kearns, a., parkinson, m., 2001. the significance of neighbourhood. urban studies

http://usj.sagepub.comUrban Studies

DOI: 10.1080/00420980120087063 2001; 38; 2103 Urban Stud

Ade Kearns and Michael Parkinson The Significance of Neighbourhood

http://usj.sagepub.com The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of: Urban Studies Journal Limited

can be found at:Urban Studies Additional services and information for http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/alerts Email Alerts:

http://usj.sagepub.com/subscriptions Subscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.navPermissions: http://usj.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/38/12/2103 Citations

at ROOSEVELT UNIV LIBRARY on September 28, 2009 http://usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Urban Studies, Vol. 38, No. 12, 21032110, 2001

The Signicance of Neighbourhood

Ade Kearns and Michael Parkinson

[Paper received in nal form, August 2001]

the functions so that the demarcations pre-sented in Table 1 represent general tenden-cies rather than watertight distinctions. Inparticular, in different urban settings, neigh-bourhoods may be either unable to performtheir intended function or, alternatively, maybe able to perform additional functions; forexample, in a high-quality, high-density in-ner-city location, the neighbourhood mayprovide both a place of belonging and alandscape of wider opportunity.The smallest unit of neighbourhood, here

referred to as the home area, is typicallydened as an area of 510 minutes walkfrom ones home. Here, we would expect thepsycho-social purposes of neighbourhood tobe strongest. As shown elsewhere (Kearns etal., 2000), the neighbourhood, in terms of thequality of environment and perceptions ofco-residents, is an important element in thederivation of psycho-social benets from thehome. In terms of Browers (1996) outline ofthe good neighbourhood , the home area canserve several functions, most notably thoseof relaxation and re-creation of self; makingconnections with others; fostering attachmentand belonging; and demonstrating orreecting ones own values.Key considerations in the contemporary

circumstance include the following: whether

The neighbourhood is prominent in contem-porary urban policy and research, but whyshould this be so? And can we be clear as towhat the neighbourhood is in any case? Inthis introductory essay to the Special Issue ofUrban Studies, we shall attempt to shed lighton these questions. In answer to his ownquestion Does neighbourhood still matter ina globalised world?, Forrest declares that itdoes, but its degree of importance dependson who you are and where you are (Forrest,2000, p. 30). The complexity of the neigh-bourhood and its varying relevance to inhab-itants are, in a way, the key to thisconundrum: governments and policy-makersare neither able to control global capitalismand its effects, nor at the other end of thescale to direct or manage the fortunes ofindividual neighbourhoods within their juris-dictions. Neighbourhood change is provingunpredictable and resulting in ever-widergaps in fortune and prosperity betweenplaces within single regions and countries.There is no single, generalisable interpret-

ation of the neighbourhood. In a slight adap-tation of Suttles (1972) schema, we mightsay that the neighbourhood exists at threedifferent scales, each with its own predomi-nant purpose or function, as shown in Table1. However, each scale can perform each of

Ade Kearns is in the Department of Urban Studies, University of Glasgow, 25 Bute Gardens, Glasgow, G12 8RS, UK. Fax: 0141 3304983. E-mail: [email protected]. Michael Parkinson is in the European Institute for Urban Affairs, John MooresUniversity, 51 Rodney Street, Liverpool, L1 9AT, UK. Fax: 0151 708 0650. E-mail: [email protected]

0042-0980 Print/1360-063X On-line/01/122103-08 2001 The Editors of Urban StudiesDOI: 10.1080/00420980120087063


Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

ADE KEARNS AND MICHAEL PARKINSON2104

Table 1. Scales of neighbourhood

Scale Predominant function Mechanism(s)

Home area Psycho-social benets Familiarity(for example, identity; belonging) Community

Locality Residential activities PlanningSocial status and position Service provision

Housing market

Urban district or region Landscape of social and Employment connectionseconomic opportunities Leisure interests

Social networks

the connectedness of the modern world(Mulgan, 1998) is achieved in the neighbour-hood; the neighbourhood as an arena of pre-dictability; and the neighbourhood as asource and purveyor of status. In terms of therst of these, connectedness, we can think ofthe neighbourhood as something that wemight create rather than take as a given.The philosopher Edward Casey, in his bookThe Fate of Place (1997), utilises Heideg-gers concept of nearness to argue thatplaces are about dwelling in nearness toothersnearness entailing face-to-facecontact and a reciprocal relationship; and thatthis nearness brings about neighbourhood.Note that neighbourhood does not bringabout nearnessrather, it is the other wayaround. In other words, sharing space doesnot always bring about the proximity of resi-dence that constitutes places. The reciprocityof nearness can vary for different peoplefrom regular, low-level acquaintance tostrong interpersonal intimacy and commit-ment; both can be important to people ac-cording to their needs. Yet at the same time,we all live in home areasthe question iswhether we consider them to be home or tohave particular qualities of dwelling in near-ness. Cross-nationally, our knowledge oflevels of attachment to neighbourhood and ofpatterns of neighbouring behaviour is verypatchy.The analysis of neighbourhood as a multi-

layered phenomenon within an urban re-

gional context is important and highlyrelevant to the interrelated issues of connect-edness (and the concept of the nearness ofplace) and status. To go back to the notion ofthe multilayered neighbourhood illustrated inTable 1, Caseys notion of dwelling in near-ness needs to be supplemented with theknowledge that people function in differentsocial networks, at different scales, acrossdifferent times and spaces, so that they maylook for different things from their home areaas a result. Nearness can develop not onlyin the home area but in other places also,depending upon where we spend our timeand how the opportunities for nearnessarise in time and space. This, in turn, isaffected by the nature of our activities and bythe physical and social composition of local-itiesi.e. it is culturally and regionallyspecic. Once the urban region (the thirdlevel of neighbourhood in Table 1) is viewedas a landscape of social and economic oppor-tunities with which some people are betterengaged than others (for example, by reasonsof employment, leisure activities or familyconnections), then the individuals expecta-tions of the home area can be better under-stood: not everyone wants or needs to drinkin their local pub when more attractivevenues are available and accessible to themelsewhere. For some people, their personalpattern of time-geography delimits theirneighbourhood across the wider urban re-gion.


Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF NEIGHBOURHOOD 2105

On the other hand, the urban region canalso be a source of closure as well as open-ness. Some neighbourhoods and localities (inaddition to individuals and groups) can beseen to be subject to discrimination and so-cial exclusion as places and communities(Madanipour et al., 1998; Turok et al.,1999). This applies especially to the secondlevel of neighbourhood in Table 1, the local-ity or sub-district, such as a public housingestate. To appreciate why this might be so,we can develop Browers (1996) three di-mensions of the neighbourhood environmentambience, engagement and choicefulnessbut in each of these there are uncertaintiesabout the perceived virtues of urban qualitiessuch as density, diversity and vitality and alack of appropriate research evidence to aidour understanding. In terms of ambience, it isclear that areas of poorly maintained, mono-functional environments contribute to stig-matised neighbourhoods, but it is not clearthat the recent moves, such as in the UK,back towards higher-density, multifunctionalneighbourhoods (Urban Task Force, 1999)will meet the needs of more than a limitednumber of life-style groupings within thepopulation.In terms of engagement, whilst it might be

obvious that an area perceived as unfriendlyor associated with hostile interactions will beunpopular, the current promotion of higherlevels of associational activity (chiming withThird Way politics and concerns over declin-ing social capital) may be a long way frommany peoples preference for no more thancasual acquaintance with their neighbours:certainly, for many British people, the oldmaxim that Good fences make good neigh-bours might still hold true today. But therelationship between residential stability orturnover and levels of social engagementwithin the neighbourhood is one where, atleast in the British case, empirical evidenceis lacking. Whilst there are understandableconcerns about the effects of residentialchurning in areas of weak or low demandfor housing (Power and Mumford, 1999), thealternative vision of a stable suburb can offerthe prospect of a moribund neighbourhood.

Policies need to be based upon a betterunderstanding of peoples residential expec-tations and experiences.Finally, neighbourhoods have important

attributes of choicefulness. Whilst Browerwas referring to the diversity of a neighbour-hood in terms of lifestyles, the crucial as-pects of choice which affect the fortunes of aneighbourhood are, rst, that the residentsfeel that they have some choice of locationthey opted into the neighbourhood and canopt to remain or depart, rather than simplyending up there; and, secondly, that the resi-dents perceive that others might also chooseto live in their neighbourhood. It is when aneighbourhood is perceived to be a placewhere one can become trapped either in abureacratic or market allocation system, thatlong-term reputational problems arise.The discrimination of place referred to

earlier can have two notable effects upon thebehaviour and creation of neighbourhood byresidents. First, as a response to discrimi-nation and social exclusion, residents of de-prived communities often engage in a highdegree of mutually supportive behaviour.Analysts and advocates of this mutuality rec-ognise that this is most often done in order toachieve subsistence and survival rather thanto achieve a step up towards integration intomainstream society (Burns and Taylor,1998). In terms of theories of social capital,the neighbourhood for poorer people hasmore often served as an arena for bondingsocial capital that enables people to get by,rather than as a platform for bridging socialcapital that enables people to get on (Burnset al., 2001). This can be self-limiting as wellas sustaining, for, in the words of Putnam

bridging social capital can generatebroader identities and reciprocity, whereasbonding social capital bolsters our nar-rower selves (Putnam, 2000, p. 23).

The second way in which socio-spatial ex-clusion can affect the neighbourhoods of de-prived residential groups is in terms of itsimpact upon the spatial behaviour of resi-dents, especially young people. Here, there isa research need for the simultaneous analysis


Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo


of peoples use of their home area and local-ity, compared with their movements into thewider urban region for similar or other pur-poses. Thus we could assess the signicanceof observers and practitioners reports thatlarge groups of young people are extremelyterritorial in their behaviour, so that theiraction spaces or wider neighbourhoods havevery limited horizons. We do not knowwhether the restricted neighbourhoods ofmany young people from deprived communi-ties are due to the urban problem of fear ofand anxiety concerning the unknown (Ban-nister and Fyfe, 2001), or due to a preferencefor the comforting benets of ones familiarneighbourhood, or simply the result of asense of knowing ones place.The familiarity that can be constitutive of

the neighbourhood is apparent when we con-sider the neighbourhood in terms of encoun-ter and narrative. If cities are landscapes ofmarginal encounter (Gornick 1996), thenneighbourhoods (especially the rst and se-cond levels in Table 1the home area andthe locality) ought to be arenas of predictableencounter (which for many people wouldalso mean comfortable and secure encoun-ters) where, to use Beauregards (1997) ter-minology, people know the narrative rules ofencounter and have the appropriate discur-sive strategies easily to negotiate publicspace: they feel at home. Residents in theirown neighbourhoods can read encounterscorrectly and can respond appropriately with-out having to resort to assertiveness and in-ventiveness since lower levels of discursiveand social competence will sufce.This notion of the neighbourhood as the

familiar and predictable is well illustrated incontemporary ction, the epitome being theUS suburb: hence the humdrum music with asteady beat sounding over the opening cred-its to the hit lm American Beauty as themain character played by Kevin Spaceyguides us around his world; his neighbour-hood where everything appears to be in itsplace. The slightly threatening undercurrentto the musical score is prescient of the factthat he, Spacey, is about to step out of line inthis ordered world and behave in unpredict-

able ways. The same themes are evident inthe prize-winning, best-selling novel ACrime in the Neighbourhood (Berne, 1997)which describes a communitys response to achild murder in its midst in the 1970s as seenthrough the eyes of a young girl living in aneast-coast American city. The theme of fa-miliarity as the foundation of neighbourhoodis illustrated by the girls mother who advo-cates more little get togethers because AsI always say, in a neighbourhood, everybodyshould know everybody (Berne, 1997,p. 163). Another mother in the area expressesher shock and revulsion at the crime becausefor her it disrupts the essence of the neigh-bourhood, namely its predictability:

This is a nice neighbourhood EveryoneI know around here has the same values.Thats why we live here, because youknow what to expect. Things like this justarent supposed to happen here (Berne,1997, p. 120).

In an increasingly competitive and uncertainworld in which people seek to establishthemselves either alongside or over andabove others, the neighbourhood can play animportant role in peoples personal and so-cial identity and social position, but withhighly varying outcomes. Whilst Goffman(1963) was discussing the role of social in-formation and visibility in the identicationof those who are stigmatised (the discred-itable), Packard (1959) identied the homeas the emerging means of signifying statusand culture. Today, it could be argued thatneighbourhoods (as much if not more so thanhomes themselves) are competitive and in-herently comparative entities which are vis-ible and convey social information. One caneither inuence ones social position or haveit determined for one, according to the typeof neighbourhood one inhabits and creates.The neighbourhood is both a source of op-portunity and constraint. On the one hand,some neighbourhoods suffer negative histori-cal reputations that regeneration efforts can-not shift (Dean and Hastings, 2000). In theseareas, a vicious circle of exclusion can ariseas bonding social capital, by creating strong


Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo


in-group loyalty, may also create strong out-group antagonism (Putnam, 2000, p. 23),exacerbating the situation further. On theother hand, for some aspiring groups withsufcient resources, the neighbourhood canbecome the focal point around which co-ordinated action to achieve a self-consciousclass habitus through processes of gentri-cation is undertaken, so that distinctioncan be maintained in the struggles overstatus in social space (Bridge, 2001, p. 207).The neighbourhood can then be the hero orvillain of the piece.Many of the themes outlined in this brief

synopsis of an approach to understanding theurban neighbourhood are expounded furtherby contributors to this special issue. Galstersunderstanding of the neighbourhood is as acomplex commodity consisting of a bundleof spatially based attributes incorporatingcontent, locational and behavioural aspects.In a marketised situation, neighbourhoodscompete with one another and have mutualinterdependencies and impacts upon one an-other. However, selecting and residing inneighbourhoods are a risky business becausemarket mechanisms cannot cope very easilywith the unique characteristics of the com-plex neighbourhood.Galster also highlights the fact that

changes in neighbourhoods are externally in-duced and non-linear and, as we have alreadynoted, disparities between neighbourhoods inmany regions and cities have grown in recentyears as these changes unfold (Lee et al.,1995). The response of many European gov-ernments has been to institute a range ofarea-based initiatives to improve the fortunesof socially excluded neighbourhoods, al-though assessments conclude that main-stream programmes will in the end be moreeffective (Parkinson, 1998). Wallace explainshow the British governments recent Na-tional Strategy for Neighbourhood Renewalhas a greater chance of success than pastinitiativespartly because it acknowledgesthe importance of mainstream services indeprived areas, but also because it focuses oneconomic revival, utilises more resourcesthan ever before and has a longer time-hor-

izon of up to 20 years. Meegan and Mitchell,analysing a European-funded initiative onMerseyside, illustrate how the spatial target-ing of such initiatives is both technical andpolitical at one and the same time. Thedenition of areas of intervention needs toaccommodate the pre-existence of neigh-bourhoods founded upon place-oriented so-cial processes, and this is an on-going ratherthan a one-off requirement. This case studyillustrates the dilemmas of neighbourhoodbounding discussed by Galster.A central plank of the British govern-

ments strategy to renew deprived areas is toimprove the way such places are governedthrough neighbourhood management struc-tures and a variety of means of communityempowerment (Social Exclusion Unit, 2001).Several papers in this Special Issue addressissues of local governance within a neigh-bourhood context. Based on research intoneighbourhoods in a number of Europeancities, Allen and Cars highlight the shortcom-ing that local governance structures havegiven insufcient thought to the demands ofmulticulturalism; rather than simply relyingupon the political norms of the dominantcultural group, new, adaptive political insti-tutions are required to support multiculturalneighbourhood governance. Although thereis some research which has identied theadvantages that ethnic minority communitiescan have for neighbourhood regeneration andgovernance (Silburn et al., 1999; Forrest andKearns, 1999), it would be fair to say thatboth the functioning and governance of mul-ticultural neighbourhoods have been largelyignored to date by the urban research andpolicy agendas. However, this will become asignicant gap in our knowledge and think-ing if trends in housing markets result, asthey might, in reduced rates of ethnic segre-gation in our cities in the future (van Kem-pen and Sule Ozuekren, 1998).Docherty, Goodlad and Paddison present

the results of a study of civic culture in fourneighbourhoods in Scottish cities. They showthat differences in civic culture betweensimilar neighbourhoods can be explainedpartly by the political opportunity structure


Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo


which reform of institutions and policies canproduce, but also that peoples trust in eachother and in political actors and institutions,and their willingness to engage in co-operat-ive action with each other are inuenced byneighbourhood change and the condencethat this generates. This nding suggests thatgovernance is indeed multilevel (Kearns andPaddison, 2000) and that attempts to modern-ise local government (Hambleton, 2000) andreinvigorate national politics in the UK willpartly depend for their success upon whetherpeople perceive their own neighbourhoods tohave positive trajectories: extremely lowelectoral turnouts in deprived neighbour-hoods are perhaps predominantly a reectionof disaffection with local circumstances andthe pessimism this generates. In a system ofmultilevel governance, the neighbourhoodforms the foundation upon which the otherlevels of governance must depend.Continuing the governance theme, Purdue

examines the operation of community leadersin neighbourhood regeneration partnershipsin the UK. He describes how such leadersneed to accumulate social capital of twokinds to be effective in their rolesnamely,within-neighbourhood communal social capi-tal and without-neighbourhood collaborativesocial capital. Comparing peripheral estateswith inner-city neighbourhoods, Purdueshows that this dual requirement presents thecommunity leader with different challengesin different neighbourhood contexts, affect-ing both their own performance and the pos-sibilities for smooth leadership succession.Like Allen and Cars, Purdue also argues thatinstitutions, in this case regeneration partner-ships, need to adapt to changes in circum-stances within neighbourhoods during thecourse of an initiative, in this case to changesin community organisations and conicts thatmay arise between different circuits of socialcapital.Two other papers in the Special Issue also

deal with the relationships between neigh-bourhood and social capital. Forrest andKearns attempt to elucidate the concepts ofsocial cohesion and social capital as theymight apply within the neighbourhood con-

text, breaking down each concept into re-searchable domains. A major constraint uponour understanding, however, is the fact thaturban research overwhelmingly focuses upondeprived neighbourhoods, with very few na-tional or comparative ndings to serve as ayardstick for the evaluation of empiricalndings pertaining to social relations andresources within neighbourhoods. Anotherlimitation they identify is a failure to explorethe role of the neighbourhood in the accumu-lation and deployment of different forms ofcapital.This second shortcoming is one which

Butler and Robson overcome in their studyof the middle-class transformation of threeinner-London localities. They examine howmiddle-class groups adopt specic strategiesto maximise their gains through the differen-tial and interrelated deployment of social,economic and cultural capital, given the re-sources and circumstances of the particularlocality in which they are residentially lo-cated. Butler and Robsons study has impli-cations for both our understanding of howpeople can utilise their neighbourhood forsocial and economic purposes and for theconcept of gentrication.The Special Issue concludes with three

papers concerned with the area effects or theimpacts of neighbourhoodsi.e. in whatways can ones place of residence affectindividual and social outcomes? Buck out-lines a range of models of neighbourhoodeffects (including, for example, an epidemicmodel and a competition model) each involv-ing different mechanisms of disadvantage.The problem he highlights, which will affectthe ability of neighbourhood policy to dealeffectively with such mechanisms, is that inpractice it may be difcult to discriminatebetween them. Echoing our multilevel viewof the neighbourhood, Buck argues that dif-ferent neighbourhood effect processes willoperate at different spatial scales. Aftersearching for relationships between areacharacteristics and social exclusion outcomesutilising a British longitudinal panel surveydata-set, Buck begins to illustrate how thecumulative impacts, positive and negative, of


Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo

Marcelo


neighbourhood contextual effects might bestudied over the life-course using a capital(human, social, cultural and economic) ac-quisition framework.Atkinson and Kintrea adopt a different

approach to identifying neighbourhood ef-fects. After also setting out a typology ofneighbourhood effects including mechanismsand primary and secondary outcomes, theypursue a comparative analysis of survey datacollected in two pairs of deprived and non-deprived areas from two cities in the sameregion of the UK. They nd evidence tosupport the hypothesis of area effects insome respects but not others, with thestrongest identied effects being upon theincidence of stigmatisation and employmentand health outcomes. In the nal paper,Ellaway, Macintyre and Kearns also investi-gate neighbourhood effects upon health, butusing a wider range of health measures thanin the Atkinson and Kintrea study. This studypoints to various pathways between area ofresidence and health outcomes and suggeststhat policies for healthy neighbourhoodsmust focus on both the social and the en-vironmental character of neighbourhoods(such as perceived cohesion, levels of neigh-bouring, sense of community, attraction tothe neighbourhood and the incidence ofneighbourhood problems). The study alsoshows that policies must take into accountthe fact that the neighbourhood can impactnot only upon physical and longer-termhealth outcomes such as mortality and long-term illness, but also upon mental health, theincidence of common symptoms and self-perceived health.From the papers in this Special Issue,

therefore, we can see that the neighbourhoodis signicant in a number of ways, such asbeing: an important component of a competi-tive social and economic world; a reservoirof resources into which we can dip in pur-suing our lives; an inuence upon ourlifestyle and life-outcomes; a shaper of whowe are, both as dened by ourselves and byothers; and an important arena for publicpolicy intervention. There is much here forfuture urban research to pursue, for the

signicance of neighbourhood for differentsocial groups varies between nations and re-gions, with the impacts of the neighbourhoodbeing often unpredictable and non-linear. Butin all this, we must remember to consider theneighbourhood in context. Our social, cul-tural and economic horizons are expandingthrough increased mobility and forces ofglobalisation: it is indeed the case, as LyndonJohnson hoped, that the world will not nar-row into a neighbourhood.

ReferencesBANNISTER, J. and FYFE, N. (2001) Introduction:fear and the city, Urban Studies, 38, pp. 807813.

BEAUREGARD, R. A. (1997) Civility, violence andnarrative encounters. Paper presented to theAnnual Meeting of the Urban Affairs Associ-ation, Toronto, April.

BERNE, S. (1997) A Crime in the Neighbourhood .London: Penguin.

BRIDGE, G. (2001) Bourdieu, rational action andthe timespace of gentrication, Transactionsof the Institute of British Geographers NewSeries, 26, pp. 205261.

BROWER, S. (1996) Good Neighbourhoods. West-port, CT: Praeger.

BURNS, D. and TAYLOR, M. (1998) Mutual Aidand Self Help: Coping Strategies for ExcludedCommunities. Bristol: The Policy Press.

BURNS, D., FORREST, R., FLINT, J. and KEARNS, A.(2001) Empowering Communities: The Impactof Registered Social Landlords on Social Capi-tal. Edinburgh: Scottish Homes.

CASEY, E. (1997) The Fate of Place: A Philosoph-ical History. Berkeley, CA: University of Cali-fornia Press.

DEAN, J. and HASTINGS, A. (2000) ChallengingImages? Housing Estates, Stigma and Regener-ation. Bristol: The Policy Press.

FORREST, R. (2000) Does neighbourhood stillmatter in a globalised world?. Occasional Pa-per Series No. 5. Centre for Comparative Pub-lic Management and Social Policy, CityUniversity of Hong Kong.

FORREST, R. and KEARNS, A. (1999) Joined-UpPlaces? Social Cohesion and NeighbourhoodRegeneration. York: York Publishing Services.

GOFFMAN, E. (1963) Stigma: Note on the Man-agement of Spoiled Identity. Harmondsworth:Penguin.

GORNICK, V. (1996) Approaching Eye Level.Boston, MA: Beacon Press.

HAMBLETON, R. (2000) Modernising political at ROOSEVELT UNIV LIBRARY on September 28, 2009 http://usj.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Marcelo

Marcelo


management in local government, Urban Stud-ies, 37, pp. 931950.

KEARNS, A. and PADDISON, R. (2000) New chal-lenges for urban governance, Urban Studies,37, pp. 845850.

KEARNS, A., HISCOCK, R., ELLAWAY, A. and MAC-INTYRE, S. (2000) Beyond four walls. Thepsycho-social benets of home: evidence fromwest central Scotland, Housing Studies, 15,pp. 387410.

KEMPEN, R. VAN and OZUEKREN, A. S. (1998)Ethnic segregation in cities: new form and ex-planations in a dynamic world, Urban Studies,35, pp. 16311656.

LEE, P., MURIE, A. and GORDON, D. (1995) Areameasures of deprivation: a study of currentmethods and best practices in the identicationof poor areas in Great Britain. Centre forUrban and Regional Studies, University ofBirmingham.

MADANIPOUR, A., CARS, G. and ALLEN, J. (1998)Social Exclusion in European Cities: Pro-cesses, Experiences and Responses. London:Jessica Kingsley.

MULGAN, G. (1998) Connexity: Responsibility,Freedom, Business and Power in the New Cen-tury. London: Vintage.

PACKARD, V. (1959) The Status Seekers: An Ex-

ploration of Class Behaviour in America. Har-mondsworth: Penguin.

PARKINSON, M. (1998) Combating Social Ex-clusion: Lessons from Area-based Programmesin Europe. Bristol: The Policy Press.

POWER, A. and MUMFORD, K. (1999) The SlowDeath of Great Cities? Urban Abandonment orUrban Renaissance. York: York PublishingServices.

PUTNAM, R. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapseand Revival of American Community. NewYork: Simon and Schuster.

SILBURN, R., LUCAS, D., PAGE, R. and HANNA, L.(1999) Neighbourhood Images in Nottingham:Social Cohesion and Neighbourhood Change.York: York Publishing Services.

SOCIAL EXCLUSION UNIT (2001) A New Commit-ment to Neighbourhood Renewal: NationalStrategy Action Plan. London: Cabinet Ofce.

SUTTLES, G. (1972) The Social Construction ofCommunities. Chicago, IL: University ofChicago Press.

TUROK, I., KEARNS, A. and GOODLAD, R. (1999)Social exclusion: in what sense a planningproblem?, Town Planning Review, 70, pp. 363384.

URBAN TASK FORCE (1999) Towards an UrbanRenaissance. London: E&FN Spon.


kearns, a., parkinson, m., 2001. the significance of neighbourhood. urban studies

Documents