CALIFORNIA STATE UNIVERSITY, NORTHRIDGE
Walking in L.A.: An Examination of the Effects of Community Walkability on
Topophilia, Sense of Community, and Quality of Life
A graduate project submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of Master of Arts in Sociology
By
Elizabeth Sarah Bogumil
December 2015
Copyright by Elizabeth Sarah Bogumil 2015
ii
The graduate project of Elizabeth Sarah Bogumil is approved:
______________________________________
Dr. Michael Carter
__________________
Date
______________________________________
Dr. David Boyns
__________________
Date
______________________________________
Dr. J. E. Godard, Chair
__________________
Date
California State University, Northridge
iii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Thank you…
Mom, Dad, David, Michael, and Matthew
Sean
Dr. Ellis Godard, Dr. David Boyns, and Dr. Michael Carter
Karen Sabbah, Jade Pearce, Jason Thompson, and Aleksey Reshetnikov
The endless optimism and encouragement of Dr. Moshoula Capous-Desyllas, Dr. James
Elias, Dr. David Ballard, Dr. Mary Bogumil, Dr. Michael Molino, and Dr. Walter
Bogumil.
New Orleans, Savannah, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Gulfport, FL, and Buffalo, NY, for
they are the cities in which I love to walk.
iv
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright Page
ii
Signature Page
iii
Acknowledge
iv
List of Tables
vii
List of Figures
viii
Abstract
ix
Section 1: Introduction
1
Section 2: Literature Review
Walkability
Topophilia
Sense of Community
Quality of Life
Theoretical Relationships
Figure 1: Theoretical Model
4
4
6
7
9
11
13
Section 3: Methodology
Research Question & Hypotheses
Variables
Walkability
Topophilia
Sense of Community
Quality of Life
Respondent & Neighborhood Demographics
Survey Distribution & Sampling
Data Processing
15
15
15
16
17
17
18
19
19
21
Section 4: Results
Respondent & Neighborhood Demographics
Correlations
Table 1: Correlation Matrix of Independent & Dependent
Variables
Regression
Path Analysis
Figure 2: AMOS Path Model
24
24
26
v
26
26
27
28
Section 5: Discussion
Interpreting the Results
Limitations
30
30
34
Conclusion
37
Bibliography
39
Appendix A: Research Instrument
45
Appendix B: Descriptive Statistics
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Demographics
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Walkability
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Topophilia
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Sense of Community
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Quality of Life
Table 7: Imputed Cases by Variable
55
55
56
56
57
58
59
Appendix C: Outreach Lists
Table 8: Outreach List for Craigslist Groups
Table 9: Outreach List for Empower L.A. Groups
63
63
64
Appendix D: AMOS Path Model Parameters
Table 10: AMOS Path Model Parameters
67
67
vi
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1: Correlation Matrix of Independent and Dependent Variables
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Demographics
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Walkability
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Topophilia
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Sense of Community
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Quality of Life
Table 7: Imputed Cases by Variable
Table 8: Outreach List for Craigslist Groups
Table 9: Outreach List for Empower L.A. Groups
Table 10: AMOS Path Model Parameters
vii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1: Theoretical Model
Figure 2: AMOS Path Model
viii
ABSTRACT
Walking in L.A.: An Examination of the Effects of Community Walkability on
Topophilia, Sense of Community, and Quality of Life
By
Elizabeth Bogumil
Master of Arts in Sociology
This thesis examines the relationships among residents’ perceived walkability of their
community, topophilia, their sense of community, and perceived quality of life. As
sustainable transportation and urban living increase in popularity, research into the
benefits of walkable communities is becoming desirable not only as a tool for urban
planners but also as a useful tool and point of reference for sociologists to study
community building and sense of place. It is proposed that walkable neighborhoods
contribute to the facilitation of sense of community, which leads to an individual’s
attachment to place, and results in an increase in quality of life. To examine these
relationships, a survey was created to measure basic demographic data and information
pertaining to the respondents’ topophilia, sense of community, quality of life, and the
walkability of their neighborhood. The survey was distributed to individuals who lived in
Los Angeles County and were eighteen years old and older. It was distributed online
through Facebook, Craigslist, Reddit forums, and e-mail, utilizing convenience and
snowball sampling. There were 451 total respondents. The relationships amongst the
proposed variables were examined in a quantitative manner via regression and path
analysis. It was found that walkability, topophilia, and sense of community explained
24% of the variance in quality of life. Additional relationships amongst walkability,
topophilia and sense of community were also explored.
ix
1. INTRODUCTION
Los Angeles is not the first city that comes to mind when one thinks of walking.
New York, San Francisco, and even Savannah, Georgia, spur more thoughts of leisurely
strolls or work commutes done on foot than Los Angeles. The band Missing Persons
popularized the song “Walking in L.A.” (1982), the lyrics of which accentuate the
undesirability of walking in Los Angeles. In the song, walking is viewed as a clear
indicator of social status—an activity in which only lame joggers, freeway stranglers, or
shopping cart pushers engage. Urban Dictionary1, a social media website that uses crowd
sourcing to aggregate popular definitions, defines Los Angeles as “a massive tangle of
highways and roads, also rumored to contain people and houses.” The definition not only
represents a popular cultural perspective on Los Angeles’ transportation patterns but also
proposes a lack of sense of community and quality of life, which are often associated
with traffic jams and driving. The act of walking has even been cast off by the local
government, when the Los Angeles Public Works Department, the agency in charge of
building code enforcement, roads, sewers, and county managed areas, did not have any
idea how many miles of sidewalk was in the county or what conditions the sidewalks
were in. Some estimates total the county’s “sidewalk network at more than 10,000
miles,” but much of it is in disrepair (Poston & Menezes 2015).
People are walking in Los Angeles, though. Those doing so are not just
privileged individuals who are able to drive to desirable hiking trails for leisurely strolls;
they are those who traverse the city and its neighborhoods for pleasure, purpose, and
1
Los Angeles Top Definition at
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Los%20Angeles
necessity. Los Angeles County has two of the top U.S. cities for walking: Long Beach
and Los Angeles city proper (Alliance for Biking & Walking 2010). At twelve percent,
Los Angeles and Long Beach tie for percentage of trips that are made on bike or on foot,
on par with Washington D.C., Chicago, Oakland, San Francisco, and San Jose. This is
above the national average of 9.6% trips done on bike or foot and approaching the
national leader of New York City, at 20%. Los Angeles’ current Mayor, Eric Garcetti, is
helping to shape campaigns and projects to increase neighborhood walkability and
sustainable transportation methods with participation in these programs also promoting
residents’ increased attachment to place and sense of community (Chang 2015,
Hawthorne 2015, McNary 2015). Many of Los Angeles County’s eighty-eight cities,
including Long Beach and Pasadena, are also beginning campaigns and projects to
encourage walking in their locales as well.
Walking, although it may not initially seem life altering, can shape how one
interacts with and perceives the surrounding community. Whether walking for pleasure
or necessity, individuals develop a sense of where they belong within their community
and how they relate to other individuals and the built environment. Residents orient
themselves within their neighborhoods and observe and participate in the ease of a
community’s walkability on a ground level. City planners, from a more birds-eye view,
are charged with organizing the flow of a neighborhood and shaping the environmental
amenities and points of interaction within a neighborhood. This is why whether one is
selecting a community to live in, revising a community’s master plan, or attempting to
revitalize a neighborhood, consideration of a community’s walkability is vital.
Perceptions of quality of life and its relationship to urban design are at the core of
2
walkability. Topophilia (attachment to place) and sense of community are both linked to
walking, and are all contributing factors to quality of life. This research project proposed
that walkability, topophilia and sense of community contribute to quality of life. It
sought to demonstrate that the walkability of one’s neighborhood is an important
contributing factor to one’s quality of life, independently and through the conduits of
topophilia and sense of community.
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
3
Walkability
Walkability has no universally agreed upon, formally recognized definition.
Generally, walking is understood as “a means of experiencing and interacting with the
local environment and wider society in a way not possible when using other forms of
transport, particularly motor transport” (Kelly et al. 2011:1500). The actual walkability
of a particular area can be measured by consideration of a multitude of factors, depending
on the direction of research. Urban studies and planning, geography, public health,
psychology, and sociology all examine walkability but lack continuity within their fields
with respect to a definition. Some researchers define walkability as the distance residents
live from amenities and their accessibility (Cervero & Radisch 1996, Handy 1992, Kelly
et al. 2011, Lee & Moudon 2006, Lund 2003). The main focus when addressing the
accessibility to and distance from one’s home to various amenities relates walkability to
the concept of proximity.
A second perspective from which to examine walkability is through cognitive
mapping, which integrates ease of travel with understanding the mental maps one creates
of their environment and, as a result, how those maps navigate within their community
(Mondschein et al. 2009). Cognitive mapping is primarily addressed in psychological
research and has only recently been applied to the process of navigating one’s
neighborhood. Most often, this research is integrated with wayfinding decisions, which
are reflected in walking behavior and can impact the perceived walkability of a
neighborhood. Yet, others examine walkability based upon audits of environmental
attributes that relate to pedestrian accessibility (Clifton et al. 2007, Maghelal & Capp
2011). Such audits typically entail the use of a checklist to account for particular
4
environmental design attributes that are often associated with making an area more
accessible to walkers (such as sidewalks, sidewalk cuts, cross walks, and lighting).
Walkability audits, although useful for counting attributes that contribute to a walkable
neighborhood, tend to put little emphasis on how the pedestrian actually perceives their
walking environment, thus sucking the humanity out of a decidedly human activity.
There is previous research that does not address the definition of walkability but
rather focuses on methods of assessing the concept (Lund 2002). The lack of continuity
pertaining to the definition of walkability can be summed up by Clifton et al., when they
state, that “the important factors contributing to ‘walkability’ are still very much in
contention and the relationship and relative importance of each feature has yet to be
agreed upon” (2007:96). As walkability has such a fluid definition based on everfluctuating variables, it shall be loosely defined, for this thesis, as each respondent’s
perceived ability to access necessary and pleasurable destinations within their community
while considering a multidimensional set of contributing domains.
The walkability of a community is most frequently measured as a composite
variable and is defined by its components rather than by any formal definition (Lund
2002). The variables that are often combined to aggregate a measurement of walkability
are traffic safety, accessibility and pleasurability of the walk, crime and safety of the
neighborhood, population density, diversity, and routes (Gallimore et al. 2011:188).
Walkscore.com, a website used to rank walking within given communities, creates a
similar composite walkability score from several attributes. However, their variables
focus not only on the factors previously noted but also factors that are more socially
oriented. These variables used to create the more socially sensitive walkability
5
measurement are the presence of a neighborhood center, prevalence of people, mixed
income and mixed-use structures, presence of parks and public spaces, ease of pedestrian
design, proximity of schools and workplaces, and existence of streets designed for
bicyclists, pedestrians and transit (Walkscore.com).
Topophilia
The study of topophilia began within the field of human geography. Tuan is the
academic philosopher who coined the term, to refer to “all of the human being’s affective
ties with the material environment,” which may be primarily aesthetic and can “differ
greatly in intensity, subtlety, and mode of expression” (Tuan 1974:93). Of primary
focus, perception, attitude, and value are the themes by which Tuan developed his
original topophilia research. Furthermore, upon development of topophilia research,
Tuan understood that “attitudes and beliefs cannot be excluded even from the
environmental calculus; for it is practical to recognize human passions in any approach
because man is, in fact, the ecological dominate and his behavior needs to be understood
in depth, not merely mapped” (2). Over the last four decades, topophilia research has
evolved from Tuan’s philosophical, human geography-based approach to enveloping
theory and research methods from environmental psychology, sociology, urban planning,
and anthropology. It is now quite common for more recent research to utilize the term
place attachment, rather than topophilia.
Place attachment is most often defined as “a multifaceted concept that
characterizes the bonding between individuals and their important places” (Scannell &
Gifford 2010:1). Modern place attachment research often takes into consideration the
aggregations of places to which individuals can become attached – ranging from country
6
to region to city/town/village and neighborhood (Brown et al. 2003, Lewicka 2011, 2010,
2008, 2005). Furthermore, rootedness or physical mobility, residence length, sociodemographics, and physical predictors are often addressed (Cucu et al. 2011, Raymond et
al. 2010, Rollero & De Piccoli 2010).
Sense of Community
Sense of community is a concept that reflects many problems of today’s urban
environment, as “the problem of place in America manifests itself a sorely deficient
informal public life [where] the structure of shared experiences[,] beyond that offered by
family, job, and passive consumerism[,] is small and dwindling” and the group
experience is being replaced by the self-consciousness of individuals (Oldenburg
1986:13). The theme of urbanization drastically altering one’s sense of community
continues through much of the research in this field. In fact, Wilson and Baldassare’s
examination of sense of community in the suburbs suggests “that the task of creating and
sustaining an overall sense of community is likely to become more difficult as a result of
the urbanization of suburban regions” (1996:40). It is because of such issues that
research examining the link between urban planning and sense of community is growing
in popularity.
Within the expanding body of research, one of the most frequently cited
definitions of sense of community is that of McMillan and Chavis, who proposed it to be
a “a feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one
another and to the group, and a shared faith that member’s needs will be met through
their commitment to be together” (1986:9). Their research also resulted in four elements
of sense of community: membership, influence, reinforcement (integration and
7
fulfillment of needs), and shared emotional connection (ibid). The definition, through
these elements, aims to appreciate the connections that exist between people and their
social environment, which can be experienced both within and with a particular
geographic space (Davidson & Cotter 1986, Nasar & Julian 1995).
There are many ways sense of community can be developed or affirmed amongst
its members. As the previous definitions discuss, such feelings arise through social
interaction. Talen notes that “the social-interaction component consists of (often locally
based) social networks and the emotional support that can exist among neighbors,” which
can be an overt activity that “ranges from strong social relationships…to weak social
ties” (2000:174). Beyond social interaction, Cochrun explains, “as people identify more
with their neighborhood, they begin to personalize their homes and spaces around
them…a common symbol system within a neighborhood contributes to the membership
component of sense of community” (1994:97). Cochrun’s perspective weaves together
social interaction within a designated geographic space, such as a neighborhood. It is
through understanding the shared values and knowledge of their community’s “symbol
system” that those within a particular community may begin to identify themselves as
part of the community or outsiders. These feelings of membership and connection relate
back to McMillan and Chavis’ elements of sense of community.
When considering the data used to examine sense of community, rich description
and explanation are often used; however, scale measurements have also been developed.
Thomas Glynn (1977) developed one of the more frequently used measurements for
sense of community: the psychological sense of community scale. Urban researchers,
Nasar and Julian (1995), then refined this scale from its original seventy-three questions
8
into both a fifteen- and eleven-question scale. With the creation of the psychological
sense of community scale came an ability to quantify sense of community in addition to
utilizing the rich description often afforded the subject. These two data sources’ jointly
created a dynamic profile of what sense of community means and led to a rapid increase
in research relating to community and the built environment.
Quality of Life
Quality of life studies are undergoing a continued increase in popularity that can
be attributed to numerous causes. Clark et al. propose that globalization and the
increasing population of cities are significantly correlated with recent interests in quality
of life research (2002:494). Additionally, urban gentrification and revitalization (500),
changing living conditions (Das 2007:298), and an increasing desire to quantify
individuals’ happiness are all possible reasons for sudden and steady growth in this field
(Gerson 1976:794).
Although quality of life research is a burgeoning field, there is no universally
agreed upon definition of quality of life. Because the concept is addressed from
numerous multidisciplinary approaches, it is difficult for researchers to agree on a single
perspective or conceptualization. Those from the fields of epidemiology, psychology,
and public health may be so inclined to perceive quality of life as individual and strictly
health related, whereas researchers who focus on the social aspect of life may be more
inclined to focus on quality of life as an agitate of the community or as a result of social
interaction. In fact, researchers within the same field of study often have a difficult time
agreeing on a single definition of quality of life pertaining to their perspective on the
subject matter. Some sociologists who research economic influences on society are
9
inclined to define quality of life within an economic framework and, thus, examine the
concept based on economic factors, such as socioeconomic status or economic activity
(Clark et al. 2002, Das 2007). Other sociologists view quality of life through a hedonistic
and eudemonic framework, being “concerned with pleasure, enjoyment…satisfaction
and…concerned with functioning and the realization of our potential” (Huppert et al.
2008:303). Moreover, within these two prominent perspectives, social scientists may
decide to take a broader or narrower approach to the topic. For example, some opt to
define quality of life narrowly “through individual perspectives [and as] the furtherance
of individual aims” (Gerson 1976:795). Other social scientists, such as Harjiran, opt to
define quality of life broadly “as the product of interactions between an individual’s
personality and the continuous episodes of life events as influenced by a
multidimensional set of domains that constitute life…[a] community’s quality of life is
the sum of its members” (2006:31).
The World Health Organization offers a definition of quality of life that best
encompasses the many diverse perspectives of the concept. The organization defines
quality of life as an “individual’s perceptions of their position in life in the context of the
culture and value system in which they live and in relation to their goals, expectations,
standards, and concerns” (World Health Organization Quality of Life [WHOQOL] Group
1998). Additional research also affirms the importance of examining quality of life
through a subjective, contextual lens (Diener et al. 1985, Malkina-Pykh & Pykh 2008,
Schneider 1975). The Organization further elaborates that quality of life is not merely
the absence of disease, but also “the state of complete physical, mental, and social wellbeing” (World Health Organization Quality of Life [WHOQOL] Group 1998: 10). The
10
utilization of the word “complete” indicates that it is the highest state of quality of life,
which can exist in varying degrees. For the sake of this thesis, the World Health
Organization’s definition of quality of life is most appropriate because it allows the
exploration of quality of life through a collective social world while also acknowledging
the concept’s subjectivity and multidimensionality in relation to physical, mental,
psychological, social and environmental well-being. Additionally, this definition
presents an understanding that quality of life exists both within the individual and along
social dimensions (Gattino et al. 2013: 812).
Theoretical Relationships
This research aims to affirm relationships amongst walkability, topophilia, sense
of community, and quality of life. Combinations of these constructs are shown to be
associated in previous research. It is commonly understood that postwar urban sprawl
“inefficiently consume[d] vast tracts of land, making people dependent on their private
automobiles, and encouraging social isolation of residents” (Cochrun 1994:96). PostWorld War II, suburban development spiked. This development consisted primarily of
single-family housing that was much more spread out than the high-density housing
found in cities. The splay of suburban homes increased dependence on cars, as residents
needed their personal vehicles to drive from their homes to work. Dependence on cars as
a primary form of transport morphs the neighborhood environment into space that hinders
social interaction amongst residents and, thus, residents’ feelings of sense of community.
Simply walking past another individual repeatedly on a regular basis reaffirms social ties
and connections to others in the community and the community itself. French et al.
found support connecting walking for transport and walking for recreation and sense of
11
community (2014:687). There are “perceived neighborhood characteristics that
encourage walking [which] can enhance sense of community by increasing opportunities
for interaction with neighbors” (679). Skjaeveland and Garling found that residents’
“perceptions of the immediate residential environment seemed to be a notable predictor
of neighboring” (1997:192). It is acts of neighboring, feelings of belonging,
acknowledgement that neighbors matter to one another, and a shared faith that each
others’ needs will be met that are contributing factors to sense of community (McMillan
& Chavis 1986:6).
When considering topophilia and sense of community, both of these constructs
focus on attachment; so, it may be thought that they overlap with each other. However,
Gattino et al. note that, although sense of community can be part of and can be associated
with the attachment to physical places, affection towards physical places excludes social
relationships often associated with sense of community (2013:814). Raymond et al.
(2010) provide an overview of the connectedness between place identity and experience,
social bonding, and nature bonding which parallel the domains being examined in this
research study. They explain that social bonding reflects attachment, belongingness, and
familiarity with the individuals one lives near (all similar to sense of community) while
nature bonding reflects connectedness and affinity with nature (both similar to that of
topophilia).
Grasping “people’s relationships with place could offer a common framework of
understanding, so that planning and other disciplines can work together with communities
and culture groups to generate improved understanding of localized significance”
(Stephenson 2010:19). Understanding the localized significance of particular places is
12
important because such significance is based in the interactions amongst community
members, which at the same time builds feelings of sense of community. No community
or culture exists abstractly, and one must recognize the values of place that are shared by
community members (Manzo & Perkins 2006:343). The person-place bonds affiliated
with the development of place include cognitive elements such as memories, beliefs,
meaning, and knowledge that individuals associate with the central settings thus making
them important (Scannell & Gifford 2010:3). It is places that are the “repositories and
contexts within which interpersonal, community and cultural relationships occur, and it is
to those social relationships, not just to place qua place, to which people are attached”
(Altman & Low 1992:7). As demonstrated by this research, there is thought to be a
strong relationship between topophilia and sense of community.
Figure 1: Theoretical Model
13
Walkability, topophilia, and sense of community have also been found to
correspond with quality of life. It was affirmed that topophilia served as a predictor of
quality of life (Gattino et al. 2013, Rollero & De Piccoli 2010, Theodori 2001).
Ogunseltan’s research (2005) also demonstrated that the overall quality of life score was
significantly associated with high ratings of topophilia. In fact, topophilia was found to
link sense of community to quality of life because one’s residence was important due to
“the interpersonal relationships and social links that are built there” (Gattino et al.
2013:813). Prezza and Constanini (1998) also found that sense of community was shown
to be an important predictor of quality of life. These feelings of sense of community
were likely developed through “patterns of joint participation in multiple settings [which]
are…at the heart of any conception of quality of life” and these patterns are frequently
engage in by walking within and through one’s community (Gerson 1976:799). For a
theoretical model reflecting this discussion, please see Figure 1.
14
3. METHODOLOGY
Research Question & Hypotheses
Based on the literature addressing walkability, topophilia, sense of community
and quality of life, the following research question is posed: Does increased walkability,
also increase topophilia, sense of community and quality of life? To examine this
question in depth, six research hypotheses proposing relationships amongst the four
variables were proposed:
H1: The greater the perceived walkability of a community, the greater residents
perceived quality of life.
H2: The greater the perceived topophilia, the greater the residents perceived
quality of life.
H3: The greater the perceived sense of community, the greater residents perceived
quality of life.
H4: The greater the perceived walkability of a community, the greater residents
perceived topophilia.
H5: The greater the perceived walkability of a community, the greater residents
perceived sense of community.
H6: The greater perceived topophilia, the greater residents perceived sense of
community.
Variables
To evaluate the relationships among neighborhood walkability, topophilia, sense
of community, and quality of life, a Quality of Life & Walkability survey was designed.
Questions from four previously developed scales were used to measure each of the main
15
constructs. Additionally, neighborhood and respondent descriptive and demographic
information and two open-ended questions were asked for the purpose of a more
complete understanding of the primary variables. All of the questions were optional for
the respondents to answer; however, if a respondent failed to answer one of the questions
used to compile the walkability, topophilia, sense of community, and quality of life
scales, a reminder to answer that question appeared on the screen. This did not inhibit
respondents from continuing through the survey.
Walkability
Handy’s (1996) walkability scale was used as the primary scale for understanding
how respondents perceived walking within their community. Handy’s scale was used by
Lund (2002) in her research and was found to be a useful representation of how residents
perceive the walkability of their community. The walkability scale consisted of eleven
questions measured on a five-point Likert scale. An additional question - “I feel
comfortable walking when it is cold” - was added to the scale to account for respondents
who live in areas of Los Angeles County, which is an area with variant weather
conditions. The additional question was added at the culmination of the original scale so
as to not influence previous answers or change the reliability of the original scale. Both
the original scale and the scale with the added question were examined for reliability to
determine whether the added question should be included as part of the measurement.
The walkability scale serves as an independent variable. (For a complete list of questions
that are part of the walkability scale, please see Appendix A, Table 3.)
16
Topophilia
Lewicka’s (2008) place attachment scale was used to measure topophilia. As
previously noted, topophilia and place attachment are often interchanged and, thus, this
scale was an appropriate choice. The scale consists of twelve questions measured on a
five-point Likert scale and was selected because of its reliability (α=.802) (Lewicka
2008:218). The scale used by Lewicka (2008) prompts respondents to answer each of the
twelve questions for five places: apartment, house, neighborhood, city district, and city.
In this study’s survey, respondents were not directed to respond about place attachment
with reference to any particular place; however, they were directed throughout the survey
to consider the area associated with their neighborhood or community. It is for this
particular reason that only a single twelve-question set of five-point Likert scale
questions were asked on the survey. Respondents could then reply to the topophilia
questions, within the context of all the survey, based on how broadly or generally they
defined the “place” around them to which they feel attached – whether this be on a
neighborhood, city district, or city level. The place attachment scale is henceforth
referred to as the topophilia scale and serves as an independent variable. (For a complete
list of questions that are part of the topophilia scale, please see Appendix A, Table 4.)
Sense of Community
The fifteen-question psychological sense of community scale (PCS), developed
by Nasar and Julian (1995), is used to measure respondents’ psychological sense of
community. In their 1995 study, Nasar and Julian adapted Thomas Glynn’s (1977)
2
This alpha level represents the city district level of place attachment, as a neighborhood
measurement was not provided.
17
seventy-three question psychological sense of community scale into two shorter question
groupings consisting of eleven- and fifteen-questions. The responses to these questions
were measured on a five-point Likert scale. These two scales were initially tested at the
neighborhood level and examined each respondent’s personal attitudes and perceptions
towards their community. Although Nasar and Julian compiled both an eleven- and a
fifteen-question PCS, for the sake of this study’s survey, the fifteen-question scale is used
as that scale’s reliability (α=.89) was higher than that of the eleven-question scale (Nasar
& Julian 1995:180). The PCS scale is henceforth referred to as the sense of community
scale and serves as an independent variable. (For a complete list of questions that are
part of the sense of community scale, please see Appendix A, Table 5.)
Quality of Life
Within the survey, quality of life was operationalized utilizing the questions from
The World Health Organization’s Programme on Mental Health’s Quality of Life—
BREF survey. This survey consisted of twenty-six questions. Two questions were global
measurements for quality of life, and twenty-four questions were part of the quality of
life scale. The scale examines multiple facets of four broad domains of quality of life:
physical, psychological, social relationships, and environment. Although not all of these
domains may be directly impacted by walkability, topophilia, and sense of community,
the aggregated measurement of quality of life provided by the Quality of Life—BREF
survey has shown to adequately represent an individual’s quality of life (World Health
Organization Quality of Life [WHOQOL] Group 2008). The quality of life questions are
all measured utilizing five-point Likert scales. Two questions are global quality of life
indicators. The additional twenty-four questions are compiled into a scale by following
18
the World Health Organization’s Programme on Mental Health’s Quality of Life – BREF
survey’s instructions (World Health Organization [WHOQOL] Group 2008:54). The
quality of life scale serves as a dependent variable. (For a complete list of questions that
are part of the quality of life scale, please see Appendix A, Table 6.)
Respondent & Neighborhood Variables
Lastly, demographic questions pertaining to both the individual and their
neighborhood along with two qualitative questions and one open-ended question were
included in the survey. A profile of respondents was created utilizing the demographic
questions. Additionally, the neighborhood demographic questions are used to examine
the qualities of and create profiles of the neighborhoods surveyed. The two qualitative
questions and one open-ended question were added for exploratory purposes—to garner
richly detailed descriptions about each respondent’s neighborhood and walking situation.
The open-ended question asked the respondent to provide their zip code. The two
qualitative questions asked the respondent to provide the official or unofficial name of
their neighborhood as well as making available a response area for them to share any
details they felt were important for the researcher to understand beyond what was asked
in the survey. The qualitative responses shall be further addressed in future analysis
outside the parameters of this thesis.
Survey Distribution & Sampling
The target population and survey population for this research study consisted of
Los Angeles County residents who were at least eighteen years old. To participate in the
survey, respondents must have been at least eighteen years old and a Los Angeles County
resident. These requirements were reflected in the first two questions appearing on the
19
survey, which were response-contingent skip questions: If an individual answered “No”
to either of these questions, they were thanked for their participation and their survey was
terminated. By limiting the responses in this way, the populations to which the findings
may be most generalizable are those who are over eighteen years old and live in any part
of Los Angeles County.
A survey of 114 questions was created and approved by the Institutional Review
Board on January 7, 2015. The survey was then entered into Qualtrics and distributed
online via a hyperlink from January 24, 2015 through April 24, 2015. Consent to
participate in the survey was acquired when the respondent read the introductory survey
statement and selected a button to continue. Because the survey hyperlink was
distributed online via Craigslist, Reddit, Facebook, and e-mail, the sampling frame
consists of individuals who have both Internet access and access to Craigslist, a
Facebook, or Reddit account, or a personal email address, lived in Los Angeles County,
and were eighteen years of age or older. A total of 470 survey responses were collected.
The primary method for survey distribution was via e-mail and the online social
networks of Craigslist, Facebook, and Reddit. Craigslist was selected because it enabled
the survey to be posted on region/neighborhood-specific forums within the greater Los
Angeles County area. (Please see Appendix C for a list of the Craigslist
region/neighborhood specific forums to which the survey was posted.) This increased the
chances of even distribution of the survey countywide. A secondary distribution of the
survey was sent out via Facebook to colleagues living in and community groups affiliated
with Los Angeles County. The colleagues and community groups were encouraged to
share the survey with other Los Angeles residents in their network by posting it to their
20
Facebook wall. The secondary distribution method of Facebook was decided upon as a
tool to assist in confirming the reliability of the Craigslist sample (based on basic
demographic variables). The third method of distribution was via the social networking
website Reddit. A survey link was posted twice over the course of three weeks to the
sub-Reddit/LAlist, a website used for posting jobs, things wanted or for sale, and
community opportunities. Finally, local neighborhood councils, citizen councils, and
community groups were contacted via e-mail to distribute the survey amongst their
members, participants, and stakeholders. To assist in this outreach, an extensive outreach
list was compiled consisting of contacts for neighborhood council members based off of
L.A.’s Department of Neighborhood Empowerment - Empower L.A, and additional
community organizations that were thought to be receptive to distributing the survey.
(Please see Appendix D for a complete list of Empower L.A. neighborhood council
groups.) Overall, the survey distribution utilized a cross-sectional, non-probability
sampling method that incorporated an availability component and a snowball component.
Data Processing
The data processing consisted of four steps. Of the 470 surveys collected,
nineteen cases were deleted. These nineteen cases consisted of respondents who, through
one of the contingency questions, indicated they were less than eighteen years old or did
not live in Los Angeles County. Deletion of these cases resulted in an adjusted sample
size of 451 cases. The second step of data cleaning involved imputing missing values.
Before any missing values were imputed, Little’s Missing and Completely at Random
21
Test (MCAR) was on all the survey questions (𝑥 ! = 2095.39, df=2114, p=.77)3. The
significance of the MCAR Test indicated that the missing data was random and, thus,
suitable for data imputation. As respondents were provided a pop-up reminder if they
failed to answer one of these questions, there were minimal missing values that required
imputation. To account for the few missing random values, the mean value of each
question was used. (For a list of cases imputed for each question, please see Appendix B,
Table 7.)
The third step involved running a reliability analysis (Cronbach’s Alpha) on the
variables making up each of the four constructs. Walkability (n= 451, α=.52), topophilia
(n=451, α=.89), sense of community (n=451, α=.91), and quality of life (n=451, α=.92).
Topophilia, sense of community, and quality of life all demonstrated acceptable levels of
reliability. Walkability’s alpha level was lower than desired, so a second reliability
analysis was run omitting the question added to the existing construct. The results
substantially increased the scale’s reliability (n=451, α=.60) and, thus, the question was
omitted from all future scales. Even with this adjustment, walkability still demonstrated a
lower level of reliability by some standards. Nunnally, who is associated with
establishing many reliability guidelines, affirms that an alpha level of .70 is preferable in
a research setting (1978:245). As the walkability scale was not extensively researched,
further examination of its use across assorted environments and development of its
questions would prove useful in refining the scale’s internal reliability. For the sake of
3
Sixteen questions addressing respondent’s walking habits and nine questions concerning
personal satisfaction were not considered in this test as they fall outside the breadth of
this particular study and their values were not necessary to impute.
22
this research; however, data was interpreted cautiously and established scales were kept
intact.
Finally, the fourth step consisted of the creation of the walkability, topophilia,
sense of community, and quality of life scales. In the established scales, valence varied
and, thus, to avoid idiosyncratic response sets, the valence of the questions was
standardized. Specifically, for the walkability, topophilia, and sense of community scales
as well as the sidewalks question, the valence of questions was recoded so that selecting
the most negatively worded options—“Definitely Don’t Agree,” “Strongly Disagree,” and
“Disagree”—consistently reflected the lowest possible score and selecting the most
positively worded questions—”Agree,” “Strongly Agree,” and “Defiantly Agree”—
consistently reflected the highest possible score. To create the unweighted scales for the
walkability, topophilia and sense of community scales, a mean function was used. Within
the resulting three scales, lower numbers represented lower perceived walkability,
topophilia and sense of community, whereas higher scores represented greater perceived
walkability, topophilia, and sense of community. The quality of life scale was compiled
following detailed instructions provided by the instrument developers (World Health
Organization Quality of Life [WHOQOL] Group 2008:54).
23
4. RESULTS
Respondent & Neighborhood Demographics
The results from this study are based off of the responses from 451 respondents
who were eighteen years or older and living in Los Angeles County. The respondents
mean age was 40.5 years old. One hundred and fifty-three individuals (33.9%) identified
themselves as males, and 298 individuals (66.1%) identified themselves as females. In
terms of race, 62.5% of the sample was White/Caucasian, 22.5% were
Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Chicano/Chicana, 7.5% were Asian, 4.7% identified as “other,”
2.2% were African American, and 0.7% were Native American. Of the respondents,
23.9% were a primary guardian to one or more children under eighteen years old who
currently lived in their residence. There were 76.1% of respondents who were not a
primary guardian to one or more children under eighteen years old who currently lived at
their residence. Concerning employment status, 55% of respondents answered that they
were employed full-time, 18.2% were employed part-time, 12.4% were students, 8.9%
were retired, and 5.5% reported being unemployed.
The mean number of years respondents lived in Los Angeles County was nine.
The mean number of years respondents lived in their current neighborhood was seven
and the mean number of years lived at their current residence was 6.4. Four hundred and
thirty respondents (95.3%) reported having a driver’s license, and only 90% of
respondents reported owning a vehicle; therefore, not all the respondents who possessed a
driver’s license also possessed a car. Additionally, twenty-four respondents (5.3%) stated
that their current physical health prevented them from comfortably walking around their
24
neighborhood while 427 respondents (94.7%) stated that their current physical health was
not a barrier preventing them for comfortably walking around their neighborhood.
Concerning their built environment, 71.4% respondents noted that their
neighborhoods contained mainly residential development (e.g., apartments, houses or
condos), 27.9% of respondents’ neighborhoods consisted of a mix of residential and
business buildings, and 0.9% of respondents lived in a neighborhood with mainly
businesses. Additionally, 58.3% of respondents lived in ungated single-family
neighborhoods, 36.8% of respondents lived in multifamily housing units (e.g.,
apartments, condos or townhomes), and 4.9% of respondents lived in gated single-family
neighborhoods. Furthermore, the majority of individuals agreed or strongly agreed that
their neighborhood had sidewalks (89.8%), adequate street lighting at night (74.9%), and
crosswalks at most intersections (69.6%). (For a complete summary of descriptive
statistics for all variables, please see Appendix B.)
This sample can be compared to the general Los Angeles County demographics.
Based on the 2010 U.S. Census, the Los Angeles County population was 10,116,705
people consisting of 49.3% males and 50.7% females (United States Census Bureau
2010). According to the 2010 U.S. Census, the median age for Los Angeles County
residents was 34.8; however, both the sex and age demographics include those age one to
seventeen (ibid). Seventy-five point five percent of the population was eighteen years
and older, though (ibid). Racially, 50.3% of the county’s population were
White/Caucasian, 21.8% identified as “other,” 13.7% Asian, 8.7% African American, and
0.7% Native American (ibid). Additionally, unrelated to race, 47.7% of the population
identified as Hispanic or Latino (ibid). Of the total population, 24.3% of households had
25
their own children, a relative or non-relative less than eighteen years of age living within
their household (ibid). Pertaining to transit habits in 2000, 12.6% of individuals
acknowledged not having any vehicles (United States Census Bureau 2000).
Comparatively, it can be seen that the data collected for this research paper is
slightly skewed towards female respondents. Furthermore, one cannot draw complete
conclusions regarding respondents’ age and race as the methods of measuring or
reporting the 2010 U.S. Census do not parallel the questions used to gather this research
data. One can infer that individuals with children under eighteen years of age in their
home and who do not own vehicles are proportionally very similar in both this research’s
results and the results of the available U.S. Census data.
Correlation Analysis
A Pearson’s correlation coefficent was computed to examine correlations amongst
the walkability, topophilia, sense of community and quality of life scales. The results
suggest that all six of the correlations were statistically significant at the .001 level,
although with varying degrees of strength. For the correlation matrix, please see Table 1.
Table 1: Correlation Matrix of Independent & Dependent Variables
Quality of Life
Quality of Life
Walkability
Topophilia
Sense of
Community
***p<.001 N=451
-.327***
.459***
.421***
Walkability
Topophilia
--.471***
.463***
---.680***
Sense of
Community
-----
Regression Analysis
A stepwise multiple regression was conducted to evaluate whether walkability,
topophilia, and sense of community were all, or in combination, needed to predict quality
26
of life. Unstandardized scores were used to examine the effect a one-unit change of the
independent variables has on the dependent variable. At step 1 of the analysis, topophilia
entered into the regression equation and was significantly related to quality of life
(F=119.991, d.f.=1, p=.000). The correlation coefficient was 0.46, indicating that
approximately 21% increase of the variance of quality of life could be accounted for by
variance in topophilia. At step 2, sense of community entered into the regression
equation and was significantly related to quality of life (F=68.033, d.f.=2, p=.000). A
twenty-three percent increase of quality of life’s variance could be accounted for by sense
of community (R=.48). Finally, at step 3, walkability joined the regression equation
(F=47.543, d.f.=3, p=.000). The final multiple correlation coefficient for walkability
indicated that 24% increase of the variance of quality of life could be accounted for by
walkability (R=.49). Although, according to the regression analysis, the impact on
quality of life’s variance is not severely impacted by sense of community and walkability,
their influence warrants further examination.
Path Analysis
AMOS was used to further examine associations between the dependent and
independent variables and relationships amongst independent variables. The path model
was determined to be a good fit based on a low chi-square value and a high p-value
(𝑥 ! =1.04, d.f.=3, p=.705). Walkability, topophilia and sense of community, the
independent variables in the model, explained 24% of the variance in quality of life
(𝑅! =.24). There is also an 11% change in quality of life for each standard deviation unit
change in walkability (R=.11), a 17% change in quality of life for each standard deviation
27
unit change in sense of community (R=.17), and a 29% change for each standard
deviation unit change in topophilia (R=.29).
Figure 2: AMOS Path Model
Model Fit Statistics: CMIN=1.041, GFI=.999, RFI=.991, CFI=1.000, RMSEA=.000
Furthermore, prominent relationships between the independent variables were uncovered.
Walkability explained 20% of the topophilia variance (𝑅! =.20), with a 31% change in
topophilia for each standard deviation unit change in walkability (R=.31). Variance in
topophilia explained 46% of the variance in sense of community variance (𝑅! =.46) with
28
a 63% change in sense of community for each standard deviation unit change in
topophilia (R=.63).
Variance in the presence of sidewalks in a neighborhood and variance in sense of
community explained 20% of the walkability variance (𝑅! =.20), with a 30% change in
walkability for each standard deviation unit change in sense of community (R=.30) and a
negative 11% change in walkability for each standard deviation unit change based on a
neighborhood’s degree of sidewalk presence (R=-.11). The variable relating to the
presence of sidewalks acts as a negative suppressor variable. The function of a suppressor
variable is to “control for error variance in one or more independent variables within a
regression model” (Knowlden 2014:2). A negative suppression can be identified “when
the beta weight of the suppressor variable…is the opposite sign from its correlation with
the outcome variable” (5). The suppressor variable was not present in the regression
model and, thus, when compared, the path model has minimally altered variances altered
the variances.
29
5. DISCUSSION
Interpreting the Results
Based on the path analysis of this particular data, five of the six hypotheses were
supported.
H1: The greater the perceived walkability of a community, the greater residents
perceived quality of life.
H2: The greater the perceived topophilia, the greater the residents perceived
quality of life.
H3: The greater the perceived sense of community, the greater residents perceived
quality of life.
H4: The greater the perceived walkability of a community, the greater residents
perceived topophilia.
H6: The greater perceived topophilia, the greater residents perceived sense of
community.
The data reflected an incredibly similar picture as was initially proposed through the
hypotheses. It was demonstrated that the fifth hypothesis, which proposed that perceived
walkability increases perceived sense of community, possessed a strong relationship in
the opposite direction than initially expected.
H5: The greater the perceived walkability of a community, the greater residents
perceived sense of community.
Additionally, the strength of influence that walkability, topophilia, and sense of
community had on quality of life was reflected in both the regression and path analysis.
Topophilia has the strongest influence on quality of life, sense of community has the
30
second strongest influence, and walkability has the third strongest influence. Most
surprising is that topophilia, not sense of community, accounted for the greatest variance
in quality of life (R=.29). Although sense of community still accounts for the secondgreatest amount of variance of quality of life in the model (R=.17), it was initially
thought to account for the greatest amount of variance amongst the three independent
variables. Based on the initial relationship proposed between the variables, there is logic
supporting a greater variance between walkability and topophilia (R=.31). As when
individuals walk around their neighborhood, attachment to place has an opportunity to
grow from repeated continual interaction within an environment (Gerson 1976). While
this thesis has not addressed the impact of the quality or pleasurability of a walk has on
one’s attachment to place, it could be deduced that as long as interaction with the
environment took place, no matter the quality, one’s attachment would be impacted.
Finally, the relationship between sense of community and walkability was much stronger
than and in the opposite direction of what was expected. It was initially proposed that
walkability would increase sense of community, because walking enables individual’s
paths to cross and encourages interaction amongst individuals. Conversely, the path
diagram depicts a 30% change in walkability for each standard deviation unit change in
sense of community, which may be because individuals are more inclined to walk in their
community if they know fellow community members. Finally, to address the original
research question, the data demonstrates that increased walkability only increased
topophilia and quality of life.
Some of the demographics were also noteworthy. Forty-five respondents (10%)
reported not owning a vehicle. Based on the sampling frame, this data parallels the
31
12.6% of individuals who, for whatever reason did not own a vehicle in 2010 and, thus,
must be using public transportation, bicycle, or are walking as their primary method(s) of
transportation (United States Census Bureau 2000). Further exploration into who these
individuals are, their reasoning for not owning a car, and what their primary forms of
transport are could help further shape understandings of walkability, topophilia, sense of
community and quality of life within Los Angeles County.
Similarly interesting were the mean number of years respondents lived in Los
Angeles County (9 years), their current neighborhood (7 years), and their current
residence (6.4 years). As Los Angeles is a large metropolitan area, residents can appear
to be quite transient – not choosing to make the city their permanent home or setting
within any one particular neighborhood or residence for too long. While some residents
are indeed more transient than others, examination of more established resident’s
residents’ sense of community, topophilia, and quality of life could shed light why longterm Los Angeles County residents reside within particular neighborhoods and
residences.
Finally, the results concerning respondent’s perception of sidewalks in their
neighborhood is timely. When dichotomized, the majority of individuals agreed or
strongly agreed that their neighborhood had sidewalks (89.8%). This question asked
residents to reflect only on the presence of sidewalks in their neighborhood, but not the
quality of sidewalks. Los Angeles County has often been accused of lax sidewalk upkeep
(Barragan 2015) and recently allocated city funds to assist with improving the quality of
sidewalks (Reyes 2015). Further examination of the quality of sidewalks and type of
32
upkeep (if any) is needed to improve walkability of the neighborhood would be
particularly salient.
Overall, this thesis affirms relationships amongst the constructs of walkability,
topophilia, sense of community, and quality of life. While combinations of these
constructs have shown to be associated in previous research, the relationships of these
variables amongst each other have not previously been addressed. Within said
relationship and this particular dataset, topophilia is demonstrated to have the greatest
impact on quality of life, followed by sense of community, and walkability. The impact
of topophilia on quality of life affirmed previous research into the subject (Gattino et al.
2013, Rollero & De Piccoli 2010, Theodori 2001). As previously noted, it was surprising
that topophilia, not sense of community, accounted for the greatest variance in quality of
life. Although both topophilia and sense of community are linked to bonding (Raymond
et al. 2010), their object differentiates them—topophilia’s being nature and place while
sense of community’s is other people. There is a possibility that within the Los Angeles
County urban environment one can develop and maintain an attachment to place easier
than developing feelings of sense of community. Wilson and Baldassare reflected that
sustaining sense of community becomes more difficult as a result of urbanization
(1996:40). Based on the data collected, the mean length of residence in a Los Angeles
County neighborhood is seven years and this may not be enough time for one to truly
develop feelings of a noticeably strong sense of community.
Alternatively, cities and neighborhoods are often thought to have their own
personalities based on history, residents, collective memories, and local businesses.
Further understanding into what built places individuals are attached to (topophilia) may
33
uncover that respondents actually have an attachment to the idea of Los Angeles or the
ideals associated with their neighborhood and not the actual built environment. Manzo
and Perkins briefly address such a concept when they note that no community or culture
exists abstractly from space (2010:343). An individual’s attachment to the personalities
of particular cities or neighborhoods, interpreted as topophilia but not actually topophilia,
may be the starting point for sense of community within these locales. This idea is subtly
reflected within the path model, as topophilia accounted for a large amount of variance in
sense of community (R=.63). Furthermore, within the model, sense of community
accounts for a third of the variance of walkability (R=.30) and walkability accounts for
approximately a third of the variance of topophilia (R=.31). As a result, and in response
to Clifton et al.’s reflection that the important factors contributing to walkability are in
contention (2007:96), it can be interpreted that feelings of sense of community account
for the variability of walkability. Moreover, it is walkability that also impacts the
variability of topophilia. To examine the aforementioned nuances though, further indepth research would be needed.
Limitations
There are four primary areas reflecting limitations of this study: survey design,
measurement, analysis, and sampling. First, concerning the survey design, any questions
that contributed to the four scales were flagged in Qualtrics. If a respondent tried to
continue through the survey without answering one of the flagged questions, a pop-up
window reminded them that they skipped a question. While this pop-up reminder
window was beneficial to the researcher because it helped minimize missing responses,
such a reminder may alienate some respondents and pressure them into responding.
34
Second, when examining analysis, it would have been optimal to not impute any missing
values. As previously noted, the number of missing values was drastically decreased
because of the pop-up window reminders, but having a respondent fully complete the
survey on their own accord would have been more desirable. Third, as the internal
reliability analysis for the walkability scale resulted in a low Cronbach’s Alpha, it would
have been advantageous to have stronger reliability results. The walkability scale used in
this thesis parallels those used in previous research and because of this, it was deemed
best to not alter the scale until further research into it’s internal reliability across
environments and populations was performed. For future research, a factor analysis may
prove useful to refine the scale; however, that falls outside the scope of this thesis.
Finally, concerning the sample, there are four limitations. Overall, the sampling
method could be greatly improved. Since non-probability convenience and snowball
sampling were used, the results could only be generalizable to all residents of Los
Angeles County if the sample was weighted. Future research could examine a simple
random subsampling of Los Angeles County residents to examine whether the
relationships amongst variables uncovered within this research can be translated to a
probability sample. Furthermore, those who took the survey needed to have access to a
device with Internet access, the Internet, and access to a personal e-mail address,
Craigslist, Facebook, or Reddit. The digital device and Internet access contingent
disbursement of the survey potentially leaves out those with limited access to digital
devices with Internet access— a large segment of individuals who also engage in
walking, can possess feelings of topophilia, sense of community, and who have a quality
of life that can be examined as well. An offer was extended to distribute a printed copy
35
of the survey through the Los Angeles Community Action Network, a non-profit that
helps people dealing with poverty create and discover opportunities through ensuring that
they have a voice, power and opinion in decisions that affect them. Unfortunately, this
opportunity was declined as it reached beyond the project’s Instructional Review Board
approval. Future research in this area could benefit by reaching out to those who are
beyond the reach of an Internet-based survey.
The issue of sampling bias arises from the requirement of needing access to the
Internet, a personal e-mail address, Craigslist, Facebook, or Reddit to engage in the
project survey. Those with easy access to the previously noted technologies are also
likely to be able to afford them due to a higher income. Those with a higher income may
also have free time to take the survey and the culture capital to understand why the
subject matter is important to research. Furthermore, since the survey was sent directly to
those on neighborhood councils and those involved in community groups, many
respondents may have been aware of their stakeholder position and may have felt more
inclined to contribute their opinions. This could be reflected in a data set potentially
biased towards people with an increased integration with their social environment,
interaction their built environment, and sense of community (as reflected through
involvement with neighborhood councils and community groups). Even with these
limitations, this particular research study has clear future applications. Overall, future
research studies could be made stronger with the use of probability sampling and further
examination of the impact pop-up reminders has on survey completion.
36
CONCLUSION
This thesis sought to demonstrate that the quality of one’s life was impacted by
the walkability of one’s neighborhood, both independently and through the conduits of
topophilia and sense of community. It was proposed that walkability, topophilia and
sense of community contribute to quality of life. The results of both the regression model
and path model demonstrated that walkability, topophilia, and sense of community all
influenced quality of life. Quality of life was influenced the most by topophilia, whereas
sense of community had a slightly weaker influence and walkability held the least
influence of the three independent variables. It was initially hypnotized that sense of
community, not topophilia would influence quality of life the most, so it was surprising
that topophilia, not sense of community held the most influence on the dependent
variable. Additionally, conflicting with one of the proposed hypotheses, sense of
community displayed a considerable impact on walkability. Walkability, topophilia, and
sense of community were found to explain 24% of the variance of quality of life.
This particular research study contributes not only to the sociology discipline but
also to interdisciplinary research pertaining to walkability, topophilia, sense of
community, and quality of life. While sense of community and quality of life are
generally discussed across the social sciences, discussion and examination of a
community’s walkability is often relegated to those in the urban planning and design
fields. Additionally, research into is topophilia is slowly transitioning from the
theoretical interests of human geographers to becoming popular in applied environmental
psychology. Through depicting the interrelationships amongst walkability, topophilia,
37
sense of community, and quality of life, discussion is opened up and research of said
topics amongst and within disciplines is encouraged.
Beyond the usefulness of interdisciplinary research on walking, topophilia, sense
of community, and quality of life, this research study contributes to the supporting
evidence that, within Los Angeles County, walkability does impact topophilia and quality
of life, while sense of community impacts a community’s walkability. Los Angeles is
more than a big tangle of highways and roads but is also a region full of those who
traverse its neighborhoods for pleasure, purpose, and necessity. It is a region full of cities
that are on par with Washington D.C., Chicago, Oakland, San Francisco and San Jose for
trips done on bike and on foot (Alliance for Biking & Walking 2010). It is Los Angeles
County’s efforts to further facilitate walkability that will benefit resident’s feelings of
topophilia and quality of life.
After all,
Perhaps walking is best imagined as an ‘indicator species,’ to use an ecologist’s
term. An indicator species signifies the health of an ecosystem and its
endangerment or diminishment can be an early warning sign of systematic
trouble. Walking is an indicator species for various kinds of freedom and
pleasures: free time, free and alluring space, and unhindered bodies (Solnit
2001:250).
38
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Allen, D and S. Clark. 2007. New Directions in Street Auditing: Lessons from the PRES
Audits. Walk21 proceedings presented at the 8th International Conference for
Walking and Livable Communities, October 1-14, Toronto, Canada. Retrieved
June 8, 2015 (http://www.walk21.com/papers/Allen,%20David%20et%20al%20New%20directions%20in%20street%20auditing.pdf).
Alliance for Biking & Walking. 2010. “Quick Facts Sheet.” Bicycling and Walking in
the United States: 2010 Benchmarking Report. Retrieved on July 10 2015
(https://fortunedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2014/01/2010_benchmarking_report_
fact_sheet-final.pdf).
Altman, Irwin and Setha Low. 1992. Place Attachment. New York: Springer.
Barragan, Bianca. 2015. “Los Angeles’s Most Complained-About Sidewalks: Mapped.”
Curbed Los Angeles, June 30. Retrieved June 30, 2015
(http://la.curbed.com/archives/2015/06/los_angeles_worst_sidewalks.php#more).
Brown, Barbara, Douglas D. Perkins and Graham Brown. 2003. “Place Attachment in a
Revitalizing Neighborhood: Individual and Block Levels of Analysis.” Journal of
Environmental Psychology 23:259-271.
Center for Disease Control. 2010. Healthier Worksite Initiative Walkability Audit Tool.
Retrieved June 10, 2015
(http://www.cdc.gov/nccdphp/dnpao/hwi/downloads/walkability_audit_tool.pdf).
Cervero, Robert and Carolyn Radisch. 1996. “Travel Choice ins Pedestrian Versus
Automobile Oriented Neighborhoods.” Transport Policy 3(3):127-141.
Chang, Alicia. 2015. “LA May Envisions Greener, More Walkable City.” Associated
Press, April 8. Retrieved July 11, 2015 (http://phys.org/news/2015-04-la-mayorenvisions-greener-walkable.html).
Clark, Terry Nichols, Richard Lloyd, Kenneth K. Wong and Pushpam Jain. 2002.
“Amenities Drive Urban Growth.” Journal of Urban Affairs 24:493-515.
Clifton, Kelly J., Andréa Livi Smith and Daniel Rodriguez. 2007. “The Development
and Testing of an Audit for the Pedestrian Environment.” Landscape and Urban
Planning 80:95-110.
Cochrun, Steven Edward. 1994. “Understanding and Enhancing Neighborhood Sense of
Community.” Journal of Planning Literature 9(1):92-99.
Cresswell, Tim. 2004. Place: A Short Introduction. Malden, MA: Blackwell
Publishing.
39
Cucu, Liva Adina, Christiana Maria Ciocănea and Diana Andreea Onose. 2011.
“Distribution of Urban Green Spaces – an Indicator of Topophobia – Topophilia
of Urban Residential Neighborhoods. Case Study of 5th District of Bucharest,
Romania.” Geografic 10(2):276-286.
Das, Daisy. 2007. “Urban Quality of Life: A Case Study of Guwahati.” Social
Indicators Research 88:297-310.
Davidson, W.B. and P.R. Cotter. 1986. “Sense of Community in the Urban
Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community-development.”
American Journal of Community Psychology 18:55-77.
Diener, Ed, Robert Emmons, Randy Larsen and Sharon Griffin. 1985. “The Satisfaction
with Life Scale.” Journal of Personality Assessment 49(1):71-75.
French, Sarah, Lisa Wood, Sarah Alexandra Foster, Billie Giles-Corti, Lawrence Frank
and Vincent Learnihan. 2014. “Sense of Community and it’s Association with the
Neighborhood Built Environment.” Environment and Behavior 46(6):677-697.
Gallimore, Jonathan, Barbara Brown and Carol Werner. 2011. “Walking Routes to
School in New Urban and Suburban Neighborhoods.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 31:184-191.
Gerson, Elihu M. 1976. “On ‘Quality of Life.’” American Sociological Review 41:793806.
Gattino, Silvia, Norma De Piccoli, Omar Fassio and Chira Rollero. 2013. “Quality of
Life and Sense of Community: A Study on Heath and Place of Residence.”
Journal of Community Psychology 41(7):811-126.
Glynn, Thomas. 1977. Construct Development and Initial Measurement of the
Psychological Sense of Community.” University Microfilms International #7719: 226.
Hajiran, Homayoun. 2006. “Toward a Quality of Life Theory: Net Domestic Product of
Happiness.” Social Indicators Research 75:31-43.
Handy, Susan L. 1996. “Urban Form and Pedestrian Choices: Study of Austin
Neighborhoods.” Transportation Research Record 1552:135-144.
Handy, Susan L. 1992. “Regional versus Local Accessibility: Neo-Traditional
Development and its Implications for Non-Work Travel.” Built Environment
18(4):253-267).
40
Hawthorne, Christopher. 2015. “CicLAvia Head is Stepping Down; He Discusses
Event’s Future.” Los Angeles Times, April 24. Retrieved July 11, 2015
(http://www.latimes.com/entertainment/arts/la-et-cm-ca-paley-ciclavia-qa20150426-column.html#page=1).
Huppert, Felicia A., Nick Marks, Andrew Clark, Johannes Siegrist, Alois Stutzer, Joar
Vittersø and Morten Wahrendorf. 2008. “Measuring Well-being Across Europe:
Description of the ESS Well-being Module and Preliminary Findings.” Social
Indicators Research 91:310-15.
Knowlden, Adam. 2014. “Role of Suppressor Variables in Primary Prevention Obesity
Research: Examples from Two Predictive Models.” ISRN Obesity 1-9.
Lee, Chanam and Anne Vernez Moudon. 2006. “The 3Ds + R: Quantifying Land Use
and Urban Form Correlates of Walking.” Transportation Research Part D
11:204-215.
Lewicka, Maria. 2011. “Place Attachment: How Far Have We Come in the Last 40
Years?” Journal of Environmental Psychology 31:207-230.
Lewicka, Maria. 2008. “Place Attachment, Place Identity, and Place Memory:
Restoring the Forgotten City Past.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
28:209-231.
Los Angeles Walks. “Walk This Way, LA.” Retrieved June 8, 2015
(http://www.losangeleswalks.org/walkthisway/).
Lund, Hollie. 2010. “What Makes Neighborhood Different from Home and City?
Effects of Place Scale on Place Attachment.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 30:35-51.
Lund, Hollie. 2008. “Place Attachment, Place Identity, and Place Memory: Restoring
the Forgotten City Past.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 28:209-231.
Lund, Hollie. 2005. “Ways to Make People Active: The Role of Place Attachment,
Cultural Capital, and Neighborhood Ties.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
25:381-395.
Lund, Hollie. 2002. “Pedestrian Environments and Sense of Community.” Journal of
Planning, Education and Research 21:301-12.
Maghelal, Praveen and Cara Jean Capp. 2011. “Walkability: A Review of Existing
Pedesterian Indicies.” URISA Journal 23(2):5-17.
Malkina-Pykh, Irina and Yuri Pykh. 2008. “Quality-of-life Indicators at Different
Scales: Theoretical Background.” Ecological Indicators 8:854-862.
41
McMillan, David and David Chavis. 1986. “Sense of Community: A Definition and
Theory.” Journal of Community Psychology 14:6-23.
McNary, Sharon. 2015. “Garcetti’s State of the City Speech: Drought Response, More
Police, Rail and Uber at LAX.” 89.3 KPCC, April 14. Retrieved July 10, 2015
(http://www.scpr.org/news/2015/04/14/51011/los-angeles-state-of-the-city-2015eric-garcetti/#text).
Manzo, Lynne and Douglas Perkins. 2006. “Finding the common Ground” The
Importance of Place Attachment to Community Participation and Planning.”
Journal of Planning Literature 20(4):335-350.
Mondschein, Andrew, Evelyn Blumenberg and Brian Taylor. 2009. “Accessibility and
Cognition: The Effect of Transport Mode on Spatial Knowledge.” Urban Studies
47(4):845-866.
Nasar, Jack and David Julian. 1995. “The Psychological Sense of Community in the
Neighborhood.” Journal of the American Planning Association 61:187-84.
Nunnally, J.C. 1978. Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ogunseltan, Oladele. 2005. “Topophilia and the Quality of Life.” Environmental
Health Perspectives 113(2):143-148.
Oldenburg, Ray. 1989. The Great Good Place. New York: Marlowe & Company.
Olivera, José, Zoran Roca and Nuno Leitão. 2010. “Territorial Identity and
Development: From Topophilia to Teraphilia.” Land Use Policy 27:801-814.
Poston, Ben and Ryan Menezes. 2015. “L.A. Sidewalk Repair Costs Should Shift to
Property Owners, City Report Says.” Los Angeles Times, May 26. Retrieved July
10, 2015 (http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-sidewalk-fixes20150526-story.html).
Prezza, M. and Constantini, S. 1998. “Sense of Community and Life Satisfaction:
Investigation in three Different Contexts.” Journal of Community and Applied
Social Psychology 8:181-194.
Raymond, Christopher M., Gregory Brown and Helene Weber. 2010. “The
Measurement of Place Attachment: Personal, Community, and Environmental
Connections.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 30:422-343.
Reyes, Emily Alpert. 2015. “L.A. Agrees to Spend $1.3 Billion to Fix Sidewalks in
ADA Case.” Los Angeles Times, April 1. Retrieved June 30, 2015
42
(http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-lawsuit-broken-sidewalks20150331-story.html#page=1).
Rollero, Chiara and Normal De Piccoli. 2010. “Place Attachment, Identification and
Environment Perception: An Empirical Study.” Journal of Environmental
Psychology 30:198-205.
Schneider, Mark. 1975. “The Quality of Life in Large American Cities: Objective and
Subjective Social Indicators.” Social Indicators Research 1(4):495-509.
Scannell, Leila and Robert Gifford. 2010. “Defining Place Attachment: A tripartite
Organizing Framework.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 20:1-10.
Skjaeveland, Oddvar and Tommy Garling. 1997. “Effects of Interactional Space on
Neighboring.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 17:181-198.
Solnit, Rebecca. 2001. Wanderlust: A History of Walking. London: Penguin Books.
Stephenson, Janet. 2010. “People and Place.” Planning Theory & Practice 11(1):9-21.
Talen, Emily. 2000. “The Problem with Community Planning.” Journal of Planning
Literature 15:171-183.
Theodori, G.L. 2001. “Examining the Effects of Community Satisfaction and
Attachment on Individual Well-Being.” Rural Sociology 66: 618-628.
Tuan, Yi-Fu. 1974. Topophilia: A Study of Environmental Perception, Attitudes, and
Values. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, Inc.
United States Census Bureau. 2010. “Profile of General Population and Housing
Characteristics: 2010.” Washington D.C.
(http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bk
mk).
United States Census Bureau. 2000. “Profile of Selected Housing Characteristics: 2000.”
Washington D.C.
(http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bk
mk).
Walkscore.com. 2011. “What Makes a Neighborhood Walkable?”
http://www.walkscore.com/walkable-neighborhoods.shtml. Accessed 21
November 2012.
Wilson, Georjeanna and Mark Baldassare. 1996. “Overall ‘Sense of Community’ in a
Suburban Region: The effects of Localism, Privacy and Urbanization.”
Environment and Behavior 28(1): 27-43.
43
World Health Organization Quality of Life [WHOQOL] Group. 1998. “WHOQOL User
Manual.” Geneva, Switzerland: World Health Organization.
(http://www.who.int/mental_health/evidence/who_qol_user_manual_98.pdf).
44
APPENDIX A: RESEARCH INSTRUMENT
*The questions indicated with a star are skip questions. If the respondent answered “no”
to either one of them, they were diverted to the last page (page 22) of the survey.
PAGE 1: Quality of Life & Walkability in Los Angeles
The following survey is being conducted for a study of Los Angeles area residents to
examine the relationships between quality of life within a community and that
community’s walkability. You can choose whether or not you want to participate in the
survey and may stop at any time. Although the survey data will be retained, your
responses will remain anonymous. Your participation is valuable and appreciated. When
answering the questions, please consider your life in the last four weeks and if you are
unsure about which response to give to a question, the first response you think of is often
the best one.
Thank you,
Elizabeth Bogumil
Master’s Student in the Department of Sociology
California State University, Northridge
[email protected]
PAGE 2
To take this survey you must be 18 years or older.
Are you 18 years or older?
Yes
No
PAGE 3
To your knowledge, do you life in the county of Los Angeles?
Yes
No
PAGE 4
How did you hear about this survey?
Facebook
Craigslist
Other
45
PAGE 5
This next set of questions concerns how many years you have lived in particular
locations. Concerning accounting for the number of months you have lived at a
particular location, round up to the closest year if it is 6 months or more, and round down
to the nearest year if it is less than 6 months.
How many years have you lived in Los Angeles County?
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 or more years
How many years have you lived in your current neighborhood?
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 or more years
How many years have you lived at your current residence?
1 year
2 years
3 years
4 years
5 years
6 years
7 years
8 years
9 years
10 or more years
46
PAGE 6
These questions are concerning your transportation habits.
Does your current physical health prevent you from comfortably walking around your
neighborhood?
Yes
No
Do you have a driver’s license?
Yes
No
Do you own a vehicle?
Yes
No
PAGE 7
You are one fourth done with the survey. This first set of questions concerns your
walking habits. Please consider your habits in the last four weeks.
(Answer matrix response options: Very Often, Somewhat Often, Often, Occasionally,
Never, Not Applicable)
I walk for pleasure
I walk for Exercise
I walk for necessity
I walk to retail shops
I walk to grocery shops
I walk to restaurants and/or bars
I walk to my gym
I walk to work
I walk to school
I walk to my place of worship
I walk to parks
I walk to interesting events
I take a pet for regular walks
I walk alone mostly
I walk to my friend’s home
I walk to my family’s home
47
PAGE 8: Walkability
The second set of questions concerns how you perceive walking in your neighborhood
within the last four weeks.
(Answer matrix response options: Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree,
Disagree)
I often see neighbors I know when I walk
I look at interesting homes when I walk
I feel safe walking in my neighborhood during the evening
I feel safe walking in my neighborhood during the day
I like to see other people when I walk
The homes in my neighborhood are interesting
I feel comfortable walking when it is hot
There is too much car traffic in my neighborhood
I feel comfortable walking where there are no sidewalks in my neighborhood
I often see people I do not know when I walk
The trees in my neighborhood provide enough shade
I feel comfortable walking when it is cold
PAGE 9: Topophilia
The third set of questions concerns your attachment to your neighborhood.
(Answer matrix response options: Definitely Don’t Agree, Don’t Agree, Neither Agree
nor Don’t Agree, Agree, Definitely Agree)
I know it very well
I defend it when somebody criticizes it
I miss it when I am not here
I don’t like this place
I feel secure here
I am proud of this place
It is part of myself
I have no influence on its affairs
I want to be involved in what is going on here
I leave this place with pleasure
I would not like to move from here
I am rooted here
48
PAGE 10: Sense of Community
This fourth set of questions concerns your sense of community within your community in
the last four weeks.
(Answer matrix response options: Agree, Somewhat Agree, Neutral, Somewhat Disagree,
Disagree)
I am quite similar to most people who live here
If I feel like talking I can generally find someone in the neighborhood to talk to right
away
I do not care whether this neighborhood does well
The police in this neighborhood are generally friendly
People here know they can get help from others in the neighborhood if they are in trouble
My friends in this neighborhood are part of my everyday activities
If I am upset about something personal, there is no one in this neighborhood to whom I
can turn
I have no friends in this neighborhood on whom I can depend
If there were a serious problem in this neighborhood, the people here could get together
and solve it
If someone does something good for this neighborhood that makes me feel good
If I have an emergency, even people I do not know in this neighborhood would be willing
to help
What is good for this neighborhood is good for me
Being a member of this neighborhood is like being a member of a group of friends
We have neighborhood leaders that you can trust
There are people in this neighborhood, other than my family, who really care a lot about
me
PAGE 11
Please rate your personal satisfaction in the last four weeks with the following:
(Answer matrix response options: Satisfied, Somewhat Satisfied, Neutral, Somewhat
Dissatisfied, Dissatisfied)
The amount of time you have to do the things you want to do:
Your family life
Your friendships
Your neighbors
Your job
Your overall standard of living
The way you spend your leisure time
Your life as a whole
Your neighborhood
49
PAGE 12: Quality of Life
These next few sections of questions ask how you feel about your quality of life, health,
or other areas of your life. Please keep in mind your standards, hopes, pleasures, and
concerns within the last four weeks.
How would you rate your quality of life?
Very Poor
Poor
Neither Poor nor Good
Good
Very Good
How satisfied are you with your health?
Very Dissatisfied
Dissatisfied
Neither Satisfied nor Dissatisfied
Satisfied
Very Satisfied
PAGE 13: Quality of Life
The following questions ask about how much you have experience certain things in the
last four weeks.
(Answer matrix response options: Not at All, A Little, A Moderate Amount, Very Much,
An Extreme Amount)
To what extent do you feel that physical pain prevents you from doing what you need to
do?
How much do you need any medical treatment to function in your daily life?
How much do you enjoy life?
To what extent do you feel your life to be meaningful?
(Answer matrix response options: Not at All, A Little, A Moderate Amount, Very Much,
Extremely)
How well are you able to concentrate?
How safe do you feel in your daily life?
How healthy is your physical environment?
50
PAGE 14: Quality of Life
The following questions ask about how completely your experience or were able to do
certain things in the last four weeks.
(Answer matrix response options: Not at All, A Little, Moderately, Mostly, Completely)
Do you have enough energy for everyday life?
Are you able to accept your bodily appearance?
Have you enough money to meet your needs?
How available to you is the information that you need in your day-to-day life?
To what extent do you have the opportunity for leisure activities?
How well are you able to get around?
Very Poor
Poor
Neither Poor nor Good Good
Very Good
PAGE 15: Quality of Life
You are halfway done with the survey.
(Answer matrix response options: Very Dissatisfied, Dissatisfied, Neither Satisfied nor
Dissatisfied, Satisfied, Very Satisfied)
How satisfied are you with your sleep?
How satisfied are you with your ability to perform your daily living activities?
How satisfied are you with your capacity for work?
How satisfied are you with your self?
How satisfied are you with your personal relationships?
How satisfied are you with your sex life?
How satisfied are you with the support you get from your friends?
How satisfied are you with the conditions of your living place?
How satisfied are you with your access to health services?
How satisfied are you with your transport?
51
PAGE 16: Quality of Life
The following question refers to how often you have felt or experienced certain things in
the last four weeks.
How often do you have negative feelings such as blue mood, despair, anxiety,
depression?
Never
Seldom
Quite Often
Very Often
Always
PAGE 17
These questions concern the design of your neighborhood.
How would you classify your residential living situation?
Multi family housing unit (eg: apartments, condos or townhomes)
Gated single family neighborhood
Un-gated single family neighborhood
Another type of neighborhood (this option enables the respondent to provide an open
ended response)
My neighborhood has sidewalks.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
My neighborhood has adequate street lighting at night.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
My neighborhood has crosswalks at most intersections.
Strongly Agree
Agree
Disagree
Strongly Disagree
52
PAGE 18
You’re almost done.
Please take the time to complete a few demographic questions for statistical analysis and
future research.
Are you a primary guardian to one or more children under 18 years old who currently live
in your home?
Yes
No
Please select the option that most strongly describes you.
Employed Full-time
Employed Part-time
Unemployed
Retired
Student
Homemaker
What is your race?
White/Caucasian
African American
Hispanic/Latino/Latina/Chicano/Chicana
Asian
Native American
Pacific Islander
Other
PAGE 19
What is your sex?
Male
Female
What is your age?
Open-ended response
53
PAGE 20
What is the zip code of your residence?
Open-ended response
What is the official or unofficial name of your neighborhood?
Open-ended response
Is there any additional information you would like to share about your neighborhood’s
quality of life and/or walkability? All the information you share is valuable and
important for future research.
Open-ended response
PAGE 21
If you are interested in my research and would like to find out more information on it or
if you would like a summary of the results, please leave your email address.
Your email address will not be shared and you will receive only the type of contact noted
above.
Open-ended response
PAGE 22
Thank you for completing this survey and contributing to the new and growing research
of quality of life and walkability by completing the Quality of Life and Walkability in
Los Angeles survey.
Please click the “next” button to submit your survey data.
Elizabeth Bogumil
Master’s Student in the Department of Sociology
California State University, Northridge
[email protected]
54
APPENDIX B: DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS
Table 2: Descriptive Statistics of Demographics
Question/Name of Variable
How many years have you lived in Los
Angeles County?
How many years have you lived in your
current neighborhood?
How many years have you lived at your current
residence?
Does your current physical health prevent you
from comfortably walking around your
neighborhood?
Do you have a driver’s license?
Do you own a vehicle?
The buildings in my neighborhood are:
My neighborhood has sidewalks.
My neighborhood has adequate street lighting
at night.
My neighborhood has crosswalks at most
intersections.
Are you a primary guardian to one or more
children under the age of 18 years old who
currently reside in your home?
What is your employment status?
What is your race?
What is your sex?
What is your age?
55
N
451
Min.
1
Max.
10
Mean
9
S.D.
2.37
451
1
10
6.97
3.50
451
1
10
6.44
3.63
451
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
451
451
451
451
451
N/A
N/A
N/A
1
1
N/A
N/A
N/A
4
4
N/A
N/A
N/A
2.71
2.30
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.22
1.24
451
1
4
3.19
1.81
451
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
451
451
451
451
N/A
N/A
N/A
18
N/A
N/A
N/A
89
N/A
N/A
N/A
40.05
N/A
N/A
N/A
14.65
Table 3: Descriptive Statistics of Walkability
Question/Name of Variable
I often see neighbors I know when I walk
I look at interesting homes when I walk
I feel safe walking in my neighborhood during
the evening
I feel safe walking in my neighborhood during
the day
I like to see other people when I walk
The homes in my neighborhood are interesting
I feel comfortable walking when it is hot
There is too much car traffic in my
neighborhood
I feel comfortable walking where there are no
sidewalks in my neighborhood
I often see people I do not know when I walk
The trees in my 1neighborhood provide
enough shade
I feel comfortable walking when it is cold
N
451
451
451
Min.
1
1
1
Max.
5
5
5
Mean
3.51
4.33
4.02
S.D.
1.38
1.03
1.16
451
1
5
4.64
0.75
451
451
451
451
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
4.32
4.313
3.27
3.02
0.95
1.07
1.38
1.31
451
1
5
3.40
1.34
451
451
1
1
5
5
4.25
3.44
0.89
1.21
451
1
5
1.91
1.06
N
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
Min.
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
Max.
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Mean
4.24
3.83
3.65
4.29
3.97
3.94
3.64
3.22
3.73
3.49
3.35
3.40
S.D.
0.90
1.04
1.30
9.80
1.02
0.99
1.10
1.15
1.01
1.16
1.34
1.24
Table 4: Descriptive Statistics of Topophilia
Question/Name of Variable
I know it very well
I defend it when somebody criticizes it
I miss it when I am not here
I don’t like this place
I feel secure here
I am proud of this place
It is part of myself
I have no influence on its affairs
I want to be involved in what is going on here
I leave this place with pleasure
I would not like to move from here
I am rooted here
56
Table 5: Descriptive Statistics of Sense of Community
Question/Name of Variable
I am quite similar to most people who live here
If I feel like talking I can generally find
someone in the neighborhood to talk to right
away
I do not care whether this neighborhood does
well
The police in this neighborhood are generally
friendly
People here know they can get help from
others in the neighborhood if they are in
trouble
My friends in this neighborhood are part of my
everyday activities
If I am upset about something personal, there is
no one in the neighborhood to whom I can turn
I have no friends in this neighborhood on
whom I can depend
If there were a serious problem in this
neighborhood, the people here could get
together and solve it
If someone does something good for this
neighborhood, that makes me feel good
If I had an emergency, even people I do not
know in this neighborhood would be willing to
help
What is good for this neighborhood is good for
me
Being a member of this neighborhood is like
being a member of a group of friends
We have neighborhood leaders here that you
can trust
There are people in this neighborhood, other
than family, who really care about me
57
N
451
451
Min.
1
1
Max.
5
5
Mean
3.22
2.96
S.D.
1.15
1.35
451
1
5
4.55
0.78
451
1
5
3.64
1.06
451
1
5
3.59
1.14
451
1
5
2.70
1.36
451
1
5
3.30
1.37
451
1
5
3.52
1.40
451
1
5
3.70
1.15
451
1
5
4.35
0.87
451
1
5
3.86
1.08
451
1
5
4.04
0.98
451
1
5
3.14
1.29
451
1
5
3.16
1.19
451
1
5
3.23
1.31
Table 6: Descriptive Statistics of Quality of Life
Question/Name of Variable
How would your rate your quality of life? *
How satisfied are you with your health? *
To what extent do you feel that physical pain
prevents you from doing what you need to do?
How much do you need any medical treatment
to function in your daily life?
How much do you enjoy life?
To what extent do you feel your life to be
meaningful?
How well are you able to concentrate?
How safe do you feel in your daily life?
How healthy is your physical environment?
Do you have enough energy for everyday life?
Are you able to accept your bodily
appearance?
Have you enough money to meet your needs?
How available to you is the information that
you need in your day-to-day life?
To what extent do you have the opportunity for
leisure activities?
How well are you able to get around?
How satisfied are you with your sleep?
How satisfied are you with your ability to
perform your daily living activities?
How satisfied are you with your capacity for
work?
How satisfied are you with yourself?
How satisfied are you with your personal
relationships?
How satisfied are you with your sex life?
How satisfied are you with the support you get
from friends?
How satisfied are you with the conditions of
your living place?
How satisfied are you with your access to
health services?
How satisfied are you with your transport?
How often do you have negative feelings such
as blue mood, despair, anxiety, depression?
How would you classify your residential living
situation?
58
N
451
451
451
Min. Max. Mean
1
5
4.25
1
5
3.76
1
5
4.36
S.D.
0.77
1.01
0.91
451
1
5
4.55
0.82
451
451
1
1
5
5
4.00
3.92
0.79
0.93
451
451
451
451
451
1
1
1
1
1
5
5
5
5
5
3.76
4.03
3.65
3.88
3.60
0.88
0.77
0.93
0.95
1.11
451
451
1
1
5
5
3.68
4.30
1.18
0.77
451
1
5
3.61
1.00
451
451
451
1
1
1
5
5
5
4.56
3.39
4.95
0.70
1.09
0.83
451
1
5
3.95
0.93
451
451
1
1
5
5
3.80
3.86
0.91
1.01
451
451
1
1
5
5
3.35
3.92
1.17
0.90
451
1
5
3.86
1.01
451
1
5
3.92
1.07
451
451
1
1
5
5
4.16
3.64
0.92
0.87
451
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
* Indicates a universal Quality of Life question and therefore is not included as part of the
Quality of Life scale.
Table 7: Imputed Cases by Variable
Question/Name of Variable
How many years have you lived in Los
Angeles County?
How many years have you lived in your
current neighborhood?
How many years have you lived at your
current residence?
Does your current physical health
prevent you from comfortably walking
around your neighborhood?
Do you have a driver’s license?
Do you own a vehicle?
The buildings in my neighborhood are:
My neighborhood has sidewalks.
My neighborhood has adequate street
lighting at night.
My neighborhood has crosswalks at
most intersections.
Are you a primary guardian to one or
more children under the age of 18 years
old who currently reside in your home?
What is your employment status?
What is your race?
What is your sex?
What is your age?
I often see neighbors I know when I
walk
I look at interesting homes when I walk
I feel safe walking in my neighborhood
during the evening
I feel safe walking in my neighborhood
during the day
I like to see other people when I walk
The homes in my neighborhood are
interesting
I feel comfortable walking when it is hot
There is too much car traffic in my
neighborhood
I feel comfortable walking where there
are no sidewalks in my neighborhood
Scale Variable
Component of
Demographics
Number of
Imputed Cases
2
451
Demographics
4
451
Demographics
7
451
Demographics
1
451
Demographics
Demographics
Demographics
Demographics
Demographics
1
3
3
1
1
451
451
451
451
451
Demographics
3
451
Demographics
1
451
Demographics
Demographics
Demographics
Demographics
Walkability
2
6
1
26
1
451
451
451
451
451
Walkability
Walkability
1
1
451
451
Walkability
2
451
Walkability
Walkability
2
1
451
451
Walkability
Walkability
1
1
451
451
Walkability
1
451
59
N
I often see people I do not know when I
walk
The trees in my neighborhood provide
enough shade
I feel comfortable walking when it is
cold
I know it very well
I defend it when somebody criticizes it
I miss it when I am not here
I don’t like this place
I feel secure here
I am proud of this place
It is part of myself
I have no influence on its affairs
I want to be involved in what is going on
here
I leave this place with pleasure
I would not like to move from here
I am rooted here
I am quite similar to most people who
live here
If I feel like talking I can generally find
someone in the neighborhood to talk to
right away
I do not care whether this neighborhood
does well
The police in this neighborhood are
generally friendly
People here know they can get help from
others in the neighborhood if they are in
trouble
My friends in this neighborhood are part
of my everyday activities
If I am upset about something personal,
there is no one in the neighborhood to
whom I can turn
I have no friends in this neighborhood
on whom I can depend
If there were a serious problem in this
neighborhood, the people here could get
together and solve it
If someone does something good for this
neighborhood, that makes me feel good
If I had an emergency, even people I do
not know in this neighborhood would be
Walkability
1
451
Walkability
3
451
Walkability
1
451
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
1
2
3
1
2
2
3
2
1
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
451
Topophilia
Topophilia
Topophilia
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
4
2
2
3
451
451
451
451
3
451
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
3
451
4
451
4
451
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
4
451
4
451
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
5
451
3
451
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
3
451
5
451
60
willing to help
What is good for this neighborhood is
good for me
Being a member of this neighborhood is
like being a member of a group of
friends
We have neighborhood leaders here that
you can trust
There are people in this neighborhood,
other than family, who really care about
me
How would your rate your quality of
life?
How satisfied are you with your health?
To what extent do you feel that physical
pain prevents you from doing what you
need to do?
How much do you need any medical
treatment to function in your daily life?
How much do you enjoy life?
To what extent do you feel your life to
be meaningful?
How well are you able to concentrate?
How safe do you feel in your daily life?
How healthy is your physical
environment?
Do you have enough energy for
everyday life?
Are you able to accept your bodily
appearance?
Have you enough money to meet your
needs?
How available to you is the information
that you need in your day-to-day life?
To what extent do you have the
opportunity for leisure activities?
How well are you able to get around?
How satisfied are you with your sleep?
How satisfied are you with your ability
to perform your daily living activities?
How satisfied are you with your
capacity for work?
How satisfied are you with yourself?
How satisfied are you with your
personal relationships?
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
5
451
6
451
Sense of
Community
Sense of
Community
5
451
5
451
* Quality of Life
0
451
* Quality of Life
Quality of Life
0
1
451
451
Quality of Life
1
451
Quality of Life
Quality of Life
1
1
451
451
Quality of Life
Quality of Life
Quality of Life
1
1
1
451
451
451
Quality of Life
1
451
Quality of Life
1
451
Quality of Life
1
451
Quality of Life
0
451
Quality of Life
1
451
Quality of Life
Quality of Life
Quality of Life
0
2
2
451
451
451
Quality of Life
2
451
Quality of Life
Quality of Life
2
2
451
451
61
How satisfied are you with your sex
Quality of Life
5
451
life?
How satisfied are you with the support
Quality of Life
3
451
you get from friends?
How satisfied are you with the
Quality of Life
3
451
conditions of your living place?
How satisfied are you with your access
Quality of Life
2
451
to health services?
How satisfied are you with your
Quality of Life
2
451
transport?
How often do you have negative
Quality of Life
3
451
feelings such as blue mood, despair,
anxiety, depression?
How would you classify your residential Quality of Life
0
451
living situation?
* Indicates a universal Quality of Life question and therefore is not included as part of the
Quality of Life scale.
62
APPENDIX C: OUTREACH LISTS
Table 8: Outreach List for Craigslist Groups
Location
Westside-Southbay
Westside-Southbay
Westside-Southbay
Westside-Southbay
San Fernando Valley
San Fernando Valley
San Fernando Valley
San Fernando Valley
Central LA 213/323
Central LA 213/323
Central LA 213/323
Central LA 213/323
San Gabriel Valley
San Gabriel Valley
San Gabriel Valley
San Gabriel Valley
Long Beach / 562
Long Beach / 562
Long Beach / 562
Long Beach / 562
Antelope Valley
Antelope Valley
Antelope Valley
Antelope Valley
Category
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Community
Sub-Category
General
Activities
Local News
Volunteers
General
Activities
Local News
Volunteers
General
Activities
Local News
Volunteers
General
Activities
Local News
Volunteers
General
Activities
Local News
Volunteers
General
Activities
Local News
Volunteers
63
Table 9: Outreach List for Empower L.A. Groups
Neighborhood Council - Arleta
Neighborhood Council - Arroyo Seco
Neighborhood Council - Atwater Village
Neighborhood Council - Bel Air-Beverly Crest
Neighborhood Council - Boyle Heights
Neighborhood Council - CANNDU
Neighborhood Council - Canoga Park
Neighborhood Council - Central Alameda
Neighborhood Council - Central Hollywood
Neighborhood Council - Central San Pedro
Neighborhood Council - Chatsworth
Neighborhood Council - Coastal San Pedro
Neighborhood Council - Del Rey
Neighborhood Council - Downtown Los Angeles
Neighborhood Council - Eagle Rock
Neighborhood Council - East Hollywood
Neighborhood Council - Elysian Valley Riverside
Neighborhood Council - Encino
Neighborhood Council - Foothills Trails District
Neighborhood Council - Glassell Park
Neighborhood Council - Granada Hills North
Neighborhood Council - Granada Hills South
Neighborhood Council - Greater Cypress Park
Neighborhood Council - Greater Echo Park Elysian
Neighborhood Council - Greater Toluca Lake
Neighborhood Council - Greater Valley Glen
Neighborhood Council - Greater Wilshire
Neighborhood Council - Harbor City
Neighborhood Council - Harbor Gateway North
Neighborhood Council - Harbor Gateway South
Neighborhood Council - Historic Cultural
Neighborhood Council - Historic Highland Park
Neighborhood Council - Hollywood Hills West
Neighborhood Council - Hollywood Studio District
Neighborhood Council - Hollywood United
64
Neighborhood Council - LA-32
Neighborhood Council - Lake Balboa
Neighborhood Council - Lincoln Heights
Neighborhood Council - Los Feliz
Neighborhood Council - MacArthur Park
Neighborhood Council - Mar Vista
Neighborhood Council - Mid-City West
Neighborhood Council - Mid-Town North Hollywood
Neighborhood Council - Mission Hills
Neighborhood Council - North Hills East
Neighborhood Council - North Hills West
Neighborhood Council - North Hollywood North East
Neighborhood Council - North Hollywood West
Neighborhood Council - Northridge East
Neighborhood Council - Northridge South
Neighborhood Council - Northridge West
Neighborhood Council - Northwest San Pedro
Neighborhood Council - Olympic Park
Neighborhood Council - P.I.C.O.
Neighborhood Council - Pacoima
Neighborhood Council - Palms
Neighborhood Council - Panorama City
Neighborhood Council - Park Mesa Heights
Neighborhood Council - Pico Union
Neighborhood Council - Porter Ranch
Neighborhood Council - Rampart Village
Neighborhood Council - Reseda
Neighborhood Council -Sherman Oaks
Neighborhood Council -Silver Lake
Neighborhood Council -South Central
Neighborhood Council -South Robertson
Neighborhood Council -Studio City
Neighborhood Council -Sun Valley Area
Neighborhood Council -Sunland-Tujunga
Neighborhood Council -Sylmar
Neighborhood Council -Tarzana
Neighborhood Council -Valley Village
Neighborhood Council -Van Nuys
65
Neighborhood Council -Venice
Neighborhood Council -Voices of 90037
Neighborhood Council -Watts
Neighborhood Council -West Adams
Neighborhood Council -Weschester/Playa
Neighborhood Council -West Hills
Neighborhood Council -West Los Angeles
Neighborhood Council -Westlake North
Neighborhood Council -Westlake South
Neighborhood Council -Westside
Neighborhood Council -Westwood
Neighborhood Council -Wilmington
Neighborhood Council -Wilshire Center-Koreatown
Neighborhood Council -Winnetka
Neighborhood Council -Woodland Hills-Warner Center
66
APPENDIX D: AMOS PATH MODEL PARAMETERS
Table 10: AMOS Path Model Parameters
Dependent Path
Independent
Variable
Direction Variable
ß
Walkability
My
Neighborhood
has Sidewalks
ß
Quality of
Sense of
Life
Community
ß
Quality of
Topophilia
Life
ß
Quality of
Walkability
Life
ß
Topophilia
Walkability
ß
Walkability
Sense of
Community
ß
Sense of
Topophilia
Community
Standardized Unstandardized S.E.
Estimate
Estimate
-.109
-.041
.016
P
.173
10.405
3.445
.003
.290
18.405
3.595
***
.110
10.772
4.679
.021
.313
.297
.491
.182
.084
.033
***
***
.627
.652
.037
***
67
.010