This was one of the student papers selected by a jury of professional planners and academics for presentation at a session sponsored by the Student Representatives Council of APA.

Exploring the Relationship Between Sense of Community and Territoriality in Rural Neighborhoods

Shannon Van Zandt
Copyright 1997 Van Zandt

Colonias are rural, substandard housing developments in South Texas. They suffer from deplorable living conditions, often without running water or sewage systems, unpaved roads and extreme poverty. Yet service providers and researchers have observed remarkable unity and cohesion among residents, prompting them to attribute a strong "sense of community" to these neighborhoods. This paper compares cognitive evaluations of sense of community and territorial evidence to identify elements of the physical environment that may facilitate the development of a sense of community in two rural colonia communities.

Case: The Colonias

The colonias are substandard rural subdivisions located along the Texas-Mexico border. They are often, but not always, characterized by substandard housing, the absence of indoor plumbing and inadequate or nonexistent waste disposal systems (Salinas 1988). Residents often must transport untreated water in non-sterile containers for use as drinking water. Because the colonias are relatively unregulated by city or county governments, they also lack fire and police protection. Colonias are located all along the Texas-Mexico border, but are heavily concentrated in the Lower Rio Grande Valley in Cameron, Starr, Willacy, and Hidalgo counties as well as along the Upper Rio Grande near El Paso.

Growth along the border has been a relatively urban phenomenon, mirroring population redistribution world-wide (Weeks & Ham-Chande 1992). Land has been controlled by a few large (mainly agricultural) interests, serving to concentrate the population in urban areas by preventing the creation of a large rural population. In addition, the hot and dry climate requires sizable investments in infrastructure to make the region habitable, at least by most standards. Constructing infrastructure is more easily accomplished in already urbanized areas and so such infrastructure investments have not been made in many outlying areas. Consequently, land is cheaper. Owners of this undeveloped land have targeted the poor, offering them ownership of the subdivided land at costs seemingly lower than what modest apartments rent for in the urban areas. Often these offers are not as attractive as they first appear. While payments on the land may be less than the cost of urban rents, land owners who finance the purchase themselves frequently retain the deed to the land until it is completely paid off. Thus, occupants have little legal claim to their land. Further, the lack of city or county regulation requiring infrastructure on these parcels means that residents either make provisions for these at their own expense or do without them.

Poverty

Maril (1989) provides several indicators of poverty, all of which suggest that colonia residents are much poorer than those in other cities and regions in this country. The most common indicator, annual income, shows that some colonia earn only 40 -60% of the national median family income (Maril 1989). Up to half of county residents fell within the government's definition of poverty in 1980 (Maril 1989). Colonia residents are likely to earn even less (Rogers, et. al. 1993; Ellis 1995).

Housing

Substandard housing is another indicator of the acute poverty found in the border counties generally, and the colonias specifically. Maril suggests that over a third of homes in the Lower Rio Grande Valley (not just colonias) are substandard, with nearly ten percent describable as "deteriorated, no longer suitable for habitation" (1989: 16). Many, if not most, of these may be found within the colonia subdivisions. Structures within the colonias are not regulated by city or county building codes, and thus must adhere only to personal standards. Often homes are constructed out of available materials-concrete blocks, salvaged lumber, even old tires. Manufactured housing is not uncommon, and is frequently added onto with scrap materials.

Territoriality: Expressions of Community?

People search for living arrangements that maximize congruence between place and self (Hull 1994). In situations where a community or neighborhood reinforces the self-concepts of its members, a sense of community, a "feeling that members have of belonging, a feeling that members matter to one another and to the group, and a shared faith that members' needs will be met through their commitment to be together," is likely to exist (McMillan & Chavis 1986: 6). A sense of community can serve as a catalyst for community participation and development (Chavis and Wandersman 1990). Conversely, a lack of sense of community can hinder community advancement. A poor sense of community may manifest itself in a lack of cooperation, neighborliness, or social cohesion in the residential environment, resulting in apathy, neglect, and eventually dissatisfaction. "If an individual has a strong sense of community, the perception of environmental conditions is hypothesized to be evaluated more positively so that satisfaction with the environment is increased" (Chavis & Wandersman 1990:61).

Dan Stokols (1979) suggests a model of environmental controllability in which people attempt to achieve congruence between themselves and their environment. In doing so, they seek to satisfy needs relevant to the setting. People have an ideal level at which they would like to have their needs met (ideal facilitation); the extent to which they are actually addressed is known as actual facilitation. The ratio between ideal and actual facilitation indicates the level of congruence that the environment permits. Sometimes an environment will hinder the reconciliation of needs.

The manipulation of the environment is a function of self-expression. Cooper (1974) has acknowledged that material symbols play a role in the manifestation of self. Among items to which one feels attached, territorial behaviors will be evident. Territorial markers and cognitions establish and regulate relationships, physical or social, between the individual and his or her environment (Taylor 1988). Rapoport (1980:122) suggests that "various components of environmental quality (such as type, form and density of housing, location, planting, maintenance levels, proximity of services, mixture of uses, and the like) are matched against images and schemata." These images are shaped by needs and expectations, which may vary according to culture.

Incongruence between a person's objectives and opportunities facilitated by an environment can result in stress (Evans & Cohen 1987). "One feels at odds with ones' place of residence, always needing to defend and justify who one is" (Hull 1992). Hull suggests three consequences: 1) residents alter the physical image of their residence, if they have the necessary resources; 2) residents alter their own self-identity to conform with that of the situation; or 3) residents feel disenfranchised from the place and have limited attachment.

While primary territory (that which is central and generally not shared) is integral to the individual's sense of self, one might expect the secondary territory (that which is shared by or with a group) to be integral to the sense of community (Brown & Werner 1985). Territorial functioning refers to a system of sentiments, cognitions, and behaviors that are highly place specific, and are concerned with issues of setting management, maintenance, legibility, and expressiveness. Territorial behaviors may accrue power to an individual or group, or they may promote interaction between individuals or groups (Taylor 1988).

Physical evidence of territoriality is designed to encourage greater social contact and a proprietary interest in the community (Perkins, et. al. 1990). Place features (physical attributes) distinguish one place from another, defining territory or creating a strong perceptual image (Hull, et. al. 1994). Hull and his colleagues have examined the contribution of place to self-identity, identifying several types of physical features that have special meaning to residents as well as dimensions of neighborhood image that are important to residents (Hull, et. al. 1992, 1994). Their findings suggest that the physical environment of the neighborhood can contribute to a positive sense of community by symbolizing the social groups to which residents belong, giving the community its distinctive character, and satisfying functional needs.

Objectives

The study explores the nature of the relationship between sense of community and territoriality. Territorial functioning contributes to the creation and maintenance of behavior settings, which are the "building blocks" of the public environment, both physical and social (Taylor 1988). The public environment is the setting in which a sense of community would be expected to develop, and as such must allow people to achieve what they want to achieve by recognizing and facilitating their needs.

It is generally expected that evidence of territorial behavior will coincide with a strong sense of community. However, some territorial behavior, such as the erection of fences, may be construed either as an unwillingness to be involved in the community or an attempt to exercise control within the community. The study design attempts to clarify how these perplexing signs of territorial behavior operate within the context of a sense of community.

Methodology

The study uses evidence of territorial behavior and sense of community from two rural Texas colonia communities: Montana Vista, located east of El Paso, and El Cenizo, located directly on the border outside Laredo. Two groups of data will provide measures of territoriality and sense of community: 1) resident perceptions of sense of community; and 2) independent ratings of slides of colonia homes on perceptions of demarcations, personalization, interaction, privacy, pride, improvement and security.

Resident perceptions of sense of community were collected as part of a baseline study of living conditions (Rogers, et. al. 1994). This data collection was the first phase of an effort by the Texas A&M Center for Housing and Urban Development to evaluate physical, organizational and policy efforts to improve living conditions in the colonias. In addition to the resident responses to statements regarding sense of community, the original survey also provides socio-demographic data on the residents, analysis of which may help identify both functional and social-psychological needs.

If and how these functional and social-psychological needs are being addressed through environmental manipulations will be determined by independent interpretations of the presence of territorial behavior. Perkins, et. al. (1990) relate that while many social researchers have focused on the physical environment, few have measured it directly, instead relying on subjective evidence of resident perceptions. Objective measures (i.e., observations of physical evidence) increase validity and reliability, avoid bias, and can inform efforts regarding elements of environmental design. To assess the physical context of colonia existence, slides of each respondent's home were made. Research participants were asked to view and rate slides of the colonia homes on concepts which are expected to be related to both territorial behavior and sense of community.

Data is recorded by individual household, so it is possible to correlate individual resident data with visual data collected from slides of their homes. Resident perceptions of sense of community were correlated with ratings of territorial behaviors and direct, physical territorial evidence to indicate whether households exhibiting high levels of territoriality also report a strong sense of community. More detailed analysis suggests characteristics of territorial behavior that are more closely related to sense of community, leading to an identification of elements of the physical environment that suggest or result from a strong sense of community.

A Weak Relationship-Why?

Correlations between overall evaluations of sense of community and territoriality indicate a weak or non-existent relationship between the two. In other words, the homes reflecting a positive (or poor) sense of community are not necessarily the same homes exhibiting signs of territoriality. Three explanations that may account for this were explored: 1) measurements of either (or both) sense of community or territoriality may be insensitive, or poorly capture the essence of the concept; 2) the relationship may be moderated by another characteristic; or 3) there may be no relationship between sense of community and territoriality.

Measurement

To explore the first possibility, reliability tests were conducted for those rating signs of territoriality. These show that several of the raters rated the same slide quite inconsistently. The lack of reliability among these ratings could account for their failure to evidence a relationship with the sense of community. Consequently, to increase the validity of the overall results, ratings by these raters were separated from those showing internal consistency. Only those ratings demonstrating internal reliability were used to compare to responses to sense of community indicators. Among these raters, variance was small, providing a more consistent and reliable measure of territoriality evidence. However, even these more reliable ratings failed to show a significant relationship to sense of community.

To examine the validity of the scales used, factor analysis of each was conducted. These show that the indices used for territoriality (interaction, demarcation, personalization, security, privacy, pride and improvement) accounted for 65% of the variance, indicating that these components are a strong gauge of a single concept reflecting territorial behaviors. Among the scales used to test sense of community, 35% of the variance was explained by the components. The tests suggest that while there seems to be one underlying factor among these indicators, they account for only a little more than a third of the variance. This seems to indicate the existence of other, unmeasured dimensions of sense of community.

Moderating Characteristics

Because the residents of the colonias differ in a number of ways from mainstream Americans, it might be expected that these differences may surface in physical or social expressions. A lack of financial resources in particular certainly impacts the extent to which the physical appearance of a home may be altered. To explore this, an index of poverty was compared to both sense of community responses and territoriality evidence. While poverty does not moderate the relationship between sense of community and territoriality, it does have its own relationship with each. Homes of residents with incomes above the poverty line appear to be well-demarcated and also reflect greater degrees of privacy and security. This result suggests that "money buys security," which supports the hypothesis that a lack of financial resources may hinder or impede territorial behaviors.

Other empirical evidence links the physical environment to quality-of-life issues such as feelings of privacy and security, as well as perceptions of crime (Newman 1973; Perkins, et.al. 1990). The literature on territorial functioning suggests that behaviors designed to maintain and improve one's environment are social control mechanisms serving to maximize privacy and security, thus minimizing the chance of criminal activity. Because the colonia residents report a generally positive sense of community, these results seem to indicate that certain action, such as erecting fences or boundaries are more representative of a social control mechanism, rather than an attempt to keep others out or resist community involvement.

Social, but not Financial Resources

The possibility that poverty mitigates the resident's ability to operationalize his or her sense of community came about from looking at a broad pool of indicators. The focus was narrowed to see if other factors that were intuitively connected in fact showed a significant relationship.

One of the statements residents responded to was, "my spouse and I feel a great deal of pride for this colonia." It should be expected that the homes of residents responding positively to this statement would also rate highly on "pride." Other questions asked respondents how many people they greeted each day and how many friends and relatives they had in their neighborhood. These should correlate with signs of interaction in the residence. Another question asked residents to name the best things about living in the colonia. The most frequent response was that their colonia was safe, quiet, or better. This attitude was expected to be reflected in territorial ratings on security and privacy.

However, none of these correlations was significant. Respondents indicate both pride and feelings of security in their communities, but fail to operationalize these in their homes. Residents who do have incomes above the poverty line seem able to make a few changes to their homes beyond just sheltering needs. The first change they make is to improve the security and privacy of their homes, usually through the erection of fences.

While the lack of financial resources may affect the residents' ability to manipulate their environment, it does not affect their social resources. While it was expected that social interaction would be physically detectable, it is certainly possible that these interactions take place outside the residence or over the phone, for example.

Differences Between the Colonias

The two colonias under consideration share many characteristics, but also differ in their location, relative isolation and age. Montana Vista is a large, spread out colonia, located within a few miles of El Paso, the sixth largest city in Texas. Parts of Montana Vista were established as long ago as 1957, but most of it was developed in the 1980s. In contrast, El Cenizo is located many miles outside of Laredo, a much smaller city. It is a well-defined subdivision and is one of the few colonias that is incorporated as its own city. Its date of inception is 1990.

The vast differences between these colonias make it difficult to isolate characteristics that may moderate the relationship between sense of community and territoriality. But it is possible to determine whether any of the characteristics of these colonias affect the relationship in question. Tests of significance indicate that among indicators of sense of community, none differs between the colonias. Physical indicators of territoriality suggest that interaction and personalization are more evident in El Cenizo than in Montana Vista; but these are not related to the sense of community in those colonias. Physically, El Cenizo is more centralized (i.e., less spread out) than Montana Vista. It is also younger and was formed at one time (as opposed to over a period of years). Additionally, it is a politically-defined community. These are all suggestive of a more tightly-knit community in which interaction is more common and residents are more expressive in personalizing their residences.

Conclusions

The theory underlying a relationship between sense of community and territoriality suggests that territorial functioning reflects the same types of attitudes that lead to a sense of community. It is apparent from these results that both the colonia communities under consideration exhibit both a positive sense of community and evidence of territorial functioning. However, it seems clear that these two concepts are unrelated to one another, at least as they are conceived of and tested here.

Some of the evidence suggests that the lack of financial resources available to the colonia resident may mitigate the reflection of sense of community in the physical context of the residence. While many colonia residents may be impoverished, they are not lacking in social resources. Data show that these residents interact with their neighbors and feel that they can depend on and be depended upon by their neighbors. It was expected that the most obvious of the relationships between social and physical indicators would show a relationship between sense of community and territoriality. It did not.

The absence of any indication that sense of community is reflected in the territorial functioning of the residents suggests that this relationship may be similar to other attitude-behavior relationships in which behavior is moderated by so many other factors that it is unable to reflect an underlying attitude (Fishbein and Ajzen 1975). For example, an individual may think highly of a charitable organization and be verbally supportive of its efforts. The same individual may even express a willingness to donate a certain amount of money to this worthy cause. But when it comes right down to the time to give, he or she may renege, and be willing to only give a smaller amount or not at all. The decision not to give does not indicate non-support of the cause, it may be more reflective of additional financial burdens, the manner in which the request was made, the timing of the request, and so on.

It is apparent that colonia residents experience a variety of moderating circumstances that may affect their ability to express the community attitudes in the physical appearance of their home. So while it can be concluded that the relationship between sense of community and territoriality is not evident, it cannot be stated authoritatively that there is no relationship.

Works Cited

Becker, F.D. 1977. Housing Messages. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden.

Brown, B.B. and Werner. 1985. Social Cohesiveness, Territoriality and Holiday Decorations: The influence of cul-de sacs. Environment and Behavior 17,5: 539-565.

Chavis, D.M. and A. Wandersman. 1990. Sense of Community in the Urban Environment: A Catalyst for Participation and Community Development. American Journal of Community Psychology 18,1: 55-81.

Cooper Clare. 1974. The House as a Symbol of Self. In Land et. al. (eds.) Designing for Human Behavior. Stroudsberg: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.

Ellis. David R. 1995. Socioeconomic Differential Among Selected Colonia and Non-colonia Populations on the Texas-Mexico Border. College Station: Center for Housing and Urban Development, Texas A&M University.

Evans, G. and S. Cohen. 1987. Environmental Stress. In D. Stokols and I. Altman (Eds.) Handbook of Environmental Psychology, Vol. 1. New York: Wiley. 571-610.

Fishbein, M. and I. Ajzen. 1975. Belief, Attitude, Intention and Behavior: An Introduction of Theory and Research. Menlo Park, CA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

Hull, R.B. 1992. Image Congruity, Place Attachment and Community Design. The Journal of Architectural and Planning Research 9: 181-192.

- , Lam, M., and Vigo, G. 1994. Place identity:Symbols of Self in the Urban Fabric. Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning 28: 109-120.

Maril, Robert L. 1989. Poorest of Americans: the Mexican Americans of the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press.

McMillan, D.W. and Chavis, D.M. 1986. Sense of Community: A Definition and Theory. Journal of Community Psychology, 14: 6- 23.

Newman, Oscar. 1973. Defensible Space: Crime Prevention through Urban Design. Great Neck, NY: Institute for Community Design Analysis.

Perkins, D.D., Florin, P., Rich, R.C., Wandersman, A., Chavis, D.M. 1990. Participation and the Social and Physical Environment of Residential Blocks: Crime and Community Context. American Journal of Community Psychology 18,1: 83-115.

Rapoport, A. 1980. Environmental Preference, Habitat Selection and Urban Housing. Journal of Social Issues 36: 118-134.

Rogers, G.O., J. Glaser, P.R. Johnston, T. Black, A. Kamath and R. Gonzalez. 1993. Cinco Colonias Areas: Baseline Comditions in the Lower Rio Grande Valley. College Station: Center for Housing and Urban Development, Texas A&M University.

Rogers. G.O., Gonzalez, R., DeBose, R.D., Johnston, P.R., and Glaser, J. 1994. Las Colonias Del Alto Rio Bravo: Baseline Conditions in Webb and El Paso Counties. Center for Housing and Urban Development. Texas A&M University. College Station, Texas.

Salinas, Exiquio. 1988. The Colonias Factobook: A Survey of Living Conditions in Rural Areas of South Texas And West Texas Border Counties. Austin: Texas Department of Human Services.

Stokols, D. 1979. A Congruence Analysis of Human Stress. In I.G. Sarason and C.D. Spielberger (eds.) Stress and Anxiety, Vol. 6. Washington, DC: Hemisphere, 27-53.

Taylor, R.B. (1988). Human Territorial Functioning: An Empirical, Evolutionary Perspective on Individual and Small Group Territorial Cognitions, Behaviors and Consequences. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weeks, John R. and Roberto Ham-Chande. 1992. Demographic Dynamics of U.S.-Mexico Border. El Paso: Texas Western Press.

Shannon Van Zandt
Center for Housing and Urban Development
Texas A&M University

Acknowledgments

The author wishes to acknowledge the guidance and assistance of Dr. George O. Rogers in the study design and data analysis, as well as for the collection of the sense of community data. She would also like to acknowledge the support of the Center for Housing and Urban Development under the direction of Mr. A. Kermit Black. Finally, the author acknowledges Dr. Lou Tassinary and the staff of the Psychophysiology Laboratory at Texas A&M University for providing guidance and facilities for testing research participants.