Political Participation, Social Capital and the Built
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Memorial University Research Repository BUILDING CONNECTIONS: POLITICAL PARTICIPATION, SOCIAL CAPITAL AND THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT IN ST. JOHN’S, NEWFOUNDLAND by © Joshua Smee A thesis submitted to the School of Graduate Studies in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Arts Department of Political Science Memorial University of Newfoundland January, 2016 St. John’s, Newfoundland and Labrado ABSTRACT How does where we live affect how we live? Do characteristics of the built environment affect the civic and social lives of the people living there? This study examines these questions at the neighbourhood scale in the Canadian city of St. John’s, Newfoundland. To do so, it combines data from a survey measuring respondents’ social capital (defined as a combination of social participation, social trust, and civic participation) and a “built environment audit” that records the built characteristics of each respondent’s neighbourhood. The study finds a significant, positive relationship between the walkability of a neighbourhood and the social capital of the people living there. This relationship is driven primarily by the effect of the built environment on voluntary participation and relationships with neighbours. The study also tests several methods of measuring walkability, and finds that an objective measure based on street geometry is the best predictor of social capital. i ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS There is a long list of people who helped make this project happen. First and foremost, credit goes to my supervisor, Dr. Scott Matthews, in the Department of Political Science at Memorial University of Newfoundland. From the very beginning, his enthusiasm for this somewhat unusual project came through loud and clear. Without his guidance and incisive commentary, this never would have gotten done – and without his very patient explanations, I would never have coaxed conclusions out of the data. Thanks also to my reviewers (and professors), Dr. Amanda Bitter and Dr. Karlo Basta. Much of the thinking behind this project happened their classes, which were great places for strong coffee and good conversation. Another hearty set of thanks goes to the Department of Political Science. The Chair, Lucas Ashworth, always had an open door when I needed one, and the departmental staff, Juanita Lawrence and Helen Knapman, were unfailingly helpful. The financial support I received from the department also kept the bills paid as I passed my days chasing down passers-by to complete surveys. The Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) also helped keep food on the table in the Smee house – I was the happy recipient of a Canada Graduate Scholarship, and felt very much supported and celebrated by SSHRC throughout this project. There is, of course, another big group of people to thank – the 98 people who participated in the survey, and the countless others who stopped for a nice chat as I stood on street corners and in mall hallways flagging people down to talk about their neighbourhoods. Not a single person swore at me or threw anything, which I consider a sterling success in convenience sampling. ii At home, my wife Lauren was everything a supportive partner should be – supportive in her attitude, snappy and wise with her commentary, and patient with my graduate student ways. Without that patience – and her taking on more hard work in her own career – I would never have been able to carve out space to get this project done. Staying on the family track, another set of thanks are due to my mother, a formidable academic and sharp reader who provided lots of insightful commentary along the way, unwavering support for the project, and a steady supply of good food on my too- infrequent visits. Finally, I came to Memorial with this project pretty close to fully formed, thanks to the great crowd of people at Happy City St. John’s, the advocacy organization which I have had the privilege to lead as Chair for several years now. At Happy City we have built a team of activists passionately for something – building a thoughtful, transparent, and resilient decision-making process in our city. That’s a rare thing, and these people inspire me every day. The idea for this project was born in a boardroom above a Chinese restaurant as we brainstormed the kinds of research we’d love to have on hand to toss into the municipal mix. Now we have it – here’s hoping it gets used. iii Table of Contents Chapter Page 1. Introduction 1 1.1 – Background 3 1.2. – Conceptual approach 5 1.3 – This study: a roadmap 9 2. Literature Review 12 2.1 – Factors influencing political participation 12 2.2 – Factors influencing voluntary and associational participation 17 2.3 – Factors influencing social participation 21 2.4 – Factors influencing social trust 22 2.5 – Putting it together: determinants of social capital 24 2.6 – Social capital and the built environment - introduction 25 2.7 – Key theoretical debates 26 2.8 – Social capital and the built environment: theoretical underpinnings 29 2.9 – Empirical evidence 33 2.10 – Challenges 35 2.11 – Conclusion: this study in context 37 3. Research Design 39 3.1 – Research Design: Overview 39 3.2 – Sample Selection 42 4. Measurement 46 4.1 – Measuring social capital and political participation 46 4.2 – Independent variables: measuring walkability and the built environment 51 4.3 – Data collection procedure 58 5. The Sample 61 6. Descriptive Statistics: Social Capital 68 7. Descriptive Statistics: The Built Environment 75 iv Table of Contents (Continued) 8. Results 84 8.1 – Self selection 84 8.2 – Control variables 87 8.3 – Social capital and walkability 89 8.4 – Other plausible drivers of social capital 94 8.5 – Walkability and the components of social capital 96 8.6 – Objective walkability and the components of neighbourhood social 98 networks 8.7 – Objective walkability and the components of social trust 99 8.9 – Objective walkability and components of civic participation 102 8.10 – Summary of results 104 9. Conclusion 106 9.1 – The causal story 106 9.2 – Weaknesses in the Study 114 9.3 – Puzzles and surprises 117 9.4 – Next steps and practical implications 119 Works Cited 123 v List of Tables Table Page 3.1.1 Survey Locations 41 4.1.1 Variables Measured in Existing Studies 47-48 4.1.2 Variables used to measure social capital in this study 49-50 4.1.3 Weightings in the social capital index 50 4.2.1 Built Environment Audit Checklist Items 54-57 5.1 Response Distribution across postal code zones 61 5.2 Housing types, St. John’s overall vs. survey sample 62 5.3 Household Size, Sample and Population 62 5.4 Homeownership and rental 63 5.5 Time commitments for survey respondents 64 5.6 Overall time commitments - survey respondents 64 5.7 Age distribution, sample vs. population 65 5.8 Birthplace of survey respondents 65 5.9 Education (Sample vs. Population) 66 5.10 Income distribution in the sample 66 5.11 Gender distribution in the sample 66 6.1 Social Capital Index: Distribution 68 6.2 Social Capital Index: Component Pieces 69 6.3 Social Capital Index – Component variable correlations 69 6.4 Neighbourhood Social Networks – Component pieces 70 6.5 Neighbourhood social networks: component correlations 70 6.6 Social trust: component variables 71 6.7 Correlations, social trust index 71 6.8: Social participation index components 72 6.9 Social Participant Index – Correlations between components 72 6.10 Civic Participation index, component variable distribution 73 6.11 Civic Participation, component variable correlations 74 7.1 Walkability Measures 75 7.2 Correlations between walkability measures 77 7.3 Feelings of safety 78 7.4 Presence of mixed uses 78 vi List of Tables (Continued) Table Page 7.5 Visible land uses 79 7.6 Residential uses 79 7.7 Other built features 80 7.8 Presence of Vernacular architecture (0-1 Scale) 80 7.9 Building setback 81 7.10 Building Sightlines 81 7.11 Neighbourhood types 82 8.1.1 Self-selection coding summary 85 8.1.2: Comparisons of self-selected and non-selected groups, social capital 86 score 8.2.1 Control Variable Correlations with social capital 92 8.3.1 Walkability measures and Social Capital Index Scores (with controls) 91 8.3.2 Walkability and social capital, self-selectors removed 93 8.4.1 Sense of safety and social capital 94 8.4.2 Social capital and vernacular architecture 95 8.4.3 Social capital and vernacular architecture with objective walkability 96 control variable added 8.5.1 Objective walkability and social capital index components 97 8.6.1 Objective walkability as a predictor of individual variables 99 (neighbourhood social networks) 8.7.1 Objective walkability as a predictor of individual variables (social trust) 100 8.8.1 Objective walkability as a predictor of individual variables (social 101 participation) 8.9.1 Objective walkability as a predictor of individual variables (civic 103 participation) vii Chapter 1: Introduction 1.1 – Background How does where we live affect how we live and, more specifically, how we participate in political and social life? Are our interactions with other people really shaped by urban design and architecture? This study examines these questions at the neighbourhood level in St. John’s, Newfoundland, using a dataset that combines survey- based measurement of respondents’ social capital with an inventory of the features of the built environment around where the respondent lives. Over a period of several months, responses were gathered from almost 100 residents, who were stopped and surveyed in public places all over the city.