The built environment and collective efficacy: Environmental determinants or correlates?

A new study by Cohen, Iganami, & Finch (In press) has found that having more parks and less off-licences leads to a greater sense of social cohesion and more informal social control. The later two concepts together form “collective efficacy”. The authors discuss how collective efficacy is frequently considered a “cause”, but they have hypothesized "that environmental features might be the foundation for or the etiology of personal reports of neighborhood collective efficacy, independent of the composition of the people who lived in the neighborhoods and their concomitant socio-demographic characteristics".

However, to what extent are such built environment variables causal? Longitudinal data is needed to answer this. Even still it is possible that demand for alcohol or even for parks may be driving the built environment- collective efficacy relationship... It is not surprising that number of alcohol outlets dropped out as a predictor when disadvantage was including in the analysis. I would like to have a seen a breakdown of the parks-collective efficacy relationship into the social cohesion and informal social control items.

I would guess that less pesky youths loitering on the street are producing the park-collective efficacy relationship. Loitering or "groups of three or more adults not waiting for scheduled activities or businesses" is the most frequently cited problem in regard to social disorder (Samson & Raudenbush, 1999). Less loitering (with intent) means less frequency of disrespect, graffiti, and by definition hanging out which may mean that such a rare event would provoke a response of informal social control thus the high endorsement. Whereas if you're habituated to these conditions you are less likely to intervene. So it is important to also assess perceived social norms for loitering and social disorder in order to determine the real likelihood of intervention, more room for anchoring vignettes here. The evidence points to perceptions of government responsiveness and neighbourhood attachment and social ties as key determinants of informal social control. It's possible that any loitering filters such as internet shops, video game halls, community centres, could improve collective efficacy. Alternatively, there may be something distinct about the broad demographic range of usage of parks that acts to engender civility. Perhaps informal social control is supported by a space of mutual ownership where others are likely to support an intervention and thus the park acts as a nursery for the formation of neighbourhood power relations.

Read Cohen et al (In press)