Urbanities,
Vol. 4
·
No 2
·
November 2014
© 2014
Urbanities
6
Relevant Literature
There are two relevant bodies of literature that we draw upon to examine the NIMBY battle
being fought on Chestnut Lane. Social ecology is a theory of neighbourhoods and their
experiences while in decline (Skogan 1990). Social constructionism is a theory of perception
and how people define conditions around them (Burr 2003, 1998). Social ecology is important
because it presents us with a unique set of variables that are specific to neighbourhoods in
decline. Social constructionism is important because it deals with perceptions of reality and
how people adapt to it.
Social Ecology Literature
Social ecology was first developed during the Depression by sociologists at the University of
Chicago who were attempting to explain heightened crime rates in minority neighbourhoods
(Park, Burgess and Mac Kenzie eds 1984). A central tenet of the early theory is that people
are attracted to the central business district of the city for economic opportunity, but do not
invest in the neighbourhood because they have ultimate ambitions of moving (Park 1936). As
a result, the idea emerged that many inner-city neighbourhoods become improperly
maintained because of transient residents who presumably do not care about the future of the
neighbourhood (Harris and Ullman 1945).
These ideas were tempered through the years to account for the fact that many people
were stuck in a socially disorganized environment and often financially unable to move out of
those neighbourhoods (Wilson 1987, Sampson and Groves 1989). Such neighbourhoods can
be defined by a gamut of conditions that include, but are not limited to: abandoned housing,
broken windows, gang activity, graffiti, and abandoned cars. Social Disorganization Theory is
often used to explain the interaction between certain neighbourhoods and inner-city crime
rates, where the term ‘inner-city’ is often synonymous with minority and poor communities
(Wilson 2012). In such communities, unemployment rates have been shown to be quite high,
and educational attainment and social or economic status, by contrast, quite low (Andresen
2006).
While social ecology was meant to be a macro-level theory, there are many allusions
to the idea that improper maintenance in such neighbourhoods is also coupled with attitudes
that people have about conditions around them. Many criminologists, however, have refrained
from discussing the attitudes and behaviours of individuals in such environments because it
would mean committing the fallacy of making assumptions about people based on aggregate
level data (Kawachi, Kennedy and Wilkinson 1999). However, implicit in the larger theory is
that people in socially disorganized environments behave in a certain way.
Some social disorganization theorists (Barcan 2000, Stark 1987) suggest that
prolonged residence in an area that is socially disorganized is essentially correlated with poor
quality of life experiences. Some feel that residing in a disorganized neighbourhood, where
everyone who could move away has done so, leads to feelings of anomie, hopelessness or a
sense of ‘moral cynicism.’ According to Kubrin and Weitzer (2003: 380), ‘Research indicates
that neighbourhood disadvantage is linked to cynicism regarding legal norms . . . and to the
emergence of street values that condone deviant behaviour . . . Additionally they document a
