Fertile Ground for Community: Inner-City Neighborhood Common Spaces

Abstract

Research suggests that the formation of neighborhood social ties (NSTs) may substantially depend on the informal social contact which occurs in neighborhood common spaces, and that in inner-city neighborhoods where common spaces are often barren no-man's lands, the presence of trees and grass supports common space use and informal social contact among neighbors. We found that for 145 urban public housing residents randomly assigned to 18 architecturally identical buildings, levels of vegetation in common spaces predict both use of common spaces and NSTs; further, use of common spaces mediated the relationship between vegetation and NSTS. In addition, vegetation and NSTs were significantly related to residents' senses of safety and adjustment. These findings suggest that the use and characteristics of common spaces may play a vital role in the natural growth of community, and that improving common spaces may be an especially productive focus for community organizing efforts in inner-city neighborhoods.

Full text

American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
Vol.
26, No, 6,
1998
Fertile
Ground
for
Community: Inner-City
Neighborhood Common Spaces
1
Frances
E.
Kuo,
2
William
C.
Sullivan
University
of
Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign
Rebekah Levine Coley
University
of
Chicago
Liesette Brunson
University
of
Illinois,
Urbana-Champaign
Research
suggests
that
the
formation
of
neighborhood
social
ties
(NSTs)
may
substantially
depend
on the
informal
social contact which occurs
in
neighbor-
hood
common
spaces,
and
that
in
inner-city
neighborhoods
where
common
spaces
are
often
barren
no-man's
lands,
the
presence
of
trees
and
grass
supports
common
space
use and
informal
social
contact among
neighbors.
We
found
that
for 145
urban public housing
residents
randomly
assigned
to 18
architec-
turally
identical
buildings,
levels
of
vegetation
in
common
spaces
predict both
use of
common
spaces
and
NSTs;
further,
use of
common
spaces
mediated
the
relationship between vegetation
and
NSTS.
In
addition, vegetation
and
NSTs
were
significantly
related
to
residents'
senses
of
safety
and
adjustment.
These
findings
suggest
that
the use and
characteristics
of
common
spaces
may
1
The data
for
this study were drawn
from
the
Coping
with
Poverty archive,
a
multi-study
research
effort
supported
by a
grant
from
the
National Urban
and
Community Forestry
Advisory
Council
(F. E. Kuo and W. C.
Sullivan, Principal Investigators)
and
housed
at the
Human-Environment
Research Laboratory, University
of
Illinois, Urbana-Champaign. This
work
was
also supported
by the
Cooperative State Research, Education
and
Extension
Service, U.S. Department
of
Agr iculture, under Project
No.
ILLU-65-0387.
A
portion
of
these
data were presented
in a
poster entitled "The Influence
of
Nature
on
Neighbor Relations
in
Urban Public Housing" (Coley,
R. L.,
Kuo,
F. E., &
Sullivan,
W. C. ) at the
27th annual
conference
of the
Environmental Design Research Association, June 1996, Salt Lake City,
Utah.
We
thank
the
resident interviewers,
Esther
Davis, Doris Gayles,
and
Denise Harbor,
as
well
as the
resident management
and
residents
of Ida B.
Wells
and
Robert
Taylor
Homes.
2
All
correspondence should
be
addressed
to
Frances
E.
Kuo, Human-Environment Research
Laboratory, University
of
Illinois, 1103
S.
Dorner Drive, Urbana, Illinois
61801;
e-mail:
f-kuo@uiuc.edu.
823
0091-0562/98/1200-0823$15.00/0
©
1998
Plenum
Publishing
Corporation

KEY
WORDS: neighbor hood social ties; environmental variables; sense
of
community; neigh-
boring.
Neighborhood
social
ties
are the
glue which mak es
a
collection
of
unrelated
neighbors into
a
neighborhood—a s ou r ce
of
social support
and
sense
of
community
(Unger
&
Wandersman, 1985; McMillan
&
Chavis, 1986,
re-
spectively),
and a
social
unit
more capable
of
forming
local organizations
(e.g. Warren,
1981),
defending against crime (e.g., Perkins, Florin, Rich,
Wandersman,
&
Chavis, 1990; Taylor, Gottfredson,
&
Brower,
1981),
and
mobilizing
for
political purposes (e.g., Greenbaum, 1982). Thus
a
central
question
for
community psychologists
has
been
how
neighborhood social
ties develop,
and how
these ties might
be
fostered.
Neighborhood social ties (NSTs) became
a
focus
of
interest
for
com-
munity
psychologists
in the
1970s with Sarason's book,
The
Psychological
Sense
of
Community (1974),
and
have been
of
continued interest through
the
1980s
and
1990s (e.g., Buckner, 1988; Chavis
&
Wandersman, 1990;
Glynn, 1986; Riger
&
Lavrakas, 1981; Skjaeveland, Garling,
&
Maeland,
1996; Unger
&
Wandersman,
1985).
Along
the
way, co mmun ity
researchers
have
discovered much about
how the
formation
of
neighborhood social ties
is
affected
by the
characteristics
of the
individuals comprising
the
neigh-
borhood.
For
example, there
is
evidence that
NSTs
are
more
likely
when
neighbors
are
similar
in
socioeconomic status (SES)
or
other characteristics
(e.g.,
Unger
&
Wandersman,
1982),
when neighbors have children
living
at
home
(e.g.,
Robinson
&
Wilkinson, 1995),
and
when neighbors
are
poor
(e.g.,
Campbell
&
Lee, 1992; Robinson
&
Wilkinson, 1995)
or
minority
(e.g.,
Lee, Campbell,
&
Miller, 1991)
or
have
lived
there
for a
number
of
years
(e.g.,
Adams, 1992).
But a
neighborhood
is
both
a
collection
of
individuals
and a
place;
the
people
who
live there
and the
place itself.
Are
NSTs solely
a
function
of
the
people?
To
what extent does
the
place have
a
role
in
transforming
a
mere collection
of
unrelated individuals i n t o
a
real community? Perkins
and
colleagues have studied
effects
of the
neighborhood environment
on
residents'
participation
in
neighborhood
organizations,
which
is in
turn
as-
sociated
with neighborhood social ties (Perkins, Brown,
&
Taylor, 1996;
Perkins
et al,
1990),
but
only
recently
has
research
in
community p sychol-
ogy
directly examined
the
effects
of the
neighborhood
environment
on the
development
of
NSTs
(Plas
&
Lewis,
1996).
824
Kuo,
Sullivan, Coley,
and
Brunson
play
a
vital
role
in the
natural
growth
of
community,
and
that
improving
com-
mon
spaces
may be an
especially
productive
focus
for
community
organizing
efforts
in
inner-city
neighborhoods.

As
Plas
and
Lewis pointed out, environmental psychologists
and en-
vironmental
designers have long been interested
in
ways
in
which residen-
tial
architecture, building layout,
and the
features
of
public
and
semipublic
spaces might facilitate
the
formation
of
stronger communities (e.g., Altaian,
1975; Brown
&
Werner,
1985).
Urban planners,
in
particular, have sought
to
identify
features
of a
townscape that might foster community (e.g.,
Calthorpe,
1991).
In
this paper,
we
bring
an
environmental design research
perspective
to the
question
of
neighborhood social ties. This
has at
least
two
benefits
for
community psychology:
the
potential
for a
fuller
under-
standing
of how
neighborhood social ties develop,
and new
possibilities
for
community-building
interventions. Indeed,
as
Shinn (1996) noted
in
intro-
ducing
the
American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology's
recent Special Issue
on
Ecological Assessment,
the
physical environment might constitute
an
important
new
focus
for
theory, research
and
practice
in
community ps y -
chology.
This paper provides
a
brief overview
of the
neighborhood environ-
ment's
effects
on
neighborhood social ties, proposes
a
specific feature
of
neighborhoods that
may
have
an
especially large role
in
promoting NSTs,
and
tests this notion
in the
context
of an
inner-city c o m m u n i t y .
The
Role
of the
Setting
in the
Development
of
Neighborhood
Social
Ties
There
is
considerable evidence
to
suggest that social ties
do not
form
solely
as a
function
of the
people involved,
but
also
as a
function
of the
setting. Crowded, dangerous,
and
noisy settings
all
appear
to
inhibit
the
formation
of
NSTs: Conditions
of
crowding
and
high-density
living
have
been linked
to
poor
social relations
in a
variety
of
communities (Keane,
1991; McCarthy
&
Saegert, 1978; Tbgnoli, 1987); settings
in
which there
is
high
crime
or
high
fear
of
crime
are
associated with
a
lack
of
neighborhood
cohesion (Conklin, 1971; Rohe
&
Burby, 1988);
and
individuals
are
less
likely
to
contribute
to
community activities
in
loud
or
noisy settings
(S.
Cohen
&
Lezak, 1977). Furthermore, Festinger, Schacter,
and
Back (1950)
provided convincing evidence that
two
neighbors
are
most
likely
to
form
social ties with each other
if
they
use the
same semipublic access paths
or
staircases. Thus characteristics
of
settings have
an
effect
on
both
the
like-
lihood that NSTs
will
develop,
and on
which NSTs
will
develop.
A
closer examination
of the
literature suggests
a
potential mechanism
for
the
effects
of
settings
on
NSTs.
It
appears these
effects
are
primarily
mediated through
the
physical s e tt i n g' s influence
on the
quantity
and
qual-
ity
of
informal social contact among neighbors. Each
of the
environmental
features
affecting
NSTs has
also been shown
to
affect
the
quantity
and
qual-
Inner-City Common
Spaces
825

ity
of
informal social contact among neighbors. Crowded, high-density living
conditions have been linked
to
social withdrawal (Baum
&
Valins, 1979;
Ittelson, Proshansky,
&
Rivlin,
1970).
High-crime settings
are
associated
with
neighbors staying home (Rohe
&
Burby, 1988)
and
avoiding local
so-
cial contact (Conklin,
1971).
The
quality
of
social contact
suffers
under
noisy
conditions—exposure
to
noise renders individuals le ss
likely
to
help
others (Mathews
&
Canon, 1975)
and
less aware
of
subtle social cues
(S.
Cohen
&
Lezak, 1977). Finally,
it is
obvious that neighbors
who
share com-
mon
paths have more opportunities
for
informal
contact than neighbors
who
share
no
common paths (Festinger
et al,
1950; Fleming, Baum,
&
Singer,
1985).
The
quantity
and
quality
of
informal
social contact among neighbors
is,
in
turn, critical
in the
formation
of
NSTs.
According
to
Greenbaum
(1982),
relations among neighbors grow
primarily
in the
course
of
repeated
visual
contacts
and
through short-duration outdoor
talks
and
greetings.
Consistent
with
this,
the
frequency
of
face-to-face contacts
with
neighbors
is
a
strong predictor
of
both
the
probability that neighbors
are
friends
and
the
strength
of
liking
between neighbors (Ebbesen,
Kjos,
&
Konecni,
1976).
In
sum,
the
environmental
and
social psychology lite ra ture
to
date
sug-
gests that NSTs
are
likely
to be
inhibited
by the
presence
of
neighborhood
crowding,
crime,
and
noise;
further,
the
literature suggests that NSTs
are
promoted
by
environmental features that enhance
the
quantity
and
quality
of
informal
social contact among neighbors.
If, as
Fleming
et al.
(1985)
found,
neighborhood common spaces
are one of the
most important venues
for
casual social contact among neighbors,
it
seems
likely
that
the
charac-
teristics
of
neighborhood common spaces play
a
material role
in the de-
velopment
of
social ties among neighbors. This study grows
from
such
a
perspective,
and
explores
the
possibility that,
in the
inner city,
one
ordinary
and
easily overlooked feature
of
neighborhood common spaces
has a
sub-
stantial
influence
on
NSTs.
"Greenness"
of
Common
Spaces
and
NSTs
in
Inner-City
Neighborhoods
Although
there
are
wonderful
exceptions, inner-city neighborhood
common
spaces
all too
often
consist
of
vacant lots—barren,
de ser ted
no-
man's
lands.
A
series
of
studies conducted
by our
Laboratory suggests that
one of the
most important features
of
these
common
spaces
is the
presence
of
trees
and
grass.
We
have
found
that residents dislike
and
fear
these
spaces when they
are
devoid
of
vegetation,
but
that
the
simple addition
of
trees
and
grass
is
sufficient
to
transform
residents' responses
to a
space—
whereas residents reported that they liked
an
outdoor common
space
in
826
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson

its
currently barren condition
not at
all,
they liked photosimulations showing
that same space with
trees
and
grass
quite
a lot or
very
much (Kuo, Bacai-
coa,
&
Sullivan, 1998).
Not
surprisingly then,
we
found
in
another recent study that
the
amount
of
time residents spent
in
equal-sized common spaces
was
strongly
predicted
by the
presence, location,
and
number
of
trees
(Coley, Kuo,
&
Sullivan,
1997).
The
presence
of
trees consistently predicted greater
use of
outdoor spaces
in two
inner-city neighborhoods—by adults,
by
youths,
and
by
mixed-age groups
of
youth
and
adults.
The
closer trees were
to
residen-
tial
buildings,
and
thus
the
more visually
and
physically accessible they
were,
the
more people spent time outside near them. Finally,
not
only
did
common spaces with
trees
appear
to
attract larger groups than similar
spaces without
trees,
but the
greater
the
number
of
trees
in a
space
of a
given
size,
the
greater
the
number
of
people observed simultaneously
oc-
cupying
that space.
These
findings
have
now
been replicated
in
another,
larger study (DePooter, 1997).
It
appears that trees
and
grass play
an
important role
in
attracting
people
to
neighborhood common spaces
in
inner-city neighborhoods.
If in-
formal
social contact among neighbors
is a key
factor
in the
development
of
NSTs,
and the
level
of
vegetation
in
neighborhood common spaces
is a
key
factor
in the
shared
use of
those spaces (and hence, opportunities
for
informal
social contact), perhaps
the
level
of
vegetation
in
such spaces
can
ultimately
affect
the
development
of
neighborhood social ties.
The
central
hypothesis
in
this study, then,
was
that
"greener"
neighborhood common
spaces give rise
to
stronger neighborhood social ties.
This
central hypothesis,
if
correct,
raises
a
number
of
additional ques-
tions. First, what
is the
mechanism underlying this relationship?
And
sec-
ond, what
are the
implications
of
such
a
relationship? Accordingly,
one set
of
secondary hypotheses
in
this study concerned
the
possible
mediators
for
a
link
between greenness
and
NSTs; another
set
concerned some
of the
possible
by-products.
Clearly,
one
possible mediator
for a
link between greenness
and
NSTs
is
the use of
common space.
In
addition, previous research
in
environ-
mental
psychology
has
established that
"nature,"
ranging
from
wilderness
to a
view
of
trees
and
grass
in an
urban setting,
has at
least three systematic,
positive
effects
on
individuals. Each
of
these
effects
might also plausibly
mediate
the
relationship between greenness
and
NSTs. Contact with nature
in
a
variety
of
forms
has
been shown
to (a)
reduce mental fatigue
(e.g.,
Cimprich, 1992; Hartig, Mang,
&
Evans, 1991;
R.
Kaplan
&
Kaplan, 1989),
(b)
relieve feelings
of
stress
and
arousal
due to
stress
(e.g.,
Hull
&
Michaels, 1995; Ulrich,
1981),
and (c)
have positive
effects
on
mood (e.g.,
Hull
&
Michaels, 1995); thus, individuals
living
in
relatively barren sur-
Inner-City
Common
Spaces
827

roundings might
be
generally characterized
by
greater levels
of
mental
fa-
tigue, stress,
and by
generally less positive moods.
It
seems possible that
mental
fatigue,
a
state characterized
by
difficulty
paying attention
and a
sense
of
strain
and
irritability
(S.
Cohen
&
Spacapan, 1987;
S.
Kaplan,
1987),
might lower
the
quality
of
social
interaction. Similarly,
it
seems
pos-
sible that
stress
might lower
the
quality
of
social interaction,
and
there
is
evidence that even
mild
mood changes
can
affect
social interaction (Isen
&
Shalker,
1982).
Thus mental fatigue,
stress,
and
mood constitute three
possible alternative mediators
for a
relationship between greenness
of
com-
mon
space
and
neighborhood social
ties.
Accordingly, this study examined
not
only common space use,
but
also mental fatigue, stress,
and
mood
as
possible mediators.
In
addition
to
examining some
of the
possible mediators
of a
relation-
ship between
greenness
and
NSTs, this study began
to
explore
some
of the
possible by-products
of
such
a
relationship.
It
seemed likely
to us
that
a
neighborhood feature contributing
to NST s
mi ght also yield other beneficial
by-products,
and
that
two of
these possible by-products might
be of
special
relevance
for
individuals
in an
inner
city
or
public housing community:
sense
of
safety,
and
sense
of
adjustment.
The
essence
of
living
in
poverty
and
danger
is
likely
to be a
fundamental s en s e
of
vulnerability; under
these
conditions,
it
would seem
that
an
individual
for
whom "neighbors" repre-
sent unknown
and
possibly hostile entities must necessarily
feel
less
sense
of
safety
and
adjustment than would
an
individual with
at
least
some posi-
tive
social ties
to
neighbors. Indeed, Riger, LeBailly,
and
Gordon
(1981)
found
that individuals
living
in a
dangerous neighborhood
who had no
ties
to
their neighbors
felt
less safe
and had
more
fear
of
crime than ind iv id uals
who
had
some
ties
to
their
neighbors.
And Lee et al
(1991)
found
that
individuals
who had
more intimates
in the
neighborhood, knew their nearby
neighbors,
and had
more frequent contact with their nearby neighbors,
re-
ported greater neighborhood attachment
and
greater neighborhood satis-
faction—outcomes
likely
to be
associated
with
a
sense
of
adjustment. Thus,
this study examined whether,
in an
urban public housing community, higher
levels
of
vegetation (trees
and
grass)
in
common spaces might yield
not
only
stronger neighborhood social ties,
but
also
a
greater sense
of
safety
and
adjustment among residents. Implicit
in
this
formulation
is the
expec-
tation
that
NSTs would mediate
the
relationships
between
greenness
of
common spaces
and a
greater sense
of
safety
and
adjustment.
To
test
for the
hypothesized relationship between levels
of
vegetation
in
common spaces
and NSTs, the
possible mediators
of
such
a
relationship,
and
the
possible
by-products
of
such
a
relationship,
structured
interviews
were conducted
with
145
residents
of an
inner-city public housing develop-
ment
in
which r esid ents
are
randomly as signed
to
levels
of
nearby vegetation.
828
Kuo,
Sullivan, Coley,
and
Brunson

METHOD
The
data
presented
here
were drawn
from
the
Coping with Poverty
archive,
a
multistudy research
effort
examining
the
effects
of the
physical
environment
on the
functioning
of
individuals, families,
and
communities
residing
in
urban public housing.
Site
and
Design
The
site
was
Robert Taylor
Homes,
a
large public housing development
in
Chicago, IL.
3 Robert Taylor Homes (RTH)
has a
number
of
important
methodological features
as a
site
for
studying effects
of the
greenness
of
common spaces
on
neighborhood social ties.
First, while
the
amount
of
vegetation
in
neighborhood common spaces
at
RTH
varies considerably
from
building
to
building,
the
buildings
are
identical
in
architecture
and
share
a
single three-mile
corridor
(see Fig.
1).
Thus
RTH is
distinct
from
most communities,
in
which vegetation
is
con-
founded
with physical environmental factors related
to
income.
At
RTH,
such
physical factors
as
building size, building layout,
the
number
of
resi-
dential units
in a
building,
and
building location
are
unconfounded with
vegetation
and
held constant, removing several important sources
of
extra-
neous variability.
Second,
RTH
residents constitute
a
strikingly homogeneous population
with
respect
to
many
of the
individual factors which might
be
expected
to
affect
neighborhood social ties—income, education,
and
life
circumstances.
This again
decreases
sources
of
extraneous variability, increasing power
to
detect variability associated with differences
in the
physical environment.
Third, landscape management practices
at RTH are
such that
the
level
of
vegetation
in a
given common
space
cannot
be
attributed
to
residents
living
in a
particularly cohesive building
and
working
to
plant
or
maintain
the
vegetation.
RTH was
originally built
in the
1960s with
trees
and
grass
around
each
of the 28
high-rise
buildings.
Over
time,
the
majority
of
these
green
spaces
have been paved
in an
effort
to
keep dust down
and
main-
tenance costs low; this paving
has
killed many
of the
original
trees,
leaving
some buildings
with
completely
barren
common
spaces,
others with
a few
scattered
trees,
and
still others with leftover pockets
of
green. Ongoing
3Robert
Taylor
Homes
is
intentionally identified
by
name
in
this
article.
In the
media, this
community
is
portrayed
as
emblematic
of the
ills
of the
inner
city;
KTH
residents
and
staff
are
anxious
that
a
more
complete
picture
of
their
community
be
made available.
Perhaps
unsurprisingly,
the
findings
in
this
study
reveal
a
more
positive,
more
complex
picture
than
the
typical media portrayal.
Inner-City Common
Spaces
829

830
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson

landscape maintenance
at RTH is
handled entirely
by a
small landscaping
crew
serving
all of the
developments managed
by the
Chicago Housing
Authority;
residents
are not
involved
in
maintenance,
and
funds
are
inade-
quate
to
fulfill
special requests
from
residents. Thus
a
relationship between
greenness
of
common spaces
and
NSTs
in
this setting cannot
be
explained
by
a
process
in
which NSTs contribute
to
resident greening
efforts
and
greener
spaces.
Finally
and
perhaps most important,
the
apartment allocation process
at
RTH
results
in de
facto
random assignment
of
residents
to
different
levels
of
vegetation. Applicants
for
urban public housing have some choice
in the
particular
development
to
which
they
are
assigned,
but
have little choice
regarding
the
particular apartment
(or
apartment building).
A
family
gen-
erally
waits
for an
apartment
at RTH for 12 to 24
months. When their
name comes
to the top of the
waiting list,
the
family
is
shown
one
apart-
ment.
If
they
choose
not to
accept that particular apartment, they
can
wait
until
the
next apartment becomes available.
If a
family
rejects three apart-
ments,
they
are
placed
at the
bottom
of the
list
and
their wait starts over.
Given
the
desperate
financial
conditions that lead
families
to
apply
for
pub-
lic
housing,
it is not
surprising that
the
vast
majority
of
families take
the
first
apartment they
are
shown,
and
that
the
level
of
nearby vegetation
does
not
play
a
significant
role
in
their decisions.
A
number
of
checks were used
to
verify
that participant characteristics
were
indeed
independent
of
levels
of
common
space
vegetation.
Partici-
pants were asked
to
report criteria that were important
to
them
in
choosing
a
place
to
live:
Of 118
responses,
93%
were clearly unrelated
to
levels
of
vegetation (47% "just needed
a
place,"
12%
safety
or
cleanliness,
10% ac-
cess
to
work/school/family,
9%
cost,
8%
space
or
number
of
bedrooms,
6%
low
floor
(possibly because
of the
frequency
of
elevator malfunctions),
and
1
participant mentioned sense
of
community). Seven percent
of
criteria elic-
ited could possibly
be
related
to
levels
of
vegetation (e.g., location, neigh-
borhood,
area,
environment),
and one
participant
(of
145) specifically
reported
that "natural setting"
was
important
to her in
choosing
a
place
to
live; however, these participants
lived
in no
greener areas,
on
average,
than
the
remainder
of the
participants
in
this study. Moreover,
a
series
of
analyses
confirmed that there
was no
systematic relationship between
the
greenness
of
common
spaces
and
participants'
age,
education,
marital
status, work status, income,
Aid to
Families with Dependent Children
(AFDC)
status, number
of
children
at
home,
or
length
of
residence.
Robert
Taylor
Homes thus constitutes
a
naturally occurring
field
ex-
periment
on the
effects
of
greenness
of
common spaces,
with
random
as-
signment
of
individuals
to
conditions
and a
host
of
environmental
and
social variables held constant.
Inner-City
Common Spaces
831

Participants
and
Procedure
To
maximize potential rapport with interviewers,
three
African Ameri-
can
woman residents
of RTH
were hired
and
trained
to
conduct
the re-
cruitment, interviewing
and
testing
for
this research.
All
three were
long-time
residents
of RTH (19
years
or
more), residing
in
buildings outside
the
study sample.
In
preparation
for
interviewing
and
testing, interviewers
completed extensive training
(70
hours
of
general training
in
interview
methods,
12
hours learning
the
specific interview measures used,
and 14
hours
of
supervised
and
unsupervised practice
in
performing practice
in-
terviews).
In
addition,
an
on-site research supervisor
met
regularly with
the
interviewers
to
review procedures
and
address
any
difficulties
or
questions.
Interviewers
did not
interview individuals
with
whom they were
familiar.
Both interviewers
and the
order
of
interviews were counterbalanced
for
levels
of
vegetation
in
common spaces.
Participants
were recruited
from
18
buildings spanning
the
range
in
common space vegetation
at RTH and
excluding buildings adjacent
to
parks, police stations,
and
other facilities which might
affect
residents'
use of
common spaces
or
NSTs. Within these buildings, recruitment
was
conducted door-to-door
on
floors 2-4, where residents'
had
maximal
physical
and
visual access
to the
common spaces outside their building
(there
are no
residences
on the
first
floors).
Because
official
adult resi-
dents
in
urban public housing
are
predominately female (80%
in
RTH;
Chicago Housing Authority, 1995),
the
sample
was
restricted
to
adult
women
residents; specifically, female heads
of
household under
60
years
old. Female heads
of
household
of the
appropriate
age
range, living
on
floors
2-4 of the 18
buildings sampled, were invited
to
participate
in "a
University
of
Illinois study about
life
at
RTH." Participants were
told
they
could refuse
to
answer
any
question
and
could stop
the
interview
at any
time,
and
that they would
receive
$10
upon
completion
of the
interview.
Of
the 207
qualified residents invited,
70%
chose
to
participate, yield-
ing
a
final
sample
of 145
residents.
The
composite participant profile
is
that
of an
African American single woman with
a
high schooI/GED
di-
ploma, raising three children
on an
annual household income less than
$10,000;
80% of the
participants received AFDC. Participants ranged
from
20-59
years old,
with
a
mean
of age 34.
The
data
presented
here were drawn
from
a
two-part structured
in-
terview:
Participants' ratings
of
greenness, mood, stress,
and
mental fatigue
were collected
in the
first
part
of the
interview; information about partici-
pants' neighborhood social ties, sense
of
safety,
and
sense
of
adjustment
were collected
in the
second part. Interviews were conducted during
the
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson
832

summer
and
early
fall
months
in
participants' apartments. Each part
of the
interview
lasted approximately
45
minutes,
and the two
parts
of an
inter-
view
were conducted within
2
weeks
of
each other.
Measures
For
each participant, measures were made
of the
"greenness"
of
their
building's
common space, their
use of
that common space, their neighbor-
hood social ties, sense
of
safety
and
sense
of
adjustment,
and
other vari-
ables which might mediate
a
relationship between greenness
of
common
space
and
neighborhood social ties. Means
and
standard deviations
for
each
of
the
measures
are
presented
in the
Results.
The
central independent variable
in
this study
was
Greenness
of
Com-
mon
Spaces.
As
Bronfenbrenner (1979) pointed out, context exists
at a va-
riety
of
scales; thus, levels
of
nearby vegetation
can be
assessed
at
more
than
one
scale,
and it is
unclear which scale(s)
may be
most important.
For
this study, levels
of
vegetation
in
nearby common spaces were assessed
at
two
scales:
at the
scale
of the
individual building,
and at the
scale
of
the
individual apartment.
Previous research suggests that
the use of
neighborhood common
spaces
may be
related
to the
level
of
vegetation
at
both
these
scales:
common space
use is a
function
of
both
the
total number
of
trees next
to a
building,
and the
proximity
of
those
trees
to
individual apartments
(Coley
et al,
1997).
Similarly,
research
has
shown that
a
mere view
of
vegetation
suffices
to
produce reliable
effects
on
stress
and
affect
(e.g.,
Ulrich,
1981; Ulrich
et al,
1991);
thus
the
greenness associated
with
in-
dividual
apartments (and views)
may be an
important component
of
total
greenness.
Moreover, because
the
buildings
at RTH are
much larger than
the
occasional pockets
of
green, even within
a
"very green building" many
of
the
individual apartments have
very
little visual access
to
green common
spaces (see Fig.
2).
Consequently,
at RTH the
amount
of
vegetation asso-
ciated with
a
building
is
relatively independent
of the
amount
of
vegetation
associated
with
an
apartment,
and
measuring
the
former gives little indi-
cation
of the
latter.
Assessing
the
common space vegetation associated with
a
particular
building
is
relatively straightforward:
Th e
semipublic nature
of the
common
spaces around
a
building make
it
feasible
to
take
a
comprehensive
set of
photographs
of the
area, which
can
then
be
assessed
for
levels
of
vegetation
by
independent
raters.
Thus
to
assess greenness
at the
building level,
for
each
of the 18
bu il din gs ,
a set of 16
p ho to g ra p hs corresponding
to
specified
Inner-City Common
Spaces
833

Kuo,
Sullivan, Coley,
and
Brunson
Fig.
2.
Plan
view
of an
apartment
building
at
Robert
Taylor
Homes
with
nearby
trees.
The
numbers
within
the
building indicate
apartments.
The
arrows
indicate
the
position
from
which
photographs
were
taken (for
each
building)
that
were
then
rated
by 22
independent
raters.
Note
that
despite
the
presence
of
trees
outside
a
building,
residents
in
particular
apartments
may
have little
or no
visual
access
to
trees.
vantage
points were taken
of the
area immediately s ur ro un di ng
the
build-
ing.
Figure
2
shows
a
plan
view
of the
vantage points photographed
for
each building. Each
set of
photographs
was
then rated
on a
5-point Likert
scale
from
0
(not
at all
green)
to 4
(very
green)
by 22
independent
raters
(students
in
Horticulture).
With
these data, agreement between raters
is
analogous
to the re-
liability
of
items
in a
scale;
the
hope
is
that
different
raters
will
respond
to a
particular building
in a
similar fashion. Thus
to
assess interrater
agreement,
a
Cronbach's alpha
was
calculated,
with
individual raters
treated like individual items
in a
scale,
and
individual buildings treated
like
individual respondents. This procedure yielded
an
alpha
of
.97,
in-
dicating
a
high level
of
agreement between raters regarding building
greenness. Ratings ranged
from
0.56
to
3.63;
the
median mean rating
was
2.0.
Assessing
the
common space vegetation associated with
a
particular
apartment
is
less straightforward:
it
would
be
obtrusive
and
impractical
to
have independent
raters
assess
the
level
of
vegetation visible
from
resi-
dents' individual apartments. Thus, each participant
was
asked
to
assess
the
levels
of
vegetation associated
with
their
individual
apartment (How
much
of the
view
is of
nature—trees, plants, water?). Participants
re-
sponded
on a
5-point Likert scale
(0
none,
1
some,
2
half,
3
most,
4
834

all).
Ratings
of
Apartment Greenness ranged
from
0 to 4
with
a
median
of
2.
4
The
central dependent variable
in
this study
was
Neighborhood Social
Ties (NSTs). NSTs were assessed through
8
items with responses
on a 5-
point Likert scale
from
0
(not
at
alt)
to 4
(very
much). Principal components
analysis
with varimax rotation yielded three factors; items
for the
factors
were summed
to
create
three subscales, each
of
which demonstrated
ac-
ceptable
reliability—Socializing
at
Taylor, Nearby Neighbors,
and
Local
Sense
of
Community. Socializing
at
Taylor includes
two
items ("Do
you
have
many v is it or s every day?"
and "Do you
socialize
a lot
within
the
build-
ing?"), with
an
alpha
of
.73. Nearby Neighbors includes
two
items ("How
well
do you
know
the
people next
door?"
and
"How
well
do you
know
the
people
on
your floor?"),
with
an
alpha
of
.81. Local
Sense
of
Community
includes
three items ("Are people here concerned with helping
and
sup-
porting
one
another?",
"Do
people here acknowledge
one
another when
passing
in the
hallway?",
and "Is
there
a
strong feeling
of
belonging
here?"),
with
an
alpha
of
.67.
The
overall Neighborhood Social ties scale
had
acceptable reliability
(a =
.80).
In
addition
to
residents'
NSTs,
residents'
General
Social
Ties—their
broader social networks, unrestricted
to the
housing development—were
assessed.
Two
items ("Are
you
content with
the
number
of
close friends
you
have
in
general?"
and "Do you
have many acquaintances?") with
re-
sponses
on a 5
point Likert scale
from
0
(not
at
all)
to 4
(very
much)
had
an
alpha
of
.67.
In
addition
to the
central independent
and
dependent variables,
four
possible mediators
of the
hypothesized relationship
and two
possible
by-
products were
assessed.
One of the
four possible mediators, Mental Fatigue,
was
assessed
through
a
performance task,
the
Digit Span Backwards test. Digit Span
Backwards
is a
standardized neurocognitive measure used both
in the
clini-
cal
measurement
of
attention (Lezak, 1983; Mesulam, 1985)
and in the
research
on
attentional
fatigue
(e.g.,
Cimprich, 1992;
lennessen
&
Cim-
prich,
1995).
It is
easy
to
administer:
The
administrator reads aloud
a
series
of
digits
(e.g.,
"2 ... 5 ...
1"),
and
participants
are
asked
to
repeat back
the
series
in
reverse order
(e.g.,
"1 ... 5 ...
2"). Series
are
administered
in
increasing length;
if a
participant
fails
a
series
of a
given length,
a
second
4Building
Greenness
was
assessed
not
only through ratings
by
independent observers
but
also
through
ratings
by the
residents themselves.
It is
worth noting that these
two
measures
of
building
greenness
were
significantly
correlated; moreover, residents' ratings
of
Building
Greenness showed
the
same relationships
to
dependent variables
as did the
other measures
of
Greenness employed
in
this study.
The
apparent
validity
of
residents' assessments
of
Building
Greenness gives
us
some confidence
in
their assessments
of
Apartment Greenness.
Inner-City Common
Spaces
835

series
of
equal length
is
administered. Scoring
is
based
on the
longest
series
performed
correctly within
two
attempts.
The
remaining mediators
and
by-products were
assessed
through self-
report, using
the
same
0 to 4
Likert scale
(0 not at
all,
1 a
little,
2 a
medium
amount,
3
quite
a
lot,
4
very
much). Residents were asked about their
Use
of
Outdoor Common Spaces ("How much time
do you
spend
outdoors
in
the
areas just outside
the
apartment?")
and
levels
of
Stress ("How stressful
is
this period
in
your life?"). Residents' Positive Mood
was
assessed using
the
six-item Positive Mood subscale
from
the
short version
of the
Profile
of
Mood States (POMS,
37
items). Participants rated themselves
on six
adjectives
(lively, active, energetic, cheerful,
full
of
pep,
and
vigorous).
The
POMS
has
been shown
to be a
valid
and
reliable instrument
for the
meas-
ure of
mood states across numerous studies (McNair,
Lorr,
&
Droppleman,
1981).
Finally, residents' Sense
of
Safety
and
Sense
of
Adjustment were
assessed ("How
safe
do you
feel
living
here?"
and
"How well have
you
adjusted
to
living
here?").
RESULTS
Table
I
presents
the
means
and
standard deviations
for all
variables.
It is
notable that, even
in an
environment
of
rampant unemployment
and
poverty, participants' responses
do not
indicate extremely
low
level s
of
well-
being.
The
average stress score
was a bit
below
the
midrange score
a me-
dium amount, while positive mood
and
adjustment
are
both above
the
midrange, between
a
medium amount
and
quite
a
lot.
The
average rating
of
how
safe
respondents feel
was
more negative, between
a
little
and a
medium
amount. With respect
to
neighboring
and
general levels
of
social
integration,
on
average residents socialized
a
little
or
somewhat
at
Taylor,
knew
their nearby neighbors somewhat,
had
somewhat
of a
local
sense
of
community,
and
were somewhat
o r
quite
satisfied
with
the
number
of
friends
and
acquaintances they
had in
general. Altogether,
these
findings
paint
a
less
negative picture
of
Chicago's public housing than reported
in
media
portrayals
or
ethnographic
and
sociological work
on
poor inner-city neigh-
borhoods
(e.g.,
West, 1993;
W J.
Wilson, 1987,
1996).
Preliminary
Analyses
The
central hypothesis
of
this study
was
that
the
greener
a
neighbor-
hood common
space,
the
stronger
the
social ties among
residents
living
near
that space. Such
an
effect
might exist
at, and be
modeled
at, a
variety
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson
836

Table
I.
Means
and
Standard Deviations
for All
Variables
(N =
145)
Variable
Greenness
of
comon spaces
(0 = not at all
green,
4 =
very
green)
Apartment greenness
(0 =
none,
4 =
all)
Building
greenness
(0 = not at all
green,
4 =
very
green)
Use of
outdoor common spaces
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Stress
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Mental
fatigue
Positive
mood
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Neighborhood social ties
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Socializing
at
Taylor
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Nearby
neighbors
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Local sense
of
community
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
General social ties
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Feeling
safe
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
Feeling adjusted
(0 = not at
all,
4 =
very
much)
M
1.96
2.01
1.91
1.99
1.84
4.81
2.38
1.81
1.43
2.23
1.90
2.32
1.55
2.47
SD
0.65
1.02
0.85
1.02
1.20
1.11
0.67
0.69
0.92
1.00
0.78
0.95
1.06
1.04
of
scales:
analyses might compare individuals, building floors,
or
buildings,
and
it is
unclear which scale
or
scales
of
analysis would best capture
the
effect.
Moreover,
to the
extent that
the
social ties among
residents
within
a
floor
(or
within
a
building)
are
nonindependent, analyses should,
if
pos-
sible, explicitly model differences
in
social ties
at
these
larger scales.
Al-
though
the
data
in
this study
did not
allow
for the
modeling
of
differences
in
social ties
at the
scale
of the floor
(too
few
residents sampled
per floor),
they
were
sufficient
that building-level differences might begin
to be
cap-
tured
(18
buildings,
wi th
an
average
of 8.1
residents
per
building). Accord-
ingly,
a
number
of
preliminary analyses were conducted
to
determine
whether modeling should include building-level differences
in
addition
to,
or
instead
of,
individual-level differences.
A
series
of
one-way ANOVAs were conducted where buildings were
the
factor, individuals w er e nested within buildings,
and
both buildings
and
individuals
were
tested
as
random
effects.
As
described
in
O'Brian
(1990),
the
mean squares generated
from
such
an
analysis
can be
used
to
estimate
the
reliability
of
aggregate measures;
to
estimate reliability
at the
individual
level,
Cronbach's
alphas were calculated. Table
II
presents
the
building le ve l
and
individual level reliability coefficients
for the
central dependent vari-
able, Neighborhood Social
Ties,
its
three
subscales,
and
General Social
Ties.
Whereas
the
individual level reliabilities (as) range
from
.67 to .81
and
are
thus acceptable,
the
building level reliabilities range
from
-.91
to
.35, indicating that there
was
virtually
no
agreement among residents within
a
building
for the
various measures
of
social
ties.
Moreover, there were
no
significant
differences among buildings with respect
to any of
these meas-
Inner-City
Common Spaces
837

Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson
Table
II.
Individual-
and
Building-Level R e l i a b i l i t i e s
Neighborhood
Social Ties
Socializing
at
Taylor
Nearby
neighbors
Local sense
of
co mmuni ty
General Social Ties
Individual-level
reliability
.80
.73
.81
.67
.67
Building-level
reliability
.23
.35
.29
.10
-.91
ures
in
either
the
one-way ANOVAs
or in
additional analyses
in
which
both
building
and
Greenness
of
Common
Space
were modeled.
These
preliminary analyses indicate that although
the
data
in
this study
allow
for the
explicit modeling
of
building-level differences,
either
these
differences
do not
exist,
or
they exist
but
were
not
reliably
measured.5
We
conclude
that differences
in
NSTs
at RTH can be
measured reliably
at the
individual
level, that
the
NSTs
of
residents
sharing
the
same building
appear
to be
largely independent,
and
that
there
are no
significant differences
in
NSTs
between buildings.
Tb
te st
our
central hypothesis, then,
the
individual
resident
was
used
as the
unit
of
analysis,
and
building-level similarities
and
differences
among residents were
not
modeled.
The
Central Hypothesis
To
te st
for
relationships between each
of the two
complementary
vege-
tation
measures
and
individual
residents'
NSTs,
multiple regressions
were
conducted
with Building
Greenness
and
Apartment
Greenness
predicting
NSTs and
each
of the NST
subscales.
As
Table
III
shows,
each
of the two
greenness
measures
are
significant
predictors
of
NSTs
at the
scale
level,
although
some
of
these
relationships
do not
reach significance
at the
subscale
level.
Overall,
Apartment
Greenness
emerges
as a
stronger pre-
5There
is
some reason
to
think that
the low
building-level reliabilities
and
lack
of a
building
effect
on
NSTs
can be
attributed
to the
absence
of
building-level
effects,
as
opposed
to the
mere unreliability
o f the
measures.
A
recent study (Cou lton, Korbin,
& Su,
1996) with similar
numbers
of
aggregate units
and
individuals
per
aggregate
(16
blocks, with 9-10
households
per
block,
as
compared
to 18
b ui l d in g s ,
w it h
8
households
per
building
in
this study) obtained
very
acceptable aggregate level reliabilities
for
some variables (.83, .84,
and
.76,
for
mobility,
disorder,
and
neighborhood quality, respectively), while obtaining very
low
aggregate
reliabilities
for
others (-.46
for
neighborhood interaction
and .32 for
stop delinquency). T hus
the tow
aggregate reliabilities obtained here cannot
be
attributed
to low ns per se, nor can
they
be
attributed
to
insufficiently
high
individual-level
reliabilities—in
the
study
described
above, mobility
had a .83
re l ia b il i ty
at the
aggregate level,
and a .52
re l ia b il i ty
at the
individual
level
(well below
the
individual
reliabilities obtained
here).
We
suggest that
if
building
differences
existed,
the
data here
are
sufficient
to
allow
for
their detection;
it
seems likely
that,
at
Robert
Taylor
Homes,
NSTs
are
simply
not a
building-level phenomenon.
838

Inner-City
Common Spaces
Table
III. Multiple
Regressions
Using Apartment
Greenness
and
Building
Greenness
to
Predict
Social
Ties
Subscales
Model
R2
Apartment greenness
P
P
Building greenness
P
P
Neighborhood
social
ties
.15
.25
.0001
.12
.05
Socializing
at
Taylor
.07
.22
.01
.13
.14
Nearby
neighbors
.10
.29
.001
.14
.14
Local sense
of
community
.11
.25
.0001
.11
.12
General
social ties
.02
(ns)
.09
.28
.10
.26
dictor than Building Greenness, perhaps because Building Greenness
is a
necessary
but not
sufficient
condition
for
Apartment Greenness.
At the
same time,
it is
important
to
note that Building Greenness,
a
measure
of
greenness derived
from
independent observers, predicts NSTs even when
its
partner measure
is
held constant, suggesting that
the
relationship
be-
tween
measures
of
greenness
and
NSTs cannot
be
attributed
to a
simple
response bias
on the
part
of
participants. Wh er eas both greenness measures
are
related
to
Neighborhood Social Ties, neither
is
significantly
related
to
General Social Ties
in
this model. Overall, these
findings
indicate that
the
more vegetation associated
with
a
resident's apartment
and
building,
the
more
she
socialized with neighbors,
the
more
familiar
with
nearby neigh-
bors
she
was,
and the
greater
her
sense
of
com muni ty.
Testing
for
Mediators
The
hypothesized relationship between levels
of
common space vege-
tation
and
neighborhood social ties
was
observed.
To
explore
the
possible
mediators
of
this relationship,
a
series
of
ordinary least square (OLS)
re-
gression analyses w er e conducted
following
the
mediation testing procedure
recommended
by
Baron
and
Kenny
(1986).
In
this procedure, three steps
must
be
successfully completed
to
show mediation.
In
Step
I of the
procedure,
a
simple regression
is
performed between
the
independent variable
and the
dependent variable,
and the
beta associ-
ated
with
the
independent variable
is
noted
for
later comparison.
For the
purpose
of
this procedure,
and for
ease
of
later comparison,
the two
com-
plementary
vegetation measures were combined into
a
single,
summary
variable,
Greenness
of
Common
Spaces.
The NST
scale,
NST
subscales,
839

Kuo,
Sullivan,
Col ey,
and
Brunson
Table
IV
Simple Regressions Using
Greenness
of
Common Space
to
Predict Social
Ties
Subscales
R2
P
P
Neighborhood
*
social
ties
.14
.40
.0001
Socializing
at
Taylor
.07
.38
.01
Nearby
neighbors
.10
.50
.0001
Local
sense
of
community
.09
.36
.001
General
social ties
.02
.22
.08
Table
V.
Simple Regressions Using Greenness
of
Common Space
to
Predict
Four Possible Mediators
R2
P
P
Use of
outdoor
common spaces
.04
.31
.05
Stress
.04
-.35
.05
Mental
fatigue
.001
-.05
ns
Positive
mood
.005
.08
ns
and
General Social Ties scale were then regressed
on
Greenness
of
Com-
mon
Spaces. Table
IV
presents
the
results
for
these regressions.
Like
its
constituent measures,
the
summary
measure
for
common space
vegetation
significantly
predicts NSTs.
In
addition,
it
significantly
predicts
each
of the
three NSTs subscales—Socializing
a t
Taylor, Ne a rb y Neighbors,
and
Local Sense
of
Community—and
has a
marginally
significant
relation-
ship
to the
broader measure
of
General Social
Ties.
The
requirements
of
Step
I are
thus
fulfilled:
The
independent variable
is
significantly
related
to the
dependent variable.
In
Step
II of the
Baron
and
Kenny procedure,
a
simple regression
is
performed
between
the
independent variable
and the
hypothesized media-
tor. Step
II
requires that
the
independent variable must
significantly
predict
any
proposed mediators. Table
V
presents
the
results
for
regressions
in
which
Greenness
of
Common Spaces
is
used
to
predict each
of the
possible
mediators (Use
of
Common Spaces, Stress, Mental Fatigue,
and
Positive
Mood)
in
turn.
Results
indicate that although
two of the
proposed mediators
fulfill
the
requirements
of
this step,
two do
not. Greenness
of
Common Spaces
relates
significantly
to Use of
Common Spaces
and to
Stress,
but not to
Mental Fatigue
or
Positive Mood. Thus, residents
who
live adjacent
to
com-
mon
spaces
with
higher levels
of
vegetation report using those spaces more
often
and
experiencing lower amounts
of
general
life
stress than residents
who
live adjacent
to
spaces
with
lower levels
of
vegetation.
These
findings
indicate
that
the
relationship between levels
of
vegetation
and
neighbor-
840

Inner-City
Common Sp aces
Table
VI.
Multiple Regressions Using Greenness
of
Common Space
and TWo
Possible
Mediators
to
Predict Social Ties
Subscales
Model
R2
Neighborhood
social ties
.21
Socializing
at
Taylor
.11
Nearby
neighbors
.15
Local
sense
of
community
.12
Greenness
of
common space
P
P
.33
.0001
.31
.01
.42
.001
.30
.01
Use of
common space
P
P
Model
R2
.19
.001
.14
.19
.01
.07
.22
.01
.13
.16
.05
.08
Greenness
of
common space
P
P
.41
.0001
.36
.01
.57
.0001
.36
.001
Stress
P
P
.03
ns
-.02
ns
.12
ns
.04
ns
hood social ties
found
here cannot
be
mediated
by
either mental fatigue
or
mood,
but
could
be
mediated
by
either
use of
common spaces
or
stress.
In
Step
III of the
mediation test,
a
multiple regression
is
performed
in
which
the
independent
and
mediator variables
are
entered
as
predictors
of
the
dependent variable.
To
show mediation,
the
mediator must
signifi-
cantly
predict
the
dependent variable
in
this model;
in
addition,
the
intro-
duction
of the
mediator into
the
regression must result
in a
decrease
in
the
beta associated
with
the
independent variable (relative
to its
beta
in
Step
I). If the
independent variable becomes nonsignificant,
the
results
in-
dicate
full
mediation;
if the
independent variable shows
a
significant
re-
duction
in
predictive power
but is
still
a
significant
predictor,
the
results
indicate partial mediation.
Table
VI
shows
the
betas
and
significance
values
for
multiple regres-
sions involving
Greenness
of
Common Spaces
and
each
of the two
remain-
ing
candidate mediators,
Use of
Common Space
and
Stress.
As
Table
VI
shows, only
Use
significantly
predicts
the
dependent variables. Further,
comparisons between Table
IV and
Table
VI
show that
the
predictive power
for
Greenness (the independent variable) does indeed drop when
Use
(the
mediator)
is
introduced.
A
test
for
significant
difference
in
independent
betas
(J.
Cohen
&
Cohen; 1983) reveals that
the
drop
in
betas
for
Green-
ness
of
Common Spaces
is
significant
for the NST
scale,
t(279)
=
1.82,
841

p
<
.05, one-tailed, although
it
does
not
reach
significance
for the
individ-
ual
subscales.
In
sum, only
one of the
four
possible mediators,
Use of
Common
Space,
fulfills
each
of the
three steps
in the
mediation test. These
tests
indicate that
the
relationship between common space greenness
and
NSTs
is
not
mediated
by
stress, mental
fatigue,
or
mood,
and
that
the
relationship
is
partially,
but not
wholly,
mediated through
use of
common spaces.
Testing
for
By-Products
It was
hypothesized that
any
effects
of
common space vegetation
on
the
formation
of
neighborhood social ties might
be
accompanied
by
addi-
tional
effects
on
residents' Sense
of
Safety
and
Sense
of
Adjustment. Thus,
mediation
tests were conducted
to
test whether Greenness
of
Common
Spaces increases Sense
of
Safety
and
Sense
of
Adjustment
through
its
effect
on
NSTs.
As
Table
VII
indicates, Greenness
of
Common Spaces relates
signifi-
cantly
to
both Sense
of
Safety
and
Sense
of
Adjustment
in
simple regres-
sions,
fulfilling
Step
I. As
shown earlier, Greenness (the independent
variable)
and
NSTS
(the mediator
in
this case)
are
also
significantly
related,
fulfilling
Step
II.
When
NSTs
are
added
to the
equation (Step III), NSTs
significantly
predict both Sense
of
Safety
and
Sense
of
Adjustment.
In ad-
dition,
Greenness drops
in
effectiveness
as a
predictor
for
Sense
of
Safety,
and
becomes nonsignificant
as a
predictor
for
Sense
of
Adjustment. Tests
of
significant differences
in
independent betas confirmed that
these
de-
creases were
significant,
t(278)
=
3.53
for
Safety,
p <
.0005, one-tailed;
t(280)
=
4.16
for
Adjustment,
p <
.0005, one-tailed.
These
results suggest that, indeed, higher levels
of
common
space
vegetation
may
yield
not
only
the
proximal benefit
of
stronger NSTs
but
also
the
more distal benefits
of
greater sense
of
safety
and
adjustment.
Moreover,
as can be
seen
in
Table VII,
the
weak relationship between
Greenness
of
Common Spaces
and
residents' General Social
Ties,
seems
to
function entirely through
the
effect
of
vegetation
on
Neighborhood
So-
cial
Ties.
DISCUSSION
This study
wa s
pre dica ted
on the
notion that
the
existence
(or
absence)
of
social ties among neighbors rests
in
part
on the
quality
and use of
neigh-
borhood common
spaces.
Previous research
has
shown that inner-city
842
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson

Inner-City
Common
Spaces
Table
VII.
Predicting
Sense
of
Safety,
Sense
of
Adjustment,
and
General
Social
Ties
with
Greenness
of
Common
Spaces
and
Neighborhood
Social
Ties
Simple
regression
R2
Greenness
of
common
space
(5
P
Multiple
regression
R2
Greenness
of
common
space
B
P
Neighborhood
social
ties
P
P
Feel
safe
.08
.48
.001
.19
.27
.05
.52
.0001
Feel
adjusted
.03
.30
.05
.18
.06
ns
.61
.0001
General
social
ties
.02
.22
.08
.20
-.02
ns
.61
.0001
neighborhood common spaces
with
higher levels
of
vegetation receive
higher
levels
of use by
residents, thus providing more opportunities
for in-
formal
social interaction among neighbors (Coley
et al,
1997;
DePooter,
1997).
In
this study,
w e
found
that
the
more vegetation
in a
common space,
the
stronger
the
neighborhood social ties near that space—compared
to
residents
living
adjacent
to
relatively barren spaces, individuals
living
ad-
jacent
to
greener
common
spaces
had
more social activities
and
more visi-
tors, knew more
of
their neighbors, reported their neighbors were more
concerned
with
helping
and
supporting
one
another,
and had
stronger feel-
ings
of
belonging.
The
central hypothesis
of
this study,
and one
interpretation
of
these
findings,
is
that greener common spaces facilitate
the
development
and
maintenance
of
NSTs. Another interpretation might
be
that stronger
NSTs
lead
to
greener common spaces—that
is,
small bands
of
residents
might
work
together
to
improve their common spaces through
the
addition
of
trees
and
grass.
As
described earlier, however, landscaping
has
historically
been managed centrally
at the
Chicago Housing Authority,
and
neither
in-
dividual
residents
nor
groups
of
residents have
had
significant
input into
decisions regarding common space vegetation; indeed,
we
have observed
trees
taken down outside apartment buildings without consultation
or no-
tification
of
residents.
(It is
important
to
note
that
the
Chicago Housing
Authority
has a
laudable practice
of
involving
residents
in all
major
deci-
sions
about Housing programs
and
policies; outdoor vegetation
has
simply
fallen
outside
the
purview
of
this practice.)
843

Another possible interpretation
of the
association between greenness
of
common
spaces
and
NSTs might
be
that extroverted
residents
self-select
into buildings
with
greener common
spaces—particularly
sociable individu-
als
might "work
the
system"
to
obtain apartments
in
buildings
w it h
more
nearby vegetation,
and
once housed
in
those buildings,
form
stronger ties
with
their neighbors.
Three
considerations make this interpretation
un-
likely:
the
apartment allocation process
at RTH
results
in de
facto
random
assignment
of
residents
to
various levels
of
vegetation; only
one of the
par-
ticipants specifically mentioned
"a
natural
setting"
as an
important
criterion
in
choosing
an
apartment;
and
those participants
who
reported "environ-
ment"
as a
selection criteria live
in no
greener areas,
on
average, than
the
sample
as a
whole.
In
our
view,
the
most plausible interpretation
of the
greenness-NST
relationship
found
here
is
that
the
level
of
vegetation
in a
common space
affects
its
use,
and
that
the use of a
common
space
affects
NSTs
by
pro-
viding
opportunities
for
informal social contact among neighbors.
The me-
diation findings provide additional support
for
this interpretation.
In
addition, this interpretation
fits
the
general pattern
of
findings
in
environ-
mental
and
social psychology indi cating t h a t environmental factors
affecting
the
quantity
or
quality
of
informal
social contact among neighbors have
systematic
effects
on the
development
of
neighborhood social ties.
Generalizability
Robert
Taylor
Homes
differs
from
some communities
and
resembles
others
in
both
its
physical features
and its
resident population.
Here,
we
consider some
of
these
differences
and
commonalities,
and how the
effects
found
in
this study might
be
weaker
in
some communities
and
stronger
in
others.
Relative
to
middle-
and
upper-income residential settings,
RTH is
characterized
by
exceptionally bleak neighborhood outdoor spaces
and few
alternative
common spaces.
It
seems
likely
that levels
of
vegetation
in
out-
door spaces
are
less important
in
settings where
the
outdoor spaces have
other attractive, sociopetal features
and in
settings where neighbors have
alternative indoor common spaces
(e.g.,
nearby community buildings).
On
the
other hand,
RTH
hardly
has a
monopoly
on
bleak neighborhood
spaces.
Although common
space
vegetation
may
play
a
smaller role
in the
devel-
opment
of
NSTs
in
wealthier communities,
its
effects
seem likely
to
gen-
eralize
to
many other
poor
urban communities.
Relative
to
many communities,
RTH is
characterized
by
multiple
en-
vironmental
features which work against
the
formation
of
NSTs: architec-
844
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson

tural design, crowding,
noise,
and
high
rates
of
crime. Yancey
(1971)
has
argued that
the
architectural design
of
high-rise buildings
can
make
it
dif-
ficult
for
residents
to
form
ties
to
neighbors,
and
crowding, noise,
and
high
rates
of
crime have each
been
shown
to
inhibit
social integration
(e.g.,
Baum,
Davis,
&
Aiello, 1978;
S.
Cohen
&
Lezak, 1977; Mathews
&
Can-
non, 1975; McCarthy
&
Saegert,
1978;
G.
Wilson
&
Baldassare, 1996).
It
seems likely that
the
effects
of
greenness
on
NSTs
may be
moderated
by
these
factors.
The
question
for
future
research, then,
is
how:
The use of
neighborhood common
spaces
might
be
especially important
in a
setting
which
discourages
the
formation
of
NSTs;
at the
same time,
the use of
neighborhood common spaces might have
an
especially large (synergistic)
effect
on NSTs in a
setting
which
supports their formation.
Relative
to
many
settings,
the
social characteristics
of RTH are
par-
ticularly
conducive
to the
formation
of NSTs.
Residents
at RTH are
similar
in
ethnicity (99.7%
African
American), similar
in SES
(96.5% unemployed),
and
nearly
half
of
residents have children
living
at
home (Casey, 1995).
Similarity
in
SES, similarity
in
ethnicity,
and the
presence
of
children
at
home have each
been
found
to
predict
high
levels
of
neighboring
in a va-
riety
of
populations
(Gerson,
Steuve,
&
Fischer,
1977; Mayo, 1979; Riger
&
Lavrakas, 1981; Unger
&
Wandersman,
1982).
It
seems likely that
the
neighborhood integration
effects
of
attractive, well-used common spaces
will
be
weaker
in
neighborhoods where residents have less propensity
to
form
NSTs,
and
stronger where
the
potential
for NSTs is
greater.
Finally,
individuals
at RTH are
likely
to be
severely limited
in
mobility
by
children
and
lack
of
transportation (cf.
Gobster
&
Delgado, 1993); this
lack
of
mobility constrains individuals
in
their access
to
both places
and
people outside
the
neighborhood. Consequently, resident
mobility
may
play
an
especially important role
in the
relationship between levels
of
common
space vegetation
and
neighborhood social ties.
It
seems
likely
that
in
more
mobile communities, where individuals spend less time
at
home
and
have
many
opportunities
to
form
social ties outside
the
neighborhood,
the
pres-
ence
of
pleasant neighborhood spaces might have less
effect
on
NSTs.
In
contrast,
it
seems
likely
that these
effects
will
be
stronger
in
other, less
mobile
populations—poor urban communities
in and
outside
of
public
housing,
elderly individuals,
and
handicapped
individuals.
Future research
might
focus
on the
relationship between green common spaces
and
social
integration
for
individuals
with
limited mo b i l it y .
In
sum,
it
seems
likely
that
the
relationship between greenness
of
com-
mon
spaces
and NSTs
found
in
this
study
is
moderated
by a
number
of
factors:
the
condition
and
availability
of
other
neighborhood common
spaces,
the
extent
to
which
other features
of the
physical environment
are
supportive
of
NSTs,
the
inherent potential
for NSTs in a
population,
and
Inner-City
Common
Spaces
845

levels
of
resident mobility. Poor urban neighborhoods seem likely
to
com-
bine
the
features
in
which
the
effects
of
greenness
on
social
ties
are
likely
to be
most powerful.
For
middle
and
upper
SES
individuals,
the
effects
of
attractive, well-used common spaces
an
local social ties might
be
more vis-
ible
in
work
and
school settings (cf. Campbell
&
Campbell's 1988 study
on
academic department common space characteristics, common space use,
and
informal social interaction
in
departmental lounges).
Implications
Although
the
implications
of
these
findings
for
wealthier communities
await
further
research,
it is
clear
the
findings have compelling implications
for
many inner-city communities. Indeed,
we
believe that
in the
context
of
previous research,
the
present findings bespeak both great tragedy
and
great promise.
Previous research
in
community p s y c h o l o g y indicates that almost every
individual-
and
group-level characteristic
of
inner-city minority neighbor-
hoods—ethnicity,
social
class,
family
structure,
length
of
residence,
and ho-
mogeneity
of
ethnicity
and
social class—would suggest
a
propensity
for
strong neighborhood
ties.
Moreover, research suggests that while NSTs
are
beneficial
in all
populations, they
may
serve
an
especially critical function
in
low-income communities.
In
poverty,
one
important survival strategy
is
to
share
resources
through
family
and
friendship networks (Belle, 1982;
Stack, 1974). Because poor
families
tend
to be
limited
in
mobility
and
have
limited
access
to
more distant
family
and
friends, they have
few
options
other than nearby neighbors
for
resource-sharing (Gerson
et al ,
1977; Riger
&
Lavrakas, 1981; Tognoli, 1987; Yancey, 1971; Wellman
&
Leighton,
1979).
Thus,
in
low-income inner-city communities NSTs
ma y
provide
an
irreplace-
able
safety
net
that middle-class
or
upper-income communities have little
need for.
At the
same time,
the
previous research
in
social
and
environ-
mental psychology
and the
present findings i nd ic at e that almost every physi-
cal
characteristic
of
inner-city neighborhoods—crime rate, levels
of
noise,
crowding,
and
barren common
spaces—systematically
works against
the
for-
mation
of
neighborhood ties.
The
tragedy, then, lies
in the
enormity
of the
mismatch between what
inner-city
communities want
and
need
in the way of
neighborhood social
ties,
and
what
the
physical environment
of
many inner-city neighborhoods
supports. Some readers
may be
familiar
with
the
concept
of
person-envi-
ronment
fit
(e.g., French, Rodgers,
&
Cobb, 1974);
we
suggest that
the
concept
of
community-environment
fit may be
useful
as
well,
and
that
poor
846
Kuo, Sullivan, Coley,
and
Brunson

inner-city
neighborhoods
may
represent
an
extreme case
of
community-en-
vironment
misfit
(see Yancey,
1971).
The
promise here lies
in the
exciting possibilities
for
action
and re-
search (and action research)
on the
facilitation
of NSTs in
low-income
ur-
ban
communities.
One
exciting possibility
is
that
of a
new, low-cost
intervention
for the
facilitation
of
NSTs.
Efforts
to
plant
trees
and
grass
in
neighborhood common spaces,
as
well
as
other
efforts
to
increase
residents'
use
of
these common spaces,
are
likely
to
have
significant,
positive impacts
on
NSTs. Future research might begin
to
systematically te ase apart
the
rela-
tive
contributions
of
green views, versus
the
availability
of
green common
spaces
per se,
thus guiding planting
efforts.
A
related possibility
is
that
of
using greening
as a
focus
for
community
organizing
efforts
in
inner-city neighborhoods.
It is a
widely
ignored prin-
ciple that
the
development
of
usable outdoor common spaces
in
neighbor-
hoods requires
the
participation
of
local residents
(Hester,
1984).
Community
organizers
and
urban planners might involve residents
in de-
cisions
to
create
green common spaces
and in the
specific design
of
those
spaces.
The
participation
and
cooperation
of
local residents
in
such
en-
deavors
are
likely
to
bring heightened interest
in the
protection
of
newly
planted
trees,
while simultaneously planting seeds
of
community a mong
residents (see Brunson, Kuo,
&
Sullivan,
in
preparation).
A
recent study
indicates that inner-city residents
may be
very
willing
to
participate
in
greening
efforts;
striking num be rs
of
residents
at RTH
indicated they w o u l d
be
willing
to
help plant
and
take care
of
trees
in
their courtyard (Kuo
et
al.,
1998).
As
planting
and
maintenance
are the
chief costs
in
greening pro-
grams,
resident involvement
in
such
efforts
might
not
only play
a key
role
in
their long-term success
but
also make them
widely
affordable.
The
possibility that levels
of
common space vegetation
might
have
in-
direct, positive
effects
on
inner-city residents' sense
of
safety
and
sense
of
adjustment
seems worth
further
exploration.
It
seems plausible that
an in-
dividual
would
feel
safer
in a
setting
if
they
had
some level
of
trust
in
their
neighbors,
or
better,
if
they
felt
that neighbors might
be
counted
on to
watch
out for
them. Indeed,
we
found
that greenness
of
common spaces
was
related
to
feeling
safe
and
feeling
adjusted,
and
mediation tests were
consistent with
the
hypothesis that these relationships were mediated
by
the
strength
of
local social ties.
The
findings
here
on
sense
of
safety
are
consistent
with
Riger
et
al.'s
(1981)
finding,
and
findings
from
Kuo et al
(1998). Future research might test
for
effects
of
greening using more thor-
ough
measures
of
sense
of
safety
and
sense
of
adjustment than
the
single-
item
measures employed here.
Related
to the
possibility that vegetation increases sense
of
safety
in
this
context
is the
intriguing po ss ibil ity that higher levels
of
vegetation
may
Inner-City
Common Spaces
847

lead
to
greater levels
of
actual safety.
6 Research indicates that neighbors
who
have strong social relations
are
more
effective
at
instituting social con-
trol over negative
or
unwanted behaviors, thus discouraging criminal
ac-
tivities
(Greenberg, Rohe,
&
Williams, 1982; Newman, 1972; Newman
&
Franck, 1980),
To t he
extent that
the
presence
of
trees
and
grass
in
common
spaces
leads
to
stronger
NSTfc,
the
greening
of
these
spaces
may
yield sur-
prising indirect benefits
in the
form
of
lower levels
of
crime.
A
final
source
of
promise
in the
present
findings
lies
in the
potential
for
fruitful
collaboration between community psychologists
and
environ-
mental design researchers.
Not
only
do the
researchers
in
these
two
areas
share
an
interest
in
intervention,
but the
combined perspectives
of the two
research traditions seem likely
to
contribute
a
fuller
understanding
of
NSTs—the
factors supporting their development,
the
specific processes
by
which
they develop,
and
their benefits.
Conclusion
Attractive, well-used neighborhood common spaces
in the
inner city
may
provide important benefits
to
residents
and
communities.
Greener
common spaces appear
to
attract people outdoors, increasing opportunities
for
casual social encounters among neighbors
and
fostering
the
develop-
ment
of
neighborhood social ties. Ultimately,
the
outcome
of
community-
based greening
efforts
might
be
physically
and
socially more supportive
places
to
live.
For
individuals
who
live
in
poor inner-city neighborhoods
and who
face
an
array
of
difficult
circumstances, greener outdoor common
spaces
may
make
the
world
a
more supportive place.
REFERENCES
Adams,
R. E.
(1992).
Is
happiness
a
home
in the
suburbs?
The
influence
of
urban versus
suburban
neighborhoods
on
psychological health.
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
20,
353-372.
Altman,
I.
(1975).
The
environment
and
social
behavior:
Privacy,
personal
space,
territory,
crowd-
ing.
Monterey,
CA:
Brooks/Cole.
6As one of our
reviewers pointed out,
to the
extent that vegetation increases
the
perception
of
safety
without increasing
actual
safety,
greening interventions might have
the
unintended
consequence
of
increasing residents' exposure
to
unsafe
conditions. This
is an
important
concern
and
deserves empirical attention.
At
present,
we can
report only that,
in
initial
analyses
of
Chicago police crime report data, simple regressions
yield
a
strong
and
significant
negative
relationship between
levels
of
vegetation outside
an
apartment building
and the
number
of
crimes reported
at
that address over
a
2-year period. Whether these relations
will
hold once appropriate controls
(building
size,
vacancy
rates, etc.)
are
entered awaits further
analyses
and a
more complete database.
848
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson

Baron,
R. M, &
Kenny,
D. A.
(1986).
The
moderator-mediator variable distinction
in
social
psychological research: conceptual, strategic,
and
statistical considerations.
Journal
of
Per-
sonality
and
Social
Psychology,
51,
1173-1182.
Baum,
A., &
Valins,
S.
(1979). Architectural mediation
of
residential density
and
control:
Crowding
and the
regulation
of
social contact.
In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances
in
experi-
mental
social
psychology
(Vol.
1 2 , pp.
131-175).
New
York: Academic
Press.
Baum,
A.,
Davis,
G. E., &
Aiello
J. R.
(1978). Crowding
and
neighborhood Mediation
of
urban density.
Journal
of
Population,
1,
266-279.
Belle,
D. E.
(1982).
The
impact
of
poverty
on
social networks
and
supports.
Marriage
and
Family
Review,
5(4),
89-103.
Bronfenbrenner,
U.
(1979).
The
ecology
of
human
development:
Experiments
by
nature
and
design.
Cambridge,
MA:
Harvard
University
Press.
Brown,
B. B., &
Werner,
C. M.
(1985). Social cohesiveness, territoriality
and
holiday decora-
tions:
The
influence
of
cul-de-sacs. Environment
and
Behavior,
17,
539-565.
Brunson,
L,
Kuo, F.E.,
&
Sullivan,
W.C.
(in
preparation).
Benefits
of
residents'
involvement
i n
greening:
Experience
from the
inner
city.
Buckner,
J. C.
(1988).
The
development
of an
instrument
to
measure neighborhood cohesion.
American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
16,
771-791.
Calthorpe,
P
(1991).
Towns
for all
seasons.
Architectural
Record,
179,
44-45.
Campbell,
D. E. &
Campbell,
T. A .
(1988).
A new
look
at
informal
communication:
The
role
of
the
physical environment. Environment
and
Behavior,
20,
211-226.
Campbell,
K. E., &
Lee,
B. A.
(1992). Sources
of
personal neighbor networks: Social inte-
gration, need,
or
time?
Social
Forces,
70,
1077-1100.
Casey,
C. H.
(1995).
Characteristics
of
HUD-assisted
renters
and
their
units
in
1993. Washington,
DC:
U.S.
Department
of
Housing
and
Urban Development,
Office
of
Policy Development
and
Research.
Chavis,
D. M., &
Wandersman,
A.
(1990). Sense
of
community
in the
urban environment:
A
catalyst
for
participation
and
community development. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
18,
55-81.
Chicago Housing Authority. (1995).
Statistical
profile:
The
Chicago
Housing
Authority
1994
to
1995.
Chicago,
IL:
Author.
Cimprich,
B.
(1992). Attentional
fatigue
following breast cancer surgery.
Research
in
Nursing
and
Health,
15,
199-207.
Cohen,
J., &
Cohen,
P.
(1983).
Applied
multiple
regression/correlational
analysis
for the
behav-
ioral
sciences.
Hillsdale,
NJ:
Erlbaum.
Cohen,
S., &
Lezak,
A.
(1977). Noise
and
inattentiveness
to
social cues. Environment
and
Behavior,
9,
559-572.
Cohen,
S., &
Spacapan,
S.
(1978).
The
aftereffects
of
stress:
An
attentional interpretation.
Environmental
Psychology
and
Nonverbal
Behavior,
3,
43-57.
Coley,
R. L.,
Kuo,
F. E., &
Sullivan,
W. C.
(1997). Where does community grow?
The
social
context created
by
nature
in
urban public housing. Environment
an d
Behavior,
29,
468-492.
Conklin,
J. E.
(1971).
Dimensions
of
community response
to the
crime problem. Social
Prob-
lems,
18,
373-385.
Coulton,
C. J.,
Korbin,
J. E., & Su, M.
(1996).
Measuring neighborhood context
for
young
children
in an
urban area. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
24(1),
5- 3 2 .
DePooter,
S.
(1997).
Nature
and
neighbors:
Green
spaces
and
social
interactions
in the
inner
city.
Unpublished master thesis,
University
of
Illinois
at
Urbana-Champaign.
Ebbesen,
E. B.,
Kjos,
G. L., &
Konecni,
V. J.
(1976).
Spatial ecology:
Its
effects
on the
choice
of
friends
and
enemies.
Journal
of
Experimental
Social
Psychology,
12,
505-518.
Festinger,
L.,
Schachter,
S., &
Back,
K.
(1950).
Social
pressures
informal
groups.
New
York:
Holt, Rinehart
&
Winston.
Fleming,
R.,
Baum,
A., &
Singer,
J. E.
(1985).
Social support
and the
physical environment.
In S.
Cohen
& S. L.
Syme
(Eds.),
Social
support
and
health. Orlando,
FL:
Academic
Press.
French,
J. R. P,
Jr.,
Rodgers,
W, &
Cobb,
S.
(1974). Adjustment
as
person-environment fit.
In G. V.
Coe lho
(Ed.),
Coping
and
adaptation.
New
York: Basic
Books.
Inner-City
Common Spaces
849

Gerson,
D.,
Stueve,
C. A., &
Fischer,
C. S.
(1977).
Attachment
to
place.
In C. S.
Fischer,
R.
M.
Jackson,
C. A.
Stueve,
K.
Gerson,
L. M.
Jones,
& M.
Baldassare
(Eds.),
Networks
and
places:
Social
relations
in the
urban
setting
(pp.
139-161).
New
York:
Free
Press.
Glynn,
T.
(1986).
Neighborhoods
and
sense
of
community.
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
14,
341-352.
Gobster,
E H., &
Delgado,
A.
(1993).
Ethnicity
and
recreation
use in
Chicago's
Lincoln
Park:
In-park
user
survey
findings,
(General Technical Report GTR-NE-185). USDA
Forest
Serv-
ice
Northeastern Forest Experiment Station.
Greenbaum,
S. D.
(1982).
Bridging ties
at the
neighborhood level.
Social
Networks,
4,
367-384.
Greenberg,
S. W,
Rohe,
W. M., &
Williams,
J. R.
(1982).
Safe
and
secure
neighborhoods.
Washington,
DC:
U.S. Department
of
Justice.
Hartig,
T,
Mang,
M., &
Evans,
G. W
(1991).
Restorative
Effects
of
Natural Environment
Experiences. Environment
and
Behavior,
23,
3-26.
Hester,
R. T, Jr.
(1984).
Planning
neighborhood
space
with
people.
New
York:
Van
Nostrand
Reinhold.
Hull,
R. B., &
Michael,
S. E.
(1995). Nature-based recreation, mood change,
and
stress
res-
toration. Leisure
Sciences,
17,
1-14.
Isen,
A. M., &
Shalker,
T E.
(1982).
The
effect
of
feeling state
on
evaluation
of
positive,
neutral,
and
negative stimuli: When
you
"accentuate
the
positive,"
do you
"eliminate
the
negative?"
Social
Psychology
Quarterly,
45(1), 58-63.
Ittelson,
W. H. ,
Proshansky,
H. M., &
Rivlin,
L , G.
(1970). Bedroom size
and
social interaction
of
the
psychiatric ward. Environment
and
Behavior,
2,
255-270.
Kaplan,
R., &
Kaplan,
S.
(1989).
The
experience
of
nature:
A
psychological perspective.
C a m -
bridge,
U.K:
Cambridge University
Press.
Kaplan,
S.
(1987).
Mental
fatigue
and the
designed environment.
In J.
Harvey
& D.
Henning
(Eds.),
Public
environments. Wa sh i ng t o n,
DC:
EDRA.
Keane,
C.
(1991).
Socioenvironmental determinants
of
community
formation. Environment
a nd
Behavior,
23,
27-46.
Kuo,
F. E.,
Bacaicoa,
M., &
Sullivan,
W. C .
(1998).
Transforming i n n e r - c i t y landscapes:
Trees,
sense
of
safety,
and
preference. Environment
and
Behavior,
30,
28-59.
Lee,
B. A.,
Campbell,
K. E., &
Miller,
O.
(1991).
Racial differences
in
urban neighboring.
Sociological
Forum,
6,
525-550.
Lezak,
M. D.
(1983).
The
problem
of
assessing executive functions.
International
Journal
of
Psychology,
17(2-3),
281-297.
Mathews,
K. E., &
Canon,
L. K.
(1975). Environmental noise level
as a
determinant
of
helping
behavior.
Journal
of
Personality
and
Social
Psychology,
32,
571-577.
Mayo,
J. M.
(1979).
Effects
of
street
forms
on
suburban neighboring behavior. Environment
and
Behavior,
11,
375-397.
McCarthy,
D., &
Saegert,
S.
(1978).
Residential density, social overload,
and
social withdrawal.
Human
Ecology,
6,
253-272.
McMillan,
D. W, &
Chavis,
D. M.
(1986).
Sense
of
community:
A
definition
and
theory.
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
14,
6-23.
McNair,
D.,
Lorr,
M., &
Droppleman,
L. F.
(1981).
EITS
Manual
for the
Profile
of
Mood
States.
San
Diego,
CA:
Educational
and
Industrial Testing Service.
Mesulam,
M. M.
(Ed.).
(1985).
Principles
of
behavioral
neurology.
Philadelphia,
PA: E A.
Davis.
Newman,
O.
(1972).
Defensible
space:
Crime
prevention
through
urban
design.
New
York:
MacMillan.
Newman,
O., &
Franck,
K. A.
(1980).
Factors
influencing
crime
and
instability
in
urban
housing
developments.
Washington,
DC:
National Institute
of
Justice.
O'Brian,
R. M.
(1990).
Estimating
the
reliability
of
aggregate-level variables based
on
indi-
vidual-level
characteristics.
Sociological
Methods
&
Research,
18(4),
473-503.
Perkins,
D. D.,
Brown,
B. B., &
Taylor
R. B.
(1996).
The
ecology
of
empowerment: Predicting
participation
in
community organizations.
Journal
of
Social
Issues,
52,
85-110.
Perkins,
D. D.,
Florin,
P.,
Rich, R.,Andersman,
A., &
Chavis,
D. M.
(1990).
Participation
and the
social
and
physical environment
of
residential blocks: Crime
and
community con-
text. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
18,
83-115.
850
Kuo,
Sullivan,
Coley,
and
Brunson

Plas,
J. M., &
Lewis,
S. E.
(1996). Environmental factors
and
sense
of
community
i n a
planned
town.
American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
24,
109-143.
Riger,
S., &
Lavrakas,
P. J.
(1981).
Community
ties:
Patterns
of
attachment
and
social inter-
action
in
urban neighborhoods. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
9,
55-66.
Riger,
S.,
LeBailly,
R. K., &
Gordon,
M. T
(1981).
Community ties
and
urbanites'
fear
of
crime:
An
ecological
investigation.
American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
9,
653-665.
Robinson,
D., &
Wilkinson,
D.
(1995).
Sense
of
community
in a
remote
mining
town:
Vali-
dating
a
neighborhood cohesion scale. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
23,
137-148.
Rohe,
W. M., &
Burby,
R. J.
(1988).
Fear
of
crime
in
public housing. Environment
and Be-
havior,
20,
700-720.
Sarason,
S. B.
(1974).
The
psychological
sense
of
community.
Prospects
for a
community psy-
chology.
San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Shinn,
M.
(1996).
Ecological assessment: Introduction
to the
special issue. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
24,
1-3.
Skjaeveland,
O.,
Garling,
T, &
Maeland,
J. G.
(1996).
A
multidimensional measure
of
neigh-
boring. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
24,
413-435.
Stack,
C. B.
(Ed.).
(1974).
Al l our
kin:
Strategies
for
survival
in a
Black
community.
New
York:
Harper
&
Row.
Taylor,
R. B.,
Gottfredson,
S. D., &
Brower,
S.
(1981).
Territorial cognitions
and
social climate
in
urban neighborhoods.
Basic
and
Applied
Social
Psychology,
2,
289-303.
Tennessen,
C. M., &
Cimprich,
B.
(1995).
Views
to
nature:
Effects
on
attention.
Journal
of
Environmental
Psychology,
15,
77-85.
Tbgnoli,
J.
(1987).
Residential environments.
In D.
Stokols
& I.
Altman
(Eds.),
The
handbook
of
environmental
psychology
(pp.
655-690).
New
york:
W i l e y .
Ulrich,
R. S.
(1981).
Natural versus urban scenes: Some psychophysiological
effects.
Environ-
ment
and
Behavior,
13,
523-556.
Ulrich,
R. S.,
Simons,
R. F.,
Losito,
B. D.,
Fioriteo,
E.,
Miles,
M. A., &
Zelson,
M.
(1991).
Stress recovery during exposure
to
natural
and
urban environments.
Journal
of
Environ-
mental
Psychology,
11,
201-230.
Unger,
D. G., &
Wandersman,
A.
(1982). Neighboring
in an
urban environment. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
10,
493-509.
Unger,
D. G., &
Wandersman,
A.
(1985).
The
importance
of
neighbors:
The
social, cognitive,
and
affective
components
of
neighboring. American
Journal
of
Community
Psychology,
13,
139-169.
Warren,
D. I.
(1981).
Helping
networks.
Notre Dame,
IN:
University
of
Notre Dame Press.
Wellman,
B., &
Leighton,
B.
(1979).
Networks, neighbors,
and
community: Approaches
to
the
study
of the
community question.
Urban
Affairs
Quarterly,
14,
363-390.
West,
C.
(1993).
Race
matters.
Boston: Beacon Press.
Wilson,
G., &
Baldassare,
M.
(1996). Overall "sense
of
community"
in a
suburban region:
The
effects
of
localism, privacy,
and
urbanization. Environment
and
Behavior,
28,
27-43.
Wilson,
W. J.
(1987).
The
truly
disadvantaged:
The
inner
city,
the
underclass,
and
public
policy.
Chicago: University
of
Chicago
Press.
Wilson,
W. J.
(1996).
When
work
disappears:
The
world
of the new
urban
poor.
New
York:
Alfred
Knopf.
Yancey,
W. L.
(1971).
Architecture,
interaction,
and
social
control:
The
case
of a
large-scale
public housing project. Environment
an d
Behavior,
3,
3-21.
Inner-City
Common Spaces
851
View publication statsView publication stats