lable at ScienceDirect

Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442

Contents lists avai

Journal of Environmental Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier .com/locate/ jep

Neighborhood attachment and its correlates: Exploring neighborhood conditions,collective efficacy, and gardening

Nicole Comstock a, L. Miriam Dickinson b, Julie A. Marshall c, Mah-J. Soobader d, Mark S. Turbin e,Michael Buchenau f, Jill S. Litt g,*aColorado Department of Public Health and Environment, 4300 Cherry Creek Drive South, Denver, CO 80246, USAbDepartment of Family Medicine, University of Colorado Denver, 12631 E. 17th Avenue, F496, Aurora, CO 80045, USAcDepartment of Epidemiology, Colorado School of Public Health, 13001 E. 17th Place, Aurora, CO 80045, USAd Statworks, 19 Carey Circle, Canton, MA 02021, USAe Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado Boulder, Campus Box: IBS 1, 483 UCB, Boulder, CO 80309, USAfDenver Urban Gardens, 3377 Blake Street, Suite 113, Denver, CO 80205, USAgDepartment of Environmental and Occupational Health, Colorado School of Public Health, 13001 E. 17th Place, Aurora, CO 80045, USA

a r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:Available online 11 May 2010

Keywords:Neighborhood attachmentMultilevel modelHome and community gardeningIncivilitiesSafetyUrban environmentHealth

* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 3037244402; fax:E-mail address: jill.litt@ucdenver.edu (J.S. Litt).

0272-4944/$ e see front matter � 2010 Elsevier Ltd.doi:10.1016/j.jenvp.2010.05.001

a b s t r a c t

Neighborhood attachment relates to one’s emotional connection to physical and social environments.Such bonds are critical for shaping how people interact with their local environments, connect withothers and may be vital for fostering sustainable health behavior change related to nutrition and physicalactivity. Using data from a population-based survey of neighborhood environments and health in Denver,Colorado (n¼ 410 respondents; n¼ 45 block-groups) and hierarchical linear modeling techniques, weexamined the relationship between objective and perceived neighborhood conditions (e.g., crime,physical incivilities, sense of safety), social processes (e.g., collective efficacy) and recreational gardeningand neighborhood attachment. Results indicate length of residency, collective efficacy, and home andcommunity garden participation are associated with neighborhood attachment. Further research iswarranted to consider neighborhood attachment as an intervening mechanism through which gardensand other outdoor everyday places may influence health behavior change.

� 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Community and home gardens represent examples of theneighborhood environment that connect people to place and havebeen identified as important for promoting a range of communityand individual benefits. The “place-focus” of gardens has beendeemed “central to their far-reaching benefits (Kaplan & Kaplan,2005).” Moreover, because gardens are natural places that areactivity-based, they require “action, responsibility and nurturing”(Kaplan & Kaplan, 2005). Such places promote connectionsbetween people and their local environment, which is importantfor fostering community engagement, environmental action andwillingness to access local amenities and resources (Gobster,Nassauer, Daniel, & Fry, 2007; Manzo & Perkins, 2006). Suchconnections are also vital for promoting healthy lifestyles andmoreresilient neighborhoods (Cohen, Finch, Bower, & Sastry, 2006;

þ1 3037244491.

All rights reserved.

Cohen, Inagami, & Finch, 2008; Hawe & Shiell, 2000; Semenza,March, & Bontempo, 2006; Semenza & Krishnasamy, 2007).

The processes by which gardens lead to these social and healthbenefits are not well understood. In this paper, we explore neigh-borhood attachment, a psychological process that involves people’semotional bonds to neighborhood surroundings. We explore itsvariation between neighborhoods and its individual and neigh-borhood correlates, including home and community gardenparticipation.

1.1. Neighborhood attachment

Neighborhood attachment is a social-psychological process thatcaptures one’s emotional connection to his or her social andphysical surroundings (Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2003, 2004a).Neighborhood attachment is shaped by features of the built envi-ronment and perceptions of that environment (Hummon, 1992). Itpromotes stability, involvement, and investment in the physicaland social characteristics of the neighborhood, which can benefitboth the resident and the neighborhood, especially in deprived

N. Comstock et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442436

neighborhoods (Galster & Hesser, 1982; Mesch & Manor, 1998;Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996).

Residents with low attachment to their neighborhood haveminimal ties and low investment, aremore likely tomove (Manzo &Perkins, 2006; Twigger-Ross & Uzzell, 1996; Vinsel, Brown, & Foss,1980). While neighborhoods typically tend to be homogeneousareas that attract residents with similar interests and lifestyles,neighborhood attachment can vary from block to block withina neighborhood (Brown et al., 2003). Although generally advanta-geous, high neighborhood attachment can also lead to detrimentalconsequences (Lewicka, 2005; Manzo, 2005; Manzo & Perkins,2006; Wakefield, Elliot, Cole, & Eyles, 2001) by inhibiting mobilityand limiting individual progress in places that offer little economicgrowth (Fried, 2000). Our study, however, aims to explore people’spositive bonds to neighborhood places, which can lead to higherlevels of community engagement (Manzo & Perkins, 2006) andserve as an important cognitive backdrop for humaneenvironmentinteractions that are vital to health behaviors (Proshansky, Fabian,& Kaminoff, 1983).

1.2. Factors affecting neighborhood attachment: neighborhoodconditions and perceptions

This section describes elements of the built environment thatmay affect neighborhood attachment, recognizing that the way inwhich our neighborhoods are designed and maintained shapeplace-based social and psychological processes, and in turn, affecthealth behaviors and health status (Davis, Cohen, & Mikkelsen,2003; Jackson & Kochtitzky, 2003; Kweon, Sullivan, & Wiley,1998; Pretty, Andrewes, & Collett, 1994; Prezza, Amici, Roberti, &Tedeschi, 2001; Skjaeveland & Garling, 1997). Residents whoperceive their neighborhood as a safe place (perceived safety) mayhave higher levels of neighborhood attachment. In turn, residentswho are more attached to the neighborhood tend to be morevigilant in guarding against crime in the neighborhood (Brownet al., 2003, 2004a; McGuire, 1997; Sampson, 1988). In contrastvictimization and perception of crime are not associated withneighborhood attachment (Woldoff, 2002). It is plausible thatresidents living in a neighborhood with lower actual crime rateswould have higher levels of neighborhood attachment; however,there are mixed findings in the literature (Taylor, 1996).

Physical incivilities include a variety of social and physicalconditions that indicate deterioration within the neighborhood,such as litter, graffiti, homes in disrepair, and vacant or desertedhouses or stores. Incivilities are often a sign of disinvestment anddisadvantage in the neighborhood, both financially and socially(Reisig & Cancino, 2004), and have been linked to crime-relatedproblems (Brown et al., 2004a; Brown, Perkins, & Brown, 2004b).

There have been inconsistent findings on the relationshipbetween perceived and observed physical incivilities and neigh-borhood attachment, as some studies have found that residentswho perceived fewer incivilities reported higher levels of neigh-borhood attachment and neighborhoods with lower observedincivilities had higher levels of neighborhood attachment (Brownet al., 2003; Brown, Brown, & Perkins, 2004; McGuire, 1997).Others have found higher levels of neighborhood attachment indeteriorating neighborhoods with more observed incivilities(Taylor, 1996).

Neighborhoods with high levels of collective efficacy may haveresidents with higher levels of neighborhood attachment (Brownet al., 2003). Collective efficacy is defined as “the link betweenmutual trust and a shared willingness to intervene for the commongood of the neighborhood” (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997),and is comprised of two major components: levels of social cohe-sion and informal social control within a neighborhood. Social

cohesion involves solidarity, trust, and social connections amongneighbors. Higher neighborhood attachment levels have beenobserved in persons who have friendly relationships with theirneighbors (Mesch & Manor, 1998; Sampson & Groves, 1989).Informal social control involves feelings of control over neighbor-hood happenings and conditions, and may be connected toneighborhood attachment, which has been theorized to provideindividuals with a sense of security, identity, and control(Proshansky et al., 1983; Riger, LeBailly, & Gordon, 1981).

1.3. Factors affecting neighborhood attachment: individual-level

Length of residency, homeowner occupancy, race, ethnicity andother socio-economic indicators have been shown to relate to one’sattachment to neighborhood. Greater length of residence ina neighborhood promotes neighborhood stability and is a positivecorrelate of neighborhood attachment (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini,Bonnes, & Ercolani, 1999; Brown et al., 2003; Knez, 2005;Sampson, 1988, 1991; Taylor, 1996), although this relationshipvaries depending on the social and demographic background ofresidents. Bolan found that new migrants and chronic movers arejust as willing as longer-term residents to develop feelings ofneighborhood attachment (Bolan,1997). Neighborhood attachmenthas been shown to be higher for blocks that have a higherproportion of homeowners (Brown et al., 2003). Higher neighbor-hood attachment levels have been seen among non-White andHispanic residents when compared to White non-Hispanic resi-dents (Brown et al., 2003; Brown, Brown, et al., 2004). Otherresearch, however, did not find a statistical relationship betweenneighborhood attachment and neighborhood racial/ethniccomposition (Taylor, 1996). Evidence suggests that higher socio-economic status, as measured by education, was positively associ-ated with neighborhood attachment (Mesch & Manor, 1998; Taylor,1996). More affluent neighborhoods may be expected to havehigher levels of neighborhood attachment compared to deprivedneighborhoods, as deprived neighborhoods may have higher levelsof crime, less residential stability, and fewer social networks;however, there is again conflicting evidence in the literature aspeople who report lower income levels have higher levels ofneighborhood attachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999).

1.4. Gardening, place-based social processes and communitybenefits

A community-based intervention such as gardening can bebeneficial for both the social aspects of the neighborhood as well asthe health of individuals. Gardening provides a way for residents toventure outside of their home, interact with others in the neigh-borhood, and develop social relationships. The quality and quantityof informal contacts is critical to the formation of neighborhoodsocial ties (Kuo, Sullivan, Coley, & Brunson, 1998), which in turn,may influence place-based social processes such as collective effi-cacy and feelings of neighborhood attachment.

In general, gardens and public open spaces can hold specialmeanings to people throughout their lives (Francis, 1995) and cancontribute to neighborhood satisfaction, sense of communitybelonging, and social contacts with others in the neighborhood,thereby advancing social networks (Clayton, 2007; Kearney, 2009;Kim & Kaplan, 2004; Kuo et al., 1998). Gardens also have beenshown to benefit communities by improving relationships amongpeople, increasing community pride, and serving as an impetus forbroader community improvement and mobilization (Armstrong,2000; Wakefield, Yeudall, Taron, Reynolds, & Skinner, 2007).Gardens have been shown to be a positive social influence withinneighborhoods and act as a catalyst for other positive place-based

N. Comstock et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442 437

social dynamics, such as the generation of collective efficacy (Teiget al., 2009). There is evidence that place-based interventionsthat promote social networks and community involvement willlead to stronger sense of neighborhood attachment (Mesch &Manor, 1998; Taylor, 1996). Moreover, interventions that promotecultural activities and support places for social interaction andgreen space are associated with higher levels of neighborhoodattachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999).

The studies described above consider the community impacts ofgardens through the gardener perspective. The present studyallows us to compare people who participate in community andhome gardening activities with people who do not garden. It ishypothesized that participation in recreational gardening is asso-ciated with higher levels of neighborhood attachment. Thefollowing analysis examines individual- and neighborhood-levelcorrelates of neighborhood attachment and examines the role ofrecreational gardening as it relates to levels of neighborhoodattachment.

2. Methods

We collected data for this cross-sectional study betweenOctober 2006 and November 2007 in neighborhoods east of I-25 inDenver, Colorado. We used a multi-frame sampling design, a usefulmethodology for sampling rare populations, which consisted of anarea-based sample of the general population (n¼ 1154) and a list-based census of community gardeners (n¼ 300) with a recruitmentgoal of 480 households from 40 block-groups. Respondents whowere 18 years or older were eligible to participate. For eachhousehold, one adult was randomly selected to complete thesurvey using the “most-recent-birthday” method.

Of the initial 1454 households we attempted to contact, 655(45%) could not be contacted. Of the remaining 799 households, 473households completed the survey (59%). Physical inaccessibilityhad the highest impact on response rates, which was largely due tosecured premises (e.g., apartments and gated communities),signage prohibiting unsolicited visitation and dogs.

Although multi-level procedures can tolerate a limited numberblock-groups with a very small group size, the number of block-groups with a group size of 1 or 2 in our original sample wasrelatively large (n¼ 47 block-groups). Thus, the original block-group sample (n¼ 92 block-groups) was restricted to include onlyblock-groups with aminimum group size of 3 (n¼ 45 block-groups)as the impact of small group sizes on group-level variance esti-mates and the large proportion of groups with very small groupsizes on standard errors has been unclear (Clarke, 2008; Theallet al., 2008). These restrictions reduced the number of block-groups from 92 to 45, the number of respondents from 473 to 410,and the number of community gardeners from 63 (13%) to 41 (8%)of the sample. Aside from the change in percent of communitygardeners, all other variables included in this analysis werecomparable to the unrestricted dataset. In terms of group size, 13%of block-groups had less than 5 respondents and the average groupsize was 7.6 respondents per block-group. Finally, the sociodemo-graphic profile of block-groups included in this analysis wascomparable to all block-groups located east of I-25 in Denver (thestudy area). These data are available upon request.

2.1. Data collection

Face-to-face surveys and neighborhood audits were the twoprimary methods of data collection. The 45-min face-to-facesurveys were conducted at the home of the sampled English- orSpanish-speaking adults aged 18 years or older. Neighborhoodaudits were conducted to objectively measure physical and social

environments for each respondent. Trained data collectors assessedthe street environment by auditing both sides of the “face block”between two intersecting streets on which the study participantlived. This auditing method is recognized as important in under-standing the role of the neighborhood environment in affectinghealth behaviors and health status and has been used in previousstudies of the built environment and health (Brown et al., 2003,2004b; Caughy, O’Campo, & Patterson, 2001; Hoehner et al.,2005; Long & Perkins, 2007; McGuire, 1997; Saelens, Sallis, Black,& Chen, 2003).

The face-to-face survey and audit instruments were developedfrom existing surveys on neighborhood environments and healththat included questions on walkability (Saelens et al., 2003), socialcohesion and informal social control (Sampson et al., 1997), placeattachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999), sense of safety and fear of crime(Gorman-Smith, Tolan, & Henry, 2000), and incivilities (Sampsonet al., 1997). Individual-level measures were computed by aver-aging z-scores of the items shown in Table 1. Block-group observedincivilities were computed as the mean of the six items shown inTable 1.

Denver crime data (2005e2007) were acquired from the Cityand County of Denver Police Department. Block-group leveleducation and population data were obtained from the US 2000Census.

2.2. Measures

Garden participation was determined by asking respondentsabout gardening activities conducted during the last growingseason. Gardeners were asked to indicate the type of gardeningactivity: community gardening, backyard gardening, containergardening, and gardening in a neighbor’s garden. Two separategardening variables were created: any gardening, (0¼ no, 1¼ yes)and gardening type (0¼ no gardening, 1¼ home gardening,2¼ community gardening).

Individual-level sociodemographic covariates included length ofresidence in the neighborhood (1 ¼ �2 years, 2¼ 3e7 years,3¼ 8e17 years, 4 ¼ �18 years), home ownership, and race/ethnicity. Gender and marital status were not included in theanalysis, as neither was significantly correlated with neighborhoodattachment. Age was not included in the analysis because it washighly correlated with length of residence in the neighborhood(r¼ 0.53, p< 0.0001). Educational attainment was used asa measure of individual socio-economic status as it provides a morestable proxy than income. Adding income into the models did notadd any further explanatory information than education alone.

Block-group education and poverty data were highly correlatedand introduced high levels of multicollinearity in the models asindicated by the tolerance and variance inflation factor for eachvariable, using a cutoff of less than 0.4 for tolerance and greaterthan 2.5 for the variance inflation factor (block-group poverty tol-erance¼ 0.23, variance inflation¼ 4.44; block-group educationtolerance 0.18, variance inflation¼ 5.71). Block-group educationwas selected as a proxy for block-group socio-economic status andwas measured by the percentage of households within a block-group with the highest educational attainment of a college degreeor more. For the block-group level objective crime measure, weused average crime rate per 1000 persons.

2.3. Statistical analysis

We employed hierarchical linear models (HLM) with a randomintercept to analyze our multi-level data. We constructed a series ofmodels predicting neighborhood attachment (Table 3), startingwith an intercept-only (unconditional) model that assesses the

Table 1Composite measures used in analysis.

Composite measure Scale Cronbach’s alpha

Individual neighborhood attachment (Bonaiuto et al., 1999; Bonnes, Bonaiuto, et al., 1997)1. This is the ideal neighborhood to live in. 4-point scale (strongly disagree to

strongly agree)0.86

2. Now this neighborhood is a part of me.3. There are places in the neighborhood to which I am very emotionally attached.4. It would be very hard for me to leave this neighborhood.5. I would willingly leave this neighborhood.a

6. I would not willingly leave this neighborhood for another.

Individual perceived safety (Tolan, Gorman-Smith, & Henry, 2001)How afraid are you of being attacked or robbed:1. At home in your house or apartment? 4-point scale (very fearful to

not fearful)0.85

2. On the streets of your neighborhood during the day?3. Out alone at night in your neighborhood?4. Out with other people at night in your neighborhood?

Has fear of crime in your neighborhood caused you to limit the places or timesthat you will:

Yes/no

5. Go shopping?6. Work?7. Go by yourself?

Individual collective efficacy (Earls, Brooks-Gunn, Raudenbush, et al., 1997)1. This is a close-knit neighborhood. 4-point scale (strongly disagree to

strongly agree)0.90

2. There are adults in this neighborhood that children can look up to.3. People around here are willing to help their neighbors.4. People in this neighborhood generally do not get along with each other.a

5. You can count on adults in this neighborhood to watch out that children are safeand don’t get into trouble.

6. People in this neighborhood do not share the same values.a

7. Parents in this neighborhood know their children’s friends.8. Adults in this neighborhood know who the local children are.9. Parents in this neighborhood generally know each other.10. If a group of neighborhood children were skipping school and hanging

out on a street corner,how likely is it that your neighbors would do something about it?

5-point scale (very unlikely to very likely)

11. If some children were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, howlikely is it that yourneighbors would do something about it?

12. If a child was showing disrespect to an adult, how likely is it that people in yourneighborhood would scold that child?

Individual perceived incivilities (Earls et al., 1997)How much of a problem:1. Is litter, broken glass or trash on the sidewalks and streets? 3-point scale (not a problem to a big problem) 0.882. Is graffiti on buildings and walls?3. Are vacant or deserted houses or storefronts?4. Is drinking in public?5. Is people selling or using drugs?6. Are groups of teenagers or adults hanging out in the neighborhood andcausing trouble?7. Is different social groups who do not get along with each other?

Block group observed incivilities (Caughy et al., 2001)1. Overall condition of residential units. 4-point scale (good/excellent to poor/deteriorated) 0.612. Overall condition of resident-kept grounds.3. Proportion of residential units burned or boarded up. 4-point scale (none to more than half)4. Proportion of block that is vacant or undeveloped.5. Presence of negative graffiti/vandalism (>1 square meter) No/yes6. Presence of significant litter (>1 square meter)

a Coding for this item is reversed because it is asked in the negative.

N. Comstock et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442438

extent to which neighborhood attachment varies by block-group.Five subsequent models were developed to understand the rela-tionship between individual and neighborhood characteristics andneighborhood attachment. Model A covariates included length ofresidence, home ownership, race/ethnicity, and education. Lengthof residence was treated as a categorical variable because prelimi-nary analyses indicated a non-linear relationship between length ofresidence and neighborhood attachment. Model B added block-group level education. Models CeF build on Model B by sequen-tially adding individual and block-group level correlates.

In a multi-level model, contextual and/or compositional effectsare considered to be present when the coefficient for the higherlevel variable is significant even after adjusting for the effect at the

lower level (Bryk & Raudenbush, 2000). Therefore, subsequentmodels tested pairs of individual and block-group level variables todetermine if contextual effects were present. Model C added indi-vidual-level perceived and block-group level observed incivilities.Model D added perceived safety and block-group level crime.Model E added self-reported and aggregated collective efficacy.Model F included all individual and block-group level variables,with the exception of the gardening status variables.

Two final models were constructed that include all variables inmodels AeF that were significant at the p� 0.05 level and type ofgardening participation (final model G) and any gardening partic-ipation (final model H). Significant individual and block-group levelvariables (p� 0.05) were included in the final models as well as

Table 2Individual- and block-group level characteristics (respondents¼ 410, blockgroups¼ 45).

N (%) Median Mean SD Minimum Maximum

Individual-levelNeighborhood attachment 0.0 0.0 0.7 �2.1 1.4Perceived safety 0.3 0.0 0.7 �2.7 0.6Perceived incivilities �0.3 0.0 0.7 �0.8 2.3Collective efficacy 0.0 0.0 0.6 �2.29 1.4Age (years) 45 45 16 18 94

Education levelLess than a college degree 192 (47)College degree or higher 218 (53)

Length of residence in neighborhood�2 years 93 (23)3e7 years 122 (30)8e17 years 96 (23)�18 years 99 (24)

Homeowner 282 (69)White, non-Hispanic 221 (54)

Gardening activitiesCommunity gardener 31 (8)Home gardening 197 (48)No gardening 182 (44)

Participation in anygardening

228 (56)

Block-group level N¼ 45Average crime rate 62 77 45 8.2 258Observed incivilities 0.6 0.7 0.3 0.2 1.3Aggregate collectiveefficacy

2.2 2.2 0.4 1.3 3.0

Proportion with less thancollege degree

42 42 26 0 80

N. Comstock et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442 439

corresponding individual and block-group level variables regard-less of their significance in the initial models (e.g., individual andblock-group educational attainment). The multi-level analysis usedthe Proc Mixed procedures in SAS version 9.2.

3. Results

Descriptive statistics for each of the variables used in ourmultivariate analysis are presented in Table 2 (n¼ 410 respondents,45 blocks). The median age of study respondents was 45 years(range 18e94 years). The respondent population was mostly Whitenon-Hispanic, homeowners, and highly educated with 53% ofrespondents being college graduates. The majority of respondentsreported participating in some type gardening (56%), whichincluded community gardening, backyard gardening, containergardening, or gardening in a neighbor’s garden.

Table 3 presents correlation coefficients and results from themulti-level models. All individual-level variables were significantlycorrelated with the outcome variable of individual neighborhoodattachment.

Our models demonstrate that individual covariates, such aslength of residency were significantly associated with neighbor-hood attachment levels, and this effect remained relativelyconstant across models. However, home ownership was signifi-cantly related to neighborhood attachment in models AeD only.Race and ethnicity and individual-level education were non-significant in our multivariate models.

Residents of block-groups with higher proportions of collegegraduates reported greater neighborhood attachment (model B),even after adjusting for individual educational level. Individualswho perceived more incivilities had significantly lower levels of

neighborhood attachment (model C) whilst aggregate block-grouplevel incivilities were not related to neighborhood attachment afteradjusting for individual-level perceived incivilities. Residents whoreported greater perceived safety reported significantly higherlevels of attachment (model D), but crime rate was not associatedwith neighborhood attachment in this analysis after adjusting forindividual-level perceived safety. Individual collective efficacy wasstatistically and positively associated with neighborhood attach-ment (model E), while aggregate collective efficacy was not asso-ciated, after adjusting for individual-level collective efficacy. Lengthof residence in the neighborhood and self-reports of collectiveefficacy were significantly associated with neighborhood attach-ment levels (model F).

In our final model G, years of residence in the neighborhoodremained significantly associated with neighborhood attachment,as did collective efficacy. Community and home gardening werepositively associated with higher levels of neighborhood attach-ment when compared to people who did not garden. In final modelH, years of residence in the neighborhood remained significantlyassociated with neighborhood attachment, as did collective effi-cacy. Participation in any type of gardening was significantlyassociated with higher levels of neighborhood attachment. Nofurther decrease in variance among block-groups was observed inthese models, suggesting that additional contextual factors may beimportant in explaining neighborhood attachment.

Based on the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC) for ourintercept-only model, approximately 17% of the variance inneighborhood attachment was due to variation among block-groups. Inclusion of individual and block-level variables resulted ina reduction in ICC from 17% in the unconditional model to 8% inmodels BeE, thus explaining more than half of the initial varianceamong block-groups.

4. Discussion

Results from our multi-level analysis demonstrate an associa-tion between length of residency, collective efficacy and neigh-borhood attachment. After accounting for individual-levelvariables, only block-group level education is significantly associ-ated with neighborhood attachment in two of the preliminarymodels, which suggests that neighborhood-level factors selectedfor this analysis do not strongly affect self-reports of neighborhoodattachment. HLM analyses often find that social phenomena areweighted more toward individual variability rather than groupvariability (Long & Perkins, 2007). Consistent with previousresearch, long term residents have higher levels of attachment tothe neighborhood (Bonaiuto et al., 1999; Brown et al., 2003; Knez,2005; Sampson, 1988, 1991; Taylor, 1996). This is not surprising asone of the basic tenets of neighborhood attachment is that peopletend to maintain closeness to places to which they are attached(Hidalgo & Hernandez, 2001). By implementing neighborhood-level interventions that connect longer-term residents withnewcomers, it is possible that relationships can develop betweenthese two groups, thereby promoting feelings of neighborhoodattachment. Home ownership is significantly associated withhigher levels of neighborhood attachment in models A, B, C, and D.In our final models, however, the relationship between homeownership and neighborhood attachment is no longer significant inthe presence of collective efficacy and community garden partici-pation. To the extent that renters can become involved in mean-ingful neighborhood activities such as gardening and thusstrengthen their sense of collective efficacy, it may be possible toenhance their sense of attachment.

Measures of neighborhood disorganization, specificallyperceptions of safety, measured crime, and perceived and observed

Table 3Hierarchical linear regression model of neighborhood attachment (respondents¼ 410; block groups¼ 45).

Correlations with neighborhoodattachment

Null ModelA

Model B ModelC

Model D Model E Model F Final ModelG

Final ModelH

r b b b b b b b b

Individual-level variablesYears residence in neighborhood (ref: �18

years)�0.41** �0.41** �0.46** �0.41** �0.40** �0.42** �0.38** �0.40**

�2 years 0.26** �0.46** �0.45** �0.44** �0.42** �0.41** �0.40** �0.38** �0.41**3e7 years �0.39** �0.39** �0.38** �0.37** �0.36** �0.36** �0.35** �0.37**8e17 years

Home ownership (reference: own) 0.31** �0.30** �0.29* �0.28** �0.30** �0.11 �0.13 �0.12 �0.12Race/ethnicity (reference: white non-

Hispanic)0.25** �0.18 �0.10 �0.08 �0.08 �0.11 �0.09

Education (reference: college degree) 0.22** �0.08 �0.03 �0.02 �0.03 �0.02 �0.02 0.03 0.03Perceived incivilities �0.31** �0.19** �0.04 �0.05 �0.05Perceived safety 0.28** 0.14* 0.04 0.05 0.05Collective efficacy 0.55** 0.53** 0.50** 0.57** 0.53**

Gardening status (reference: no gardening)Home gardening 0.28** 0.15*Community gardener 0.23*

Any gardening (reference: no gardening) 0.28** 0.18**

Block-group level variablesProportion with less than college degree �0.006* �0.002 �0.005* �0.0002 �0.001 �0.002 �0.002Aggregate observed incivilities �0.27** �0.47 �0.17 �0.20 �0.20Average crime rate per 1000 persons �0.10 0.0004 �0.0006 0.0005 0.0005Aggregate collective efficacy 0.38** 0.22 0.15 0.15 0.16

Intercept 0.009 0.54 0.23 0.84 0.22 �0.09 0.17 0.07 0.21�2 log likelihood 890 839 832 805 823 686 676 670 671r (intra-class correlation coefficient) 0.17 0.11 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.08 0.09 0.10 0.10

*p< 0.05, **p< 0.0001.

N. Comstock et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442440

incivilities, are not associated with neighborhood attachment afteraccounting for levels of collective efficacy. Higher levels of collec-tive efficacy are strongly associated with higher levels of neigh-borhood attachment, and inclusion of collective efficacy reducedthe effect size of other social and physical factors such as safety,incivilities, and socio-economic status are not significant. Collectiveefficacy appears to influence the positive bonds persons developtoward the neighborhood in which they reside. Neighborhoodattachment and collective efficacy may be closely linked, in thatpersons with higher levels of neighborhood attachment may bemore likely to intervene when there is a problem in the neigh-borhood to which they are attached. Contrary to findings froma previous study that evaluated the relationship between collectiveefficacy and place attachment, aggregate block-group levels ofcollective efficacy are not associated with individual neighborhoodattachment (Brown et al., 2003). This may be due to context specificpathways.

Residents who participate in gardening activities in the home orcommunity environment report higher levels of neighborhoodattachment. Gardens represent one example of a local environmentthat can be directly experienced at home or within a communitysetting and that is affordable and accessible for all people regard-less of age, income, education and ethnic backgrounds and culturalheritage. Moreover, garden participation requires active engage-ment and supports formal and informal social interactions withfamily, friends and neighbors (Ferris, Norman, & Sempik, 2001;Glover, 2004; Kaplan, 1973; Kaplan & Kaplan, 2005; Teig et al.,2009). Together, this combination of attributes is important forfostering and reinforcing positive emotional bonds to place. Moreresearch is warranted to understand whether and how neighbor-hood attachment contributes to other important social and cogni-tive processes that are vital for healthy and sustainable behaviorchange (Bandura, 1986).

There are several limitations of this study that are as follows.First, the potential incongruence of administrative block-groupsand conceptual definitions of neighborhoods as block-groupboundaries may not accurately capture neighborhood-wide char-acteristics. However, increasingly, block-group level analyses arerecognized as an appropriate geography to understand neighbor-hood influences on health (Krieger, Williams, & Moss, 1997;Perkins, Florin, Rich, Wandersman, & Chavis, 1990). Second,sample sizes at each level are important in multi-level analysis,with the sample sizes at higher levels being more important forfixed effect estimates. However, there is increasing recognition thatextremely small group sizes may bias analytic results by over-estimating group-level variance estimates (Theall et al., 2008). Toaddress this issue our sample was restricted to group sizes of 3 ormore while maintaining the sociodemographic profile of the orig-inal sample. Third, the cross-sectional design of the study onlycaptures a one-time assessment of attitudes, beliefs, behaviors andhealth and thus precludes understanding the temporal relation-ships between the variables of interest in our analysis. Becauseneighborhood attachment is considered a stable variable that takesa long time to develop (Brown & Perkins, 1992; Dallago et al., 2009),longitudinal data on individual and neighborhood covariates wouldimprove our understanding of the relationship between thesecovariates and neighborhood attachment.

This study utilizes a rich combination of data sourcesincluding face-to-face surveys, neighborhood audits, measuredcrime and demographic data. The surveys and neighborhoodaudits provide detailed information about neighborhood attach-ment and social and physical characteristics of the neighborhoodsetting. The measured crime and US census information are usedto generate additional block-group level variables. Together,the combination of these data allow us to thoroughly examinethe individual, social and physical factors that influence

N. Comstock et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442 441

neighborhood attachment drawing on a diverse set of objectiveand subjective information.

Environmental and policy strategies are increasingly beingadopted to improve local activity environments and food avail-ability and accessibility through strategies such as parks, walkingpaths and other outdoor recreational resources (Sallis et al., 2006)as well as community gardens, healthy corner stores, and farmers’markets (Story, Kaphingst, Robinson-O’Brien, & Glanz, 2008).Understanding the social processes and meanings people attach toneighborhood places may be critical to explaining residents’ will-ingness to utilize these resources and engage in local activities(Cattell, Dines, Gesler, & Curtis, 2008; Kamphius, van Lenthe,Giskes, Brug, & Mackenbach, 2007).

In our research, we found that length of residence in theneighborhood and social processes such as collective efficacycorrelated with neighborhood attachment. Moreover, we foundthat community garden participation correlated with neighbor-hood attachment and thus offers one example of a neighborhoodenvironmental change that can potentially mobilize emotionalbonds to place.

Acknowledgements

The authors gratefully acknowledge Wendy Peters-Moschetti(project manager), Ian Bates, Laura Diaz, James Hale, Nick Gruber,Alex Harker, Bettina Haro Oliva, Rosalind May, Lenore Palumbo, RuthMontoya-Starr, Briony Schnee, Amy Telligman, David Villareal, andElisa Villareal (field staff). We thank the City and County of DenverPolice Department for providing crime data used in the analysis. Weare appreciative for support and guidance from our network ofcommunity residents (Healthy Neighborhood Network), FrontRangeEarth Force and Denver Urban Gardens. This study was supported bygrants from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)Health Protection Research Initiative K01 Award EH-000066-03 andthe Colorado Clinical and Translational Sciences Institute (CCTSI)NIH/NCRR Colorado CTSI Grant Number UL1RR025780. The contentof this manuscript is the authors’ sole responsibility and does notnecessarily represent official views of the CDC, NIH, and the otheraforementioned organizations.

References

Armstrong, D. (2000). A survey of community gardens in upstate New York:implications for health promotion and community development. Health &Place, 6, 319e327.

Bandura, A. (1986). Social foundations of thought and action: A social cognitive theory.Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

Bolan, M. (1997). The mobility experience and neighborhood attachment. Demog-raphy, 34, 225e237.

Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., Bonnes, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1999). Multidi-mensional perception of residential environment quality and neighborhoodattachment in the urban environment. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 19(331), 352.

Bonnes, M., Bonaiuto, M., Aiello, A., Perugini, M., & Ercolani, A. P. (1997). A trans-actional perspective on residential satisfaction. In C. Despres, & D. Piche (Eds.),Housing surveys: Advances in theory and methods (pp. 75e99). Quebec, Canada:CRAD Universite Laval.

Brown, G., Brown, B., & Perkins, D. (2004). New housing as neighborhood revitali-zation: place attachment and confidence among residents. Environment andBehavior, 36, 749e775.

Brown, B., & Perkins, D. (1992). Disruptions in place attachment. Human Behaviorand Environment: Advances in Theory and Research, 12, 279e304.

Brown, B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a revitalizingneighborhood: individual and block levels of analysis. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 23, 259e271.

Brown, B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2004a). Crime, new housing, and housingincivilities in a first-ring suburb: multilevel relationships across time. HousingPolicy Debate, 15, 301e343.

Brown, B., Perkins, D., & Brown, G. (2004b). Incivilities, place attachment and crime:block and individual effects. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 24, 359e371.

Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (Eds.). (2000). Hierarchical linear models: Applica-tions and data analysis methods (2nd ed.). Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Cattell, V., Dines, N., Gesler,W., & Curtis, S. (2008).Mingling, observing, and lingering:everyday public spaces and their implications for well-being and social relations.Health & Place, 14(3), 544e561. doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.10.007.

Caughy, M., O’Campo, P., & Patterson, J. (2001). A brief observational measure forurban neighborhoods. Health & Place, 7, 225e236.

Clarke, P. (2008). When can group level clustering be ignored? Multilevel modelsversus single-level models with sparse data. Journal of Epidemiology andCommunity Health, 62(8), 752e758.

Clayton, S. (2007). Domesticated nature: motivations for gardening and percep-tions of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27,215e224.

Cohen, D., Finch, B., Bower, A., & Sastry, N. (2006). Collective efficacy and obesity:the potential influence of social factors on health. Social Science & Medicine, 62,769e778.

Cohen, D., Inagami, S., & Finch, B. (2008). The built environment and collectiveefficacy. Health & Place, 14, 198e208.

Dallago, L., Perkins, D., Santinello, M., Boyce, W. T., Molcho, M., & Morgan, A. (2009).Adolescent place attachment, social capital, and perceived safety: a comparisonof 13 countries. American Journal of Community Psychology, 44, 148e160.

Davis, R., Cohen, L., & Mikkelsen, L. (2003). Strengthening communities: A preventionframework for reducing health disparities. California: The Prevention Institute.

Earls, F., Brooks-Gunn, J., Raudenbush, S., & Sampson, R. (1997). Project on humandevelopment in Chicago neighborhoods: Community Survey, 1994-1995. Boston,MA: Harvard Medical School.

Ferris, J., Norman, C., & Sempik, J. (2001). People, land and sustainability:community gardens and the social dimension of sustainable development[Article]. Social Policy & Administration, 35(5).

Francis, M. (1995). Childhood’s garden: memory and meaning of gardens. Children’sEnvironments, 12, 1e16.

Fried, M. (2000). Continuities and discontinuities of place. Journal of EnvironmentalPsychology, 20, 193e205.

Galster, G. C., & Hesser, G. W. (1982). The social neighborhood: an unspecified factorin homeowner maintenance? Urban Affairs Quarterly, 18, 235e254.

Glover, T. D. (2004). Social capital in the lived experiences of community gardens.Leisure Sciences, 26, 143e162.

Gobster, P., Nassauer, J., Daniel, T., & Fry, G. (2007). The shared landscape: what doesaesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecology, 22(7), 959e972.

Gorman-Smith, D., Tolan, P. H., & Henry, D. B. (2000). A developmentaleecologicalmodel of the relation of family functioning to patterns of delinquency. Journal ofQuantitative Criminology, 16(2), 169e198.

Hawe, P., & Shiell, A. (2000). Social capital and health promotion: a review. SocialScience & Medicine, 51, 871e885.

Hidalgo, M. C., & Hernandez, B. (2001). Place attachment: conceptual and empiricalquestions. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 21, 273e281.

Hoehner, C. M., Brennan, L. K., Ramirez, B., Elliott, M. B., Handy, S., & Brownson, R. C.(2005). Perceived and objective environmental measures and physical activityamong urban adults. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 28(2S2), 105e116.

Hummon, D. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. NewYork: Plenum Press.

Jackson, R., & Kochtitzky, C. (2003). Creating a healthy environment: The impact of thebuilt environment on public health. Washington, DC.

Kamphius, C., van Lenthe, F., Giskes, K., Brug, J., & Mackenbach, J. P. (2007).Perceived environmental determinants of physical activity and fruit and vege-table consumption among high and low socioeconomic groups in theNetherlands. Health & Place, 13, 493e503.

Kaplan, R. (1973). Some psychological benefits of gardening. Environment andBehavior, 5, 145e161.

Kaplan, R., & Kaplan, S. (2005). Preference, restoration, and meaningful action in thecontext of nearby nature. In P. Barlett (Ed.), Urban place: Reconnecting with thenatural world (pp. 271e298). Cambridge: The MIT Press.

Kearney, A. (2009). Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfac-tion: impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior, 38,112e139.

Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense ofcommunity: new urbanist Kentlands and nearby orchard village. Environmentand Behavior, 36, 313e340.

Knez, I. (2005). Attachment and identity as related to a place and its perceivedclimate. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 207e218.

Krieger, N., Williams, D. R., & Moss, N. E. (1997). Measuring social class in us publichealth research: concepts, methodologies, and guidelines. Annual Review ofPublic Health, 18, 341e378.

Kuo, F. E., Sullivan, W. C., Coley, R. L., & Brunson, L. (1998). Fertile ground forcommunity: inner-city neighborhood common spaces. American Journal ofCommunity Psychology, 26(6), 823e851.

Kweon, B. S., Sullivan, W., & Wiley, A. R. (1998). Green common spaces and thesocial integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30(6),832e858.

Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: the role of place attachment,cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25,381e395.

Long, D., & Perkins, D. (2007). Community social and place predictors of sense ofcommunity: a multi-level and longitudinal analysis. Journal of CommunityPsychology, 35(5), 563e581.

Manzo, L. (2005). For better or worse: exploring multiple dimensions of placemeaning. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 25, 67e86.

N. Comstock et al. / Journal of Environmental Psychology 30 (2010) 435e442442

Manzo, L., & Perkins, D. (2006). Finding common ground: the importance of placeattachment to community participation and planning. Journal of PlanningLiterature, 20(4), 335e350.

McGuire, J. B. (1997). The reliability and validity of a questionnaire describingneighborhood characteristics relevant to families and young children living inurban areas. Journal of Community Psychology, 25(6), 551e566.

Mesch, G., & Manor, O. (1998). Social ties, environmental perception, and localattachment. Environment and Behavior, 30, 504e519.

Perkins, D. D., Florin, P., Rich, R. C., Wandersman, A., & Chavis, D. M. (1990). Partici-pation and the social and physical environment of residential blocks: crime andcommunity context. American Journal of Community Psychology, 18(1), 83e115.

Pretty, G. M. H., Andrewes, L., & Collett, C. (1994). Exploring adolescents’ sense ofcommunity and its relationship to loneliness. Journal of Community Psychology,22, 346e358.

Prezza, M., Amici, M., Roberti, T., & Tedeschi, G. (2001). Sense of community referredto the whole town: its relations with neighboring loneliness, life satisfaction,and area of residence. Journal of Community Psychology, 29(1), 29e52.

Proshansky, H., Fabian, A., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: physical worldsocialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57e83.

Reisig, M., & Cancino, J. (2004). Incivilities in nonmetropolitan communities: theeffects of structural constraints, social conditions, and crime. Journal of CriminalJustice, 32, 15e29.

Riger, S., LeBailly, R. K., & Gordon, M. T. (1981). Community ties and urbanites’ fearof crime: an ecological investigation. American Journal of Community Psychology,9(6), 653e666.

Saelens, B. E., Sallis, J. F., Black, J., & Chen, D. (2003). Neighborhood-based differ-ences in physical activity: an environment scale evaluation. American Journal ofPublic Health, 93(9), 1552e1558.

Sallis, J. F., Cervero, R. B., Ascher, W., Henderson, K. A., Kraft, M. K., & Kerr, J. (2006).An ecological approach to creating active living communities. Annual Review ofPublic Health, 27, 297e322.

Sampson, R. (1988). Local friendship ties and community attachment in mass society:a multilevel systematic model. American Sociological Review, 53, 766e779.

Sampson, R. J. (1991). Linking the micro- and macrolevel dimensions of communitysocial organization. Social Forces, 70(1), 43e64.

Sampson, R., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: testing social-disorganization theory. The American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774e802.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violentcrime: a multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(918), 924.

Semenza, J. C., & Krishnasamy, P. V. (2007). Design of a health-promoting neigh-borhood intervention. Health Promotion Practice, 8, 243e256.

Semenza, J., March, T., & Bontempo, B. (2006). Community-initiated urban devel-opment: an ecological intervention. Journal of Urban Health, 84, 8e20.

Skjaeveland, O., & Garling, T. (1997). Effects of interactional space on neighboring.Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 181e198.

Story, M., Kaphingst, K. M., Robinson-O’Brien, R., & Glanz, K. (2008). Creatinghealthy food and eating environments: policy and environmental approaches[Review]. Annual Review of Public Health, 29, 253e274.

Taylor, R. (1996). Neighborhood responses to disorder and local attachments: thesystemic model of attachment, social disorganization, and neighborhood usevalue. Sociological Forum, 11, 41e74.

Teig, E., Amulya, J., Buchenau, M., Bardwell, L., Marshall, J., & Litt, J. S. (2009).Collective efficacy in Denver, Colorado: strengthening neighborhoods andhealth through community gardens. Health & Place, 15, 1115e1122.

Theall, K. P., Scribner, R., Lynch, S., Simonsen, N., Schonlau, M., Carlin, B., et al.(2008). Impact of small group size on neighborhood influences in multilevelmodels. Munich Personal RePEc Archive, 11648(18), 1e19.

Tolan, P. H., Gorman-Smith, D., & Henry, D. B. (2001). Chicago youth developmentstudy community and neighborhood measure: Construction and reliability tech-nical report. Chicago, IL: Families and Communities Research Group, Depart-ment of Psychiatry., University of Illinois.

Twigger-Ross, C. L., & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal ofEnvironmental Psychology, 16, 205e220.

Vinsel, A., Brown, B. A. I., & Foss, C. (1980). Privacy regulation, territorial displays,and effectiveness of individual functioning. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 39, 1104e1115.

Wakefield, S. L., Elliot, S. J., Cole, D. C., & Eyles, J. D. (2001). Environmental risk and(re)action: air quality, health, and civic involvement in an urban industrialneighborhood. Health & Place, 7, 163e177.

Wakefield, S., Yeudall, F., Taron, C., Reynolds, J., & Skinner, A. (2007). Growing urbanhealth: community gardening in south-east Toronto [Article]. Health PromotionInternational, 22(2).

Woldoff, R. (2002). The effects of local stressors on neighborhood attachment. SocialForces, 81, 87e116.