Another article on walkability: this one, by Kevin M. Leyden, argues that walkable neighbourhoods encourage the development of social capital, meaning that they help people know their neighbours, participate in politics, trust others, and be more socially engaged (1546). The benefits of social capital don’t just accrue to the community: “People who are socially engaged with others and actively involved in their communities tend to live longer and be healthier physically and mentally” (1546). Leyden suggests the term “social capital” as a way of describing those social and community ties: he defines it as “the social networks and interactions that inspire trust and reciprocity among citizens” (1546). “Individuals with high levels of social capital tend to be involved politically, to volunteer in their communities, and to get together more frequently with friends and neighbors,” as well as “to trust or to think kindly of others” (1546). Social capital has been linked empirically to “the proper functioning of a democracy, the prevention of crime, and enhanced economic development” (1546). It’s very important, then, according to Leyden.
Leyden, a political scientist, wants to understand “why some persons and some communities have more social capital than others,” since it’s so important to public health (1546). He wants to examine “whether the built environment (i.e. the way we design and build our communities and neighborhoods) affects the degree to which people are involved in their communities and with each other” (1546). His “fundamental premise is that some neighborhood designs enable or encourage social ties or community connections, whereas others do not” (1546). His hypothesis is that mixed-use and pedestrian-friendly neighbourhoods are most likely to promote social capital (1546). Such neighbourhoods are typically found in older cities and rural towns (1546). “These neighborhoods are walkable, enabling residents to perform daily activities (e.g. grocery shopping, going to the park, taking children to school) without the use of a car,” he writes. “Many of these neighorhoods have places of worship, a local tavern, a coffee shop, or restaurants within walking distance” (1546). In other words, they have what Jemima Stockton and her co-authors describe as a higher land-use mix (see Stockton et al). Such neighbourhoods encourage walking, because pedestrians don’t have to complete with cars along busy highways or massive parking lots (1546). Thus, following Stockton and her co-authors again, we might describe them as having high levels of street connectivity or, following Mariela Alfonzo, we might suggest that they satisfy pedestrian needs for comfort and pleasurability (Alfonzo 828-30).
Leyden compares “[t]his traditional or complete neighborhood design” to “its modern suburban counterpart,” in which daily needs are met by shopping in malls “located along 4-lane connector roads that are typically clogged with traffic” and where trips “to shop, worship, or go to a restaurant, pub, park or library” must be made by car (1546). “Many contemporary suburban subdivisions do not even have sidewalks: citizens must drive to find a place to exercise or to go for a walk,” he writes (1546).
In theory, “pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use neighborhoods are expected to enhance social capital because they enable residents to interact,” either spontaneously or intentionally, and that interaction helps “to encourage a sense of trust and a sense of connection between people and the places they live” (1546). Those interactions build webs of public respect and trust (1546). However, in contrast, “most contemporary suburban subdivisions do little to enable social interaction,” particularly spontaneous ones, and life takes places “within the home or in the backyard” (1546-47).
Leyden’s study “examined the relationship between neighborhood design and social capital” (1547). His hypothesis was “that pedestrian-oriented, mixed-use neighborhoods are more likely to encourage social capital than are car-dependent, single-use neighborhoods” (1547). He surveyed people in and around Galway, Ireland, in 2001 (1547). At the time, Galway was the country’s fastest growing cities in Europe (1547). He chose Galway because “it has a mix of neighborhood types ranging from the truly mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented variety (built centuries before the automobile) to the contemporary, American-style suburb,” and because the city has no history of racism of “white flight” that has “affected American cities and that in many ways continues to distort decisions regarding where to live” (1547). The survey was conducted by mail (1547). Galway’s neighbourhoods were divided into three categories: city centre neighbourhoods, including mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighbourhoods where people can meet their daily needs by walking short distances; older, mixed-use suburbs, which “incorporate some of the more positive aspects of both the traditional city center neighborhood and the quiet suburb”; and modern, car-dependent suburbs, where few places can be accessed on foot, and where some neighbourhoods don’t have sidewalks or parks (1547). By categorizing Galway’s neighbourhoods, Leyden ensured that the individuals surveyed lived in a range of neighbourhood types (1547). However, the determination of whether these neighbourhoods were walkable or not was made by the respondents (1547). The study measured four key aspects of social capital: “how well residents knew their neighbors, their political participation, their trust or faith in other people, and their social engagement” (1548).
The results indicated that the research participants’ evaluations of the walkability of their neighbourhoods coincided with the researchers’ evaluations of those same neighbourhoods. In “traditional” neighbourhoods, people walked more (or at least perceived their neighbourhoods to be walkable), felt more connected to or part of their communities, were more likely to know their neighbours and to have trust or faith in other people, were more likely to contact elected officials to express their concerns, and were more likely to walk to work (1548-49). However, those simple mean comparisons do not control for other factors that might explain why residents in some neighbourhoods have more social capital, so Leyden used a multivariate method, which returned similar results: “the more places respondents reported being able to walk to in their neighborhood, the higher their level of social capital. This relation suggests that walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods are better generators of social capital than are modern, car-dependent suburbs” (1549). Thus, the more walkable a neighbourhood was—the more places someone could walk to—the more social capital that the neighbourhood generated (1549).“The neighborhood walkability measure had a statistically significant effect on all of the measures of social capital,” Leyden writes. “No other predictor was consistently significant. Moreover, neighborhood walkability consistently held its own in comparison with the other predictors, often playing a more powerful role” (1549).
“This study suggests that the way we design and build our communities and neighborhoods affects social capital and thus physical and mental health,” Leydon concludes. “The results indicate that residents living in walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods are more likely to know their neighbors, to participate politically, to trust others, and to be involved socially” (1550). Unfortunately, though America’s built environment—and Canada’s—has, over the past decades, “been moving in a direction that is likely to have a negative effect on social capital” (1550). Many Americans have no choice but to live in “a modern, car-dependent suburb, because not enough viable, affordable traditional neighborhoods exist,” and modern, car-dependent suburbs are what most developers build (1550). It’s not just the fault of developers; “municipal zoning codes and other public policy changes” have promoted “transport by private vehicle,” rather than public transportation, and have discouraged, even outlawed, “the building of mixed-use, pedestrian-oriented neighborhoods” (1550). “Changing this trend will require political will and a shift in land-use and transportation priorities and policies,” Leyden writes, along with a shift in public consciousness, perhaps through government policy (1550). However, before that can happen, we need to know whether the results of this study can be generalized. Did selection bias, for instance, affect the results? Is it possible that “[s]ocial people might be more likely to choose walkable neighborhoods, rather th[a]n walkable neighborhoods’ encouraging sociability” (1550)? In addition, “much more must be learned about which architectural aspects of the built environment most affect health and social capital,” and indeed about the components of walkability: “measures such as block size, density, street widths, and traffic speed” (1550). “Finally, more data must be gathered regarding how the built environment affects health in general,” Leyden writes (1550). Does urban sprawl affect peoples’ life spans (1550)? How does it affect young people or the elderly (1550)? “The consequences of not walking and of not interacting with others may have consequences far more negative, for persons of all ages, than we ever imagined,” he states (1550).
Somehow, and I don’t know how to do this, I want to extend Leyden’s argument from a discussion of social capital to one of walking culture. If places are walkable, then are people more likely to incorporate walking into their daily lives? And would that quotidian walking create a culture where walking is normal and not unusual or eccentric? Might such a culture include events, like heritage or tourism walks, the kinds of events that Wrights & Sites react against, that they want to subvert with psychogeography or mythogeography (see Wrights & Sites)? The city where I live is not that walkable—most of it resembles the car-dependent suburban neighbourhoods Leyden describes—and for that reason, does it lack the culture of walking that may exist in older neighbourhoods in Galway? I think it does, but how would one go about proving such a thing? I turn to yet another article, hoping to find a clue, frustrated that nobody (as far as I can tell) has ever asked this question before.
Works Cited
Alfonzo, Mariela A. “To Walk or Not to Walk? The Hierarchy of Walking Needs.” Environment and Behavior, vol. 37, no. 6, 2005, pp. 808-836. DOI: 10.1177/0013916504274016.
Leyden, Kevin M. “Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Public Health, vol. 93, no. 9, 2003, pp. 1546-51. Proquest.
Stockton, Jemima C. Oliver Duke-Williams, Emmanuel Stamatakis, Jennifer S. Mindell, Eric J. Brunner, and Nicola J. Shelton. “Development of a Novel Walkability Index for London, United Kingdom: Cross-sectional Application to the Whitehall II Study. ” BMC Public Health, vol. 16, no. 416, pp. 1-12. DOI: 10.1186/s12889-016-3012-12.
Wrights & Sites. “A Manifesto for a New Walking Culture: ‘Dealing With the City.’” Performance Research, vol. 11, no. 2, 2006, pp. 115-22. DOI: 10.1080/13528160600812083.