Research Article

Streets Apart: Does Social Capital Vary with Neighbourhood Design?

Table 2

Scales and component items.

ScaleComponent items No. Items, response categoriesCronbach’s AlphaICCOrigin

ReciprocityFavors done (a) for or (b) by neighbor) over last 12 months; looked after house or garden; minded or walked pet; Lent household/garden items; listened to their problems; helped with odd jobs; provided a lift or transport; minded a child or other family member14 (yes/no)0.8380.923Modified items [30]

TrustGenerally, to what extent do you agree/disagree that you can trust most people: living in your section of your street or block; living in your suburb; generally3 (5 point likert*) 0.6110.803Modified items [4, 32]

Suburb friendlinessPeople who live here usually say hello to each other if out walking neighbors are often seen chatting to each other; a stranger moving into this suburb would be made to feel welcome3 (5 point likert) 0.6410.862Original

Civic engagementInvolvement in following in suburb in past year: attended local council meeting; voted in local election; contacted council about local issue; contacted member of parliament; signed petition; attended protest or local action meeting; written letter to editor about a local issue; picked up other people’s rubbish; done something about graffiti or vandalism; made a charity donation10 (yes, no, not sure)0.5660.704Modified items [30, 32]

Community concernI am interested in local issues that affect this suburb; if a local park or facility was to be closed down, residents would pull together to do something about it; it is important for people to get involved in their local suburb3 (5 point likert) 0.5660.704Original

Feelings of safetyI feel safe in this suburb: walking alone in the daytime; walking alone at night; walking with another person at night; using parks and facilities; in my own home
People in this suburb: generally feel it is a safe place to live
6 (5 point likert)0.7740.879Original

Social supportFrequency of feelings regarding loneliness and support: felt lonely; found it hard to get to know people; wished that you had more help or support from other people3 (5 point likert) 0.6180.831Original

Incivilities and problems Physical incivilities: graffiti on public property; graffiti on private property
Vandalism; litter and rubbish
4 (5 point likert)0.7390.757Original
Upkeep of property: unkempt gardens or houses; vacant or run-down buildings; homes and gardens generally look nice (reverse scored)4 (5 point likert)0.6450.757
Perceptions of illicit drug use: discarded needles or syringes; drug dealing2 (5 point likert)0.7060.854
Civil obedience-related problems: traffic speed or volume; inadequate police services; level of crime; pedestrian safety when walking; youth loitering in public places5 (5 point likert)0.6320.824

Adequacy of facilitiesTo what extent agree the following adequately available in suburb: parks and open spaces; places to walk dogs; public places where people can meet; shops; postboxes; community facilities (e.g., community centre, library); childcare; health and medical services; public transport; telephone boxes; schools; recreational facilities; places to eat out or have a drink; things for children (<12 yrs) to do; things for teenagers (12–19 yrs) to do 15 (5 point likert)0.733 0.757 Original

Overall social Capital scale Formed through factor analysis: composite of trust, concern, reciprocity, civic engagement, support, and friendliness scales plus number of support networks locally item As per component scales0.6820.934Composite of modified and original items

n/a: composite scale formed by summation of participation on 10 individual activities. *likert scale scoring: 1, strongly disagree; 5, strongly agree.