic areas (Brodsky, Coleman, D., & Iso-Ahola, S. (1993). Leisure and health: The role of social support
1996; Caughy, O’Campo, & Muntaner, 2003; Ellis, 2006; House, and self-determination. Journal of Leisure Research, 25, 111e128.
Coley, R. L., Sullivan, W. C., & Kuo, F. E. (1997). Where does community grow? The
2001; Kawachi & Berkman, 2001). This is not to say that
social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and
attempts to improve social outcomes in disadvantaged areas are Behavior, 29, 468e494.
unwarranted e high quality green spaces have been associated Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care. (2000). Promotion, prevention
with fewer crimes, intra-family aggression and violence (Kuo & and early detection for mental health e A monograph. Canberra: Mental Health
Branch, Commonwealth Department of Health and Aged Care.
Sullivan, 2001a, 2001b). Rather, more research is needed into Conklin, J. E. (1971). Dimensions of community response to crime problem. Social
ways of creating community ties while minimising potentially Problems, 18, 373.
negative consequences. Crask, M. R., & Reynolds, F. D. (1978). An indepth profile of the department store
shopper. Journal of Retailing, 54, 23.
Crawford, D., Timperio, A., Giles-Corti, B., Ball, K., Hume, C., Roberts, R., et al. (2008).
5. Conclusion Do features of public open spaces vary according to neighbourhood socio-
economic status? Health & Place, 14, 889e893.
Davidson, W. B., & Cotter, P. R. (1991). The relationship between sense of commu-
Perceived quality of POS and shops appears to be strongly nity and subjective well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19,
associated with sense of community. The presence of high quality 246e253.
Ellis, J. A. (2006). Social ties and health. American Journal of Health, 96, 1341.
public spaces in local neighbourhoods e irrespective of whether Evans, G. W. (2003). The built environment and mental health. Journal of Urban
used frequently or not e may be important for enhancing sense of Health, 80, 536e555.
community amongst residents. Nevertheless, further research is Ewing, R., Handy, S., Brownson, R. C., Clemente, O., & Winston, E. (2006). Identifying
and measuring urban design qualities related to walkability. Journal of Physical
needed to explore causation. The benefits of a strong sense of Activity and Health, 3, S223eS240.
community are numerous, and potentially include increased Fram, E. H. A. R. (1994). Globalization of markets and shopping stress: Cross-
participation in community affairs and better physical and mental country comparisons. Business Horizons, 37, 17.
Francis, M. (1989). Control as a dimension of public-space quality. In I. Altman, &
health. Policies that support high quality public spaces are E. H. Zube (Eds.), Public places and spaces. Human behavior and environment:
warranted. Advances in theory and research, Vol. 10 (pp. 147e172). New York: Plenum Press.
Francis, M. (2003). Urban open space: Designing for user needs. Washington, D.C.:
Island Press: Landscape Architecture Foundation.
References Francis, J. (2010). Associations between public space and mental health in new resi-
dential developments. Perth: The University of Western Australia.
ABS. (2008a). Census of population and housing: Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas Freeman, L. (2001). The effects of sprawl on neighborhood social ties. Journal of the
(SEIFA), Australia e Data only, 2006. Canberra: Australian Bureau of Statistics. American Planning Association, 67, 69e77.
ABS. (2008b). Socio-Economic Indexes for Areas (SEIFA) e A technical paper 2006 Frumkin, H. (2003). Healthy places: Exploring the evidence. American Journal of
(2033.0.55.001). Public Health, 93, 1451e1456.
Altman, I., & Zube, E. (1989). Public places and spaces, Vol. 10. New York: Plenum Gehl, J. (2006). Life between buildings: Using public space. Skive: The Danish Archi-
Press. tectural Press.
Bedimo-Rung, A. L., Mowen, A. J., & Cohen, D. A. (2005). The significance of parks to Geuens, M., Brengman, M., & S’Jegers, R. (2003). Food retailing, now and in the future.
physical activity and public health. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, a consumer perspective. Journal of Retailing and Consumer Services, 10, 241e251.
159e168. Giles-Corti, B., Broomhall, M. H., Knuiman, M., Collins, C., Douglas, K., Ng, K., et al.
Bellenger, D. N., & Korgaonkar, P. K. (1980). Profiling the recreational shopper. (2005). Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness and
Journal of Retailing, 56, 77e92. size of public open space? American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28, 169e176.
 J. Francis et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 32 (2012) 401e409 409

Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., Pikora, T. J., Van Neil, K., Timperio, A., Bull, F. C. L., et al. Mullan, E. (2003). Do you think that your local area is a good place for young people
(2007). Can the impact on health of a government policy designed to create to grow up? The effects of traffic and car parking on young people’s views.
more liveable neighbourhoods be evaluated? An overview of the RESIDential Health & Place, 9, 351e360.
environment project. New South Wales Public Health Bulletin, 18, 238e242. Nasar, J. L. (1994). Urban design aesthetics: The evaluative qualities of building
Giles-Corti, B., Knuiman, M., Timperio, A., Van Niel, K., Pikora, T. J., Bull, F. C. L., et al. exteriors. Environment and Behavior, 26, 377e401.
(2008). Evaluation of the implementation of a state government community Nasar, J. L., & Julian, D. A. (1995). The psychological sense of community in the
design policy aimed at increasing local walking: Design issues and baseline neighbourhood. Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 178.
results from RESIDE, Perth Western Australia. Preventive Medicine, 46, 46e54. Nemeth, J., & Schmidt, S. (2007). Toward a methodology for measuring the security
Green, L., & Kreuter, M. (1999). Health promotion planning: An educational and of publicly accessible spaces. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73,
ecological approach (3rd ed.). California: Mayfield Publishing Company. 283e297.
Halpern, D. (1995). More than bricks and mortar? Mental health and the built envi- Oldenburg, R. (1989). The great good place: Cafes, coffee shops, community centers,
ronment. London: Taylor & Francis Inc. beauty parlors, general stores, bars, hangouts and how they get you through the
Hill, J. L. (1996). Psychological sense of community: Suggestions for future research. day. New York: Paragon House.
Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 431e438. Pan, Y., & Zinkhan, G. M. (2006). Determinants of retail patronage: A meta-
Hillier, B. (1996). Cities as movement systems. Urban Design International, 1, 47e60. analytical perspective. Journal of Retailing, 82, 229e243.
Hillier, B., Penn, A., Hanson, J., Gajewski, T., & Xu, J. (1993). Natural movement: Or Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Partici-
configuration and attraction in urban pedestrian movement. Environment & pation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: Crime and
Planning B: Planning & Design, 20, 29e66. community context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18, 83e115.
House, J. S. (2001). Social isolation kills, but how and why? Psychosomatic Medicine, Perkins, D. D., & Long, D. A. (2002). Neighborhood sense of community and social
63, 273e274. capital (Chapter 15). In A. T. Fisher, C. C. Sonn, & B. J. Bishop (Eds.), Psychological
House, J. S., Landis, K. R., & Umberson, D. (1988). Social relationships and health. sense of community: Research, applications and implications. New York: Kluwer
Science, 241, 540e545. Academic/Plenum Publishers.
Hyun-Mee, J., & Miller, N. (2002). Effects of older (55þ) female consumers’ Plas, J. M., & Lewis, S. E. (1996). Environmental factors and sense of community in
participation in social activities on apparel shopping behavior. Journal of a planned town. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 109e143.
Shopping Center Research, 9, 77e89. Pooley, J. A., Cohen, L., & Pike, L. T. (2005). Can sense of community inform social
Ife, J. (1995). Community development: Creating community alternatives e Vision, capital? The Social Science Journal, 42, 71e79.
analysis and practice. Melbourne: Longman Australia. Pretty, G. H., Chipuer, H. M., & Bramston, P. (2003). Sense of place amongst
Jacobs, J. (1962). The death and life of great American cities. London: Jonathan Cape. adolescents and adults in two rural Australian towns: The discriminating
Jorgensen, B. S., & Stedman, R. C. (2001). Sense of place as an attitude: Lakeshore features of place attachment, sense of community and place dependence in
owners attitudes toward their properties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, relation to place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 273e287.
21, 233e248. Project for Public Spaces. (2008). What makes a successful place?. Available from
Joung, H., & Miller, N. J. (2002). Effects of older (55þ) female consumers’ partici- http://www.pps.org/topics/gps/gr_place_feat [7th October 2008].
pation in social activities on apparel shopping behavior. Journal of Shopping Rohe, W. M., & Burby, R. J. (1988). Fear of crime in public-housing. Environment and
Center Research, 9, 78e89. Behavior, 20, 700e720.
Joye, Y., Willems, K., Brengman, M., & Wolf, K. (2010). The effects of urban retail Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The
greenery on consumer experience: Reviewing the evidence from a restorative buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community
perspective. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening, 9, 57e64. Psychology, 28, 401e420.
Kaplan, S. (1995). The restorative benefits of nature: Toward an integrative Sallis, J. E., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr, J. (2006).
framework. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 15, 169e182. An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review of
Kawachi, I., & Berkman, L. F. (2001). Social ties and mental health. Journal of Urban Public Health, 27, 297e322.
Health, 78, 458e467. Schwarz, N. (1999). Self-reports: How the questions shape the answers. American
Kearney, A. R. (2006). Residential development patterns and neighborhood satis- Psychologist, 54, 93e105.
faction e impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior, 38, Scopelliti, M., & Giuliani, M. V. (2004). Choosing restorative environments across
112e139. the lifespan: A matter of place experience. Journal of Environmental Psychology,
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of 24, 423e437.
community: New urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment Semenza, J. (2003). The intersection of urban planning, art, and public health: The
and Behavior, 36, 313e340. Sunnyside Piazza. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1439.
Kingston, S., Mitchell, R., Florin, P., & Stevenson, J. (1999). Sense of community in Sense of Community Partners. (2004). Exploring sense of community: An annotated
neighborhoods as a multi-level construct. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, bibliography. Calgary: Sense of Community Partners.
681e694. Skjaeveland, O., & Garling, T. (1997). Effects of interactional space on neighbouring.
Kruger, D. J., Reischl, T. M., & Gee, G. C. (2007). Neighborhood social conditions Journal of Environment Psychology, 17, 181e198.
mediate the association between physical deterioration and mental health. Smithsimon, G. (1999). The death of public space? Histories of Jewish and Puerto Rican
American Journal of Community Psychology, 40, 261e271. neighborhoods tell a different story. Columbia University Information Technology.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001a). Aggression and violence in the inner city e effects Stokols, D. (1996). Translating social ecological theory into guidelines for commu-
of environment via mental fatigue. Environment and Behavior, 33, 543e571. nity health promotion. American Journal of Health Promotion, 10, 282e298.
Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (2001b). Environment and crime in the inner city e does Sugiyama, T., Francis, J., Middleton, N. J., Owen, N., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Asso-
vegetation reduce crime? Environment and Behavior, 33, 343e367. ciations between recreational walking and attractiveness, size, and proximity of
Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground for neighborhood open spaces. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 1752e1757.
community: Inner-city neighbourhood common spaces. American Journal of Sugiyama, T., Leslie, E., Giles-Corti, B., & Owen, N. (2008). Associations of neigh-
Community Psychology, 26, 823e851. bourhood greenness with physical and mental health: Do walking, social
Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W. C., & Wiley, A. R. (1998). Green common spaces and the social coherence and local social interaction explain the relationships? Journal of
integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30, 832e858. Epidemiology and Community Health, 62, 9.
Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the last 40 years? Talen, E. (2000). Measuring the public realm: A preliminary assessment of the link
Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207e230. between public space and sense of community. Journal of Architectural and
Leyden, K. M. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of Planning Research, 17, 344e360.
walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1546e1551. Townley, G., & Kloos, B. (2009). Development of a measure of sense of community
Lochner, K., Kawachi, I., & Kennedy, B. P. (1999). Social capital: A guide to its for individuals with serious mental illness residing in community settings.
measurement. Health & Place, 5, 259e270. Journal of Community Psychology, 37, 362e380.
Lumpkin, J. (1985). Shopping orientation segmentation of the elderly consumer. Ulrich, R. S., Simons, R. F., Losito, B. D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M. A., & Zelson, M. (1991).
Journal of the Academy of Marketing Sciences, 13, 271e289. Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal of
Lund, H. (2002). Pedestrian environments and sense of community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 11, 201e230.
Planning Education and Research, 21, 301e312. Voyce, M. (2006). Shopping malls in Australia: The end of public space and the rise
Lund, H. (2003). Testing the claims of new urbanism: Local access, pedestrian travel and of ‘consumerist citizenship’? Journal of Sociology, 42, 269e286.
neighboring behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 414e429. Warde, A., Tampubolon, G., & Savage, M. (2005). Recreation, informal social
Lynch, K. (1960). The image of the city. Cambridge, Mass: Massachusetts Institute of networks and social capital. Journal of Leisure Research, 37, 402e425.
Technology. Whyte, W. H. (1980). The social life of small urban spaces. Washington, D.C.: The
Maas, J., van Dillen, S. M. E., Verheij, R. A., & Groenewegen, P. P. (2009). Social Conservation Foundation.
contacts as a possible mechanism behind the relation between green space and Wilson, G., & Baldassare, B. (1996). Overall ‘sense of community’ in a suburban
health. Health & Place, 15, 586e595. region: The effects of localism, privacy and urbanisation. Environment and
McMillan, D. W., & Chavis, D. M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and Behavior, 28, 27e43.
theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 6e23. Wood, L., Frank, L. D., & Giles-Corti, B. (2010). Sense of community and its relationship
Mannarini, T., Tartaglia, S., Fedi, A., & Greganti, K. (2006). Image of neighborhood, self- with walking and neighborhood design. Social Science & Medicine, 70,1381e1390.
image and sense of community. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 26, 202e214. Zhang, W., & Lawson, G. (2009). Meeting and greeting: Activities in public outdoor
Mesch, G. S., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and local spaces outside high-density urban residential communities. Urban Design
attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 504e519. International, 14, 207e214.

View publication stats