IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/urbstu/v53y2016i8p1727-1744.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Individual and contextual socioeconomic status and community satisfaction

Author

Listed:
  • Lauren Hannscott

Abstract

This study utilises the Pew Research Center’s 2008 survey on Social and Demographic Trends to examine both individual and contextual socioeconomic status in relation to community satisfaction. My focus on socioeconomic diversity, a measure of contextual socioeconomic status, allows for the examination of two antecedents of satisfaction: preferences and experiences. Specifically, I ask: Who wants socioeconomic diversity? Who has socioeconomic diversity? And who is satisfied? I find that higher socioeconomic status is associated with both having a preference for socioeconomic diversity and living in a diverse community. However, having a preference for diversity, in and of itself, is not significantly related to living in a more socioeconomically diverse community. Finally, the study reveals that both individual (education and income) and contextual (percent unemployment) socioeconomic measures are associated with community satisfaction. However, neither preferences for nor experiences with diversity are significant predictors of community satisfaction.

Suggested Citation

  • Lauren Hannscott, 2016. "Individual and contextual socioeconomic status and community satisfaction," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 53(8), pages 1727-1744, June.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:53:y:2016:i:8:p:1727-1744
    DOI: 10.1177/0042098015574811
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0042098015574811
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/0042098015574811?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Wendy Sarkissian, 1976. "The Idea of Social Mix in Town Planning: An Historical Review," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 13(3), pages 231-246, October.
    2. McKinnish, Terra & White, T. Kirk, 2011. "Who moves to mixed-income neighborhoods?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 187-195, May.
    3. Tim Heaton & Carl Fredrickson & Glenn Fuguitt & James Zuiches, 1979. "Residential preferences, community satisfaction, and the intention to move," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 16(4), pages 565-573, November.
    4. Charles Connerly & Robert Marans, 1985. "Comparing two global measures of perceived neighborhood quality," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 17(1), pages 29-47, July.
    5. Brian Stipak & Carl Hensler, 1983. "Effect of neighborhood racial and socioeconomic composition on urban residents' evaluations of their neighborhoods," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 12(3), pages 311-320, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. John Hipp, 2010. "What is the ‘Neighbourhood’ in Neighbourhood Satisfaction? Comparing the Effects of Structural Characteristics Measured at the Micro-neighbourhood and Tract Levels," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(12), pages 2517-2536, November.
    2. Francesco Andreoli & Eugenio Peluso, 2016. "So close yet so unequal: Reconsidering spatial inequality in U.S. cities," Working Papers 21/2016, University of Verona, Department of Economics.
    3. Yuemei Zhu & Junxiang Ding & Qing Zhu & Yang Cheng & Qiuchen Ma & Xuze Ji, 2017. "The Impact of Green Open Space on Community Attachment—A Case Study of Three Communities in Beijing," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(4), pages 1-14, April.
    4. Chih Hoong Sin, 2002. "The Quest for a Balanced Ethnic Mix: Singapore's Ethnic Quota Policy Examined," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(8), pages 1347-1374, July.
    5. Elspeth Graham & David Manley & Rosemary Hiscock & Paul Boyle & Joe Doherty, 2009. "Mixing Housing Tenures: Is it Good for Social Well-being?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(1), pages 139-165, January.
    6. Thomas Schofield & Melissa Merrick & Chia-Feng Chen, 2016. "Reciprocal Associations between Neighborhood Context and Parent Investments: Selection Effects in Two Longitudinal Samples," Working Papers wp16-08-ff, Princeton University, School of Public and International Affairs, Center for Research on Child Wellbeing..
    7. Hazel Easthope & Laura Crommelin & Sophie-May Kerr & Laurence Troy & Ryan van den Nouwelant & Gethin Davison, 2022. "Planning for Lower-Income Households in Privately Developed High-Density Neighbourhoods in Sydney, Australia," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 7(4), pages 213-228.
    8. Giada Casarin & Julie MacLeavy & David Manley, 2023. "Rethinking urban utopianism: The fallacy of social mix in the 15-minute city," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(16), pages 3167-3186, December.
    9. Matthieu Permentier & Gideon Bolt & Maarten van Ham, 2011. "Determinants of Neighbourhood Satisfaction and Perception of Neighbourhood Reputation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 48(5), pages 977-996, April.
    10. Sean-Shong Hwang & Don Albrecht, 1987. "Constraints to the fulfillment of residential preferences among Texas homebuyers," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 24(1), pages 61-76, February.
    11. Juan Pablo Celemín & Guillermo Ángel Velázquez, 2018. "Spatial Analysis of the Relationship Between a Life Quality Index, HDI and Poverty in the Province of Buenos Aires and the Autonomous City of Buenos Aires, Argentina," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 140(1), pages 57-77, November.
    12. Wouter van Gent & Cody Hochstenbach & Justus Uitermark, 2018. "Exclusion as urban policy: The Dutch ‘Act on Extraordinary Measures for Urban Problems’," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(11), pages 2337-2353, August.
    13. Zarnekow, Nana & Henning, Christian H.C.A., 2015. "Nice Neighborhood or Network Capital: What drives Residential Quality of Life?," 2015 AAEA & WAEA Joint Annual Meeting, July 26-28, San Francisco, California 205637, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    14. Sapna Swaroop & Maria Krysan, 2011. "The Determinants of Neighborhood Satisfaction: Racial Proxy Revisited," Demography, Springer;Population Association of America (PAA), vol. 48(3), pages 1203-1229, August.
    15. Ronald van Kempen & A. şule Özüekren, 1998. "Ethnic Segregation in Cities: New Forms and Explanations in a Dynamic World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 35(10), pages 1631-1656, October.
    16. Jooseok Oh, 2020. "Residential Mobility and Quality of Life between Metropolitan Areas: The Case of South Korea," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(20), pages 1-14, October.
    17. Yu Wang & David Shaw & Ke Yuan, 2018. "Gated Neighborhoods, Privatized Amenities and Fragmented Society: Evidence from Residential Experience and Implications for Urban Planning," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(11), pages 1-20, November.
    18. Atuesta, Laura H. & Hewings, Geoffrey J.D., 2019. "Housing appreciation patterns in low-income neighborhoods: Exploring gentrification in Chicago," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 44(C), pages 35-47.
    19. ANDREOLI Francesco & PELUSO Eugenio, 2017. "So close yet so unequal: Spatial inequality in American cities," LISER Working Paper Series 2017-11, Luxembourg Institute of Socio-Economic Research (LISER).
    20. Donald C. Dahmann, 1983. "Subjective Assessments of Neighborhood Quality by Size of Place," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 20(1), pages 31-45, February.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:urbstu:v:53:y:2016:i:8:p:1727-1744. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/urbanstudiesjournal .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.