2025 Volume 13 Issue 1 Pages 279-302
Abstract Planning has the power to prevent or reduce many physical social problems associated with urban regeneration By addressing issues such as poor infrastructure lack of public space social inequality planning can also help prevent potential future social problems As a result neighborhoods play a fundamental role in finding solutions to these problems Unfortunately recent rent-oriented urban regeneration practices carried out in Turkey have exacerbated these issues This makes it even more critical to prioritize thoughtful planning in future urban development This study aimed to test the theoretical assumption that different spatial designs produce distinct forms of neighborhood-level relationships through a sense of community in Eskisehir Neighborhood (Turkey) Firstly we analyzed the effect of neighbor relations on the sense of community in residential areas within an urban regeneration project Next we examined a neighborhood located in the same area where the demolition process has not yet begun which still maintains its traditional characteristics According to our findings we concluded that the sense of community has an impact on social interaction community attachment community identity in single-family housing areas whereas neighbor relations in housing estate areas only affect community attachment
In spite of recent urban regeneration efforts, many policies and practices are still being maintained without proper planning and qualified projects, which hinders the elimination of physical and social problems in cities. Policies that focus on rent and gentrification are exacerbating income inequality, environmental deterioration, and loss of community and belonging. These challenges have arisen from the policies that have emerged, resulting in displacement of low-income residents, weakened neighbor relations, and discrimination against marginalized groups. As a result, some urban regeneration applications have merely relocated the same issues to another area or even destroyed neighborhoods that require encouragement and support (Jacobs, 1961, pp. 270-271). The neglect of these spaces has led to increased isolation of individuals, and relying solely on construction exacerbates the situation.
This study argues for human-oriented urban regeneration with a focus on creating a sense of community. The study also examines the transformative effects of the new structural environment created in urban regeneration areas on neighbor relations and the sense of community. We are investigating “the possibility of communities saving us from the disintegrating forces of modern society, such as materialism, individualism, and market-oriented greed” (Harvey, 1997). The study concludes that by prioritizing neighbor relations and a sense of community, human-oriented urban regeneration can counteract these negative societal forces and create more livable and sustainable urban areas. The exclusion of people and places from policy implementation is a major problem in urban regeneration, which can result in the expansion of problem areas. The planning issue is evaluated as a reason for disintegration, particularly in urban regeneration areas in Turkey. Finally, the study provides practical evidence through field research to support the theoretical framework.
The study examines the potential of New Urbanism as an alternative approach for urban regeneration areas in Turkey. The study's originality lies in evaluating both housing estate and single-family housing areas in the context of creating a sense of community through neighborhood-level planning. The neighborhood represents livability in the human-space-network triangle (Jarvis, Cloke et al., 2009, p. 209), and the addition of single-family housing to the study area makes the difference more striking compared to monotonous uniformity of mass housing estate (Lee, 1968, p. 243). This evaluation suggests that New Urbanism could be an alternative to eliminate problems in urban regeneration areas while preserving traditional characteristics within the framework of careful improvemena
The neighborhood, designed to enhance social interaction and inclusivity in urban life, originated in the early 20th century (Zayed, 2015, p. 158). However, rapid urbanization, industrialization, and modernization have altered neighborhoods, especially in densely populated housing estate areas resulting from urban regeneration. Despite growing vertical spaces, community bonds weaken, and neighbor relations disintegrate in these settings.
Recent studies emphasize the need to prioritize neighbor relationships and a sense of community in urban development to tackle urban crises. Current urban policies often prioritize projects over people (One of the reasons for the failure of project-focused processes is their isolation and segregation from the city. Often, new projects are built to escape these failures or improve the process, but this approach only repeats the same mistakes. In this case, it is necessary to patch up these projects like mending a piece of cloth while simultaneously strengthening the fabric around them (Jacobs, 1961: 392)), leading to issues like unfair rent distribution, alienation, unused spaces, and stagnation. These problems are not confined to a single country, indicating the emergence of a global urban crisis. The New Urbanism Movement, which emerged in the 1990s in the United States, offers an alternative to traditional urban development models. It responds to post-World War II suburban planning by drawing inspiration from traditional small towns (Christoforidis, 1994, p. 429). New Urbanism focuses on good urban design, incorporating aspects of growth management, environmental protection, and urban revitalization (Ellin, 1999, p. 93). It emphasizes human-scale urban priorities over modern conditions like automobiles (Varma, 2017, p. 250). This approach promotes regular housing intervals, walkable commercial areas, and mixed-use developments, reducing dependence on cars and encouraging community interactions (Garde, 2006, p. 35; https://www.cnu.org/). New Urbanism operates on assumptions about how people interact with each other and their environment (Lund, 2003, p. 414) and emphasizes the importance of appearance and atmosphere in designing urban spaces. In summary, advocates argue that rebuilding the lost sense of community involves constructing social capital through well-planned urban environments (Talen, 1999). Effective spatial planning and regulation can impact social interactions, fostering connections and community (Łucka, 2018). The complexity and ambiguity of the concept of emotion presents a challenge in creating a coherent understanding of community, and contemporary communities can no longer be described using pre-industrial face-to-face relationships in rural areas. Instead, new forms of relationships are emerging in crowded and expanding cities of modern society (Etzioni, 1994).
The concept of sense of community is an interdisciplinary field originating from responses to social and psychological challenges in modern societies (Cohrun, 1994, p. 92). Proposed by Sarason (1974, p. 157), it refers to individuals' perception of similarity and interdependence with others, a feeling of being part of a dependable and stable structure. McMillan and Chavis (1986, p. 9) expanded Sarason's concept, defining it through four dimensions: membership, influence, reinforcement, and shared emotional connection. However, measuring this emotion remains challenging due to its subjective nature, leading researchers to focus on its psychological dimension and influencing factors. It has gained popularity and applicability in various fields, including social psychology, urban planning, and public health. The sense of community can arise based on physical or social characteristics, such as shared interests or the proximity of living spaces (Kim, 2001, p. 11). In contemporary studies, distinguishing between "community of interest" and "community of place" (Glynn, 1986, p. 342) might not be adequate to grasp the full sense of community. Efforts have been made to understand the components and influencing factors of community sense. Researchers have emphasized the connection between physical planning and community sense through studies conducted by various scholars (Abu-Ghazzeh, 1999; Baum and Valins, 1977; Festinger, Back et al., 1950; Fischer, 1977; Fleming, Baum et al., 1985; Gehl, 2011; Hallman, 1984; Hillier and Hanson, 1984; Homans, 1961; Kenen, 1982; Marcus and Sarkissian, 1986; Plas and Lewis, 1996; Rapoport, 1990). These studies explore the impact of the environment on human consciousness, attitudes, and behaviors (Talen, 2000, p. 172). While physical designs alone cannot create a sense of community, they can encourage variables contributing to its development (Talen, 1999, p. 1372). Previous studies have used the physical environment as a tool to understand individual well-being, but they have not focused on the relationship between environmental variables and the sense of community. Moreover, the sense of community has not been systematically and empirically investigated in various disciplines, particularly in urban studies and planning (Plas and Lewis, 1996, p. 109).
Living in close proximity doesn't guarantee mutual interest, genuine connection stems from interpersonal communication. This communication, a fundamental aspect of community, emphasizes social interaction (Cabrera and Najarian, 2013, p. 427). Social interaction, which includes both formal and informal encounters occurring in public or semi-public spaces, demands shared emotional bonds (Kim, 2001, p. 24; 2007, p. 208). Compact urban designs fostering neighbor activities enhance social interactions and a stronger sense of community (Brown and Cropper, 2001, p. 403). The sense of community is also influenced by social interaction, as people tend to interact more with their neighbors when they feel a strong sense of community (Unger and Wandersman, 1985, p. 157). Without social interaction, it is challenging to create or maintain a sense of community in the neighborhood (Zaff and Devlin, 1998, p. 383).
The sense of community signifies a unique connection between individuals and their social environment in psychology literature (Davidson and Cotter, 1986, p. 608). Attachment refers to residents' emotional connection to their neighborhoods, fostering a feeling of belonging and involvement in their community (Kim, 2001, p. 18). In this sense, it always has a cognitive aspect. This feeling is particularly important in shaping and preserving the identity of a historic locality (Tansukanun, 2022, p. 152). In other words, attachment emotionally connects individuals to a place while also bringing along the ability of this place to support their identities (Dameria, Akbar et al., 2022, p. 26).Attachment to living space is defined as the psychological well-being experienced by the subject due to the presence, proximity, or accessibility of the object, and the distressing condition due to the absence, distance, or inaccessibility of the object (Giuliani, 1991, p. 134).
Community attachment encompasses both strong and weak social ties, including casual social contacts, contributing to residents' sense of belonging (Rogers and Sukolratanametee, 2009, p. 326).
Community identity is the unique blend of neighborhood features and residents' individual traits that create a distinct unity, making the community more than just its individual parts (Wiesenfeld, 1996, p. 341). It represents the personal and collective identity that emerges within a specific geographical area with its distinctive character. Community identity is directly related to both the concept of self and the identity of the space (Kim and Kaplan, 2004, p. 315), expressing a binary construct that involves individual and collective perspectives (Puddifoot, 1995, p. 361). It is the relationships in people's life circles that define the identity of the neighborhood, including the content and power of these relations. Community identity is seen as a step in the continuity of the community order (Kallus and Law-Yone, 2000, p. 820). When residents identify with the neighborhood's character, a sense of community naturally emerges (Kim and Kaplan, 2004, p. 315).
In summary, the idea that neighborhood planning can affect the sense of community emphasizes that all the changes in the city affect the neighborhood level (Myerson, 2005), and it highlights the importance of urban regeneration, the limitations of approaching social problems with physical solutions, the value of neighborhood social networks, and the importance of citizens' participation in this process (Rohe, 2009, p. 209). Therefore, in the next part of the study, we will discuss the importance of planning in urban regeneration to support these ideas, based on Turkey's urban regeneration practices.
The shift towards people-centric planning and regeneration, encompassing economic, political, socio-cultural, and socio-psychological dimensions, gained momentum post-World War II (Roberts, 2000, p. 14; 2017, p. 19). The regeneration process was categorized into different periods, starting with the reconstruction period of the 1950s, which involved the restructuring of old urban areas based on master plans. The revitalization period of the 1960s continued with on-site renovation and neighborhood renewal plans, followed by an emphasis on comprehensive urban renewal in the 1970s. The 1980s saw the development of large-scale projects, while the 1990s focused on a more comprehensive urban regeneration and integrated improvement approach. In the 2000s, the regeneration process was dominated by large-scale projects within the framework of small-scale plans. However, Turkey's regeneration and planning practices have taken a different course from the processes outlined in Western literature, as noted by Roberts (2000).
The increased prominence of cities in Turkey has led to a rise in migration from rural areas to urban centers (Tekeli, İ., 1982, p. 85). The country's integration with capitalism after the war (Keskinok, 2006, p. 69) has resulted in rapid urban growth and the emergence of residential problems, particularly in the form of gecekondu (squatting) that first appeared in large cities. Despite attempts to manage these issues through legal regulations until the 1980s, the problems persisted and even intensified with the inclusion of urban areas in capital accumulation through economic liberalization during the same period (Kurtulus, 2006, p. 9). Consequently, urban development in Turkey began to be characterized by large-scale projects and enclosed housing estates (Yalcintan, Cavusoglu et al., 2014, p. 64). In the 2000s, regeneration practices grew due to EU harmonization, yet projects became fragmented and income-based, lacking a comprehensive plan (Urbanization-Council, 2009, p. 32). This approach reflects what Bugra (2000) calls the "immoral economy of urban regeneration."
Turkey's zoning system primarily focuses on quantitative control of urban construction but lacks detailed instructions for specific goals, leading to passive plans inadequate for high-quality cities (Bademli, 2007). Citizen participation gaps make cities seem like administrators' property, neglecting citizen involvement (Gormez, 2001, p. 137). Planning failures, common in developing nations, cause urban problems (Keles, 1976). Urban regeneration demands a holistic approach, addressing social, economic, and environmental factors. Turkey's elitist planning hampers citizen participation (Tekeli, İlhan, 1991, pp. 1-2), neglecting historic areas and issues like gecekondu. In fact, resident participation is essential for the achievement of sustainable and efficient urban renewal projects (Baek and Joo, 2021, p. 8).A new approach, considering citizens and cultural context, is vital. Regeneration in Turkey often lacks specific plans, driven by market forces (Gorgulu, 2009, p. 769). Moreover, urban regeneration enhances physical, social, and economic well-being, vital for neighborhood life quality.
The concept of a neighborhood has always been a spatial element in planning thought. The period between 1880 and 1920 is considered the "formative phase" of the neighborhood idea, where it became a political assembly point for social reform. During the 1920s to the 1960s, the neighborhood was incorporated into social science research and urban planning studies as a planning unit during the "political activism" process. In the 1960s and 1970s, a "vast revisionism" occurred in the neighborhood movement, which expanded the area of neighborhoods (Silver, 1985, p. 162). Today, there's a return to the 1880-1920 approach, recognizing neighborhoods' crucial role in urban regeneration. This return is noteworthy in terms of both content and format. Neighborhood planning emerged as a response to the monotonous nature of uncontrolled mass housing (Lee, 1968, p. 243), and it has been widely practiced in the West. However, it is not included in the Turkish plan hierarchy. Nevertheless, the smaller scale of the plan hierarchy compared to the master development plan has the potential to contribute significantly to local needs and services in both the planning and implementation processes. This approach emphasizes the importance of local social relations and networks, crucial in tackling urban issues (Rohe, 2009, p. 216). The placement of lower-income groups in residential areas without social equipment and facilities leads to deficiencies and failures in practices that largely destroy the existing social structure and its values through urban regeneration applications. Therefore, it is essential to address applications in the neighbor, community, and neighborhood triangle, as urban regeneration areas should be initiated and developed from the neighborhood level, rather than large areas, which differs from Turkey's planning system.
This study adopts the principle of "design affects behavior" based on spatial determinism, which argues that the decisions made by designers will not only impact the visual appearance of residents’ lives but will also influence their daily routines (Lennertz, 1991, p. 21). The effects mentioned here refer to the support of human activities, rather than the behavioral patterns of architecture or planning (Marmot, 2002, p. 252). While redesigning or planning cannot entirely transform society into a new quality, interventions have the potential to significantly impact the lives of those who reside in these areas (Konuk, Olgun et al., 2017, p. 94). Therefore, it is important to examine the relationship between the sense of community and spatial determinism to determine whether social bonds and relationships, which form the foundation of the sense of community, can be established or enhanced through spatial design, or if existing bonds can be strengthened by this means. Studies have found that physical factors can influence certain dimensions of the sense of community. For example, Plas and Lewis (1996, p. 140) found that design stimulates the sense of community and that promoting factors associated with the structure of the community environment can be achieved through urban planning, as evidenced by their research on Seaside, which was the pioneer of the New Urbanism Movement.
Taking into account that social interaction comprises various forms of interaction involving neighbors (Unger and Wandersman, 1985; Weenig, Schmidt et al., 1990), Haggerty (1982) found that the greater the intensity of relationships between neighbors, the more pronounced the effects of social interaction and the neighborhood environment will be. Additionally, there are studies demonstrating that the use of physical environment facilities enhances neighbor relations, and that the cultivation of neighbor relations also impacts social interaction (Ahlbrandt, 2013; Greenbaum, 1982; Levine, 1986; Lund, 2003; Riger, LeBailly et al., 1981). Research on the topic has shown that the use of physical facilities in the neighborhood brings people closer together and strengthens neighbor relations, resulting in increased social interaction and a stronger sense of identity (Gehl, 2011; Pretty, Bishop et al., 2007; Puddifoot, 1995). Given that attachment is characterized as a positive emotional connection or relationship between residents and their residential environments (Shumaker, 1983), certain studies have demonstrated that residents develop a stronger sense of attachment when they engage in interactions with their neighbors (Unger and Wandersman, 1985). Moreover, there are studies suggesting that spatial differences also give rise to changes in these behavioral patterns. For instance, neighbor relations differ among various types of housing settlements, and this relationship is more pronounced in traditional neighborhoods than in others (Bothwell, Gindroz et al., 1998; Langdon, 1997; Lund, 2002; Plas and Lewis, 1996; Talen, 1999). Spatial differentiations resulting from physical elements, such as the characteristics, design, and amenities of residential areas, influence social interactions among neighborhood residents (Ahlbrandt, 2013; Appleyard, Gerson et al., 1981; Michelson, 1970, 1977; Plas and Lewis, 1996; Talen, 1999, 2000; Williams, 2005). The impact is more significant in low-rise buildings with a wide area (Amick and Kviz, 1975) and is higher in traditionally designed neighborhoods (Brown and Cropper, 2001; Kim, 2001, 2007; Kim and Kaplan, 2004; Lund, 2002). Similarly, the degree of attachment varies depending on the location (Kim, 2001, 2007; Kim and Kaplan, 2004; Talen, 1999; Williams, 2005). The proximity of housing units, such as low-rise buildings, can increase attachment due to physical closeness (Williams, 2005). Street designs that allow for this closeness also contribute to attachment (Brown and Werner, 1985). Additionally, having unique values within a neighborhood can increase its sense of identity. Research has found that community identity is higher in single-family housing residential areas with traditional design (Duncan Jr, 1973; Guest and Lee, 1983; Kim, 2001, 2007; Kim and Kaplan, 2004). In summary, based on the fundamental hypothesis that changes in the character of a space can change the direction and nature of the relationships of those who use it, this study has developed the following hypotheses and we separately tested the proposed research model for housing estate residences (H1, H2, H3) and single-family housing residences (H4, H5, H6) to reveal the independent effects in the different residential areas (Figure 1):
H1: Neighbor relations of residents living in housing estate residences have a positive effect on social interaction.
H2: Neighbor relations of residents living in housing estate residences have a positive effect on identity.
H3: Neighbor relations of residents living in housing estate residences have a positive effect on attachment.
H4: Neighbor relations of residents living in single-family housing residences have a positive effect on social interaction.
H5: Neighbor relations of residents living in single-family housing residences have a positive effect on identity.
H6: Neighbor relations of residents living in single-family housing residences have a positive effect on attachment.
In this study, we empirically tested the hypotheses using Structural Equation Modeling (SEM). We provide detailed information about the study’s variables and scales, the data collection tool, and the sampling process under the following headings.
Variables and instrumentsThis study utilized existing scales, including the Sense of Community Index (SCI), which is one of the most important instruments for measuring and analyzing the sense of community. The SCI was designed based on the theory developed by McMillan and Chavis (1986), and it has been used in the majority of previous studies that measure the sense of community. Thus, we used the items developed from the relevant index and made some adaptations based on socio-cultural characteristics specific of Turkey. In this context, a 9-item scale adapted from Buckner (1988) and Prezza, Amici et al. (2001) was used in this study to measure neighbor relations. As previously noted, sense of community was defined as consisting of three dimensions: social interaction, community attachment, and community identity. Social interaction was measured using a 7-item scale adapted from the studies of Kim (2001) and Garip (2010). Community attachment was measured using a 5-item scale adapted from the studies of Kim (2001) and Cross (2003). Community identity was measured using a 5-item scale adapted from Yang and Xin (2016). All the scales were measured using a 5-point Likert-type scale. To collect data, we conducted a five-part questionnaire (demographic, social interaction, attachment, identity, and neighbor relations) through face-to-face interviews with voluntary participants.
Sampling processThe population of our study consisted of residents aged 18 years or older (N=2209) living in the Karapinar Neighborhood of Odunpazari Municipality of Eskisehir. We determined our sample size using the SEM criterion (10:1) and collected a total of 576 surveys (280=housing estate residential area, 296=single-family housing residential area). Due to time and economic constraints, we used convenience and snowball sampling methods to select our sample for the study. We analyzed the collected data using SPSS 25.0 and AMOS 23.0.
Data analysis Pilot studyWe administered 121 surveys, with 45.5% of the responses from housing estate residences and 54.5% from single-family housing residences. We conducted several analyses including the elimination of incorrect or incomplete questionnaire forms, assessment of normality, reliability, validity, and t-tests. We found that our data distributed normally, all scales used were reliable, variables loaded onto dimensions as expected, and responses varied based on the participants' residential area. Items with low factor loadings that disrupted the distribution between factors and those that reduced reliability were excluded from the analysis. Furthermore, we enhanced the comprehensibility of some items by revising them based on feedback from participants during the pilot study.
Main studyAs part of our main study, we collected a total of 576 surveys (280 from housing estate residences and 296 from single-family housing residences). However, we excluded 62 surveys where the respondents left more than 75% of the questionnaire unanswered. Additionally, we excluded 6 questionnaires from the study because they disrupted the distribution based on the Box Plot analysis results. Therefore, we conducted the analyses with the remaining 508 surveys (253 from housing estate residences and 255 from single-family housing residences). We conducted separate analyses for both residential areas. For both residential areas, we performed a check for missing data, tested the conditions for normal distribution, checked reliability and validity, calculated the average variance extracted (AVE), composite reliability (CR), performed discriminant validity analyses, checked WIF values and conducted confirmatory factor analysis. Then, we performed hypothesis testing. Finally, we used multigroup analyses that allowed comparisons between spaces (housing estate or single-family housing) in terms of testing the structural model.
Main study for housing estate residencesAccording to the demographics, 61.3% of the participants were women, 26.1% were aged between 26-35, 33.2% were housewives. The majority (67.6%) of the participants had been dwelling in Karapinar Neighborhood between 3-5 years. Also, participants answered ‘yes’ with 49.4% to the question ‘Were you living in the same neighborhood before the regeneration?’ directed only to the residents’ lives in housing estate residences. In addition, 73.9% of the participants stated that they owned the house they dwelled in (see Table 1).
| Dimensions | N | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 155 | 61.3 |
| Male | 98 | 38.7 |
| Age | ||
| 18-25 | 37 | 14.6 |
| 26-35 | 66 | 26.1 |
| 36-45 | 48 | 19.0 |
| 46-55 | 42 | 16.6 |
| 56-65 | 41 | 16.2 |
| 66 or older | 19 | 7.5 |
| Employment | ||
| Retired | 44 | 17.4 |
| Unemployed | 12 | 4.7 |
| Civil servant | 14 | 5.5 |
| Employee | 36 | 14.2 |
| Housewife | 84 | 33.2 |
| Freelancer | 34 | 13.4 |
| Other | 29 | 11.5 |
| Residence | ||
| 6 months or less | 7 | 2.8 |
| 6 month – 1 year | 18 | 7.1 |
| 1 – 3 years | 57 | 22.5 |
| 3 – 5 years | 171 | 67.6 |
| Residence before regeneration | ||
| Yes | 125 | 49.4 |
| No | 128 | 50.6 |
| Ownership | ||
| Host | 187 | 73.9 |
| Hirer | 61 | 24.1 |
| Other | 5 | 2.0 |
For housing estate residences, the data met the normal distribution requirement that skewness and kurtosis values for the related constructs were between -2.0 and +2.0 (Gravetter and Wallnau, 2013); therefore, the data were normally distributed and convenient for parametric tests. As a result of the factor analysis, we concluded that the items were loaded to the relevant structures and there were no items with loading below 0.60 as expected (Hair, J. F., Black et al., 2013). For reliability, Cronbach's alpha values showed that all of the structures in our research had a fair (>0.70) reliability level (DeVellis, 2012). The AVE value (>0.50) of each structure provided values consistent with our assumptions (Hair, J. F., Black et al., 2013). Finally, the CR values of all the variables in the research model (>,80) also gave results consistent with statistical expectations (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988).
| Structure | Item | Factor loading | AVE | CR | Cronbach's alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social interaction | We go to a cafe-restaurant with my neighbors. | 0.872 | 0.73 | 0.93 | 0.905 |
| We go to the market with my neighbors. | 0.826 | ||||
| We visit each other with my neighbors. | 0.905 | ||||
| We go to the park and garden on the estate with my neighbors. | 0.847 | ||||
| We go to each other's house without informing my neighbors or waiting for an offer from them. | 0.804 | ||||
| Identity | I think the place where I live is suitable for my lifestyle. | 0.797 | 0.61 | 0.86 | 0.786 |
| I am proud to live in here. | 0.740 | ||||
| This place has become a part of my life. | 0.833 | ||||
| I think this place is unique compared to other estates (for friendship, cooperation, etc.). | 0.748 | ||||
| Attachment | I consider myself a part of here. | 0.917 | 0.65 | 0.88 | 0.819 |
| I consider this place as my home. | 0.774 | ||||
| I don't want to move out of here. | 0.862 | ||||
| I work to improve the place where I live. | 0.650 | ||||
| Neighbor relations | I seek help from my neighbors with minor repairs in the house. | 0.818 | 0.59 | 0.89 | 0.847 |
| When I have an urgent need, I seek help from my neighbors. | 0.894 | ||||
| I seek help from my neighbors in compulsory situations related to the disease. | 0.854 | ||||
| I help when my neighbors need it. | 0.600 | ||||
| I consult my neighbors whenever I need advice on something. | 0.707 | ||||
| I have neighbors that I can borrow money when I need it. | 0.674 |
We checked the discriminant validity of the structures within the framework of the Fornell-Larcker criterion (Table 3). Accordingly, the AVE value's square root for each structure must be higher than the structure's highest correlation with any other structure in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). The results showed that discriminant validity was ensured. We also checked the variance inflation factors (VIF) and found that all the values related to the structures were below 3; thus, there was no multicollinearity issue (Hair, J. F., Black et al., 2013). Finally, we performed confirmatory factor analysis (see Appendix). Accordingly, the goodness-of-fit values (χ2/df=1.730; GFI=0.908; CFI=0.955; NFI=0.900; IFI=0.955; RMSEA=0.054) showed that there was a good fit between the model and the data (Browne and Cudeck, 1992; Hair, J. F., Black et al., 2013).
| Structure | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social interaction | 0.851 | 1.020 | |||
| Identity | 0.194 | 0.780 | 1.203 | ||
| Attachment | 0.121 | 0.275 | 0.807 | 1.086 | |
| Neighbor relations | 0.102 | 0.197 | 0.315 | 0.765 | 1.112 |
As the final step, we proceeded to the stage of conducting path analyses (Table 4). According to the findings of analysis, we found that that neighbor relations only had a significant effect on attachment in housing estate residences (R2=0.276; p<0.001). Also, when effects of age, employment and length of residence are controlled, results don’t change.
| Space type | R2 | p | Hypotheses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neighbor relations= | ||||
| Housing estate* | +Social interaction(H₁) | 0.002 | 0.975 | Not supported |
| +Community identity (H₂) | 0.063 | 0.387 | Not supported | |
| +Community attachment (H3) | 0.276 | 0.000 | Supported | |
* Housing estate: (χ2/df=1.721; GFI=0.910; CFI=0.955; NFI=0.900; IFI=0.955; RMSEA=0.053)
The majority of participants in single family housing estate residences are women (60.4%) and aged between 56-65 (25.1%). Many of them are retired (20.8%), have lived in the area for at least five years (86.3%), and homeowners (61.2%) (Table 5).
| Dimensions | N | Percent |
|---|---|---|
| Gender | ||
| Female | 154 | 60.4 |
| Male | 101 | 39.6 |
| Age | ||
| 18-25 | 25 | 9.8 |
| 26-35 | 29 | 11.4 |
| 36-45 | 40 | 15.7 |
| 46-55 | 47 | 18.4 |
| 56-65 | 64 | 25.1 |
| 66 or older | 50 | 19.6 |
| Employment | ||
| Retired | 53 | 20.8 |
| Unemployed | 12 | 4.7 |
| Civil servant | 8 | 3.1 |
| Employee | 27 | 10.6 |
| Housewife | 112 | 43.9 |
| Freelancer | 27 | 10.6 |
| Other | 16 | 6.3 |
| Residence | ||
| 6 months or less | 0 | 0 |
| 6 month – 1 year | 0 | 2.3 |
| 1 – 3 years | 15 | 5.9 |
| 3 – 5 years | 14 | 5.5 |
| 5 years or more | 220 | 86.3 |
| Ownership | ||
| Host | 156 | 61.2 |
| Hirer | 80 | 31.4 |
| Other | 19 | 7.5 |
For single-family housing residences, the data also followed a normal distribution (Table 6). All factors had loadings above 0.60, except for item 3 on social interaction (0.534). However, we chose to retain this item because the parameters, including AVE, CR, and reliability, were within acceptable limits (Hair, J. and Alamer, 2022). Cronbach's alpha values indicated that all structures had a reliable level (> 0.70) (DeVellis, 2012). Additionally, both the AVE (≥ 0.50) and CR (> 0.80) values yielded consistent results with statistical expectations (Bagozzi and Yi, 1988; Hair, J. F., Black et al., 2013).
| Structure | Item | Factor loading | AVE | CR | Cronbach's alpha |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social interaction | We go to a cafe-restaurant with my neighbors. | 0.773 | 0.50 | 0.83 | 0.744 |
| We go to the market with my neighbors. | 0.779 | ||||
| We visit each other with my neighbors. | 0.534 | ||||
| We go to the park and garden on the estate with my neighbors. | 0.762 | ||||
| We go to each other's house without informing my neighbors or waiting for an offer from them. | 0.649 | ||||
| Identity | I think the place where I live is suitable for my lifestyle. | 0.733 | 0.64 | 0.88 | 0.813 |
| I am proud to live in here. | 0.831 | ||||
| This place has become a part of my life. | 0.840 | ||||
| I think this place is unique compared to other estates (for friendship, cooperation, etc.). | 0.802 | ||||
| Attachment | I consider myself a part of here. | 0.900 | 0.58 | 0.84 | 0.732 |
| I consider this place as my home. | 0.663 | ||||
| I don't want to move out of here. | 0.843 | ||||
| I work to improve the place where I live. | 0.600 | ||||
| Neighbor relations | I seek help from my neighbors with minor repairs in the house. | 0.805 | 0.61 | 0.90 | 0.860 |
| When I have an urgent need, I seek help from my neighbors. | 0.876 | ||||
| I seek help from my neighbors in compulsory situations related to the disease. | 0.867 | ||||
| I help when my neighbors need it. | 0.648 | ||||
| I consult my neighbors whenever I need advice on something. | 0.743 | ||||
| I have neighbors that I can borrow money when I need it. | 0.709 |
We used the Fornell-Larcker criterion to test the discriminant validity (Table 7), and found that the square root of the AVE value for each structure was higher than the highest correlation of that structure with any other structure in the model (Fornell and Larcker, 1981). Additionally, we found that all VIF values were below the upper limit of 5, indicating that there was no multicollinearity problem (Hair, J. F., Black et al., 2013). We also conducted confirmatory factor analysis (see the appendix) to assess the fit between the single-family housing residence data and research model (χ2/df=2.013; GFI=0.895; CFI=0.926; NFI=0.865; IFI=0.927; RMSEA=0.063), which was within the acceptable limits (Forza and Filippini, 1998).
| Structure | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | VIF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Social interaction | 0.706 | 1.167 | |||
| Identity | 0.105 | 0.802 | 1.271 | ||
| Attachment | 0.276 | 0.217 | 0.761 | 1.059 | |
| Neighbor relations | 0.350 | 0.174 | 0.417 | 0.779 | 1.314 |
We conducted path analyses to test hypothesis. According to the analysis results, neighbor relations have a significant positive effect on social interaction (R2= 0.376; p<0.001), identity (R2= 0.204; p<0.01), and attachment (R2= 0.388; p<0.001) in single-family housing residences. Furthermore, when we include age, employment, and length of residence as control variables, we see that the results do not change.
| Space type | R2 | p | Hypotheses | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Neighbor relations= | ||||
| Single-family housing* | +Social interaction(H4) | 0.376 | 0.000 | Supported |
| +Community identity (H5) | 0.204 | 0.006 | Supported | |
| +Community attachment (H6) | 0.388 | 0.000 | Supported | |
** Single-family housing: (χ2/df=2.260; GFI=0.878; CFI=0.906; NFI=0.845; IFI=0.907; RMSEA=0.070)
Finally, as part of our analysis, we tested whether there were significant differences in path coefficients between groups based on the physical space. Our findings indicate that only the effect of neighbor relations on social interaction varied significantly based on the space (p<0.05). Specifically, this effect was stronger for single-family housing residential area, as evidenced by the path coefficients (see Table 9).
| Path | Housing Estate versus Single-Family Housing Residential Area | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Degrees of freedom | Chi square | Path coefficient differences | p | |
|
Neighbor Relations→Social Interaction Neighbor |
1 | 5.276 | -0.24 | 0.022 |
| Relations→Community Identity | 1 | 1.113 | -0.09 | 0.291 |
| Neighbor Relations→Community Attachment | 1 | 0.247 | 0.06 | 0.619 |
The findings of our study highlight that different types of neighbor relations emerge in different types of settlement areas, in accordance with theoretical expectations. As a result, a sense of community is formed at varying levels. Previous studies have shown that neighbor relations established in traditional neighborhoods are stronger compared to others (Bothwell, Gindroz et al., 1998; Langdon, 1997; Lund, 2002; Plas and Lewis, 1996). Studies comparing residential areas with traditional characteristics to housing estate enclosed living spaces have found that a more individual or family-oriented relationship was experienced rather than community-based relationships (Low, 2003).
Based on the findings of our study, we can suggest that living environments and residential areas can be designed according to neighbor relations. Also, our study's results suggest that single-family housing areas, which encourage daily social contact with neighbors due to their physical design, may lead to stronger social interaction, identity, and attachment, all of which contribute to the sense of community. These findings are supported by previous studies which have shown that the impact of spatial differentiations, such as the characteristics, design, and physical facilities of a residential area, on social interaction (Kim, 2001) is more pronounced in neighborhoods designed with a single-family housing layout (Ahlbrandt, 2013; Appleyard, Gerson et al., 1981). Likewise, factors such as the proximity of residences to each other, low-rise structures (Williams, 2005), and the layout of streets in residential areas allowing for this proximity (Brown and Werner, 1985) suggest that the level of attachment varies depending on the location, as these design elements also influence the level of attachment (Kim, 2001).
Another dimension that varies depending on the space is identity, which is related to the original values of the neighborhood (Guest and Lee, 1983). Our findings are in consistent with previous studies that have found a higher level of identity in single-family housing residences because the authenticity is more uniform and standardized in traditional neighborhoods and single-family housing areas compared to housing estate residential areas. Therefore, it can be argued that low neighbor relations cannot create a sense of identity, as the sense of identity arises from neighbor relations and individual relationships are established in housing estate residential areas (Pretty, Bishop et al., 2007).
In contrast, our study's results suggest that housing estate residential areas may only foster a sense of attachment, while compromising other dimensions of the sense of community due to various factors, such as a lack of facilities and the arrival of new residents from different regions. As the sense of attachment is an emotional relationship that is established with a space (Hummon, 1992), the continuity of this emotion can be explained by the tendency of residents to maintain their closeness to the space (Hidalgo and Hernandez, 2001). In this sense, the fact that the residents come from the same neighborhood can be considered the factor that creates this sense of attachment, as our study focuses on on-site regeneration.
The discussions mentioned above directly refer to the principle of "design affects behavior," highlighting the critical role of well-designed outdoor spaces in facilitating social interaction and fostering a sense of community. This is consistent with the principles of the New Urbanism movement, particularly in promoting community-centric urban environments. Specifically, single-family housing areas, characterized by the encouragement of daily social contact among neighbors, tend to foster stronger social interaction, identity, and attachment among residents. These findings are in line with previous research emphasizing the importance of spatial differentiation in influencing social dynamics within residential areas. Additionally, our findings suggest that housing estate residential areas may prioritize fostering attachment over other community dimensions due to factors such as limited communal facilities and diverse resident demographics. However, they may compromise on fostering deeper neighbor relations and a stronger sense of identity compared to traditional neighborhoods and single-family housing areas.
In conclusion, the results of the multigroup analysis based on space revealed that only social interaction varies depending on the space. The importance of social interaction, which is a key factor in building urban communities, is emphasized in our study. In fact, the differentiation of social interaction, which forms the basis of the relationship in housing estate residential areas and single-family housing residential areas, can be considered a very important result in terms of the research, as neighbor relations must first exist for social interaction to occur. This aligns with the principles of the New Urbanism movement, which advocates for the importance of well-designed external spaces and their proper use in increasing social interaction and fostering a sense of community. The results of the research allow us to answer Harvey (1997), which we previously mentioned: The sense of community can only serve as a barrier to social disintegration up to a certain level. It would be meaningless to solely look for a solution in the sense of community. This is because individualized and rent-based practices of dominant paradigms cause the meaning of the sense of community to be lost to some extent due to spatial changes, even in residential areas that maintain their traditional characteristics.
The issue of urbanization is becoming increasingly significant globally, and there is a growing focus on addressing related problems. Urban regeneration has emerged as a potential solution to these challenges. However, the changing physical environment and living conditions resulting from urbanization can impact people's social networks and habits. Consequently, the neighborhood level, based on social relationships, must be revisited. Focusing on the sense of community is crucial in engaging individuals in policies like urban regeneration, as initiatives solely concentrated on physical and financial outputs may neglect human relationships. In this context, research on social relationships within neighborhoods and their importance can help us comprehend the impact of urban regeneration policies on human interactions. Mumford (1954, p. 257) emphasized that sharing physical space is the most fundamental social tie, and Festinger, Back et al. (1950) found that chance encounters often initiate relationships between neighbors. Homans (1961) noted the significant role of intimacy in shaping socialization patterns among neighbors, and Abu-Ghazzeh (1999) found that close physical proximity determines common interests and communication among neighbors. Similarly, Henning and Lieberg (1996) found that geographical or spatial proximity promotes spontaneous gatherings among neighbors. However, advancements in technology, communication, transportation, and lifestyles have made measuring and establishing neighbor relations at the neighborhood level more complex. This has led to a diminished significance of neighborhoods, resulting in the "shrinking" of cities. Most people's relationships and activities now extend beyond their immediate neighborhoods, leading to the loss of neighborhood-related values (Zayed, 2015, p. 141). This study aims to examine the impact of urban regeneration on the construction of a sense of community in two distinct types of living spaces, a housing estate and a single-family housing residential area located within the same neighborhood (Karapinar Neighborhood). The research aims to measure the impact of new living environments created by urban regeneration practices on neighbor relations and how these transformed neighbor relations impact the sense of community. The study's findings may provide insights into how to prioritize the sense of community when considering policies that directly impact individuals.
The daily practices, expectations, and needs of residents vary in areas experiencing or under pressure for urban regeneration. Neighborhoods, situated at the intersection of the city and the community, are the basic level of analysis for the regeneration strategies or processes followed in this context. To investigate the claims of this study, it was necessary to identify a residential area within the same neighborhood undergoing regeneration while maintaining its structured order. This allowed for measuring the changes in the individual-structured environment relationship in response to spatial interventions. Our study was conducted in the Karapinar Neighborhood, which provided a valuable opportunity for comparison as it underwent urban regeneration led by the Odunpazari Municipality of Eskisehir in Turkey with the assistance of the Housing Development Administration. This area is particularly significant because the majority of those settling in residential areas are residents of the Karapinar Neighborhood. Moreover, the on-site regeneration approach utilized in this neighborhood reinforces its importance for our study. We selected the Karapinar Neighborhood as our study area for several reasons. Firstly, it largely preserves traditional neighborhood characteristics and has a homogeneous structure in line with the sociodemographic characteristics of its residents, fostering strong solidarity and cooperation among the community. Additionally, its geographical location, which is very close to the city center, makes it an ideal location for our study. One of the primary limitations of our study is that the collection of primary data and the resulting findings were limited to a single city and neighborhood. Additionally, the use of sampling methods in data collection poses further limitations to the generalizability of our findings.
Based on the comprehensive analysis of urban regeneration practices in the Karapinar Neighborhood, Turkey, this study offers significant insights into the intricate relationship between spatial design, neighbor relations, and the sense of community. The research findings underscore the critical importance of fostering strong social interactions and community attachments in urban planning initiatives, especially in the context of urban regeneration. One of the central conclusions drawn from this study is the nuanced impact of spatial designs on neighbor relations and subsequently, the formation of a sense of community. Specifically, the research highlights the superiority of traditional, single-family housing areas in promoting social interaction, community identity, and attachment. These areas, characterized by their physical layout and design, facilitate daily social contact among neighbors, fostering a robust sense of community. In contrast, housing estate residential areas, influenced by factors such as lack of facilities and the influx of residents from diverse regions, tend to promote only a sense of attachment, often at the expense of other dimensions of community.
In light of these findings, it is evident that a one-size-fits-all approach to urban regeneration is insufficient. Instead, the distinct characteristics of each neighborhood must be meticulously considered when devising regeneration strategies. Within this context, the New Urbanism movement emerges as a compelling alternative, emphasizing the significance of neighborhood design and the sense of community. By prioritizing well-designed external spaces, encouraging social interaction, and nurturing a sense of belonging, New Urbanism provides a viable framework for creating livable urban environments. Furthermore, this study emphasizes the need for a shift in planning paradigms, especially in the Turkish context. It highlights the adaptable and transferrable nature of New Urbanism principles (Grant, 2006), thereby emphasizing the need for policymakers and practitioners to integrate these principles into urban regeneration endeavors, social housing initiatives, and the restoration of historical areas. Such integration not only enhances the social fabric of communities but also contributes significantly to the establishment of sustainable, inclusive, and vibrant urban spaces. In conclusion, this research underscores the pivotal role of thoughtful planning and community-focused approaches in shaping the future of urban development. By acknowledging the intricate interplay between spatial design, social interactions, and community identity, urban planners and policymakers can pave the way for resilient and harmonious communities. As urbanization continues to reshape our cities, embracing the principles of New Urbanism offers a promising path forward, ensuring that our neighborhoods become not just spaces to inhabit, but thriving communities that foster meaningful human connections and a shared sense of belonging. While New Urbanism does not offer a panacea, it presents an alternative approach to addressing the escalating challenges faced by contemporary cities through strategic planning policies, design principles, and implementation strategies (Fulton and Policy, 1996, p. 29; Howard, 2005, p. 40). Moreover, the study's findings underscore the importance of recognizing the multifaceted nature of urban regeneration. Urban development cannot be solely quantified through physical and financial outputs; instead, it must encompass the social dimensions that define a community. The sense of community, as elucidated by this research, serves as an indicator of social integration and cohesion. Neglecting this vital aspect in regeneration initiatives may lead to a loss of identity and social disintegration, even in areas maintaining their traditional characteristics. This understanding necessitates a paradigm shift in how we approach urban planning and regeneration, emphasizing the preservation and enhancement of social relationships alongside physical improvements. Furthermore, public participation and community engagement should be central tenets of any urban regeneration endeavor. Involving residents in decision-making processes empowers them, ensuring that their unique perspectives and needs are taken into account. Participatory approaches can bridge the gap between policymakers and the community, fostering a collaborative environment where regeneration initiatives align with the aspirations of the people they are meant to benefit.
In conclusion, this study not only sheds light on the complexities of urban regeneration in Turkey but also offers a roadmap for future endeavors. By recognizing the significance of neighbor relations and the sense of community, and by embracing the principles of New Urbanism, cities can embark on a transformative journey. A journey where urban regeneration transcends the mere construction of buildings and infrastructure, becoming a catalyst for social harmony, community resilience, and collective well-being. As we continue to navigate the challenges of urbanization, it is imperative to prioritize people-centered approaches, ensuring that our cities are not just spaces of habitation but vibrant, interconnected communities where individuals thrive and flourish.
The study was written by A.-M.E. and reviewed by K-G. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest regarding the publication of the paper.
This study has derived from the doctoral dissertation conducted under the supervision of Professor Gormez and accepted by Gazi University Graduate School of Social Sciences.
