Advertisement

Journal of Housing and the Built Environment

, Volume 34, Issue 4, pp 1023–1041 | Cite as

Do neighbour relationships still matter?

  • Jukka HirvonenEmail author
  • Johanna Lilius
Article
  • 157 Downloads

Abstract

Neighbour relations form an integral part of human social networks and urban planning has historically sought to strengthen social networks in neighbourhoods. There is also an ongoing discussion about the decreasing significance of place for social ties. Drawing on the results of a nationwide Finnish survey concerning neighbour relations and comparing it with data from 1986, this paper shows that especially the young age groups have fewer weak and strong ties with neighbours than before, whereas problematic neighbour relations have become a little more prevalent. The paper argues that only small differences exist between house types and between cities and rural areas concerning the prevalence of various types of neighbourly relations. The paper also suggests that there are in fact good opportunities and need to develop social ties also in rental houses and in urban circumstances.

Keywords

Finland Neighbour relationships Sense of community Social ties Survey data 

Notes

References

  1. Butler, T., & Robson, G. (2003). London calling: The middle classes and the re-making of inner London. Oxford: Berg.Google Scholar
  2. Easthope, H., & Tice, A. (2011). Children in apartments: Implications for the compact city. Urban Policy and Research, 29(4), 415–434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Eskelä, E. (2015). Skilled migrants face difficulties with housing in Helsinki. Helsinki Quarterly, 3(2015), 36–43.Google Scholar
  4. Filipovič Hrast, M., & Dolničar, V. (2011). Sense of community and the importance of values: Comparison of two neighborhoods in Slovenia. Journal of Urban Affairs, 34, 317–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Forrest, R. (2012). Housing and social life. In D. F. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark, & K. Gibb (Eds.), The Sage handbook of housing studies (pp. 313–326). London: Sage.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Forrest, R., & Kearns, A. (2001). Social cohesion, social capital and the neighborhood. Urban Studies, 38, 2125–2143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Gans, H. J. (1971). Planering och socialt liv: Vänskapsförhållanden och grannrelationer i förortsområden. In G. Lindberg (Ed.), Urbana processer. Studier i social ekologi (pp. 225–234). Lund: Lund CWK Gleerup bokförlag.Google Scholar
  8. Gifford, R. (2007). The consequences of living in high-rise buildings. Architectural Science Review, 50(1), 2–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Glanville, J. L., & Paxton, P. (2007). How do we learn to trust? A confirmatory tetrad analysis of the sources of generalized trust. Social Psychology Quarterly, 70, 230–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Granovetter, M. S. (1973). The strength of weak ties. American Journal of Sociology, 78, 1360–1380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Guest, A. M., & Wierzbicki, S. K. (1999). Social ties at the neighborhood level. Two decades of GSS evidence. Urban Affairs Review, 35, 92–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Haythornthwaite, C. (2011). Strong, weak, and latent ties and the impact of new media. The Information Society, 18(2002), 385–401.Google Scholar
  13. Henning, C., & Lieberg, M. (1996). Strong ties or weak ties? Neighbourhood networks in a new perspective. Scandinavian Housing & Planning Research, 13, 3–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hirvonen, J. (2013). Suomalaisen naapuruuden piirteitä asukaskyselyn valossa. Aalto-yliopisto, Tiede+Teknologia 4/2013. Helsinki.Google Scholar
  15. Jaśkiewicz, M., & Wiwatowska, E. (2018). Perceived neighborhood disorder and quality of life: The role of the human-place bond, social interactions, and out-group blaming. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 58, 31–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Karsten, L. (2003). Family gentrifiers: Challenging the city as a place to build a career and to raise children. Urban Studies, 40, 2573–2584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Karsten, L. (2015). Middle-class households with children on vertical family living in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 47(2015), 241–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landry, C., & Bianchini, F. (1995). The creative city. London: Demos.Google Scholar
  19. Lapintie, K. (1997). Kaupunkisuunnittelu hyvän asuinympäristön määrittelijänä. In K. Taipale & H. Schulman (Eds.), Koti Helsingissä. Urbaanin asumisen tulevaisuus (pp. 229–254). City of Helsinki: Urban Facts.Google Scholar
  20. Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come after 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lilius, J. (2018). Reclaiming cities as spaces of middle class parenthood. Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  22. Lujanen, M. (Ed.) (2004). Housing and housing policy in the Nordic countries. Copenhagen: Nordic Council of Ministers.Google Scholar
  23. Manturuk, K., Lindblad, M., & Quercia, R. (2010). Friends and neighbours: Homeownership and social capital among low- to moderate-income families. Journal of Urban Affairs, 32, 471–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Mollenhorst, G. (2014). Neighbour relations in the Netherlands: New developments. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 106, 110–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mollenhorst, G., Völker, B., & Schutjens, V. (2009). Neighbour relations in the Netherlands—A decade of evidence. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 100, 549–558.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Morgan, D. (2009). Acquaintances: The space between intimates and strangers. Sociology and social change. Maidenhead: Open University Press, McGraw-Hill Education.Google Scholar
  27. Mulgan, G. & Burdett, R. (2005). What makes a good neighbourhood? RSA Journal, 152(5520), 56–59.Google Scholar
  28. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2015). Income distribution statistics. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar
  29. Official Statistics of Finland (OSF). (2016). Dwellings and housing conditions overview 2016 (Vol. 2). Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar
  30. Parker, A., & Kearns, A. (2006). The multi-dimensional neighbourhood and health: A cross-sectional analysis of the Scottish Household Survey 2001. Health & Place, 12, 1–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. The collapse and revival of American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.Google Scholar
  32. Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversity and community in the twenty-first century. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(2), 137–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Räsänen, P., & Kouvo, A. (2007). Linked or divided by the web? Internet use and sociability in four European countries. Information, Communication & Society, 10, 219–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sampson, R. J. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society: A multilevel systemic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Sandercock, L. (1998). Towards cosmopolis. London: Wiley.Google Scholar
  36. Sauli, H., Ahola, A., Lahelma, E., & Savolainen, J. (1989). Elinolot numeroina: Vuoden 1986 elinolotutkimus. Elinolot 1989: 1. SVT. Helsinki: Statistics Finland.Google Scholar
  37. Schiefloe, P. M. (1985). Naermiljö i bysamfunn. Om näermiljö i byer. Oslo Bergen Stavanger Tromsö: Byforskningsprogrammet, Universitetsförlag.Google Scholar
  38. Schiefloe, P. M. (1990). Networks in urban neighbourhoods: Lost, saved or liberated communities? Scandinavian Housing and Planning Research, 7(2), 93–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Simmel, G. (1976/1903). The metropolis and mental life [Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben.] The Sociology of Georg Simmel. New York: Free Press.Google Scholar
  40. Vervoort, M. (2012). Ethnic concentration in the neighbourhood and ethnic minorities’ social integration: Weak and strong social ties examined. Urban Studies, 49, 897–915.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Völker, B., & Flap, H. (2007). Sixteen million neighbors: A multilevel study of the role of neighbors in the personal networks of the Dutch. Urban Affairs Review, 43, 256–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Wellman, B. (1996). Are personal communities local? A Dumptarian reconsideration. Social Networks, 18, 347–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology, 44, 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Yosano, A., & Hayashi, N. (2005). Social stratification, intermediary groups, and creation of trustfulness. Sociological Theory and Methods, 20, 27–44.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.City of Helsinki, Executive Office, Urban Research and StatisticsHelsinkiFinland
  2. 2.Department of ArchitectureAalto UniversityAaltoFinland

Personalised recommendations