Literature Review
Trust and ownership both play important and complementary roles influencing the behaviors of residents and planners as they engage in shaping the city. Trust influences how residents perceive and interact with planners and government institutions, impacting their willingness to participate in the development and governance of their neighborhoods. Ownership, which spans a broad sense of control and responsibility, affects the methods individuals employ to engage with their urban environment. Both of these are needed for action to be taken within cities, manifesting in social organization and collective efficacy. This review delves into both classical works and contemporary research in sociology to discuss how ownership and trust are defined and interact with one another, leading to community action. First, it will analyze a model of trust formation, explaining how trust is formed within a neighborhood and then between residents and planners. Next, it will examine the definition of ownership over both private and communal property, exploring how planners and residents see their role regarding ownership in community processes. Finally, it will dissect social organization and how engagement in community groups can lead to effective change within neighborhoods.
Trust
-
One of the most important components of shaping the city is trust. Looking across disciplines, Rousseau (1998) finds that scholars generally agree that trust should be understood as important for life within organizations. Within the field of sociology, it’s understood as the result of institutional arrangements. In relationships that span over long periods of time, trust is not merely a present or absent binary, but a condition that can permeate some areas of a relationship while falling short in others (ibid). For example, I might trust that my neighbor will help me with cooking, but not trust them to watch my house for me when I’m gone. Rousseau points out four kinds of trust:
Deterrence-based trust - exists when the costs of breaking the trust are too high to pose a feasible threat.
Calculus-based trust - based on reliable insights into another’s capabilities.
Relational trust - comes from consistent interactions in which trustworthiness foster hopeful anticipations of the same repeating in the future.
Institution-based trust - from calculus-based and relational trust, the institution offers the support to maintain this trust.
Rousseau also notes that “institutional controls can also undermine trust, particularly where legal mechanisms give rise to rigidity in responses,” which may be a concern within the field of urban planning in particular (1998:400). In order for city planning to function with resident input, trust is required between residents and planners—for residents, trust that the planners have their best interests at heart, and for planners, trust in the experiences that residents share from living in their neighborhoods. Additionally, it is important to study trust between residents themselves, as this is often the basis for residents’ formation of organizations to advocate for their own interests to the government. Literature on trust has kept trust in neighbors and trust in government distinct, since the former tends to be rooted in relationships while the latter tends to be rooted in the belief in institutions (Putnam 2000). I will continue this practice in my examination of the concept in the following subsections.
-
Considered a seminal sociological text, Robert D. Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” (2000) examines trust within neighborhoods within the context of generalized reciprocity. He writes, “Members of a community that follows the principle of generalized reciprocity—raking your leaves before they blow onto your neighbors’ yard, lending a dime to a stranger for a parking meter, buying a round of drinks the week you earn overtime, keeping an eye on a friend’s house, taking turns bringing snacks to Sunday school, caring for the child of the crack-head one flight down—find that their self-interest is served” (2000:140). Thus, contributing to their community further strengthens the social ties they have to that community and enhances their calculus-based and relational trust for one another because they are able to witness how their social connection makes reciprocity more likely.
One of Putnam’s points is of particular importance regarding reported levels of trust: trust seems to be a form of privilege. In America those who are Black, who struggle financially, and those who have experienced crime are less likely to express social trust. According to Putnam, this shouldn’t be interpreted as a psychological difference, but reflective of actual experience. Those who express high levels of social trust are those who have been “treated by others with more honesty and respect” (2000:144), meaning that social trust likely diverges along certain demographic lines and can be harder to build within neighborhoods with less privileged demographics.
Putnam also notes that there have been declines in social trust over time, with fewer people each year agreeing that “most people can be trusted” and more people each year agreeing “you can’t be too careful dealing with people” (2000:146). What’s more, is that the decline in trust is even steeper among younger people than it is among older people. Each generational cohort remains at about the same levels of trust over time, but there is a clear decline between generational cohorts (ibid). We will examine more about how these dynamics of trust influence participation in the section on Social Organization.
-
Recent failures of public systems such as the 2008 financial crisis, the COVID-19 pandemic, and other doubts to the legitimacy of government officials and offices have caused “a tremendous global trust crisis,” which has left many people feeling deeper senses of mistrust for others, especially institutions like the government, and necessitates research previously occupied with the process of building trust on an individual level to instead focus on institution-based trust (Bachman 2011:209). Institution-based trust can be understood as a combination of calculus-based trust, which looks at competence based on knowledge, and relational trust, which looks at reliability based on interactions over time (Rousseau et al 1998).
Extant literature exploring the relationship between urban planning and trust has largely focused on the need for planners to think about resident trust, yet the relationship between residents’ trust and engagement remains somewhat complicated. Lack of trust from residents can make it hard for planners to effectively engage communities, especially communities whose past has been marred with harms from developers, such as racial or ethnic minorities (Patrick et al 2017), but there is also evidence to suggest that lack of trust may, in some cases, encourage participation when combined with “high political efficacy” (Laurian 2009:379). In these scenarios, residents may perceive themselves as “watchdogs” who are determined to participate, while those with higher levels of trust in planners or government officials assume those in authority are already acting in their best interest without any need for their input. Instead of seeking to understand what factors work in tandem with trust to influence these outcomes, more energy has been spent by planners struggling to increase trust among residents in local communities by sharing plans with the public for feedback (ibid). Therefore, it’s beneficial for this thesis to examine the factors that detract from trust and the ways in which trust influences the engagement process.
-
The trust that planners have in residents has not been directly studied, however there have been adjacent studies on planners' perceptions of resident input. These perceptions could influence how planners interpret resident input and therefore how trustworthy or valuable it is deemed in the planning process. Using a survey in Sweden, Astrom (2020) found that the majority of planners thought that citizens were sincere in their engagements, but few planners thought that citizens were knowledgeable about city affairs or how the local government worked. This study, while conducted outside of the US, can still be applied when considering the opinions of US planners who work for the government due to the similar roles of planners in both countries. There may be additional cultural differences that shape these responses, but I consider these negligent when comparing their work. The opinions of the planners in Astrom’s work are likely swayed in the positive direction in terms of trust due to being government employees (ibid), leaving further questions about how planners who work privately but are contracted by the government feel.
One of the applications of this trust to planning is the question of whether or not and when planners will take into serious consideration the thoughts and preferences of the people within the communities in which they have been hired to work. In 2019, Geoffrey A. Battista and Kevin Manaugh conducted a survey of transportation planners across the US and Canada to measure how they traded off between their expert knowledge and community input when making decisions. They chose to classify planning styles on an axis of whether the planners’ approach was “top-down” or “bottom-up” and on the other axis whether the planner was “positivistic” or “normative.” At these intersections, the top-down positivistic planner was considered “technical”, the top-down normative planner was considered “political,” while the bottom-up versions of these planners were considered “collaborative” or “advocate” respectively (2019:1275) . While this study focused on transportation planners, the authors point out that these “transportation planning styles coincide with urban planning typologies in general” (Battista and Manaugh 2019:1281). They also found that there were “strong associations between institutional factors and planning style” such that “institutional and training measures are reliable predictors of transportation planners' professional attitudes” (Battista and Manaugh 2019:1286). This suggests that if the training planners receive and the institutions that they are a part of are mainly responsible for shaping their practice, their views on trust of residents are more reflective of that training and those institutions than personal characteristics. My research seeks to specifically understand how these conceptions of trust trickle down to affect their specific practices.
Ownership
-
I conceptualize a “sense of ownership” as a feeling or conviction that combines responsibility and the ability to make changes to the physical aspects of the area in which one is living, both over individual property and communal property. Lachapelle (2008) forms a more thorough three-part definition of ownership as it applies to community development:
“a sense of ownership in process (who has a voice and who is heard?);
a sense of ownership in outcome (who has influence over decisions and what results from the effort?);
a sense of ownership distribution (who is affected by the process and outcome?)" (2008:53).
These three aspects of ownership become intertwined within the current structures in place for shaping the city—namely, the top-down approach, begun by the upper class in the 1800s and relegated to local governments in the 1900s and following years (Fainstein 2022). Additionally, this structure means that ownership is a give and take between residents and planners, with the planners exerting most of the control on how that give and take happens.
While I often refer to this concept as “ownership” it should more accurately be understood as “sense of ownership,” in that the properties being acted upon are not necessarily the property of the resident or planner. Durkheim asserts in his commentary on Tonnies’ theory that within the community (the tight knit bonds associated with rural or familial ties), property and land are owned by the collective. “Each works not for compensation,” he notes, “but because it is his natural function” as a member of the group that has ownership (Aldous, Durkheim, and Tonnies 1972:1195). To contrast, within society (very loose bonds associated with urbanism), possession is individualized. Property is transferred upon work for wages and each person does what is needed to benefit themselves and their own personal stakes (ibid).
-
Planners' perceptions regarding their sense of ownership has not been previously studied, but their perception on their role has been, which can give us a preliminary understanding of how elements of ownership might fit into existing ways of thinking. Fox-Rogers and Murphy conducted a qualitative survey of planners in Ireland to get a sense of how planners perceived their role within the communities where they worked. The survey found that many planners considered themselves to be a “mediator” or an “administrator,” with the former being the most common (2016:84). The role of the mediator for planners could be described as “mediating between competing interests in order to bring about more balanced outcomes” (2016:84). The researchers also note that in their study, as well as similar studies conducted previously, planners were “reluctant or confused when invited to talk normatively about the values which underpin the planning system (2016:84). Indeed, over half (55%) of the planners interviewed as part of this study either explicitly or implicitly referred to the fact that they are rarely asked to describe the role of the planner” (ibid). This indicates that planners do not reflect as regularly on their role, but when they do introspect, they primarily identify their jobs as bridging the gap between residents and resources.
-
While my definition of ownership transcends individual property, there have been links that associate home ownership and community participation, though the underlying mechanisms of this relationship are unclear. For example, the concentration of household wealth in owner occupied homes could increase homeowners’ attention to local communities and make them more responsive to local policies affecting their property values, leading them to participate more in local politics and community groups. It may also be because, by virtue of owning their own, they have more stability locally and are thus more likely to get involved (McCabe 2013).
Looking beyond this more obvious form of ownership, however, I aim to dig deeper into what else contributes to residents’ developing a sense of ownership over their neighborhood and community. One way that ownership can manifest itself is through the handling of observed disorder. Common visual indicators of neighborhood disorder include broken windows, damaged signage, and graffiti. Sampson’s (2012) work within Chicago is critical to understanding perceptions of disorder and their impacts on neighborhood identity. He writes that what we consider disorder is “shaped by social conditions,” and the “meanings of disorder…need to be a central part of our understanding of neighborhood change” (Sampson 2012:123), which means that perceptions of certain kinds of disorder—like graffiti—could change over time. As Sampson points out, “disorder by the disadvantaged often consists of doing many things in public that would be (and are) legitimate in private” (2012:133). My research looks at graffiti as an example of one of these forms. Unlike other forms of disorder that require little effort and can often be considered crimes of opportunity, graffiti in many cases is a form of artistic practice. It requires forethought on what one wants to say, and what form they will say it in. It requires the purchase of spray paint outside of the city, due to its illegal nature within the city of Chicago. It requires the identification of a canvas and a mode of scaling that location. Is it a form of ownership to take on such artistic work? Is it a form of ownership to despise and remove it from your personal property? Through engaging with residents who have observed the presence of graffiti in their neighborhoods, I will explore how ownership plays a role in both the appreciation and hatred of this work.
After clarifying his ownership definition, Lachapelle (2008) goes on to explain that ownership can only come about if people are given some degree of control. When residents are expected to consult without being given any degree of power, it can lead them to becoming more apathetic and less likely to participate. Lachapelle goes on to claim that ownership and trust are positively correlated, with higher levels of trust being associated with higher potential for ownership (ibid). These concepts of ownership and trust manifest in people’s actions through social organization and collective efficacy.
Social Organization
-
While the number of organizations within the U.S. has increased over the past few decades, community involvement hasn’t necessarily increased (Putnam 2000). Coming back to “Bowling Alone” Putnam writes that now “groups focus on expressing policy views” more often than “providing regular connection among individual members at the grass roots” (2000:60). His research points out that each generation seems to be committing less and less time to the organizations they find themselves being associated with, “dropping out in droves not merely from political life but from organized community life for generally” (2000:73). Putnam also acknowledges the connection between lack of trust and lack of active membership in these groups for civic engagement, noting that there is a strong correlation between social trust (born of the generalized reciprocity explained in the previous section) and civic engagement (participation in groups that shape the neighborhood) (ibid). In his research he was referring to religious and community organizations, through which one needed to work to take political or social action. My study, while still asking some residents about their involvement with these groups, also looks at individual contributions which, while still often involve community members operating collectively, do not require as much regular dedication to an organization.
What’s interesting is that while Putnam reports Black Americans having less social trust, the racial differences in group membership are not large, with Black Americans actually belonging to more groups than White Americans on average when “controlling for educational and income differences” (2000:285). This pattern indicates that social mistrust can be overcome, and group efficacy encouraged among populations where it might be difficult to foster due to lack of trust. It also raises questions about the differences between the groups where social trust is high and groups where social trust is lower. In his book, “Great American City: Chicago and The Enduring Neighborhood Effect,” Robert J. Sampson (2012) discusses this in citing William F. Whyte’s argument on the apparent disorganization within socioeconomically deprived neighborhoods. “What looks like social disorganization from the outside is actually an internal organization,” he writes, “its social organization fails to mesh with the larger structure of society around it” (Sampson 2012:38).
Sampson also introduces the concept of collective efficacy, which requires some form of social trust, but transcends it to consider the desire for, not only reciprocation, but control. “This theoretical framework,” he writes, “recognizes the transformed landscape of contemporary urban life and assumes that while community efficacy may depend on some level of working trust and social interaction, it does not require that neighbors or local police officers be one’s friend. Institutional mechanisms may be sufficient” (Sampson 2012:152). What Sampson is suggesting is that in areas where there exist organizations designed for action regarding the state of the neighborhood, social trust is not relied on as heavily for action to come about. He also notes, however, that lack of resources can hinder the ability of these neighborhoods to take action through these groups. This suggests that within Chicago, lack of trust can be overcome with community organization efforts, but only to the degree that there are resources available to them; it will be harder for disadvantaged communities to make use of their organizational structures.
-
Another topic key to understanding social organization is the relationships being built between neighbors. Ferdinand Tonnies’s classic writing distinguishes the community (Gemeinschaft) in which a group shares common bonds, values, and objectives based on being together and natural emotion, from the society (Gesellschaft) in which a group shares values and objectives based on rational agreement and indirect social ties (Aldous, Durkheim, and Tonnies 1972). Durkheim built on this in a review of Tonnies’ work, noting that beyond family ties was the stronger bond of shared space (ibid). By “the sole fact of being in the neighborhood and the relations that derive from it, families, until then independent, aggregate together,” he states (Aldous, Durkheim, and Tonnies 1972:1194). However, Durkheim would not necessarily expect to apply this concept of community to a “great city of today” like Chicago, because to him the growth of life in the city meant the end of the Gemeinschaft, not its evolution (Aldous, Durkheim, and Tonnies 1972:1194).
Tonnies and Durkheim (1972) shared the opinion that urbanization was ending the Gemeinschaft, and once a city surpassed a certain size that kind of social bond was no longer possible. In some ways they are right—the personal ties needed for Gemeinschaft are not possible across the entirety of a large modern city, but as Richard Sennet (1977) pointed out, this community bond can still be found along ethnic lines or in smaller communities within the city. In Chicago for example, this phenomenon can be studied due to the various official and unofficial subsections the city is regularly broken down into. For example, it could be said that the neighborhoods act as communities and are infused with identity and reinforced with the bond of local living, while the wards or other government barriers behave as societies, drawn by officials without regard to identity and values, but held together by the necessity of function. There is room for conflict when these community lines do not match up with societal lines, and when the different motivations (community wanting to benefit one another, and society wanting to profit) become apparent.
-
Of all the communities that might be present within a city, the neighborhood, based on “proximity and neighborly contact” as described by Robert E. Park, is “the simplest and most elementary form of association with which we have to do in the organization of city life” (1915:580). To him the neighborhood is the “the basis of political control” because of membership being due to residence and “local sentiment” being harnessed (1915:580). However, he also says that neighborhoods have no “formal organization,” with formal associations being built on top of the organic developments (1915:578). Within cities today, there are many moving parts that require a more comprehensive definition, and Jane Jacobs’ foundational work sheds light on this.
In “The Death and Life of Great American Cities” (1961), Jane Jacobs outlines her theory on three types of neighborhoods:
The city as a whole - the “parent community…from which most public money flows” and “where most administrative and policy decisions are made” (p. 153).
The street neighborhoods - “the miniscule neighborhoods” that “weave webs of public surveillance,” and “grow networks of small-scale, everyday public life and thus…trust and social control” (p. 157).
the district - the neighborhood whose job is “to mediate between the indispensable, but inherently politically powerless, street neighborhoods, and the inherently powerful city as a whole” (p. 158).
Within my research, this can be roughly applied to (1) the whole city of Chicago, (2) the community areas, and (3) the wards. According to Jacobs, the districts—or wards—play the most crucial role when it comes to self-governance in their role as mediators. Issues arise, however, when the people within the district don’t identify themselves with it or there are competing interests from multiple street neighborhoods within. Additionally, the district faces challenges when not all districts are fighting the city for power on behalf of their constituents. There then arise projects when an alderman may not be able to speak up on an issue for fear that the other districts will not come to their aid on others, a challenge we will reflect on further in the findings.
Within neighborhoods, there is more at play than just reciprocity which incentivizes people to work and live in harmony together. One of the misconceptions about these benefits is the notion of “salvation by bricks” which suggests that simply improving the physical environment helps improve the social conditions (Jacobs 1961:147). Jacobs dismantles this notion, stating that it is inaccurate because there are other things that must be improved in tandem with the physical environment for real change to take place (ibid). However, this doesn’t address the reality that people desire to live in a nice place, nor the question of the extent to which their physical environment makes them believe it to be true. To put it more directly, to what extent are people’s behavior within their neighborhood influenced by the quality of the physical environment and their interpretations of it? How do these people influence the environment in return?
Summary
Building on this theoretical foundation and using the city of Chicago as a case study, this thesis will demonstrate how ownership, trust, and engagement influence one another among residents and planners alike. Trust, dissected into its various forms—deterrence-based, calculus-based, relational, and institution-based—underpins the interactions between residents, planners, and institutions, influencing the level and manner of civic engagement. The literature reveals that trust can be a form of privilege, with significant variations across demographic lines and a notable decline over time, especially among younger generations. The trust of residents, particularly in the wake of global crises, and the trust held by planners, colored by their professional background and institutional affiliations, both play pivotal roles in shaping urban planning and community relations. Ownership, extending beyond mere property rights to encompass a broader sense of control and responsibility, is intricately linked to community development and participation. The concept encompasses ownership in process, outcome, and distribution, reflecting a complex interplay between individual and communal stakes in urban spaces. The perspectives of planners and residents on ownership reveal diverse understandings and expectations, which are crucial in shaping urban dynamics. Finally, the decline in active community involvement, despite the increase in the number of organizations, highlights a shift in group dynamics and civic participation. Collective efficacy, neighborhood solidarity, and the role of neighborhoods in political and social life emerge as crucial factors in modern community engagement strategies. The tension between the concepts of Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft, as well as the influence of the physical environment on social conditions, provides a nuanced understanding of urban life and community participation.
In the following chapters, my own research will seek to elaborate on or fill in the gaps of the literature discussed in this chapter. My first findings chapter will examine how demographic differences across Chicago can impact trust and ownership. My second findings chapter unpacks resident and planner conceptions of ownership, the difference in participation between renters and owners, and action across both communal and individual property. My third and final findings chapter navigates how mistrust in the government, planners, and even one’s fellow neighbors can impact engagement, and the ways that planners could potentially improve these outcomes.