Sprawl Doesn't Decrease Social Interaction
Critics of sprawl argue that sprawling, low-density development weakens social capital and the level of social interaction. A new working paper finds that these criticisms are unfounded, and in fact, the reverse is true.
A new study by Jan Brueckner of the UC Irvine Economics Department and Ann Largey of the Dublin City University Business School in Ireland, finds that "suburbanites are more likely to talk to their neighbors, to have more friends, to be involved in social clubs."
From the paper's abstract:
"Various authors, most notably Putnam (2000), have argued that low-density living reduces social capital and thus social interaction, and this argument has been used to buttress criticisms of urban sprawl. If low densities in fact reduce social interaction, then an externality arises, validating Putnam's critique. In choosing their own lot sizes, consumers would fail to consider the loss of interaction benefits for their neighbors when lot size is increased. Lot sizes would then be inefficiently large, and cities excessively spread out. The paper tests the premise of this argument (the existence of a positive link between interaction and density) using data from the Social Capital Benchmark Survey. In the empirical work, social interaction measures for individual survey respondents are regressed on census-tract density and a host of household characteristics, using an instrumental-variable approach to control for the potential endogeneity of density."
From the conclusion:
"The starting point of the analysis is the above allegation that sprawling, low-density development weakens social capital and thus the level of social interaction...
The key element in this argument is a positive link between social interaction and neighborhood density, and the paper tests empirically for such a link. The results are unfavorable: whether the focus is friendship-oriented social interaction or measures of group involvement, the empirical results show a negative, rather than positive, effect of density on interaction.
The paper's findings therefore imply that social-interaction effects cannot be credibly included in the panoply of criticisms directed toward urban sprawl. In fact, the results suggest an opposite line of argument. ... Thus, the empirical results suggest that social-interaction effects may counteract, rather than exacerbate, the well-recognized forces (such as unpriced traffic congestion) that cause cities to overexpand."
- Login or register to post comments
- Email this page
- Is Walkscore A Useful Planning Tool? - Feb 09, 2010
- Decay in Suburbia - Feb 08, 2010
- Hopping the HSR to Future Detroit - Feb 06, 2010
- Global Warming? It's All About Land Use - Feb 04, 2010
- What Can GIS Do For You? - Feb 04, 2010
Planetizen picks
Contribute
- Vision Survives Public Process in Berkeley
- Canada Housing Prices Return to Pre-Recession Peak
- Americans Buying Less, Doing More
- New High-Speed Rail in China
- Complaints Grow Over Increasing "Ugliness" of Paris
- Florida Amendment Could Shake Up Local Planning
- The State of Happiness
- Transportation On Parade
- Is Walkscore A Useful Planning Tool?
- DOT, HUD and EPA All Trumpet Smart Growth
William Fulton, regarded as one of the nation's leading commentators on urban planning, metropolitan growth, and economic development, provides a thorough introduction to smart growth planning concepts and offers practical analysis of smart growth plans and practices.
Learn more »
(New Date Added) Public Involvement & Impact of Private Sector Privacy Protection, Data Security Laws
PublicDecisions
Feb 08, 2010
Planetizen's Top 10 Websites List, 2010: Call for Nominations
Planetizen
Feb 08, 2010
BOCEP helps you be more effective in sustainability, urban design, management, and more...
Rutgers University Professional Development Institute
Feb 06, 2010
Assistant Planner
CITY OF PACIFIC GROVE
Feb 05, 2010
www.flickr.com
|
Litman On Social Interaction
I just saw Todd Litman's response to this study. From Community Cohesion As A Transport Planning Objective, p. 4. http://www.vtpi.org/cohesion.pdf
Brueckner and Largey (2006) found that social interactions are negatively correlated with density, suggesting that residents of lower-density suburban communities have healthier social lives than residents of higher density urban neighborhoods. This may reflect, at least in part, the effects of sorting (also called self selection), the tendency of people who value attributes such as community interaction to choose particular neighborhoods that attract others with similar preferences. Community cohesion is often higher in wealthier, automobile-dependent, suburban neighborhoods than in more mixed, multi-modal, urban neighborhoods. However, this reflects social rather than physical attributes. It does not indicate that automobile-dependent land use necessarily increases community cohesion.
That community cohesion declines with density reflects, in part, a self-fulfilling prophecy: as households with more resources and community involvement assume they are better off in lower density locations. This could change if housing markets change, for example, if urban neighborhoods attract more diverse income households with strong community preferences, as is occurring in some cities. This means, for example, that more compact urban neighborhoods could achieve levels of community cohesion equal or greater than occurs in suburbs. For a particular group or neighborhood, smart growth policies that improve walkability and land use mix probably increase overall community cohesion.
Charles Siegel, quoting Todd Litman
This study defies common sense, empirical evidence, physics...
Here are some of the study's (entirely biased) conclusions, verbatim:
"- The results strongly contradict the main hypothesis, showing that social interaction tends to be weaker, not stronger, in high-density census tracts.
- If a given individual were relocated from a dense to a less dense census tract, the level of interaction for this person would rise, not fall.
- Group involvement tends to be weaker, not stronger, in high-density census tracts, contradicting the main hypothesis.
- The empirical results show a negative, rather than positive, effect of density on interaction.
- The paper’s findings therefore imply that social-interaction effects cannot be credibly included in the panoply of criticisms directed toward urban sprawl. In fact, the results suggest an opposite line of argument. With a negative effect of density on interaction, individual space consumption would tend to be too low rather than too high, tending to make cities inefficiently compact."
First of all, this defies physics: http://www.cooltownstudios.com/mt/archives/000651.html
Second, their measure of 'social interaction' is based on questions that people in lower-density neighborhoods would ask, not higher-density, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods.
Basically, they're telling people that there's more social interaction in places where you need a car to live, vs places where you don't need a car. Worse yet, they make a call to de-densify cities when this country is already one of the least dense in the world.
The study makes the above claims based on the following survey questions whose survey results favored low-density neighborhoods. Below are my responses and alternate survey questions. I'll take comments here and elsewhere to publish a social interaction entry.
How often respondent talks with or visits immediate neighbors
- If you were stranded on a deserted island with four other people, wouldn't you visit them more than your typical neighbors? There's an inherent need to get to know your neighbors if they're only a handful of them within walking distance (almost a security necessity), but not so if there are hundreds.
- Alternate question: How often respondent talks with anyone in their community (a neighborhood is too small a region to be confined to when it comes to urban areas)
Number of people respondent can confide in
- Again, on a deserted island with only four others, you'll tend to be able to confide with most or all of them. If there were a hundred people on the island, you might choose one or two to confide in - secrets are best kept to fewer people the more people you're around. That's just human nature.
- Alternate question: Number of people you know by first name in your community.
Number of close friends respondent has
- Same as above. If you only know four people, you'll tend to identify them as four close friends. If you know a hundred, you may not choose to identify more than a couple since that typically means you'd have to invite them to everything. People in urban areas tend to have a more diverse group of friends with diverse interests. Close friends tend to ask one another what they're doing together every Friday night, and that happens more in low-density neighborhoods than in urban neighborhoods.
- Alternate question: Number of people in your social network
Number of times per year respondent hangs out with friends in a public place
- This question comes right after the one above, where it's almost asking, "and number of times per year you hang out with those close friends..." which will naturally be less frequent in urban areas because there is a greater interest (and opportunity) to do different things with different people in a much larger, diverse social network
- Alternate question: Number of times per year respondent hangs out with people in their social network in a public place
Number of times per year respondent visits with friends at home
- As stated, urbanites don't tend to visit each others' homes, or spend much time at their own home for that matter - not with so many interesting choices in the immediate area.
Alternate question: Number of hours per year respondent watches TV.
Number of times per year respondent attends club meetings
- OK, what's a club is a more likely response from an urbanite. Clubs are a low-density neighborhood thing, and a club meeting sounds like something retired people do. Book clubs are generally not referred to as club meetings, but social gatherings. Also, a club is associated with 'closed membership' - not very appealing to urbanites with diverse interests.
- Alternate question: Number of times per year respondent attends events focused on people with common interests
Number of types of non-religious organizations to which respondent belongs
- Same as above.
- Alternate question: Number of types of non-religious events that respondent attends
Neil Takemoto, CoolTown Studios
This study says 'it depends'.
The paper's not biased, it approaches the issue from a microecon point of view. If you approach the question wrt self-sorting and location preference, you'll see that many of your issues go away. One must look at urban econ papers in a certain way to appreciate them.
I'm not saying I think the paper is great and I have problems with some things in there, but it is one way to look at the issue. It is, simply, not true that everyone in cities has more interactions than everyone in suburbs. I, myself, have more interactions out here in my rural area than I do in the city - it's why I moved out here. And I'm a friendly guy.
These authors and their peers tend to find that there is no "either-or", and when we make plans, we cannot assume that, say, everyone is going to think TND is just wonderful or that a 20% open space set-aside is the greatest thing ever. Their results say "it depends, and folks will sort to places that they like".
Best,
D
Another way to look at it is through business...
Read their statements that I didn't paraphrase in my response - there's no 'depends' in there.
To say that a low-density neighborhood has more business interactions (where we spend most of our waking hours during the week) than a high-density neighborhood defies logic. Just the same, socially, there are different kinds of interactions, some stronger in low-density neighborhoods, some stronger in high-density neighborhoods, but to categorically say there are fewer social interactions overall in higher-density neighborhoods is completely misleading.
I grew up in a rural area - it was darn near impossible to meet many people, but boy did you get to know your friends simply because that's all you had. Based on that, of course I had a lot of social interactions - with the same people, and the questions in the survey were biased toward social interactions with those same people - your close friends and close neighbors. What it completely leaves out are all the social interactions you have in a much larger, diverse social network - like 'Mr. Hooper at the neighborhood grocery store' and those people you spontaneously (and regularly) met at the coffeeshop, in the park, or at social events - the kind of social network that child psychologists insist are absolutely necessary for well-rounded child development. None of those are accounted for in the study.
I could have dozens of social interactions in a month with a diverse group of people I consider friends in my social network and one meet-up with a 'close friend', and the study would only count one social interaction.
Neil
Land use planning for everybody.
Neil,
if you look at those z- and t-scores in the appendices it does indeed say 'it depends'. Their paper does not explain all the variance, so it is not gospel. And your alternate questions are interesting, but they won't explain all the variance either.
Not everyone wants to live in a dense network. Sorry. Just because we wish to make compact communities doesn't mean everyone wishes to live in them.
You have to make housing for everybody. That certainly makes it problematic when we are laying out towns and cities, but that is the reality on the ground.
Best,
D
Customer-led placemaking
This is my last post.
If you read my first post quoting the authors verbatim, there's no 'depends' in their conclusions. People don't look for conclusions in the appendices, much less read them. In fact, if the 'depends' is in the appendices, then that's misleading.
Not everyone wants to live in a dense network. I absolutely agree. That's why I boldfaced the text in my previous reply. I can't stress that enough. My own work is centered around letting people co-design their own community with people who have the capacity to make it a reality.
I just felt it was indeed misleading with the study implying rather repeatedly that if you want a social life, you shouldn't live in cities. If people have great social lives in the suburbs and rural areas, I'm truly, sincerely happy to hear that.
Neil
Social Interaction and Sprawl
There are some glaring problems with this study. One immediate glaring issue, to me, is that suburbs tend to have higher-income individuals. Brueckner and Largey acknowledge this (p.10), and also acknowledge that those households in the suburbs tend to include more married couples, while denser areas tend to have higher rates of unemployed individuals. However, they don't really do much about it. What this study proves is that higher-income people who are married and spend 40 hours a week at jobs interacting with other people have more social interaction. It does not prove anything about sprawl suburbs or core city density.
I would also add that - while friendly social interaction is great and I encourage it - I believe the economic advantage goes to denser cities where diversity of ideas, immediate feedback, and multiple resources encourage innovation and entrepreneurialism.