SCALES ON PERCEIVED URBAN RESIDENTIAL QUALITY INDICATORS AND NEIGHBOURHOOD ATTACHMENT: A CONFIRMATORY ANALYSIS OF FACTORIAL STRUCTURES Marino Bonaiuto, Ferdinando Fornara, Mirilia Bonnes University of Rome “La Sapienza” Dipartimento di Psicologia dei Processi di Sviluppo e Socializzazione 18th IAPS Conference. Wien, 5-10 July 2004

Expert vs. Lay Evaluation of Environmental Quality - I Expert Evaluation: also defined as “objective” or “technical” (Gifford, 2002) Expert Evaluation: also defined as “objective” or “technical” (Gifford, 2002) It involves tools and “hard” measures such as mechanical monitoring or objective indexes and estimates (e.g.: building density) to quantify EQ Evaluation as by-product of processes of analytic measure elicited from coded systems in the realm of technical- scientific knowledge

Expert vs. Lay Evaluation of Environmental Quality - II Layperson Evaluation: also defined as “subjective” or “observer-based” (Gifford, 2002) Layperson Evaluation: also defined as “subjective” or “observer-based” (Gifford, 2002) It relies on self-report tools through which people express their judgment on EQ (i.e.: the quality of an environmental object as it is experienced) Evaluation as by-product of daily psycho-social processes of knowledge, interpretation and use of the environment by the persons who experience it.

Expert vs. Lay Evaluation of Environmental Quality - III Both kinds of environmental evaluation aspire to objectivity by getting reproducible measures which are valid, reliable, sensible and useful Both kinds of environmental evaluation aspire to objectivity by getting reproducible measures which are valid, reliable, sensible and useful As well, both share subjectivity, since also expert evaluation relies on choice about which environmental dimensions and elements to assess, which sample of place and time to select (Uzzell, 1989) As well, both share subjectivity, since also expert evaluation relies on choice about which environmental dimensions and elements to assess, which sample of place and time to select (Uzzell, 1989)

Expert vs. Lay Evaluation of Environmental Quality - IV Different values, ideas and goals about the environment underlie expert and lay evaluation: this can produce discordance between the two kinds (e.g., the evaluation of urban green areas: wilderness vs. usability; see Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 1995) Different values, ideas and goals about the environment underlie expert and lay evaluation: this can produce discordance between the two kinds (e.g., the evaluation of urban green areas: wilderness vs. usability; see Bonnes & Bonaiuto, 1995) For that, it is important to compare and integrate expert and lay evaluation data for improving environmental design and management For that, it is important to compare and integrate expert and lay evaluation data for improving environmental design and management

Perceived Environmental Quality Indicators (PEQIs) - I What are PEQIs? What are PEQIs? …a standard set of (perceived) indicators for a specific environmental object or place (e.g.: residential PEQIs), which can also be used for policy and monitoring functions (Bonaiuto, in press) Initial goal (Craik & Zube, 1976): to set valid and general standards of perceived environmental quality for environmental elements such as air, water and light Initial goal (Craik & Zube, 1976): to set valid and general standards of perceived environmental quality for environmental elements such as air, water and light

Perceived Environmental Quality Indicators (PEQIs) - II Limits of the earliest approach: Limits of the earliest approach: - no focus on contextual specificity of person- environment relationship - ignoring social construction processes which influence lay evaluation - molecolar units of analysis

Residential Satisfaction (RS) - I What is RS? What is RS? …an evaluative response which regards the experience of pleasure or gratification deriving from living in a specific place (Amerigo, 2002) RS is a construct of multidimensional nature which include cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects (Francescato, 2002) RS is a construct of multidimensional nature which include cognitive, affective and behavioural aspects (Francescato, 2002)

Residential Satisfaction (RS) - II Focus on cognitive aspects Focus on cognitive aspects - PEQIs of urban neighbourhoods: residents’ evaluation of the degree of quality possessed by salient attributes of residential environment Focus on affective aspects Focus on affective aspects - Neighbourhood Attachment (refers to the broader construct of Place Attachment, see Giuliani, 2003): feelings and emotions that people develop over time and come to experience with reference to home and their neighbourhood

PEQIs of urban neighbourhoods Canter (1983), Guest e Lee (1984), Bonnes et al. (1991): Spatial features (architectural and town-planning) Spatial features (architectural and town-planning) Human-social features (kind of neighbours and neighbourhood life) Human-social features (kind of neighbours and neighbourhood life) Functional features (services and facilities) Functional features (services and facilities) In addition (Bonnes et al., 1997; Bonaiuto et al., 1999): Contextual features (pace of life; pollution; environmental maintenance) Contextual features (pace of life; pollution; environmental maintenance)

PREQ and NA indicators for urban places Setting up scales measuring indicators of Perceived Residential Environment Quality (PREQ) and Neighbourhood Attachment (NA) Setting up scales measuring indicators of Perceived Residential Environment Quality (PREQ) and Neighbourhood Attachment (NA) A long period of a step-by-step research process, including the consequential phases of: A long period of a step-by-step research process, including the consequential phases of: - scales’ creation - empirical verification - scales’ refinement - new empirical verification Data have been gathered mainly in neighbourhoods of a great city (i.e., Rome). Data have been gathered mainly in neighbourhoods of a great city (i.e., Rome).

Length of residence in Rome Presence of social relationship r²=0.02 Buildings’s aesthetic Pleasantness r²=0.02 Quiet r²=0.01 Lack of opportunities r²=0.02 Lack of green areas r²=0.05 Length of residence in the neighborhood Estimated socio- economic level Number of persons living together Neighbourhood Attachment r²=30 Inadequacy of cultural activities and meeting places r²= Final path analysis model including the best predictors (>0.15) from each one of the four content areas and neighbourhood attachment as criterion. Χ 2 = 25,91 (20), p=0.17, GFI =0.99, AGFI=0.97, CFI =0.99. Source: Bonaiuto et al.,

Research objective Validation of the factorial structure of the most recent version of PREQ and NA scales in middle- and low- extension urban environments Validation of the factorial structure of the most recent version of PREQ and NA scales in middle- and low- extension urban environments Research hypothesis A Confirmatory Factor Analysis will confirm the scales’ factorial structure and the reliability of PREQ and NA indicators emerged in a previous Exploratory Factor Analysis on the same data (see Bonaiuto et al., in press) A Confirmatory Factor Analysis will confirm the scales’ factorial structure and the reliability of PREQ and NA indicators emerged in a previous Exploratory Factor Analysis on the same data (see Bonaiuto et al., in press)

Tools The 4 Generative Criteria and the 11 PREQ Scales (items = 150) and 1 NA Scale (items = 8)  Architectural/town-planning features (3 scales): - Architectural and town-planning space (22 items) - Organization of accessibility and roads (14 items) - Green spaces (10 items)  Social relations features (1 scale): - People and social relations (24 items)  Context features (3 scales): - Pace of life (16 items) - Environmental health (8 items) - Maintenance and care (12 items)  Punctual and in-network services (4 scales): - Welfare services (12 items) - Cultural-recreational services (16 items) - Commercial services (8 items) - Transportation services (8 items)  Place Attachment (1 scale): - Neighbourhood Attachment (8 items)

Sample 1488 residents in different neighbourhoods of 11 Italian medium- and low-estension urban contexts (i.e. Palermo, Latina, Cesena, Pescara, L’Aquila, Grosseto, Agrigento, Firenze, Bologna, Matera, Salerno) 1488 residents in different neighbourhoods of 11 Italian medium- and low-estension urban contexts (i.e. Palermo, Latina, Cesena, Pescara, L’Aquila, Grosseto, Agrigento, Firenze, Bologna, Matera, Salerno) Data analysis Exploratory FA: Principal Component Analysis Exploratory FA: Principal Component Analysis Confirmatory Factor Analysis on each PREQ and NA scale: Confirmatory Factor Analysis on each PREQ and NA scale: - 3 (multi-factorial scales) or 4 (mono-factorial scales) item aggregates were created for running CFA - Sample split (males vs. females) in order to get a cross- sectional validation of structures - Comparison of nested models in order to choose the best fitting solution (Test Χ 2,  =.05)

Results of Principal Component Analysis on PREQ and NA indexes: number of items and Cronach’s Alfa (Source: Bonaiuto et al., in press) Generative criterion ScaleFactor N Item s Alfa Architectural/ town- planning features Architectural and town-planning spaces 1. Building density Building aesthetics Building volume 6.89 Organization of accessibility and roads 1. Internal practicability External connections 6.77 Green spaces 1. Green areas Social relations features People and social relations 1. Safety and tolerance Discretion Sociability and cordiality 7.81

Generative criterion ScaleFactorNItemAlfa Punctual and In-networkServices Welfare services 1. Education services Social-health services 5.71 Cultural-recreationalservices 1. Sport services Socio-cultural activities 8.84 Commercial services 1. Commercial services 8.90 Transportation services 1. Public transport 7.89 ContextFeatures Pace of life 1. Relaxing vs. distressing Stimulating vs. boring 8.84 Environmental health 1.Cleanness/noiselessness8.91 Maintenance and care 1.Macro- and micro-upkeep12.85 Place Attachment Neighbourhood attach. 1. Neighbourhood attach. 8.91

Architectural/town planning features Architectural/town planning spaces – PREQ Scale 1 BuildingDensity BuildingVolume BuildingAesthetics δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 δ4δ4 δ5δ5 δ6δ6 δ7δ7 δ8δ8 δ9δ9 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.98 CFI = 0.98 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 BD1 BD2 BD3 BA1 BA2 BA3 BV1 BV2 BV NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (48), S invariant ΔΧ2 = 3.47 (9), NS,  invariant ΔΧ2 = 2.02 (3), NS Accepted

Architectural/town planning features Organization of accessibility and roads – PREQ Scale 2 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.99 CFI = 0.99 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 InternalPracticability δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 IP1 IP2 IP3 ExternalConnections δ4δ4 δ5δ5 δ6δ6 EC1 EC2 EC NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (16), S invariant ΔΧ2 = 6.77 (6), NS,  invariant ΔΧ2 = 1.93 (1), NS Accepted

Architectural/town planning features Green areas – PREQ Scale 3 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.99 CFI = 0.99 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 GreenAreas δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 GA2 GA3 GA4 GA1 δ4δ NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (4), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 3.74 (4), NS, Өδ invariant ΔΧ2 = 3.29 (4), NS Accepted

Social relations features People and social relations – PREQ Scale 4 Security and Tolerance Sociability and Cordiality Discretion and Civility ST1 ST2 ST3 DC1 DC2 DC3 SC1 SC2 SC3 δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 δ4δ4 δ5δ5 δ6δ6 δ7δ7 δ8δ8 δ9δ9 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.97 CFI = 0.97 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (48), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = (9), S, Өδ invariant ΔΧ2 = (9), NS, Өδ,  invariant ΔΧ2 = 5.97 (3), NS Accepted

Functional features Welfare services – PREQ Scale 5 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.99 CFI = 0.99 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 SchoolServices δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 SS1 SS2 SS3 Social-Careservices δ4δ4 δ5δ5 δ6δ6 SC1 SC2 SC NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (16), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 8.79 (6), NS, Өδ invariant ΔΧ2 = 2.52 (6), NS, Өδ,  invariant ΔΧ2 = 0.69 (1), NS Accepted

Functional features Ricreational services – PREQ Scale 6 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.99 CFI = 0.99 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 SportServices δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 SS1 SS2 SS3 Socio-culturalActivities δ4δ4 δ5δ5 δ6δ6 SA1 SA2 SA NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (16), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 1.86 (6), NS, Өδ invariant ΔΧ2 = (6), NS, Өδ,  invariant ΔΧ2 = 0 (1), NS Accepted

Functional features Commercial services – PREQ Scale 7 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.97 CFI = 0.97 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 Commercial Services Services δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 CS2 CS3 CS4 CS1 δ4δ NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (4), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 1.26 (4), NS, Өδ  invariant ΔΧ2 = 3.29 (4), NS Accepted

Functional features Transport services – PREQ Scale 8 FIT INDICES NNFI = 1.00 CFI = 1.00 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 TransportServices δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 TS2 TS3 TS4 TS1 δ4δ NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = 9.60 (4), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 4.07 (4), NS Accepted

Context features Pace of life – PREQ Scale 9 FIT INDICES NNFI = 1.00 CFI = 1.00 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 Relaxing vs. Distressing δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 RD1 RD2 RD3 Stimulating vs. Boring δ4δ4 δ5δ5 δ6δ6 SB1 SB2 SB NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (16), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 2.96 (6), NS, Өδ invariant ΔΧ2 = 3.97 (6), NS, Өδ,  invariant ΔΧ2 = 1.74 (1), NS Accepted

Context features Environmental health – PREQ Scale 10 FIT INDICES NNFI = 1.00 CFI = 1.00 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 Evironment.Health δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 EH2 EH3 EH4 EH1 δ4δ NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (4), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 2.02 (4), NS Accepted

Context features Upkeep and care – PREQ Scale 11 FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.99 CFI = 0.99 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 Upkeep and Care δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 UC2 UC3 UC4 UC1 δ4δ NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (4), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 3.70 (4), NS, Өδ invariant ΔΧ2 = 2.59 (4), NS Accepted

Neighbourhood Attachment Neighbourhood attachment – NA Scale FIT INDICES NNFI = 0.99 CFI = 0.99 RMSEA = N males = 744, N females = 741 Neighbourh.Attachment δ1δ1 δ2δ2 δ3δ3 NA2 NA3 NA4 NA1 δ4δ NESTED MODELS Baseline Χ 2 = (4), S invariant ΔΧ 2 = 0.17 (4), NS, Өδ invariant ΔΧ2 = 5.94 (4), NS Accepted

Conclusions CFA confirmed CFA confirmed - 19 Perceived Residential Environment Quality (PREQ) - 1 Neighbourhood Attachment (NA) Next validity developments Next validity developments - Comparison between PREQIs and expert assessments - Test PREQIs’ discriminant validity (different neighbourhoods) - Test PREQIs in different countries - Test relationship between PREQIs, neighbourhood attachment and Satisfaction