Dean’s Office, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick : April 2007 HEALTH SERVICES EXECUTIVE MID-WEST AREA AND LIMERICK CITY DEVELOPMENT BOARD Prepared for: Dineen Eileen Humphreys and Donal A. Prepared by:

AViD Graphic Design in Social Capital Limerick City & Environs Evaluation of Trust and reciprocity the neighbourhood towards people in … bonding social

capital of Capital Limerick & s n o r i v n y&E t i kC c i r e m i nL li a t i p a lC a i c o fS no o i t a u l a v E Foreword by the Chairman of Limerick City Development Board

Limerick City Development Board was launched by The Minister of the Environment and Local Government, Mr Noel Dempsey in April 2000. The Board seeks to achieve greater co-ordination between local government state agencies and the local development sector characterised by a partnership collaborative approach, the primary function of the Board is to oversee a ten year strategy for the economic, social and cultural development of Limerick City. Goal 7 of LCDB strategy states that “Limerick will become a Healthy City” to achieve this a programme will be prepared working towards the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for the development of a Healthy Evaluation of Cities project.

Social Capital The publication of this research study is one of the first steps on the long journey towards achieving Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation this recognition. in Limerick City It is also a unique collaboration between the statutory agencies and the educational institutions & Environs working together as members of Limerick City Development Board to achieve a positive outcome for our city.

I would like to express my thanks to those who gave their time to participate in the study and to Prepared for: Eileen Humphries and Donal Dineen of the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick who prepared the report. To Miriam O Donoghue LCDB, Teresa Greally, Ger Hanna, Mary Kennedy, Brian Health Service Executive Neeson of the HSE, for bringing this important work to publication. Mid-West Area and Prepared by: Eileen Humphreys Limerick City Development and Board Donal A. Dineen

Mayor Ger Fahy Chairman This is a summary of a more Limerick City Development Board extensive research study prepared by Eileen Humphreys and Donal A. Dineen for the Health Services Executive, Mid-West Area and Limerick City Development Board in January.

Dean’s Office, Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick April 2007

Humphreys, E. and D.A. Dineen* (2006) Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City and Environs. Report to the HSE Mid-West Area and the Limerick City Development Board, Limerick, January.

© Eileen Humphreys and Donal A. Dineen, 2007 Contents List of Figures

1 Figure 1: Characteristics of Study Neighbourhoods 4

1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW 1 2 Figure 2: Method of measuring social capital: Dimensions of social capital 8

1.1 Why the Interest in Social Capital? 1 3 Figure 3: Factors in the environment of neighbourhood associated with 9 1.2 What is Social Capital? 1 social capital 1.3 What Characteristics are Associated with Social Capital 2 4 Figure 4: The concept of ‘neighbourhood’ 12 1.4 Why Was the Study Undertaken? 2 1.5 The Study Neighbourhoods 2 5 Figure 5: Identification with / Attachment to neighbourhood 12 6 Figure 6: Bonding social capital values: Trust and reciprocity by neighbourhood 14

vlaino oilCptli ieikCt Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation 7 Figure 7: Institutional trust by neighbourhood 15 2. METHODOLOGY 6 8 Figure 8: Attitudes towards local governance by neighbourhood 16 2.1 Research Strategy and Design 7 2.2 How Was the Social Capital Measured and the Data Analysed? 7 9 Figure 9: Density of local networks by neighbourhood 17 10 Figure 10: Involvement – at least passive and active – in voluntary organisations 17

11 Figure 11: All neighbourhoods – Involvement in voluntary organisations 18 3. KEY FINDINGS OF THE STUDY 11 12 Figure 12: Awareness of and involvement in linking social capital networks by 19 3.1 Perceptions of, and Sense of Identification with, Neighbourhood 12 neighbourhood 3.2 Conditions: Community and Economic Services 13 13 Figure 13: Bonding social capital: Social support by neighbourhood 20 3.3 Levels of Social Capital 13 3.3.1 Values / Attitudes 13 14 Figure 14: Civic engagement – Civic interest, participation, action 20 3.3.2 Social Capital Networks 16 by neighbourhood 3.3.3 Positive Outcomes Linked to Social Capital 19 15 Figure 15: Bonding, bridging, linking & overall social capital 21 3.3.4 Overall Levels of Social Capital 21 (values & networks) by neighbourhood 3.4 Impact of Social Capital: Quality of Life in the Neighbourhoods 22 16 Figure 16: Quality of neighbourhood as a place to live 22 3.4.1 Extent of Resident Satisfaction with Neighbourhood 22 3.4.2 Local Neighbourhood Problems 23 17 Figure 17: Extent of concentration of problems by neighbourhood 23 3.4.3 Quality of Local Services 24 18 Figure 18: Quality of services by neighbourhood 24 3.5 What Set of Factors Explain Differences in Social Capital? 25 (average of 9 services including public transport) 3.5.1 Location / Place per se? 25 19 Figure 19: Summary of the findings on ‘models’ of social capital – 25 3.5.2 Socio-economic Characteristics: The People? 26 overall social capital and bonding, bridging and linking social capital

4. CONCLUSIONS, LESSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 27

4.1 Main Conclusions 28 4.2 Key Lessons 30 MAPS 4.3 Recommendations 30 4.3.1 Planning Policies and Local Neighbourhoods 30 4.3.2 Area-based Regeneration 31 1 Map 1: Profile of relative affluence / deprivation at Electoral District level 5 4.3.3 Institutional Issues and Governance 32 (2002 data) 4.3.4 Health 32 2 Map 2: Profile of mobility (change of address over one year period) 5 at Electoral District level (2002 data)

ANNEX I: REFERENCES 33

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs Introduction and Overview Introduction & Overview 1. INTRODUCTION AND OVERVIEW

This is a summary report of a study of ‘social capital’ in communities in Limerick city and environs. The study was undertaken on behalf of the Health Services Executive, West Region and Limerick City Development Board by a team from the Kemmy Business School, University of Limerick. The remainder of this first section of this report outlines what ‘social capital’ means, why public policy makers are interested in it, why the study was undertaken and where the study was undertaken.

The second section describes the study methodology. Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation The third section provides a description of the main findings of the study. It includes a comparative analysis of conditions associated with social capital in the study neighbourhoods, and aspects of the social capital in the study neighbourhoods. The fourth section identifies the conclusions, lessons and recommendations flowing from the study findings.

1.1 Why the Interest in Social Capital? Social capital is one of the new concepts in public policy, increasingly regarded as important for well- functioning communities from nations, to regions, to neighbourhoods. The concept is not entirely new, however, in that it is typically associated with sense of community or ‘community spirit’ and engagement in voluntary activity. It has much in common with community development. The growing interest in social capital on the part of public policy makers is linked to the importance of an active civil society in sustaining healthy democracy and the association between high levels of social capital and positive outcomes such as economic prosperity, lower crime and better health in the population. There is a body of research work developing in Ireland and in other advanced states to examine the evidence on the contribution of social capital to such outcomes. Findings of some to quantify variations studies are positive but others argue that the case for ‘social capital’ is over-stated (i.e. it only makes in measures of social a small contribution) or that social capital is not the explanatory factor in the positive outcomes capital in Limerick as associated with it. a baseline measure against which future interventions and 1.2 What is Social Capital? developments may There are many definitions of social capital in the academic literature. The definition developed by be evaluated’ Putnam with social capital defined as ’features of social organisations such as networks, norms and trust that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating coordinated action’ (Putnam et al 1993: 167) was adopted in this study. This civic perspective on social capital is best known, is most relevant to the context of spatial communities such as neighbourhoods and has received most attention in public policy, particularly in Ireland.

As such, social capital is about: 1. social networks which bring people together, 2. supportive attitudes or norms (trust in people in general and reciprocity) and 3. outcomes flowing from working together in a coordinated way.

One problem with this elaboration is that social capital is only viewed in a positive light. However, several researchers have highlighted that social capital can have a ‘downside’ related to exclusion of people who are different.

As the concept evolved, three dimensions of social capital which help to explain how it functions, have been identified (Woolcock 1998; OECD 2001): 1. Bonding social capital refers to the ‘strong’ socially homogeneous ties of family, neighbours and close friends. In the context of neighbourhoods, bonding is associated with shared values and ‘close’ neighbourhood-based networks. The downside of bonding is its potential to exclude outsiders or people who hold different values from the mainstream community (Portes and Landolt 1996).

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 1 ONE Introduction and Overview Introduction and Overview

2. Bridging social capital refers to the socially heterogeneous ties – i.e. the ‘weak ties’ - connecting centred on the construction of large apartment blocks. The socio-economic profile of the area is people across social groups into horizontal associations. Involvement in such groups builds up above average (affluent). It is characterised by high mobility rates with part of the area having networks of acquaintances which, in turn, can bring access to wider resources and upward mobility. the highest residential mobility in the city and suburbs. This area also has a large non-national In neighbourhoods, bridging social capital networks are associated with a presence of active non- and young population structure and high rates of private rental accommodation. governmental organisations. The assumption is that such organisations provide fora for building 4. Castletroy / Monaleen, traditionally, an affluent suburb of the city adjacent to the University of trust and integrating people across social groups. Limerick. It has high rates of home ownership and also of private rented accommodation linked 3. Linking social capital refers to links between people and groups in vertical ties, or hierarchical power to a large student population. As a result of new housing development and a mobile student relationships. This is the type of social capital associated with transforming neighbourhoods, population, it is characterised by high rates of residential mobility. bringing positive developmental outcomes achieved by reaching beyond the neighbourhood, linking into wider social and economic opportunities and resources and external power structures (i.e. into Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation the city, the region and beyond). Characteristics of the neighbourhoods are shown in Figure 1. Maps 1 and 2 show the location of the study neighbourhoods in the wider context of the city and environs with Map 1 showing profile by levels of relative affluence / deprivation at Electoral District (ED) level and Map 2 showing mobility 1.3 What Characteristics are Associated with Social Capital? levels, again based on boundaries of Electoral District closest to the boundaries of the study neighbourhoods. Certain socio-economic characteristics of people are associated with higher levels of social capital. These include higher levels of education, being in middle and older age groups, being in employment, being in higher social class groupings and in traditional two parent and stable family structures. More equal societies and homogenous communities are associated with higher levels of social capital. At neighbourhood level, areas with greater diversity of use of space (residential, retail, work, social facilities present and utilised in the neighbourhood), low mobility rates and high rates of home ownership are factors conducive to creating sense of community. They are also associated with higher levels of social capital. Decentralised government structures and processes to engage citizens in decision-making (i.e. information, local consultation processes) are considered conducive to mobilising community social capital. Participation in voluntary associations is regarded as a key mechanism for building social capital as well as being an indicator of its existence. Other dimensions of engaging in civil society such as voting in elections and mobilising people to take action to address common problems (like inadequate public services in the neighbourhood) and issues that affect communities are also used as indicators of social capital.

1.4 Why Was the Study Undertaken? The study was undertaken as a contribution to empirical research on social capital in different types of urban community, against the backdrop of changing economic and social conditions in Ireland and differences in residential mobility patterns in the city and environs. The aim of the study was to describe and measure social capital across a range of neighbourhoods in Limerick City and environs, and to use the study findings to inform and contribute to public policy formulation. Specifically, the aim was ‘to quantify variations in measures of social capital in Limerick as a baseline measure against which future interventions and developments may be evaluated’. The findings are expected to be useful across a range of policy fields including health, planning, socio-economic development, education and local governance. While the study was undertaken in Limerick, the findings may be applicable more widely to urban communities in contemporary Ireland.

1.5 The Study Neighbourhoods Four neighbourhoods, which reflect typologies of neighbourhood in the city and environs, were selected as the sites for the study. They include both relatively affluent and relatively disadvantaged neighbourhoods with high, medium and low rates of residential mobility. The four neighbourhoods selected were as follows: 1. King’s Island, an extremely disadvantaged inner city community with a pattern of low residential mobility, and a demographic profile of a high age dependency, linked to the combination of an older population structure and a relatively large proportion of young children. The largest residential area, St. Mary’s Park, is one of the most deprived Electoral Districts in the country; 2. Moyross, an area constructed as a local authority estate on the northside of the city, which is very disadvantaged. It is classified as medium-level residential mobility. This area has a relatively young population structure, a large proportion of the population in the active age groups (15-64 years) and very small numbers of older people; 3. Inner City and Docks Area, a mixed area in the inner city including commercial areas of the city, 2 older affluent areas and the dock area where considerable redevelopment has taken place

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 3 ONE Introduction and Overview Introduction and Overview

Map 1: Profile of relative affluence / deprivation at Electoral District level (2002 data) Figure 1: Characteristics of Study Neighbourhoods

vlaino oilCptli ieikCt Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation Engagement in sporting Engagement in (GAA) in the organisations and sports and many community to activities / clubs linked leisure Limerick. of the University in associations residents Active some parts. As this is an affluent no public policy support for area, development. community community of Development local & strong organisation in 1980s. Support for leadership since development area-based up of setting 1989 (i.e. 5 targeting partnership structure in communities disadvantaged Limerick City). fragmented of History / voluntary community Public policy organisation. area-based support for 1989 (as one since development communities 5 disadvantaged of in the city). residential settled In the more active of is a history there parts, and associations residents As the neighbourhood watch. is affluent, has been area there local no public policy support for development. / community Community & policy support for & policy support Community local development Castletroy / Monaleen is part of / Monaleen is part Castletroy ED in a large Ballysimon ED, Limerick.County The study neighbourhood is much smaller around area on an concentrated Limerick, of the University older the and into Castletroy, parts of in built-up estates new Monaleen & Annacotty. Ballynanty. ED, the to ‘Close’ disadvantaged the most of Three in Moyross the 12 estates of Delmege and Cravel (Pinewood, in Limerick are however, Park), ED (which also North Rural includes Caherdavin). A 3 EDs – St.Comprises John’s St. 443 households, (residential, B St. Park), John’s Mary’s and some (residential 437 households) commercial, C (mainly urban and St. John’s 99 households) area, renewal EDs – includes four The area Lower 294, Shannon A (pop. 1,879 Dock A (pop. Docks), Ave), O’Connell into Upper Docks part of 1,068, Dock C (part) (pop. & South Circular Ave O’Connell 1,015, and Dock D (pop. Road) Road). South Circular part of Statistical Units / Electoral Statistical Ireland) of (Census District

Map 2: Profile of mobility (change of address over one year period) at Electoral District level (2002 data) Affluent. in Disimprovement score. deprivation relative Very disadvantaged. Very in slight improvement score. deprivation relative residential The largest A, classified St. John’s estate, disadvantaged as extremely B St.(much worse), John’s & (small disimprovement) C (small St. John’s in relative improvement) scores. deprivation affluent. to average Above in relative Disimprovement in Shannon score deprivation A, Dock C and Dock D EDs. in Dock A Improvement including (Upper Docks St.,Henry St., Newenham Ave) O’Connell part of Relative affluence / affluence Relative 1991- & trend disadvantage 2004) 2002 (GAMMA Affluent suburb. Adjacent to University of University to Adjacent Affluent suburb. Park. Developed Limerick & Technological & & shopping facilities leisure home of employment. High rates rental & private ownership student Large accommodation. – rates High mobility population. 24.86%. Ballysimon ED, No (1970’s). Public housing estate small shops & base – few economic social and units. Community enterprise years. many for undeveloped facilities Medium mobility image. external Poor 7.67% Ballynanty - e.g. ED, rates & urban renewal centre an historic Covers recently & more & older (1930’s) area public housing (1970’s) constructed weak. Traditional Economically estates. external Poor jobs gone. of sources A ED, St. mobility – e.g. John’s Low image. Park, 1.4% St. Mary’s & lower Quay) upper (Steamboat Covers with docks Quay) / Howley’s (Harvey’s / apartment blocks new of concentrations accommodation; rented private South Ave., O’Connell of areas residential St., (O’Connell Rd. & city centre Circular Henry St.) Shannon High mobility – e.g. A, Dock A, 40% over Key characteristics & mobility rates by & mobility rates characteristics Key year, in previous address ED (change of 2002) Census (suburbs) Study area 1,670 households 1,670 area Study 100 households Sample size = 6% Study area: 1,630 households 1,630 area: Study 100 households Sample size = 6.1% Inner City / Dock Area (city) Inner City / Dock Area King’s Island, Limerick City King’s city inner (city) Traditional community. Neighbourhood population: 972 households (CSO 2,760, 2004) 98 households = Sample size 10.3% Moyross, Limerick City Limerick Moyross, (part part suburbs) city, Neighbourhood population: households 1,100 4,100, (CSO 2004) 101 households Sample size = 9.0% Castletroy / Monaleen / / Monaleen Castletroy Annacotty part of 4 Neighbourhood Study size name/size/sample

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 5 Methodology

Methodology The study methodology is outlined briefly below.

2.1 Research Strategy and Design The research strategy was primarily quantitative. It was centred on a neighbourhood-based survey of residents of four neighbourhoods in Limerick City and environs. The survey was a ‘snap shot’ or undertaken at a single point in time – in the case of two neighbourhoods (King’s Island and Moyross) in Spring and Summer 2003 and in the other two (Castletroy / Monaleen and Inner City and Dock Area) in Summer and Autumn 2004. It also involved consultations with public bodies, community and voluntary groups in the study neighbourhoods, and collection and analysis of secondary data. Secondary data mainly involved data Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation on neighbourhood characteristics drawn from census variables (Census of Ireland 1991, 1996 and 2002) and aggregated at Electoral District level. 1

The survey work is based on four independent samples of residents, randomly selected and stratified by population size of sub-areas (streets, estates) so that it is representative of the different parts which make up each of the study neighbourhoods. The method of administration of the survey involved face-to-face interviews with residents. The sampling frame was developed from the Electoral Register and supplementary research where there were found to be gaps in terms of completeness of the Register.

This research is differentiated from many other studies undertaken in disadvantaged neighbourhoods. In particular, it was an independent study. It was based on random sampling of households and individuals in the study neighbourhoods with the interviews undertaken based on house-to-house calls and in the homes of people participating in the research. The quantitative research strategy and probability sampling approach meant that the research did not rely on views of residents who are already engaged in community organisations or who self-select to participate in research – for instance, in focus groups organised with the assistance of community-based organisations. Considerable efforts were made to ‘to quantify address issues of potential bias in the sample – for instance, the study did not rely only on the Electoral variations in Register for the preparation of the sampling frame (which is the complete list of households from which measures of social the random sample is drawn) as many addresses in the study neighbourhoods were not registered, capital in Limerick as particularly in the case of the large apartment block in the city. Additional research was undertaken in the a baseline measure study neighbourhoods – particularly in the high mobility neighbourhoods - to ensure that all occupied against which future housing units were included in the sampling frame. interventions and developments may A high response rate to the survey was achieved – i.e. an overall rate of 94 per cent (399 completed be evaluated’ interviews). In the individual neighbourhoods, this ranged from the highest response rate of 98 per cent (Moyross) to the lowest rate of 87 per cent (Castletroy / Monaleen).

2.2 How Was the Social Capital Measured and the Data Analysed? An important part of the study was to develop means of measurement of social capital. The development of indicators (proxies to measure different types of social capital) drew on a substantial body of theoretical work and empirical research in territorial communities (nations, regions, neighbourhoods) and an understanding of conditions in the local neighbourhoods. Indicators were developed to measure levels of (i) bonding, (ii) bridging and (iii) linking social capital, as outlined above. The indicators identified measures related to (i) values / attitudes centred on trust at different levels, (ii) networks (the existence of networks of family, friends and neighbours and frequency of social interaction by visiting, telephone contact, and participation in, and knowledge of, voluntary organisations) and (iii) intermediate outcomes of social capital (providing social support to people in the neighbourhood in times of need and civic engagement including accessing news, voting and civic action) – See Figure 2.

6

1 With the exception of King’s Island, however, none of the boundaries of the study neighbourhoods coincided exactly with Electoral District boundaries. See Figure 1 for details.

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 7 TWO Methodology Methodology

Figure 2: Method of measuring social capital – Dimensions of social capital Figure 3: Factors in the environment of neighbourhood associated with social capital

Factors Description Dimensions of SC Bonding Bridging Linking Conditions conducive to Elements of SC social capital Values Social trust (trust in people) Trust in community Trust in institutions Neighbourhood location City v. town; relatively more prosperous v. disadvantaged; mobility Reciprocity (people look out) leaders (out for (7 institutions)

rates (high, medium, low) Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation Social cohesion (2 indicators themselves) Community efficacy – close knit community; Trust in community (can influence decisions) Density of use of community Average score for frequency of use (weekly, monthly, yearly, people don’t care) organisations (do their Local governance infrastructure never) of 10 facilities – community centre, social centre, parks, Social inclusion best) (3 indicators – the council playground, indoor sports, outdoor sports, library, neighbourhood (welcoming to newcomers) doesn’t care, doesn’t church, child in school (yes/no), adult education (attended in last inform, involves residents 3 years) in decision-making) Density of use of economic Average score for frequency of use of 5 facilities – shops (daily, infrastructure and consumer services weekly, less than once a week, never), restaurant, pubs, cinema Networks Know neighbours Involvement in voluntary Awareness of SC linking (weekly, monthly, yearly, never) and a household member Network density (family, organisations (passive) organisations; working in the neighbourhood (yes/no). friends and neighbours) Involvement in voluntary Participation in SC linking Interaction (contact via organisations (active) organisations Attachment to / identification with Average score over two statements related to sense of belonging visiting, ‘phone, meeting) (community groups, neighbourhood (‘do you feel you belong to the community’), and extent of pride residents’ / tenants’ in the neighbourhood (‘to what extent would you say you are associations, proud of your neighbourhood’) neighbourhood watch, statutory / community partnership initiatives) Impact of social capital Intermediate Doing and accepting favours Extent of civic interest Civic interest Resident satisfaction with Average score over three statements related to ‘what you think of outcomes for neighbours (reading newspapers, Civic action neighbourhood this neighbourhood as a place to live’, the extent to which ‘the Social support in times of listening to news) area is improving or getting worse as a place to live’ over the last need Civic action – voting and (continuum from bridging) 2 years; and response to ‘would you say this neighbourhood is taking action to address one which people would like to stay in or leave’. neighbourhood problems Quality of local services Average score for ratings of nine services: social and leisure facilities, facilities for pre-school children, facilities for young Data on socio-economic characteristics of people (e.g. education level, length of residence) and other children, facilities for teenagers, local schools, adult education, factors (use of neighbourhood facilities) which influence levels of social capital, and outcomes associated health, shops and transport with social capital (e.g. sense of personal safety in the neighbourhood, types of extent of neighbourhood problems, quality of services, quality of neighbourhood as a place to live) were also gathered. This enabled Concentration of neighbourhood Average score for extent to which 16 issues are problems: area an assessment of the quality of conditions and quality of life in the neighbourhood from residents’ or the problems poorly maintained / run down; rubbish / litter; problems with users’ perspective. It also provided a basis for testing the contention that social capital is associated with: neighbours; vandalism / graffiti; poor street lighting; traffic; 1. certain socio-economic characteristics of people such as level of education and home ownership, alcohol / drug abuse / dealing; nowhere for children to play; young people hanging round with nothing to do; car crime; lack of 2. conditions related to having a base of facilities / services that residents use in neighbourhoods, and / not enough local jobs; bad image by outsiders; people don’t care about the area. 3. positive impact in terms of creating neighbourhoods which are better places to live where the social capital is high – See Figure 3 for details. Personal safety in neighbourhood Average score over two questions: ‘how safe do you feel walking alone during daytime’; ‘how safe do you feel walking alone after dark’.

8

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 9 TWO Methodology

Data were analysed using SPSS. The approach to analysing the data is outlined below.

First stage analysis (including frequencies for categorical data and averages / means for continuous data) Key findings of the study was conducted on the whole data set (399 cases) and the four individual neighbourhoods. This was an important part of understanding aspects of the social capital present (e.g. involvement in voluntary associations) and conditions in the local neighbourhoods (e.g. types of social and community infrastructure present and frequency of use).

The second stage analysis involved the creation of summary variables (indices) to measure different aspects of social capital (e.g. bonding, bridging, linking), to measure conditions at neighbourhood level supportive of social capital (such as presence of key social and community facilities), and conditions identified with the impact of social capital (e.g. safety, quality of life in the neighbourhood, quality of local services, neighbourhood problem concentration).

Following from this, bivariate analysis was conducted focused on establishing associations between the variables (comparative analysis of the four neighbourhoods). This involved testing factors associated with social capital, identifying the key relationships and where there are differences between the neighbourhoods.

Finally multivariate analysis was conducted using multiple regression analysis. This focused on testing alternative models to identify the set of factors (e.g. type of neighbourhood, characteristics of the people who live there, infrastructure of community and social facilities, quality of services, concentration of neighbourhood problems) which predict levels of social capital in local neighbourhoods. This type of analysis enabled the identification factors associated (positively or negatively) with levels of social capital independent of others and how much of the variation or difference in levels of social capital is accounted for by the total set of factors included in the model.

Trust and reciprocity towards people in the neighbourhood … bonding social capital

10

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 11 THREE Key findings of the study Key findings of the study

The analysis of the survey data together with the secondary data produced a comprehensive body of 3.2 Conditions: Community and Economic Services information on characteristics of the study neighbourhoods, the people who live there and different aspects of The study examined residents’ awareness of the presence of community and social infrastructure and the social capital based on attitudes / values, social networks and actions identified as outcomes of social economic (shops, jobs) and consumer services (pubs, restaurant, cinema / theatre) and the extent to capital (i.e. social support in times of need, and civic engagement). Some of the key findings are described which they used them. The most important issue for social capital is whether local residents actually below. use the neighbourhood facilities so that they can act as ‘meeting places’ creating opportunities for building social ties and sense of community. 3.1 Perceptions of, and Sense of Identification with, Neighbourhood Drawing on academic work, the concept of neighbourhood is fluid (Jacobs 1961; Kearns and Parkinson Taking all of the community and social infrastructure facilities together (i.e. a score for frequency of 2001) – See Figure 4. This was found to be true from the survey findings, based on residents’ use across all ten facilities aggregated to neighbourhood level), the extent of use by residents is Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation perceptions of their neighbourhood or where they understand the ‘boundaries’ to be, and their greatest in Castletroy / Monaleen followed by Moyross. Such services / facilities are least used in expectations of distance they are prepared to travel for different types of services. For instance, the King’s Island and the Inner City / Dock area. This also reflects the extent to which the community expectation is that services like schools and health centres should be present in the locality while and social infrastructure is developed in the different neighbourhoods. Castletroy / Monaleen has a residents are prepared to travel more widely into the city and sub-region for jobs and wider consumer more developed base of community and leisure services linking into the facilities at the University of services. Limerick. In the case of Moyross, the community facilities / services generally have been put in place over the years through the efforts of community and voluntary organisations and are now quite well developed around Moyross Enterprise Centre. Figure 4: The concept of ‘neighbourhood’

Unsurprisingly, Castletroy / Monaleen and the Inner City and Dock Area have a much more developed Three levels of neighbourhood are identified in the literature: economic infrastructure (jobs, shops, pubs, cafes etc.) and there is more extensive use of this by residents compared with the situation in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods (Moyross and King’s • The home neighbourhood, defined as within a 5-10 minute walk of home Island). The extent or density of use of the economic infrastructure is weakest in Moyross where a • Locality or sub-district, unit of planning and service provision ‘community’ was constructed as a public housing estate (for residence only) without any economic base at that time. • Urban district (the city and environs) acting as the landscape of social and economic opportunities

The extent to which residents walk around the neighbourhood in the course of everyday activities In terms of difference between the neighbourhoods, with the exception of Castletroy / Monaleen, the (going to work, shops, school) is greater in the inner city neighbourhoods (King’s Island and Inner strongest sense of identification is with the ‘home’ neighbourhood which relates to the residential area City and Dock Area) and less developed in the suburban neighbourhoods (Castletroy / Monaleen and of the estate or the street name. In the case of Castletroy / Monaleen, the strongest sense of Moyross) where private car use and public transport, respectively, are the main forms of transport. identification (63 percent) is with the locality or sub-district (i.e. the suburb of Castletroy / Monaleen). This is interesting in that most residents surveyed are not natives and the average length of residence there was five years. 3.3 Levels of Social Capital Measures of the levels of social capital for the city and environs (based on all neighbourhoods) and Unsurprisingly, in the high mobility Inner City and Dock area which has a high concentration of non- for each neighbourhood were developed. Selected findings are presented below. national residents, there is a poor sense of belonging to community – only 25 percent feel they belong there compared, for instance, with 85 percent in the lowest mobility neighbourhood, King’s Island, where sense of belonging to community is strongest. 3.3.1 Values / Attitudes Focusing first on values, this was examined in relation to: Sense of pride in the neighbourhood is also strongest on King’s Island (80 percent very proud or quite 1. Trust and reciprocity towards people in the neighbourhood – i.e. social trust in familiars - and proud) while the reverse is the case with Moyross where the highest proportion (38 percent) is either social cohesion and inclusion of local community. These are values supportive of bonding not so proud or not at all proud of the neighbourhood. These findings in relation to sense of attachment social capital. to, and identification with, community / neighbourhood are shown in Figure 5 (based on averaging 2. Trust in voluntary / community organisations and activists, which are values supportive of scale data to neighbourhood level). bridging social capital; and 3. Institutional trust and attitudes toward local governance, which are values supportive of linking Figure 5: Identification with /Attachment to neighbourhood social capital. Scale: -2 (no sense of belonging, pride, attachment at all) to +2 (very proud, very strong sense of belonging, attachment)

12

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 13 Three Key findings of the study Key findings of the study

Findings on sense of trust and reciprocity towards people in the neighbourhood are shown in Figure 6. Institutional trust … Linking social capital Trust in institutions and attitudes toward local governance – i.e. attitudes supportive of people and groups in the neighbourhood working with the hierarchical power structures (i.e. local government Figure 6: Bonding social capital values: Trust and reciprocity by neighbourhood structures) that affect them – were used as indicators of values associated with linking social capital. Trust in institutions (the extent to which respondents trust specific institutions ‘to do what is right’) was explored with reference to institutions (7) considered to have an important role in addressing people’s needs in a neighbourhood setting. Trust is lowest in relation to the local authority – at the

lowest level in King’s Island where 13 percent trust the local authority ‘completely / in most things’ Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation and at the highest level in Castletroy / Monaleen where 38 per cent trust the local authority ‘completely or in most things’. As well as the local authority, in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods (King’s Island and Moyross), trust in social welfare, health services, the courts and probation services are all negative (i.e. more people distrust than trust them). In all neighbourhoods, trust in An Garda Siochana is positive (i.e. more people trust than distrust them). With the exception of King’s Island, trust is at the highest level in each of the neighbourhoods in relation to the local clergy and sisters.

Bringing the dataset together to establish overall levels of institutional trust (average score over all In terms of comparison between the neighbourhoods, trust and reciprocity are at the highest levels in seven institutions) for the city and environs (all neighbourhoods), trust in institutions is positive but the affluent Castletroy / Monaleen and the most disadvantaged city neighbourhood, King’s Island while levels of trust, generally, are not at a high level. Institutional trust is higher in the more affluent trust and reciprocity are lowest in the Inner City / Dock area. Drawing on some recent comparative neighbourhoods and highest in the affluent sub-urban neighbourhood (Castletroy / Monaleen). research in the Irish context, generalised social trust in familiars (neighbours) is at a medium level in Levels of institutional trust are lowest in King’s Island, part of which (St. Mary’s Park) is extremely the city and environs (i.e. based on findings for all neighbourhoods). For instance, in an all-Ireland disadvantaged. If the local clergy / sisters are excluded from the analysis, the situation is more survey of social capital, some 51 per cent of people in the Republic of Ireland indicated that they ‘trust negative generally, and trust in public institutions is negative in both of the disadvantaged most neighbours’ (Balanda and Wilde 2003). Trust in neighbours is much lower in the city neighbourhoods. These data are illustrated in Figure 7. neighbourhoods than found in resident surveys to measure to social capital in provincial towns where over 70 percent indicated that they ‘trust most people in the neighbourhood’ (Humphreys, 2005). Figure 7: Institutional trust by neighbourhood Social cohesion and inclusion of community … Bonding social capital While the detailed findings related to social cohesion (attitudes focused on agreement with statements that the neighbourhood is (i) a ‘close knit community’ and (ii) ‘people don’t care’) and social inclusion (the area is ‘welcoming to newcomers’) are not reported here, King’s Island is the only community where a majority agree that it is a ‘close knit community’. Moyross and the Inner City / Dock area are the least inclusive (‘welcoming to newcomers’) and Castletroy / Monaleen and King’s Island most inclusive. In these last two neighbourhoods, a majority agrees that the area is ‘welcoming to newcomers’.

Trust in community activists and organisations … Bridging social capital Trust in community activists and community organisations were used as indicators of values associated with bridging social capital – i.e. attitudes supportive of people working together in voluntary associations in community. In Putnam’s thinking, the contact between people who come together voluntarily within these types of horizontal associations is a very important forum or context for building In relation to attitudes towards local governance, a substantial proportion of residents (46%) in the trust. city and environs (across all neighbourhoods) agree that the local council (City Council in the case of King’s Island, Moyross and Inner City and Dock area and County Council in the case of Castletroy / Monaleen) ‘doesn’t care about the neighbourhood’. Attitudes across all neighbourhoods are more Trust in both community activists (extent of agreement with the statement that ‘most people active in negative in relation to information provision to residents with 67 per cent agreeing ‘the council community groups are out for themselves’) and community organisations (‘community groups do their doesn’t keep residents in this neighbourhood informed’ and are most negative about the extent to best’) is positive in the sense that a greater proportion holds attitudes that are positively disposed which local councils involve residents in decision-making with 71 per cent disagreeing with the towards them compared with the proportion which expresses negative attitudes towards them. statement that ‘the council involves residents in decision-making’. However, a substantial proportion, particularly in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods, have negative attitudes towards community activists in particular (over 30% in Moyross and 40% on King’s Island agree that they are ‘out for themselves’). Residents across all neighbourhoods have greater trust in The overall findings are illustrated in Figure 8 where the data are transformed to reflect the balance community groups / organisations than in community activists. Trust in both community activists and between positive and negative attitudes (and reverse coded as appropriate).2 An average score over community groups is lowest in Moyross, where there is considerable experience of community the range (-2 most negative attitudes to +2 most positive attitudes) is presented for each of the development, and highest in the Inner City / Dock area, where there is much less experience and a attitudinal statements.2 The variation between neighbourhoods is strongest on the extent to which different pattern of voluntary organisation. residents believe that the local council ‘doesn’t care’. This is negative in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods, Moyross and King’s Island (where more people agree than disagree that the

14

2 With the exception of King’s Island, however, none of the boundaries of the study neighbourhoods coincided exactly with Electoral District boundaries. See Figure 1 for details.

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 15 THREE Key findings of the study Key findings of the study

council ‘doesn’t care’) and positive in the more affluent areas of Castletroy / Monaleen and the Inner Figure 9: Density of local networks by neighbourhood City / Dock area. In relation to engaging with residents to keep them informed, attitudes are more negative in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods – i.e. more agreeing that residents are not kept Scores: informed than the proportion disagreeing with the statement – and most negative in King’s Island +2 = a lot (5 or more); compared with the affluent neighbourhoods. The findings on the extent to which the council involves +1 = a couple (3-4); residents in decision-making follows the same pattern of more negative attitudes in the disadvantaged -1 = very few (1-2); compared with the affluent neighbourhoods. -2 = none

Figure 8: Attitudes towards local governance by neighbourhood Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation

Note: Bars below the zero line indicate negative attitudes

In terms of social interaction with family / relatives, friends and neighbours by ‘phone, visiting or meeting, the findings indicate generally that people are ‘in touch’. Only two respondents reported a complete lack of social interaction with family / relatives, friends or neighbours over the past four weeks. However, over 15 per cent reported no interaction with neighbours over that period, and two-thirds of these were resident in the Inner City / Dock area.

Participation in voluntary associations … Bridging social capital Membership of voluntary associations and active engagement in associations are amongst the indicators of bridging social capital networks applied in this study. Some 29 per cent of respondents indicate that they The analysis shows that values / attitudes supportive of linking social capital – institutional trust and have been involved in a community or voluntary organisation over the past three years while 18 per cent governance - are not strongly developed in the neighbourhoods in the city and environs. The more indicate that they have been actively involved in such organisations (Figure 10). This is substantially lower affluent neighbourhoods have more positive values with the affluent sub-urban neighbourhood than the figure of 65 per cent involved in voluntary organisations cited in NESF (2003)3 , and higher (at (Castletroy / Monaleen) having the most positive attitudes. Attitudes are negative in the least passive involvement) than that reported by Balanda and Wilde (2003) for the Republic of Ireland disadvantaged city neighbourhood (Moyross and King’s Island) and most negative in the inner city (23% involved and 18% actively involved, 2001 data).4 neighbourhood, King’s Island.

Figure 10: Involvement – at least passive and active – in voluntary organisations 3.3.2 Social Capital Networks The findings on social capital networks are presented below in terms of: 1. Social networks of the closest ties of family, friends and neighbours in the neighbourhood or bonding social capital networks: 2. Participation in voluntary associations as an indicator of the extent of development of bridging social capital networks in the neighbourhoods 3. Knowledge / awareness and participation in organisations or processes by neighbourhood that fit with the definition of linking social capital networks.

Networks of family, friends and neighbours … Bonding social capital The overall picture is that bonding networks (the closest ties of family, friends and neighbours) are the most developed types of social networks across all neighbourhoods. The extent to which residents have social networks located in the neighbourhood is illustrated in Figure 9. This is based on an average There are significant differences between the neighbourhoods on involvement in voluntary / community score related to the extent to which the strongest ties of relatives (not living in the household), friends organisations with the affluent high mobility neighbourhood, Castletroy / Monaleen, having the highest and neighbours live in the neighbourhood. The neighbourhood with the strongest density of local level of involvement (41% at least passively involved) followed by the inner disadvantaged, King’s Island, networks is King’s Island followed by Moyross while network density of ‘strong’ ties (bonding) is weak (32% involved) while levels are lowest in the high mobility inner city neighbourhood (14%), Inner City / in the more affluent high mobility neighbourhoods (Castletroy / Monaleen and Inner City / Dock area). Dock area. There are no significant differences between neighbourhoods on levels of active involvement in voluntary / community organisations.

16

3 This indicated 65% of adults involved in voluntary association in Ireland in 1999 (Data sourced from Halman, 2001). The definition was not exactly the same as that used in this study – i.e. ‘the proportion of adults spending some time in clubs and voluntary associations in the previous 12 months’. Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 4 In this case, the same question was used in both studies. 17 ONE Key findings of the study Key findings of the study

The most important factors preventing involvement in voluntary and community organisations are lack Figure 12: Awareness of and involvement in linking social capital networks by neighbourhood of time (48% identified this as a reason) followed by not wanting to be involved / more involved (38% identified this reason). The time commitment to such organisations, if involved, is also an important reason why residents chose not to participate in them (28% identify this as a reason for non- involvement).

Types of voluntary and community organisations in which residents are involved are presented in Figure 11. Sports organisations or clubs have the highest level of membership across all neighbourhoods

followed by parents / school associations, youth clubs / scouts / guides and then residents’ / tenants’ Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation associations.

Figure 11: All neighbourhoods – Involvement in voluntary organisations

While the detailed data are not presented here in terms of which types of organisations are known, there is stronger knowledge of the informal or spontaneous organisations – such as residents’ / tenants’ associations – compared with formal structures of linking social capital such as state- supported local development and community development organisations and programmes. As expected, there is much stronger awareness of local development organisations and government programmes in support of communities in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods – where these have been established with state support. In any event, state-supported formal structures of this nature are absent in the affluent neighbourhoods. The high mobility affluent inner city neighbourhood (Inner City / Dock area), which has a strong concentration of ethnic non-nationals, is the only neighbourhood where associations of foreign nationals (aimed at promoting a ‘voice’ for this group) are named by residents.

Linking into decision-making … Linking social capital 3.3.3 Positive Outcomes Linked to Social Capital Linking social capital networks represent ties which link into vertical power hierarchies. In the Positive outcomes linked to social capital include first, social support in times of need, associated neighbourhood setting, this type of social capital is associated with channels or opportunities for with bonding social capital and secondly, civic engagement in community associated with bridging community involvement in decision-making and service delivery in public policy via structures of and linking social capital. These are often used as indicators of social capital, per se. In this study, voluntary bodies, partnerships and processes of community and citizen participation. Indicators of they are considered intermediate outcomes of social capital – i.e. they are outside of the definition of linking social capital networks used in this research are (i) awareness of, and (ii) participation in, social capital – but indicative of the existence of social capital and examples of benefits flowing from networks in the neighbourhood which involve links into public policy processes. Resident / tenant social capital. associations, local / community development groups, associations to promote the interests of foreign nationals, partnership structures and consultation processes, for instance associated with the RAPID programme, are classified as linking social capital networks. Social support for ‘getting by’ … Bonding social capital An index of social support associated with bonding social capital was created based on findings related to (i) patterns of doing and (ii) accepting small favours from a neighbour, (iii) having Figure 12 presents the findings on levels of awareness of, and involvement in, linking social capital someone to ask for help with a lift and (iv) someone to ask for help if ill and in need of help at networks by neighbourhood. This shows, generally, that levels of resident involvement in such networks home, and (v) having someone to turn to in a serious personal crisis. The findings by neighbourhood are very low – even in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods where there has been public policy support based on scores in the range -2 (no support) to +2 (support in all cases) are shown in Figure 13. for engagement in such networks for over a decade and a half. There are no statistically significant differences between the neighbourhoods on this indicator. The findings indicate that there is a high level of social support flowing from the ‘strong’ ties of family, friends and neighbours (bonding social capital networks) across all neighbourhoods. While Resident awareness of the existence of such networks in the neighbourhood setting could be regarded bonding social capital can have negative outcomes (exclusion, forms of intimidation), this type of as a measure of interest in the affairs of the neighbourhood and is a pre-condition for collective action support for ‘getting by’ in life is very important to the quality of everyday life in communities, involving engagement with the wider political process or administrative decision-making structures. particularly in disadvantaged communities. Support flowing from bonding social capital is most Awareness of linking social capital networks is at a high level in the neighbourhoods in the city and developed in the relatively lower mobility and most disadvantaged neighbourhoods of Moyross, environs with 69 per cent of all organisations named fitting with definitions of linking social capital where it is highest, followed by King’s Island. networks. There is stronger awareness of such organisations in the disadvantaged neighbourhood of Moyross (where such organisations are well-developed) and least awareness of them in the affluent neighbourhood, Inner City / Dock area.

18

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 19 THREE Key findings of the study Key findings of the study

Figure 13: Bonding social capital: Social support by neighbourhood 3.3.4 Overall Levels of Social Capital Overall levels of social capital and types of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking) for the Average score neighbourhoods in the city and environs (all neighbourhoods) and by neighbourhoods are illustrated in across five Figure 15. The average scores are based on indicators relating to the values and network elements of indicators of social capital and exclude intermediate outcomes (social support in times of need and civic engagement).5 positive outcomes associated with bonding social Figure 15: Bonding, bridging, linking & overall social capital (values & networks) by capital. Range -2 neighbourhood (no support) to +2 Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation (most extensive support)

On specific indicators, only two respondents (0.5%) stated that they would have no-one ‘to turn to for comfort and support’ in the event of ‘a serious personal crisis’ (although such support may not necessarily be neighbourhood-based).

Civic engagement … Bridging and linking social capital The extent of civic engagement was examined in the study as ‘outcomes’ associated with bridging and linking social capital. The overall measure of civic engagement was developed from indicators measuring interest in civic affairs (i.e. related to regularly accessing national and local news in newspapers, radio and television; civic participation (indicators related to voting in national and local The overall measure of social capital for the city and environs (based on the aggregate score for the values elections); and civic action (whether respondent took any types of action to solve a local problem in the and networks elements of social capital) indicate that it is at a ‘lowish’ level. However, there is a lack of a last three years). basis for comparison with other spatial areas or types of areas (e.g. rural versus urban) based on this approach to measurement. Nonetheless, based on the findings of a similar study6 which included two neighbourhoods in provincial towns, the overall levels of social capital in the city neighbourhoods – The findings, illustrated in Figure 14, indicate that civic engagement is relatively well-developed across reflecting Limerick as a whole - were found to be lower than in the provincial town neighbourhoods. This all neighbourhoods representing the city and environs. Civic interest based on regular accessing news is shows some consistency with recent research where centre size was found to be a significant factor most developed across all neighbourhoods and civic action to solve local problems is least developed. influencing levels of social capital (NESF 2003; Balanda and Wilde 2003). In relation to key individual Voting in elections is also at a high level. The ‘outlier’ neighbourhood, which in some respects such as indicators of social capital, trust in people in the neighbourhood was found to be at much higher levels in age structure of population, ethnic composition, housing tenure, is ‘atypical’, is the high mobility inner the provincial town neighbourhoods while both levels of passive and active involvement in voluntary city neighbourhood (Inner City / Dock area). Residents in this neighbourhood are least engaged in organisations were also found to be higher there compared with the disadvantaged city neighbourhoods civic affairs based on each of the indicators of civic engagement. and the highest mobility inner city neighbourhood (Inner City / Dock Area). Again, it should be noted that it is not the size of places per se but conditions associated with scale of settlement (for instance, less social segregation in terms of where people live, interaction across social groups in local institutions such as Figure 14: Civic engagement – Civic interest, participation, action neighbourhood schools, church, leisure facilities) which helps to explain the differences in the levels of social capital.

Focusing on the three dimensions of social capital, bonding is the most developed form, bridging is less developed overall in the population and linking social capital is the weakest form. This follows the same pattern of that found in provincial town neighbourhoods included in a similar study6 (Humphreys 2005). Prime facie, relatively weak linking networks / structures compared with bonding and bridging social capital networks might be expected in certain neighbourhoods – i.e. middle class neighbourhoods - since only targeted disadvantaged areas have had specific interventions supported by public policy in favour of structures to link communities at local area level into policy processes. While bridging and linking social capital are less developed in Castletroy / Monaleen than bonding social capital, bridging and linking social capital, nonetheless are more developed here, spontaneously, than in the targeted disadvantaged areas (Moyross and King’s Island).

5 Intermediate outcomes are excluded from the overall measure 20 (i) mainly in order to exclude factors considered consequences of social capital from the definition of what it is (i.e. to separate what social capital is from what it does), and (ii) because of some weaknesses in the validity and reliability of the indicators of civic engagement – for instance, there was evidence of passive rather than actively accessing news (e.g. because local newspapers are delivered free of charge) and some evidence of over-reporting on voting in elections. Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 6 Humphreys 2005 21 Three Key findings of the study Key findings of the study

On linking social capital generally, weak local governance structures as a factor limiting the generation Overall, residents of the affluent neighbourhood, Castletroy / Monaleen, are most satisfied with their of sufficient social capital to represent the interests of local neighbourhoods / community in the neighbourhood, reflected in the higher scores for resident satisfaction on all three indicators and the political process of decision-making is an issue identified in a further recent study in Ireland in the new overall indicator for quality of neighbourhood as a place to live. Residents of the medium-mobility sub-urban areas around Dublin where an ‘institutional void’ is identified at this level (Pellion et al disadvantaged neighbourhood, Moyross, are least satisfied overall (negative score) and especially on 2006). the indicator related to inclination of residents to stay; residents of the low mobility disadvantaged neighbourhood, King’s Island, have a high level of satisfaction with their neighbourhood overall, but are least satisfied, compared with other neighbourhoods, on the indicator related to dynamic of In terms of differences between the neighbourhoods, bonding is strongest in the most disadvantaged change over the last two years indicating that a majority considers that the area is getting worse and lower mobility neighbourhoods of King’s Island – i.e. the lowest mobility neighbourhood - and over that period.

Moyross with medium-level residential mobility rates. The highest mobility neighbourhood, Inner City / Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation Dock Area, has the lowest level of bonding social capital. Bridging and linking social capital are highest in the affluent neighbourhood of Castletroy / Monaleen eventhough there has been no public policy 3.4.2 Local Neighbourhood Problems support here for setting up local governance structures. Significantly, bridging and linking is the type of Residents were asked to indicate the extent to which a number of issues are problems in the social capital associated with flows of benefits or ‘getting ahead’ and transforming local areas in a neighbourhood setting. The greatest problems across all neighbourhoods representing the city and positive way by influencing decision-making and flows of resources into neighbourhoods. Bridging and environs in order of severity are: young people hanging around / with nothing to do followed by linking social capital are low in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods and levels of linking social capital nowhere for children to play, and lack of jobs in the local area followed by bad external image of lowest in King’s Island. the area by outsiders. There is some commonality of problems across all neighbourhoods especially relating to lack of facilities for children and especially teenagers, and a lack of community-based social / leisure facilities for residents. The findings showed that forms of anti-social behaviour are a 3.4 Impact of Social Capital: Quality of life in the Neighbourhoods common problem across all neighbourhoods. However, more affluent families (in more affluent The impact of social capital in the spatial setting of neighbourhood was examined in terms of resident neighbourhoods) have more resources at their disposal, by definition, and will tend to have better satisfaction with neighbourhood, the types and extent to which there are problems in the strategies (for instance, structured activities at weekends and in school holiday periods) to deal with neighbourhood and levels of satisfaction with local services. Positive impact on these indicators is them compared with families in poor neighbourhoods. Problems of poor external image and lack of associated with higher levels of bridging and particularly linking social capital. In this regard, a economic opportunities particularly affect the disadvantaged neighbourhoods. neighbourhood with higher levels of social capital should have capacity to engage in collective action to respond to needs (to respond to common problems, engage in action to influence improvement of local services), and maintain high levels of satisfaction with neighbourhood. Figure 17 brings this analysis together to illustrate the extent of concentration of problems by neighbourhood (based on an average score over the 16 types of problems examined). This clearly shows that while none of the neighbourhoods are without problems, the disadvantaged 3.4.1 Extent of Resident Satisfaction with Neighbourhood neighbourhoods have a much stronger concentration of neighbourhood problems compared with the more affluent neighbourhoods. The analysis of resident satisfaction with neighbourhood is based on scoring three indicators – the extent to which residents agree that the neighbourhood is ‘a good place to live’; whether they consider people ‘would stay or leave’ and the extent to which ‘the area is improving or getting worse over the Figure 17: Extent of concentration of problems by neighbourhood last two years’ – and an average score combining these three indicators (overall quality of neighbourhood as a place to live). The findings are illustrated in Figure 16. The scores are constructed as five point scales ranging from -2 (the most negative view of neighbourhood based on the indicators Average score uses) to +2 (the most positive view). over 16 types of problems ranging from 0 (not at all) to Figure 16: Quality of neighbourhood as a place to live 4 (very big problem)

22

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 23 Three Key findings of the study Key findings of the study

Figure 19: Summary of the findings on ‘models’ of social capital – overall social capital and Residents were asked to rate the quality of selected local services. While the detailed findings are not bonding, bridging and linking social capital presented here, across all neighbourhoods, the highest levels of satisfaction are with local schools (83% rate them good / very good), adult education and training (76% rate them good / very good), local shops (69%, good / very good), services for pre-school children (62% good / very good) and health services (62% good / very good). The lowest levels of satisfaction are with facilities / services for Outcome Social capital Bonding social Bridging social Linking social capital teenagers (78% rate them poor / very poor), facilities for young children (54%, poor / very poor) and variables (social capital capital social and leisure facilities for residents (43%, poor / very poor). The lack of facilities / services to capital) meet the needs of children and especially teenagers are also reflected in the findings on types and extent of neighbourhood problems reported above. Predictor variables (factors explaining Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation differences) 3.4.3 Quality of Local Services Residents were asked to rate the quality of key local services from ‘very good’ to ‘very poor’. Figure 18 brings the analysis together to illustrate the overall position on quality of local services by Location / Place +Moyross +Moyross -Moyross - King’s Island neighbourhood based on an average score over all types of services explored in the survey. (disadvantaged v. + King’s Island + King’s Island affluent; high, medium, low The affluent neighbourhood, Castletroy / Monaleen, has the highest ratings by residents on the quality mobility) of local services, followed by the disadvantaged neighbourhood, Moyross. King’s Island has the lowest and negative ratings. Significantly, quality of services in Moyross, in large part, is attributed to efforts of Compositional + Education + Length of residence – Renting – Renting local voluntary / community groups who were instrumental in putting those services in place – as characteristics – +Age +Age + Education level + Education level voluntary services or services delivered in cooperation or with funding support from public agencies. socio-economic – Renting – Single parent / – Single parent / +Age characteristics of living alone living alone – Student individuals and +Age Figure 18: Quality of services by neighbourhood (average of 9 services including public transport) households

Conditions in the + Community & + Community & + Community & + Community & neighbourhoods social social infrastructure social infrastructure social infrastructure (conditions including infrastructure – Problem + Quality of + Quality of facilities as well as – Problem concentration neighbourhood neighbourhood factors associated concentration + Quality of + Identification / + Identification / with the impact of + Quality of neighbourhood attachment attachment social capital) neighbourhood + Identification / + Personal safety in + Identification / attachment the neighbourhood attachment

3.5.1 Location / Place per se? Place or neighbourhood per se is significant in explaining variations in levels of social capital. The relatively lower mobility neighbourhoods (King’s Island and Moyross), which are also the most disadvantaged, are positively associated with overall social capital. Drawing on the wider literature, it would seem that it is the mobility factor (where in relatively higher mobility areas, people have not sufficiently established roots in a community and may not expect to stay) rather than relative 3.5 What Set of Factors Explain Differences in the Social Capital? affluence or disadvantage which explains the differences in the levels of social capital in this study. Multivariate analysis of the dataset using advanced statistical techniques allows the identification of a set of individual factors (each one associated with social capital, independent of all others) which explain differences in levels of social capital. Based on this, a model of the set factors which are Analysis of the association between neighbourhood and types of social capital gives other important significant in explaining differences in the levels of social capital can be constructed. The statistical insights: analysis also shows how much of the variation or difference in the levels of social capital (proportion of • Residence in these low mobility disadvantaged neighbourhoods is most strongly associated with the variation in social capital) is explained by the model. A summary of which factors proved to be bonding social capital. While bonding social capital – i.e. having close networks of family, friends significant in explaining differences and the factors included in the models are shown in Figure 19. and neighbours to draw on for support – is very important to the quality of everyday life in communities, it is not the type of social capital associated with upward mobility and change in the relative prosperity and prospects of neighbourhoods. • Focusing on bridging social capital, while Moyross has a developed base of voluntary and community organisations, residence there is negatively associated with bridging social capital (where key indicators are trust and engagement in voluntary associations). This and other findings of the study suggest that this layer of organised ‘community’ is not sufficiently reaching down to mobilise residents from the ‘grass roots’. • Residence in King’s Island is negatively associated with linking social capital (where key indicators are institutional trust and knowledge of and engagement in community and voluntary 24 organisations which try to link into policy processes on behalf of the community). This is indicative of a ‘gap’ between that community and links into public institutions and processes that could influence the prospects of that neighbourhood.

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 25 Three Key findings of the study

3.5.2 Socio-economic Characteristics: The People? Socio-economic characteristics of residents and households which make up the neighbourhood explain Conclusions, lessons and some of the variation in levels of social capital. Those socio-economic characteristics identified as significant in the study show some consistency with the wider literature on social capital. These include: recommendations • Level of educational qualification (with higher levels of education positively associated with social capital); • Age (being in middle and older age groups is positively associated with social capital); • Home tenure (where renting one’s home is negatively associated with social capital); • Length of residence in the neighbourhood (with longer periods of residence positively associated with bonding social capital). • Being a single parent or living alone is negatively associated with both bonding and bridging social capital.

However, a further important finding of the study was that socio-economic characteristics of people on their own explain a relatively small proportion of the variation in levels of social capital and that conditions of ‘place’ or where people live also matter and account for more of variation in levels of social capital in the neighbourhoods than socio-economic characteristics of people. This is an important insight. It suggests concentration effects arising from having people with same social status living in the same place, and particularly negative effects on social capital of placing concentrations of people with problems into residential estates especially if they are relatively cut off from the mainstream. For instance, if outsiders have no reasons to come into those areas and there are poor connections into the wider urban structure of economic and social activities, there are limited opportunities to build bridging social capital through social interaction between people who are different from each other, particularly in terms of social status.

Focusing on conditions of neighbourhood: • Unsurprisingly, sense of identification with, and attachment to, neighbourhood is significant in explaining differences in levels of social capital – i.e. the stronger the sense of belonging, pride and inclination to stay, the more developed the social capital. • The density or extent of use of the community and social infrastructure of the neighbourhood and Trust and the quality of neighbourhood as a place to live are positively associated with social capital and all types of social capital (bonding, bridging and linking) – i.e. the more residents use the community reciprocity and social infrastructure and the better they rate the neighbourhood as a ‘good place the live’, the towards higher the levels of the social capital. people in the • The extent of concentration of neighbourhood problems is negatively associated with social capital. This indicates that highly problematic neighbourhoods are likely to have lower levels of social neighbourhood capital. Living in problematic neighbourhoods was found to affect values / attitudes associated with … bonding social capital (i.e. the more problematic, the less favourable the attitudes centred on trust in people, organisation and institutions, reciprocity, community inclusion and cohesion). social capital

As clusters of factors, variables associated with the impact of social capital are particularly important in explaining differences in values associated with social capital – the better the conditions of neighbourhood (the overall quality of neighbourhood as a place to live, the better the community and social infrastructure, the lower the problem concentration), the more supportive or positive the values, like trust in people, trust in voluntary organisations and activists and institutions, associated with social capital.

26

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 27 FOUR Conclusions, lessons and recommendations Conclusions, lessons and recommendations

The key conclusions, lessons and recommendations for public policy flowing from the study are outlined in What factors influence the social capital in the neighbourhoods? this section. • The indications are that the social capital at neighbourhood level is being shaped both by the characteristics of the people who live there, in particular, levels of education, home ownership, family structure, age, and length of residence, and conditions of place. In summary, ‘better 4.1 Main Conclusions neighbourhoods’ with stable populations are likely to have higher levels of social capital. The relevance of neighbourhood … • The findings suggest that the concentration of people with problems into ‘socially segregated’ • Territorial communities at neighbourhood level are complex and dynamic spaces. neighbourhoods with poor connections to the wider urban structure will produce problematic neighbourhoods with lower levels of social capital (particularly of the bridging and linking type). • Neighbourhood is important in people’s lives as a source of identification with community and pride Living in problematic neighbourhoods tends to have a negative effect on peoples’ attitudes of Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation of place. trust towards public institutions (whom they regard as ‘responsible’ for not dealing effectively • However, ‘boundaries’ of neighbourhoods are fluid. ‘Neighbourhood’ can mean different things to with the problems). This, in turn, will make it more difficult for public authorities to engage with people depending on their expectations concerning the location of leisure facilities, shops, work and such communities to positively change those places. The inclination of residents will be to leave key services such as schools and health centres – i.e. there are different boundaries in terms of if they have a choice. In the disadvantaged areas of Limerick, the pattern has been that those which services they expect to be present within walking distance of their home and which services that ‘get ahead’ tend to leave the disadvantaged estates. they are prepared to travel to in order to access. • However, while the level of social capital is a good indicator of the ‘quality of the • Linked to this, different units of territory (neighbourhood, suburb, city, sub-region) are relevant as neighbourhood’, the social capital cannot be seen as the factor which ‘causes’ neighbourhoods to the location of social networks, services and economic opportunities. Easy access to transport is a be ‘better’ places to live. The findings of this study and other research suggest that positive key issue. Lack of own or poor public transport places residents of poorer neighbourhoods at a community social capital in neighbourhoods will tend to occur with, rather than cause, the disadvantage in accessing opportunities beyond the neighbourhood and can limit the development positive impact associated with it (Groves et al. 2003; Humphreys 2005). of individual social capital. • Spatial planning – of places to live, planning for local service delivery, facilities development – has a What is the association between levels of social capital and prosperity, and capacity to regenerate? big impact on the social capital of communities as well as the quality of neighbourhoods and community life. • Based on findings of this study, there is no clear association between levels of social capital in neighbourhoods and relative prosperity of places and / or improved capacity to become more prosperous or to successfully regenerate, as suggested by Lang and Hornburg (1998). For Disadvantaged v. affluent communities and mobility levels and social capital? instance, while the affluent suburb of Castletroy / Monaleen was the area with the highest level of social capital, the lowest levels were found in the Inner City and Dock area (which is also • A state of relative affluence or disadvantage of small spatial areas (neighbourhood) is not affluent). Castletroy / Monaleen worsened in terms of relative affluence / deprivation in the necessarily the defining factor in social capital. period 1991-2002 based on the index of affluence / deprivation (Haase Index) developed from • Relative affluence or disadvantage interacts with other factors including mobility levels to produce census variables (GAMMA 2004). The upper docks in the Inner City and Dock area improved different levels and types of social capital in the neighbourhood context.7 significantly, Moyross improved slightly and part of King’s Island closest to the city centre (St. John’s C Electoral District) improved over that period. • The findings of this study suggest that social capital is associated with low mobility communities. • The improved profile of these areas seems to be associated with the combination of public incentives to influence the property market and new private housing development. New Types of neighbourhood and types of social capital development has resulted in high inward mobility of a population with higher levels of education, a higher social class designation and high labour force participation rates into parts of these • In measuring levels of social capital based on the methodology used in this study, the neighbourhoods. Over time, depending on whether or not people stay (which will be influenced disadvantaged neighbourhoods with their long history of area-based regeneration and community by lifestyle choices, type of housing available, services and jobs), the social capital of the area participation structures have low levels of bridging and linking social capital compared with the will also change. residential area of Castletroy / Monaleen, where bridging and linking social capital are more developed even though there has been no state support for community development. This can be • The findings related to low institutional trust in disadvantaged neighbourhoods, and qualitative explained in that community development was supported by public policy in local areas that were insights from the research indicate a gap between disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the problematic and, thus from the state, the conditions were different. mainstream society. This is manifested in difficulties for people living in those areas linking into wider social and economic opportunities in the city and engagement with public institutions. • In the case of the disadvantaged neighbourhoods, while there are deficits in the social capital Residents of disadvantaged neighbourhoods are aware of inequalities which have emerged with (specifically bridging and linking), this reflects that they remain problematic neighbourhoods rapid economic growth with residents of public housing estates particularly pointing to the compared to typical middle class neighbourhoods. In the absence of state support for community increasing divergence in house prices between their areas and private estates in adjacent areas of development and local regeneration, it is envisaged that the levels of social capital would be lower the city. Low demand for housing in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods, in turn, reduces the and the ‘gap’ with the mainstream greater. disadvantaged neighbourhoods’ potential for replenishing the human capital (people who live • The weakness in local governance structures and processes of community engagement across the there). Linked to reputation, such places do not attract an incoming population which is relatively board, which is a limiting factor in mobilising linking social capital, is strongly in evidence across all prosperous. neighbourhoods with the situation worst in the disadvantaged neighbourhoods. This is not unique to • Following from this, effective strategies for neighbourhoods cannot focus on social capital in Limerick but was similarly found in other research in the Dublin suburbs (Pellion et al. 2006) and isolation from other assets and a deep understanding of how wider economic and market towns in North and South Tipperary County Council areas (Humphreys 2005). conditions affect the social sustainability of neighbourhoods. This includes housing provision / supply overall in the city – i.e. the stock of housing and relative cost in different places. In retrospect, if there is an over-supply of housing including rental options, people who can afford it will not choose to live in the local authority housing in disadvantaged estates. Effective regeneration also need to focus on job and other opportunities accessible from disadvantaged neighbourhoods into the city and beyond.

7 The inclusion of an affluent relatively low mobility neighbourhood in the study would have produced further insights to these 28 characteristics of place and levels of social capital.

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 29 FOUR Conclusions, lessons and recommendations Conclusions, lessons and recommendations

4.2 Key Lessons • These scenarios of imbalanced population structures and socially-segregated communities tend to be problematic over time for a variety of reasons (e.g. weak integration with the mainstream, What do these results contribute to the debate on social capital as a policy tool in local area-based changing patterns of service and facilities needs as the neighbourhood matures etc.) and once policies? the social pattern has set, it seems to be very difficult to change it from one generation to First, while ‘better’ neighbourhoods are associated with higher levels of social capital, it cannot be the next. concluded from this that problems of disadvantaged neighbourhoods can be reduced to the notion that • In order to help address these issues, housing policies should seek to create a better mix of they lack social capital. This is too simplistic. While they have deficiencies in bridging and linking social private, social and affordable housing within neighbourhoods; include a mix of housing types capital, they have other problems of a structural nature. Following from this, potential solutions based appropriate to different stages of the family cycle so that people can stay over their life course. It on building up the social capital cannot be relied upon to change the prospects of neighbourhoods is also important for local authorities to show that they have letting policies and practices in place characterised by multiple deprivation. Without access to other forms of capital, particularly, economic Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation to deal effectively with bad tenants, so that residents have more ‘confidence’ and build up trust capital, as suggested in Bourdieu’s (1986) application of the concept, social capital is not sufficient to in ‘the system’. change the pattern of relative deprivation of the neighbourhoods (Groves et al. 2003; Green et al. 2005). • Creating diversity of use of space in developments in the neighbourhood setting – residential, commercial / retail, amenity – is also important with a view to creating more ‘complete’ and Secondly, the thrust of policy interventions to develop social capital in disadvantaged communities – sustainable neighbourhoods economically, socially and in terms of environment. Drawing on specifically, support for institutional structures engaging ‘community’, community development and wider literature, mixed development creates the conditions where people from within and delivering services in communities, often in partnership with state agencies - will not necessarily have a outside of the neighbourhood can meet – for instance, because there are reasons such as work, positive impact on building social capital from the grass roots. This situation particularly is reflected in shopping, leisure, for outsiders to go into the neighbourhood as well as residents to use the the weak relationships of trust between residents and mainstream public institutions in the most space - building social capital across social groupings and extending the social networks within disadvantaged estates and indications of lack of trust in community leaders by a significant proportion and beyond the neighbourhood. Initiatives to promote a social mix within schools, and across all of the population of those areas. types of activities where people get together - social, cultural and sporting associations – is of An institutional void in local governance below the county / city level local authority structures is an great importance in building bridging social capital (associated with ‘getting ahead’). Policies of issue identified in other studies and apply to affluent as well as disadvantaged neighbourhoods. particular importance include local school entry policies to produce more socially heterogeneous places. If social capital is an important asset and associated with well-functioning communities (and the indications are that it is valued as an attribute of community), use of social capital as a policy tool • The need to plan for and invest in facilities and services (schools, shops, health centres, leisure requires a more sophisticated understanding of how it is influenced by characteristics of people and facilities) in tandem with housing development is essential. Innovative types of provision such as place. It is strongly influenced by planning policies - the legacy of past policies as well as current urban gardens, examples of apartment living with a community orientation grafted on and planning policies. Based on findings of this study, strategies to develop social capital in neighbourhoods security / personal safety issues addressed as part of the design – is desirable in terms of would include investment in good quality local services, and community infrastructure (meeting places promoting community living and development of social capital. including social, leisure, education facilities) which are clearly associated with higher levels of social • Improved transport and other initiatives to promote access to mainstream social and economic capital. It also requires initiatives to produce a good social mix in residential areas and opportunities for opportunities and essential services such as health within and beyond the boundaries of interaction between people across social groupings – to develop the social capital associated with neighbourhood is also essential. Access to jobs and services beyond the boundaries of mobility / advancement for those in lower socio-economic groupings. While the social capital literature neighbourhood can be problematic for disadvantaged populations on low incomes and without suggests benefits for disadvantaged populations flowing from interaction with more affluent groups, the their own transport. learning can work both ways (i.e. affluent communities can learn from the experiences of disadvantaged communities). This type of interaction is important to generate values for the society • In the specific context of Limerick City and environs, the influence of the county / city boundary which are more genuinely inclusive. on planning for more balanced and socially sustainable communities – for instance, in terms of breaking up the pattern of socially-segregated housing, developing new affordable housing Linked to the association between social capital and socio-economic characteristics of people, which are provision – needs to be explored and debated. the markers of material disadvantage (education, income), in the most disadvantaged areas, substantial and long-term investment will be required in policy fields (especially education) to deal with the structural economic and social problems that persist in those places. 4.3.2 Area-based Regeneration In terms of area-based regeneration policies, drawing on the social capital literature and insights 4.3 Recommendations from the findings of this study, the following is suggested. Recommendations for public policy following from the conclusions and lessons of the study are outlined • Successful regeneration policies need to take a broader perspective in order to build up social, below: economic and institutional linkages between disadvantaged neighbourhoods and the wider urban and sub-regional opportunity structure. As such, the focus needs to be city-wide and region 4.3.1 Planning policies and local neighbourhoods based. In order to create a better environment / context for social capital to emerge spontaneously in • Directing the effort to focus inwards on disadvantaged areas is misplaced – even in terms of communities, planning policies need to be mindful of effects (positive / negative) of planning decisions creating local jobs for local people and facilities and services within local disadvantaged on community social capital in the present and for the future. Some specific issues are as follows: communities for use by local residents. Such efforts do not create the opportunities for social interaction across different groups in society associated with bridging social capital. This is the type of social capital associated with mobility opportunities arising from more heterogeneous • Planning for residential development at neighbourhood level should seek to promote communities social connections. representative of the variations in age structure, family cycle, gender, ethnicity and social class creating conditions to promote social interaction across different groups in society and bridging social • Successful regeneration requires, primarily, a process of ‘opening up’ and ‘breaking up’ places capital. The tendency has been towards social segregation into small units – for instance, there are characterised by multiple deprivation with concentrations of people in lower social class grouping. examples of gender imbalances in favour of female-headed households on some of the most disadvantaged parts of local authority housing estates; ethnic groups concentrated in certain apartment blocks; new housing developments occupied by people at the same stage of the family cycle (young families and few older residents etc.). 30

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 31 FOUR Conclusions, lessons and recommendations

4.3.3 Institutional Issues and Governance Similar to other recent studies on social capital (Humphreys 2005; Pellion et al. 2006), the findings of Appendix 1 - References this study highlights that the institutional void in local governance below the county / city-level local authority structures needs to be addressed. While several initiatives have been put in place, such as Strategic Policy Committees with community representation put in place by the local authority, Community Forum for local voluntary and community bodies across the city, developing the role of the local area partnerships in representing interests of disadvantaged communities, the findings of this study show that the existence of these structures and processes to promote community / citizen participation in governance have not taken root in people’s consciousness. This is especially in the case in more affluent / middle class areas. They do not know enough about the role of these structures, who participates, how they operate and how they might access them. In any event, the mechanisms have been imbalanced in terms of coverage of communities. In retrospect, for the last decade and a half, they have focused on disadvantaged communities. While this issue is being addressed with the new ‘cohesion’ policies at county level (i.e. requiring that all areas fall within the competence of a local partnership structure), broadening the remit of local partnership companies to take on this governance role (city-wide or county-wide) in itself will not ensure that communities and citizens are brought into local governance processes. Improved knowledge of processes, broadening opportunities to participate, improving channels for communication of information and some evidence of community influence on decision-making will also be required if these structures are to become more meaningful for local communities and to be seen as a way of influencing decisions that affect them. Changes in representation on the boards of local partnerships (including elected representatives of local government as well as sectoral representatives nominated by local government and the social partners including the community and voluntary pillar) have been introduced to improve the democratic legitimacy of these arrangements. However, more awareness- raising is needed to address the lack of understanding in the population in general of the role of these structures vis-à-vis local communities. Trust and reciprocity 4.3.4 Health towards Focusing specifically on health, all communities / neighbourhoods health and social care facilities which are accessible and essential primary care services should be available within ‘easy reach’ of where people in the people live. In this regard, the proposed sites for primary care teams and networks need to be neighbourhood considered with reference to accessibility of provision to people and groups (e.g. young mothers with children, older people, working adults) and communities. … bonding The proposed boundaries of the Primary Care Teams and Networks should also be explored with social capital reference to the extent to which they coincide with ‘natural’ communities or identity as a community. Where this is the case, sectoral policies like health are more likely to be able to mobilise social capital as part of provision to utilise, for instance, advocacy, participation of groups in society in defining needs and, in the case of health, drawing on social capital (family support, voluntary effort) to improve the responsiveness to needs and quality of care. Public policy should also link into the social capital in communities and factors conducive to developing this, as identified above - e.g. presence of social and community facilities in neighbourhoods – in order to contribute to addressing health inequalities or differences in health profiles linked to social status. There is a large body of evidence to indicate that poor health experience is associated with lower socio- economic status and poor socio-economic facilities. Again, ensuring ease of access to primary care (GPs, clinics) and services such as pharmacies is a key requirement.

32

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 33 Appendix 1 - References Appendix 1 - References

Aldridge, S. and D. Halpern (2002). Social Capital: A Discussion Paper. London, Performance and Innovation GAMMA (2004). Baseline Data Reports 2002. Dublin, Area Development Management (ADM) Ltd. Unit, UK Cabinet Office. Granovetter, M. (1973). "The Strength of Weak Ties." American Journal of Sociology 78(6): 1360-1380. Altschuler, A., C. P. Somkin, et al. (2004). "Local Services and Amenities: Neighbourhood Social Capital and Health." Social Science and Medicine (59): 1219-1229. Granovetter, M. (1985). "Economic Action and Social Structure: The Problem of Embeddedness." American Journal of Sociology 91(3): 481-510. Balanda, K. P. and J. Wilde (2003). Inequalities in Perceived Health: A Report on the All-Ireland Social Capital and Health Survey. Dublin, Institute of Public Health in Ireland. Groves, R., A. Middleton, et al. (2003). Neighbourhoods that Work: A Study of the Bournville Estate, Birmingham. Bristol, The Policy Press for the Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Baum, F., R. Bush et al. (2000). “Epidemiology of Participation: An Australian Community Study”. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health 54(6): 414-423. Haase, T. and J. Pratschke (2004). Deprivation and its Spatial Articulation in the Republic of Ireland: Environs & City Limerick in Capital Social of Evaluation New Measures of Deprivation Based on the Census of Population 1991, 1996 and 2002. Dublin, Trutz Haase Berkman, L.F. and T. Glass (2000). “Social Integration, Social Networks, Social Support and Health” in Social Social and Economic Consultant: 1-49. Epidemiology. Berkman, L.F. and I. Kawachi (eds). New York: Oxford University Press. Hall, P. A. (1999). "Social Capital in Britain." British Journal of Political Science 29: 417-461. Bourdieu, P. (1986). The Forms of Capital. Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. J. Richardson. New York, Greenwood Press. Harriss, J. and P. DeRenzio (1997). "Missing Link or Analytically Missing?: The Concept of Social Capital." Journal of International Development 9(7): 919-937. Briggs, X. d. S. (1998). "Brown Kids in White Suburbs: Housing Mobility and the Many Faces of Social Capital." Housing Policy Debate 9 (1): 177-221. Henning, C. and M. Lieberg (1996). "Strong Ties or Weak Ties? Neighbourhood Networks in a New Perspective." Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research 13: 3-26. Cattell, V. (2001). "Poor People, Poor Places and Poor Health: The Mediating Role of Social Networks and Social Capital." Social Science and Medicine 52 (10): 1501-1516. Hibbit, K., P. Jones, et al. (2001). "Tackling Social Exclusion: The Role of Social Capital in Urban Regeneration on Merseyside - From Mistrust to Trust?" European Planning Studies 9(2): 141-161. Coleman, J. S. (1988). "Social Capital in the Creation of Human Capital." American Journal of Sociology 94 (Issue Supplement): S95-S120. Humphreys, E. (2005) The Role of Social Capital in the Economic Development of Disadvantaged Neighbourhoods? A Critical Analysis - PhD Thesis. Department of Economics, Kemmy Business School. Coulthard, M., A. Walker, et al. (2002). People's Perceptions of their Neighbourhood and Community Limerick, University of Limerick. Involvement. London, The Stationery Office. Jacobs, J. (1961). The Death and Life of Great American Cities: The Failure of Town Planning. USA, Random CSO (2003). Volume 1: Census 2002: Population Classified by Area. Dublin, Stationery Office. House.

CSO (2003). Volume 2: Census 2002: Ages and Marital Status. Dublin, Stationery Office. Kawachi, I., B. Kennedy, et al. (1999). "Social Capital and Self-rated Health: A Contextual Analysis." American Journal of Public Health 89. CSO (2003). Volume 3: Census 2002: Household Composition and Family Units. Dublin, Stationery Office. Kearns, A. and M. Parkinson (2001). "The Significance of Neighbourhood." Urban Studies 38(12): CSO (2003). Volume 4: Census 2002: Usual Residence, Migration, Birthplaces and Nationalities. Dublin, 2103-2110. Stationery Office. Knack, S. and P. Keefer (1997). "Does Social Capital Have an Economic Payoff? A Cross-Country CSO (2003). Volume 5: Principal Economic Status and Industries. Dublin, Stationery Office. Investigation." Quarterly Journal of Economics 112(4): 1251-1289.

CSO (2004). Volume 7: Census 2002: Education and Qualification. Dublin, Stationery Office. Lang, R. E. and P. Hornburg (1998). "Editors' Introduction - What Is Social Capital and Why Is It Important to Public Policy?" Housing Policy Debate 9(1): 1-15. CSO (2004). Volume 13: Census 2002: Housing. Dublin, Stationery Office. Maloney, W., G. Smith, et al. (2000). "Social Capital and Urban Governance: Adding a More Contextualized DeFilippis, J. (2001). "The Myth of Social Capital in Community Development." Housing Policy Debate 4(12): 'Top-down' Perspective." Political Studies 48: 802-820. 781-806. McCafferty, D. (1999). Poor People or Poor Place? Urban Deprivation in Southill East, Limerick City. DiPasquale, D. and E. L. Glaeser (1999). "Incentives and Social Capital: Are Homeowners Better Citizens?" Poor People, Poor Places: A Geography of Poverty and Deprivation in Ireland. Dublin, Oak Tree Press in Journal of Urban Economics 45(2): 354-384. association with the Geographical Society of Ireland: 203-224. Docherty, I., R. Goodlad, et al. (2001). "Civic Culture, Community and Citizen Participation in Contrasting McCafferty, D. (2005). Limerick: Profile of a Changing City. Limerick, Limerick City Development Board. Neighbourhoods." Urban Studies38 (12): 2225-2250. NESF (2003). The Policy Implications of Social Capital. Dublin, The National Economic and Social Forum. Ellen, I. G. and M. A. Turner (1997). "Does Neighbourhood Matter? Assessing Recent Evidence." Housing Policy Debate 8(5): 833-866. OECD (2001). The Well-being of Nations: The Role of Human and Social Capital. Paris, OECD.

Elliott, M. (2000). "The Stress Process in Neighborhood Context." Health & Place 6: 287-299. Onyx, J. and P. Bullen (2000). "Measuring Social Capital in Five Communities." The Journal of Applied Behavioral Science 36(1): 23-42. Foley, M. W. and B. Edwards (1997). "Social Capital and the Political Economy of our Discontent." American Behavioural Scientist 40(5): 669-678. Pellion, M., M. Corcoran and J. Gray (2006) Civic Engagement and the Governance of Irish Suburbs. Studies in Public Policy: 21. The Policy Institute at Trinity College Dublin. Forrest, R. and A. Kearns (1999). Joined-up Places? Social Cohesion and Neighbourhoood Regeneration. York, York Publishing Services for Joseph Rowntree Foundation. Portes, A. (1998). "Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications in Modern Sociology." Annual Review of Sociology 24: 1-24. Forrest, R. and A. Kearns (2001). "Social Cohesion, Social Capital and the Neighbourhood." Urban Studies 38(12): 2125-2143. Portes, A. and P. Landolt (1996). "The Downside of Social Capital." American Prospect 26: 18-22.

Fukuyama, F. (1995). Trust: The Social Virtues and the Creation of Prosperity. New York, The Free Press. Pevalin, D.J. and D. Rose (2003). Social Capital for Health: Investigating the Links Between Social Capital and 34 Health Using the British Household Panel Survey. (NHS) Health Development Agency

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 35 Appendix 1 - References

Purdue, D. (2001). "Neighbourhood Governance: Leadership, Trust and Social Capital." Urban Studies 38(12): 2211-2224.

Putnam, R. D. (1995). "Tuning In, Tuning Out: The Strange Disappearance of Social Capital in America." Political Science and Politics 28: 664-683.

Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York, Touchstone, Simon & Schuster.

Putnam, R. D., R. Leonardi, et al. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ, Princeton University Press.

Saegert, S. and G. Winkel (1998). "Social Capital and the Revitalization of New York's Distressed Inner-City Housing." Housing Policy Debate 9(1): 17-60.

Schneider, G., T. Pluemper, et al. (2000). "Bringing Putnam to the European Regions: On the relevance of social capital for economic growth." European Urban and Regional Studies 7(4): 307-317.

Shortt, S. E. D. (2004). "Making Sense of Social Capital, Health and Policy." Health Policy 70: 11-22.

Temkin, K. and W. M. Rohe (1998). "Social Capital and Neighbourhood Stability: An Empirical Investigation." Housing Policy Debate 9(1): 61-89.

Whiteley, P. F. (2000). "Economic Growth and Social Capital." Political Studies 48: 443-466.

Woolcock, M. (1998). "Social Capital and Economic Development: Toward a Theoretical Synthesis and Policy Framework." Theory and Society 27: 151-208.

Woolcock, M. (2001). The Place of Social Capital in Understanding Social and Economic Outcomes. The Contribution of Human and Social Capital to Sustained Economic Growth and Well-being: International Symposium Report. J. F. Helliwell, Human Resources Development Canada and OECD.

36

Evaluation of Social Capital in Limerick City & Environs 37