FINDING A PLACE TO FIT-IN JUST BECAME MORE COMPLICATED: HOW
TOLERANCE MEDIATES THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT’S ABILITY TO SATISFY
RESIDENTS
By
Jennifer Elizabeth Wray

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
MASTER OF ARTS
SOCIOLOGY
2012

Abstract
FINDING A PLACE TO FIT-IN JUST BECAME MORE COMPLICATED: HOW
TOLERANCE MEDIATES THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT’S ABILITY TO SATISFY
RESIDENTS
By
Jennifer Elizabeth Wray

Qualities and characteristics of the built environment have been suggested to drive residents
community satisfaction, but is community development really that simple? Previous research has
examined community offerings and attempted to identify the most significant predictors of
community satisfaction. However, prior studies have failed to account for resident’s access to
potential predictors of community satisfaction. Using data from the Soul of the Community
survey, this article examines the influence of tolerance on the built environments affect on
community satisfaction. Incorporating tolerance addresses how access to characteristics of the
built environment may affect their influence on resident’s community satisfaction. Tolerance
was found to partially mediate (29%) the built environments affect on community satisfaction.
These findings suggest that the most beautiful and vibrant built environment may not produce the
most satisfied residents if residents are not tolerant of each other

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES………………………………………………………………………………..iv
LIST OF FIGURES……………………………………………………………………………….v
INTRODUCTION………………………………………………………………………………...1
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK………………………………………………………………...4
The Built Environment and Community Satisfaction……………………………………..4
The Built Environment and Tolerance………………………………………………...…..7
Tolerance and Community Satisfaction………………………………………………….11
DATA AND MEASURES……………………………………………………………...……….14
Data and Sample…………………………………………………………………………14
Variables and Measures………………………………………………………………….14
Controls…………………………………………………………………………………..15
RESULTS………………………………………………………………………………………..17
DISCUSSION……………………………………………………………………………………19
Other Interesting Findings……………………………………………………………….20
Limitations ………………………………………………………………………………21
Future Research………………………………………………………………………….22
REFERENCES…………………………………………………………………………………..30

iii

LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. DESCRIPTIVE STATISTICS……………………………………………………….25
TABLE 2. AFFECT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND TOLERANCE ON
COMMUNITY SATISFACTION……………………………………………………………….26

iv

LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE 1. AFFECT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT AND TOLERANCE ON
COMMUNITY SATISFACTION……………………………………………………………….28
FIGURE 2. TOLERANCE MEDIATING THE AFFECT OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT
ON COMMUNITY SATISFACTION…………………………………………………………..29

v

Introduction
The many intricacies of the community concept have inspired a long tradition of
sociological inquiry from Toennies (1887) account of societal transition from gemeinschaft to
gesellschaft, to the modern emergence of the creative class noted by Florida (2003, 2008).
Community research has analyzed effects from industrialization, urbanization, and technology
(Toennies 1887; Park 1928; Wirth 1938; Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Sampson 1988; Florida
2008), to how residents perceive and internalize information from their built environments
(Edelman 1978; Fried 1982; Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky 1982; Goss 1988; Skjaeveland and
Garling 1997; Cuba and Hummon 1993; Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003). How residents evaluate
their communities has become increasingly important since resident’s community evaluations
have been linked to mobility decisions (Speare 1974; Bach and Smith 1988). Evaluations about
personal and community characteristics have been used to measure community satisfaction by
previous researchers (Miller 1980; Cuba and Hummon 1993; Amerigo and Aragones 1997;
Filkins 2000; Theodori 2001; Neal forthcoming). Because community satisfaction explores
many facets of community life, it may be beneficial to question how its predictors affect each
other and subsequently affect community satisfaction.
The built environment has been identified as a driver of community satisfaction (Fried
1982; Ringel and Finkelstein 1991). Mixing land use and designing spaces for use by multiple
residents can make the built environment an ideal venue for both planned and spontaneous
interaction (Skjaeveland and Garling 1997; Gieryn 2000; Handy 2002; Leyden 2003).
Contrasting research has also suggested that the built environment can prevent community
satisfaction by limiting or preventing social interaction among residents. Symbolic violence
conveyed through architecture and community design has been found to segregate social classes,

1

ethnicities, and races (Edelman 1978; Goss 1988; Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003). Access to
resources from the built environment has been found to both positively and negatively affect
community satisfaction (Fried 1982; Gieryn 2000). Access to social capital from the built
environment has also been found to alter residents’ community satisfaction (Florida 2003). What
factors enable the built environment to elicit both positive and negative effects on community
satisfaction?
I propose that tolerance affects community satisfaction and can partially mediate the
relationship between the built environment and community satisfaction. Previous research has
addressed several issues related to tolerance, including segregation and subsequent inequalities
(Edelman 1978; Fried 1982), integrating diverse groups (Allport 1954; Kahneman, Slovic and
Tversky 1982; Sigelman and Welch 1993), effects from integrating diverse groups (Park 1928,
1931; Potter and Cantarero 2006), information exchanged from diverse interaction (Park 1928;
Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky 1982; Sigelman and Welch 1993), and benefits from diversity
(Jacobs 1961; Florida 2003). However, research has given little attention to tolerance itself as a
unique facet of community life. Tolerance is an attitude defined by how open residents are to
diversity; it does not attempt to measure actual or perceived diversity (Florida 2008). What roles
might tolerance have in a community, and how might understanding those roles clarify how
residents evaluate community satisfaction? In an effort to better understand community
satisfaction, the relationships between the built environment, tolerance, and community
satisfaction must be examined.
The steps taken to examine the relationship between the built environment and tolerance,
as well as their subsequent effect on residents’ community satisfaction ratings are explained by
this article’s four sections. The first section reviews literature and previous research on the built

2

environment, tolerance, and community satisfaction and highlights a connection between the
variables. The connection between the built environment, tolerance, and community satisfaction
leads to the prediction of four hypotheses about the variables relationships. The second section
provides details about the Soul of the Community survey and data, which were used to examine
how the built environment and tolerance affect residents’ community satisfaction ratings across
26 U.S. cities. Results are presented in the third section and explain how three multivariate
regressions and a path model were used to test how the built environment can influence
community satisfaction both directly and indirectly through tolerance. The fourth and final
section engages a discussion about the results, limitations from these findings, and suggestions
for future research on the built environment and community satisfaction as they are affected by
tolerance.

3

Theoretical Framework
The Built Environment and Community Satisfaction
The built environment provides resources like parks, entertainment districts, and
consumer conveniences that can contribute to community satisfaction when resident’s resource
needs are satisfied. The built environment can be comprised of several features that contribute to
community satisfaction. Results from Filkins, Allen, and Cordes (2000) study of almost 4,000
rural Nebraskans found their “consumer services” index to be statistically significant and an
influential predictor of community satisfaction. Their consumer services index included
satisfaction scores from residents’ perceptions of retail shopping, restaurants, and entertainment.
However, because Filkins et al. did not evaluate the predictive power of each index used in their
community attributes category, it leaves the variance explained by the consumer services index
unknown.
Specific community features have also been evaluated for their contribution to residents
overall community satisfaction evaluation. Miller et al’s (1980) survey study of 550 New York
City residents found evaluations about specific community features to be consistent with overall
community evaluations. Their research suggests that community satisfaction results from
individual evaluations or beliefs about multiple community characteristics and contributes to
respondent’s overall community satisfaction evaluation. Evaluations of 22 community features
were regressed stepwise to determine the most important predictors of community satisfaction.
Results showed that “neighborhood attractiveness” and community satisfaction had the strongest
simple correlation accounting for 42.6% of the variance. A second test used five specific
community characteristics (upkeep, similarity to neighbors, noise, trees, and crowding) identified
by Morans and Rodgers (1975) as “micro-neighborhood” predictors of community satisfaction.

4

The five specific predictors from their second test explained 45.3% of satisfaction variance
proving to be stronger predictors of community satisfaction.
The built environment’s aesthetic qualities can be viewed as a resource especially when
its attractiveness lures residents to use other local resources and increases satisfaction. Ringel
and Finkelstein’s (1991) study of 50 residents from two Baltimore, Maryland suburbs found
community resources and qualities of the built environment including: physical beauty, vibrancy
of the social setting, and availability of parks and green space predict community satisfaction.
Twenty-five respondents were from Fells Point, a historic area described as “overlooked” and
experiencing “physical transformation” and “cultural change.” The remaining twenty-five
respondents were from Mount Vernon, the home of the Washington Monument museum amidst
green parks, fountains, and surrounded by numerous specialty shops, pubs, and restaurants.
The resources variable was measured using an index of coded responses detailing which
resources respondents used with-in and outside of their communities. The index was
standardized because resource availability differed between suburbs. Respondents were never
asked to evaluate the quality of resources used with-in and outside of their communities,
similarly they were never asked why they chose to use resources in or outside of their
communities. Understanding why residents chose to use particular resources would have
indicated whether resource quality or access had a significant influence.
Despite the study’s significant correlation between beliefs about qualities of the built
environment and community satisfaction the relationship was weaker than predicted. The strong
correlation and weak relationship suggests an intervening variable exists but was not measured in
this study. It is possible for residents to have positive beliefs about the built environments
resources but not utilize these resources. The community resource index did predict resident’s

5

satisfaction, but because residents were never asked to evaluate their community resources, the
relationship was unclear. For instance, lacking access to resources may lead residents to use
resources outside of their community. Measuring resource use only indicates where residents
use resources and ignores aspects that might influence resident’s choices over where to use
resources. Such influences might also influence community satisfaction.
The built environment’s ability to foster social interaction is a valuable aspect of
community experiences and can affect overall satisfaction. Florida (2008) describes how
networking takes place within the built environment’s restaurants, clubs, and performance
venues. The built environment creates “scenes” where individuals can experience a wide variety
of organized cultural production and consumption. Scenes are described as places where
individuals go to “see” and “be seen.” In other words, the built environment can promote social
interaction by creating scenes where residents can enjoy shared interests that contribute to
community satisfaction.
The breadth and depth of social interaction facilitated by the built environment can affect
residents’ community satisfaction. Crowe (2010) found communities fostering dense networks
connecting multiple parts of the community were evaluated 20% more favorably. Her findings
also indicated that a community’s network structure affects a resident’s evaluation of the built
environment. Social interaction enhances social capital through accidental and intentional
encounters with neighbors and other community members. Social capital is defined as an
accumulation of access to skills, information, and experiences from members of one’s social
network (Jacobs 2000, 2004). Social capital builds a sense of familiarity that people find
satisfying. Residents whose built environments encouraged social interaction have consistently

6

reported greater community satisfaction (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Speare 1974; Bach and
Smith 1977; Sampson 1988; Leyden 2003; Crowe 2010).
The built environment creates spaces for social interaction by allowing residents to build
relationships. Community satisfaction has been found to increase when the built environment
provides social opportunities for residents (Herting and Guest 1985; Filkins, Allen, and Cordes
2000; Crowe 2010). In contrast, lacking access to resources like parks and nightlife can prevent
social interaction and negatively affect residents’ satisfaction. In some cases access to resources
and social interaction may be intentionally guarded to preserve social and structural inequality
and may affect resident’s satisfaction (Edelman 1978; Fried 1982). Because the built
environment has been found to increase residents’ access to resources, encourage social
interaction, and enhance social capital, I hypothesize that the quality of the built environment
positively affects community satisfaction (H1). Figure 1 illustrates the hypothesized relationship
between the built environment and community satisfaction.
[Figure 1 about here]
The Built Environment and Tolerance
Interactional spaces that are fun and have multiple uses engage many different people and
can be a source of information promoting interaction between groups. Information affects
attitudes about marginalized and stigmatized groups (Kahneman, Slovic & Tversky 1982). Thus,
when the built environment promotes positive diverse interaction, positive attitudes toward
various diverse groups are also likely to be promoted. The built environment can be designed
and constructed to promote unplanned interaction between residents who might otherwise be
socially distant (Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003). The built environment can promote tolerance by

7

intertwining varying functions, specializations, and values of mixed-use space that often create
and legitimize homogenous enclaves (Gieryn 2000).
When the built environment is comprised of mixed land-uses interaction can be promoted
between diverse groups and increase tolerance. Skjaeveland & Garling’s (1997) Norwegian
study of 1,056 Bergen residents found aesthetics and functionality to be important factors for the
built environment to become interactional space. In other words, residents must believe that the
built environment is intended for social interaction, and its features must provide physical
attributes and engage residents. Benches in parks invite people to stay and sit amongst each
other. Semi-private space allows people visual access to passersby without overly exposing
those within a space while enabling interaction. Their study’s findings indicated that
interactional spaces promote inter-group interaction by allowing multiple groups to feel
comfortable interacting in the same space.
Mixing land uses throughout the built environment can encourage interaction between
groups that may not have otherwise interacted. Research has suggested that effectively mixing
land uses can be expected to enhance social capital by encouraging interaction (Gieryn 2000;
Leyden 2003; Skjaeveland and Garling 1997). A survey study of 279 Galway households,
located in the Republic of Ireland, found residents living in built environments with mixing-land
uses more likely to interact with neighbors, participate locally (politically and socially), and trust
others in their community (Leyden 2003). This study compared three types of communities.
First, mixed-use pedestrian-oriented communities meet all residents’ needs within a short walk.
Mixed-use pedestrian-oriented communities immerse residents in wide arrays of amenities and
resources and typically offer restaurants, pubs, parks, libraries, department stores, government
buildings, post offices, banks, pharmacies, schools, and various types of entertainment. Second,

8

older mixed-use communities, tend to be quieter, predictable and require more transportation
than city centers. In older mixed-use communities, walking or using public transportation can
satisfy most of residents needs. Third, modern automobile-dependent communities require
personal transportation in order to satisfy resident’s needs. Some of these communities lack
sidewalks and discourage residents from walking due to inherent danger from traffic. Social
capital declines as a result of suburbanization, and Leyden (2003) suggests suburbanization
increases independence and decreases interdependence by providing fewer opportunities for
social interaction among residents.
Characteristics of the built environment like mixed land use and aesthetic qualities have
been found to encourage people to spend more time in their communities. Cuba, Lee, and
Hummon (1993) found that the built environment facilitates interaction when positive
experiences occur in a diverse space and positive feelings are associated. When particular places
appeal exclusively to specific groups, other groups are indirectly deterred from those places and
groups. Places are able to attract specific people by using “style,” a design tool characterizing a
place by its unique qualities. Styles are used to elicit and associate feelings to places in the built
environment (Edelman 1978; Gieryn 2000). Specific styles often appeal to particular groups and
prevent diverse social interactions. Tools like style have segregating power derived from social
status, an abstract quality enabling people to develop tastes for qualities specific to their social
position (Edelman 1978; Goss 1988; Bourdieu 1984). The built environment uses style to attract
specific groups and deter others who may feel that particular styles are above or beneath their
social position. The built environment can be designed to encourage spontaneous interaction
across social positions. Designing public use facilities like parks, libraries, and river-walks with

9

large, intertwining, and open walkways is inviting to everyone and provides equal access (Gieryn
2000).
The built environment can promote tolerance when mixed land uses are designed to
promote diverse interaction. Allport’s (1954) contact hypothesis theorized that any racially
diverse contact would decrease prejudice. He discussed how group differences are negatively
integrated into society resulting in natural prejudice between groups. According to Allport,
diverse contact alone can correct damage from propaganda and segregation and decrease
prejudice. Another approach claims that mere contact does not provide the same benefit as
meaningful interaction, where group information is exchanged. Informational availability
discussed by Kahneman, Slovic and Tversky (1982) suggested a mediator between interracial
contact and racial attitudes. Their theory suggests available information about particular groups
can determine an individual’s attitude. Informational availability theory contends that
information gained through meaningful interaction has a more significant affect on interracial
attitudes than contact. For instance, contact can occur between service employees and patrons,
where employees play a specified service role functioning to satisfy patrons who gain no
information about employees nor offer information about themselves.
The built environment can create interactional spaces, which promote planned and
unplanned interactions between residents. Pedestrian friendly built environments can encourage
residents to spend more time in their communities and mindfully using “style” can allow
residents to feel comfortable interacting together. When diverse interactions are meaningful
group information is exchanged and can promote tolerance between groups, even groups
separated by tension. Because the built environment can create interactional space where diverse

10

groups can overcome social tension through meaningful interaction; I hypothesize that the
quality of the built environment positively affects tolerance (H2).
Tolerance and Community Satisfaction
Tolerance might alter how accepted an individual feels and could affect community
satisfaction. Increased tolerance provides greater access to social capital by increasing
opportunities to develop and strengthen social networks and could affect community satisfaction.
The relationship between tolerant communities and satisfaction is not essentially due to residents
innate value of diversity (Florida 2008). Rather how comfortably residents can express
themselves may explain this linkage, and tolerant communities exude an open acceptance of selfexpression (Florida 2008).
Promoting interaction between residents from all life cycle positions, races, and
ethnicities has been found to create more tolerant communities and increase community
satisfaction (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Sampson 1988; Sigelman and Welch 1993; Gieryn
2000; Leyden 2003; Florida 2008). Tolerant people interacting can decrease segregation,
develop a sense of community, and increase overall satisfaction (Gieryn 2000). Social capital
theories compare people to resources and suggest that social capital encourages intertwining
support systems, and increases tolerance, accentuates mutually beneficial complexities beyond
individual differences (Jacobs 1961, 2000, 2004), and promotes social interaction between
community members (Leyden 2003). Community satisfaction has been found to increase by
utilizing social capital (Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003; Jacobs 2004; Florida 2008).
Data from Detroit, Michigan examined by Schuman and Hatchett (1974) displayed
findings that blacks who socialized with white co-workers and neighbors displayed fewer
feelings of alienation and distrust toward white society than blacks lacking similar experiences.

11

Interestingly blacks who experienced contact with whites as co-workers and neighbors without
interaction did not experience affected racial attitudes toward whites. Schuman and Hatchett’s
(1974) Detroit findings led Kahneman, Slovic, and Tversky (1982) to examine information
availability. Their study highlighted interaction as key component of positively affecting
negative racial attitudes.
Similarly, a 1989 national biracial survey by Chilton Research Services for an ABC NewsWashington Post poll (N=1691, 376 black, 1315 white) analyzed by Sigelman and Welch (1993)
found interracial interaction experiences decrease negative racial attitudes in both blacks and
whites. Whites perceived less interracial hostility and blacks perceived less anti-black attitudes.
Intolerant communities tend to deny residents access to resources through social controls and
informal boundaries that are based on prejudice and discrimination (Gieryn 2000).
Social networking opportunities can provide greater access to resources and can lead to
greater community satisfaction. Friendship and kinship networks were found to be significant
predictors of community satisfaction (Kasarda and Janowitz 1974; Speare 1974; Bach and Smith
1977; Sampson 1988; Crowe 2010). A social network’s weak ties help overcome intolerance by
bridging gaps in social relations and by allowing diverse social actors to pursue individual
interests (Granovetter 1973; Skjaeveland and Garling 1997). Tolerant communities do not deny
residents access to resources and social capital like intolerant communities (Gieryn 2000; Florida
2008). Networking opportunities from social capital promote interaction and increase trust
between community residents (Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003).
Tolerant communities promote satisfaction by encouraging residents to freely express
themselves and meaningfully interact with others. Tolerance allows residents to develop diverse
relationships and increase social capital. Relationships developed by tolerance can affect

12

resident’s attitudes about their community. Social capital can provide residents support systems
and accentuate a community’s mutually beneficial attributes. Resident’s support systems
provided from social capital accumulation can be linked across a community allowing greater
resource access. Therefore, I hypothesize that tolerance affects community satisfaction (H3).
Based on the proposed relationships of hypotheses 1, 2, and 3, I further hypothesize that
tolerance partially mediates the relationship between the built environment and community
satisfaction (H4).

13

Data and Measures
Data and Sample
Hypothesis testing was accomplished by using data from The Soul of the Community
survey (SOTC 2010), collected by the Gallup Organization for the Knight Foundation. Gallup
conducted 15,200 interviews with a random representative sample of adults (18+) from 27 May
through 31 August 2010, in 26 U.S. cities. Surveys consisted of fifteen-minute telephone
interviews addressing 73 questions, and were conducted in English and Spanish. Cellular phone
numbers were included as part of the potential sample. Approximately 26% of the data set
contained missing values on one or more variables used in the analysis and were dropped list
wise yielding a sample of 12,299. Two-sample t-tests were used to compare means for included
and excluded cases, relative to all other variables in the model, and indicated that the means of
these two samples did not differ significantly. Thus, all observations with missing values were
dropped from the sample listwise.
Variables and Measures
Community Satisfaction, the dependent variable, is measured using respondents’ response to
the question “Taking everything into account, how satisfied are you with your community as a
place to live?” The question’s Likert scale format indicates satisfaction on a continuous scale
ranging from (1) “Not at all satisfied” to (5) “Extremely Satisfied.” Similarly, Miller et. al.
(1980) used Likert scales to measure community satisfaction by asking respondents to rate their
satisfaction. Previous studies (Speare 1974; Bach and Smith 1977) measured community
satisfaction using a multi-variable index. Community satisfaction is measured in this model
using a single variable expressing an individual’s global evaluation of their community.

14

The built environment, the independent variable, is measured using an index composed of
three variables assessing a community’s physical features. Each of the three variables was
measured using Likert scales, ranging from (1) “very bad” to (5) “very good.” Respondents were
asked to rate their community for: (1) “Availability of outdoor parks playgrounds and trails” (2)
“Beauty and Physical Setting” and (3) “Having a vibrant nightlife, with restaurants, clubs, bars
ect.” Previous studies have used likert scales to assess specific features of the built environment
(Miller et al 1980), while some have analyzed use frequency of specific features (Ringel and
Finkelstein 1991), and others have attempted to connect aesthetic qualities of the built
environment to its multiple uses (Skjaeveland & Garling 1997; Handy et al 2002, Leyden 2003).
Physical features of the built environment have also been examined for roles facilitating and
limiting social interaction (Edelman 1978; Goss 1988; Skjaeveland & Garling 1997; Handy et al
2002, Leyden 2003). This analysis extends previous studies by utilizing the built environment
concept as a combination of attitudes and perceptions about physical environmental features.
This index exhibits an acceptable degree of internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.70).
Tolerance, the mediator, is measured using an index composed of six variables assessing
whether a respondent’s community “is a good place for…” (1) “immigrants from other
countries” (2) “racial and ethnic minorities” (3) “gay/Lesbians” (4) “young talented college
grads” (5) “families with small children” and (6) “senior citizens.” This index exhibits an
acceptable degree of internal reliability (Cronbach’s alpha 0.81). This tolerance measurement
closely mirrors Florida (2008), who used a similar index of openness assessments toward eight
specific groups. Measuring tolerance perceptions differs from previous studies because it does
not focus on actual or perceived diversity.
Controls

15

Several control variables were included to isolate the effects of the variables of interest
built environment and tolerance on community satisfaction. Sixteen control variables were used
in this analysis. Seven demographic variables controlled for respondents age, length of
residency, employment status, race, marital status, education, and home ownership status. Two
variables controlled for safety: a respondents rating of crime in their neighborhood and
respondents rating about feeling safe walking alone at night within a mile of their home. Three
variables controlled for a respondent’s community participation based on how many close
friends are in their neighborhood; number of formal and informal group memberships and
whether respondents voted in the last local election. Four variables further describing the
communities sampled were also controlled: community’s degree of urbanicity, availability of
affordable housing, job opportunities, and the highway and freeway system.
SOTC data samples were collected using a cluster-sampling design, in which 26 cities
served as sampling clusters. Thus, the 12,299 individual observations may display disturbances
or unintentional influences from the cities of which they are grouped. Data clustering can limit
the credibility of standard error and confidence interval estimations and usually lead to
underestimating standard errors (Hamilton 2009). Using robust variance estimates allows for
more credible standard error and confidence interval estimates (Hamilton 2009). Cluster robust
standard errors were used in each model to control for potential cluster effects across the 26
communities surveyed.

16

Results
Hypotheses were tested using a series of multivariate regression models in STATA 10
statistical analysis software. The three hypotheses estimations will indicate if a mediation
relationship occurs by first, regressing the mediator on the independent variable; second,
regressing the dependent variable on the independent variable; and lastly, regressing the
dependent variable on both independent and mediator variables (Baron and Kenny 1986).
Hypothesis one predicted that the built environment would affect community satisfaction,
illustrated in figure 1. Results shown in model 1 of table 2 indicate that the built environment is
positively associated (b= .132, p< .001) with community satisfaction and is statistically
significant. This finding is consistent with previous research indicating the built environment
can directly effect community satisfaction (Marans and Rodgers 1975; Miller et al 1980; Fried
1982; Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003).
Hypothesis two predicted that the built environment would affect tolerance. As shown
in model 2 of table 2, the built environment does display a positive effect (b= .776, p< .001) on
tolerance and is also significant. This model’s index representing tolerance asks respondents if
their community “is a good place” for various groups; it is not measuring perceived diversity.
The positive association, illustrated by Figure 2, illustrates how respondents who positively
perceived the built environment also perceived their community as more tolerant. The positive
relationship between the built environment and tolerance supports previous findings designating
the built environment as an ideal venue for social interaction between diverse groups (Park 1931;
Rossi 1955; Edelman 1978; Speare 1974; Bach and Smith 1977; Fried 1982; Hummon and Cuba
1993; Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003). Hypothesis three predicted that tolerance would affect
community satisfaction, illustrated in Figure 1. Model 3 of table 2 displays results indicating

17

that tolerance does positively affect community satisfaction (b= .049, p< .001) and is statistically
significant. The positive relationship between tolerance and community satisfaction supports
previous findings that individuals are more satisfied by communities that are tolerant (Jacobs
2004; Gieryn 2000; Florida 2003, 2008; Leyden 2003).
[Table two about here]
Hypothesis four predicted tolerance would partially mediate the relationship between the
built environment and community satisfaction. The indirect effect ((.776 x .049) = .038), and
total effect ((.093 + .038) = .131) were calculated using a path model, simultaneously estimating
three regression equations (Baron and Kenny 1986). The indirect effect indicates that tolerance
mediates ((.038 / .131) x 100 = .29007 or 29 %) 29% of built environments effect on community
satisfaction. Significance of the indirect effect is supported by Sobel standard error estimates
(indirect effect= .038, se= .003, p< .001) found by previous researchers as a valid significance
test for indirect effects (Preacher and Hays 2008). Mediation analysis, illustrated by figure 2,
provided strong support for hypothesis four predicting that the built environment not only
directly strengthens community satisfaction ratings but also indirectly does so through tolerance.
Although attractive aesthetic features and abundant resources in the built environment were
shown to positively affect community satisfaction ratings, lacking access and/or a perceived lack
of access could hinder positive affects.
[Figure 2 about here]

18

Discussion
Results from this sample support claims that the built environment can directly and
indirectly effect residents’ community satisfaction ratings. First, the built environment’s
association with community satisfaction was found to positively relate to resident’s community
satisfaction rating. The positive relationship between the built environment and community
satisfaction remained significant despite controlling for several community, demographic, and
social characteristics. The built environments persistent significance supports previous findings
indicating that the built environment has a particular affect on community satisfaction differing
from other community characteristics (Fried 1982; Ringel and Finkelstein 1991; Filkins, Allen
and Cordes 2000; Gieryn 2000). Confirmation of hypothesis one indicates that when residents
positively perceive the built environment their overall community satisfaction rating will be
positively affected.
Second, the built environment was found to be positively associated with residents’
perception of community tolerance. The positive association remained significant after
controlling for several demographic, social, and community characteristics suggesting the
relationship between the built environment and perceptions of community tolerance is unique.
The positive relationship between the built environment and residents perceptions of community
tolerance supports previous research suggesting that the built environment can control social
opportunities for residents to interact (Skjaeveland and Garling 1997; Gieryn 2000), gain access
to resources (Edelman 1978; Fried 1982; Goss 1988), and social information (Kahneman, Slovic
and Tversky 1982). This second confirmed hypothesis indicates that when residents positively
perceive the built environment their perceptions of community tolerance will be positively
affected.

19

Third, findings indicated that tolerance is positively associated with residents’
community satisfaction ratings. The positive relationship between perceptions of tolerance and
community satisfaction ratings is particular and was demonstrated by persistent significance after
adding several variables controlling community, demographic, and social characteristics. The
positive relationship between residents’ perceptions of community tolerance and community
satisfaction supports arguments claiming that tolerant communities satisfy residents (Schuman
and Hatchett 1974; Sigelman and Welch 1993; Florida 2003, 2008). This third confirmed
hypothesis indicates that when communities are perceived as tolerant resident’s community
satisfaction ratings are positively affected.
Finally, tolerance was found to partially mediate the positive relationship between the
built environment and residents’ community satisfaction ratings. These findings confirm that the
built environment can provide residents with resources like parks, restaurants, entertainment
venues, and social capital shown by previous research to satisfy residents (Skjaeveland and
Garling 1997; Gieryn 2000; Leyden 2003), but when access to the built environments resources
is affected by mediators like tolerance, community satisfaction ratings can subsequently be
affected (Edelman 1978; Fried 1982; Goss 1988; Gieryn 2000). This study’s findings suggest
that the built environment comprised of the most satisfying resources and amenities can elicit
unfavorable satisfaction ratings if intervening factors deter residents from utilizing them.
Other Interesting Findings
Owning a home displayed significantly negative affects on resident’s perceptions of
tolerance (b= -.163, p< .01). When residents owned a home they perceived their community as
less tolerant. This finding supports Gieryn’s (2000) theory of social control described as
informal boundaries created to “territorialize” or restrict access to particular places in a

20

community. An individual’s home is a personal resource and usually requires some degree of
financial and emotional investment. Establishing social controls as a homeowner supports
Edelman’s (1978) suggestion that community satisfaction is related to access and the ability to
limit others access to resources.
Limitations
Community satisfaction, the dependent variable, was operationalized simplistically as an
overall evaluation of a respondent’s community. Such a simplistic measurement only indicates if
residents are satisfied overall with their community, but provides no indication why residents are
satisfied with their community. Similarly, the built environment index exclusively asks
respondents to rate the built environments features. No data was provided indicating
respondent’s use of the built environments features respondents were asked to evaluate.
Understanding the relationship between residents evaluations and their use of the built
environment might have provided further insight about the built environment’s affect.
Abstract concepts like tolerance are inevitably difficult to measure creating limitations
for what these variables can explain. Tolerance as measured in this article has three major
limitations. First, the index representing tolerance measured respondent’s perception of
community tolerance, but was not an indicator of how tolerant or diverse the surveyed
communities actually were and respondents were not asked to evaluate how diverse they
perceived their communities. Data indicating perceptions about diversity as well as how diverse
and tolerant communities actually were could have allowed comparisons between perceptions
and reality concerning diversity and tolerance. Had data been provided about respondent’s
perception of diversity, comparisons regarding the affects of perceived tolerance versus
perceived diversity could have been hypothesized. Second, including multiple groups in the

21

same measurement does not allow differentiation between each group’s contribution to the
effect. It is safe to assume that groups are tolerated differently and one measurement cannot
express those group differences. Finally, it is also safe to assume that specific communities are
perceived as better or worse places for certain groups. For instance, quiet pedestrian centered
communities with accessible public transportation and an abundance of senior centers might be
perceived as better places for senior citizens than for young college graduates. These
communities might not be intolerant of young college graduates; their features may simply
appeal to senior citizens.
Future Research
Findings from this data have shown that the built environment can positively affect
resident’s community satisfaction ratings both directly and indirectly through tolerance. Policy
makers and urban planners can utilize these findings to design built environments capable of
facilitating tolerance and positively affecting community satisfaction. Results from this study
garnered support for informational availability theory and draws critical attention toward
diversity integration policies premised around the contact hypothesis. If diverse contact alone is
not enough to promote tolerance, policies that submerge diverse groups into different normalized
cultures are problematic.
Migration policies often force assimilation to dominant hegemonic cultures through social
institutions such as schools. This forced assimilation implies that differences should be
stigmatized and sameness rewarded thus perpetuating intolerance inequality.
Lingering effects from past development policies known to have caused intolerance and
inequality should be examined. For example, the auto industry played a major role in U.S.
development, aided largely by the influx and exploitation of black migrant workers in Detroit,

22

Michigan from 1910- 1930 (Peterson 1979). During this time a built environment emerged:
more than 50,000 homes were built, a park system was established, and commercial
entertainment establishments saw tremendous growth (Peterson 1979). Despite tremendous
growth, a housing shortage remained, causing issues of segregation, skyrocketing racial/ethnic
tensions, along with social and structural inequalities (Farley, Bianchi, and Colasanto 1979;
Peterson 1979). More recent studies suggest that lingering effects from these past development
inequalities persist today. Nearly a century later findings have indicated that whites still seek
social distance from blacks (Darden and Kamel 2000), and associate continued discrimination
with undesirable behavior (Kaplowitz, Broman and Fisher 2006). Future research should further
examine how meaningful interactions among diverse groups in the built environment can create
tolerance in communities. Issues of intolerance should also be addressed to identify specific
characteristics preventing tolerance in communities and among residents. After gaining a more
thorough understanding of tolerance, research should address issues of lingering inequality and
intolerance and focus toward facilitating tolerance through the built environment.
Previous built environment research focuses on creating beautiful landscapes used to
mask inequality between groups differing in class, culture, or race while ignoring larger social
structures like tolerance that could alleviate some inequalities. The built environment’s
interactional characteristics should be examined further to gain better understanding about what
factors motivate meaningful interaction between diverse groups and lead to informational
exchange. I argue that communities with a built environment designed to promote tolerance
creates a structure satisfying to residents. Tolerant communities satisfy residents by providing
greater access to community resources, interactional space, and increase social capital through
social networks. The built environment is ideally premised around offering residents a variety of

23

resources and amenities and in theory will increase community satisfaction. If residents cannot
access the built environment’s satisfying resources and amenities, its function cannot be served
properly. A built environment designed to promote tolerance also functions to provide all
residents equal access to resources and amenities and can better function to increase residents’
overall community satisfaction.

24

Tables and Figures
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics (N= 11,255)
Variable

Mean

Community Satisfaction
Built Environment
Tolerance
Homeowner
Urban
Married
White
Unemployed
Voters
Income
Education
Length of Residency
Highways
Available Housing
Job Opportunities
Safe Walking Night
Crime
Friends
Groups

Standard Deviation

3.751
11.648
20.700
.820
.378
.618
.816
.014
.796
5.272
4.430
33.676
3.418
3.266
2.617
3.594
3.405
3.434
1.734

1.062
2.506
4.708
.538
.485
.536
.388
.118
.403
2.239
1.167
24.336
1.142
1.158
1.082
1.307
1.177
1.600
1.555

25

Table 2. Affect of the Built Environment and Tolerance on Community Satisfaction (N=12,299)
Model 2
Model 3
Model 1
Community
Tolerance Community
Satisfaction
Satisfaction
Built Environment
.131***
.776***
.093***
(.0104)
(.025)
(.009)
Tolerance
.049***
(.003)
Length of Residency
-.001*
.0004
-.001*
(.0006)
(.002)
(0005)
Unemployed
-.046
.238
-.057
(.080)
(.237)
(.080)
Own
.011
-.163**
.019
(.011)
(.056)
(.011)
Married
.017
.041
.015
(.015)
(.066)
(.012)
Education
.006
-.104
.011
(.012)
(.053)
(.011)
Urban
.005
.215*
-.005
(.020)
(.094)
(.020)
White
-.040
-.515**
-.015
(.038)
(.141)
(.034)
Highways
.097***
.368***
.080***
(.018)
(.050)
(.017)
Housing Opportunity .052*
.446***
.030
(.019)
(.098)
(.018)
Job Opportunity
.180***
1.12***
.124***
(.021)
(060)
(.017)
Safety
.070***
.257***
.058***
(.010)
(.048)
(.009)
Crime
.048***
.114**
.043***
(.009)
(.032)
(.009)
Friends in
.033***
.086**
.029***
Community
(.005)
(.028)
(.005)
Group
.009
-.005
.010
Involvement
(.006)
(.025)
(.006)
Voters
-.051*
-.082
-.047
(.025)
(.076)
(.025)
Age
.009***
-.008*
.010***
(.0008)
(.003)
(.0008)

26

Table 2 (cont’d). Affect of the Built Environment and Tolerance on Community Satisfaction
(N=12,299)
_Constant
.299**
5.80***
.014
(.103)
(.417)
(.103)
R2

.342***

.478***

.366***

*p<.05, **p<.01, ***p<.001, using cluster robust standard errors

27

Figure 1. Affect of the Built Environment and Tolerance on Community Satisfaction
(N=12,299)
Tolerance
H2

Built
Environment

H3

Community
Satisfaction

H1

28

Figure 2. Tolerance Mediating the Affect of the Built Environment on Community Satisfaction
(N=12,299)

Tolerance
.776***

.049***

Built
Environment

Community
Satisfaction
.093***

Indirect Effect = .038
Total Effect = (.093+ .038)= .131
% mediated = (.038/.170)= .29007 or 29%
Sobel Standard Error of Indirect Effect = .003***

29

REFERENCES

30

References

Allport, Gordon. W. 1954. The Nature of Prejudice. Oxford, England: Addison-Wesley.
Amerigo, Maria, and Juan. Ignacio Aragones. 1997. “A Theoretical and Methodological
Approach to the Study of Residential Satisfaction.” Journal of Environmental Psychology
17:47–57.
Anon. 2010. Soul of the Community. Gallup funded by the Knight Foundation Retrieved
(www.soulofthecommunity.org).
Bach, Robert, and Joel Smith. 1977. “Community Satisfaction, Expectations of Moving, and
MIgration.” Demography 14(2):147–167.
Baron, Reuben, and David Kenny. 1986. “The Moderator-Mediator Variable Distinction in
Social Psychological Research: Conceptual, Strategic, and Statistical Considerations.”
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 51(6):1173–1182.
Bourdieu, Pierre. 1984. Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste. President and
Fellows of Harvard College and Routledge & Kegan Paul Ltd.
Crowe, Jessica. 2010. “Community Attachment and Satisfaction: The Role of A Community’s
Social Network Structure.” Journal of Community Psychology 38(5):622–644.
Cuba, Lee, and David Hummon. 1993. “A Place to Call Home: Identification with Dwelling,
Community, and Region.” Sociological Quarterly 34(1):111–131.
Darden, Joe T., and Sameh M. Kamel. 2000. “Black Residential Segregation In The City and
Suburbs of Detroit: Does Socioeconomic Status Matter?” Journal of Urban Affairs
22(1):1–13.
Edelman, Murray. 1978. “Space and the Social Order.” Journal of Architectural Education
32(2):2–7.
Farley, Reynolds, Suzanne Bianchi, and Diane Colasanto. 1979. “Barriers to the Racial
Integration of Neighborhoods: The Detroit Case.” The ANNALS of the American
Academy of Political and Social Science 441(1):97–113.
Farley, Reynolds, Shirley Hatchett, and Howard Schuman. 1979. “A Note On Changes In Black
Racial Attitudes In Detroit: 1968-1976.” Social Indicators Research 6(4):439–443.

31

Filkins, Rebecca, John Allen, and Sam Cordes. 2000. “Predicting Community Satisfaction
among Rural Residents: an Integrative Model.” Rural Sociology 65(1):72–86.
Florida, Richard. 2003. “Cities and the Creative Class.” City and Community 2(1).
Fried, Marc. 1982. “Residential Attachment: Sources of Residential and Community
Satisfaction.” Journal of Social Issues 38(3):107–119.
Gieryn, Thomas. 2000. “A Space for Place in Sociology.” Annual Review of Sociology 26:463–
96.
Goss, Jon. 2010. “The Built Environment and Social Theory: Towards An Architectural
Geography.” The Professional Geographer 40(4):392–403.
Granovetter, Mark. 1973. “The Strength of Weak Ties.” American Journal of Sociology
78:1369–1380.
Hamilton, Lawrence. 2009. Statistics with STATA. updated for version 10. Belmont, CA:
Cengage Learning.
Handy, Susan, Marlon Boarnet, Reid Ewing, and Richard Killingsworth. 2002. “How the Built
Environment Affects Physical Activity Views from Urban Planning.” American Journal
of Prevention Medicine 23(2S):64–73.
Herting, Jerald. R., and Aavery. M. Guest. 1985. “Components of Satisfaction with Local Areas
in the Metropolis.” The Sociological Quarterly 26(1):99–116.
Jacobs, Jane. 2004. Dark Age Ahead. First Vintage Books Edition 2005. New York: Random
House.
Jacobs, Jane. 1961. The Death and Life of Great American Cities. New York: Random House.
Jacobs, Jane. 2000. The Nature of Economies. First Vintage Books Edition 2001. New York:
Random House.
Kahneman, Daniel, Paul Slovic, and Amos Tversky. 2001. Judgement Under Uncertainty:
Heuristics and Biases. Cambridge UK: Cambridge University Press.
Kaplowitz, Stan A., Clifford L. Broman, and Bradley J. Fisher. 2006. “Perceptions of Economic
and Behavioral Differences Between Blacks and Whites: Racial Attitudes of White
Americans and Status Generalization.” Social Psychology Quarterly 69(4):367–379.
Kasarda, John, and Morris Janowitz. 1974. “Community Attachment in Mass Society.” American
Sociological Review 39(3):328–339.
Leyden, Kevin. 2003. “Social Capital and the Built Environment: The Importance of Walkable
Neighborhoods.” American Journal of Public Health 93(9).

32

Marans, Robert. W., Willard Rodgers, and Vincent Rock. n.d. “Toward an Understanding of
Community Satisfaction.” in Metropolitan America in Contemporay Perspective, edited
by Amos Hawley. New York: Sage Publications.
Miller, Frederick, Sam Tsemberis, Gregory Malia, and Dennis Grega. 1980. “Neighborhood
Satisfaction Among Urban Dwellers.” Journal of Social Issues 36(3).
Neal, Zak. “The Public School as a Public Good: Direct and Indirect Pathways to Community
Satisfaction.” Journal of Urban Affairs.
Park, Robert. 1928. “Human Migration and the Marginal Man.” The American Journal of
Sociology 33(6):881–893.
Peterson, Joyce Shaw. 1979. “Black Automobile Workers in Detroit, 1910-1930.” The Journal of
Negro History 64(3):177–190.
Potter, James, and Rodrigo Cantarero. 2006. “How Does Increasing Population and Diversity
Affect Resident Satisfaction? A Small Community Case Study.” Environment and
Behavior 38(5):605–625.
Preacher, Kristopher, and Andrew Hays. 2008. “Asymptotic and resampling strategies for
assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models.” Behavioral
Research Methods 40(3):879–891.
Richard, Florida. 2008. Who’s your city? How the Creative Economy Is Making Where to Live
the Most Important Decision of Your Life. Basic Books.
Ringel, Norman, and Jonathan Finkelstein. 1991. “Differentiating Neighborhood Satisfaction and
Neighborhood Attachment Among Urban Residents.” Basic and Applied Social
Psychology 12(2):177–193.
Rossi, Peter. H. 1955. Why Families Move: A Study in the Social Psychology of Urban
Residential Mobility. Glencoe, Illonois: Free Press.
Sampson, Robert. 1988. “Local Friendship Ties and Community Attachment in Mass Society: A
Multilevel Systemic Model.” American Sociological Review 53(5):766–779.
Schuman, Howard, and Shirley Hatchett. 1974. Black Racial Attitudes: Trends and Complexities.
Ann Arbor, Michigan: Survey Research Center, Institute for Social Research, University
of Michigan.
Sigelman, Lee, and Susan Welch. 1993. “The Contact Hypothesis Revisited: Black-White
Interaction and Positive Racial Attitudes.” Social Forces 71(3):781–795.
Skjaeveland, Oddvar, and Tommy Garling. 1997. “Effects of Interactional Space on
Neighbouring.” Journal of Environmental Psychology 17:181–198.

33

Sobel, Michael. 1982. “Asymptotic Confidence Intervals for Indirect Effects in Structural
Equation Models.” Sociological Methodology 13:290–312.
Speare, Alden. 1974. “Residential Satisfaction as an Intervening Variable in Residential
Mobility.” Demography 11(2):173–188.
Taylor, Ralph. B., Sally. A. Shumaker, and Stephen. D. Gottfredson. 1985. “Neighborhood-level
Links Between Physical Features and Local Sentiments: Deterioration, Fear of Crime,
and Confidence.” Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 2(4):261–275.
Theodori, Gene L. 2001. “Examining the Effects of Community Satisfaction and Attachment on
Individual Well-Being.” Rural Sociology 66(4):618–628.
Toennies, F. 1957. Community and Society (Gemeinschaft and Gesellschaft). edited by Charles.
P. Loomis. East Lansing, Michigan: Michigan State University Press.
Wirth, Louis. 1938. “Urbanism as a Way of Life.” The American Journal of Sociology 44(1):1–
24.

34