1.
Sense
of
Belonging
in
an
inner
London,
social-­‐
housing-­‐dominated
Neighbourhood
on
the
Verge
of
urban
Regeneration
Achim
von
Malotki
[1355571]
2015
This
dissertation
is
submitted
as
part
of
the
MSc
degree
in
MSc
Sustainable
Cities
at
King’s
College
London.

2.
i
Abstract
By
exploring
sense
of
belonging
in
an
inner-­‐London
neighbourhood
about
to
undergo
an
urban
regeneration
process
this
study
will
critically
evaluate
existing
concepts
for
‘belonging
to
place’.
Particularly
Savage’s
(2010)
typology
that
applies
Bourdieu’s
sociological
approach
of
distinction-­‐making
to
‘belonging
to
place’
will
be
put
to
the
test.
Research
was
carried
out
by
questionnaire-­‐based
survey
attempting
to
asses
nature
and
degree
of
place
attachment
via
quantitative
analysis
in
the
Church
Street
ward
in
Westminster,
a
ward
hitherto
dominated
by
social
housing.
It
is
argued
that
socio-­‐
economic
factors
may
be
poor
predictors
of
neighbourhood
belonging.
A
methodology
is
suggested
that
does
not
assume
that
habitus
and
field,
as
conceptualised
by
Bourdieu,
can
be
reconciled.
Instead,
it
attempts
to
measure
the
degree
of
disjunction
between
them,
particularly
under
the
conditions
of
the
London
housing
market.
The
findings
identify
serious
concerns
about
housing
affordability
and
the
risk
of
displacement.
Furthermore,
the
research
explored
how
‘community
participation’
within
the
governance
of
the
regeneration
programme
plays
out
in
practice
and
concludes
that
the
“metropolitan
habitus”
(Butler
2008)
may
come
to
the
fore
in
ways
beyond
social
distinction.

3.
ii
Table
of
contents
Page
Acknowledgements,
List
of
Tables,
Figures,
Maps
iii
1.
Introduction
1
2.
Literature
review
3
2.2.
Belonging
to
place
3
2.3.
Belonging
to
place
and
Bourdieu
4
2.4.
Social
capital
7
2.5.
Community
‘representation’
in
urban
regeneration
9
3.
The
Church
Street
ward
10
4.
Urban
renewal
for
Church
Street:
The
Futures
Plan
14
5.
Research
rationale
and
analytical
approach
16
5.1.
Research
methodology
17
5.2.
Implementation
of
the
research
design
and
its
limitations
21
6.
Results
and
discussion
26
6.1.
Overview
of
sample
26
6.2.
Income
and
socio-­‐economic
status
29
6.3.
Housing
tenure
31
6.4.
Class
32
6.5.
Neighbourhood
perception
and
satisfaction
34
6.6.
Belonging
to
place:
the
‘neighbourhood
belonging
index’
39
6.7.
‘Belonging’
and
other
attitudinal
variables
42
6.8.
Applying
Savage
to
Church
Street
45
6.9.
The
Futures
Plan:
anticipating
the
future
48
6.10.
Neighbourhood
problem
perception
in
comparison
52
6.11.
Affordability
and
concerns
of
displacement
54
6.12.
The
metropolitan
habitus
and
community
participation
56
7.
Concluding
thoughts
59
8.
Implications
of
findings
for
future
research
61
References
62
Appendix
72

4.
iii
Acknowledgements
First
and
foremost
I
would
like
to
thank
all
residents
and
stakeholders
in
the
Church
Street
ward
who
took
part
in
my
research.
Also
those
who
helped
me
pre-­‐test
my
questionnaire
and
assisted
greatly
with
their
comments
and
suggestions.
I
am
indebted
to
Alan
Higgs
Architects,
Gordon
Hunting,
Alan
Stirling,
Hair
Salon
Gold,
the
Church
Street
Neighbourhood
Centre,
Lisson
Green
and
Church
Street
estate
offices
and
the
many
local
residents
who
offered
their
help
for
facilitating
the
collection
and
return
of
questionnaires.
Vital
Regeneration
deserves
thanks
for
the
latter,
as
well
as
for
providing
the
email-­‐details
of
Futures
Plan
participants.
By
endorsing
the
survey,
Vital
Regeneration,
the
Paddington
Development
Trust
as
well
as
the
Future
Steering
Group
also
proved
to
be
of
immense
help.
Special
thanks
go
to
my
supervisor
Nicholas
de
Genova
for
his
constructive
feedback
on
my
research
and
personal
encouragement
during
difficult
days.

5.
iv
List
of
Tables
1:
Operational
definitions
of
key
research-­‐guiding
hypotheses/questions
19
for
questionnaire
items
2:
Methodological
challenges/requirements
(left)
and
their
implementation
22
and
limitations
(right)
regarding
sampling
and
extrapolation
3:
Methodological
challenges/requirements,
their
implementation
and
its
24
limitations
with
regards
to
the
questionnaire
4:
Summary
description
of
samples
27
5:
Comparison
between
sample
and
the
Church
Street
ward
population
28
for
key
demographic
parameters
6:
Participation
by
residents
versus
non-­‐residents
29
7:
Subjective
belonging
to
class
34
8:
Length
of
residency
36
9:
Ethnicity
distribution
in
wider
public
sample
aggregated
into
major
ethnic
groups
39
10:
Social
capital
indices
42
11:
Distribution
of
reasons
given
for
living
in
the
neighbourhood
–
and
the
‘housed’
46
versus
‘choice’
categories
12:
Categorisation
of
items
expressing
‘fear’
or
‘hope’
towards
the
future
46
List
of
Figures
1:
Social
housing
in
Church
Street,
Westminster
and
London
overall
12
2:
Socio-­‐economic
status,
Census
2011
13
3:
Life
expectancy
from
birth
14
4:
Futures
Plan
community
participation
structure
and
its
links
within
local
govern.
16
5:
Household
Income
of
persons
indicating
Income
30
6:
Housing
tenure
comparison
between
wider
public
sample
and
Futures
32
Plan-­‐participants
7:
Neighbourhood
perception
regarding
key
topics
35

6.
v
8:
Correlation
matrix
of
Spearman’s
rho
between
socio-­‐economic
variables
with
37
each
other
and
with
satisfaction
with
home
and
neighbourhood
9:
Satisfaction
scores
for
one’s
home
and
the
Church
Street
neighbourhood
38
across
different
housing
tenures
10:
Belonging-­‐index
scores
across
a
range
of
socio-­‐demogr.
independent
variables
40
11:
Belonging-­‐index
scores
with
regards
to
subjective
class-­‐identification
41
12:
Belonging-­‐index
and
both
social
capital
indices
correlated
with
other
44
attitudinal
variables
and
with
each
other
13:
Belonging
index,
social
capital
indices,
and
‘hope’
versus
‘fear’
scores
across
47
the
five
main
categories
of
reasons
for
living
in
the
ward
14:
Anticipation
scores
regarding
the
future
of
the
neighbourhood
49
15:
Score
differences
of
anticipated
characteristics
of
Church
Street
compared
51
with
those
perceived
as
existing
by
class
16:
Spearman’s
rho
coefficients
for
correlations
between
belonging-­‐index,
52
social
capital
indices
and
anticipation/attitude
statements
concerning
the
future
17:
Problem
perception
53
18:
Average
scores
across
household
income
categories
and
tenure
types
for
three
55
key
items
related
to
affordability
19:
Attitudes
and
anticipations
comparison
between
Futures
Plan
participants
and
57
the
wider
public
sample
20:
Score
differences
of
anticipated
characteristics
of
Church
Street
compared
with
58
those
perceived
as
existing
–Futures
Plan
participants
and
wider
public
sample
List
of
maps
1:
The
Church
Street
ward
with
its
housing
estates
11
2:
Addresses
(collection
points)
for
completed
questionnaires
in
the
ward
26

7.
1
1.
Introduction
Places
are
more
than
simply
locations
on
a
map.
They
are
distinct
and
more
or
less
bounded
spaces
defined
by
the
lived
experiences
of
people.
“Places
are
seen
as
fundamental
in
expressing
a
sense
of
belonging
for
those
that
live
in
them”
(Hubbard
2010:
6).
They
continue
to
do
so
-­‐
despite
the
wide-­‐scale
social
changes
arising
from
or
accompanying
‘globalisation’,
often
associated
with
rising
residential
mobility,
increasing
ethnic
diversity
or
the
loss
of
the
unique
identity
of
places
(Bailey
et
al.
2012:
209).
‘Place’
does
not
just
have
functional
importance;
it
is
space
that
has
been
given
meaning
through
personal,
group,
or
cultural
processes
(Altman
&
Low
1992:
5).
As
such,
place
is
made,
a
‘social
construct’
(Massey
1995:
50)
associated
with
a
specific
locality.
This
study
will
critically
evaluate
prevalent
conceptual
typologies
of
‘sense
of
belonging
to
place’
–
often
also
termed
“place
attachment”
(Lewicka
2011:
207).
It
will
do
so
via
quantitative
empirical
research
carried
out
with
a
sample
of
the
population
of
the
Church
Street
ward
neighbourhood
within
the
City
of
Westminster,
a
central
London
ward
about
to
undergo
a
programme
of
urban
regeneration
called
the
Futures
Plan.
The
paper
will
engage
with
a
relevant
strand
in
urban
studies
literature
inspired
by
Bourdieu’s
sociological
approach
aiming
to
link
social
and
spatial
practices
of
distinction-­‐
making.
This
approach
has
been
conceptualised
for
‘belonging
to
place’
particularly
by
Savage
et
al.
(2005).
The
research
will
attempt
to
find
out
whether
Savage’s
typology
can
be
applied
in
exploring
neighbourhood
belonging
in
Church
Street,
but
also
attempt
to
apply
an
alternative
approach
derived
from
the
discipline
of
environmental
psychology.
As
space
is
made
distinctive
through
human
practices
(see
Harvey
1973:
14),
the
study
will
also
examine
‘social
capital’
as
conceptualised
by
Bourdieu
and
others
and
its
relationship
to
place
attachment
for
Church
Street.
On
reviewing
the
results,
this
study
will
argue
that
prevailing
concepts
of
‘elective
belonging
to
place’,
especially
the
meaning
of
‘elective’
associated
with
the
middle
classes,
ought
to
be
reconsidered.
Particularly
because
of
the
conditions
of
the

8.
2
contemporary
London
housing
market,
habitus
and
field,
in
Bourdieuvian
terms,
will
be
more
difficult
to
reconcile
than
in
the
way
Savage
suggests.
The
Futures
Plan
is
a
housing-­‐led
urban
regeneration
programme
that
aims
to
create
mixed
tenure-­‐developments
which
in
turn
are
intended
to
generate
“mixed
communities”
(City
of
Westminster
2010:
51)
in
this
area
hitherto
characterised
by
a
high
concentration
of
social
housing.
The
programme
contains
the
element
of
‘community
participation’
owed
to
the
wider
sustainability
agenda
(see
Raco
2007).
The
research
will
critically
assess
to
what
extent
‘community
participants’
can
be
considered
as
representative
of
the
‘community’
they
are
meant
to
represent.
Watt
&
Smets
(2014:
227)
state
that
there
seems
to
be
considerable
scope
for
quantitative
analysis
to
assess
neighbourhood
belonging.
This
is
precisely
what
the
study
attempts
to
do.
Analysis
was
based
on
a
survey
of
a
sample
of
residents
and
stakeholders
via
standardised
questionnaire,
aiming
to
reveal
what
senses,
if
any,
Church
Street
residents
have
of
belonging
there,
what
anticipations
they
have
of
the
future
for
their
neighbourhood,
and
how
they
compare
to
the
‘community
participants’.
Not
only
am
I
a
resident
of
the
Church
Street
neighbourhood,
but
have
also
participated
in
the
Futures
Plan
and
acted
as
a
resident
representative
also
in
other
functions.
These
facts
had
considerable
implications
for
research
design
and
implementation.
This
paper
begins
with
a
literature
review
on
concepts
and
findings
regarding
‘belonging
to
place‘.
Particular
attention
is
paid
to
the
research
angle
informed
by
Pierre
Bourdieu
as
applied
to
urban
geography,
followed
by
the
introduction
of
concepts
of
social
capital.
The
last
part
of
the
literature
review
is
dedicated
to
the
topic
of
community-­‐
or
resident
participation
in
neighbourhood
renewal
programmes.
Both
the
neighbourhood
and
the
Futures
Plan
intended
to
regenerate
it
will
be
briefly
presented.
Subsequently,
an
account
of
the
research
methodology
attempts
to
convey
its
epistemological
anchoring
as
well
as
its
implementation
and
inherent
limitations.
Results
of
the
survey
analysis
are

9.
3
then
presented
and
discussed,
situating
them
within
the
context
of
existing
literature.
The
study
concludes
with
an
outline
of
the
scope
for
future
research.
2.
Literature
review
Among
the
numerous
attempts
to
define
‘neighbourhood’,
Blokland’s
appears
most
suited
for
the
purpose
of
this
study:
“...a
geographically
circumscribed,
built
environment
that
people
use
practically
and
symbolically”
(2003:
213).
It
encompasses
the
principal
dimensions:
spatial
boundedness,
social
relations
between
neighbours
and
its
imaginative,
symbolic
component,
essential
for
the
concept
of
‘neighbourhood
belonging.’
Certainly
in
political
terms,
wards
represent
the
‘locality’
at
a
spatial
scale
at
which
services
and
amenities
are
provided
(Kearns
&
Mason
2007:
688).
Particularly
the
Church
Street
ward,
with
its
central
street
market
and
small
extension
may
be
regarded
as
constituting
the
spatial
scale
of
a
neighbourhood
with
regards
to
regular
day-­‐to-­‐day
use
and
social
interaction.
2.1.
Belonging
to
place
The
importance
of
place
has
been
stressed
by
a
variety
of
scholars
from
different
fields.
Florida
(2010:
152)
claims
that
place
had
an
“overwhelming
importance”
to
our
happiness
and
would
be
crucial
for
our
well-­‐being,
alongside
personal
relationships
and
work.
Lewicka’s
(2011:
207)
review
of
several
hundred
empirical
and
theoretical
papers
reveals
that
despite
mobility
and
globalization
processes,
place
continues
to
be
an
object
of
strong
attachments.
Putting
down
roots
is
increasingly
signified
“by
a
sense
of
place”
(Butler
&
Watt
2007:
86).
It
has
even
been
suggested
that
the
attachment
to
place
may
have
begun
to
usurp
occupation
as
the
means
by
which
identity
becomes
articulated
(ibid:
76).
The
word
‘attachment’
emphasises
affect;
the
word
‘place’
focuses
on
the
environmental
setting
to
which
people
are
emotionally
and
culturally
attached
(Altman

10.
4
&
Low
1992:
5).
Neighbourhoods
are
repositories
and
contexts
within
which
interpersonal,
community
and
cultural
relationships
occur
(ibid:
7).
“Affective
bonds”
(Shumaker
&
Hankin
1984:
59)
are
developed
relating
to
both
physical
and
social
characteristics
of
a
neighbourhood.
However,
as
Massey
(1993:
65)
observed,
places
can
be
both
a
source
of
richness
and
of
conflict.
Particularly
socially
and
ethnically
complex
inner
cities
have
become
socially
contested
places
as
a
result
of
flows
of
incomers
who
are
often
regarded
as
disruptive
to
established
socio-­‐cultural
practices
and
identities
(Watt
&
Smets
2014:
11).
Contemporary
inner-­‐city
neighbourhoods
are
also
characterised
by
high
levels
of
mobility,
meeting
points
for
multitudes
of
peoples
of
different
origins
and
with
various
trajectories
as
expressed
in
the
dialectic
of
‘roots
and
routes’
(ibid:
11).
Bailey
et
al.
(2012:
208)
found
that
place
attachment
is
significantly
lower
in
more
deprived
neighbourhoods
primarily
because
these
have
weaker
social
cohesion.
However,
the
drivers
of
attachment
are
the
same
as
elsewhere.
The
length
of
residence
in
a
neighbourhood
has
the
same
(positive)
relationship
with
place
attachment
as
in
non-­‐deprived
neighbourhoods.
Population
mobility/turnover
has
modest
(negative)
impacts
on
attachment.
They
conclude
that
people
are
able
to
form
attachments
over
time
regardless
of
how
deprived
a
neighbourhood
is
(Bailey
et
al.
2012:
221).
2.2.
Belonging
to
place
and
Bourdieu
Spearheaded
by
Savage,
residential
belonging
has
been
re-­‐theorised
employing
a
Bourdieuvian
perspective
whereby
‘habitus’
and
‘field’
are
spatially
as
swell
as
socially
constituted
(Watt
&
Smets
2014:
12).
Bourdieu’s
key
concepts
are
therefore
briefly
introduced.
He
views
class
positions
of
individuals
as
charted
by
two
co-­‐ordinates:
the
volume
and
the
composition
of
capital.
The
former
is
determined
by
the
total
amount
of
economic,
cultural
and
social
capital
available,
whilst
the
composition
of
capital
denotes
the
relative
sizes
of
these
three
types
of
capital
(Butler
&
Watt
2007:
173).

11.
5
Economic
capital
in
the
forms
of
monetary
income,
assets
and
financial
resources,
according
to
Bourdieu
(1986:
89),
“…is
at
the
root
of
all
the
other
types
of
capital”.
Cultural
capital,
most
relevant
here
in
its
“embodied
state”
(ibid:
84),
denotes
the
disposition
of
the
human
mind
and
body
–
as
expressed
in
education
and
knowledge,
commonly
realised
in
the
occupational
structure
(Butler
&
Watt
2007:
169).
“Social
capital
is
the
sum
of
resources
that
accrue
to
an
individual
or
a
group
by
virtue
of
possessing
a
durable
network
of
more
or
less
institutionalised
relationships
of
mutual
acquaintance
and
recognition.”
(Bourdieu
&
Wacquant
1992:
19).
These
resources
can
be
deployed
to
act
in
two
ways:
as
social
support
from
within
social
networks
aiding
to
‘‘get
by’’
or
cope,
and
as
social
leverage
aiding
to
“get
ahead’’,
to
change
one’s
opportunity
set
through
access
to
e.g.
information
on
employment
opportunities.
The
socially
structured
space
in
which
actors
play
out
their
engagements
with
each
other
is
termed
a
‘field’
(Hillier
&
Rooksby
2005:
22).
It
is
a
“relational
configuration
(Wacquant
1992:
17)
marked
principally
by
competition
mainly
for
status
and
recognition
to
which
“rules
of
the
game”
apply.
The
resources
players
use
in
the
field
are
both
volume
and
composition
of
capital
(Bourdieu
&
Wacquant
1992:
101).
The
“feel
for
the
game”
(Bourdieu
1990:
63),
in
a
nutshell,
is
what
makes
out
the
‘habitus’.
It
is
“…a
set
of
dispositions,
reflexes
and
forms
of
behavior
people
acquire
through
acting
in
society”
(Bourdieu
2000:
19).
The
habitus
is
specific
to
the
given
field,
or
more
precisely,
specific
to
identifiable
positions
within
the
field.
“It
manifests
itself
as
a
pattern
of
practices
so
tuned
to
the
rules
of
the
game
that,
to
be
in
the
field
and
take
part
in
the
ongoing
game,
is
to
feel
comfortable
and
‘at
home’”
(Bourdieu
&
Wacquant
1992:
128).
The
habitus
will
necessarily
reflect
the
different
positions
people
have
in
society.
Thus
the
concepts
of
habitus
and
field
function
in
relation
to
one
another
(ibid:
19).
A
core
assumption
is
that
the
agents,
furnished
with
their
‘habitus’
struggle
in
the
field
for
social
distinction.
Note
that
habitus
in
the
outlined
sense
is
attributed
to
the
middle
and
upper
classes.
By
contrast,
Bourdieu
describes
the
working
class
habitus
as
the
“taste
of
necessity”
(ibid:
173).
Its
members
are
seen
as
unable
to
sufficiently
convert
economic
capital
into
cultural
or
social
capital
and
vice
versa
and
successfully
increase
their
capital
volume
(Blasius
&
Friedrichs
2008:
24).
Living
under
conditions
of

12.
6
scarcity
makes
them
act
according
to
the
principle
of
conformity
(Bourdieu
1984:
378)
rather
than
distinction.
Savage
applies
Bourdieu's
concept
of
the
habitus
in
spatial
terms.
People
find
“comfort
in
place”
(Savage
et
al.
2005:
8),
especially
where
they
feel
that
habitus
and
field
correspond.
As
occupational
class
arguably
wanes
as
a
signifier
of
identity,
status
and
division,
one’s
residence
becomes
a
crucial,
if
not
the
crucial
identifier
of
who
you
are
(ibid:
207)
-­‐
“a
vital
marker
in
the
games
of
social
distinction”
(Watt
&
Smets
2014:
12).
Savage
et
al.
(2005:
12)
define
belonging
“…as
socially
constructed,
embedded
process
in
which
people
reflexively
judge
the
suitability
of
a
given
site
as
appropriate
given
their
social
trajectory
and
their
position
in
other
fields.”
‘Judging
something
as
appropriate’
indicates
a
reflexive
process
before
making
a
choice.
Subsequently
the
term
they
choose
is
“elective
belonging”
(ibid:
207).
This
is
deemed
typical
for
the
middle
classes
who
develop
an
aesthetic
and
ethical
relationship
to
place.
The
answers
to
the
questions
of
where
to
live
and
how
to
relate
to
where
one
lives
are
largely
determined
by
the
degree
of
choice
of
those
with
the
resources
to
put
them
into
reality,
seeking
out
a
specific
habitus
“…through
a
differential
deployment
of
cultural,
economic,
and
social
capital”
(Butler
2007:
171).
Butler
(ibid:
162)
suggests
that
elective
belonging
is
particularly
insightful
in
relation
to
residential
preferences
of
gentrifiers
who
deploy
above
forms
of
capital
differently
depending
on
particular
localities.
Those
who
‘electively
belong’
are
likely
to
be
vested
highly
in
their
location.
However,
it
is
relatively
unimportant
for
them
to
belong
to
a
socially
cohesive
neighbourhood.
What
matters
more
is
the
sense
that
they
live
somewhere
appropriate
for
‘someone
like
me’.
The
aesthetics
of
place
are
more
important
than
traditional
community
or
neighbourly
interaction
(Watt
&
Smets
2014:
12).
This
observation
chimes
well
with
Butler
(2008:
142)
who
identified
a
“metropolitan
habitus”
among
urban
gentrifiers
with
a
sense
of
community
and
concern
for
social
inclusivity.
Nevertheless
these
gentrifiers
seldom
mix
across
racial,
ethnic
and
class
boundaries
in
social
life.
Davidson
(2012:
241)
argues
that
the
life-­‐worlds
of
gentrifiers
and
working-­‐class
residents
must
be
necessarily
different
as
Bourdieu
regards
social
identity
as
defined
and
asserted
through
the
articulation
of

13.
7
social
distinction.
Savage
(2010:
116)
contrasts
elective
belonging
with
two
other
orientations
to
place
found
among
less
mobile,
and
often
less
privileged
respondents
–
“dwelling”
and
“nostalgia”.
Both
are
characteristic
of
people
living
in
the
midst
of
a
location
in
which
they
were
born
and
bred
and
both
are
characterised
by
lack
of
capital.
Lack
of
capital
”chains
one
to
a
place“
(Bourdieu
1999:
127).
Theirs
is
a
passive
attitude
to
place
–
place
is
taken
for
granted
rather
than
being
an
active
choice
(Gustafson
2013:
39).
Dwellers
have
strong
social
ties
and
show
historical
attachment
to
the
place
where
they
have
spent
all
or
most
of
their
lives.
By
contrast,
the
mainly
traditional
working
class
individuals
displaying
“nostalgia”
deplore
the
loss
of
social
cohesion
and
the
decline
of
community.
They
no
longer
feel
at
home
in
their
place,
as
the
arrival
of
newcomers,
often
with
different
cultural
orientations
and
social
status,
has
changed
the
place
–
at
least
in
their
perception
(Gustafson
2013:
39).
These
long-­‐time
residents
also
tend
to
feel
they
have
most
to
lose
if
any
neighbourhood
development
took
place
(Cole
&
Green
2011:
160).
Like
Savage,
Blokland
is
concerned
with
understanding
the
ways
in
which
nostalgia
is
used
to
construct
senses
of
class
and
identity.
Nostalgia
as
a
collective
remembrance
of
a
better
neighbourhood
past
is
conducive
to
establishing
and
perpetuating
communities
(Blokland
2003:
16).
Evoking
a
nostalgic
sense
of
a
homogeneous
class
community
–
which
may
nave
never
existed
as
such
-­‐
is
related
to
the
breakdown
of
communal
boundaries
and,
in
particular,
to
the
significance
of
immigration
(Devine
&
Savage
2005:
19).
By
defining
a
group
of
“us”
contrasting
with
the
newcomers
or
“others”
(Blokland
2005:
138),
nostalgia
also
functions
as
a
way
of
distinction-­‐making.
2.3.
Social
capital
‘Social
capital’
is
a
contested
concept:
for
Bourdieu
it
is
connected
with
his
theoretical
ideas
on
class:
social
capital
becomes
a
resource
in
the
social
struggles
carried
out
in
different
social
arenas
or
fields.
‘Trust’
does
not
feature
in
his
vocabulary
of
social

14.
8
capital
(Siisiainen
2003:
193).
In
Putnam’s
very
influential
concept
however,
it
does:
“By
social
capital
I
mean
features
of
social
life
–
networks,
norm,
and
trust
–
that
enable
participants
to
act
together
more
effectively
to
pursue
shared
objectives”
(Putnam
1996:
34).
As
with
Bourdieu,
for
Putnam
social
capital
refers
to
connections
among
individuals
–
social
networks
-­‐,
but
he
views
norms
of
reciprocity
and
trustworthiness
as
arising
from
them
(Ostrom
2010:
18).
These
can
create
social
cohesion
which
is
seen
as
fostering
participation
in
social
activities
and
active
involvement
in
‘civil
society’,
possibly
coming
to
the
fore
as
membership
in
neighbourhood
organisations
(Putnam
2000:
49).
Faith
communities
in
which
people
worship
together
can
be
important
repositories
of
social
capital
as
well.
Not
just
collective
benefits
arise,
but
also
individual
ones:
Individuals
form
connections
that
benefit
them,
like
the
‘networking’
of
job
seekers
–
“for
most
of
us
get
our
jobs
because
of
whom
we
know,
not
what
we
know
–
that
is,
our
social
capital,
not
our
human
capital”
(ibid:
20).
Two
types
of
social
capital
derived
from
Putnam’s
concept
have
proved
to
be
influential
with
respect
to
local
networks:
‘Bonding’
social
capital
creates
links
between
people
of
a
similar
kind
often
induced
by
perceived
shared
identity.
Through
‘bridging’
social
capital
connections
across
social,
demographic
and
ethnic
boundaries
are
established.
Bonding
social
capital
provides
resources
that
help
people
to
‘get
by’;
it
usually
stems
from
stronger,
more
intimate
relationships.
Bridging
social
capital
helps
people
to
‘get
on’,
usually
derived
from
looser
ties,
connections
between
heterogeneous
groups,
which
can
be
important
to
pass
on
knowledge
or
information.
These
ties
are
more
fragile,
but
seen
as
more
likely
to
foster
social
inclusion
(Pike
et
al.
2006:
93).
Strong
bonding
capital
on
its
own
is
viewed
as
detrimental
to
individual
advancement,
acting
as
a
constraint
to
opportunities
particularly
in
poorer
areas,
limiting
social
mobility
as
it
inhibits
access
to
new,
potentially
useful
information,
such
as
employment
or
housing
opportunities
(Bolt
et
al.
2010:
131).
Mixed-­‐community
policy
advocates
contend
that
what
matters
is
bridging
social
capital,
bridges
to
wider
opportunities,
e.g.
accessing
knowledge
about
job
opportunities
as
well
as
how
to
‘get
ahead’
in
competing
for
them
(Humphreys
&
McCafferty
2013:
94).

15.
9
Social
capital,
especially
in
policy
circles,
has
become
associated
with
the
concept
of
‘place’
(Darcy
2010:
6).
A
lack
of
social
capital,
it
is
implied,
contributes
to
social
exclusion.
Hence
it
is
argued
that
sustainable
regeneration
of
areas
marked
by
social
exclusion
necessitates
the
regeneration
of
social
capital
alongside
physical
and
economic
investment
(Foord
&
Ginsburg
2004:
288).
Especially
for
neighbourhood
and
governance
research
a
third
type
has
been
described:
“Linking’
social
capital
creates
links
between
communities
and
those
exercising
power
at
the
local
level
(Bailey
2013:
417).
It
is
this
particular
type
of
social
capital
in
the
form
of
partnerships
between
‘horizontal’
local
communities
with
the
‘vertical’,
intermediate
institutions
of,
e.g.
local
government
officials,
to
which
we
shall
now
turn.
2.4.
Community
‘representation’
in
urban
regeneration
The
notion
of
community
is
highly
contested
both
conceptually
and
in
urban
regeneration
practice.
For
governance
purposes
in
contemporary
urban
policy
it
is
commonly
denoted
as
‘community
of
place’
in
a
way
that
suggests
small-­‐scale,
well-­‐
defined
neighbourhoods
with
clear
boundaries
and
centre
engendering
a
sense
of
community
and
neighbourliness
(Talen
1999:
1363).
Particularly
for
urban
regeneration
a
commitment
to
encourage
community
participation
in
the
planning
and
delivery
of
area-­‐based
strategies
forms
an
integral
part
(Bailey
2013:
411).
Community
involvement
is
tied
into
the
discourse
of
sustainability,
particularly
the
sustainable
development
of
disadvantaged
communities
(Tallon
2013:
160).
Community
participation
within
deprived
areas
is
understood
not
just
as
a
means
of
providing
information
and
conversely
enable
people
to
provide
local
‘tacit’
knowledge
or
express
opinions
on
policies
that
will
affect
them.
It
also
aims
at
building
community
capacity,
the
skills
and
confidence
needed
if
social
exclusion
is
to
be
overcome
(van
Beckhoven
et
al.
2009:
216).
To
achieve
these
objectives,
participants
involved
with
a
particular
locality
are
expected
to
make
representations
on
it
within
local
governance
in
which
public
policy
is
formulated,
delivered
and
legitimated
(Rydin
2010:
47)
–
often
by
striving
for
consensus.
Those
who
are
perceived
to
be
unable
to
employ
the
appropriate

16.
10
technical
discourse
within
which
debates
are
framed
tend
to
be
excluded
(Fanning
&
Dillon
2011:
29).
The
‘rules
of
the
game’
limit
both
the
number
of
people
who
have
the
skills
and
knowledge
to
take
part
and
determine
what
can
be
legitimately
included
or
excluded
from
debates
(Atkinson
1999:
60).
Disputes
may
arise
about
the
strategy
or
mode
of
delivery,
but
not
about
the
fundamental
purpose
of
the
programme
(Bailey
2010:
319).
Thus
associations
with
Foucault’s
notion
of
‘governmentality’
arise.
Participants
drawn
into
governance
structures
in
order
to
contain
them
through
consensual
politics
of
partnership
deliberation
and
compromise
contribute
ideological,
economic,
and
cultural
resources
while
also
being
conducted
to
“conduct
themselves”
(Foucault
1993:
203).
The
legitimacy
of
community
representatives
is
not
only
derived
from
an
ability
to
demonstrate
that
they
represent
their
constituency
effectively
(Taylor
2007:
312).
Community
participation
ought
also
to
take
account
of
the
diverse
full
spectrum
of
neighbourhoods
for
trust
and
social
cohesion
to
be
fostered
or
maintained
(Foot
2009:
1).
However,
evidence
suggests
that
people
from
disadvantaged
communities
have
remained
on
the
margins
or
even
completely
outside
of
participation
structures
(Taylor
2007:
297).
In
the
sense
of
socio-­‐demographic
characteristics,
participants
are
often
unrepresentative
of
the
populations
affected
by
the
decisions
at
hand
(Laurian
&
Shaw
2008:
294).
Fanning
&
Dillon
(2011:
126)
found
in
the
area
they
examined
that
participants
were
primarily
highly
skilled
and
of
relatively
high
socio-­‐economic
status,
best
described
as
advocates
for
the
areas
they
live
in
rather
than
representative
of
deprived
communities
in
those
areas.
3.
The
Church
Street
ward
Map
1
depicts
the
Church
Street
ward
in
the
City
of
Westminster
as
located
north
of
Marylebone
Road,
to
the
south
of
Regent’s
Canal,
west
of
the
tracks
leading
to
Marylebone
Station
and
east
of
Edgware
Road.

17.
11
Map
1:
The
Church
Street
ward
with
its
housing
estates
(City
of
Westminster
2013:
2)
Based
on
the
latest
population
figures
the
ward
has
11,760
residents
(City
of
Westminster
2013:
1).
At
the
time
of
the
Census
2011
it
was
the
most
densely
populated
ward
in
London
with
264.7
people
per
hectare
(UK
Data
Explorer
website).
As
such,
and
with
its
almost
complete
absence
of
terraced
homes,
it
may
be
considered
the
very
antipode
of
suburbia.
The
housing
in
Church
Street
forms
a
stark
contrast
to
its
affluent
adjacent
neighbourhoods.
Arguably,
the
built
environment
corresponds
with
a
massive
social
divide
across
what
are
minuscule
spatial
distances.
Church
Street
itself,
in
the
centre
of
the
ward,
is
home
to
Westminster’s
largest
street
market,
lending
the
area
a
social
and
commercial
focus.

18.
12
The
built
environment
is
dominated
by
social
housing
as
shown
by
Figure
1,
placing
it
within
the
upper
decile
of
all
London
wards
in
that
category
(UK
Data
Explorer
website).
Figure
1:
Social
housing
in
Church
Street,
Westminster
and
London
overall
(as
percentage
of
all
tenures),
left
column
Census
2001,
right
column
Census
2011
(ONS
Neighbourhood
Statistics
website)
As
Figure
2
demonstrates,
socio-­‐economically
the
population
of
Church
Street
stands
in
stark
contrast
to
the
City
of
Westminster
as
a
whole.
57.1
28.9
26.2
55.8
25.9
24.1
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Church
Street
Westminster
London

19.
13
Figure
2:
Socio-­‐economic
status,
Census
2011
(omitting
full-­‐time
students)
(ONS
Neighbourhood
Statistics
website)
Church
Street
is
one
of
the
most
ethnically
diverse
wards
in
England,
ranked
in
the
top
0.3%
according
to
its
Simpson
Diversity
Index
Score
(GLA
2011)
with
a
particularly
strong
presence
of
Arabs.
62%
of
Church
Street
residents
are
from
non-­‐white
ethnic
groups,
and
53%
were
born
outside
of
the
UK
(City
of
Westminster
2013).
For
more
on
housing
tenure,
ethnicity,
income,
etc.,
see
Table
5,
p.
28.
In
terms
of
multiple
deprivation
it
ranks
within
the
highest
category
of
all
London
wards
(see
London.gov.uk
website).

20.
14
Due
to
housing
allocation
policy
there
is
a
strong
representation
of
the
disabled
and
other
people
with
special
needs.
As
Figure
3
shows,
life
expectancy
is
approximately
ten
years
lower
than
for
Westminster
overall.
Figure
3:
Life
expectancy
from
birth
(City
of
Westminster
2014:
13)
4.
Urban
renewal
for
Church
Street:
The
Futures
Plan
This
excerpt
from
Westminster
City
Council’s
Housing
Renewal
Strategy
may
serve
as
example
of
how
area-­‐based
regeneration
initiatives
are
framed:
though
more
tenure

21.
15
mix
to
more
‘mixed
communities’,
justifying
intervention
through
an
identified
need
to
address
social
problems
like
deprivation
associated
with
concentrations
of
social
housing
(see
Darcy
2010:
6).
Church
Street
was
selected
as
a
renewal
area
as
it
performs
poorly
across
indicators
for
health,
income,
employment,
education
and
housing.
What
resulted
from
the
above
policy
was
a
concrete
housing-­‐led
urban
regeneration
programme
for
Church
Street:
the
‘Futures
Plan’.
It
is
designed
to
be
self-­‐financing
by
way
of
cross-­‐subsidy.
Proceeds
from
the
planned
sale
of
470
additional
homes
on
council-­‐owned
land
are
to
be
invested
in
the
area
to
pay
for
the
refurbishment
of
existing
homes,
for
infrastructure
and
public
realm
projects
and
new
community
facilities
(City
of
Westminster
&
Urban
Initiatives
2011).
Figure
4
depicts
the
participation
structure
of
the
Futures
Plan.
The
Future
Steering
Group
(FSG)
acts
as
a
direct
consultation
partner
of
the
council,
an
“…advisory
and
scrutiny
body
to
ensure
the
successful
delivery
of
the
vision”
(see
Terms
of
Reference
on
HRP
Project
Initiation
Document
website).
Not
only
local
residents
take
part,
but
also
locally
active
stakeholders,
including
not-­‐for-­‐profit
organisations
and
businesses.
Its
members
are
appointed,
not
elected:
“Residents
will
be
selected
on
the
basis
of
their
commitment
and
knowledge
of
the
local
community.
The
selection
will
be
managed
by
the
Council
to
ensure
appropriate
representation
to
reflect
the
diverse
populations
of
these
neighbourhoods.”
(ibid).
Additionally,
working
groups
concerned
with
individual
development
sites
and
broader
delivery
aims
are
in
place
(see
bottom
part
of
Figure
4).
Jointly
in
these
and
the
FSG,
currently
78
individuals
are
formally
involved.

22.
16
Figure
4:
Futures
Plan
community
participation
structure
and
its
links
within
local
governance
(Futures
Steering
Group
documents
meeting
14.12.2014)
5.
Research
rationale
and
analytical
approach
This
study
shall
put
current
concepts
of
belonging
to
place
based
on
class-­‐based
typologies
of
social
and
spatial
practices
of
distinction-­‐making
as
proposed
by
Savage
(2010)
to
the
test.
It
suggests
that
a
typology
for
approaching
belonging
to
place
based
on
the
notion
that
habitus
and
field
are
commonly
reconciled
by
those
who
‘electively
belong’
may
be
outdated,
at
least
in
London.
It
attempts
to
serve
the
aim
of
theory-­‐
testing
rather
than
theory-­‐building
(see
Denscombe
2010:
104),
even
though
the
possibilities
for
an
alternative
approach
are
explored.
This
approach
comes
from
the
field
of
particularly
health-­‐focused
environmental
psychology
promoted
by
Popay
et
al
(2003)
and
Gatrell
et
al.
(2004).
In
a
nutshell,
they
argue
that
most
urban
residents,
particularly
in
disadvantaged
areas,
are
exposed
to
a
degree
of
dissonance
between
their
“normative
dimensions
of
place”
–
a
concept
very
similar
to
Bourdieu’s
‘habitus’
-­‐
and
the
lived
experience
of
place
(Popay
et
al:
67).
“Normative
dimensions”
indicate

23.
17
expectations
people
have
of
places
of
residence
shaped
by
their
dispositions
or
identity.
The
challenge
in
these
situations
of
dissonance
–
the
mismatch
between
habitus
and
field
–
is
to
find,
what
Popay
et
al
(ibid:
67)
term
an
“ontological
fit”,
the
ability
to
construct
a
positive
identity
despite
living
in
what
may
be
perceived
as
“improper”
or
at
least
not
ideal
place.
Depending
on
the
volume
of
capital
–
in
Bourdieu’s
sense
–
there
will
be
varying
degrees
of
arriving
at
a
“negotiated
settlement”
(Popay:
67),
in
a
sense,
a
compromise
between
ideal
and
lived
place.
The
concept
appears
to
correspond
with
Watt’s
(2009:
2891)
observation
that
–
particularly
under
conditions
of
the
London
housing
market
–
more
and
more
people,
even
of
the
middle
classes,
cannot
reconcile
habitus
and
field.
They
are
instead
forced
into
trade-­‐offs
between
‘success’
in
the
housing
field
and
‘success’
in
other
fields
such
as
education
and
consumption.
The
methodological
approach
arising
from
this
concept
would
be
to
measure
residents’
position
on
a
scale
of
required
‘trade-­‐off’
rather
than
exercising
a
class-­‐based
typology
approach.
The
study
shall
further
explore
in
what
sense
the
“community
planning
elite”
(Fanning
&
Dillon
2011:
149)
of
participating
residents
who
influence
development
outcomes
is
representative
for
the
ward
population
overall.
Arising
from
this
are
questions
of
whether
“governmentality”
(Foucault
1993)
can
be
identified
and
in
what
ways
the
“metropolitan
habitus”
(Butler
2008:
142)
may
come
to
the
fore
in
ways
other
than
serving
as
a
means
of
distinction.
5.1.
Methodology
Above
notion
of
applying
a
‘scale’
may
already
point
towards
a
quantitative
approach
for
this
study.
Primary
data
was
indeed
gathered
by
a
questionnaire-­‐based
survey
attempting
to
consider
and
measure
variation,
common
patterns,
distinguishing
features
within
a
population
in
a
systematic
fashion.
Since
neighbourhood
perception
is
subjective,
the
survey
set
out
to
explore
peoples’
beliefs
and
attitudes
and
what
these
mean.
Attitudes
are
defined
as
“evaluated
beliefs
which
predispose
the
individual
to
respond
in
a
preferential
way”
(Burns
2000:
555).

24.
18
There
were
also
two
important
pragmatic
reasons
for
a
quantitative
approach:
first,
anonymity
was
paramount:
I
am
quite
well
known
in
the
ward
and
involved
as
a
community
participant
in
the
Futures
Plan
myself.
The
likelihood
of
meeting
respondents
again
is
high.
This
is
even
more
important
with
regards
to
other
participants
who
I
will
continue
to
work
with.
Second,
it
was
intended
to
compare
community
participants
organised
in
the
Futures
Plan
groups
with
a
sample
of
not
formally
involved
residents.
Results
have
to
be
comparable
between
the
groups,
which
can
only
be
assured
if
the
questions
are
identical
(Marsh
1982:
7).
For
any
survey
design,
the
major
challenge
is
to
translate
the
underlying
hypotheses
and
concepts
into
asking
questions
that
capture
or
measure
these
and
produce
valid
results.
This
translation
is
provided
by
so-­‐called
operational
definitions
that
make
the
hypotheses
specific
to
the
situation
and
define
the
criteria
and
operations
going
into
these
questions.
In
Oppenheim’s
words
(1992:
101)
“the
detailed
specification
of
measurement
aims
must
be
precisely
and
logically
related
to
the
overall
plan
and
objectives.
Operational
definitions
should
provide
a
list
of
variables
to
be
measured.”
Table
1
renders
the
operationalisatons
applied
to
the
research
and
the
resulting
sets
of
questions
transparent.
Hypotheses
and
research
questions
are
listed
on
the
left,
their
operationalisation
for
the
purpose
of
empirical
test
via
the
questionnaire
research
tool
on
the
right.

25.
19
Table
1:
Operational
definitions
of
key
research-­‐guiding
hypotheses/questions
(left)
for
questionnaire
items
(right)
Hypothesis/question
Operational
definitions
and
associated
questionnaire
items
(items
in
red
coded
inversely)
Belonging
to
place
Length
of
residence
in
an
area
is
widely
described
in
literature
as
“the
most
consistent
positive
predictor”
(Lewicka
2011:
216)
of
place
attachment.
How
are
belonging
and
choice
related?
Do
those
housed
in
the
neighbourhood
by
the
council
(and
whose
choice
may
have
been
limited)
have
a
different
kind
of
attachment
to
place
than
those
who
actively
chose
their
location?
Q2:
Time
lived
in
neighbourhood
associated
with
three
questions
on
belonging
of
Q5:
“I
feel
I
belong
here.
I
would
miss
this
place
if
I
moved
somewhere
else.
“The
place
doesn’t
mean
much
to
me;
I
could
just
as
well
live
somewhere
else”.
Q3:
“What
is
the
main
reason
for
you
or
your
family
to
live
here?”
–
in
combination
with
above
items
from
Q5.
Relevance
of
class
To
what
degree
can
class
identification
be
found?
Is
desire
for
social
distinction
measurable?
Do
empirically
measurable
differences
with
regards
to
class
justify
compelling
conceptual
reasons
why,
e.g.
those
identifying
as
middle
class
should
be
framed
differently
regarding
belonging
to
place?
Are
differences
with
regards
to
belonging
conceptually
essential
or
just
empirically
material?
(Paton
2012:
259)
Q13:
Subjective
class
identification
–
in
combination
with
socio-­‐demographic
categories
and
items
from
Q5
“I
have
difficulty
coping
with
the
cost
of
living.”
“I
am
satisfied
with
the
amount
of
control
I
have
over
my
life”.
Testing
Savage’s
typology
Are
distinctive
discrepancies
between
residents
who
‘electively
belong’
and
‘dwellers’
(Savage
2010)
identifiable?
To
what
degree
can
‘nostalgia’
be
found?
If
so,
among
which
groups?
Q3:
What
is
the
main
reason
for
you
or
your
family
to
live
here?
–
In
combination
with
items
from
Q5
(as
above).
Nostalgia
(Q5):
“The
neighbourhood
has
changed
so
much
that
I
don’t
feel
at
home
here
anymore.”
Social
capital
Can
bonding
and
bridging
social
capital
be
conceptually
distinguished
and
how
do
these
dimensions
play
out
empirically?
Do
those
who
are
poor
(or
working
class)
because
of
supposedly
being
unable
to
sufficiently
convert
economic
capital
have
less
social
capital?
Does
low-­‐income
or
lower
education
mean
that
social
capital
is
more
‘local’
or
spatially
bounded?
(Kintrea
2011:
101)
Social
identity
theory
states
that
people
tend
to
associate
and/or
socialise
more
with
like-­‐minded
people.
Who
and
which
groups
of
residents
associate
more
with
‘people
like
themselves’?
Do
ethnic
minority
residents
do?
(Dekker
2013:
229)
Socio-­‐demographic
questions
in
relation
to
questionnaire
items
from
Q10:
“I
know
many
people
in
this
neighbourhood.
-­‐
I
can
influence
decisions
that
affect
the
neighbourhood.
-­‐
I
am
involved
in
community
groups.
-­‐
I
mainly
go
to
local
restaurants,
bars
or
cafés.
-­‐
I
know
most
people
through
local
schools
and
through
my
children’s
friends.
-­‐
People
here
have
more
in
common
than
what
separates
them.
-­‐
Most
of
my
close
contacts
and
friends
are
not
in
the
neighbourhood.
-­‐
I
very
rarely
talk
to
my
neighbours.
-­‐
I
feel
like
an
outsider
here.”
-­‐
Q11:
“I
prefer
to
be
among
people
from
the
same
background
as
myself.”
Four-­‐item
scale
used
to
force
a
choice
instead
of
offering
a
neutral
route
between
agree-­‐
and
disagreement
(see
de
Vaus
2002:
99).
Identification
–
and
differentiation
between
place–
and
community
attachment
If
sense
of
place
is
entirely
a
product
of
individualised
meaning,
do
residents
distinguish
between
the
physical
environment
of
their
place
and
the
people
who
live
there
–
possibly
perceived
as
‘community’?
(see
Talen
1999)
Q6:
“I
defend
the
neighbourhood
when
somebody
criticises
it.
The
buildings
and
places
may
not
look
attractive,
but
I
care
about
the
people
here.”
Q11:
“What
goes
on
in
places
like
Gaza
concerns
me
more
than
local
matters.”

26.
20
Attitudes
towards
diversity
/
social
mix
Is
local
diversity
seen
more
as
an
asset
or
a
source
of
conflict?
How
do
attitudes
towards
diversity
discriminate
between
people
in
the
neighbourhood?
Are
attitudes
towards
ethnic
diversity
and
in/out
groups
really
different
for
working
class
people?
Or
is
Paton
(2012:
259)
correct
in
saying:
“working-­‐class
groups
are
often
more
mobile
and
transnational
and
more
likely
to
engage
with
‘other’
cultures
and
ethnicities
as
migrant
labour
than
the
traditionally
conceived
middle-­‐class
or
those
with
a
‘metropolitan
habitus’”?
From
Q6:
“People
from
different
backgrounds
get
on
well
with
each
other
here.
There
is
a
wide
mix
of
people
with
different
incomes
here.”
From
Q11:
“Diversity
of
people
of
different
colour,
cultures
and
religion
is
a
good
thing.”
From
Q21:
“It
would
be
good
for
the
area
to
have
more
people
on
higher
incomes.”
-­‐
associated
with
class
identification
(Q13)
Metropolitan
habitus
Does
the
social
habitus
ascribed
to
urban
gentrifiers
among
middle
classes,
with
an
active
sense
of
community
and
concern
for
social
inclusivity
(Butler
2008:
142),
show?
According
to
Butler
(2007:
174),
different
fractions
of
the
middle
class
can
be
found
in
different
kinds
of
areas
within
London.
Is
there
an
idealised
specific
Church
Street
narrative
that
would
attract
and
tie
particular
kinds
of
gentrifiers
to
the
area?
“It’s
an
inner-­‐city
area
that
matches
my
tastes
and
lifestyle.”
From
Q18:
“It
is
a
desirable
area
to
live
in.
It
is
an
area
that
people
like
myself
enjoy.
It
is
an
area
that
people
like
myself
can
afford.”
Additionally:
“I
prefer
to
be
among
people
from
the
same
background
as
myself.”
–
Associated
with
education,
job
hierarchy
(demographic
questions)
and
class
identification
(Q13)
Correspondence
between
habitus
and
field
Does
“comfort
in
place”
associated
with
corresponding
habitus
and
field
(Butler
&
Watt
2007:
9)
find
an
expression
in
satisfaction
with
the
neighbourhood?
Or
are
habitus
and
field
difficult
to
reconcile
in
Church
Street?
If
yes,
for
whom?
Does
compromise-­‐making
show?
Q4:
“How
satisfied
are
you
with
the
quality
of
your
home?”
–
contrast
with:
Q7:
“Taking
everything
into
account,
how
satisfied
are
you
with
the
Church
Street
area?”
Q9:
“How
satisfied
or
dissatisfied
are
you
with
the
following…?”
From
Q11:
“I
am
satisfied
with
the
amount
of
control
I
have
over
my
life.”
Anticipation
of
neighbourhood
change:
gentrification
How
does
gentrification
pressure
play
out
in
other
ways
than
just
adding
new
private
homes
to
a
refurbished
housing
stock?
Is
it
something
current
residents
anticipate?
Who
is
anticipated
to
be
‘coming
in’
and
–
if
so
–
at
whose
expense?
Is
greater
income
mix
associated
with
less
ethnic
and
cultural
mix?
If
yes,
why?
Do
residents
feel
that
neighbourhood
change
may
lead
to
a
different
reputation
of
the
neighbourhood?
From
Q20:
“The
area
will
be
very
diverse
with
people
of
all
colours
and
beliefs.
It
will
be
an
area
where
a
lot
of
well-­‐off
people
live.
An
area
where
most
people
will
not
be
well
off.
It
will
be
an
area
that
people
like
myself
enjoy.
From
Q20:
“It
will
be
a
desirable
area
to
live
in.”
Anticipation
of
neighbourhood
change:
affordability
and
anticipation
of
displacement
How
does
future
affordability
of
area
compare
with
perceived
as
current?
Does
anticipation
of
neighbourhood
change
point
towards
the
significance
of
displacement?
Can
anticipation
that
neighbourhood
change
will
involve
the
displacement
of
current
residents
be
used
as
proxy
for
measuring
displacement
in
action,
described
by
Atkinson
(2000a:
163)
as
akin
to
“measuring
the
invisible”,
experienced
by
individuals
no
longer
in
the
neighbourhood?
From
Q21:
“Property
prices
will
rise.
Rents
will
rise.
Young
people
growing
up
in
the
area
will
have
difficulty
staying
here
if
they
so
wish.
Many
people
will
be
unable
to
stay
in
the
area.”
From
Q20:
“It
will
be
an
area
that
people
like
myself
can
afford.”

27.
21
Representativeness
of
community
participants
What
are
the
dimensions
of
‘representativeness’
of
community
participants
for
the
‘local
community’?
To
what
degree
might
community
participation
be
dominated
by
middle-­‐class
gentrifiers?
If
so,
in
what
way
could
it
be
determined
whether
they
represent
the
wider
public
in
the
neighbourhood?
If
community
participants
are
socio-­‐demographically
atypical
of
deprived
communities
(Fanning
&
Dillon
2011:
123),
to
what
extent
does
this
matter?
Comparison
between
participant-­‐
group
and
the
sample
drawn
from
wider
public
for
a
range
of
items,
particularly
problem
perception:
Q8:
“How
much
are
the
following
issues
a
problem
in
the
Church
Street
area…..
?”
-­‐
and
anticipation
of
neighbourhood
change:
Q20
and
Q21.
Governmentality
Can
the
concept
of
governmentality
be
upheld?
Do
those
involved
in
local
governance
‘internalise’
the
views
of
planners
or
local
authority
at
the
expense
of
critical
awareness?
In
particular
with
regards
to
anticipations
of
neighbourhood
change:
do
community
participants
differ
from
the
non-­‐involved?
Correspondence
analysis
with
regards
to
neighbourhood
perception,
particularly
issues
perceived
as
‘neighbourhood
problems’
between
participants
and
non-­‐participants
in
Futures
Plan.
Test
of
similarity
or
dissimilarity
in
views
regarding
neighbourhood
in
present
and
in
future
(Q18-­‐21).
5.2.
Implementation
of
the
research
design
and
its
limitations
Ethical
approval
was
granted
in
July
2014
(see
Appendix).
The
ESRC
framework
for
research
ethics
was
used
(ESRC
2010).
The
study
has
to
contend
itself
with
providing
a
cross-­‐sectional
‘snapshot’,
not
a
longitudinal
study
–
which
would
be
recommendable
to
capture
the
process
of
neighbourhood
change.
The
questionnaire
is
attached
in
the
Appendix
with
a
typical
cover
sheet
by
which
participants
were
briefed.
Content
of
both
cover
sheet
and
questionnaire
was
always
identical,
apart
from
the
instructions
given
in
the
red
text
box
at
the
bottom
of
the
cover
sheet,
which
reflected
the
addresses
of
where
to
return
the
completed
questionnaire,
the
‘collection
points’
as
described
below.
With
Sayer
(2010)
it
is
argued
that
quantified
associations
have
to
interpreted
in
light
of
the
hypotheses
or
theory.
Regularities
in
observed
contrasts
or
correlations
do
not
constitute
causal
explanations
in
themselves.
They
may
suggest
causality,
but
do
not
prove
it.
(ibid:
193).
The
implementation
of
the
research
design
was
faced
with
considerable
challenges,
as
laid
out
in
Table
2,
with
methodological
ideal
requirements
on
the
left
and
their
implementation
and
inherent
limitations
on
the
right.

28.
22
Table
2:
Methodological
challenges/requirements
(left)
and
their
implementation
and
limitations
(right)
regarding
sampling
and
extrapolation
Requirement
Implementation
Sampling
principle
and
reality
Sampling
involves
taking
a
portion
of
the
population,
making
observation
on
this
smaller
group
and
then
generalising
the
findings
to
the
population.
Plan
for
carrying
out
the
wider
public
survey
reviewed
several
times
prior
to
implementation.
Ward
contains
4,719
residential
properties.
(City
of
Westminster
2013:
10).
1,100
questionnaires
distributed,
23%
of
households
reached.
Per
household
one
questionnaire
given
out.
Some
businesses
and
third-­‐sector
organisations
received
questionnaire
as
well.
Randomness
of
sampling
Random
selection
of
sample
from
population
essential
to
deem
representative
and
infer
from
sample
to
population.
Principle
of
ensuring
that
each
member
of
population
has
equal
chance
of
being
selected
and
that
selection
of
one
subject
is
independent
of
the
selection
of
any
other
(de
Vaus
2002:
128).
Random
sampling
by
quota
considered
when
it
is
particularly
important
that
individuals
of
all
groups
of
a
heterogeneous
population
are
to
be
included
in
the
same
proportions
as
they
are
in
the
population
(Burns
2000:
90).
Instead
of
attempting
to
select
residents
randomly
in
the
public
sphere,
all
questionnaires
were
distributed
by
slipping
the
questionnaires
–
in
envelopes
–
through
letter
boxes
of
each
household
of
every
selected
dwelling.
This
principle
of
delivering
questionnaires
to
people’s
addresses
was
thought
to
assist
the
principle
of
randomness.
Attempting
to
interview
randomly
in
the
public
sphere
would
have
meant
to
exclude
people
who
are
unlikely
to
venture
out,
be
they
at
work
or
housebound.
Sampling
error
due
to
selective
participation
Main
disadvantage
of
self-­‐administered
questionnaires:
response
rates
tend
to
be
low,
as
no
interviewer
is
present
to
persuade
people
to
carry
out
the
survey.
Particularly
if
questionnaires
have
to
be
returned
to
an
external
place
a
considerable
bias
in
the
self-­‐selection
process
of
respondents
-­‐
who
may
differ
significantly
from
non-­‐respondents
-­‐
has
to
be
expected.
Less-­‐educated
persons
tend
to
be
particularly
underrepresented
(Burns
2000:
581).
Low
participation
rates
are
normally
countered
by
several
attempts
to
fill
missing
quota
(ibid:
581).
Restricted
by
principle
of
anonymity:
survey
had
to
be
self-­‐administered.
Respondents
not
interviewed
in
person.
Another
reason
for
this
was
the
nature
of
the
online
survey
with
community
participants,
which
the
research
design
for
the
wider
public
had
to
match.
Collection
points
had
to
be
arranged
and
respondents
instructed
about
them
on
the
cover
sheet.
Considerable
sampling
error
arose
due
to
the
low
response
rate,
making
the
bias
in
the
self-­‐selection
process
of
respondents
outweigh
the
randomness
of
sampling
addresses.
Language-­‐barriers
may
not
have
been
overcome,
possibly
therefore
ethnic
minority
population
under-­‐
represented.
However,
the
experience
is
shared:
To
obtain
75
responses
Butler
&
Robson
(2001:
2149)
had
to
contact
750
potential
interviewees.
Jones
(2003:
596)
were
unable
to
sample
in
a
way
that
would
have
reflected
the
age
structure
of
the
population.
Not
feasible
within
the
confines
of
the
study.

29.
23
Sample
size
and
adequacy
Routine
statistical
tests
to
estimate
the
amount
of
sampling
error
to
determine
the
degree
by
which
sample
differs
from
population
(Burns
2000:
95).
Sampling
error,
usually
expressed
as
standard
error,
estimates
the
degree
to
which
the
sample
is
representative
of
population
from
which
it
is
drawn.
The
smaller
the
standard
error,
the
more
confidence
that
statistical
mean
of
sample
distribution
is
close
to
mean
of
population
(Rowntree
2000:
94).
Degree
of
confidence
in
sample
being
representative
commonly
expressed
as
confidence
interval,
which
consists
of
the
desired
degree
of
confidence
and
the
sample
size
(Burt
&
Barber
1996:
265).
The
larger
the
sample,
the
smaller
the
confidence
interval
at
a
given
confidence
level
(Maisel
&
Persell
1996:
131).
146
questionnaires
were
returned,
a
participation
rate
of
13.0%,
three
had
to
be
discarded
(see
Chapter
6.1).
A
sample
size
of
143,
even
though
considered
large
enough
with
a
known
population
size
cannot
on
its
own
guarantee
that
results
can
be
inferred
to
population
(see
de
Vaus
2002:
264).
Thought
that
giving
opportunity
to
fill
in
questionnaires
in
one’s
own
time
and
comfort
zone
would
boost
participation
rates.
Inference
from
sample
to
population
The
most
commonly
applied
statistical
test
applied
to
statistical
inference
is
the
significance
test
that
compares
the
obtained
results
to
the
null
hypothesis,
i.e.
with
the
assumption
that
no
statistical
relation
between
measured
variables
exists
(Rowntree
2000:
111).
If
that
test
against
a
stated
and
conventionally
acceptable
level
of
statistical
significance
is
applied
and
the
null-­‐hypothesis
can
be
refuted,
it
can
be
concluded
that
the
sample
findings
are
likely
to
exist
in
the
population
as
a
whole
(de
Vaus
2002:
208).
Marsh
(1982:
72):
finding
correlation
between
two
measured
variables,
e.g.
a
social
capital
index
and
dimensions
of
place
attachment,
may
not
prove
that
one
causes
the
other,
only
that
the
hypothesis
cannot
be
ruled
out.
It
was
not
possible
to
sample
in
a
way
that
would
limit
the
sampling
error
required
to
use
inferential
statistics
by
which
generalisations
about
characteristics
of
a
population
can
be
made
(see
Burns
2000).
Survey
is
primarily
of
exploratory
value,
does
not
attempt
to
infer
from
statistical
correlations
the
likelihood
with
which
these
determine
causal
processes
occurring
in
population.
Hence
significance
tests,
which
would
suggest
that
extrapolation
from
measured
relationships
is
possible,
are
omitted.
Follows
Marsh’s
understanding
of
interpreting
correlations
to
point
out
key
dynamics
at
work
that
matter
for
interpretation
guided
by
hypotheses.
Reliability
To
be
replicable,
data
obtained
must
be
reliable:
1)
be
relatively
free
of
errors
of
measurement
of
the
measuring
instrument;
2)
the
same
results
must
be
found
if
the
study
is
repeated,
all
other
things
being
equal
(Burns
2000:
127).
Possibility
to
replicate
the
survey,
but
in
a
truly
random
manner,
as
well
as
the
analysis
may
well
exist,
but
would
have
to
be
carried
out
by
different
person,
not
known
in
the
neighbourhood,
with
increased
resources.
Particularities
of
online
survey
Internet
surveys
have
same
advantages
and
disadvantages
as
self-­‐administered
paper
questionnaires.
Advantage
of
minimising
the
likelihood
of
social
desirability
bias
(Dillman
1983:
375).
The
presence
of
a
known
person
as
interviewer
may
be
inhibiting
(Sheatsley
1983:
198)
particularly
for
sensitive
or
controversial
questions.
However,
as
Cloke
et
al
(2004:
146)
argue,
respondents
will
still
interpret
the
researcher
through
the
medium
of
the
survey
instrument
received
even
without
meeting.
The
78
current
community
participants,
all
with
email
addresses,
were
emailed
a
link
to
the
Survey
Monkey
website
with
survey
in
electronic
format
identically
phrased
to
printed
one.
Online
survey
posed
problems
for
six
(mainly)
elderly
participants
who
preferred
to
fill
in
the
paper
questionnaire
instead.