Neighborhood homogeneity and cohesion in sustainable community development

Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Habitat International journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/habitatint

Neighborhood homogeneity and cohesion in sustainable community development Chau-kiu Cheung*, Kwan-kwok Leung Department of Applied Social Studies, City University of Hong Kong, Kowloon Tong, Hong Kong, China

a b s t r a c t Keywords: Neighborhood social cohesion Neighborhood heterogeneity Life satisfaction Social capital

Social cohesion within a neighborhood, which refers to harmonious interactions and mutual support among residents, is integral to the social sustainability of the neighborhood and results in residents’ satisfaction with life. Homogeneity among residents in education, occupation, wealth and other characteristics likely fuels social cohesion. However, existing research is either silent or divided about the interplay among neighborhood homogeneity, cohesion and life satisfaction. For instance, one view suggests that neighborhood heterogeneity, rather than homogeneity, is favorable to sustainable development. The present study evaluated survey data collected from 100 residents in a relatively poor locale in Hong Kong, China, to address the unsettled interplay. Results show that perceived neighborhood social cohesion tended to contribute to life satisfaction, with this contribution being stronger when perceived neighborhood heterogeneity was lower. Perceived neighborhood heterogeneity also tended to erode perceived neighborhood social cohesion. These results lend support to the positive effects of neighborhood social cohesion and homogeneity on life satisfaction and imply that neighborhood homogenization can have salutary effects when it fosters social cohesion and facilitates the benefits thereof. Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Introduction Upholding social sustainability, through such social tenets as cohesion, is a core component of vitalization efforts in poor neighborhoods (Ha, 2007). Neighborhood social cohesion is generally characterized by mutual help and harmony among residents (Stanley & Smeltzer, 2003). It is likely to generate favorable outcomes, such as residents’ satisfaction with life, which is an urban planning concern as well (Westaway, 2006). How community planning facilitates the contribution of neighborhood social cohesion to life satisfaction remains unclear, however. Community homogenization through the development of public housing and the surrounding environment is an important element of establishing uniformity and homogeneity among its residents. Homogeneity in this context refers to similarities in such attributes as education, occupation, and wealth (Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2002). Homogenization can enhance social cohesion (Sim, Yu, & Han, 2003). Neighborhood homogeneity may also enhance the contribution of social cohesion to residents’ life satisfaction. The present study focused on this possibility, being uncharted thus far, in a newly developed yet relatively poor community in Hong Kong, China.

* Corresponding author. Fax: þ86 852 34428144. E-mail address: [email protected] (C.-k. Cheung). 0197-3975/$ e see front matter Ó 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2011.03.004

The effects of homogenization on social sustainability and life satisfaction in this community were evaluated using its homogeneous public housing and environmental development strategy, with the objective of clarifying whether neighborhood homogeneity or heterogeneity is helpful for sustainable development (Yu, 2006). Life satisfaction, social cohesion, and neighborhood heterogeneity are supposedly interrelated concerns for community development. The life satisfaction of residents in poor neighborhoods is of particular concern for policy and practice because residents need and benefit from public support (London, Schwartz, & Scott , 2006). Essentially, it represents a cognitive component of subjective wellbeing that is useful in gauging how poor people adapt to adversity (Hagerty, 2003). It can serve as a policymaking criterion to assess the utility of neighborhood conditions (Stutzer, 2004). Among these conditions, social cohesion at the neighborhood level is notably relevant to policy and practice for the promotion of civil societies (McDaniel, 2003). It mostly represents the functional part of neighborhood social conditions, which denotes action for the integrity of the neighborhood (Calhoun, 2002). This functional part is based on the structural part of neighborhood social conditions, which deploys people and resources for functions. Neighborhood heterogeneity is one such structural condition (Letki, 2008). Some theories maintain that neighborhood heterogeneity erodes neighborhood social cohesion, which sustains residents’ life satisfaction. Homogeneity-oriented theories about homophily and

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

relational cohesion posit that people prefer and trust others with whom they share similar characteristics and attributes (McPherson & SmitheLovin, 2002). The effects of social cohesion are also consistent with theories about externalities, as in social capital theory (Brockmann, Delhey, Welzel, & Yuan, 2009). Thus, this series of linkage suggests that life satisfaction is higher in response to higher neighborhood social cohesion and lower neighborhood heterogeneity. However, this finding is incompatible with other theoretical contentions and research findings. Accordingly, discourses of multiculturalism and the mixed neighborhood propose that social cohesion leads to the alienation of people who are different from the mainstream (Cheong, Rosalind, Harry, & John, 2007; Hulse & Stone, 2007). Neighborhood heterogeneity fosters life satisfaction in view of the theory of bridging social capital, which prizes the pooling of resources from diverse sources (Coffe & Geys, 2007). In light of the disagreement among different contentions, the present study clarifies relationships between neighborhood disparity, neighbor social cohesion, and life satisfaction to identify the effects of the interaction between neighborhood heterogeneity and social cohesion on life satisfaction, in addition to the independent effects of these two conditions. It resolves issues on whether neighborhood social cohesion functioning as a stress buffer against the effect of neighborhood heterogeneity impedes the salutary effects of neighborhood social cohesion. In all, the present study adds new light to existing controversies about the effects of neighborhood heterogeneity and social cohesion on life satisfaction. All these past and current controversies have a bearing on social capital theory, exchange theory, and other theoretical work. As an overview, such theories underlie the expected effects of neighborhood social contribution and heterogeneity on life satisfaction in some distinguishable ways. Social capital theory provides an explanatory framework that unravels conditions for social relations to exert their effects; these conditions include closeness, strength, density, and homophily in social relations and the spillover and reciprocity in their transmission of resources or influences (Herman, 2006; Nahapiet, 2009). Residence in a neighborhood is the necessary condition for neighborhood social cohesion and heterogeneity to influence a resident. Furthermore, such factors would be more influential when they are closer, stronger, and denser, which are enhanced by homogeneity within the neighborhood, because of the residents’ homophilic tendencies (i.e., desire for interaction with similar others). The potency of neighborhood factors, according to social capital theory, also benefits from their spillover from their core to the periphery. Merging with exchange theory, social capital theory further proposes that the reciprocation of resources prolongs the influence of neighborhood factors. In addition to reciprocity, exchange theory specifies more conditions for strengthening relationships. Among these conditions, fairness in exchange again hinges on the homogeneity of exchange partners (Molm, 2008; Woolcock, 1998). Accordingly, exchange between similar partners tends to be fair and sustainable because of the minimization of dominance and dependency between one and another (Whyte & Guo, 2009). Existing views Neighborhood social cohesion refers to perceived social cohesion among residents in a neighborhood. As such, social cohesion surpasses the individual level and registers an individual’s help to and affiliation with others (Friedkin, 2004). Neighborhood cohesion instead functions as a building block for cohesion in the whole society, particularly the civil society (Crow, 2002). An optimistic view of social cohesion suggests that it attracts investments to boost economic growth (Stanley & Smeltzer, 2003). This investment attraction stems from the guarantee created by the spillover or

565

externality effect of social cohesion for returns to investment, such that people who experience social cohesion but are not directly involved in investment would help sustain returns to investment. Such returns and economic prosperity would form the economic basis for residents’ life satisfaction (Ram, 2009). Moreover, the view holds that social cohesion relieves grievances and enhances political stability (Maloutas & Maloutas, 2004). Accordingly, people who experience social cohesion would mitigate social disparity, injustice, and tension, which would also contribute to their life satisfaction (Brockmann et al., 2009). The contributions of economic development and political order to life satisfaction realize social capital theory. Essentially, social capital refers to the actual and potential resources accessible through one’s social relations (Nahapiet, 2009). Whereas neighborhood social cohesion generally refers to social relationships between people in the neighborhood, social capital focuses on a person’s benefitting from social relations (Ostrom & Ahn, 2009. The externality effect posited in social capital theory evolves from the case that people would want to emulate and otherwise benefit from others’ cohesive practices (Helliwell & Putnam, 2005). An example of this effect is how one is likely to remain quiet and benefit from a clean and tidy environment when he or she enters an area kept quiet, clean, and tidy by others. Another example is how people’s cohesive effort for crime control would benefit newcomers as well (Putnam, 2007). One consequence is people’s willingness to contribute to social welfare, which in turn offers some form of protection to buttress the welfare recipients’ life satisfaction (Radcliff, 2008). In the political realm, the externality effect would help strengthen the effectiveness of government services, which also safeguard life satisfaction (Helliwell, 2006). Furthermore, social capital theory maintains that closeness and density in social relations are conducive to one’s receipt of resources and benefits from others, through their relations (Bjornberg & Ekbrand, 2008). Such receipt would be an antecedent to life satisfaction (Groot, Maassen van den Brink, & van Praag, 2007). As these properties of closeness and density are only characteristics of social cohesion, neighborhood social cohesion is likely to enhance life satisfaction by facilitating the provision of resources and benefits. The contribution of neighborhood social cohesion to residents’ life satisfaction is consistent with research findings about the benefits of trust, volunteerism, meetings, organizational membership, and sharing a religion in the neighborhood (Helliwell, 2006; Ovaska & Takashima, 2006). Furthermore, it accords with theory and research concerning the salutary effects of social integration and support when one is associated with socially cohesive people (Radcliff, 2008). From a critical view, social cohesion is unlikely to sustain one’s life satisfaction. This view builds on the discourses of multiculturalism and the mixed neighborhood (Cheong et al., 2007; Hulse & Stone, 2007). These discourses recognize that multicultural or mixed neighborhoods are increasingly prevalent in modern societies and that their prevalence champions the desirability of tolerance for other multicultural, complex, and non-cohesive practices. As social cohesion requires a consensus among people, it would be counteractive to the multiculturalist ideal. A critical problem of neighborhood social cohesion is its alienation of people who do not embody social cohesion in the neighborhood. Paradoxically, the critical view holds that social inclusion within the neighborhood would breed social exclusion against outsiders. Such alienation or social exclusion is dissatisfying (Brown, 2001). Another critical way through which social cohesion generates dissatisfaction is its regulation over the individual, which may amount to encroachment into one’s privacy and interests. Social support becomes a nuisance or an encroachment when people have declining collective consciousness, or become increasingly individualized and self-centered (Crow, 2002). The feeling of regulation or loss of freedom is likely to impede life satisfaction (Abbott & Sapsford, 2006). Social cohesion at least may

566

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

have double edges, one being supportive and another being constraining and demoralizing (Phillips & Berman, 2003). Social cohesion may also not be beneficial to poor people when it traps them in a condition with limited opportunity for upward mobility (Mitra, 2008). One possibility for this is that social cohesion breeds interdependence and equalization, discouraging anyone from rising above others. At any rate, the impact of social cohesion is likely to hinge on the quality of social cohesion, for which neighborhood heterogeneity may be responsible. Neighborhood heterogeneity typically includes economic inequality and ethnic or cultural diversity. It is likely to be the structural basis for social disturbance (in terms of conflict and struggle), which is the obverse of social cohesion (Jordahl, 2009). Furthermore, it appears to raise ethical problems, such as unfairness (Godoy et al., 2004). As such, it tends to attract policy concern for its reduction (Conley & Gifford, 2006). Realistically, neighborhood heterogeneity should be an issue only when it is consequential, such as on a person’s psychological well-being (Evans, Hout, & Mayer, 2004). The consequence, as generally expected, is likely to be an adverse one, through the impact of neighborhood heterogeneity on social disorganization, relative deprivation, and the erosion of social cohesion and social capital (Putnam, 2007). Such adverse effects are supposed to be enduring, in the form of the creation of a social trap that perpetuates heterogeneity, conflict, struggle, social disorganization, and resultant harm (Bourguignon, Ferreira, & Walton, 2007). Accordingly, neighborhood heterogeneity may forge structural barriers that segregate people, which may in turn strengthen heterogeneity and its deleterious effects. As expected, the crux of the impact is the erosion of neighborhood social cohesion by neighborhood heterogeneity. This would occur because neighborhood heterogeneity blocks communication, interaction, cooperation, trust, friendship, and, ultimately, social cohesion among residents (Putnam, 2007). The crucial starting block is in communication, as neighborhood heterogeneity spawns barriers to communication due to different languages and differences in other sociocultural statuses and parameters. Similarly, neighborhood heterogeneity impedes trust resulting from unfamiliarity among the residents (Marschall & Stolle, 2004). Heterogeneity or diversity in the neighborhood would also compromise social cohesion by engendering threat, such as that experienced due to migrant entry (Letki, 2008). Conversely, homogeneity heightens the salience of common characteristics among people, which is conducive to social cohesion among them (Leach, van Zomeren, Sven, Vliek, Pennekamp, Bertjan and & Ouwerkerk, 2008). This echoes the view that homogeneity is a defining characteristic of a group, and that the group is the structural unit to hold social cohesion (Hogg, 2007). Essentially, homogeneity is an important condition specified in social capital theory to weave social networking, reciprocity, and trust (Campbell et al., 2008). This explains why voluntary or religious association is helpful and beneficial to its members. Furthermore, neighborhood heterogeneity may impair life satisfaction, even without mediation by neighborhood social cohesion, because of people’s inclination and desirability to interact with people with homogeneous characteristics (Kossinets & Watts, 2009). According to the thesis of homophily, these inclination and desirability come from people’s preference for and economizing of efforts to interact with others in an easy, quick, and consistent way rather than to interact with different people in different ways. The latter venture is effortful and thus likely to be dissatisfying. Moreover, people like to attach to matters that are stable and identifiable, as shown by their homogeneity (Volker, Flap, & Lindenberg, 2007). Such attachment would in turn be satisfying (Berry & Welsh, 2010). Conversely, heterogeneity tends to create opportunities for social comparison, which can be a source of dissatisfaction (Faunce, 2003). Research has indicated the negative effect of neighborhood

heterogeneity on life satisfaction or well-being in general (Sampson, 1991). However, other studies have not been supportive of this view (Michalos & Zumbo, 2001). A notable instance is the contribution of neighborhood or national income inequality to one’s life satisfaction (Mookerjee & Beron, 2004; Temes, 1986). Regarding mixed findings, social capital theory also suggests that social diversity is beneficial in terms of such notions as bridging social capital, structural holes, and the strength of weak ties (Johnson, 2008; Weber, 2009). Bridging social capital refers to connecting among dissimilar people or groups, which is more helpful for maintaining a secure environment than is bonding among similar people (Coffe & Geys, 2007). Structural holes formed by upholding linkages to diverse groups of resourceful people are helpful to one’s success (Burt, 2004). The strength of weak ties is a manifestation of bridging social capital and structural holes when they typically involve linkages among unfamiliar people or groups (Seibert, Kraimer, & Liden, 2001). It can transpire in the negative effect of weak ties on personal distress (Fauth, Leventhal, & BrooksGunn, 2008). In all, diversity means resourcefulness, which confers people with unique and valuable benefits. Aggregation of more diverse resources would then be more satisfying. The uncertainty of the role of neighborhood heterogeneity also includes that arising from the interaction between neighborhood heterogeneity and neighborhood social cohesion. One view suggests that neighborhood social cohesion functions as a buffer to relieve the adverse impact of neighborhood heterogeneity (Jordahl, 2009). This view rests on the assumption that neighborhood heterogeneity is stressful and neighborhood social cohesion provides support to people to buffer the stress. Another view holds that neighborhood homogeneity and neighborhood social cohesion are complementary in their benefits to people (Fujisawa, Hamano, & Takegama, 2009). This view explains why social cohesion would be less beneficial to people in Japan, because it is a more homogeneous nation. Both views propose that the interaction between neighborhood heterogeneity and social cohesion positively affects life satisfaction. In contrast, a third view, based on the thesis of homophily, posits that the interaction negatively affects it. According to the thesis, people would like to flock with and benefit from similar others because of the ease of communication and interaction (Kossinets & Watts, 2009), which is likely to economize and propagate the benefit of social cohesion. On one hand, one can interact and benefit from social cohesion in a uniform way when it emanates from people who are similar to him or her. On the other hand, neighborhood homogeneity or the minimization of gaps and separation also helps popularize and magnify the benefit of social cohesion. Concurring with this view is a fourth view, which maintains that neighborhood homogeneity makes neighborhood social cohesion and its contribution sustainable. The sustainability rests on the argument of fairness, espoused in exchange theory (Molm, 2008). Accordingly, social cohesion is sustainable when it involves fair exchanges, which rely on commensurate acts of give and take offered by similarly resourceful partners. This theory therefore explains the importance of peer relation in generating mutual support or social cohesion. The contribution of fair exchange to the benefit of social capital is also consistent with this view (Cheung & Chan, 2010; Cheung & Gui, 2006; Hofferth, Boisjoly, & Duncan, 1999; Molm, 2006). The community study Relationships between neighborhood social cohesion, heterogeneity, and life satisfaction are particularly unclear in relatively poor districts, such as Tin Shui Wai in Hong Kong, China. Tin Shui Wai is a clearly identifiable district because it is a newly reclaimed and built residential enclave (since 1990) geographically separated from older districts. It is small (4.3 km2) and densely populated

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

(up to 300,000 residents). Given the fact that Hong Kong is an affluent metropolis, Tin Shui Wai is a relatively poor enclave, called the city of misery. Its relatively poor status is apparent in terms of its lower income, higher welfare reception, higher residence in publicly subsidized housing, higher incidence of domestic violence and tragedy among residents, and the absence of commercial and industrial offices. Tin Shui Wai is therefore mainly a residential area for new migrants to Hong Kong from mainland China and other new families who cannot afford to stay elsewhere. Moreover, Tin Shui Wai is homogeneous by design, characterized by 10 mutually separated public housing estates throughout the area. Accordingly, both of its physical and social environments tend to be uniform, in addition to the fact that its residents are mostly similarly poor and characterized. This homogeneity or equally poor condition is blameworthy for the misery of the district, alleged for its tragic incidents of domestic holocaust. Given Tin Shui Wai’s notoriety for misery, its neighborhood social cohesion and quality of life are a critical concern in policy and practice. Nexuses among neighborhood homogeneity, social cohesion, and life satisfaction are therefore worthy of investigation. The lack of evidence about these nexuses, which is further complicated by the fact that a relatively poor environment can moderate relationships between life satisfaction, social cohesion, and homogeneity (Graham & Pettinato, 2002; Ross, Reynolds, & Geis, 2000), also warrants investigation. Particularly, neighborhood social cohesion may be less beneficial when the neighborhood is poorer (Kearns & Forrest, 2000). In addition to addressing local issues, studying life in Tin Shui Wai is internationally relevant. Its relevance builds on both the comparability and specificity of the study site with other places. First, Tin Shui Wai is comparable with the ubiquitous relatively poor districts in many other affluent places due to unequal development (Small & McDermott, 2006). Unequal development dovetails with the growth of economic inequality in many places (Navarro, 2002). It seems to be inevitable due to existing socioeconomic differences among people that are persistent and constraining (Bourguignon et al., 2007). Hence, Tin Shui Wai is not an isolated case in the world, economically or structurally. Nevertheless, this district provides culturally unique data for testing and developing theories that are evolving internationally. The Chinese cultural background of Tin Shui Wai accentuates the importance of the present study as an attempt to explore and examine the cross-cultural generality of existing theories and research findings. The present study is crucial for verifying existing knowledge because most theories and evidence originate from places outside China. In view of much uncertainty, the following research questions are of major concern for the present study. 1. Does neighborhood heterogeneity erode neighborhood social cohesion? 2. Does neighborhood social cohesion erode or enhance the resident’s life satisfaction? 3. Does neighborhood heterogeneity erode or enhance the resident’s life satisfaction? 4. Does neighborhood heterogeneity erode or enhance the benefit of neighborhood social cohesion to the resident’s life satisfaction? For empirical examination of these research questions, background characteristics are required as control factors. These include sex, age, education, personal income, average income of the family, and residency in the neighborhood. Such characteristics are likely to affect one’s life satisfaction and perceptions of neighborhood homogeneity and social cohesion. Particularly, a poor person’s life satisfaction is higher when he or she is married (McKee-Ryan, Song, & Wanberg, 2005). Moreover, male sex, young age, educational level, income, and family income are predictive of life satisfaction

567

(Brockmann et al., 2009; Dittman & Goebel, 2010). Family income, male sex, and young age are predictive of a lower perception of neighborhood quality (Crowe, 2010; Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004). Personal income and education level, in contrast, are predictive of the perception of social inequality (Taylor-Gooby, Hastie, & Bromley, 2003; Whyte & Guo, 2009). Methods A household survey collected data from 100 randomly selected adult residents (aged 18 years or older) in Tin Shui Wai in September and October 2009. The sampling frame, including randomly selected household addresses, was obtained from the Census and Statistics Department of the Hong Kong Government. Based on the sampling frame, eight trained interviewers performed the household survey to meet the respondent quota count of 100, which had proven appropriate in studies to portray social cohesion or capital in specified communities using intensive questions (Campbell et al., 2008; Cattell, 2004; Leonard, 2004). The interviewers randomly selected adult residents in sampled households using a random number table. Notable characteristics consisted of the following. The sample had slightly more female respondents (61% vs. 49%; Table 1). On average, the respondents were 37.8 years old and had 9.3 years of education. They had resided in a neighborhood within Tin Shui Wai for an average of 10 years. Their average monthly personal income was only HK$108.9 (HK$7.8 ¼ US$1), and their average monthly family income was only HK$297.9. Remarkably, 46.8% of the residents did not have any personal income and the median monthly personal income was only HK$1000. The median monthly family income was HK$12,500, which is the lowest in all of Hong Kong. These sample characteristics reflect population conditions in the district: the residents were relatively young and poor, and the community consisted of more women than men in view of their chance of receiving welfare because of single motherhood. Multiple items in the survey questionnaire served as indicators of life satisfaction, perceived neighborhood social cohesion, and perceived neighborhood heterogeneity (Table 2). A neighborhood referred to any of the 10 public housing estates scattered in Tin Shui Wai. Life satisfaction had five indicators, which were taken from the Satisfaction with Life Scale (Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985). Each item took a rating on a seven-point scale, which generated scores ranging from 0 to 100, after the score range was normalized. The items yielded an internal consistency reliability

Table 1 Means and standard deviations. Variable

Scoring

M

SD

Female Age Education Residency in the neighborhood Personal income (geometric mean) Average family member’s monthly income (geometric mean) Life satisfaction Neighborhood social cohesion Neighborhood heterogeneity Education level Occupation Wealth Residency Political stand Religion Culture

0, 100 Years Years Years HK$ HK$

61.0 37.8 9.3 10.0 108.9 199.3

49.0 18.6 4.7 5.7 9697.8 13,159.4

0e100 0e100 0e100 0e100 0e100 0e100 0e100 0e100 0e100 0e100

58.4 54.7 29.4 36.3 34.3 28.0 25.5 26.8 29.0 32.0

21.7 11.4 21.4 31.1 30.6 29.1 28.4 27.8 28.6 28.4

568

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

Table 2 Standardized factor loadings. Predictor

Life satisfaction Neighborhood Neighborhood social cohesion heterogeneity

Life being close to your ideal Life conditions being excellent Satisfied with life Having got important things Changing almost nothing Neighborhood being harmonious generally Closeness among neighbors Neighborhood being harmonious relatively Residents not only taking care their interests Neighbor participation spirit Neighborhood educational heterogeneity Neighborhood occupational heterogeneity Neighborhood wealth heterogeneity Neighborhood residency heterogeneity Neighborhood political heterogeneity Neighborhood religious heterogeneity Neighborhood cultural heterogeneity

0.783 0.934 0.852 0.594 0.807 e

e e e e e 0.593

e e e e e e

e e

0.584 0.544

e e

e

0.551

e

e e

0.519 e

e 0.740

e

e

0.740

e

e

0.756

e

e

0.707

e

e

0.805

e

e

0.770

e

e

0.888

Note: All were significant at the 0.001 level.

coefficient (a) of 0.882. [Internal consistency indicates that the items have positive intercorrelations, calculated roughly as a ratio of the average covariance among the items to the average variance plus the average covariance.] Perceived neighborhood social cohesion was composed of five items, adapted from the World Bank Household Survey (Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2002), which asked about the respondent’s perceived ways of interaction with people in the neighborhood where he or she lived. Each item took a rating on a five-point scale, which generated scores ranging from 0 to 100, after the score range was normalized. One of the items was originally an indicator of low social cohesion and thus required reverse scoring. The items yielded an internal consistency reliability coefficient (a) of 0.694. Perceived neighborhood heterogeneity included seven items, also adapted from the World Bank Household Survey (Grootaert & van Bastelaer, 2002), which asked about the respondent’s perceived disparity among people in the neighborhood where he or she lived. Each item took a rating on a two-point scale, generating scores of 0 (“no”) and 100 (“yes”). The items yielded an internal consistency reliability coefficient (a) of 0.905. Structural equation modeling was useful in both ascertaining the factorial validity of the measures and estimating relationships between them in an integrated way (Muthen & Muthen, 2006). Each item loading substantially on one proposed factor (life satisfaction, neighborhood social cohesion, or heterogeneity) would yield good factorial validity, given the good fit of the whole threefactor model. Furthermore, this model would be credible based on the present small sample as it outperformed the reference onefactor model (Bentler, 2007). This reference model lumped together all items to identify one factor and helped address the risk of the small sample to find a good fit wrongly. In addition to the confirmatory factor model, the three-factor model also estimated relationships among the three factors, controlling for background characteristics. This structural relation part specified life satisfaction as the ultimate outcome, holding

perceived neighborhood social cohesion, heterogeneity, and their interaction as predictors. Social cohesion was also an outcome predicted by heterogeneity. A good fit of the model would have a low likelihood ratio chi-square (L2), low standardized root-mean-square of residuals (SRMR < 0.05), low root-mean-square approximation of error (RMSEA < 0.07), and high Comparative Goodness-of-Fit Index (CFI > 0.95) (Hu & Bentler, 1999). Results Based on the average composite score, the average life satisfaction of Tin Shui Wai residents was at a modest level (M ¼ 58.4; Table 1). It had a standard deviation of 21.7, skewness of 0.041, and kurtosis of 0.708. The skewness and kurtosis were substantially small enough to warrant that life satisfaction displayed an acceptably normal distribution (Kline, 2005), which thus endorsed the use of maximum likelihood estimation in structural equation modeling. Perceived neighborhood social cohesion was also at a modest level (M ¼ 54.7, based on the average composite score). In contrast, perceived neighborhood heterogeneity was rather low (M ¼ 29.4, based on the average composite score). The three-factor model attained a very good fit [L2(194) ¼ 231.447, p ¼ 0.034, SRMR ¼ 0.071, RMSEA ¼ 0.044, CFI ¼ 0.955]. It greatly outperformed the reference, one-factor model, which did not fit the data [L2(218) ¼ 668.965, p < 0.001, SRMR ¼ 0.190, RMSEA ¼ 0.145, CFI ¼ 0.456]. This comparison highlighted the adequacy of the threefactor model and therefore the credibility of its estimates. According to the three-factor model, life satisfaction, neighborhood social cohesion, and heterogeneity had acceptable factorial validity. In this connection, loadings on the three factors were all substantial in the expected direction (Table 2). The factorial validity revealed convergence of items to identify their respective distinguishable factors (i.e., differentially weighted factor scores). With the identification of the three factors, the three-factor model indicated relationships between them, controlling for background characteristics. In response to the first research question, the findings show that perceived neighborhood heterogeneity reduced perceived neighborhood social cohesion (b ¼ 0.425; Fig. 1). The negative effect was rather strong. In response to the second research question, neighborhood social cohesion had a significant and strong positive effect on life satisfaction (b ¼ 0.562), suggesting that neighborhood social cohesion sustained life satisfaction. In response to the third research question, neighborhood heterogeneity did not have a significant direct effect on life satisfaction, but neighborhood heterogeneity engendered a significant indirect effect on it (b ¼ 0.239) through mediation by neighborhood social cohesion. Combining the direct and indirect effects, the total

Neighborhood social cohesion -.425**

.562** Interaction

-.166*

Life satisfaction

.199

Neighborhood heterogeneity

Fig. 1. Effects of neighborhood social cohesion and heterogeneity on life satisfaction, without a latent predisposition. Note: Refer to Tables 2 and 3 for factor loadings and background effects respectively. The dashed arrows represented links by definition.

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

effect of neighborhood heterogeneity on life satisfaction was minimal and insignificant (b ¼ 0.039). Hence, neighborhood heterogeneity tended to reduce life satisfaction because it reduced neighborhood social cohesion. In response to the fourth research question, the interaction between neighborhood heterogeneity and social cohesion had a significant negative effect on life satisfaction (b ¼ 0.166), which suggests that neighborhood heterogeneity dampened the contribution of neighborhood social cohesion to life satisfaction. In addition, background characteristics had significant effects only on perceived neighborhood social cohesion (Table 3). These effects show that the perception was higher among respondents with lower education or higher average family income. As most of the effects of background characteristics were not significant, background characteristics were unlikely to confound the findings about relationships among life satisfaction, neighborhood heterogeneity, and social cohesion. Discussion Perceived neighborhood social cohesion displayed a strong effect on life satisfaction, corroborating the thesis of externality espoused in social capital theory. Accordingly, a resident appears to benefit from neighborhood social cohesion to sustain life satisfaction even if he or she may not be the target of social cohesion. This externality effect can happen in many ways, including the boosting of the economic performance and sociopolitical order of the neighborhood. In addition, this finding supports the proposition about the strength of strong ties among people in the neighborhood (Lizardo, 2006). It thereby endorses the function of neighborhood social cohesion, particularly in safeguarding the life satisfaction of residents in a poor area. The finding also casts doubt on the critical view about problems created by social cohesion. At least, life satisfaction would not suffer due to neighborhood social cohesion. The premise underlying the critical view that social cohesion is unfair and intruding, given the alleged reality of social mixing and individualization, therefore does not receive support. This supposed reality may particularly fail to hold in Tin Shui Wai. In the first place, neighborhood heterogeneity is rather low in the area and multiculturalism may not be preferred in the neighborhood. Residents would like to share or otherwise assimilate with the dominant culture, with Chinese culture being the dominant one in Tin Shui Wai. Moreover, the culture favors collectivism and thus impedes individualization (Kipnis, 2002). Chinese culture will eventually buttress the contribution of neighborhood social cohesion to the Chinese resident’s life satisfaction. Social cohesion is unlikely to foment a dissatisfying effect due to regulation over or over-control of individuals because of their general preference for collectivism. Nevertheless, neighborhood social cohesion tends to contribute less to life satisfaction when the neighborhood is more heterogeneous. This finding lends support to homophily and fair exchange. According to the thesis of homophily, social cohesion would be more

Table 3 Standardized effects of background characteristics. Predictor

Life Neighborhood Neighborhood satisfaction social cohesion heterogeneity

Female 0.054 Age 0.162 Education 0.014 Personal income 0.117 Average family member income 0.014 Neighborhood Residency 0.007 0.248 R2 *p < 0.05. **p < 0.01. ***p < 0.001.

0.032 0.033 0.381* 0.143 0.346** 0.053 0.440

0.016 0.165 0.122 0.094 0.034 0.015 0.096

569

influential and pervasive when it evolves from people who share similar characteristics and attributes. Such enhancement happens because it accords with people’s practice of and desire for homophily. Essentially, social cohesion would become stronger when people can more easily communicate and collaborate among themselves. Homogeneity in the neighborhood would also sustain the fairness of exchange within the neighborhood because exchange partners have similar resources for reciprocation. For instance, exchange between the rich and the poor in a heterogeneous setting is unlikely to be fair as the poor would be unable to reciprocate favors conferred by the rich. The negative effect of the interaction between neighborhood heterogeneity and social cohesion refutes theses about the stress-buffering nature of social cohesion and the complementarity of social cohesion and homogeneity: Stress buffering does not occur because efforts to achieve neighborhood heterogeneity are not directly stressful, resulting in lowered life satisfaction. The findings of the present study reveal the oppositedthat neighborhood heterogeneity raises life satisfaction directly, albeit insignificantly. If neighborhood heterogeneity is not directly stressful, neighborhood social cohesion does not have a basis for exercising its buffering effect. Conversely, neighborhood homogeneity is also not directly salutary and is therefore unlikely to be an alternative to neighborhood social cohesion. If neighborhood homogeneity is not a complementary factor, it would not weaken the contribution of neighborhood social cohesion. Instead, the present findings show that neighborhood homogeneity augments the satisfying effect of neighborhood social cohesion. This is consistent with the externality thesis of social capital theory, such that social cohesion can better contribute to a spillover benefit when there are fewer gaps in the course of spillover (Dayton-Johnson, 2003). Overall, neighborhood heterogeneity delivers a profound impact on life satisfaction. On one hand, neighborhood heterogeneity generated a negative effect on life satisfaction indirectly through mediation by neighborhood social cohesion. On the other hand, neighborhood heterogeneity displayed a positive effect on life satisfaction directly. The total effect of neighborhood heterogeneity therefore turned out to be minimal. This finding is nevertheless somewhat consonant with existing evidence of the direct contribution of neighborhood inequality or diversity and its indirect impact through neighborhood social cohesion (Letki, 2008; Temes, 1986). The present and existing findings are both at odds with the view that neighborhood inequality is detrimental to subjective well-being (Subramanian et al., 2002). Notably, the present findings resolve the controversy by revealing that neighborhood heterogeneity is dissatisfying indirectly and interactively; that is, it is unsatisfactory when it weakens neighborhood social cohesion and its contribution. Meanwhile, the total and direct effects of inequality or heterogeneity would not be considerably dissatisfying when an individual is more concerned with personal and interpersonal situations than with neighborhood situations (Collins, 2000). The apparent direct and interactive effects of neighborhood social cohesion on life satisfaction show the significance of sociotropic well-being, in addition to that of egocentric well-being. Egocentric well-being focuses on a person’s own conditions, whereas sociotropic well-being regards group, neighborhood, national, and even global conditions as components of one’s well-being because of his or her social orientation (Mutz & Mondak, 1997; Rothstein, 2001). The premise for sociotropic well-being holds that education and other forms of lifelong socialization encourage the person to deal with suprapersonal environments. Notably, religion and collectivist propaganda place humanitarianism, communitarianism, and patriotism ahead of personal interests (Biswas, 2002; Hall, Matz, & Wood, 2010). Even without relying on socialization, humanism maintains that social orientation, encompassing benevolence and connectedness, is the person’s inherent concern (King, 2001). Sociotropic well-

570

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

being is also consistent with utilitarianism, in the sense that societal well-being, such as environmental quality, can benefit the person (Phillips, 2006). Hence, harmony or social cohesion, as a characteristic of neighborhood well-being, would also define the person’s well-being through his or her sociotropic concerns. Sociotropic well-being and the profound effects of neighborhood social cohesion and heterogeneity on life satisfaction prompt further research to consolidate knowledge on living well. Apart from corroborating the present findings, further research needs to substantiate linkages between neighborhood factors and personal well-being. For one, factors of social capital theory and exchange theory, including strength, spillover, reciprocity, and fairness in relations within the neighborhood, are necessary explicit mediators to actualize the effects of neighborhood social cohesion and heterogeneity. Notably, further research can focus on fairness in the relations as a key factor linking neighborhood homogeneity to neighborhood social cohesion and its salutary contribution. Further research also needs to clarify how neighborhood cohesion exercises spillover in a homogeneous context more effectively with greater ease of communication and interaction. Accordingly, further research can examine if it is easier for a resident to receive benefits from neighbors who are both more socially cohesive and homogeneous because of the reduced need for him or her to interact with different neighbors in different ways. One possibility is that socially cohesive neighbors tend to form a neighborhood organization that benefits residents collectively and efficiently (Small, 2009). Moreover, further research can explore if neighborhood social cohesion helps converge resources inside and outside the neighborhood, with the latter type referring to bridging social capital. Such help is possible because bonding social capital within the neighborhood can be a precursor to accessing social capital outside the neighborhood (Weisinger & Salipante, 2005). In addition, further research can explore other factors crucial to sustaining the effects that the present study found. One possible factor is the collectivist context, which would accentuate neighborhood influences and concern and particularly highlight the significance of sociotropic well-being. For a better grasp of sociotropic well-being, further research should explore the antecedents to and consequences of sociotropic well-being, breaking away from inquiry into egocentric well-being. Further research should ideally conduct both quantitative and qualitative studies to advance knowledge in various ways. The quantitative analysis would serve to verify the effects of various theoretical factors. As such, it needs to adopt a rigorous design to substantiate sampling, measurement, and analysis. Principally, the design is required to affirm causal relationships between the factors, typically by relying on a panel study. Panel studies operate by repeatedly surveying the same residents to maintain the precedence of causal factors over their outcomes, preferably controlling for earlier conditions of the outcomes. Concerning the temporal order, the effects that the present study determined do not yet allow certain causal inferences. The cross-sectional design of the study is a limitation that further research should address. Another limitation is the single-site sampling carried out, which targeted a relatively poor area in Hong Kong. How distinctive features in this area are responsible for the present findings requires further examination, preferably using a multisite sample. Essentially, contextual factors, such as poverty, collectivism, and Chinese ethnicity, are possible moderators of the relationships evaluated. Further research can gauge the generality and specificity of the various findings in relation to certain contextual factors. In addition, self-report measurement is still another limitation that further research should improve on. Such other measurements as those from aggregate and documentary sources would be useful to complement and verify self-report measurement. Apart from the

various ways to enhance the rigor of quantitative examination, qualitative research using in-depth interviews is valuable to explore factors underlying relationships between the concerned factors. It would unveil serendipitous factors or those unexpected by any theory, particularly when theoretical factors cannot provide a thorough explanation for the findings. Importantly, serendipitous factors would be specific conditions for justifying effects, such as being of Chinese ethnicity and being a poor resident in Hong Kong. The value of qualitative research lies in its elicitation of down-toearth clues to compose a story about the concerned relationships. The present findings imply that neighborhood social cohesion, as a component of social sustainability, is worth promoting (Choguill, 2007), as evidenced by the contribution of social cohesion to the residents’ life satisfaction. Conceivably, neighborhood social cohesion as a means to mobilize timely assistance to needy residents merits advancement (Ha, 2007). Promoting perceived social cohesion among neighbors is beneficial, even without directly extending help to the residents, making neighborhood social cohesion a cost-effective means of sustaining life satisfaction. This is the crux of sociotropic well-beingdothers’ well-being maintains a linkage with one’s well-being. The linkage supposedly stems from socialization, as well as human nature. Therefore, socialization is conducive to social cohesion and its salutary effects. Of direct relevance would be socialization that encourages social cohesion within the neighborhood, such as by enhancing residents’ identification with the neighborhood (Hogg, 1992); this is the approach used in community development (Mathbor, 2007). Apart from direct efforts to promote neighborhood social cohesion, increasing a resident’s sociotropic concern to raise the link between him or her and the neighborhood is feasible. Such an indirect way may involve increasing the resident’s stake in the neighborhood, by fostering his or her participation in activities and ownership of resources in the neighborhood, for example (Prezza, Amici, Roberti, & Tedeschi, 2001). Developing a homogeneous neighborhood is another way of advancing neighborhood social cohesion. Hence, placing people with similar background characteristics in a neighborhood, as with the development of Tin Shui Wai, can help foster neighborhood social cohesion and life satisfaction, suggesting that segregation can be salutary to the residents indirectly, supposedly because of their desire for homophily (Phan, Blumer, & Demaiter, 2009). Homogenization may also fuel free interchange among residents, in strengthening social cohesion or social sustainability (Choguill, 2008). This contribution justifies the development of public housing with compatible designs to secure social cohesion (Sim et al., 2003). Conversely, building private housing would not be helpful to poor people because it leads to heterogeneity and polarization in the society, even if it energizes the middle-class economy (Yu, 2006). However, homogenization or segregation is not necessarily favorable to life satisfaction if it does not encourage social cohesion. Although homogenization does not seem to contribute to life satisfaction definitely, it tends to magnify the satisfying effect of neighborhood social cohesion, thus contributing to life satisfaction conditionally. This is consistent with the view that residential segregation is adaptive and need not be demoralizing (Nauck, 2001; Oliver, 2003). Nevertheless, the salutary effects of segregation need to be conditional on neighborhood social cohesion. Thus, ensuring that homogenization fosters social cohesion is necessary to capitalize on homogenization.

Acknowledgments The work described in this paper receives full support by the CityU Strategic Research Grant (#7002398).

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

References Abbott, P., & Sapsford, R. (2006). Life-satisfaction in post-Soviet Russia and Ukraine. Journal of Happiness Studies, 7, 251e287. Bentler, P. M. (2007). On tests and indices for evaluating structural models. Personality & Individual Differences, 42, 825e829. Berry, H. L., & Welsh, J. A. (2010). Social capital and health in Australia: an overview from the household income and labour dynamics in Australia survey. Social Science & Medicine, 70, 588e596. Biswas, S. (2002). Whither the nation-state? National and state identity in the face of fragmentation and globalisation. Global Society, 16(2), 175e198. Bjornberg, U., & Ekbrand, H. (2008). Financial and practical kin support in sweden: normative guidelines and practice. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 39(1), 73e95. Bourguignon, F., Ferreira, F. H. G., & Walton, M. (2007). Equity, efficiency and inequality traps: a research agenda. Journal of Economic Inequality, 5, 235e256. Brockmann, H., Delhey, J., Welzel, C., & Yuan, H. (2009). The China Puzzle: falling happiness in a rising economy. Journal of Happiness Studies, 10, 387e405. Brown, T. N. (2001). Measuring self-perceived racial and ethnic discrimination in social surveys. Sociological Spectrum, 21, 377e392. Burt, R. S. (2004). Structural holes and good ideas. American Journal of Sociology, 110(2), 349e399. Calhoun, C. (2002). Imagining solidarity: cosmopolitanism, constitutional patriotism, and the public sphere. Public Culture, 14(1), 147e171. Campbell, A., Joanne, H., Miles, H., & Ed, C. (2008). Social capital as a mechanism for building a sustainable society in Northern Ireland. Community Development Journal, 45(1), 22e38. Cattell, V. (2004). Having a laugh and muckerg in together using social capital to explore dynamics between structure and agency in the context of declining and regenerated neighborhood. Sociology, 38(5), 945e963. Cheong, P. H., Rosalind, E., Harry, G., & John, S. (2007). Immigration, social cohesion and social capital: a critical review. Critical Social Policy, 27(1), 24e49. Cheung, C., & Chan, R. K. (2010). Social capital as exchange: its contribution to morale. Social Indicators Research, 96, 205e227. Cheung, C., & Gui, Y. (2006). Job rewards from the strength of strong ties in China. Human Relations, 59(6), 847e872. Choguill, C. L. (2007). The search for policies to support sustainable housing? Habitat International, 31, 143e149. Choguill, C. L. (2008). Developing sustainable neighborhoods. Habitat International, 32, 41e48. Coffe, H., & Geys, B. (2007). Participation in bridging and bonding associations and civic attitudes: evidence from Flanders. Voluntas, 18, 385e406. Collins, R. (2000). Situational stratification: a micro-macro theory of inequality. Sociological Theory, 18(1), 17e43. Conley, D., & Gifford, B. (2006). Home ownership, social insurance, and the welfare state. Sociological Forum, 21(1), 55e82. Crow, G. (2002). Social solidarities: theories, identities and social change. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press. Crowe, J. (2010). Community attachment and satisfaction: the role of a community’s social network structure. Journal of Community Psychology, 38(5), 622e644. Dayton-Johnson, J. (2003). Knitted warmth: the simple analytics of social cohesion. Journal of Socio-Economics, 32, 623e645. Diener, E., Emmons, R. A., Larsen, R. J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The satisfaction with life scale. Journal of Personality Assessment, 49, 71e75. Dittman, J., & Goebel, J. (2010). Your house your car, your education: the socioeconomic situation of the neighborhood and its impact on life satisfaction in Germany. Social Indicators Research, 96, 497e513. Evans, W. N., Hout, M., & Mayer, S. E. (2004). Assessing the effect of economic inequality. In K. M. Neckerman (Ed.), Social inequality (pp. 933e968). New York: Russell Sage. Faunce, W. A. (2003). Work, status, and self esteem: Theory of selective self investment. Lanham, MD: University Press of America. Fauth, R. C., Leventhal, T., & Brooks-Gunn, J. (2008). Seven years later: effects of a neighborhood mobility program on poor black and latino adults’ wellbeing. Journal of Health & Social Behavior, 49(2), 119e130. Friedkin, N. (2004). Social cohesion. Annual Review of Sociology, 30, 409e425. Fujisawa, Y., Hamano, T., & Takegama, S. (2009). Social capital and perceived health in Japan: an ecological and multilevel analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 69, 500e505. Godoy, R. A., Gurven, M., Byron, E., Victoria, R. G., James, K., Vincent, V., et al. (2004). Do markets worsen economic inequalities? Kuznets in the bush. Human Ecology, 32(3), 339e364. Graham, C., & Pettinato, S. (2002). Frustrated achievers, winners, losers and subjective well-being in new market economies. Journal of Development Studies, 38(4),100e140. Groot, W., Maassen van den Brink, H., & van Praag, B. (2007). The compesating income variation of social capital. Social Indicators Research, 82, 189e207. Grootaert, C., & van Bastelaer, T. (2002). Understanding and measuring social capital: A multidisciplinary tool for practitioners. Washington, DC: World Bank. Ha, S. K. (2007). Housing regeneration and building sustainable low-income communities in Korea. Habitat International, 31, 116e129. Hagerty, M. R. (2003). Was life better in the good old days? Intertemporal judgments of life satisfaction. Journal of Happiness Studies, 4, 115e139. Hall, D. L., Matz, D. C., & Wood, W. (2010). Why don’t we practice what we preach? A meta-analytic review of religious racism. Personality & Social Psychology Review, 14(1), 126e139.

571

Helliwell, J. F., & Putnam, R. D. (2005). The Social context of well-being. In F. A. Huppert, N. Baylis, & B. Keverne (Eds.), The science of well-being (pp. 435e459). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Helliwell, J. F. (2006). Well-being and social capital: does suicide pose a puzzle? Social Indicators Research, 81, 455e496. Herman, E. (2006). Migration as a family business: the role of personal networks in the mobility phase of migration. International Migration, 44(4), 191e230. Hofferth, S. L., Boisjoly, J., & Duncan, G. J. (1999). The development of social capital. Rationality & Society, 11(1), 79e110. Hogg, M. A. (1992). The social psychology of group cohesiveness: From attraction to social identity. New York: New York University Press. Hogg, M. A. (2007). Uncertainty-identity theory. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 69e126. Hu, Li-tze, & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1e55. Hulse, K., & Stone, W. (2007). Social cohesion, social capital and social exclusion: a cross-cultural comparison. Policy Studies, 28(2), 109e126. Johnson, C. A. (2008). Access to social capital and the structure of inequality in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia. In N. Lin, & B. H. Erickson (Eds.), Social capital: An international research program (pp. 380e393). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Jordahl, H. (2009). Economic inequality. In T. S. Gert, & L. H. S. Gunnar (Eds.), Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics (pp. 323e336). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Kearns, A., & Forrest, R. (2000). Social cohesion and multilevel urban Governance. Urban Studies, 37(5/6), 995e1017. King, L. A. (2001). The hard road to the good life: the happy, mature person. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 41(1), 51e72. Kipnis, A. (2002). Practices of Guanxi: production and practices of Guanxi. In T. Gold, G. Doug, & W. David (Eds.), Social connection in China: Institutions, culture, and the changing nature of Guanxi (pp. 21e36). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge. Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. Kossinets, G., & Watts, D. J. (2009). Origins of homophily in an evolving social Network. American Journal of Sociology, 115(2), 405e450. Leach, C. W., van Zomeren, M., Sven, Z., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Bertjan, D., & Ouwerkerk, J. W. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: a hierarchical (multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 95(1), 144e165. Leonard, M. (2004). Bonding and bridging social capital: reflections from Belfast. Sociology, 38(5), 927e944. Letki, N. (2008). Does diversity erode social cohesion? Social capital and race in British neighbourhoods. Political Studies, 56, 99e126. Lizardo, O. (2006). How cultural tastes shape personal networks. American Sociological Review, 71(5), 778e807. London, A. S., Schwartz, S., & Scott, E. K. (2006). Combining quantitative and qualitative data in welfare policy evaluations in the United States. World Development, 35, 342e353. Maloutas, T., & Maloutas, M. P. (2004). The Glass menagerie of urban governance and social cohesion: concepts and stakes / concepts as stakes. International Journal of Urban & Regional Research, 28(2), 449e465. Marschall, M. J., & Stolle, D. (2004). Race and the city: neighborhood context and development of generalized trust. Political Behavior, 26(2), 125e153. Mathbor, G. M. (2007). Enhancement of community preparedness for natural disasters: the role of social work in building social capital for sustainable disaster relief and management. International Social Work, 50(3), 357e369. McDaniel, S. A. (2003). Social cohesion and gender: Reflections on tendencies and tensions. Canadian Journal of Sociology, 28(1), 43e50. McKee-Ryan, F. M., Song, Z., & Wanberg, C. R. (2005). Psychological and physical well-being during unemployment: a meta-analytic study. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(1), 53e76. McPherson, M., & Smith-Lovin, L. (2002). Cohesion and membership duration: linking groups, relations and individuals in an ecology of affiliation. Advances in Group Processes, 19, 1e36. Michalos, A. C., & Zumbo, B. D. (2001). Ethnicity, modern prejudice and the quality of life. Social Indicators Research, 53, 189e222. Mitra, A. (2008). Social capital, livelihood and upward mobility. Habitat International, 32, 261e269. Molm, L. D. (2006). The social exchange framework. In P. J. Burke (Ed.), Contemporary social psychological theories (pp. 24e45). Stanford, CA: Stanford Social Sciences. Molm, L. D. (2008). The Structure of reciprocity and integrative bonds: the role emotions. In J. Clay-Warner, & D. T. Robinson (Eds.), Social structure and emotion (pp. 167e192). San Diego, CA: Academic. Mookerjee, R., & Beron, K. (2004). Gender, religion, and happiness. Journal of SocioEconomics, 34, 674e685. Mutz, D. C., & Mondak, J. J. (1997). Dimensions of sociotropic behavior: group-based judgments of fairness and well-being. American Journal of Political Science, 41(1), 284e308. Muthen, L. K., & Muthen, B. O. (2006). Mplus user's guide. Los Angeles, CA: Muthen & Muthen. Nahapiet, J. (2009). Capitalizing on connections: social capital and strategic management. In V. Ona Bartkus, & J. H. Davis (Eds.), Social capital: Reaching out, reaching in (pp. 205e236). Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

572

C.-k. Cheung, K.-k. Leung / Habitat International 35 (2011) 564e572

Nauck, B. (2001). Social capital, intergenerational transmission and intercultural contact in Immigrant families. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 32(4), 465e488. Navarro, V. (2002). Neoliberalism, globalization, unemployment, inequalities, and the welfare state. In V. Navarro (Ed.), The political economy of social inequalities: Consequences for health and quality of life (pp. 33e108). Amityville, NY: Baywood. Oliver, J. E. (2003). Mental life and the metropolis in suburban America: the psychological correlates of metropolitan place characteristics. Urban Affairs Review, 39(2), 228e253. Ostrom, E., & Ahn, T. K. (2009). The meaning of social capital and its link to collective action. In G. Tinggaard Svendsen, & G. L. H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of social capital: The troika of sociology, political science and economics (pp. 17e35). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Ovaska, T., & Takashima, R. (2006). Economic policy and the level of self-perceived well-being: an international comparison. Journal of Socio-Economics, 35, 308e325. Phan, M. B., Blumer, N., & Demaiter, E. I. (2009). Helping hands: neighborhood diversity, deprivation, and reciprocity of support in non-kin networks. Journal of Social & Personal Relationships, 26(6e7), 899e918. Phillips, D. (2006). Quality of life: Concept, policy and practice. London: Routledge. Phillips, D., & Berman, Y. (2003). Social quality and ethnos communities: concepts and indicators. Community Development Journal, 38(4), 344e357. Prezza, M., Amici, M., Roberti, T., & Tedeschi, G. (2001). Sense of community referred to the whole town: its relations with neighboring, homelessness, life satisfaction and area of residence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 29e52. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137e174. Radcliff, B. (2008). The Politics of human happiness. In B. A. Sullivan, M. Snyder, & J. L. Sullivan (Eds.), Cooperation: The political psychology of effective human interaction (pp. 305e321). Malden, MA: Blackwell. Ram, Rati (2009). Government spending and happiness of the population: additional evidence from large cross-country samples. Public Choice, 138, 483e490. Ross, C. E., Reynolds, J. R., & Geis, K. J. (2000). The contingent meaning of neighborhood stability for residents’ psychological well-being. American Sociological Review, 65, 581e597. Rothstein, B. (2001). The universal welfare state as a social dilemma. Rationality & Society, 13(2), 213e233, 70-297. Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Social disorder: neighborhood stigma and the social construction of broken windows. Social Psychology Quarterly, 67(4), 319e342. Sampson, R. J. (1991). Linking the micro- and macrolevel dimensions of community social organization. Social Forces, 70(1), 43e64.

Seibert, S. E., Kraimer, M. L., & Liden, R. C. (2001). A social capital theory of career success. Academy of Management Journal, 41(2), 219e237. Sim, L. L., Yu, S. M., & Han, S. S. (2003). Public housing and ethnic integration in Singapore. Habitat International, 27, 293e307. Small, M. L. (2009). Unanticipated gains: Origins of network inequality in everyday life. New York: Oxford University Press. Small, M. L., & McDermott, M. (2006). The Presence of organizational resources in poor urban neighborhoods: an analysis of average and contextual effects. Social Forces, 84(3), 1697e1724. Stanley, D., & Smeltzer, S. (2003). Many happy returns: how social cohesion attracts investment. In L. Osberg (Ed.), Economic Implications of social cohesion (pp. 231e240). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press. Stutzer, A. (2004). The role of income aspirations in individual happiness. Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 54, 89e109. Subramanian, S. V., Belli, P., & Kawachi, I. (2002). The Macroeconomic determinants of health. Annual Review of Public Health, 23, 287e302. Taylor-Gooby, P., Hastie, C., & Bromley, C. (2003). Querulous citizens: welfare knowledge and the limits to welfare reform. Social Policy & Administration, 37(1), 1e20. Temes, N. (1986). Income distribution, happiness and satisfaction: a direct test of the interdependent preference model. Journal of Economic Psychology, 7, 425e446. Volker, B., Flap, H., & Lindenberg, S. (2007). When are neighborhoods communities? community in dutch neighborhoods. European Sociological Review, 23(1), 99e114. Weber, R. (2009). Religio-philosophical roots. In G. T. Svendsen, & G. L. H. Svendsen (Eds.), Handbook of social capital: the troika of sociology, political science and economics (pp. 107e123). Cheltenham, UK: Elgar. Weisinger, J. Y., & Salipante, P. F. (2005). A grounded theory for building ethnically bridging social capital in voluntary organizations. Nonprofit & Voluntary Quarterly, 34(1), 29e55. Westaway, M. S. (2006). A longitudinal investigation of satisfaction with personal and environmental quality of life in an informal social African housing settlement, Doornkop, Soweto. Habitat International, 30, 175e189. Whyte, M. K., & Guo, M. (2009). How angry are Chinese citizens about current inequalities? Evidence from a national survey. Social Transformations in Chinese Societies, 5, 17e54. Woolcock, M. (1998). Social capital and economic development: toward a theoretical synthesis and policy framework. Theory & Society, 27, 151e208. Yu, Z. (2006). Heterogeneity and dynamics in China’s emerging urban housing market: two sides of a success story from the later 1990s. Habitat International, 30, 277e304.