sense of community referred to the whole town

SENSE OF COMMUNITYREFERRED TO THE WHOLETOWN: ITS RELATIONS WITHNEIGHBORING, LONELINESS,LIFE SATISFACTION, AND AREA OF RESIDENCE

Miretta Prezza, Matilde Amici, Tiziana Roberti, and Gloria TedeschiUniversity “La Sapienza,” Rome, Italy

■

The aim was to explore the relationships between sense of community andvarious factors with respect to a fairly broad area (town, city, or largequarter of a metropolis). Degree of neighboring, life satisfaction, loneliness,and area of residence were also considered. Subjects included 630 men andwomen, aged 20–65 years, with different educational levels. They wereindividually administered a sociodemographic questionnaire, the ItalianSense of Community Scale, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the Universityof California Loneliness Scale, and a Neighborhood Relations Scale. Thesubjects all live in Central Italy. They were divided into six groups asfollows: one group living in a quarter of Rome, three groups living in threedifferent areas of Grottaferrata (a hill town near Rome) and two groupsliving in two areas of Spoleto (the historical center and a working classsuburb), a town in the Umbria region. Multiple regression analysis revealedthe following: Neighborhood relations are stronger for women, for membersof large families, for those with less education, for those living in thecommunity for many years and for members of groups or associations. Thestrongest predictor of sense of community is neighborhood relations, althoughyears of residence, being married, group participation, and area of residenceare also significant factors. Sense of community is related to life satisfactionand loneliness in both the large and small town and in the city. Moreover,although sense of community is strongly associated with area of residence inSpoleto, this is not true for Grottaferrata. Overall, the results confirm theusefulness of conceptualizing the sense of community construct separatelyfrom degree of neighboring. © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

A R T I C L E

JOURNAL OF COMMUNITY PSYCHOLOGY, Vol. 29, No. 1, 29–52 (2001)© 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

INTRODUCTION

Improving the quality of life within the community is one of the main goals of commu-nity psychology. According to Moles (1979), quality of life is the quality of relations be-tween the individual and the environment; it has both an objective and a subjective di-mension. Various areas or domains contribute to the overall quality of life, includingcommunity (Perry & Felce, 1995). In this context, sense of community on a territorialbasis can be used as a subjective indicator of the quality of life. This construct has as-sumed great importance for community psychology over the last few years both at a the-oretical and an applied level. A definition of sense of community is provided by McMil-lan and Chavis (1986). They define it as “a feeling that members have of belonging, afeeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith thatmembers’ needs will be met through their commitment to be together.” (p. 9) It is basedon four elements: membership, influence, integration, and fulfillment of needs and ashared emotional connection.

Many studies demonstrated that sense of community is related to active participa-tion in community life (Botta, 1994; Chavis & Wandersman, 1990; Davidson & Cotter,1989, 1997) and subjective well-being (Davidson & Cotter, 1991; Pretty, Andrewes, & Col-lett, 1994; Pretty, Conroy, Dugay, Fowler & Williams, 1996; Prezza & Costantini, 1998),confirming the possibility of regarding it as a subjective indicator of quality of life. Nev-ertheless, many aspects still need to be investigated further. In this study we set out toexplore several of these aspects, including the following: relations between sense of com-munity and subjective well-being in different-sized urban contexts, relations betweensense of community and area of residence within the community, and relations betweensense of community and neighboring (defined on following page). The topic here wassense of community with respect to a fairly broad area (town, or large quarter in a bigcity). It involved interviewing 630 subjects, residing in three different communities, di-vided into six groups.

Before presenting the hypotheses and methods of this study, we shall give a briefoverview of research pertaining to the topic and a short description of some of the tar-get community features to clarify the hypotheses on the relations between sense of com-munity and the macro variables.

Sense of Community and Territory of Reference,Relations With Degree of Neighboring

In a study of sense of community on a territorial basis, the geographical unit may con-sist of:

• The whole town or city, namely an area that is a political and administrative unit,as in the Sense of Community Scale by Davidson and Cotter (1986, 1991) and inits Italian adaptation (Prezza & Costantini, 1998) (e.g., “This is a pretty city.”). Inlarge cities this solution would be questionable and, to our knowledge, it has nev-er been used.

• The “community” in a general sense, as in Glynn’s questionnaire (1981) on thePsychological Sense of Community (e.g., “This community has a number of cus-toms or traditions that other communities do not have.”). In one study, Glynn(1986) also limited subjective interpretation by asking respondents “to base their

30 • Journal of Community Psychology, January 2001

responses on the whole community (town or city) rather than any sub-area orneighborhood.” (p. 345)

• A fairly large city quarter (up to about 30,000 inhabitants).

• An area so small that it corresponds to the territory within which the inhabitantsare considered to be “neighbors.” For Unger and Wandersman (1985), neighborsmay be defined “by proximity—next door—people who live in the block.” For ex-ample, in the Sense of Community Index (Perkins, Florin, Rich, & Wandersman,1990), at least in the version used by Pretty (Pretty et al., 1994; Pretty et al., 1996),the term “block” is used (e.g. “I think my block is a good place to live in.”).

The word “neighborhood” is ambiguous: “Neighborhood boundaries are often dif-ficult to draw because there is little consensus about what constitutes a neighborhood.”(Coulton, Kobin, & Su, 1996). At times it may refer to a relatively large territorial unit(a town or city quarter) and at other times it may refer to a small area (immediate neigh-borhood or block) where neighbors live.

Neighboring is a different and separate construct with respect to sense of commu-nity but is nevertheless related to it. “Neighboring (broadly defined) involves social in-teraction, symbolic interaction and the attachment of individuals with people livingaround them and the place in which they live.” (Unger & Wandersman, 1985, p. 141)Neighboring has a social, a cognitive, and an affective component. The affective com-ponent includes sense of community, attachment to place, and a feeling of mutual aid.In the social component, apart from the possible negative effects in terms of conflict andcontrol, the positive role of social support (emotional, instrumental, and informative) isunderlined. Neighbors may establish “strong” ties with each other, but, above all, “weak”ones, that can be used in case of need and that contribute to promoting social integra-tion (Granovetter, 1973). The cognitive component concerns both the way residents de-velop cognitive maps and the symbolic communicative meaning attributed to some phys-ical aspects of the area perceived as the “neighborhood.”

Empirical studies, however, have often been unable to distinguish among them thevarious components hypothesized for neighboring. For example, Skjaeveland, Garling,and Maeland (1996) overlooked the cognitive component and established six theoreti-cal dimensions based on previous studies: overt social activities and weak social ties; re-lating to the social component; sense of mutual aid; sense of community and attachmentto place, concerning the affective component; finally, neighbor annoyance, which takesin the negative and control aspects of neighborhood. However, the factor analysis ex-tracted only four factors: neighbor annoyance, weak social ties, supporting acts of neigh-boring, and neighborhood attachment.

To construct a measure of neighborhood cohesion, Buckner (1988) initially consid-ered three aspects: attraction to neighborhood, degree of neighboring, and psychologicalsense of community. The analysis carried out, however, did not support the multi-dimensional nature of the instrument. The 18 items of the final version of the Neighbor-hood Cohesion Scale mostly refer to sense of community and degree of neighboring.

If the territory of reference is very limited “perhaps the manifest acts of neighbor-ing are empirically indistinguishable from an attached sense of community . . .” (Skjaeve-land et al., 1996, p. 431). On the contrary, it may be that when sense of community refersto a broader territory (e.g., a town or city) including the area in which neighbors live,but not just limited to this, the degree of neighboring or manifest acts of neighboring

Sense of Community Referred to the Whole To w n • 31

are distinguishable from sense of community even if they contribute to determining it(Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974).

One of the four elements of sense of community (McMillan & Chavis, 1986) is theemotional link. This can be estimated (Chavis, Hogge, McMillan, & Wandersman, 1986)both by assessing involvement in organized activities or groups (civic, business or sportsgroups, church groups, etc.) and also by considering the quantity/quality of social rela-tions with other members of the community, including neighbors. For Glynn (1986), thenumber of neighbors one can identify by first name is the strongest predictor of ActualPsychological Sense of Community. However, this may not automatically extend to cul-tures other than the American one. For example, in Israel, Sagy, Stern, and Krakover(1996) did not find any relation between sense of community and internal network.

Relations Between Sense of Community and Individual Well-Being

In Australian teenagers, sense of community helped to predict loneliness (Pretty et al.,1994) as well as happiness, worry, and coping (Pretty et al., 1996).

In the United States, Davidson and Cotter (1991) found a significant relationship be-tween sense of community and subjective well-being in adults living in three different ar-eas. In the larger city (300,000 inhabitants) this relation was still significant but weaker.In a small town in Italy (Prezza & Costantini, 1998), sense of community was found to re-late to life satisfaction, self-esteem, and perceived social support; in an average-sizedtown, it only related to life satisfaction; while in a large city, no relationship was foundbetween sense of community and these variables.

Although on one side these studies support the possibility of considering sense ofcommunity as a subjective indicator of quality of life, on the other they suggest the needfor further research to better understand the meaning and importance of sense of com-munity, particularly in large urban centers.

Macrolevel Variables and Sense of Community

Some studies document relations between sense of community and macro characteris-tics concerning the physical-social environment of the territorial community. In a quali-tative study, Plas and Lewis (1996) recorded a high sense of community in the plannedcommunity of Seaside town, intentionally designed to be hospitable to people and in-hospitable to automobiles. For Prezza and Costantini (1998), the size of the urban con-text inversely conditions sense of community. Naser and Julian (1995) found a greatersense of neighborhood community in interior courtyard buildings than in those with ex-terior courtyards, and in a mixed-use rather than a single-use neighborhood (but theyused a rather limited number of subjects).

Torri (1998) demonstrated the relationship between a particular popular traditionand sense of community. She compared sense of community, degree of neighboring, andlife satisfaction in two small Italian towns of around 600 inhabitants, located not far fromeach other in Tuscany. Both communities have a picturesque medieval center with well-preserved restructured houses. The only notable difference between them is that one ofthe towns (Montichiello) has, over the last 20 years, prepared a popular theatrical event(“teatro povero”) every summer in the town square. The show runs daily for 15 days.


About half of the town’s inhabitants are directly involved in the show or are indirectlyinvolved in other related activities taking place in that period. In the last few years theshow has attracted visitors from all over the world. Both towns revealed high degrees ofneighboring, life satisfaction, and sense of community, with a significant difference onlyin the latter variable: The town with the yearly theatrical event has a significantly highersense of community with respect to the other town.

On the whole, there are not many in-depth studies on the relations between senseof community and urban planning, architectural and social characteristics of the com-munity. Instead, structural variables have been of interest to environmental psychology.However, in this area constructs other than sense of community have been studied, par-ticularly community attachment and satisfaction. Over the past few years, attempts havebeen made to build a bridge between these disciplines. In Puddifoot’s view (1995, 1996),the community identity construct may include domains until now considered separatelyby other constructs. Because these bordering fields of study may provide indications forformulating assumptions about the influence of structural and social factors on sense ofcommunity, some of the results are briefly outlined below.

Attachment to the neighborhood (Hummon, 1992; McGuire, 1997) appears to beweakly influenced by community size, type, and density, and more affected by the phys-ical characteristics of one’s own house (e.g., housing quality), by the physical character-istics of the neighborhood and traffic conditions. A recent study carried out in variousneighborhoods in Rome (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999) showedneighborhood attachment to be influenced, among other things, by spatial physical as-pects such as a building’s aesthetic pleasantness and the presence of quiet, green areas.Community satisfaction (Hummon, 1992) appears to be greater in smaller communitieswith a low population density and in rural areas. Satisfaction is particularly high for peo-ple recently moving to a rural community and coming from a city. Also, other objectiveconditions of the community (i.e., physical factors, such as better housing quality andease of access to parks, and social factors) influence community satisfaction. Finally, forHedges and Kelly (1992), smaller, stable, well-demarcated communities (by tradition, dis-tinctive physical or topographical features or buildings) display a greater sense of iden-tity.

HYPOTHESES

The study’s hypotheses and queries can be divided into three groups.

1. A first objective was to clarify the connections between neighborhood social relations andsense of community with reference to the whole town or, in the metropolis, to the quarter.The hypothesis was that they are distinguishable but that neighborhood relationshelp to predict sense of community. Moreover, to understand similarities and dif-ferences between sense of community and neighborhood relations, the study ex-amines their relations with certain individual demographic characteristics (sex,age, number of children in the household, years of residence, and educationallevel), as well as participation in community groups and associations.

2. The second group of hypotheses concerned relations between sense of community, with refer-ence to the whole town, and area of residence within the town. In particular, we hypoth-esized the following: (a) in medium–small-sized towns, very near a metropolis,


which have experienced a large influx of new residents from the city in recentyears, in new residential areas, primarily used as dormitories by people who con-tinue to have close ties with the city—even if these areas are aesthetically morepleasing—sense of community is probably low compared to other areas of thetown; (b) in medium–small-sized communities, which have been relatively stablein recent years and which have developed around a historical center that has tak-en on new value in recent years, the inhabitants of the historical center shouldhave a higher sense of community (referred to the whole town) than the inhab-itants of new, anonymous, peripheral working-class quarters, with a road structureat right angles and with apartment blocks of several stories. The hypotheses con-cerning this group will be further specified when the communities chosen andthe areas identified within them are described.

3. The third group of hypotheses concerned the connections between sense of community, neigh-borhood relations and some indicators of individual well-being, particularly loneliness—inversely—and life satisfaction. The hypothesis was that these indicators would berelated to sense of community and neighborhood relations but only in smaller ur-ban contexts and not so much in a large city. If we found a relation between senseof community and loneliness and between sense of community and life satisfac-tion, then we would examine whether these relations continued to exist after con-trolling for the influence of demographic variables and neighborhood relations.

Another hypothesis was that the four variables load on two factors: loneliness andlife satisfaction on one factor; neighborhood relations and sense of communityon the other factor. Using the distinction made by Rhoads and Raymond (1981),the two factors could correspond to the intimate self-space factor and the socialfunctioning factor.

The Target Communities of the Study

Three very different communities located in Central Italy were chosen for this study. Be-cause we were interested in investigating the relation between sense of community andindividual well-being in a large city, the first community chosen was a quarter of Rome,Casalbruciato.

Casalbruciato is a typical, densely populated low-income quarter of clerical and bluecollar workers situated not far from the center of Rome. It was built in the 1970s andnow has about 28,000 inhabitants. It is characterized by 5–7 storied housing blocks, mostwith no internal or external courtyards, built next to each other. Its boundaries were es-tablished by Rome’s municipal authorities and are clearly perceived by the inhabitants.Its road system follows a rectangular plan with big roads, heavy traffic and very few greenareas. The percentage of the active population is 45.1% and the unemployment rate is22.1% (ISTAT, 1995).

The second community chosen was Grottaferrata. This is a small administrativelyindependent town of about 17,000 inhabitants located 21 kilometers from Rome. Be-cause of its proximity to Rome, the town has undergone an excessive building boomthat has, at least in part, changed its appearance. Owing to its favorable location in agreen hill area (the Castelli Romani), it is increasingly seen as an up-market outlyingRoman suburb with many commuters traveling to the capital daily for work, business,or recreation. It has an active population of 41.8% and an unemployment rate of 17.8%.


Three different areas were taken into consideration which are representative of thewhole town.

• The historic center of Grottaferrata (1140 inhabitants) is the old historical and cul-tural heart of the town characterized by small, old, well-kept buildings.

• Peripheral Grottaferrata (570 inhabitants) is an old built-up area adjacent to thehistoric center with the same housing types, but with a strong separate identity withrespect to the town center and with few places for social and cultural activities.

• A new residential area of Grottaferrata (360 inhabitants) a little further out fromthe town center. This outlying suburb is composed of luxury villas with large gar-dens inside precincts with private roads, no shopping facilities but with many sportsfacilities. Its inhabitants are mainly people from Rome who decided to move awayfrom the city but who still mostly work or study there.

Among the three distinct areas chosen for Grottaferrata, it was assumed that sense ofcommunity with respect to the whole town would be weaker in the new up-market resi-dential area than in both the historic center and the old peripheral area. We expectedthat the inhabitants of this new up-market area, who had come from Rome, would notbe integrated into the spirit of the town, would not take part in its traditions, and wouldhave more ties with the capital.

Spoleto, located about 100 kilometers northeast of Rome, was chosen as the third com-munity. Spoleto is a small town (39,000 inhabitants) in the province of Perugia, and isrenowned worldwide for its harmonious medieval architecture and cultural events, partic-ularly for the Due Mondi (“Two Worlds”) theater festival. It has an active population of 40.3%and an unemployment rate of 11.9%. The study considered two distinct areas of the town:

• Spoleto old town center (4400 inhabitants), with its small restructured old stonehouses, narrow low-traffic streets and monuments, located on a hill enclosed bymedieval walls, is a tourist attraction.

• Spoleto PEEP, a middle-working class suburb of around 1200 inhabitants enclosedwithin four main streets, was built about 18 years ago and lies 4 kilometers fromthe historic town center. The suburb is well-connected to the center and has manyfacilities. Typical housing consists of 5–6 storied apartment blocks built by a stateagency responsible for municipal housing projects. The low-rent apartments wereassigned to particularly needy families on public administration records.

The inhabitants of Spoleto should experience a high sense of community due to thetown’s strong traditions and its positive image abroad. It could be hypothesized, howev-er, that this sense of community was not evenly distributed in the territory: It should begreater in the Old Town than in the outlying suburban area. The latter quarter does nothave the architectural beauty and harmony of the town center and Spoleto is, in any case,only identified with the old town center.

METHOD

Subjects

There were 630 subjects, aged 20–65 years, residing in their quarter for at least 5 years.They were subdivided into six groups and interviewed. The subjects were contacted in-


dividually at home according to a sampling method that was as representative as possi-ble of the age range considered.

Four groups were set up in Rome or nearby: one group of 200 subjects in the Casal-bruciato quarter of Rome (Group Rm.Csb) and three in the nearby town of Grottafer-rata: 80 subjects in Grottaferrata historic center (Group Grott.C); 70 subjects in periph-eral Grottaferrata (Group Grott.P); 80 subjects in the new up-market residential area ofGrottaferrata (Group Grott.R).

Questionnaire distribution in both Rome and Grottaferrata was based on the door-to-door method, after random selection of streets, buildings and apartments. If peoplewere unwilling to be interviewed or were not at home on two different occasions, theninterviewers moved next door. We tried to build a representative sample with respect toage, sex and educational level by using data from the last official census (ISTAT, 1995),and targeting the last 30 interviews on this. Cases of interview refusal were as follows: 60in Rome Casalbruciato, 23 in Grottaferrata Center, 41 in Peripheral Grottaferrata, and18 in Residential Grottaferrata.

Two groups were set up in Spoleto: one in the old town center (Group Spol.C, of100 subjects) and one in the PEEP suburb (Group Spol.PEEP, of 100 subjects). It was pos-sible to randomly select subjects in Spoleto by using electoral lists. The number of re-fusals were 2 in Spoleto Center and 25 in Spoleto PEEP.

Table 1 reports the sociodemographic characteristics of the six groups of subjects.These do not differ from one another in regard to age, sex, marital status, and children.


Table 1. Socio-Demographic Characteristics of the Six Groups of Subjects and Significance of the Differences Between Groups

Spol.Rm.Csb Grott.C Grott.P Grott.R Spol.C PEEP

n 200 80 70 80 100 100Age

M 40.09 37.04 38.26 40.46 40.09 39.43 F(5,624) 5 0.96;SD 12.51 12.55 12.76 12.20 12.51 11.19 p 5 0.44

Length of residenceM 27.41 28.95 30.70 13.00 28.83 11.17 F(5,624) 5 61.34;SD 13.44 12.46 11.21 4.35 11.65 3.36 p 5 0.000

Gender: % male 49% 46% 46% 46% 50% 50% x2 5 0.80; NSMarital status

Single 35% 40% 42% 40% 44% 31% x2 5 14.20;Married 60% 51% 44% 50% 48% 59% df 5 10;Divorced/widow 5% 9% 14% 10% 8% 10% p 5 0.16

Level of educationElementary 29% 10% 15% 4% 13% 21% x2 5 105.30;Lower secondary 38% 33% 33% 10% 21% 33% df 5 15;Upper secondary 27% 45% 46% 52% 47% 39% p 5 0.0001University 6% 12% 6% 34% 19% 7%

Children: % yes 55% 54% 50% 50% 49% 58% x2 5 2.52; NSGroup participation: 26% 29% 40% 26% 39% 44% x2 5 16.10; df = 5;

% yes p 5 0.006

Note. Rm.Csb 5 Casalbruciato quarter of Rome; Grott.C 5 Grottaferrata historic center; Grott.P 5 Peripheral Grottaferrata;Grott.R 5 Up-market residential area of Grottaferrata; Spol.C 5 The old town center of Spoleto; Spol. PEEP 5 A middle-work-ing class suburb of Spoleto about 4 kilometers from the historic town center.

On the other hand, they do differ in years of residence, educational level, and partici-pation in associations and meetings within the community. In the relatively new areas—the residential area of Grottaferrata and Spoleto PEEP—average years of residence areconsiderably lower (13.0 years and 11.17 years, respectively) than the other areas (aver-age years of residence between 27 and 31 years). To further confirm that many Italianslive their whole life in their birthplace, 35% of the 630 subjects were born in their pres-ent area of residence while 15% moved back there before age 15.

The different distribution of educational levels reflects the socioeconomic level of theareas studied. In up-market residential Grottaferrata, 14% of subjects had only elementaryor lower secondary education as against 54% in Spoleto PEEP and as many as 67% in RomeCasalbruciato, where the inhabitants are mainly blue-collar or clerical workers.

The different degree of participation in groups and associations reflects the differ-ent culture in the six areas studied. Percentage participation is higher in the two Spole-to areas and in residential Grottaferrata. On the whole, participation is greater in sportassociations, followed by parish, cultural, trade union/political party, and voluntary workassociations.

Information on daily commuting was obtained only for the three Grottaferrata ar-eas. Of the subjects in the residential area, 91% go to the capital for important shopping,64% for medical services, 46% for sport and/or recreational activities and 48% for workor study purposes. These percentages are considerably lower in the other two areas ofthe town, although they remain at fairly high levels: in central Grottaferrata, 47% go tothe capital for important shopping, 28% for medical services, 5% for sport and/or recre-ational activities and 26% for work or study; in peripheral Grottaferrata, 60% go to Rometo shop, 21% go for medical services, 4% for sport/recreational activities and 26% forwork/study purposes.

Measure s

All subjects were individually administered a sociodemographic questionnaire, the Ital-ian Scale of Sense of Community, the Satisfaction with Life Scale, the University of Cal-ifornia Loneliness Scale, and the Neighborhood Relations Scale.

Sense of Community. Prezza, Costantini, Chiarolanza, and Di Marco’s (1999) Italian Scaleof Sense of Community (ISSC) was developed by translating and modifying Davidson andCotter’s (1986) Sense of Community Scale. We used the town or the quarter (only in theCasalbruciato sample) as point of reference. The Italian version comprises 18 items(shown in Table 4); 10 of the 18 items are literal translations of items 3,4,5,6,8,9,11,14,16,and 17 of the Sense of Community Scale. An inverted score was assigned to some items.The scale showed Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.82.

Life Satisfaction. An Italian translation of the Satisfaction with Life Scale (SWLS) (Diener,Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) was used. This scale is composed of five items show-ing the overall subjective evaluation of life satisfaction. The Italian translation has alreadybeen used in other studies (Prezza & Costantini, 1998; Torri, 1998; Vairo, 1996) and itshows high internal cohesion (Cronbach’s alpha between .87 and .90).

Loneliness. A translation of Russel, Peplau, and Cutrona’s University of California Los An-geles (UCLA) Loneliness Scale (1980) was used, courtesy of Professor L. Solano from


“La Sapienza” University of Rome. This scale is composed of 20 items, coded on a 4-pointscale (1–4). Ten items are inverted (1, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 19, and 20). The higher thescore, the greater the experience of loneliness.

Neighborhood Relations Scale (NRS). This scale was constructed for this and for anotherstudy (Torri, 1998). It is composed of seven items, aimed at measuring the quantity andquality of neighborhood relations, and corresponds to the degree of neighboring factorused by Buckner (1988) as one of the three factors that led to drafting the items for con-structing the Neighborhood Cohesion Scale. In particular, items 1, 2, and 3 were takenrespectively, from items 3, 15, and 17 of Buckner’s scale (1988). The other items used inthe scale are shown in Table 4. Items 1 to 5 have the following answer format: (5) “every-day,” (4) “often,” (3) “sometimes,” (2) “rarely,” (1) “never.” Items 6 and 7 have an open-answer structure. Interviewees sometimes answer with a number or sometimes withindefinite pronouns. Scoring of the two items is as follows: a score of 5 points if respon-dents say “all” or “nearly all” or answer with number 7 or over; 4 points if they say “a lot”or “many” or “several,” or when they give numbers 5 or 6; 3 points for saying “fairly” ornumbers 3 or 4; 2 points for saying “few,” or “nearly no one,” or giving numbers 1 or 2;1 point if they say “nobody” or zero. On 305 subjects (Tedeschi, 1997; Torri, 1998) theCronbach alpha reliability coefficient was high (5 .89). With regard to factor structure,a single factor emerged (all seven items showed factor saturation on this of above .72).

Analysis

All statistical calculations (descriptive statistical analysis, reliability analysis, factor analy-sis, zero-order correlation, multiple regression, ANOVA) were carried out using theWindows SPSS program. The EQS program (Bentler, 1995) was used for confirmatoryfactor analysis.

RESULTS

Check of the Validity of the Instruments Used

First, we decided to check the reliability of the instruments used by calculating Cron-bach’s alpha and Guttman’s split-half coefficients and factor structure using the princi-pal component method (n 5 630).

Italian Scale of Sense of Community. Factor analysis extracted five factors with eigenvaluesabove 1, accounting for 26.4%, 10.0%, 7.6%, 6.2% and 5.8% of the variance, respectively.However, confirming the possibility of using a total score, on the first factor of the un-rotated matrix, all the items have factor loadings greater than 0.36 and scale reliabilitycoefficients are quite good (Cronbach’s alpha 5 0.82; Guttman’s split-half 5 0.80).

Neighborhood Relations Scale. It showed quite high internal consistency. In factor analysisonly one factor yielded an eigenvalue above 1—accounting for 59.3% of the variance—and all the items on this have factor loadings above 0.67. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.88 andthe Guttman’s split-half coefficient was 0.80.

Satisfaction with Life Scale. Factor analysis extracted just one factor with an eigenvalueabove 1, accounting for 66.9% of the variance; all the items on this have factor loadings


above 0.79. Cronbach’s alpha was 0.87 and the Guttman’s split-half coefficient was 0.81.

Loneliness Scale. Factor analysis extracted four factors with an eigenvalue above 1, ac-counting for 32.7%, 7.6%, 6.1% and 5.2% of the variance, respectively. On the unrotat-ed factor matrix, all items except No. 4 (which had a factor loading approaching zero)had factor loadings above 0.46 on the first factor. The Italian wording of item 4, using anegative phrase (“non mi sento solo”) is probably confusing, as some respondents alsomentioned. Excluding this item, Cronbach’s alpha was 0.89 and Guttman’s split-half co-efficient was 0.88. These values confirmed the possibility of using the total score of the19-item scale, thus excluding item 4.

Relations Between Sense of Community and Neighborhood Social Relations

Tables 2 and 3 show the average values for the four scales and their correlations in eachgroup. Pearson’s correlation coefficient r between Sense of Community and Neighbor-hood Relations is significant in five out of the six groups (with values ranging between0.19 and 0.64), albeit for different levels of probability.

It should be noted that the first aim of this study was to see whether the two con-structs (Sense of Community and Neighborhood Relations) could be considered sepa-rately. Therefore, the first step was to verify by means of factor analysis if it was possibleto group the items of the two scales into two distinct factors. Factor analysis was carriedout using the principal component method and varimax rotation, simultaneously enter-ing the 7 items of the Neighborhood Relations Scale and the 18 items of the Italian Scaleof Sense of Community, asking for two factors. The two factors respectively account for24.4% and 12.4% of the variance. On the rotated factor matrix (see Table 4), all the items


Table 2. Means (M), Standard Deviations (SD) and F-Values for All Scales by Group

Spol. FRm.Csb Grott.C Grott.P Grott.R Spol.C Peep Total df 5 5,625

N 200 80 70 80 100 100 630Sense of community

M 48.73 49.55 48.88 47.90 54.50 46.75 49.35 20.07***SD 6.68 5.20 5.12 5.68 6.02 5.82 6.42

Neighborhood relationsM 19.03 16.50 15.50 16.25 19.07 16.55 17.57 7.70***SD 6.10 5.36 5.59 6.69 5.32 6.05 5.93

Life satisfactionM 23.39 21.61 20.87 23.26 22.29 17.79 21.80 11.75***SD 6.38 6.19 6.99 6.69 6.36 5.61 6.62

LonelinessM 31.48 32.66 33.87 34.34 32.10 39.00 33.55 11.28***SD 6.10 5.36 5.59 6.69 5.32 6.09 5.93

Note. RmCsb 5 Casalbruciato quarter of Rome; Grott.C 5 Grottaferrata historic center; Grott.P 5 Peripheral Grottaferrata;Grott.R 5 Up-market residential area of Grottaferrata; Spol.C 5 The old town center of Spoleto; Spol. PEEP 5 A middle-work-ing class suburb of Spoleto about 4 kilometers from the historic town center.

of the Neighborhood Relations Scale have a higher factor loading on the first factor,while all the items of the Sense of Community Scale—except for item 1 (“Many peoplein this town are available to provide help when someone needs it.”)—have higher fac-tor loadings on the second factor. However, item No. 2 (“The people in this town are po-lite and well mannered.”), No. 7 (“This town gives me an opportunity to do a lot of dif-ferent things.”) and No. 12 (“If I need help, this town has excellent services available tomeet my needs.”) also have relatively high (..30) factor loadings on the first factor.Neighborhood social relations evidently have a bearing on views concerning the possi-bility for exchange and support relations within the town or city quarter.

To understand whether the items of the Scale of Sense of Community and those ofthe Neighborhood Scale load on two separate factors in all three communities consid-ered, three more factor analyses were calculated (see Table 4). In the first, only the sub-jects residing in Rome (n 5 200) were considered; in the second, only those residing inthe three areas of Grottaferrata (n 5 230) and in the third, the subjects residing in thetwo areas of Spoleto (n 5 200).

The items of the two scales load into two clearly distinct factors in Rome, are quitedistinct in Spoleto (where all the items on sense of community load at higher levels inthe same factor) and are less separable in Grottaferrata. As shown in Table 4, in theGrottaferrata subjects, four items of the Italian Scale of Sense of Community load moreon the Neighborhood Relations factor, even though two of them have low factor load-ings on both factors.

Before drawing any conclusions from this analysis, it was decided to carry out a con-firmatory factor analysis using the EQS program (Bentler, 1995) for all 630 subjects andwith the items of the two scales. Comparisons were made of results obtained using thetwo-correlated-factor model, the two-noncorrelated-factor model and the single-factormodel. Of the three models, the two-correlated-factor model turned out to be the best(estimated correlation between the two factors was 0.371). Even if the goodness of fit


Table 3. Pearson’s Correlation Coefficients Between All the Scales for Each Group

Spol.Rm.Csb Grott.C Grott.P Grott.R Spol.C Peep

N 200 80 70 80 100 100ISSCa–NRSb .19** .17 .54*** .48*** .37*** .64***ISSC–UCLA 2.36*** 2.10 2.47*** 2.33** 2.37*** 2.80***ISSC–SWLSc .31*** .24* .51*** .49*** .22* .52***NRS–UCLAd 2.13 2.17 2.27* 2.23* 2.48*** 2.71***NRS–SWLS .12 2.01 .28* .30** .11 .36***UCLA–SWLS 2.48*** 2.22 2.52*** 2.24* 2.47*** 2.55***

Note. RmCsb 5 Casalbruciato quarter of Rome; Grott.C 5 Grottaferrata historic center; Grott.P 5 Peripheral Grottaferrata;Grott.R 5 Up-market residential area of Grottaferrata; Spol.C 5 The old town center of Spoleto; Spol. PEEP 5 A middle-work-ing class suburb of Spoleto about 4 kilometers from the historic town center.aISSC 5 Italian Scale of Sense of CommunitybNRS 5 Neighborhood Relations ScalecSWLS 5 Satisfaction With Life ScaledUCLA 5 University of California Los Angeles Loneliness Scale *p , 0.05 **p , 0.01 ***p , 0.001.

Tabl

e 4.

Ita

lian

Sca

le o

f Se

nse

of C

omm

unit

y To

geth

er W

ith

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d R

elat

ions

Sca

le:

Rot

ated

Fac

tor

Loa

ding

in

Two

Fa

ctor

s

All

subj

ects

RM

Csb

Spol

.G

rott.

Ital

ian

Sca

le o

f Se

nse

of

Com

mun

ity

N5

630

n5

200

n5

200

n5

230

1°F.

2°F.

1°F.

2°F.

1°F.

2°F.

1°F.

2°F.

Man

y pe

ople

in

th

is t

own

are

ava

ilabl

e to

pro

vide

hel

p w

hen

.41

.32

(.41

).4

8.5

2.3

9.5

0so

meo

ne

nee

ds i

t.T

he

peop

le i

n t

his

tow

n a

re p

olit

e an

d w

ell-m

ann

ered

..3

3.4

3 (.

49)

.60

.59

.39

.31

I lik

e th

e h

ouse

in

wh

ich

I l

ive.

.42

(.35

).2

9.6

3.2

5I

like

the

nei

ghbo

rhoo

d in

wh

ich

I l

ive.

.66

(.54

).6

5.7

2.3

9I

feel

saf

e h

ere.

.52

(.45

).5

3.5

8.3

8I

don

’t l

ike

the

peop

le l

ivin

g in

my

area

..4

7 (.

43)

.35

.59

.23

Th

is t

own

giv

es m

e an

opp

ortu

nit

y to

do

a lo

t of

dif

fere

nt t

hin

gs.

.30

.40

(.45

).6

3.4

3.3

4T

his

is

a pr

etty

tow

n.

.66

(.55

).7

7.6

7.4

9If

you

wan

t to

, in

th

is t

own

it’

s po

ssib

le t

o pa

rtic

ipat

e in

loc

al p

olit

ics.

.35

(.36

).3

2.4

9.2

8It

wou

ld t

ake

a lo

t fo

r m

e to

mov

e aw

ay f

rom

th

is t

own

..6

2 (.

58)

.58

.74

.62

In t

his

tow

n, i

t’s

diffi

cult

to

hav

e go

od s

ocia

l re

lati

ons.

.44

(.46

).4

3.5

7.3

9.3

2If

I n

eed

hel

p, t

his

tow

n h

as m

any

exce

llent

ser

vice

s av

aila

ble

to m

eet

.33

.34

(.40

).5

4.4

6.3

3.3

5m

y n

eeds

.If

th

e pe

ople

her

e w

ere

to o

rgan

ize,

th

ey w

ould

hav

e a

good

ch

ance

.30

(.35

).3

7.4

3.3

1.3

7of

rea

chin

g th

eir

desi

red

goal

s.I

feel

lik

e I

belo

ng

her

e..6

6 (.

61)

.72

.74

.64

I ge

ner

ally

res

pect

th

e h

abit

s an

d tr

adit

ion

s of

th

is t

own

..5

1 (.

52)

.46

.59

.54

Th

ere

are

som

e h

olid

ay o

r an

niv

ersa

ry d

ays

in t

his

tow

n t

hat

in

volv

e.4

7 (.

40)

.43

.49

.44

mos

t of

th

e pe

ople

.T

her

e ar

e fe

w c

han

ces

to m

eet

peop

le i

n t

his

tow

n.

.27

(.31

).4

5.3

0.2

6W

hen

I t

rave

l I

am p

roud

to

tell

oth

ers

wh

ere

I liv

e..7

1 (.

64)

.72

.70

.32

.60

Nei

ghbo

rhoo

d R

elat

ion

s Sc

ale

I vi

sit

wit

h m

y n

eigh

bors

in

th

eir

hom

es.

.83

.83

.86

.74

(.84

)I

hav

e n

eigh

bors

ove

r to

my

hou

se t

o vi

sit.

.79

.79

.83

.68

(.78

)I

stop

and

tal

k w

ith

peo

ple

in m

y n

eigh

borh

ood.

.72

.69

.76

.61

(.66

)I

mee

t w

ith

my

nei

ghbo

rs t

o sp

end

som

e ti

me

doin

g th

ings

tog

eth

er.

.80

.81

.85

.71

(.79

)I

exch

ange

fav

ors

wit

h m

y n

eigh

bors

..7

2.8

1.7

8.6

2(.

68)

How

man

y of

you

r n

eigh

bors

wou

ld y

ou h

ave

no

prob

lem

ask

ing

to

.61

.64

.76

.66

borr

ow l

ittl

e th

ings

?(.

56)

How

man

y of

you

r n

eigh

bors

do

you

con

side

r as

you

r fr

iend

s?.7

6.7

4.7

2.7

9(.

72)

Perc

ent

of t

otal

var

ian

ce24

.412

.423

.115

.536

.911

.119

.79.

6

Not

e.Pr

imar

y fa

ctor

loa

din

gs a

re i

ndic

ated

and

sec

onda

ry f

acto

r lo

adin

gs a

re o

nly

giv

en (

in i

talic

s) i

f gr

eate

r th

an 0

.30.

On

ly f

or n

= 63

0, t

he

satu

rati

ons

esti

mat

ed w

ith

th

e E

QS

prog

ram

(in

th

etw

o co

rrel

ated

-fact

or m

odel

) ar

e gi

ven

in

par

enth

eses

.

indexes are higher for this model (Bentler-Bonett Normed Fit Index 5 0.707; Bentler-Bonett Non-Normed Fit Index 5 0.719; Comparative Fit Index 5 0.744) compared tothose of the other two models, especially compared to the single factor model (with val-ues of 0.497, 0.477, and 0.521, respectively), they are nevertheless quite low. This maybe due to the complexity of the factor structure of the Italian Scale of Sense of Com-munity, which is not adequately represented by a single factor (Prezza et al., 1999). Itsstructure should be further explored, but this lies outside the scope of the present work.

What can be said, however, is that it is possible to consider Sense of Community re-ferred to large territorial units separately from Neighborhood Relations; and this sepa-ration is more pronounced when the urban context is larger. Therefore, it was deemedpossible to go on to the subsequent hypotheses, considering Sense of Community sepa-rately from Neighborhood Relations.

Neighborhood Relations and Sense of Community:Their Relations W ith Some Sociodemographic Variables

To further investigate similarities and differences between Sense of Community andNeighborhood Relations we will now examine their connections with some sociodemo-graphic variables.

Two multiple regressions were carried out using the stepwise method. Neighbor-hood Relations was the dependent variable in the first regression and Sense of Commu-nity in the second. In both multiple regressions, the first block of independent variablesincluded sex (males 5 1, females 5 0), age, number of children, number of family mem-bers, years of residence in the same area, marital status (those living with their spousewere coded as 1 while all others were coded as 0), and educational level (elementary 51, lower secondary 5 2, upper secondary 5 3, university degree 5 4).

Based on the zero-order correlation (see Table 5), all the demographic variables sig-nificantly correlated with Neighborhood Relations. Considered simultaneously in thefirst block, these sociodemographic variables do not account for a very high portion ofvariance—7% approximately—and four of them have a significant regression coeffi-cient.

On average, the following have stronger neighborhood relations: women (p 50.0004), people with a low level of education (p 5 0.008), people with large families (p5 0.002) and those living in the same area for several years (p 5 0.017). The “group par-ticipation in the community” variable (1 5 yes; 0 5 no) was included in the secondblock. This variable alone accounts for a significant amount of variance—about 4%: Peo-ple taking part in community groups or meetings on average have stronger neighbor-hood relations (p 5 0.0001).

Regarding Sense of Community, at the bivariate level (see Table 5) it has a sig-nificant positive correlation with age, years of residence, number of children and liv-ing with the spouse, and a negative tendency for educational level. Considered to-gether, demographic variables account for about 7% of the Sense of Communityvariance (see Table 6). Among these, significant regression coefficients are only ob-tained for years of residence (p 5 0.001) and marital status (p 5 0.01). Group partic-ipation, included in the second block, increases the variance accounted for by the re-gression by 4%, and it has a very significant coefficient (p 5 0.0001). Another blockincluding Neighborhood Relations was added to the regression analysis, increasing ex-


Tabl

e 5.

Mea

ns,

Stan

dard

Dev

iati

ons

and

Zer

o-O

rder

Cor

rela

tion

s fo

r A

ll S

tudy

Var

iabl

es (

N=

630)

MSD

23

45

67

89

1011

1213

1415

1617

18

1IS

SC49

.35

6.42

.36

2.4

2.3

5.1

6.2

5.1

32

.00

2.0

6.0

1.1

7.2

22

.02

.01

2.0

9.3

52

.18

2.0

72

NR

S17

.58

5.93

2.3

2.2

1.1

3.1

4.1

52

.10

2.1

8.1

5.1

0.1

72

.12

2.0

72

.09

.11

2.0

8.1

63

UC

LA

33.5

58.

932

.47

2.0

0.0

02

.01

.02

.00

2.0

52

.07

2.1

6.0

12

.03

.03

2.0

7.2

72

.15

4SW

LS

21.8

06.

62.0

7.1

3.0

92

.06

.05

2.0

1.1

8.0

82

.05

2.0

1.0

8.0

32

.26

.16

5A

ge39

.29

12.2

3.3

5.6

8.0

12

.40

2.0

8.5

4.0

82

.03

2.0

7.0

42

.01

.01

.04

6L

engt

h r

esid

ence

23.7

813

.15

.29

.06

2.2

8.0

1.1

9.0

5.1

9.1

52

.31

.17

2.4

1.1

97

No.

ch

ildre

n.9

91.

092

.03

2.3

6.2

9.6

3.0

1.0

3.0

52

.01

2.1

0.0

1.0

38

Sex

.48

.50

.01

.00

2.0

5.0

92

.02

2.0

12

.02

.01

.01

.01

9E

duca

tion

2.46

.93

2.1

62

.24

.01

2.0

2.0

6.2

9.1

22

.07

2.2

710

N. f

amily

mem

bers

3.59

1.26

.09

2.0

7.0

5.0

82

.11

2.0

9.0

6.0

111

Mar

ital

sta

tus

.54

.50

.00

2.0

72

.02

2.0

32

.05

.04

2.0

812

Gro

up p

arti

cipa

tion

.33

.47

.06

2.0

32

.05

.06

.10

2.1

013

Dum

my

Gro

tt.P

.11

.31

2.1

32

.13

2.1

52

.15

2.2

414

Dum

my

Gro

tt.C

.13

.33

2.1

52

.17

2.1

72

.26

15D

umm

y G

rott

.R.1

3.3

32

.17

2.1

72

.26

16D

umm

y Sp

ol.C

.16

.37

2.1

92

.29

17D

umm

y Sp

ol. P

eep

.16

.37

2.2

918

Dum

my

Rm

.Csb

..3

2.4

7

Not

e.B

old

face

pri

nt is

use

d w

hen

p,

0.05

. Rm

.Csb

5C

asal

bruc

iato

qua

rter

of

Rom

e; G

rott

.C 5

Gro

ttaf

erra

ta h

isto

ric

cent

er; G

rott

.P 5

Peri

pher

al G

rott

afer

rata

; Gro

tt.R

5U

p-m

arke

t re

side

ntia

lar

ea o

f G

rott

afer

rata

; Spo

l. C

5T

he

old

tow

n c

ente

r of

Spo

leto

; Spo

l. PE

EP

5A

mid

dle-

wor

kin

g cl

ass

subu

rb o

f Sp

olet

o ab

out

4 ki

lom

eter

s fr

om t

he

his

tori

c to

wn

cen

ter.

plained sense of community variance by 90%, with a highly significant coefficient (p5 0.0001).

Differences in Sense of Community in the Six Areas

A last block of five dummy variables, representing the six areas, was added to the re-gression. Their inclusion is highly significant and accounts for another 8% of the senseof community variance. By examining those variables with a significant coefficient (seeTable 6), we can say that, with respect to Rome’s Casalbruciato quarter, the areas withthe greatest sense of community are the center of Spoleto (p 5 0.0000) and the centerof Grottaferrata (p 5 0.02).


Table 6. Stepwise Regression Results (Adjusted R Square After Inclusion of Each Block andStandardized Beta After the Inclusion of Last Block) Predicting Sense of Community FromIndividual Attributes and Area Dummies

Dependent variables

Sense of Sense ofSense of community community

community (with Grottaferrata (with Spoleto(with all subjects) subjects) subjects)

N 5 630 n 5 230 n 5 200

Independent variables b b b

First blockAge 0.055 20.029 0.134°Length of residence 0.089* 0.091 20.028No. children 20.050 20.001 20.055Sex 0.017 0.024 0.068Education 0.001 0.093 0.001No. family members 0.016 0.094 20.030Marital status 0.144** 0.122 0.054

Adj R2 (after 1° block) 0.074 0.056 0.192Second block

Group participation 0.143*** 0.105 0.172**Adj R2 (after 2° block) 0.116 0.089 0.245

Third blockNeighborhood relations 0.298*** 0.326*** 0.411***

Adj R2 (after 3° block) 0.209 0.174 0.425Fourth block (area dummies)

Dummy Grott.P 0.058 0.057 —Dummy Grott.C 0.090* 0.086 —Dummy Grott.R 0.043 — —Dummy Spol.C 0.320*** — —Dummy Spol.Peep 20.049 — 20.484***

Adj R2 (after 4° block) 0.292 0.170 0.523X of means intercept 38.54 38.65 41.29

Note. Rm.Csb 5 Casalbruciato quarter of Rome; Grott.C 5 Grottaferrata historic center; Grott.P 5 Peripheral Grottaferrata;Grott.R 5 Up-market residential area of Grottaferrata; Spol.C 5 The old town center of Spoleto; Spol. PEEP 5 A middle-work-ing class suburb of Spoleto about 4 kilometers from the historic town center.°p , 0.10 *p , 0.05 **p , 0.01 ***p , 0.001.

Relations Between Sense of Community and Area of Residence in Grottaferrata

Regarding the second group of objectives, it was hypothesized that in Grottaferrata theinhabitants of the residential area, very tied to the nearby metropolis, have less sense ofcommunity than the inhabitants of the other two areas considered.

One-way variance analysis, conducted only with the subjects who were residents ofGrottaferrata revealed no differences between inhabitants of the three Grottaferrata ar-eas (F (2,227) 5 1.93; p 5 0.15).

A multiple regression was also carried out with the subjects residing in the threeGrottaferrata areas (n 5 230), with Sense of Community as the dependent variable. Thedemographic variables included in the first block account for about 6% of the variance.Group participation, in the second block, accounts for about 3%, while NeighborhoodRelations, included in the third block, account for a further 8%. The two dummy vari-ables representing central Grottaferrata and peripheral Grottaferrata do not add any pre-dictive capacity to the equation and are not significant. Table 6 reports only the resultsafter inclusion of the last block, both for this regression and for the one described be-low. It shows how all the independent variables, on the whole, account for a very low per-centage of variance—only 17%—and, after including the last block, only neighborhoodrelations have a significant coefficient (p 5 0.0000). The hypothesis that sense of com-munity is less strong in residential Grottaferrata than in the other two areas of town isnot confirmed.

Relations Between Sense of Community and Area of Residence in Spoleto

With regard to Spoleto, the hypothesis was that the inhabitants of the peripheral work-ing class area have less sense of community than the inhabitants of the historical center,an area characterized by harmonious medieval architecture and known for its artisticmasterpieces.

Considering only the subjects residing in Spoleto, the analysis of variance showed asignificant difference (F (1,198) 5 85.61; p 5 0.001) between the inhabitants of the twoSpoleto areas. A multiple regression analysis was also carried out revealing that (seeTable 6) the sociodemographic variables account for about 19% of the variance, groupparticipation about 5%, neighborhood 18%, and the inclusion of the dummy variablerepresenting the Spoleto PEEP suburb accounts for another 10%, thus confirming thehypothesis. Overall, by including the fourth block, the independent variables account fora considerably high portion of variance (52%) of Sense of Community; the variables withsignificant coefficients are the following: group participation (p 5 0.0014), neighbor-hood relations (p 5 0.0000) and, as hypothesized, living in the outlying working classarea of town (Spol.PEEP; p 5 0.0000, with negative sign). Age has a coefficient with onlya tendency toward significance (p 5 0.07).

Sense of Community and Neighborhood Related to Loneliness and Life Satisfaction

Regarding the third group of hypotheses, one was that sense of community and neigh-borhood relations were related to loneliness and life satisfaction, but only in the twosmaller communities, Spoleto and Grottaferrata, and not in the Rome quarter.


Table 3 shows that for all groups many of the relations (Pearson’s r) between thescales used are very significant. In particular, the relations between Life Satisfaction andLoneliness, as well as between Life Satisfaction and Sense of Community, are significantin all six areas. Therefore, the hypothesis of no relation between Sense of Communityand Life Satisfaction in a large city quarter is not confirmed. Neither is the hypothesisconfirmed of no relationship between Loneliness and Sense of Community in a largecity quarter: There is a significant relation between the two variables in all areas studiedexcept for central Grottaferrata. Instead, relations between Neighborhood and Loneli-ness and between Neighborhood and Life Satisfaction are not significant either in theRome Casalbruciato quarter, as hypothesized, or in central Grottaferrata.

We also wanted to assess whether Sense of Community could be used to predict lev-els of Loneliness and Life Satisfaction, even after having controlled for the contributionof demographic variables and neighborhood relations. Therefore, two more multiple re-gressions were carried out using the stepwise method, respectively, with Loneliness andLife Satisfaction as dependent variables.

In the first block, demographic variables overall account for about 8% of the vari-ance for Loneliness: People feeling the loneliest are those living without a spouse/part-ner (p 5 0.01), those living for a shorter time in the same area (p 5 0.0001) and—slight-ly—those with a smaller family (p 5 0.07) and those with more children (p 5 0.07). Theaddition of group participation increases the variance by 2%, and this variable is highlysignificant (p 5 0.0001); inclusion of Neighborhood Relations accounts for another 8%and Sense of Community for another 8%. After including the latter variable, 26% of thevariance is accounted for and the significant independent variables are Sense of Com-munity (p 5 0.0001), neighborhood (p 5 0.0001), years of residence (p 5 0.0001)—allwith negative sign—and age (the elderly feel more lonely) (p 5 0.04).

The sociodemographic variables considered here were poor predictors of life satis-faction and, on the whole, only account for 5% of variance in the first block. Those moresatisfied with life are people living with their spouse/partner (p 5 0.0001), people livingin the same place for many years (p 5 0.0005) and people with more education (p 50.004). The inclusion of group participation in the second block only increases percent-age variance by 0.4% and this coefficient shows only a tendency toward significance (p 50.058). The inclusion of Neighborhood Relations accounts for another 3.7% of varianceand the inclusion of Sense of Community accounts for 6.6%, making an overall 15.7% ofexplained variance. In the last block, marital status (p 5 0.0008), educational level (p 50.003), Neighborhood Relations (p 5 0.005), and Sense of Community (p 5 0.0001) con-tinue to be significant, while years of residence are no longer significant (p 5 0.11).

The possibility of distinguishing between a level of personal well-being and a sociallevel was also hypothesized; thus, one factor analysis was carried out considering totalscores of the four scales, using the principal component method. This analysis extract-ed just one factor with an eigenvalue above 1 (equal to 2.08), which accounts for a con-siderable amount of variance, i.e., 52%. All four scales have very high factor loadings onthis (Loneliness 5 20.79; Sense of Community 5 0.75; Life Satisfaction 5 0.71; Neigh-borhood Relations 5 0.62). Because the percentage of explained variance of the secondfactor was rather high (20.5%), with an eigenvalue of .82, two factors with varimax rota-tion were also extracted. In the first factor the loadings were the following: Life Satis-faction, .88; Loneliness, 2.76; Sense of Community, .49 and Neighborhood, .06. In thesecond factor the loadings were the following: Neighborhood, .93; Sense of Communi-ty, .58; Loneliness, 2.31 and Life Satisfaction, .02. On the whole, these results do notconfirm the possibility of distinguishing clearly between a level of personal well-being


and a social level. Certainly, Neighborhood Relations are found at a level of social func-tioning, while Sense of Community seems to simultaneously encompass both a social anda personal dimension.

DISCUSSION

First, the results will be synthesized and discussed by considering separately the threegroups of objectives that led us to conduct this study followed by more general comments.

Connection Between Neighborhood Social Relationsand Sense of Community and Their Relations W ith Some Sociodemographic Variables

As we hypothesized, sense of community referred to a broad territory with establishedadministrative boundaries or to a large city quarter may be considered separately fromneighborhood relations; and this distinction is all the more pronounced the greater theurban context. Their relationship is very strong, however, such that neighborhood rela-tions emerge as the strongest predictor of sense of community. To confirm their inter-connection, but not juxtaposition, some sociodemographic variables are related withboth, while some others are related only with Sense of Community or only with Neigh-borhood Relations. At the zero-order level, both correlate with age, years of residence,number of children, whether one lives with a spouse/partner, and with participation ingroups or associations. Instead, being a woman, having a low educational level and liv-ing in a large family only influences the degree of neighboring. By considering all thesesociodemographic variables together, though, only length of residence, being a woman,educational level, family size, and group participation help in predicting NeighborhoodRelations; on the other hand, Sense of Community is predicted by group participation,whether one lives with a spouse/partner, and length of residence.

On the whole, there is agreement between our results and those of other studies,confirming their crosscultural stability. It has already been demonstrated that Sense ofCommunity tends to increase with age (Davidson & Cotter, 1986, 1991; Prezza & Costan-tini, 1998) and with years of residence (Chavis et al., 1986; Pretty et al., 1994, 1996), likeNeighborhood Relations (Buckner 1988; Robinson & Wilkinson, 1995; Skjaeveland et al.,1996). Also, having school-age children increases Sense of Community (Hedger & Kelly,1992) and Neighborhood Relations (Robinson & Wilkinson, 1995).

The importance of length of residence and—less—of age is reconfirmed in this re-search. Sense of community ties with life-cycle phases are further underlined: Here it isconnected to marital status.

Other variables are only related to Neighborhood Relations: People with lower ed-ucational levels have closer relationships with neighbors, as do women, as found in oth-er studies (Buckner, 1988; Robinson & Wilkinson, 1995; Skjaeveland et al. 1996).

Relations Between Sense of Community, With Reference to the Whole Town, and Area of Residence in the To w n

Some of the hypotheses in this group were validated while others were not. As expect-ed, in Spoleto we confirmed that the inhabitants of the PEEP suburb feel less like theybelong to the town; and the differences between the two areas studied are clear.

The hypothesis that inhabitants of the new up-market residential area of Grottafer-


rata, where there is a lot of commuting to Rome, would have an overall weak sense ofcommunity, compared to the older areas of the town, was not confirmed. Differencesnoted at the individual-item level in the scale point to how less participation to town tra-ditions is offset by greater attachment to one’s home and neighborhood—a very greenand attractive place. The decision to move away from the big city to live in a smaller lesschaotic town closer to nature probably increases the sense of community for these in-habitants. This result is somewhat in line with what Hummon (1992) reported on com-munity satisfaction in the US, i.e., that it increases after moving to rural communities.

It was impossible to make a comparison between sense of community in the threelocations of Rome-Casalbruciato, Spoleto, and Grottaferrata (considered overall) be-cause the method used for selecting the subjects was not suitable for such a comparativeanalysis. It is, however, interesting to note that two out of the three Grottaferrata areashave similar values to those found in the Rome quarter, even though Grottaferrata is arather small town where a higher degree of sense of community would be expected. Thismay be due to the peculiar nature of this town, which is very close to a big city like Romeand used as a dormitory—as shown by the high degree of commuting to the capital andnot just for work purposes. Even the rapid changes following the great amount of housebuilding in recent years may have contributed to lessening the sense of community ofthose who have lived there for many years. Many respondents, who informally talked tothe interviewers once questionnaire administration was over, spoke of this fact, sayingthat—for example—the town had become unrecognizable over the last few years, beinginvaded by the Romans, etc. The only area in Grottaferrata where Sense of Communityis greater, compared to Rome-Casalbruciato, is the medieval center. In Spoleto, too,sense of community is very high in its old medieval center, and it would be interestingto conduct other studies to see whether it is just the particular nature of old Italian towncenters that favors a higher sense of community.

It must be stressed that, in Grottaferrata, all the variables considered in the studypredicted only 17% of the overall variance for Sense of Community, while the percent-age variance in Spoleto is a high 52%. Not only is the level of Sense of Community sim-ilar in the three areas of residence in Grottaferrata, but it is also poorly predicted by in-dividual characteristics and is strongly correlated only with neighborhood relations. Itwould appear that the very theory of Sense of Community is more suitable for under-standing the phenomenon in more traditional territorial contexts undergoing slowerchanges.

Sense of Community and Neighborhood RelationsConnected W ith Loneliness and Life Satisfaction

Contrary to our expectations, Sense of Community is linked to Life Satisfaction and toLoneliness even in a big city suburb. Instead, Neighborhood Relations are related to LifeSatisfaction and Loneliness in four out of the six groups. As hypothesized, the relation-ship was not found in the Rome-Casalbruciato area.

Our starting hypothesis was that the elements constituting the quality of life in a bigcity, in the community domain, would not the same as those affecting the quality of lifein smaller urban areas. This hypothesis was formulated based on the lack of any relationfound by Prezza and Costantini (1998) between Sense of Community and Life Satisfac-tion in a Naples quarter. The findings of this study do not support this hypothesis, butthey also do not negate it completely. In the Rome-Casalbruciato area Sense of Com-


munity is linked to personal well-being, but this is not the case for Neighborhood Rela-tions. It is not easy to interpret the differences between the findings of this study andthose obtained by Prezza and Costantini (1998), even though it must be said that theCasalbruciato quarter of Rome has more of a working-class population than the Vomeroquarter in Naples.

Although we considered Life Satisfaction and Loneliness as dependent variables insome of our statistical analyses, we believe that the relationship between these variablesand Sense of Community and Neighborhood Relations are more complex and not uni-directional. However, we would like to underline the fact that, even though Neighbor-hood is a stronger predictor of Sense of Community, the latter helps in predicting bothLoneliness and Life Satisfaction, even after accounting for the influence of Neighbor-hood Relations.

Finally, we hypothesized that the four variables considered here could, at a higherlevel, be separated into two factors, one at the self-functioning level and the other at thesocial-functioning level. Instead, the relationships between them are so close that theyconverge into one factor. Nevertheless, with the extraction of two factors, as hypothe-sized, Loneliness and Life Satisfaction load on the first factor and Neighborhood andSense of Community on the second. However, it is interesting that although the Neigh-borhood is clearly located in the second factor, Sense of Community is found almostspanning the two, as a “cusp between individuals and settings” (Kingston, Mitchell,Florin, & Stevenson, 1999, p. 682).

CONCLUSIONS AND DIRECTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH

One of the contributions of this research was to show the importance of urban and so-cial characteristics of the urban context for understanding and studying Sense of Com-munity. In fact, these characteristics may be important not only for the level of Sense ofCommunity but also because they can modulate the relations between Sense of Com-munity and other variables.

For example, it emerged here that neighborhood relations can be clearly distin-guished from sense of community in a quarter of a large metropolis, while this is nottrue in a small town. Further, the relation found between sense of community and so-ciodemographic characteristics in a small town, which has been stable in recent years,were not confirmed in a smaller town, located very near a metropolis and characterized,in recent years, by a great influx of inhabitants from the nearby metropolis and by an in-crease in commuting.

Another important aspect of this research is that it shows that the characteristics ofthe area of residence can be related to sense of community referred to the whole town,as emerged in Spoleto.

This leads to another issue that has not yet been explored deeply regarding sense ofcommunity, i.e., is it possible to distinguish sense of community referred to a limited ter-ritory (for example, a quarter), from that referred to a larger territory (for example, awhole town)? And to what degree? And if it can be distinguished, which is most con-nected with individual well-being? And how are they reciprocally influenced? Or, is whatPuddifoot (1995, 1996) affirmed true that independently of the explicit request madeto subjects to refer to the whole town when completing the Sense of Community Scale,people answered not so much with reference to an established geographical territory but


to a “mental” territory or “their territory.” This territory does not have clearly definedlimits and the concepts of home, area, and town overlap and at times becomes confused.It would be interesting to conduct further research to clarify these aspects in terms ofboth theory and application. For example, sense of community could be assessed morethan once in the same subjects by referring to various territories, i.e., block, quarter, orsection of the city and entire city. Several indicators of well-being could also be measuredat the same time.

Finally, our results indicate the importance to provide more information when re-sults of sense of community research are reported, i.e., on the area subjects live, on thearea sense of community was referred to and on the larger urban context the area is partof. This could improve our understanding of the mechanisms underlying sense of com-munity and could be of help in comparing different studies.

REFERENCES

Bentler, P.M. (1995). EQS: Structural equation program manual. Encino, CA: Multivariate SoftwareInc.

Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A.P. (1999). Multidimensional per-ception of residential environment quality and neighborhood attachment in the urban envi-ronment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19, 331–352.

Botta, A. (1994). Senso di comunità, rete sociale e partecipazione a circoli culturali e ricreativi:indagine nella comunità di Siano (Sense of community, social network and group participation:A study in the community of Siano). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University “La Sapien-za,” Rome.

Buckner, J.C. (1988). The development of an instrument to measure neighborhood cohesion.American Journal of Community Psychology, 16, 771–791.

Chavis, D.M., Hogge, J.H., McMillan, D.W., & Wandersman, A. (1986). Sense of communitythrough Brunwick’s lens: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 14, 24–40.

Chavis, D.M., & Wandersman, A. (1990). Sense of community in the urban environment: A cata-lyst for partecipation and community development. American Journal of Community Psychol-ogy, 18, 55–81.

Coulton, C.J., Korbin, J.E., & Su, M. (1996). Measuring neighborhood context for young childrenin an urban area. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 5–31.

Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1986). Measurement of sense of community within the sphere ofcity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16, 608–619.

Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1989). Sense of community and political participation. Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 17, 119–125.

Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1991). The relationship between sense of community and subjec-tive well-being: A first look. Journal of Community Psychology, 19, 246–253.

Davidson, W.B., & Cotter, P.R. (1997). Psychological sense of community and newspaper reader-ship. Psychological Reports, 80, 659–665.

Diener, E., Emmons, R.A., Larsen, R.J., & Griffin, S. (1985). The Satisfaction with Life Scale. Jour-nal of Personality Assessment, 4, 71–75.

Glynn, T.J. (1981). Psychological sense of community: Measurement and application. Human Re-lation, 34, 780–818.

Glynn, T.J. (1986). Neighborhood and sense of community. Journal of Community Psychology, 14,341–352.

Granovetter, M.S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.


Hedges, A., & Kelly, J. (1992). Identification with local areas: Report on a qualitative study. Lon-don: H.M. Government, cit. in Puddifoot, J.E. (1995), Dimensions of community identity. Jour-nal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5, 337–370.

Hummon, D.M. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In I. Altman,& M. L. Setha (Eds.), Place attachment. Human behavior and environment (pp. 253–278). NewYork: Plenum Press.

ISTAT (1995). Censimento generale della popolazione (General census of population). Roma: Istat.

Kasarda, J., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society. American SociologicalReview, 39, 328–339.

Kingston, S., Mitchell, R., Florin, P., & Stevenson, S. (1999). Sense of community in neighborhoodsas a multi-level construct. Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 681–694.

Martini, E.R. & Sequi, R. (1995). La comunità locale (Local Community). Roma: Nuova Italia Sci-entifica.

McGuire, J.B. (1997). The reliability and validity of a questionnaire describing neighborhood char-acteristics relevant to families and young children living in urban areas. Journal of Communi-ty Psychology, 25, 551–566.

McMillan, W.D., & Chavis, D.M. (1986). Sense of community: A definition and theory. Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 1, 6–23.

Moles, A.A. (1979). Methodologic notes and criteria for integration of quality life indicators. Stras-burgo: pubblicazioni CEE.

Nasar, J.L., & Julian, D.A. (1995). The psychological sense of community in the neighborhood.Journal of the American Planning Association, 61, 178–1840.

Plas, J.M., & Lewis, S.E. (1996). Environmental factors and sense of community in a planned town.American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 109–143.

Perkins, D., Florin, P., Rich, R. & Wandersman, A. (1990). Participation and the social and physi-cal environment of residential blocks: Crime and community context. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 18, 83–115.

Perry, J., & Felce, D. (1995). Objective assessment of quality of life: How much do they agree witheach others? Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 5, 1–19.

Pretty, G.M.H., Andrewes. L., & Collet, C. (1994). Exploring adolescent’s sense of community andits relationship to loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology, 22, 346–357.

Pretty, G.M.H., Conroy, C., Dugay, J., Fowler, K., & Williams, D. (1996). Sense of community andits relevance to adolescents of all ages. Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 365–379.

Prezza, M., & Costantini, S. (1998). Sense of community and life satisfaction: Investigation in threedifferent territorial contexts. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology, 8, 181–194.

Prezza, M., Costantini, S., Chiarolanza, V., & Di Marco, S. (1999). La scala italiana del senso di co-munità. (The Italian Scale of Sense of Community). Psicologia della salute., 3/4, 135–158.

Puddifoot, J.E. (1995). Dimensions of community identity. Journal of Community & Applied So-cial Psychology, 5, 337–370.

Puddifoot, J.E. (1996). Some initial consideration in the measurement of community identity. Jour-nal of Community Psychology, 24, 327–336.

Rhoads, D., & Raymond, J.S. (1981). Quality of life and competent community. American Journalof Community Psychology, 9, 293–301.

Robinson, D. & Wilkinson, D. (1995). Sense of community in a remote mining town: Validating aNeighborhood Cohesion Scale. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23, 137–148.

Russel, D., Peplau, L.A., & Cutrona, C.E. (1980). The Revised UCLA Loneliness Scale: Concurrentand discriminant validity evidence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 472–480.


Sagy, S., Stern, E., & Krakover, S. (1996). Macro and micro level factors related to sense of com-munity: The case of temporary neighborhood in Israel. American Journal of Community Psy-chology, 24, 657–676.

Skjaeveland, O., Garling, T., & Maeland. J.G. (1996). A multidimensional measure of neighboring.American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 413–435.

Tedeschi, G. (1997). Senso di comunità e rapporti di vicinato in quattro zone dell’Umbria. (Senseof Community and neighborhood relations in four areas of the Umbria region). Unpublisheddoctoral dissertation, University “La Sapienza,” Rome.

Torri, S. (1998). Il teatro e il senso di comunità. Una ricerca a Monticchiello e Castelmuzio (Senseof community and theater: A study in Monticchiello and Castelmuzio). Unpublished doctoraldissertation, University “La Sapienza,” Rome.

Unger, D.G., & Wandersman, A. (1985). The importance of neighbors: The social, cognitive andaffective components of neighboring. American Journal of Community Psychology, 13, 139–169.

Vairo, M.. (1996). Variabili di personalità, sostegno sociale e coping come moderatori degli even-ti stressanti. (Personality characteristics, social support and coping as moderators of the effectsof stressful events). Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University “La Sapienza,” Rome.


sense of community referred to the whole town

Documents