race/ethnicity, homeownership, and neighborhood attachment

Race and Society 7 (2004) 63–77

Race/ethnicity, homeownership, andneighborhood attachment

Joong-Hwan Oh∗

Department of Sociology, Hunter College, The City University of New York, New York, NY 10021, USA

Abstract

This study addresses the importance of neighborhood attachment and its key determinants amongurban residents. Particular emphasis in this study has been placed on race/ethnicity and homeown-ership as the critical predictors of neighborhood attachment. Using data from the Project on HumanDevelopment in Chicago Neighborhoods in 1995, the findings showed that urban blacks are lessattached to their neighborhoods and neighbors than urban whites, and that there is little differencebetween urban Latinos and urban whites in neighborhood attachment. Second, this study demonstratedthat homeownership, in both urban whites and urban blacks, is a critical determinant of neighborhoodattachment. In comparison to white homeowners, this study also showed that both Latino homeownersand nonhomeowners interact less with their neighbors (neighboring) and trust their neighbors less(social cohesion/trust).© 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Neighborhood attachment, typically known as social bond at the neighborhood level, isreferred to as social network local neighbors have one another on the basis of the senseof identification with local community (Fisher, 1977; Hallman, 1984; Wilson, 1996). Pastand present research on urban community continues to delve into neighborhood attachmentas a critical theme (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974; Lee, Campbell, & Miller, 1991; Sampson,Morenoff, & Earls, 1999). In large part, these prior studies on neighborhood attachmentaim to search for the key factors that affect neighborhood attachment and its specificpatterns—e.g., local ties, informal social control, mutual trust, local institutions, and so on.

First of all, this study attempts to examine whether race/ethnicity is a main predictor ofneighborhood attachment. In the case of urban blacks, this study proposes that they will

∗ Tel.: +1 212 772 5643.E-mail address: [email protected].

1090-9524/$ – see front matter © 2005 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.doi:10.1016/j.racsoc.2005.05.002

64 J.-H. Oh / Race and Society 7 (2004) 63–77

experience less neighborhood attachment than urban whites regardless of their relativelyhigh level of residential concentration in urban areas. This account is, in particular, sup-ported on the ground that their unstable, relatively lower economic statuses tend to forbidthe creation of their own social networks in a community, weaken their preexisting local ties,and at the same time, facilitate their social isolation from their black neighbors (Massey,Condran, & Denton, 1987; Wilson, 1987). With the inquiry of racial neighborhood attach-ment, this study is also intended to examine neighborhood attachment in the context ofethnicity by including urban Latinos. By far, there is no question that Latino populationgrows rapidly in the larger US urban areas over several decades. Relative to urban whitesor urban blacks, in fact, little attempt has been made to study both the nature of their neigh-borhood attachment and its key determinants. Indeed, Latinos’ networks and their sense ofbonds in urban communities can be heavily influenced by their diverse ethnic backgrounds,along with their different stages of immigration. More importantly, insofar as many urbanLatinos stay in the relatively lower economic statuses in the U.S. and remain in the temporalstatus of immigration and transnational orientation, the expectation is that the bulk of theurban Latinos will experience weak attachments to their urban community (Robert, 1995).

Second, given ‘the systemic model’ of neighborhood attachment, this study exam-ines whether the combination of race/ethnicity and homeownership affects neighborhoodattachment. Typically, homeownership in minorities and immigrants is a critical stage ofassimilation into the mainstream society (Alba & Logan, 1992). This study views homeown-ership in minorities and immigrants, like whites, as a dimension of their residential stabilityand local investment, which contributes to their neighborhood attachment. Earlier researchshows less homeownership rates among blacks and Latinos than whites (Flippen, 2001;Rosenbaum, 1996). Explanations for low homeownership rates among these minorities aregenerally attributed to difficult economic conditions, discrimination in the housing market,or housing preference (i.e., more rental occupancy rate), which of them is closely relatedto racial residential segregation and their immigration status (Alba & Logan, 1992; Krivo,1995). In brief, this study addresses the view that homeownership, understood as a way oflocal investment and as a critical source of residential stability, will enhance neighborhoodattachment, despite some disadvantages created by racial and ethnic backgrounds of urbanresidents.

1. Prior research

1.1. Race/ethnicity and neighborhood attachment

Bolan (1997)introduces neighborhood attachment in terms of two categories: behavioralattachment and attitudinal attachment in a neighborhood. Behavioral attachment includestwo dimensions: neighborhood interaction (e.g., interaction with neighbors known orunknown) and neighborhood involvement (e.g., residents’ participation in neighborhoodorganizations). Attitudinal attachment is assessed by neighborhood evaluation whichreflects neighborhood satisfaction as well as neighborhood sentiment. Neighborhoodsentiment is expressed by residents’ emotional attachment to a neighborhood. Thefollowing analysis employs the broad measures of neighborhood attachment: friendship;

J.-H. Oh / Race and Society 7 (2004) 63–77 65

neighboring; social cohesion; participation in neighborhood organizations; neighborhoodsatisfaction; and neighborhood sentiment.

This section further reviews past studies of neighborhood attachment between blacks andwhites under the premise that race is an important predictor of neighborhood attachment.In addition, this section is also devoted to examining the patterns of neighborhood attach-ment among urban Latino residents in the US and comparing their local perceptions andbehaviors, relative to urban whites and blacks. As a well-known neighborhood attachmentmeasure,Friendship, identified as the number of friends or neighbors known in a neighbor-hood, is smaller among nonwhites including blacks and other racial/ethnic minority groupsthan among whites (Logan & Spitze, 1994). For instance,Feagin (1970)reported from alow-income sample of black residents in Boston’s ghetto area that most urban black resi-dents have small-scale and isolated friendship networks. However, in a sample of Nashvilleresidents, Tennessee,Lee and Campbell (1999)showed that there is no relationship betweenrace and the number of neighbors known by name.

Neighboring, another indicator of neighborhood attachment, refers to the relationshipsand interactions occurring between people living in spatial proximity of one another(Jayakody, 1993). In measuring neighboring in terms of three activity levels with neighbors(visiting, talking, and helping), urban white residents were found to have stronger degrees ofneighboring than urban black residents in a sample of urban adult residents in Illinois (Geis &Ross, 1998). On the other hand,Lee et al. (1991), in a sample of Nashville residents, reportedhigher neighboring by blacks than, by whites, after identifying neighboring as contacts withneighbors—e.g., the frequency of visits, talking, or contacts to deal with neighborhoodproblems. Similarly,Martineau (1977)reported that in a sample of a heavily black neigh-borhood in South Bend, Indiana, black residents are frequently engaged in leisure activities,chatting with neighbors, discussing neighborhood problems, and helping their neighbors.Moreover,Oliver (1988)stressed the importance of neighboring (e.g., face to face contactor phone contact) in a sample of urban black residents in three Los Angeles metropolitanneighborhoods. Like the case of neighboring,social cohesion/trust among urbanites is asymbol of neighborhood attachment because it arises from shared norms and values amonglocal neighbors (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997).However, little is known about variations on local trust among whites, blacks, and Latinos.

Past studies are inconsistent in their findings regarding racial differences inparticipationin neighborhood-level voluntary associations. One panel survey showed that whites volun-teer more than blacks, and that blacks are less likely than whites to be asked to volunteerand less likely to accept the invitation if it is made (Musick, Wilson, & Bynum, 2000). Incontrast,Antunes and Gaitz (1975)asserted that in general, blacks are more likely to partic-ipate in social and political organizations than whites, while Mexican-Americans are lesslikely to attend these organizations than whites. In yet another study,Hunter (1974)showedthat blacks are just as likely as whites to be members of local community organizations in asample of Chicago residents, and that the black communities of Chicago are just as highlyorganized as the white communities.Klobus-Edwards, Edwards, & Klemmack (1978)con-tended that there are greater differences in social participation within races than betweenthem. Using data from the 1993 to 1994 Los Angeles Survey of Urban Inequality,Stoll(2001)reported that little difference exists in racial/ethnic participation in neighborhoodassociations.


Neighborhood satisfaction was relatively lower among urban black residents than amongurban white residents in Chicago (Hunter, 1974), in Nashville (Lee et al., 1991), and inOklahoma City (St. John & Clark, 1984). However, racial difference inneighborhood sen-timent, the final indicator of neighborhood attachment, remains unresolved. For instance,neighborhood sentiment was unrelated to race when it is measured as three combineditems: neighbors feel like home in their neighborhood; neighbors have strong ties with oneanother; and neighbors will miss their neighborhood if they ever had to move (Lee et al.,1991). Hunter (1974)showed that blacks are slightly less likely to express neighborhoodsentiment than whites in measuring neighborhood sentiment in terms of the “we feeling”of identification with the local community.

Overall, this study assumes that urban whites maintain a far closer attachment to theirneighborhood/neighbors than urban blacks or urban Latino residents. This low level ofattachment may exist in spite of the residential assimilation occurring within growing immi-grant enclaves or within the ethnic community (Logan, Alba, & Zhang, 2002).

1.2. Homeownership and neighborhood attachment

Prior research on the determinants of neighborhood attachment among urban residentshas been explored in depth without regard to racial and ethnic background.

Homeownership, in contrast to length of residence, appears to be a concomitant measureof residential stability when studying neighborhood attachment in the systemic model.In general, homeowership is a major indicator of economic well-being at the householdlevel because a home is an investment and a significant financial asset to most homeowners(Megbolugbe & Lineman, 1993). Furthermore, such economic interest in home equity leadsto neighborhood attachment among homeowners who “share an important economic fatewith their neighbors” (Blum & Kinoston, 1984, p. 175). According to previous researchconducted in 81 Nashville, Tennessee neighborhoods, homeowners are more likely to havelocal friends (e.g., the number of neighbors known) than renters (Campbell & Lee, 1992).Likewise, Blum and Kingston (1984) showed from a study conducted in northern Californiathat homeownership increases neighboring, expressed as informal contact with neighbors.On the other hand,Rohe and Stegman (1994)reported from a study of low-income peoplein Baltimore that homeowners tend to participate in less neighboring – determined byneighbors known and relationship with neighbors – than renters. However, in a sample of thenational survey of black Americans, another study finds that social cohesion/trust, expressedas ‘a sense of caring and goodness toward neighbors,’ is unaffected by homeownership(Jayakody, 1993).

Similar to social cohesion/trust, homeownership had no impact on participation in vol-untary associations, including neighborhood associations (Blum & Kinoston, 1984). Bycontrast, homeowners showed higher levels of participation in community organizationsthan renters, based upon a sample of low-income people (Rohe and Stegman, 1994). More-over,Majka and Donnelly (1988)reported from a study conducted in an urban neighborhoodin Dayton, Ohio that homeowners tend to participate in two or three neighborhood orga-nizations, while there is no relationship between renters and their participation in localorganizations. More interestingly, homeownership is positively associated with two neigh-borhood attachment measures: neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood sentiment (Lee


et al., 1991). Overall, homownership serves an important role in increasing behavioralattachment (e.g., neighbors known, interaction, and organization) and attitudinal attach-ment (e.g., evaluation and sentiment), both dimensions of neighborhood attachment (Bolan,1997).

2. Data and methods

2.1. Data

To examine whether race/ethnicity, through homeownership, affects neighborhoodattachment, this study uses data from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neigh-borhood (PHDCN). This survey was used to gather information from Chicago residents ontheir perception of the neighborhoods in which they live (Earls, 1999). Typically, Chicagohas been a site for an incessant topic that deals with the dynamics of social and spatial iso-lation of blacks (Wilson, 1996). More specifically, the social isolation of blacks in Chicagohas been heavily influenced by industrial transformations, such as employment shifts awayfrom manufacturing to the service industry, relocation of manufacturing industries out ofthe central cities, and suburbanization of employment (Kasarda, 1989; Wilson, 1991). Asthe consequences of the declining employment opportunity in Chicago, minority populationin Chicago, particularly blacks, has suffered from the rises in poverty rate and single-parentfamilies in urban minority population (Eggers & Massey, 1992; Wilson, 1987).

The spatial isolation of blacks in Chicago has something to do with suburban movement ofmiddle-class whites, in general. Furthermore, black spatial segregation from whites, causedby both racial discrimination against blacks without regard to their socioeconomic status andthe construction of high-rise public housing units, has contributed to black concentration ininner-city Chicago (Massey & Denton, 1993; Rubinowitz & Rosenbaum, 2000). Differentfrom previous research on black isolation due to economic change, racial segregation,discrimination in the housing market, this study has special attention to the impact of blackisolation on neighborhood attachment via the chance of their homeownership that reflectsan indicator of socioeconomic status.

In this project, Chicago’s 865 census tracts were combined to create 343 “neighborhoodclusters.” These clusters were based upon geographically contiguous and demographicallysimilar census tracts. In the final stage, 8782 Chicago adult residents representing all 343neighborhood clusters were collected. This study employed only 7659 cases that consistedof 2281 whites, 3365 blacks, and 2013 Latinos. Such sample reduction occurred whenomitting some multiple response cases, in which some respondents check more than oneracial category, such as white and Latino, or when omitting the small sample of Asian racialcategories (N = 186). This study treated some multiple response cases, like white and Latinoor black and Latino, as Latino to hinder further sample reduction.

2.2. Measures of neighborhood attachment

In this study, neighborhood attachment was measured along six dimensions: friendship,social cohesion/trust, neighboring, participation in local organizations, neighborhood


satisfaction, and neighborhood sentiment.Friendship was identified as the numberof friends that respondents reported living in the neighborhood.Neighboring wasrepresented by a three-item scale. Respondents were asked to select the frequency ofcontact (often, sometimes, rarely, and never) for each statement: how often you askadvice of neighbors; how often you have parties; and how often you visit each other’shomes (all three items were reverse coded). Cronbach’s alpha of neighboring was.72. Social cohesion/trust was represented by a three-item Likert scale (seeSampsonet al., 1997; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999). Respondents were asked to rate theiragreement (strongly disagree, disagree, neither agree nor disagree, agree, or stronglyagree) with each statement: “People around here are willing to help their neighbors”;“This is a close-knit neighborhood”; and “People in this neighborhood can be trusted”.Cronbach’s alpha, as the reliability of the combined scale of social cohesion and trust,was .75.

Participation in neighborhood organizations was measured by respondents’ participationin neighborhood watch programs or local political organizations (neighborhood participa-tion = 1).Neighborhood satisfaction was measured by asking a question regarding like ordislike of neighborhood: “Do you like it a lot, like it, dislike it, or dislike it a lot?” Later,neighborhood satisfaction was recorded and treated as a dummy variable using a score of 1for “like” responses and 0 for “dislike” responses.Neighborhood sentiment was identifiedas a question of emotional attachment to the current neighborhood (very much, somewhat,not much, not at all). For analyses, neighborhood sentiment was recorded and treated as adummy variable scored as 1 for “very much” and “somewhat” scales, and 0 for “not much”and “not at all” scales.

2.3. Measures of the determinants

In this study, whites were treated as the reference group when comparing neighbor-hood attachment to blacks or Latinos. Homeownership was also treated as a dummyvariable (yes = 1). For the purpose of analysis, this study created five interaction variablesfrom race/ethnicity and homeownership to compare neighborhood attachment of whitehomeowners (the reference group)—e.g., white× nonhomeowners, black× homeowners,black× nonhomeowners, Latino× homeowners, and Latino× nonhomeowners. Kinshipwas measured as the number of kin or relatives living in the same neighborhood. Length ofresidence in a neighborhood was measured by the number of years lived at this address. Inaddition, some variables were controlled for in this study: age (years), gender (male = 1),marital status (currently married = 1), education (years of schooling), and income (annualfamily income). As another control variable, this study used perceived neighborhood dis-order, which is thought to have a significant implication to neighborhood attachment.For instance, some scholars argue that neighborhood disorder has a deteriorating conse-quence to neighborhood attachment (Bursik and Grasmick, 1993). Here disorder refers toa violation of norms about public behavior (Skogan, 1990). There are two dimensions ofdisorder at the neighborhood level—social and physical. Social disorder refers to a seriesof episodic events such as public drinking, prostitution, street harassment, gang activity,drug sales, and vandalism. Physical disorder involves visual signs of negligence and decay:abandoned buildings, broken streetlights, trash-filled lots, garbage or litter on the street,


Table 1Varimax rotated factor analyses for two neighborhood attachment measures and neighborhood disorder: 7659Chicago residents, 1995

Variable Factor loading

Neighboring(1) How often you ask advice of neighbors .77(2) How often you have parties .82(3) How often you visit each other’s homes .82

Social cohesion(1) People around here are willing to help their neighbors .81(2) This is a close-knit neighborhood .84(3) People in this neighborhood can be trusted .81

Neighborhood disorder(1) Litter .79(2) Graffiti .75(3) Vacant areas .74(4) Drinking alcohol in public .83(5) Selling drugs .84(6) Groups causing trouble .81

Note: Three items of neighboring are scored never (1), rarely (2), sometimes (3), and often (4). Items of socialcohesion/trust are scored strongly disagree (1), disagree (2), neither disagree nor agree (3), agree (4), and stronglyagree (5). Six items of neighborhood disorder are scored not a problem (1), somewhat of problem (2), and a bigproblem (3).

and graffiti. Therefore, neighborhood disorder in this study was created by combiningsix items based upon the degree of problem (not a problem, somewhat of problem, or abig problem): litter, graffiti, vacant areas, drinking alcohol in public, selling drugs, andgroups causing trouble. The reliability for the summary scale of neighborhood disorderwas .72.

2.4. Methods

Table 1provides the results of principal components analysis with oblique rotationconcerning two neighborhood attachment measures (neighboring and social cohesion/trust)and one neighborhood disorder measure.

Later, regression analyses were used to examine neighborhood attachment among urbanresidents. Among the six indicators of neighborhood attachment, three indicators (friend-ship, neighboring, and social cohesion/trust) were analyzed by using ordinary least square(OLS) regression technique. The remaining three indicators of neighborhood attachment(participation in local organizations, neighborhood satisfaction, and neighborhood senti-ment) were analyzed by using logistic regression method.

3. Results

Table 2presents unstandardized regression coefficients for three neighborhood attach-ment measures (friendship, neighboring, and social cohesion/trust).

70J.-H

.Oh

/Race

andSociety

7(2004)

63–77

Table 2Unstandardized regression coefficients for three measures of neighborhood attachment: 7659 Chicago residents, 1995

Variable Friendship Neighboring Social cohesion

Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2 Model 1 Model 2

Race/ethnicitya

Blacks −.36*** (.04) −.38*** (.05) −.01 (.02) −.15*** (.04) −.44*** (.03) −.10** (.04)Latinos −.15*** (.04) −.11 (.07) −.08** (.03) −.16*** (.04) −.40*** (.03) −.08 (.05)Age −.01** (.00) −.01*** (.00) .01*** (.00)Gender (male = 1) .24*** (.05) .07* (.03) .02 (.03)Marital status (married = 1) .01 (.05) .08* (.04) −.01 (.04)Education −.01 (.01) .01* (.00) −.01 (.01)Labor force participation (employed = 1) −.18*** (.05) −.06 (.04) .04 (.04)Family income .01 (.01) .02** (.01) .04*** (.01)Homeownership (homeowner = 1) .03 (.05) .12*** (.04) .15*** (.04)Kinship .31*** (.02) .10*** (.01) .08*** (.01)Length of residence .27*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)Neighborhood disorder −.06** (.02) −.05** (.02) −.41*** (.02)R2 .01 .13 .01 .07 .04 .27

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.a The reference group is Whites.* p < .05 (two-tailed test).

** p < .01 (two-tailed test).*** p < .001 (two-tailed test).


In model 1, which includes only two racial/ethnic variables, both blacks and Latinos,as compared to whites, are in general less inclined to be attached to their neighbors in thecontexts of friendship, neighboring, and social cohesion. Model 2, which includes the controlvariables, shows that compared to urban whites, urban blacks are likely to have less localfriends, interact less with their neighbors, and feel less of a sense of local bond with theirneighbors. While urban Latinos tend to interact less with their neighbors (neighboring) thanurban whites, there appears to be little difference between whites and Latinos in friendshipand social cohesion. In model 2, it is also interesting to observe the positive impact ofhomeownership on both neighboring and social cohesion.

Table 3presents unstandardized coefficients for logistic regression on three neighborhoodattachment measures (participation in neighborhood organizations, neighborhood satisfac-tion, and neighborhood sentiment).

In model 1, race/ethnicity is considered as a significant determinant of neighborhoodattachment. Overall, urban blacks exhibit the relatively less participation in local organi-zation and express lower levels of neighborhood satisfaction and neighborhood sentimentthan do urban whites. This is also true for urban Latinos except that urban Latinos tendto participate more in neighborhood organizations than urban whites. This significancedisappears when including other control variables. The impact of blacks on all three neigh-borhood attachment measures remains significant in model 2. Another important finding isthat homeownership itself has little to do with each of these three neighborhood attachmentmeasures, despite its positive relationship with this individual indicator.

Table 4reports number and percentage in homeownership among whites, blacks, andLatinos.

The rate of homeownership is relatively higher among whites (55.6%) than among blacks(40.1%) and Latinos (39.4%). These homeownership figures suggest that residential stabilityin urban minorities or immigrants appears to be far weaker than in urban whites.

Table 5 reports unstandardized regression coefficients of neighborhood attachment(friendship, neighboring, and social cohesion/trust) from interaction variables and otherpredictors. Given the importance of homeownership in neighborhood attachment, thisstudy attempts to examine whether both black and Latino homeowners, as compared towhite homeowners, persist in their relatively weak neighborhood attachment, in additionto the view that nonhomeowners, including all three racial and ethnic categories, are lessattached to their own community and neighbors than their white homeowners. In the analy-sis, white homeowners, as a reference group, are compared to the other combined categoriesof race/ethnicity and homeownership to examine neighborhood attachment.

In the friendship model, both black homeowners and nonhomeowners have fewer neigh-borhood friends than white homeowners. However, there is little difference in friendshipbetween the reference group and Latinos, or between the reference group and white non-homeowners. In the neighboring model, all interaction variables are significant, whichsuggests relatively weak local interaction of minority groups, including white nonhome-owers. The results in the social cohesion model are similar to those demonstrated in theneighboring model. The exception is that there is no difference in social cohesion/trustbetween black homeowners and the reference group.

Table 6presents unstandardized coefficients for logistic regression on three neighbor-hood attachment measures (participation in neighborhood organizations, neighborhood

72J.-H

.Oh

/Race

andSociety

7(2004)

63–77

Table 3Unstandardized coefficients for logistic regression on three measures of neighborhood attachment: 7659 Chicago residents, 1995

Variable Neighborhood participation Neighborhood satisfaction Neighborhood sentiment

Race/ethnicitya

Blacks −1.29*** (.07) −1.47*** (.12) −.87*** (.08) −.27* (.13) −.66*** (.06) −.28** (.10)Latinos .22* (.09) .09 (.14) −.54*** (.08) .05 (.15) −.39*** (.07) −.01 (.00)Age .00 (.00) .01** (.00) .00 (.00)Gender (male = 1) −.06 (.10) .34*** (.10) −.08 (.08)Marital status (married = 1) .05 (.10) −.06 (.11) −.10 (.09)Education −.02 (.02) −.01 (.02) −.02 (.02)Labor force participation (employed =1) .09 (.12) −.06 (.11) .08 (.09)Family income .00 (.00) .02 (.02) .06*** (.02)Homeownership (homeowner = 1) .05 (.11) .13 (.12) .05 (.09)Kinship .22*** (.04) .09* (.04) .09** (.03)Length of residence .03*** (.01) .00 (.01) .02*** (.00)Neighborhood disorder .08 (.05) −1.09*** (.06) −.55*** (.04)Chi-Square 472.39*** 333.33*** 145.77*** 634.56*** 135.57*** 386.56***

d.f. 2 12 2 12 2 12

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.a The reference group is Whites.* p < .05 (two-tailed test).



Table 4Homeownership among Whites, Blacks, and Latinos: 7659 Chicago residents, 1995

Race/ethnicity Homeownership N Percent

White Yes 1268 55.59No 1013 44.41Total 2281 100.00

Black Yes 1350 40.12No 2015 59.88Total 3365 100.00

Latino Yes 794 39.44No 1219 60.56Total 2013 100.00

satisfaction, and neighborhood sentiment) from interaction variables and otherpredictors.

In the neighborhood participation model, blacks (homeowners and nonhomeowners)and white nonhomeowners are less likely to participate in local organizations than whitehomeowners. Furthermore, black nonhomeowners express less neighborhood satisfactionand neighborhood sentiment than this reference group. However, there is little differencebetween the reference group and Latinos regarding these three neighborhood attachmentcomponents.

Table 5Unstandardized regression coefficients for three measures of neighborhood attachment from interaction variablesbetween race/ethnicity and homeownerships and other predictors: 7659 Chicago residents, 1995

Variable Friendship Neighboring Social cohesion

Interaction variables (race/ethnicity× homeownershipa)White× non-homeowner .10 (.09) −.26*** (.06) −.17** (.06)Black× homeowner −.28*** (.08) −.23*** (.05) −.10 (.06)Black× non-homeowner −.42*** (.09) −.37*** (.06) −.32*** (.06)Latino× homeowner −.10 (.10) −.33*** (.06) −.19** (.07)Latino× non-homeowner −.11 (.10) −.32*** (.06) −.23*** (.07)Age −.01** (.00) −.01*** (.00) .01*** (.00)Gender (male = 1) .24** (.05) .07* (.03) .02 (.03)Marital status (married = 1) .00 (.05) .07* (.03) −.02 (.04)Education −.00 (.01) .01* (.00) −.01 (.01)Labor force participation (employed = 1) −.18** (.06) −.05 (.04) .04 (.04)Family income .00 (.01) .02* (.01) .04*** (.01)Kinship .31*** (.02) .10*** (.01) .08*** (.01)Length of residence .03*** (.00) .01*** (.00) .00 (.00)Neighborhood disorder −.07** (.03) −.05*** (.02) −.41*** (.02)R2 .14 .08 .28

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.a The reference group is White homeowners.* p < .05 (two-tailed test).



Table 6Unstandardized coefficients for logistic regression on three measures of neighborhood attachment from interactionvariables between race/ethnicity and homeownerships and other predictors: 7659 Chicago residents, 1995

Variable Neighborhoodparticipation

Neighborhoodsatisfaction

Neighborhoodsentiment

Interaction variables (race/ethnicity× homeownershipa)White× non-homeowner −.45* (.19) .08 (.24) .09 (.17)Black× homeowner −1.91*** (.16) .01 (.21) −.14 (.15)Black× non-homeowner −1.60*** (.18) −.43* (.21) −.38* (.15)Latino× homeowner −.06 (.20) −.04 (.23) −.11 (.17)Latino× non-homeowner −.27 (.20) .02 (.23) −.01 (.17)Age .00 (.00) .01* (.00) .00 (.00)Gender (male = 1) −.07 (.10) .36*** (.11) −.06 (.08)Marital status (married = 1) .07 (.11) −.09 (.11) −.11 (.09)Education −.01 (.02) −.02 (.02) −.03 (.02)Labor force participation (employed = 1) .10 (.12) −.08 (.12) .08 (.09)Family income −.01 (.02) .02 (.02) .06*** (.02)Kinship .20*** (.04) .10** (.04) .10** (.03)Length of residence .03*** (.01) .00 (.01) .02*** (.00)Neighborhood disorder .08 (.05) −1.10*** (.06) −.58*** (.04)Chi-Square 334.69*** 616.52*** 384.47***

d.f. 14 14 14

Note: Numbers in parentheses are standard errors.a The reference group is White homeowners.* p < .05 (two-tailed test).


4. Discussion and conclusion

This study attempted to examine the determinants of neighborhood attachment amongurban residents. Particular emphasis in this study was placed on race/ethnicity and home-ownership as the critical predictors of neighborhood attachment. More specifically, thisstudy questioned whether there is a difference in neighborhood attachment between urbanblacks and urban whites, as well as between urban Latinos and urban whites. The findingsshowed that there exists a significant difference in neighborhood attachment between urbanblacks and urban whites. In general, urban black residents, relative to urban white residents,tended to have less neighborhood friends (friendship), interact less with their proximateneighbors (neighboring), experience a lower level of local bond (social cohesion/trust),participate less in neighborhood organization, and feel less neighborhood satisfaction andneighborhood sentiment.

Some past studies argued that opportunity constraints and social isolation of urban blackresidents from the mainstreams—e.g., less economic opportunity, lack of institutional ser-vices, weak inter-class networks, and high criminal activity, are influenced by deleteriousneighborhood conditions, such as residential segregation and high neighborhood poverty(Massey & Denton, 1993; Rankin & Quane, 2000; Wilson, 1987). Despite the negativeconsequences of black residential segregation in urban communities, some past studies sug-gested strong neighborhood attachment in black neighborhoods (Feagin, 1970; Martineau,


1977). However, this study examined neighborhood attachment beyond black neighbor-hoods and included a total of 343 Chicago neighborhoods (Earls, 1999). In this study,the weak neighborhood attachment of urban black residents, based upon all communitiesin Chicago, might originate from their weak social position overall. In other words, theirlow social and physical assimilations from the mainstream society tended to make themdetached from even their own ethnic neighborhoods. On the other hand, this study demon-strated that there is little difference in neighborhood attachment between urban Latinos andurban whites. For urban Latinos, the degree of residential segregation from urban whites isfar lower than blacks in large cities (Denton & Massey, 1988). This relatively low isolationof urban Latinos from urban whites may suggest relatively easier access to white neighbor-hoods under the condition of improved socio-economic status (e.g., spatial assimilation),and as a consequence, they may have a greater chance to maintain contact with the otherwhite neighbors (Massey & Mullan, 1984).

The second hypothesis tested in this study, based upon the systemic model, was to exam-ine whether race/ethnicity, through homeownership, influences neighborhood attachment.The findings showed that in three neighborhood attachment indicators (neighboring, socialcohesion/trust, and participation in neighborhood organization), white nonhomeowners areless tied to their neighborhoods than white homeowners. This supports the argument thatresidential instability, like rent, is a key barrier to creating neighborhood attachment amonglocal residents (Kasarda & Janowitz, 1974). The study also proved that homeownership inurban blacks is a crucial device for residential stability and local attachment because blacknonhomeowners, as compared to white homeowners, suffer from lower neighborhood tiesand bonds in all six indicators of neighborhood attachment. Comparatively, black home-owners experienced the weaker neighborhood attachment in its three indicators—friendship,neighboring, and participation in neighborhood organizations. Overall, the combination ofthese two weak social positions, blacks and nonhomeowners, tended to aggravate theiraccessibility to neighborhood attachment.

In addition, the findings showed that both Latino homeowners and nonhomeowners inter-act less with their neighbors (neighboring) and trust their neighbors (social cohesion/trust)less than white homeowners. Considering these two aspects of neighborhood attachment,these results might be closely related to the diverse characteristics of urban Latino residents,such as ethnic backgrounds, immigration status, transnational tendency, and ethnic residen-tial locations. Finally, it should be also noted that this analysis omitted some objectivedifferences in neighborhood conditions; for instances, racial/ethnic composition, residen-tial segregation, and local economic conditions. Otherwise, future studies should considerthe limitations placed on the analyses of neighborhood attachment by differences in theperceived and objective levels of local disorder studies (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999).These differences may limit or enhance neighborhood attachment of these three racial/ethnicgroups examined in this paper.

Acknowledgements

The data were made available by the Inter-University Consortium for Political and SocialResearch, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor.


References

Alba, R. D., & Logan, J. R. (1992). Assimilation and stratification in the homeownership patterns of racial andethnic groups.International Migration Review, 26, 1314–1341.

Antunes, G., & Gaitz, C. (1975). Ethnicity and Participation: A Study of Mexican-Americans, Blacks, and Whites.American Journal of Sociology, 80, 1192–1211.

Blum, T. C., & Kinoston, P. W. (1984). Homeownership and social attachment.Sociological Perspective, 27,159–180.

Bolan, M. (1997). The mobility experience and neighborhood attachment.Demography, 34, 225–237.Campbell, K., & Lee, B. (1992). Sources of personal neighbor networks: Social integration, need, or time.Social

Forces, 70, 1077–1100.Denton, N. A., & Massey, D. S. (1988). Residential Segregation of Blacks, Hispanics, and Asians by socioeconomic

status and generation.Social Science Quarterly, 54, 790–808.Earls, F. (1999).Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods: Community survey, 1994–1995.

Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research. Ann Arbor: Michigan.Eggers, M. L., & Massey, D. S. (1992). The structural determinants of urban poverty of Whites, Blacks, and

Hispanics.Social Science Research, 20, 217–255.Feagin, J. (1970). A note on the friendship ties of black urbanites.Social Forces, 49, 303–308.Fisher, C. S. (1977).Networks and places: Social relations in the urban setting. New York, NY: The Free Press.Flippen, C. (2001). Racial and ethnic inequality in homeownership and housing inequality.The Sociological

Quarterly, 42, 121–149.Geis, K., & Ross, C. (1998). A new look at urban alienation: The effect of neighborhood disorder on perceived

powerlessness.Social Psychology Quarterly, 61, 232–246.Hallman, H. W. (1984).Neighborhoods: Their place in urban life. CA: Sage.Hunter, A. (1974).Symbolic communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Jayakody, R. (1993). Neighborhoods and neighbor relations. In L. M. Jackson & R. J. Taylor (Eds.),Aging in

Black America (pp. 21–37). CA: Sage Publications Inc.Kasarda, J. D. (1989). Urban industrial transition and the underclass.The Annals of American Academy, 501,

26–47.Kasarda, J., & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community attachment in mass society.American Sociological Review, 39,

328–339.Klobus-Edwards, P., Edwards, J., & Klemmack, D. (1978). Differences in social participation: Blacks and whites.

Social Forces, 56, 1035–1052.Krivo, L. J. (1995). Immigrant characteristics and Hispanic-Anglo housing inequality.Demography, 32, 599–

615.Lee, B., & Campbell, K. (1999). Neighbor networks of black and white Americans. In B. Wellman (Ed.),Networks

in the global village: Life in contemporary communities (pp. 119–146). Boulder, CO: Westview Press.Lee, B., Campbell, K., & Miller, O. (1991). Racial differences in urban neighboring.Sociological Forum, 6,

525–550.Logan, J., Alba, R. D., & Zhang, W. (2002). Immigrant enclaves and ethnic communities in New York and Los

Angeles.American Sociological Review, 67, 299–322.Logan, J., & Spitze, G. (1994). Family neighbors.American Journal of Sociology, 100, 453–476.Majka, T. J., & Donnelly, P. G. (1988). Cohesiveness within a heterogeneous urban neighborhood: Implications

for community in a diverse setting.Journal of Urban Affairs, 10, 141–159.Martineau, W. (1977). Informal social ties among urban black Americans: Some new data and a review of the

problem.Journal of Black Studies, 8, 83–104.Massey, D., Condran, G. A., & Denton, N. (1987). The effect of residential segregation on black social and

economic well-being.Social Forces, 66, 29–56.Massey, D., & Denton, N. (1993).American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the underclass. Cambridge,

MA: Harvard University Press.Massey, D., & Mullan, B. P. (1984). Processes of hispanic and black spatial assimilation.American Journal of

Sociology, 89, 836–872.Megbolugbe, I. F., & Lineman, P. D. (1993). Home ownership.Urban Studies, 30, 659–682.


Musick, M., Wilson, J., & Bynum, W. (2000). Race and formal volunteering: The differential effects of class andreligion.Social Forces, 78, 1539–1571.

Oliver, M. (1988). The urban black community as network: Toward a social network perspective.The SociologicalQuarterly, 29, 623–645.

Rankin, B., & Quane, J. (2000). Neighborhood poverty and the social isolation of inner-city African Americanfamilies.Social Forces, 79, 139–164.

Robert, B. (1995). Socially expected durations and the economic adjustment of immigrants. In P. Alejandro (Ed.),The economic sociology of immigration: Essays on networks, ethnicity, and entrepreneurship (pp. 42–86).New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Rohe, W. M., & Stegman, M. A. (1994). The impact of home ownership on the social and political involvementof low-income people.Urban Affairs Quarterly, 30, 152–172.

Rosenbaum, E. (1996). The influence of race on hispanic housing choices, New York City, 1978–1987.UrbanAffairs Review, 32, 217–243.

Rubinowitz, L. S., & Rosenbaum, J. E. (2000).Crossing the class and color lines: From public housing to whitesuburbia. Illinois: The University of Chicago Press.

Sampson, R. J., Morenoff, J. D., & Earls, F. (1999). Beyond social capital: Spatial dynamics of collective efficacyfor children.American Sociological Review, 64, 633–660.

Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look atdisorder in urban neighborhoods.American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603–651.

Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study ofcollective efficacy.Science, 277, 918–924.

St. John, C., & Clark, F. (1984). Race and social class differences in the characteristics desired in residentialneighborhoods.Social Science Quarterly, 65, 803–813.

Stoll, M. A. (2001). Race, neighborhood poverty, and participation in voluntary associations.Sociological Forum,16, 529–557.

Wilson, W. J. (1987).The truly disadvantaged. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Wilson, W. J. (1991). Studying inner-city social dislocations: The challenge of public agenda research.American

Sociological Review, 56, 1–14.Wilson, W. (1996).When work disappears: The world of the new urban poor. New Yorkss: Vintage Books, Inc.

race/ethnicity, homeownership, and neighborhood attachment

Documents