Defining Neighborhoods

By Robert J. Chaskin

A focus on neighborhoods has long been present in the planning field, and there has been a
growing interest in the use and viability of neighborhood-based planning in recent years. Such an
approach is increasingly seen as an essential part of a comprehensive planning process to inform
citywide policy and to gain input, clarify priorities, and garner support for neighborhood-level
details of such plans (Martz 1995; Rohe and Gates 1985).

Although the neighborhood is increasingly used as an organizational anchor for the

promotion of planned social change, defining neighborhood for programmatic ends in any given
case is problematic. There is no universal way of defining the neighborhood as a unit, and
selecting and defining target neighborhoods is a highly political and negotiable process. This
paper explores the difficulties of defining neighborhoods for collaborative planning and suggests
an approach to neighborhood definition guided by explicit attendance to programmatic aims,
informed by a theoretical understanding of "neighborhood" and the elements it may include, and
based on descriptive information on local context.i

THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A SOCIAL UNIT

Social science literature addressing definitions of neighborhood tends to coalesce around

three viewpoints: the neighborhood as a social unit, the neighborhood as a spatial unit, and the
neighborhood as a network of relationships, associations, and patterns of use. This paper will
focus principally on the neighborhood as a spatial unit and on the challenges inherent in defining
neighborhood for planning purposes. However, there are some elements of the neighborhood as
a social unit and as a nexus of networks of relationships that are important to understand when
engaging in neighborhood collaborative planning. Briefly:

o Neighborhoods are best seen as open systems, connected with and subject to the
influence of other systems.

o Individuals are members of several of these systems at once, and the perceived
importance of each affiliation is likely to be situational and changing.

o The local community may be seen as a set of (imperfectly) nested neighborhoods— a

hierarchy of locality constructions— and individuals often recognize such localities by
name and are comfortable with more than one name to describe local areas differently
constructed.

o The recognition of a neighborhood identity and the presence of a sense of community

seem to have clear value for (1) supporting residents' acknowledgment of collective
circumstances and (2) providing a basis and motivation for collective action.
Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

o Residential stability fosters the development of interpersonal networks among neighbors

and, through them, neighborhood attachment and social participation.

o Although relational networks (and particularly "intimate" ties) among individuals are
often dispersed beyond the neighborhood, instrumental relationships among neighbors
remain common, providing mechanisms through which information and support may be
exchanged and links to systems beyond the neighborhood may be fostered.

o Neighborhoods are experienced differently by different populations. Those most

integrated into the larger society (e.g., women, married people, people of middle age,
people with higher incomes and education) tend to have larger, more dispersed, more
casual neighbor networks; those less integrated into the larger society (e.g., singles,
children and the elderly, those with lower income and less education) tend to have
smaller, more intense, and more frequently engaged relationships in the neighborhood.
This relationship may be curvilinear, with people living in particularly depleted
neighborhoods again having fewer intense, frequently engaged relationships within the
neighborhood. Such organization may also differ across cultures.

o Neighborhoods are used differently by different populations. Neighborhoods that are

reasonably homogeneous, low-income, and have a fairly high percentage of young people
may be the most likely areas for concentrated local use if the necessary facilities,
services, and institutions are available. Again, the relationship may be curvilinear, with
populations at both the very high and the very low ends of the socioeconomic spectrum
less likely to concentrate their activities within their neighborhoods.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A SPATIAL UNIT

Neighborhoods can be viewed as a set of actors, facilities, organizations, and the

networks of association among them within a specified activity space. The geographical
boundaries of such a set of associations, however, can be hard to fix, and the boundaries by
which formal organizations define their fields of operation are unlikely to coincide perfectly.
The act of drawing these boundaries is ongoing and happens at many different levels.

Mental Maps and Resident Definitions

Individuals draw one set of neighborhood boundaries as they conceptualize and negotiate
their movement through and relationship with their activity space. Every day, people observe and
interpret their surroundings and construct cognitive maps that guide their relationship to space,
their choices of movement, and their approaches to social interaction
(Downs and Stea 1973; Gould and White 1974).

2
 Growing SmartSM Working Paper

There are several influences at play in the construction of these maps. Physical elements
of the city are one: the constructed "paths" through which individuals move (streets, bus routes,
walkways), the differentiation of the city into subareas defined by physical barriers or "edges"
(walls, viaducts, rivers), and the existence of generally recognized landmarks (Lynch 1960).
Social and functional elements also play a role. These include an area's demographics, the
presence of major institutions, the perception of safety or danger, and the relative location and
functional opportunities presented by different parts of the city (Gould and White 1974; Suttles
1972). All these factors inform individuals' interpretation of space and the delineation of
boundaries that order the physical world of the city and help guide their action within it.

The construction of such boundaries is based in part on the degree of emphasis an

individual places on the defining characteristics of neighborhood. Four dimensions are
particularly important: (1) the neighborhood primarily as a place or unit of space within which
various activities occur; (2) the neighborhood as a set of social relationships; (3) the
neighborhood as defined by its relationship with one or more institutions; and (4) the
neighborhood as a symbolic unit with a name and recognized identity (Guest and Lee 1984;
Haeberle 1988; Lee and Campbell 1990; Hunter 1974).

How an individual defines neighborhood in terms of these dimensions will determine to a

large extent his or her view of the unit's physical scope. Thus, those who define the
neighborhood in terms of social relationships are more likely to describe a smaller unit than
those defining it in terms of institutions. While residents may stress one dimension over others,
their perception of neighborhood rarely focuses on only one. The dimensions of physical space
and social interaction, in particular, are nearly always intertwined, and the use of the institutional
definition among residents is not particularly prevalent (Lee 1968; Guest and Lee 1984; Lee and
Campbell 1990).

How residents define their neighborhoods is in large part a product of who they are, in
terms of their “social and physical position within urban society” (Guest and Lee 1984). This is
true regarding the dimension(s) of neighborhood they are likely to stress, regarding their general
perspective of the size and scope of their neighborhood, and regarding the way they construct
and interpret particular boundaries. It also extends to the construction of mental maps for the
larger metropolitan area.

In one study, for example, African American respondents were more likely to stress the
social dimension of neighborhood than whites (and therefore, presumably, delimit a smaller area
as their neighborhood), and less likely to draw on the other three dimensions. The same was true
for older people, the unemployed, the unmarried, and long-term residents.ii In contrast, those
"types of residents we might anticipate to lead lives that extend beyond the neighborhood—
young persons, whites, the well-educated and employed— define it in primarily territorial (and
secondarily, structural) ways" (Lee and Campbell 1990:8). Similarly, another study showed that
those most involved in neighborhood activities, such as socializing with neighbors and

3
Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

participating in club membership, are most likely to provide a social definition of neighborhood
(Guest and Lee 1984).

Regarding size, one study showed that residents of urban neighborhoods tend to define
significantly smaller areas as their neighborhood than do suburban residents, though both groups
of respondents gave equally detailed descriptions (Haney and Knowles 1978).iii Women, long-
term residents, and residents with small children also tend to define a smaller neighborhood area
(Guest and Lee 1984). Still others don't think in terms of neighborhood at all, and tend to speak
more generally of "where they live" as, for example, the west side or the south side.
Identification by neighborhood or community area and consensus on neighborhood names seems
tied to class: more highly educated, higher-income people are much more likely to refer to and
agree on community areas and neighborhoods by name than are lower-income people (Guest and
Lee 1983a; Taub 1993, personal communication).

The ways in which specific boundaries are drawn also depend on an individual's place in
and relationship to the larger community. Elijah Anderson, for example, describes the clarity
with which a particular street is assigned the status of formal boundary between two
neighborhoods. In this case, the street is a clear marker of separation between a neighborhood in
transition — racially and economically mixed, but becoming increasingly white and affluent—
and the poor and primarily African American neighborhood to its north. The lines between these
two neighborhoods are "defined and maintained in different ways by each community"
(Anderson 1990).

Given that such cognitive maps are developed by individuals in response to various social
and physical aspects of their environments, and that their individual experiences in that
environment will inform their perceptions, the degree of consensus that can be reached about any
particular set of boundaries is questionable. Some degree of consensus is built through social
interaction; thus, some informal boundaries (the border between a neighborhood in transition and
a perceived high-crime area; the declared boundaries of a gang's turf) may become
acknowledged through informal sharing of information, perceptions, and observations, or
through active (sometimes violent) campaigns of boundary maintenance. At the same time,
boundaries may be drawn by a number of corporate actors (real estate developers, service
providers, city planning departments) that differentiate neighborhoods from one another in more
formal ways.

Exogenous Influence and the Role of Organizations

In addition to the ongoing informal processes of mental mapping on the part of individual
urban dwellers, several types of organized groups mark boundaries to differentiate parts of the
city from the areas that surround it. These groups may be internal to the neighborhood, as in
neighborhood-based organizations that seek to define the boundaries of the neighborhood to
clarify their constituency, gain legitimation within the neighborhood, and make connections with
broader resources in the city (Taub et al. 1977; Florin 1989; Combs 1984). In some cases,

4
 Growing SmartSM Working Paper

neighborhood organizations may push for redrawing boundaries to separate one neighborhood
from another, for example, to focus resources on their particular area of concern. They may also
mark boundaries with banners proclaiming the name and identifying the blocks included within
their purview (Suttles 1990; Hunter 1974).

Groups drawing neighborhood boundaries may also be external, such as banks and real
estate developers seeking to define new markets, or governmental agencies and private service
providers seeking to manage the distribution of goods and services to various parts of the city. In
some cases, the establishment of local organizations as representatives of a given neighborhood
may be fostered or stimulated by outside organizations (such as government and corporations) in
need of information, support, or legitimation (Taub et al. 1977). Researchers also play a role by
attempting to aggregate perceptions of individual residents and those of agency heads and
leaders of community organizations into composite maps reflecting some collective
understanding of neighborhood or community areas, or by using units of analysis (such as census
tracts) as proxies for neighborhood definition to facilitate comparative analysis.

The specific boundaries defined by these various groups rarely agree precisely with one
another, and even more rarely agree completely with the perceptions of individuals. However,
there may be strong agreement between organizationally defined boundaries and resident
perceptions on the central blocks contained within a given neighborhood, with consensus falling
off at the outer edges (Taub, Taylor, and Dunham 1982). There may also be reasonable
agreement on the name of a neighborhood and the general area it comprises, although several
names may be accepted for the same area, or portions thereof. In addition, such consensus is
related to clear variations in the physical environment (proximity to parks, the design of streets,
the existence of landmarks) and to the income and status levels of the neighborhood (Guest and
Lee 1983a).

Multiple Boundaries and Nesting Neighborhoods

One can divide a city in many ways. An individual's construction of his or her place in
the larger community is complex, changeable, and constantly negotiated. Geographically, the
units in which the circumstances and activities of daily life inhere can be seen as "nested," where
"each member of a community is simultaneously a member of others . . . (e.g., neighborhood
within city within region), with salience of community level varying both over time and
circumstance" (Molotch 1976). Indeed, urban residents seem to consider themselves members of
more than one community within a hierarchical structure of localities, recognizing such localities
by name and often comfortable with more than one name to describe local areas differently
constructed (Suttles 1972; Hunter 1974; Guest and Lee 1983a).

The boundaries of nesting neighborhoods (as units of identity and action) are not easily
contained within one another; they overlap and interpenetrate on many levels. Boundaries of
resident-defined neighborhood constructions are incorporated into and divided by geographically

5
Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

defined administrative units, political boundaries, and service catchment areas. These include
school, park, and library districts; police precincts; community development planning districts;
electoral wards; catchment areas for social service providers, community development
corporations, citizens' district councils, and other local organizations; church parishes; and so on.

For the most part, such constructions cross-cut or subsume rather than coincide with
those units recognized by residents as neighborhoods. For certain programmatic ends, however,
they do offer some advantages as units of action, such as the existence of clear administrative
boundaries and the presence of some administrative mechanisms through which to manage
development or service provision strategies.

NEIGHBORHOOD DEFINITION AS HEURISTIC:

TOOLS FOR DEFINING NEIGHBORHOOD

Clearly, there is no uniform or universal way of defining the neighborhood as a unit, and
the attempt to construct one is not likely to be fruitful. Instead, when engaging in neighborhood
collaborative planning, one should consider the process of neighborhood identification and
definition in heuristic terms, guided by particular programmatic aims and informed by a
theoretical understanding of "neighborhood" and the elements it may include, and by descriptive
information on the ecological, demographic, social, institutional, economic, cultural, and
political context in which it exists.

There are three dimensions to this heuristic: (1) program goals and strategies; (2)
neighborhood characteristics; and (3) contextual influences (see Figure 1). Their consideration
should be an iterative process, each stage of which is informed by the preceding stage(s), and in
the aggregate providing the basis for an informed choice of neighborhood boundaries and an
operational definition of neighborhood for given programmatic ends. Framing the consideration
of these tools is a set of general propositions that should inform the process of neighborhood
definition in any programmatic context. These include:

o Match the place to the intervention. The definition of the appropriate

neighborhood construction— its size, organizational resources, institutional
infrastructure, social organization, boundaries— should be driven by the
programmatic goals identified by the initiative and the strategies identified to
achieve these goals.

o Identify the relevant stakeholders. Given the goals identified by the initiative, who
are the individuals and organizations most likely to be affected? To whom (in
what ways, to what degree) is the initiative accountable? How can these
stakeholders be effectively identified? How should their involvement be
structured?

6
 Growing SmartSM Working Paper

o Determine the appropriate change agent(s). At what levels (individual, family,

formal organizational, informal network) is change to occur? What are the
possible mechanisms for fostering such change? Which networks or organizations
might spearhead such change? Which might support it? What relationships can be
built among them? What should be the role of individual residents?

o Determine the necessary capacity to foster and sustain change. The issue of
capacity implies two central questions: (1) what capacity (in the form of capital,
organizational resources, individual capabilities, political clout, and so forth)
exists and can be built upon locally and (2) what resources (at what level, for what
duration) are funders and policy makers willing to commit to promote progress
toward an initiative's stated goals?

Figure 1
Dimensions of the Neighborhood Heuristic
Programmatic Neighborhood
Goals & Strategies Characteristics
Neighborhood
Definition
and Boundary
Identification
Contextual
Influences

Initiative Goals, Neighborhood Size, and Neighborhood Elements

Planning for social change is driven by certain assumptions about both the nature of
social circumstances and the mechanisms through which change occurs. Program goals reflect
assumptions about what needs changing; program strategies reflect hypotheses about how such
change might be brought about. An examination of both sets of assumptions can usefully inform
the process of neighborhood selection and boundary definition in any given case.

There is a range of criteria available that might be used to define particular

neighborhoods for given programmatic ends. The process of neighborhood definition proposed
here involves attention to these criteria through an iterative series of deliberations, beginning
with an articulation and clarification of programmatic goals (see Figure 2).

7
 Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

Figure 2
The Process of Neighborhood Definition

Neighborhood Characteristics

Programmatic Goals Neighborhood Neighborhood Definition

and Strategies Scale/Size Elements Context Boundary Identification

Contextual Influences

• community organization • face-block • informal networks • cultural dynamics • “recognized”

• administrative
• service coordination • residential •organization/ • activity patterns • political
neighborhood institutions • created
• service delivery/ reform • organizational relationships
• institutional • functional attributes
• physical revitalization neighborhood • jurisdictional boundaries
• diversity
• education • political relationships

• governance/ systems • governance and representation

reform
• economic activity
• economic development

Neighborhood size. Consideration of neighborhood size should be related to the strategic

intervention, operational focus, and desired impact of a given initiative. Neighborhoods
conceived on different scales are also likely to stress different forms of organization. Three types
of possible neighborhood constructions, based on differing scales and the possible component
elements and organization such scales imply, seem most useful for guiding neighborhood
definition for different programmatic purposes. These units should be seen as nested
constructions, each of which provides certain possibilities and constraints for fostering certain
kinds of change. In many cases, moving between these levels of organization and identity ought
to be explored.

oThe face-block. Conceiving of a neighborhood as a face-block (i.e., two sides of one street
between intersecting streets) stresses the interpersonal, provides the greatest opportunity for
individual participation, and allows for substantial concentration of effect. Change will
necessarily occur on a small scale, since individual blocks command limited resources and are
too small in themselves to wield much influence in the broader community.

oThe residential neighborhood. This construction focuses on neighborhoods as places to live.

Again, the stress is on interpersonal networks, direct participation, and localized intervention.
Neighborhoods thus defined (with populations up to about 5,000) may be most appropriate for
achieving programmatic goals oriented toward safety, neighborhood social organization,
individual empowerment, physical revitalization, and grass-roots advocacy. The residential

8
 Growing SmartSM Working Paper

neighborhood may also provide an opportunity for creating local governance mechanisms
incorporating direct participation and operating as a link to the larger local community, though it
is limited in the ability to support systems change, foster institutional collaboration, or support
economic development.iv

oThe institutional neighborhood. The institutional neighborhood is a larger unit that has some
official status as a subarea of the city. The institutional neighborhood provides the opportunity to
focus on organizational and institutional collaboration and may require the construction of
formal mechanisms for citizen participation if individual residents are to be directly represented.
This formal-organizational approach may be joined with or built on the more social-
organizational strategies that are likely to be central to neighborhood-based programs at the
block or residential neighborhood level. Thus, it may be beneficial to move between levels of
neighborhood definition to support different strategies or incorporate the resources and
organizational possibilities at different scales of operation.

Neighborhood elements and characteristics. The consideration of scale of operation has

implications for whether particular kinds of neighborhood elements are to be incorporated within
the boundaries of a target neighborhood. It is clear that some such characteristics may be more
important for the accomplishment of some programmatic goals than others.

oInformal networks of association. While the existence of or potential for such associations is
clearly central to initiatives seeking to develop or strengthen the social organization of a
neighborhood, they are also of implied importance in any neighborhood-based endeavor. The
informal social organization of a neighborhood (including neighbor relations, activity patterns,
and informal service provision) may provide mechanisms for social support and agency
overlooked in more formal approaches to neighborhood. As a contextual issue, the existence and
nature of such networks may have implications for privileging certain recognized boundaries
over others, as well as implications for the effective identification of stakeholders and sources of
both need of and support for programmatic activity.

oFormal organizations. The inclusion of formal organizations is clearly more important

where the initiative goals focus on systems change, service provision, or economic development.
Because one assumption behind neighborhood-based work is that it provides the opportunity for
greater access by and accountability to residents, neighborhood definition should take into
account relationships among organizations and between organizations and residents. To the
extent that collaboration among organizations is a desirable goal, issues of governance (i.e., how
to appropriately structure such collaboration in action) may become crucial. To the extent that

9
Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

residents’perceptions and priorities are not adequately represented within the governance
structures of participating organizations, their inclusion at a broader level may be desirable.

oFunctional attributes. A third possible element to consider is the existence of functional

attributes within the neighborhood's boundaries. Functional attributes include those elements
necessary for day-to-day living, such as the existence of commercial activities, employment
opportunities, recreational facilities, and health care, educational, and other social services. The
existence of each of these elements represents a portion of the neighborhood’s capacity to sustain
certain kinds of activities and promote certain kinds of change.

oPopulation diversity. As with the determination of scale and the selection and relative
weight placed on various neighborhood characteristics, the best way to think about the relative
importance of population diversity or homogeneity depends greatly on an initiative’s particular
goals. From an organizing perspective, homogeneity is likely to be beneficial: It provides a clear
basis for identity construction and mobilization of residents. This is particularly true in smaller,
residential neighborhoods, and it is in such smaller units that greater homogeneity along a
number of dimensions (class, income, race, ethnicity, family status) is likely to occur. For
broader aims— in larger neighborhoods and where fostering links to the larger community is
desired— diversity may be valuable. This is in part a political issue, offering an opportunity to
build coalitions across a broader range of constituencies. It may also be an ideological issue, in
which promoting diversity is seen as a virtue in its own right.

Information on Neighborhood Context

While the consideration of neighborhood parameters and characteristics in light of

programmatic aims may be useful in providing general guidelines to action, neighborhoods exist
in very specific contexts, and grounded information about these contexts is essential.

There are several approaches to collecting such information. In addition to social,

economic, and demographic data, community assessments, community inventories, and
techniques for mapping neighborhood assets provide information on organizations, available
facilities, and resident skills and priorities (see, e.g., Bruner et al. 1993; McKnight 1987, 1990).
Besides knowing that such elements exist, it may be useful to determine where they are located,
whom they serve, what services they provide, the extent to which they are used, how they are
financed and run and by whom, and the extent and nature of relationships among them.

While much information is available through the Census and various administrative
sources (e.g., schools, police, service organizations), a great deal of data, mostly qualitative, may
not be readily available. These include information on neighborhood dynamics, organizational
relationships, cultural contexts, informal associational networks, resident activity patterns,
informal sources of service provision, issues of neighborhood satisfaction, connection, and
priorities, and the relationships among jurisdictional boundaries (see, e.g., Sommer et al. 1996).

10
 Growing SmartSM Working Paper

The relational dynamics among these elements within the neighborhood and with actors
beyond the neighborhood may be important for both the definition of neighborhood in given
programmatic cases and for ongoing planning and implementation. Identifying and determining
the most useful boundaries of particular target neighborhoods for programmatic purposes would
be much enhanced by: (1) the ability to map such relationships (for example, by geocoding
service provision and facility use and by analyzing the nature and extent of engaged networks
among both individuals and organizations); and (2) the ability to inform an interpretation of the
impact of such relationships through a qualitative understanding of their dynamics.

The tasks involved in collecting and analyzing this information can be daunting,
expensive, and difficult to complete within a limited time frame. More work needs to be done on
creating tools to permit a rapid assessment of existing dynamics and resources within and beyond
local neighborhoods, and the relationships between neighborhoods— their residents,
organizations, and activities— and the broader community of which they are a part.v In
developing these tools and building this knowledge base, it is essential to incorporate the
knowledge and views of residents, users, and providers of services— those most engaged in and
affected by the programs to be put in place. In addition, such activities ought to be geared toward
building local capacity to access and use data for assessment, planning, and evaluation.

Boundary Identification

The criteria for boundary selection should reflect the goals and strategies of a given
initiative and be considered in light of information on contextual influences and the sets of
choices made regarding appropriate neighborhood scale and the relative importance of various
neighborhood elements. The typology of possible neighborhood definitions described above
implies certain guidelines regarding boundary identification: the face-block is bounded by the
first streets that separate a resident's home from the aggregation of homes beyond; the residential
neighborhood implies some consensus regarding boundaries on the part of residents; and the
boundaries of an institutional neighborhood have been in some way made official, codified and
recognized by certain organizations and institutions.

Consistent with the assumptions behind the residential neighborhood, "recognized"

boundaries imply the existence of some degree of neighborhood identity, and provide the basis
for fostering a sense of community. To the extent that such a neighborhood definition is also
recognized by the larger local community, it may help residents and neighborhood groups to
advocate their causes with government and other extra-local entities.

Formal or official boundaries tend to define larger areas. Given a more systems-oriented
or institutionally based approach, the use of such boundaries to define the target neighborhood
may be appropriate. The use of political boundaries, for example, may facilitate access to formal
representation in local government. Similarly, the use of administrative boundaries may provide
access to mechanisms for the delivery of services, to established funding streams, or to data
useful for planning purposes. However, rarely do administrative and political boundaries

11
Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

coincide with each other, and the social organizational aspects of neighborhoods are normally
not reflected by administrative boundaries. The choice of a set of administrative boundaries to
define neighborhood may thus be most useful for sector-bound, institutionally based
interventions.

Institutional neighborhoods may also be officially defined without functioning as an

administrative unit. However, because such neighborhoods have no single administrative
structure, and because they are rarely recognized as political units, issues of management and
long-term representation need to be examined. The creation or adoption of a neighborhood
governance structure that could coordinate constituent neighborhood priorities and activities and
represent the neighborhood to the larger community may help to increase the long-term impact
and sustainability of neighborhood-based work.

The context within which a target neighborhood exists will provide additional guidance
regarding making choices among possible constituencies, the potential for building on local
capacity, and the implications (social and political) for defining neighborhood in particular ways.

CONCLUSION

While these guidelines can help direct a process of neighborhood definition, they still fall
short of providing a definitive blueprint for action. Their limitation in this regard stems from two
enduring realities. First is the existence of several tensions between strategic choices that must be
made during the planning process. Second is the need for more information (and the tools to
collect such information) that would better inform such a process.

The tensions involved concern both the relative importance of each dimension for
defining neighborhood in a given situation and the usefulness of the neighborhood, however
defined, as a unit of action. These include: (1) tensions between appropriate scale and the
possibilities for broad-based participation; (2) tensions between time and resources available at
the level of funding and the necessary capacity at the neighborhood level; (3) tensions between
building neighborhood capacity and building connections to resources beyond the neighborhood;
and (4) tensions between working through existing mediating organizations and creating new
ones. Formulation of any strategy requires grappling with each of these tensions, and strategic
choices made will necessarily involve trade-offs. Their resolution in any given case will rely on
judgment exercised in the moment and with reference to the particular problem at hand.

12
 Growing SmartSM Working Paper

Endnotes

1
This paper is excerpted and adapted from Chaskin, Robert J., Defining Neighborhood: History,
Theory and Practice. Chicago: The Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of
Chicago, 1995. Research was supported by the Annie E. Casey Foundation.
2
The respondents in this study were residents of neighborhoods in Nashville, Tennessee.
However, a study of "community leaders," in this case presidents of neighborhood associations
in Birmingham, Alabama, presents somewhat different results. Here, black association
presidents were more likely to use physical descriptors than were whites. Sex was an even
greater predictor, with women more likely to use "human interactive characteristics," as opposed
to physical descriptors, than were men (Haeberle 1988).
3
It should be noted that most of the studies examining issues of neighborhood definition and
resident mapping focus on a neighborhood or set of neighborhoods in one particular city, and
therefore call into question our ability to generalize beyond the specific context of each study to
urban neighborhoods generally. Indeed, another study in a different city found that residents of
central neighborhoods were more likely to describe larger areas than were those in peripheral
neighborhoods. The difference in the history and physical layout of the cities may provide one
explanation for this discrepancy in findings. In addition, resident definitions of neighborhood are
highly dependent on methodological issues, such as how the question is asked. Responses
concerning the areal size of one's "neighborhood," for example, had no relation to responses
concerning the areal size of the "'part' of the incorporated community" in which a respondent
lived (Guest and Lee 1984). This distinction was not examined in the Haney and Knowles study.
4
Indeed, there may be fundamental limitations to the neighborhood as a unit of focus for
economic development. Of particular note is the impact of policies and circumstances from
beyond the boundaries of the neighborhood (and beyond the neighborhood's control) and the
degree to which places of work have been separated from places of residence (see, e.g.,
Jargowsky 1997). Thus, Michael Teitz suggests that improving the economic well being of
neighborhoods is best achieved at the neighborhood level through advocacy and increased access
to the broader urban labor market (Teitz 1989). However, the notion of a neighborhood
economy, and the possibilities for its revitalization, continues to draw proponents, and is often a
component of "comprehensive" neighborhood-based initiatives.
5
Some work is being done in this regard, including the development of technologies for culling
and integrating administrative databases; methods for geocoding and mapping data on service
provision, demographics, and social dynamics; and neighborhood drive- and walk-through
protocols to guide observation (see, e.g., Sommer et al., 1996; Goerge n.d.; Goerge et al. 1994;
Wulczyn 1991; Burton et al. 1997; Spencer et al. n.d.).

13
Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

List of References

Anderson, E. 1990. Streetwise: Race, Class, and Change in an Urban Community. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Bruner, C. et all. 1993. Charting a Course: Assessing a Community’s Strengths and Needs. New
York: National Center for Service Integration.

Burton, L. M., T. Price-Spratlen, and Margaret Spencer. 1997. On ways of thinking about and
measuring neighborhoods: Implications for studying context and development among
minority children. In Neighborhood Poverty: Contexts and Consequences for Development,
edited by G. Duncan, J. Brooks-Gunn, and J. Laser. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Combs, S.M. 1984. From the Neighborhoods: A Sourcebook on Information and Skills Needed
by Community Organizations in Chicago. Chicago: Chicago Catholic Charities.

Downs, R.M., and D. Stea. 1973. Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products.
In Image and Environment, edited by R. M. Downs and D. Stea, pp. 8-26. Chicago: Aldine
Publishing Company.

Florin, P. and J. Walker, eds. 1989. Nurturing the Grass Roots: Neighborhood Volunteers,
Organizations and America’s Cities. New York: The Citizens Committee for New York City,
Inc.

Goerge, R. M., J. Van Voorhis, and Bong Joo Lee. 1994. Illinois’longitudinal and relational
child and family research database. Social Science Computer Review 12 (3): 351-366.

Gould, P., and R. White. 1974. Mental Maps. Middlesex, England: Penguin Books.

Guest, A.M., and Lee, B. A. 1983a. Consensus on locality names within the metropolis.
Sociology and Social Research 67 (4): 375-391.

------. 1984. How urbanites define their neighborhoods. Population and Environment 7 (1):
32-56.

Haeberle, S.H. 1988. People or place: Variations in community leaders’subjective definitions of

neighborhood. Urban Affairs Quarterly 23 (4): 616-634.

Haney, W.G., and E.C. Knowles. 1978. Perception of neighborhoods by city and suburban
residents. Human Ecology 6 (2): 201-214.

14
 Growing SmartSM Working Paper

Hunter, A. 1974. Symbolic Communities: The Persistence and Changes of Chicago’s Local
Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Jargowsky, Paul A. 1997. Poverty and Place: Ghettos, Barrios, and the American City. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.

Lee, B.A., and Campbell, K. E. August 1990. Common ground? Urban neighborhoods as survey
respondents see them. Presented at annual meeting of the American Sociological
Association, Washington, D.C.

Lee, T. 1968. Urban neighborhood as a socio-spatial schema. Human Relations 21: 241-267.

Martz, Wendelyn A. 1995. Neighborhood Based Planning: Five Case Studies. Planning
Advisory Service Report No. 455. Chicago: American Planning Association.

Lynch, K. 1960. Image of the City. Cambridge, Mass: The Technology Press--Harvard
University Press.

McKnight, J.L. 1987. The Future of Low-Income Neighborhoods and the People Who Reside
There. Evanston, Ill.: Northwestern University Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.

McKnight, J. L., and J. Kretzman. 1990. Mapping community capacity. Evanston, Ill.:
Northwestern University Center for Urban Affairs and Policy Research.

Molotch, H. 1976. The city as a growth machine: Toward a political economy of place.
American Journal of Sociology 82 (2): 309-332.

Rohe, William M., and Gates, Lauren B. 1985. Planning with Neighborhoods. Chapel Hill:
University of North Carolina Press.

Sommer, Teresa E., et al. 1996. Creation of a Community Information Infrastructure: Capturing
the Breadth and Depth of Information Necessary for the Effective Planning, Implementation,
and Evaluation of Comprehensive Community Change Efforts. Chicago: Chapin Hall Center
for Children at the University of Chicago.

Spencer, M. B., S. P. Cole, and L. Burton. In press. An alternative approach to assessing

neighborhood effects on early adolescent achievement, problem behavior and neighborhood
perceptions.
Suttles, G.D. 1972. The Social Construction of Communities. Chicago: University of Chicago
Press.

15
Chaskin: Defining Neighborhoods

------. 1990. The Man-Made City: The Land-Use Confidence Game in Chicago. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.

Taub, R.P., et al. 1977. Urban voluntary associations, locality based and externally induced.
American Journal of Sociology 83 (2): 425-442.

Taub, R.P., D.G. Taylor, and J.D. Dunham (1982). Safe and Secure Neighborhoods:
Territoriality, Solidarity and the Reduction of Crime. Chicago: National Opinion Research
Center.

Teitz, M.B. 1989. Neighborhood economics: Local communities and regional markets.
Economic Development Quarterly 3 (2): 111-122.

Wulczyn, F. 1991. The Concentration of Infant Placements in New York’s Boroughs. Albany:
New York State Department of Social Services.

16