ORIGINAL ARTICLE

‘‘A Community with Diversity of Culture, Wealth, Resources,and Living Experiences’’: Defining Neighborhoodin an Unincorporated Community

Jesica Siham Fernandez • Regina Day Langhout

Published online: 23 January 2014

� Society for Community Research and Action 2014

Abstract To obtain a better understanding of how people

living in an unincorporated region define their neighbor-

hood, a long-term photovoice project was conducted.

Thirty-one photovoice sessions and eight structured inter-

views were coded and analyzed to assess participants’

neighborhood definitions. Participant’s difficulties in

identifying the geographic, physical and demographic

characteristics of their neighborhood led them to use social

interactions, place-mediated values, and civic engagement

to define neighborhood.

Keywords Neighborhood � Unincorporated � Place

attachment � Place identity � Civic participation �Photovoice

Introduction

The neighborhood is a place for social and civic engagement.

People who feel connected to their neighborhood are likely to

participate in community development activities (Brown et al.

2003; Lenzi et al. 2013; Lewicka 2005). Before neighbor-

hood-based civic action can take place, however, people need

to know which neighborhood they live in. Perhaps because of

the type of planning that takes place in urban areas—a com-

mon place for neighborhood research (DeMarco and DeM-

arco 2010)—tools used to define neighborhood often assume

demographic, infrastructure, and/or geographic uniformity

(Galster 2001; Guo and Bhat 2007; Hunter 1979; Keller 1968;

Martin 2003; Nicotera 2007).

An assumption of neighborhood uniformity may not

apply universally, especially in areas with haphazard

planning. Arbitrariness can lead to neighborhoods with low

legibility; in these areas, people experience lower levels of

place identity and attachment, which is, in turn, related to

lower levels of civic engagement (Brown et al. 2003;

Lewicka 2005, 2011). Low legibility can occur anywhere,

but is perhaps more likely in unincorporated communities

(King et al. 2009; Sokolow 2000). Unincorporated areas

are not part of a city, and land use is administered as a part

of a larger territorial division (e.g., a county).

The number of people who live in unincorporated areas in

the US is growing (King et al. 2009). For example, 20 % of

Californians live in unincorporated areas (Sokolow 2000).

Sometimes, these areas have high population densities but

little infrastructure and few social resources. When overlaid

with the fact that housing in unincorporated areas is often less

expensive than in surrounding cities because property taxes

are not paid to run a local municipal government (King et al.

2009; Sokolow 2000), the lack of resources becomes a social

justice issue. Indeed, in places where housing is expensive,

unincorporated areas can become the most viable option for

low-wage earners. Having few services and resources where

low-income people are concentrated institutionalizes classism

and racism (Prilleltensky 2012). Given these social justice

issues, unincorporated areas must be included in social sci-

ence research. Moreover, to understand how settings shape

communities, researchers must examine how people make

sense of their surroundings (Coulton et al. 2004, 2012; Pierce

2010; Proshansky et al. 1983). Unincorporated areas—

because they are likely to have low legibility—can offer

information about community dynamics and civil society.

Parts of this paper were presented at the Society for the Psychological

Study of Social Issues 2010 biennial conference in New Orleans, LA.

J. S. Fernandez (&) � R. D. Langhout

Psychology Department, UC Santa Cruz, 1156 High Street,

Santa Cruz, CA 95064, USA

e-mail: jsfernan@ucsc.edu

123

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133

DOI 10.1007/s10464-014-9631-9

This project was initiated due to the frustration of the

director of the local family resource center, who was

attempting to engage in place-based organizing, but found that

residents did not identify with their locality. The director and

the research team agreed to initiate a 7-week long photovoice

project (which turned into a year-long project at the request of

the participants) in this unincorporated region, to gain a better

understanding of how people were thinking about and

understanding their neighborhoods as a beginning point for

future place-based organizing. As such, the project’s focus

was on defining and exploring neighborhood. Before delving

into our participants’ neighborhood definitions and perspec-

tives, we outline the two most common ways that neighbor-

hood has been defined in the social science literature.

Defining Neighborhood

Neighborhood as a Geographic Place

From an ecological perspective—which considers the physi-

cal infrastructure and demographic characteristics of an

area—the neighborhood is conceptualized as a place where

the use of land is a commodity in the spatial composition of

the region (Galster 2001; Hunter 1979; Keller 1968). This

framework defines the neighborhood as geographic units

consisting of spatially defined boundaries often characterized

by census tracts, zip codes, tertiary streets, a .25 mile radius

around the home, landmarks, and/or infrastructure (Coulton

et al. 2001; Grannis 1998; Guo and Bhat 2007; King et al.

2009; Kruger 2007; Nicotera 2007; Stoneall 1983). Most

studies rely on census tracts, block groups, or zip codes to

define neighborhoods (Coulton et al. 2004; DeMarco and

DeMarco 2010).

Depending on the research questions, relying on

researchers to determine what constitutes the neighborhood

can be problematic (Coulton et al. 2001, 2004, 2012; DeM-

arco and DeMarco 2010; Pierce 2010). Often, when residents

mark the boundaries of their neighborhood, their definitions

are inconsistent with census tracts, block groups, or sys-

tematic research observations (Coulton et al. 2001, 2012;

Galster 2001; Guo and Bhat 2007; Nicotera 2007). In a study

examining the neighborhood identification of people resid-

ing in a rural area, for example, participants defined their

neighborhoods in relation to its proximity to a specific

landmark, a known location, a street name, or address; par-

ticipants made no reference to census tracts or zip codes to

demarcate their neighborhood (Stoneall 1983). Other

researchers have noted that participant-drawn maps demar-

cating the neighborhood rarely map onto census map

boundaries or block groups in urban areas (Coulton et al.

2001, 2004, 2012). This difference is important if the

research goal is to link neighborhood with experience

(DeMarco and DeMarco 2010).

Objective assessment measures and observations may not

capture subjectivity, which is important in understanding

processes related to place-based experience and community

building. A second framework considers the neighborhood

as a mediating context for building community.

Neighborhood as a Social Construction for Community

A social constructionist perspective focuses on the con-

nection between the person and environment. Person-place

interactions can allow for the development of place

attachment (Brown et al. 2003; Hay 1998; Lewicka 2005).

Place attachment is the positive emotional or affective links

that people form in relation to a setting, like a neighbor-

hood (Hernandez et al. 2007; Lewicka 2005). As a process,

place attachment facilitates people’s place identity, which

is characterized by a sense of belonging to a particular

place. Place attachment and identity are important because

they facilitate community participation (Lenzi et al. 2013).

Within this person-place framework, the neighborhood

consists of spatial units made up of environmental expe-

riences and related cognitions (Proshansky et al. 1983).

From this perspective, researchers have argued that resi-

dents should define their neighborhoods based on land-

marks (Coulton et al. 2004). Others argue that social

networks might be a crucial way to understand neighbor-

hoods, especially in rural areas because their composition

is so different from urban areas (DeMarco and DeMarco

2010). Taken together, the neighborhood can be defined in

several ways, including (but not limited to): spatially,

demographically, through access to public resources or

work opportunities, via public school boundaries, social

networks, civic participation, and place attachment (Pierce

2010).

Most research focusing on subjective neighborhood

definitions examine perceptions of urban residents. Most

define their neighborhoods via geographic markers and the

demographics of those who live nearby; fewer define their

neighborhoods based on sense of community or nearby

public institutions (Guest and Lee 1984; Lee and Campbell

1997). Specifically, one study examined neighborhood

definitions for unincorporated, suburban, or urban dwellers

around Seattle (Guest and Lee 1984). Most defined their

neighborhood via geographic boundaries (76.7 %) and/or

nearby people (58.2 %). A minority used sense of com-

munity (39 %) and/or nearby institutions (10.2 %). Results

were not reported separately by residential area, so it is

unknown if those from unincorporated areas responded

differently than others. Additionally, researchers report that

for those who use geographic boundaries, there is incon-

sistency, even when participants live near one another and/

or call their neighborhood by the same name (Coulton et al.

2001, 2004, 2012; Kruger 2007; Lee and Campbell 1997).

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133 123

123

Two research projects that use a social constructionist

framework do take place in unincorporated areas, although

not in the US. In these studies, residents used experiences

and narratives to define their neighborhood boundaries

(Valera and Pol 2002; Vidal and Pol 2005). The Villa

Olımpica of Poblenou (the ‘‘Olympic Village’’), an area in

the southern part of Barcelona, was built during the

Olympic games and was often seen by its residents as a

symbol of pride. For these residents, their experiences and

memories of the area, and the events that took place, were

important in their neighborhood definition. The affect

people attached to the place and their narratives remained

over time, suggesting that neighborhood definitions are

agreed to and sustained in places with residential stability

(Valera and Pol 2002). Likewise, in a similar study, where

the residents had little knowledge of the boundary limits of

a rural area near Barcelona, researchers found that partic-

ipants referred to their community networks and social

interactions to define and describe their neighborhood

(Vidal and Pol 2005). Although outside of the US these two

studies suggest that memories, beliefs, values, people, and

feelings attached to a place shape neighborhood definitions

for residents in unincorporated areas.

In sum, the dearth of research exploring the neighbor-

hood experience in unincorporated regions is problematic

because, for structural reasons, people residing in these

regions often lack the physical, social, and economic

resources necessary for community well-being (King et al.

2009). Hence, because neighborhoods are mediating

structures for creating community (Nowell et al. 2006),

research describing how people living in unincorporated

areas define their neighborhood is an important step toward

building community. This is especially salient because

neighborhood diversity (in terms of race, ethnicity, social

class, and language) and low neighborhood legibility are

related to lower levels of place attachment (Lewicka 2011),

which in turn has implications for place identity and social

action. Thus, researchers and policy makers must under-

stand better how people living in unincorporated areas,

particularly with low legibility, experience neighborhood.

We therefore sought to answer the following question:

How is neighborhood defined by residents in an unincor-

porated area?

Method

Setting

Live Oak

Between the cities of Santa Cruz and Capitola lies the

growing unincorporated area of Live Oak on the Central

California Coast. Live Oak lacks many basic neighborhood

resources, such as banks, post offices, and public facilities

or gathering places, like a community center. Even so, it is

the third most populated area in the county. At the time of

the photovoice project, Live Oak consisted of nearly

30,000 residents and had the largest growing Latina/o

population in the county. As reported in the 2010 US

census, approximately 73 % of the population was white,

whereas 28 % identified as Hispanic or Latina/o. Live

Oak’s shifting demographics are more evident in the ele-

mentary schools, where, during the year of this study, 33 %

were white, 57 % were Latina/o, and 52 % were identified

with Limited English Proficiency. Additionally, 57 % of

the students qualified for free or reduced price lunch.

As an unincorporated area, Live Oak has Santa Cruz

County as its governing and administering body. Unlike

incorporated cities, unincorporated areas have limited local

democratic representation. Five council members serve on

the County Board of Supervisors, but only one represents

Live Oak as well as a second unincorporated area. Given

that the county manages Live Oak, its concerns are often

overlooked and the availability of resources and services

are frequently restricted. Area planning has been haphaz-

ardly carried out. Live Oak’s unincorporated status is

perhaps one of its most defining characteristics, making it

an important area to research the definition of neighbor-

hood, especially because of the heterogeneous infrastruc-

ture and difficulties in defining the boundaries of the area.

Recruitment

Our community collaborators, the Live Oak Family

Resource Center Director and an employee at the Boys and

Girls Club, chose two project recruitment areas. These areas

were demographically diverse, geographically different

(one near the beachfront, the other inland) and representa-

tive of the heterogeneity of Live Oak. The Beachfront area

has mixed income housing and is slightly more homoge-

neous. It is considered a more legible neighborhood. The

Inland area, however, has more low-income housing, but

includes diverse housing stock (e.g., million dollar homes

next to apartment complexes, chicken ranches, low-income

housing and trailer parks), and is located near the center of

Live Oak. Participants were recruited from these neigh-

borhoods via flyers (in English and Spanish) distributed at

the Live Oak Family Resource Center, the Boys and Girls

Club, and nearby establishments.

Participants

Twelve Live Oak residents participated in the photovoice

project. Two were retired, one was receiving state financial

support, and three were unemployed. Two were attending

124 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133

123

school (middle school and college). All remaining partic-

ipants were employed full-time. See Table 1 for demo-

graphic information, neighborhood affiliations and length

of residence.

Procedure

Photovoice is a method that combines grassroots photog-

raphy and social action (Wang and Burris 1994). It pro-

motes deep reflection, which was important considering the

Live Oak Family Resource Center Director had already

problematized connection to place as an issue. Therefore, it

seemed prudent to use a method that would enable reflec-

tion. Also, other studies involving neighborhood identifi-

cation have used similar methods (Lewicka 2011).

The first photovoice session served as a project orienta-

tion. A professional photographer gave a brief presentation

on basic photographic techniques and the ethics of photo-

voice. Participants received disposable cameras each week

for 5 weeks. When taking pictures, participants considered

the following questions: What makes up your neighbor-

hood? What do you like about your neighborhood? What

would you like to change about your neighborhood?

To facilitate participation, food and child-care was

provided. At the end of each session, participants received

a $20 stipend. The project was slated to be 7 weeks, but

after the 7th week, eight participants elected to meet reg-

ularly for the next 10 months, to continue their discussions

about issues in their community and to plan for group-

determined actions, like photo exhibitions and conducting

community-based focus groups.

Data Collection

Photovoice Sessions

Sessions were audio recorded, held weekly for 2 h, and

followed the SHOWED method, which consists of asking

questions to help facilitate and guide a critical dialogue

(see Wang and Burris 1994). In the second through

5th weeks, participants selected two photographs each to

share with the group. These pictures were tools to guide

discussions around the meaning and significance of

neighborhood-based issues. Weeks 6–10 were devoted to

participants engaging in data analysis, elaborating on the

pictures and organizing them into themes they collectively

generated: social justice, historical and ecological preser-

vation, and community pride. In the tenth meeting, par-

ticipants decided to structure further sessions and agendas

according to the action steps and events they wanted to

implement.

Neighborhood Maps

About 7 weeks into the project (the expected end of the

sessions), participants were given a map of Live Oak and

asked, ‘‘Please identify what you consider your neighbor-

hood area to be.’’ Participants independently marked their

neighborhood boundaries. This method is consistent with

previous research (Lewicka 2011). Afterward, we added

markers to maps to show locations of pictures that partic-

ipants had chosen for exhibitions and other actions. Photos

Table 1 Participants

Pseudonym Gender Age Ethnicity Self-Identified

Social Class

Neighborhood Housing Status Length of

residence

(in years)

Interviewed

Barbie Female 57 White Poor Inland Low-income housing 22 Yes

Carl Male 53 White Middle class Beachfront Homeowner 13 Yes

Cathy Female 51 White No label Inland Low-income housing [27 Yes

Debbie Female 50 White Lower middle

class

Beachfront Homeowner 19 Yes

Jack Male 50 White Lower middle

class

Beachfront Homeowner 6 Yes

Juana Female 32 Mexican–American Unknown Inland Low-income housing \1 No

Julio Male 24 Mexican–American Working poor Inland Low-income housing 17 Yes

Lucy Female 24 White Middle class Beachfront Renter \1 Yes

Marcos Male 22 Mexican–American Unknown Inland Low-income housing 17 No

Mike Male 12 African–American

and white

Unknown Inland Living with parents (housing

type unknown)

Unknown No

Nancy Female 33 White Upper middle

class

Beachfront Homeowner 10 Yes

Steve Male 30 White Unknown Inland Living with mother in low-

income housing

[27 No

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133 125

123

are another common way to assess meaningful places

(Lewicka 2011).

Participant Interviews

After 10 months, the 8 participants who consistently

attended meetings were interviewed about their neighbor-

hood definition, their community experiences, and the

project. Participants were given a $20 stipend for taking

part in the interview. Those who left the project either

before or at the end of the initial 7 weeks (the advertised

time frame of the project) tended to be younger and/or from

more politically vulnerable social groups.1

Data Analysis

A codebook was created to analyze all data. Codes inclu-

ded: geographic characteristics, physicality of infrastruc-

ture, neighborhood demographics, sense of community,

social interactions, place mediated values, civic engage-

ment, and service/resource access. Most codes were based

in the literature for defining neighborhood in urban areas

(e.g., Coulton et al. 2001, 2004, 2012; Galster 2001; Guo

and Bhat 2007; Hunter 1979; Keller 1968; Lee and

Campbell 1997; Martin 2003; Nicotera 2007). Additional

codes were created through open coding (Glaser and

Strauss 1967), where researchers read through the data in

search of themes, or recurrent experiences and anecdotes

that could serve as possible codes.

Thirty-one photovoice sessions and eight interviews

were transcribed and coded. Transcribed interviews were

given to all participants so they could make changes if

necessary. Over two thousand pages served as data for this

study. Data was coded by three pairs of trained under-

graduate researchers, with random spot-checks by the

authors of this paper. Each pair was responsible for coding

a subset of data. Cohen’s Kappa was computed for each

coding pair (including between the first author and all

coders) on approximately 15 % of the data. The lowest

Kappa was 81.3 %. Disagreements were resolved by coder

consensus. Finally, this manuscript was given to study

participants and changes were incorporated based on their

feedback.

Results and Discussion

In this section, we highlight the challenges participants

faced when defining their neighborhood, and then discuss

the results regarding defining neighborhoods. We focus on

the emergent themes because these analyses provide a

unique contribution to the literature and better capture

participant experiences.

Challenged Residential Identification

Participants had differing opinions about Live Oak’s

boundaries. In fact, prior to the project, some did not know

they lived in Live Oak. This finding lends support to the

Family Resource Center Director’s challenge with place-

based organizing. Below are two examples:

Barbie2 Cathy and I have lived where we live probably

for over 20 years. We’ve got the stores. We’ve

got the Bay Tree, we got Traveler Mart

Steve Capitola. Both those things [stores] are in

Capitola

Barbie Oh really? That’s Capitola?

Steve Yeah. (photovoice session, week 2)

From Debbie’s interview:

Debbie When I first moved to Santa Cruz, I lived on C

Avenue so I would always take a walk and go to

the beach down there, over by the radio station

towers that are there, and I like it because no

matter where I am in Santa Cruz, I know where

my neighborhood is because I just look for the

towers. (Interview)

The obscure boundaries and unincorporated status made

it difficult for residents to know which areas were Live

Oak. Although Barbie had lived there for over 20 years,

she was unclear regarding Live Oak’s boundaries. Debbie,

also a long-term resident, referred to Santa Cruz as the area

where she lived; yet, according to maps, Debbie’s previous

and current homes are in Live Oak and the radio towers are

two miles from the official Santa Cruz/Live Oak boundary.

These examples illuminate the challenge Live Oak res-

idents face considering their identification. Over the course

of the project, even after streets were identified, there was

still little consensus regarding Live Oak’s boundaries.

Recall that people who live near one another often have

different perceptions of what counts as their neighborhood,

even when they call their neighborhood by the same name

(Coulton et al. 2001, 2004, 2012; Lee and Campbell 1997).

Our results are similar yet perhaps more surprising because

municipalities have official boundaries, but neighborhoods

do not (Guest and Lee 1984; Lee and Campbell 1997). If

place attachment is an important foundation for place-

based civic actions, then having little to no identification

with a place can make organizing difficult (Brown et al.

2003; Lenzi et al. 2013).

1 To protect participants, more detail is not provided here. 2 All participant names have been changed.

126 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133

123

These results are also surprising because research indi-

cates that home ownership and residence length are two

robust predictors of place identity (Hernandez et al. 2007;

Lewicka 2011). Yet, here, people who had lived in the area

for over 15 years were unclear on the boundaries of their

community. Additionally, one was a homeowner (Debbie).

Although knowing boundaries is not precisely the same as

place identity or place attachment, it is important for the

development of a sense of place, especially when people’s

relationships to a place can be described in terms of the

symbolic meanings associated with the place.

Neighborhood Defining Characteristics: Similarities

and Differences with the Literature

Some argue that residents should define their neighbor-

hoods via landmarks, when the research addresses neigh-

borhood-based experience, because of the disagreement

between defining neighborhoods via census tracts and

participant definitions (Coulton et al. 2004). Moreover,

landmarks and geography often serve as markers when

residents define their neighborhoods (Coulton et al. 2001;

Guest and Lee 1984; Guo and Bhat 2007).

Defining Neighborhood: What It is Not

Our participants defined their neighborhoods based on

geography (13 % of the codes), landmarks (13 %), or

demographics (15 %) less frequently than we would expect

based on published research. In fact, in her interview,

Barbie proclaimed, ‘‘Landmarks are a middle-income way

of defining your neighborhood’’ and refused to give

neighborhood markers. Yet, for those who did use land-

marks or infrastructure, there was little agreement regarding

the size of their neighborhoods, which is consistent with the

literature examining neighborhood definitions in urban

areas (Coulton et al. 2001, 2004; Lee and Campbell 1997).

For example, Carl and Jack both lived in the Beachfront

area. Carl described his neighborhood as ‘‘my street,’’ and

Jack, as ‘‘the places that I could conveniently walk to.’’

With respect to demographics, some participants used

vague terms to describe their neighborhoods. For example,

Debbie said, ‘‘I think that we have a pretty wide range of

economic households ya’ know, with their income, I don’t

know, family oriented [is how I define my neighborhood] I

guess’’ (Interview). Others pointed out which demographic

groups were not in their neighborhood. Barbie said, ‘‘We

don’t have…all the rich ladies with their little high heels

and knits. You know, we don’t play that game’’ (Inter-

view). Perhaps this demographic vagueness was due to the

heterogeneity of this unincorporated community. Lucy

illustrates this point; when asked to define neighborhood,

she reverted back to a place where she used to live:

Lucy Oh man, I don’t know. That’s so hard I mean when

I, I’m gonna use an example from a town that is not

Santa Cruz but when I lived in [medium-sized

southwestern city], there were all these different

neighborhoods all around the city that were kinda

defined by um either their historical significance or

like they all had the same kind-or like they were all

built in the same period and they had the same kind

of architecture, and normally it was like sort of the

same-or like uh same kind of demographic of

people living there. (Interview)

Lucy may revert back to her previous city because it

lends itself easily to a more standard definition of neigh-

borhood. Difficulties in defining the neighborhood by our

participants were often followed by their use of actions to

define their neighborhood.

Defining Neighborhoods: What It is

Figure 1 shows an overlay of participant-drawn boundaries

for their neighborhoods. The figure also marks locations

where they took pictures they chose to display at several

photo exhibitions they organized, as well as include in a

calendar they created and distributed throughout Live Oak.

A few aspects are worth noting.

First, there are large differences in the size of partici-

pants’ neighborhoods. The smallest neighborhood (Mar-

cos’) includes a few blocks whereas the largest one

(Julio’s) encompasses almost all of Live Oak. What is

especially salient is that Marcos and Julio lived in the same

household. Barbie also constructed a large neighborhood.

Variability in neighborhood size is consistent with other

research (Coulton et al. 2001, 2004, 2012; Kruger 2007;

Lee and Campbell 1997). One pattern is between neigh-

borhood size and civic engagement. Marcos was probably

the least civically engaged participant, and Julio and Barbie

were likely the most civically engaged in the group, but in

quite different ways. Julio, for example, organized through

community-based institutions in ways that were legible and

consistent with much of the civic engagement literature

(e.g., get out the vote campaigns, working to increase

country-sponsored services for immigrants and youth).

Barbie, on the other hand, engaged the community in ways

that were less visible in the civic engagement literature

(e.g., providing housing a few days a week for a homeless

man, distributing items donated to her in her low-income

housing complex).

Next, pictures taken to describe the neighborhood were

not always within that person’s self-generated neighbor-

hood boundaries. For example, none of Marcos’ exhibit

photos fall within his self-defined boundaries. Also, there is

only one picture of the east side of Live Oak, an area with a

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133 127

123

strong (anti-Live Oak) identity (even though it is in Live

Oak). Yet, this area was included in neighborhood maps for

Carl, Jack, Julio, and Nancy. The one picture taken was on a

private beach and considered resistance against the priv-

atization of public spaces (Julio, personal communication,

6/21/2013). Also, no pictures displayed in exhibitions were

taken north of the highway (a strong neighborhood divider);

the only people to include this area in their maps were

Barbie and Julio. Yet, 20 of the 22 pictures taken and shown

by participants in exhibits or in the calendar were within

Debbie’s self-defined neighborhood boundaries. Her self-

defined neighborhood essentially included the most central

area of Live Oak. This finding likely means that

neighborhood boundaries were somewhat flexible and per-

haps dependent on context. Future research should examine

the mutability of neighborhood boundaries.

Neighborhoods, however, are more than map boundaries.

Indeed, many pictures were based on participant’s encoun-

ters with the place or characteristics of the environment they

valued, such as the beach, a live oak tree, or a local market.

Beyond the photographs lied a broader neighborhood

meaning, and these meanings were often informed by the

participant’s interactions and reflections of the social-phys-

ical setting. Table 2 provides complimentary information

regarding codes used by each participant when defining their

neighborhoods, as well as describing and discussing their

Fig. 1 Map of self-generated residential neighborhoods and photo

locations. Note Thinner lines represent Inland participants’ neighbor-

hood boundaries. Thicker lines represent Beachfront participants’

neighborhood boundaries. Circular placemarks with diamonds rep-

resent locations for pictures taken by Inland neighborhood residents.

Pushpins represent locations for pictures taken by Beachfront

neighborhood residents. In all cases, names represent who took the

photograph. For direct link to the interactive on-line map, please visit

the following website: http://goo.gl/maps/CXgAU

128 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133

123

neighborhoods. In many cases, participants used ecological

and constructivist concepts to define their neighborhood in

their interviews (Barbie, Debbie, Lucy, Carl, and Jack). Two

participants, however, used only ecological concepts (Nancy

and Cathy) and one used only constructivist ideas (Julio).

Some constructivist explanations were used to characterize a

physical aspect of the neighborhood, or to further describe a

value or meaning attached to the infrastructure (e.g., build-

ings, parks, streets). Also, the use of demographics to

describe the neighborhood appeared among those who used

fewer constructivist explanations (Cathy, Debbie, Lucy, and

Carl). Yet, all used a combination of ecological and con-

structivist concepts during photovoice sessions when dis-

cussing their neighborhoods.

Definition differences varied by neighborhood. Specifi-

cally, Beachfront neighborhood participants defined

neighborhood more frequently using ecological ideas,

whereas the people living in the Inland area used both

ecological and constructivist descriptions. Given that the

Beachfront area is considered a more legible neighborhood

compared to the Inland area, it is not surprising that

Beachfront residents would use more ecological markers,

such as geography (e.g., beach), infrastructure (e.g.,

streets), and demographics to describe their neighborhoods.

Although some neighborhood definitions were com-

prised of ecological explanations, particularly among those

who identified with a more clearly bounded region, many

of the participants, when describing the characteristics of

their neighborhood, referred to social interactions and/or

day-to-day activities to describe and locate their neigh-

borhood boundaries. This finding is consistent with the

literature that suggests that neighborhood identification is

facilitated by having a sense of place (Hay 1998), which is

characterized by place attachment, involving personal and

social/relational interactions within the setting.

Among the participants who used constructivist codes to

define their neighborhood, civic engagement was a com-

mon code. Although civic engagement is beyond the focus

of this paper, evidence suggests that having place attach-

ment, fostered through social interactions, and an aware-

ness of the ecological character—such as the lack of

resources or infrastructure—can be a precursor to com-

munity participation (Manzo and Perkins 2006).

The rest of the results provide more detail of how these

photovoice participants defined their neighborhoods.

Recall that the photovoice prompts were: ‘‘What makes up

your neighborhood? What do you like about your neigh-

borhood? What would you like to change about your

Table 2 Neighborhood information

Participant Map description Neighborhood definition Ecologi-cal

codes (%)

Construct-ivist

codes (%)

Civic engage.

codesa (Freq.

and %)

Inland neighborhood

Barbie Core of Live Oak. Excludes

east side. Map extends into

Santa Cruz

Physicality (streets); Social

interactions

48 52 11 (6)

Cathy No map Physicality (buildings, parks, streets);

Demographics

62 38 8 (4)

Juana No map No interview 36 64 3 (14)

Julio All of Live Oak, plus some

areas of Soquel and Capitola

Sense of community; social

interactions; values

48 52 60 (20)

Marcos Two to three streets only No interview 78 22 0 (0)

Mike No map No interview 25 75 0 (0)

Steve No map No interview 75 25 5 (16)

Beachfront neighborhood

Carl Southeast side of Live Oak Physicality (streets); Demographics;

Values; Geography

65 35 5 (4)

Debbie Core of Live Oak. Excludes

north of freeway and east side

Social interactions; Physicality

(school); Demographics, Values

66 34 1 (1)

Jack South/central Live Oak Physicality (streets; church); Social

Interactions

54 46 7 (5)

Lucy No map Physicality; Demographics; Resources 52 48 6 (5)

Nancy South side of Live Oak Physicality 58 42 9 (5)

Italics indicate which set of codes each participant used most frequentlya Civic engagement codes are a subset of constructivist codes and are included in the constructivist total. They are listed separately to assess

which participants defined neighborhood via civic engagement

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133 129

123

neighborhood?’’ The first question was designed to help

participants think about what features defined their neigh-

borhood. Yet, instead of focusing only on the ecological

characteristics, participants talked mostly of shared values,

meanings, and other symbolic aspects. Through a con-

structivist way of understanding the neighborhood, which

ties physical structures to personal meanings, we can begin

to see how people’s neighborhood definitions, despite the

low legibility of the area, relate to their identification with

the place in which they live.

Social Interactions Tied to Geography

Most people define their neighborhood based on geography

and many tie regions to social interactions (Guest and Lee

1984; Lee and Campbell 1997). At times, our participants

also used social interactions to define neighborhood (13 %

of the codes), often placing those interactions within

geography. Consider Carl and Julio’s responses:

Interviewer Do you belong to a specific neighborhood,

you think?

Carl Well, sort of. I sort of belong to a neigh-

borhood. It is my street, it’s a cul-de-sac…Although I don’t know that I intimately

belong there like some of the others, ‘cause

there’s families that live there and I don’t have

a family so I’m a little bit different than the

rest of them. But, you know, I interact with

them and don’t have any problems with them

or anything. (Interview)

Interviewer How do you define neighborhood?

Julio It could be 2 or 3 houses or an apartment

complex or a mobile home park, um,

Queensley Street, it’s like when I lived on

Queensley Street and I knew everyone on the

street, when I was growing up my parents

made every effort to get to know everybody,

so it’s like, that was really the true meaning

of neighborhood for me. (Interview)

As expected, Carl and Julio provided geographic

markers to delineate their neighborhoods, yet this was

insufficient. Carl noted that most households were com-

prised of families, leaving him feeling slightly separate

from his neighbors. Carl’s statement suggests that his

social interactions (‘‘I interact with them and don’t have

any problems with them’’) also shaped his neighborhood

meaning. Given what appears to be ambivalence about his

neighborhood, perhaps it is not surprising that none of

Carl’s exhibition or calendar photos are located within his

self-defined neighborhood boundaries. In other studies,

participant-taken pictures are used to assess place attach-

ment (Lewicka 2011). His interview, combined with his

neighborhood map and photo locations, may indicate that

Carl does not feel particularly attached to his neighbor-

hood. Yet, despite feeling different, social interactions

allowed him to claim the street as his neighborhood.

Similar to Carl’s neighborhood definition, Julio considered

his neighborhood to be his street and those around it, but a

focus on distance only was insufficient; he also included

social interactions.

Perhaps because of troublesome misconceptions of what

counted as Live Oak, participants considered social inter-

actions when describing their neighborhood. Indeed,

common values, goals, ideals, and perceptions can be a

way to increase place attachment (Lewicka 2005). For our

participants, even though there was not consensus when

defining their neighborhoods, social interactions were a

common demarcation of their neighborhood. This fact

lends some evidence to the supposition that social networks

might be a way to understand neighborhoods (DeMarco

and DeMarco 2010). Yet, these results imply a different

directionality between place attachment, social relation-

ships, and place-based civic action. Specifically, some

researchers argue that place attachments can be used to

build social relationships, which creates a foundation for

social action (Brown et al. 2003; Lewicka 2005). The

findings from this study, however, imply that when there is

little place attachment to the local region, social relation-

ships might serve as a better starting point for building

place attachment and subsequently, place-based civic

action. This directionality is consistent with recent theo-

retical conceptualizations, albeit for Italian adolescents

(Lenzi et al. 2013), and is aligned with the emphasis that

some researchers place on social ties as a necessary pre-

cursor to civic participation (Lewicka 2005).

Place-Mediated Values

Some define neighborhood based on sense of community

(around 40 %), which includes cohesion, friendliness, and

concern for others (Guest and Lee 1984; Lee and Campbell

1997). Considering our study, some defined their neigh-

borhood based on sense of community (7 % of codes), but

more specifically, they discussed shared values (16 % of

codes), especially around building community within

neighborhoods. In a photovoice session, Debbie described

the importance of fostering community:

I just wrote something that kind of expresses Live

Oak […] In between the communities of Santa Cruz

and Capitola is an ever-growing population unoffi-

cially known as Live Oak. A quiet location with large

parcels where chickens are raised and horses are

allowed, and small-time contractors can still drool

with dreams of development; a community where

130 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133

123

neighbors talk over the fence, meet at the beach, and

converge through interest groups to share joys,

express anxieties, and create a spiritual soul. A

community with diversity of culture, wealth, resour-

ces, and living experiences-[a community] where I

moved to raise my children and where my children,

and where their children are proud to call home. So, I

think the generations stay and continue to grow here,

and I’m really proud that we are neighbors. (Photo-

voice Session, Week 7)

Although Live Oak has official recognition, Debbie

refers to it as ‘‘unofficial,’’ which captures her experience

of living in an unincorporated area with low legibility. For

Debbie, the physical characteristics of the neighborhood

are changing, but what remains is her connection to her

neighbors, as well as her hopes to have Live Oak be a home

for generations. Such values were commonly shared among

many participants, and were values they believed were

mutually held by their neighbors. These shared values

become more salient for defining the neighborhood, per-

haps more than physical characteristics and/or geographic

landmarks. Debbie’s statement is consistent with place

attachment literature suggesting that positive emotional

bonds connected to a place can lead people to maintain

their connection to the place (Hernandez et al. 2007).

Another place-mediated value that was identified by

some residents as being important for defining neighbor-

hood was valuing ethnic and language diversity. Lucy, for

example, wrote the following narrative to accompany one

of her photographs:

I love the colors in this shot! To me they are evoc-

ative of the diversity of Live Oak. This picture was

taken outside La Esperanza Market, right behind my

house. I often stop there for chilies, cilantro, avoca-

dos, and other cheap produce. I practice my Spanish

with the people working there. It feels ‘homey’ to

walk down the street to this brightly colored market.

(Photovoice Session, Week 9)

La Esperanza Market helped mediate Lucy’s social

interactions with the Latina/o Spanish-speaking community

in Live Oak, and this was important because of the high

value she placed on ethnic diversity. Yet, research indicates

that demographic diversity often lowers place attachment

(Lewicka 2011). Lucy’s comments are directly at odds with

this literature.

Place-mediated values, arising from place-based mem-

bership or sense of place and the incorporation of common

beliefs, dreams and pride, was important for defining

neighborhood and building community in Live Oak. The

value placed on a relational community, as well as on

cultural diversity and linguistic exchange is part of some of

the participants’ neighborhood definitions. Both Debbie’s

and Lucy’s statements, for example, demonstrate how

place-mediated values informed their community experi-

ences and neighborhood pride, as well as their hopes for

their neighborhood. Moreover, place-mediated values

connect emotion and experience.

Civic Engagement

Participation in community activities or events was another

way that our participants defined their neighborhood (10 %

of codes). For example, when Julio was asked by the

interviewer to define his neighborhood, he said:

Well a neighborhood can be [religious] congrega-

tions, it could be this whole network of schools; it

could be the WHOLE COUNTY. It’s people coming

together and doing something collectively and really

getting to know each other and building relationships

and, really, THOSE ARE NEIGHBORS…So it’s like

neighbors could go across the whole county; it’s just

like, we’re all one really. (Interview)

Julio describes the neighborhood as a congregation or

group that gathers to share experiences, with the hopes of

encouraging others to organize toward making changes in

their community. Julio emphasizes communication and

getting involved in neighborhood issues. For him, neigh-

borhood is defined as connections forged and maintained

through civic engagement. This was also represented in his

map, where he marked his neighborhood as all of Live

Oak.

Civic engagement is a way to define neighborhood

because it facilitates communication and social interac-

tions. When there is little infrastructure to bring people

together, social networks [which is one way to define

neighborhoods (DeMarco and DeMarco 2010)] can be

developed via civic engagement. It brings people together

with a common purpose. Moreover, civic engagement

creates a broader definition of neighborhood. Indeed, when

community members improve their lives through local

engagement, there is a sense of community accountability,

and the capacity to enact civic engagement is more likely

(Nowell et al. 2006).

Conclusions, Limitations, Implications,

and Recommendations

Despite interest in defining the neighborhood, few studies

have assessed unincorporated areas. Yet these regions are

important because planning processes often result in het-

erogeneous infrastructure that is quite different compared

to urban areas. This heterogeneity can produce low

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133 131

123

legibility. When asked, our participants had varied defini-

tions of what area comprised their neighborhoods. Perhaps

this disagreement was also related to more variability in

demographic characteristics than one would find in many

urban or suburban neighborhoods. Although there was

disagreement regarding boundaries, some common ground

was found in neighborhood definitions that were based on

social interactions and values, often rooted in geographic

places.

When considering the communities that form in rural

areas, DeMarco and DeMarco (2010) wonder if social

networks might be a meaningful unit of analysis. Their

query is based on literature indicating that those in rural

areas sometimes organize around a community institution,

such as a church. Although our research does not answer

their question, it adds evidence to the supposition that

social connections may be appropriate for understanding

how neighborhood is defined outside of cities and in areas

with low legibility. Indeed, if our codes are collapsed into a

grand code of social aspects as neighborhood defining

characteristics, then 47 % of the data would fit under this

code, but only 26 % would fit under geography or land-

marks. Julio’s definition of neighborhood speaks most

clearly to this idea, when he argues that neighborhood

could be the entire county, if people are connected. We

therefore join with DeMarco and DeMarco (2010) and

encourage other researchers to assess how social networks

and/or relationships serve to define meaningful communi-

ties for those living in low legibility areas like unincor-

porated and rural regions, or even in incorporated areas

with low neighborhood legibility.

Although this study seems to be one of the first to

address some challenges of assessing and defining the

unincorporated neighborhood, it is not without limitations.

Some participants, particularly those from under-repre-

sented backgrounds, left the project. Second, the sample

size was small. Yet, this year-long photovoice project

allowed for an in-depth examination of how these residents

define their neighborhood in an unincorporated, low legi-

bility area, and was not small by photovoice standards.

This allows us to pose several implications.

Depending on the research question, assessing the

neighborhood becomes a challenge when limited to purely

geographic or demographic approaches because these

methods may not explain experiences that likely contribute

to neighborhood development (Coulton et al. 2012; DeM-

arco and DeMarco 2010; Pierce 2010); this may be espe-

cially true in heterogeneous, unincorporated areas with low

legibility. This issue may explain why some studies show

weak relations between neighborhoods and resident expe-

riences (Coulton et al. 2001).

How residents define neighborhoods has implications for

place-based civic participation, which is often constrained

by the difficulty in establishing a common understanding of

the area and its neighborhoods. Specifically, defining the

neighborhood based solely on geographic characteristics

may create challenges when organizing in a community

with neighborhood ambiguity, as was the case in Live Oak.

Indeed, research indicates that people need to feel con-

nected to their place to engage in place-based organizing

(Brown et al. 2003; Lenzi et al. 2013). Therefore, a

framework incorporating neighborhood characteristics with

actions, such as social interactions, place mediated values,

and civic engagement is necessary to understand the

neighborhood and facilitate community building in an

unincorporated and low legibility area.

Reflecting on the photovoice project, we have garnered

insights. When considering the lack of place identification

among participants, we should not underestimate the value

of social interactions, not only among people but also

person-place interactions. Second, creating public spaces

where interactions can be fostered is perhaps a necessary

investment, particularly in unincorporated areas with low

legibility. Some examples of these public spaces include

parks and community centers. By creating settings like

these, people can access more opportunities to get involved

in and/or build community, as well as advocate of behalf of

their community.

We have several recommendations for the Live Oak

Family Resource Center. Live Oak’s legibility could be

increased by placing ‘‘Welcome to Live Oak’’ signs in key

areas. Focusing on the shared values and fate of the com-

munity may also be fruitful. Moreover, the Resource

Center and other groups can create interventions where

people share stories and discuss common desires, experi-

ences, and dreams for their community. The photovoice

group engaged in similar acts through creating photo

exhibitions at their library and farmer’s market, as well as

at a coffee shop and a county building. More activities like

these (i.e., that are participatory and interactive) could help

residents to see their similarities, which should then facil-

itate greater place attachment, place identity and civic

engagement (Brown et al. 2003; Lewicka 2005, 2011).

We have focused on this unincorporated area to draw

attention to a social justice issue. Unincorporated areas can

give insights into how communities develop assets, despite

limited political and economic support. Our participants

overcame their ‘‘solo’’ (e.g., alone, isolated) status (a term

used by Julio) by defining their neighborhood based on

social interactions with neighbors, as well as by attaching

values to places and interactions. These interactions can be

an important pre-cursor to place-based civic action (Lew-

icka 2005). Indeed, in our study, these interactions helped

mediate participants’ place values, including what should

be changed, preserved, and cared for. This interest in

improving their community is important because it can

132 Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133

123

serve as the groundwork for facilitating community

development and civic engagement efforts, particularly in

under-represented and understudied areas, like Live Oak.

Acknowledgments This research was supported through a grant

from the Center for Justice, Tolerance, and Community, and a Social

Sciences Junior Faculty Research Grant to the second author. Addi-

tional support came from a Cota-Robles Fellowship to the first author.

The authors wish to thank the Live Oak Neighborhood team, and

especially the contributions of Maelise M. Blosse and Sarah Flam.

Also, thanks to all the photovoice participants, the Live Oak Family

Resource Center, and Diane Choplin. We also wish to acknowl-

edge our participant, ‘‘Mario,’’ who was murdered after this project

concluded.

References

Brown, B., Perkins, D. D., & Brown, G. (2003). Place attachment in a

revitalizing neighborhood: Individual and block levels of

analysis. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 23, 259–271.

Coulton, C., Cook, T., & Irwin, M. (2004). Aggregation issues in

neighborhood research: A comparison of several levels of census

geography and resident defined neighborhoods. http://digital

case.case.edu:9000/fedora/get/ksl:2006052511/Cook-Agression-

2004.pdf.

Coulton, C. J., Jennings, M. Z., & Chan, T. (2012). How big is my

neighborhood? Individual and contextual effects on perceptions

of neighborhood scale. American Journal of Community Psy-

chology, 50, 1–11.

Coulton, C. J., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping

residents’ perceptions of neighborhood boundaries: A method-

ological note. American Journal of Community Psychology, 29,

371–383.

Cristoforetti, A., Gennai, F., & Rodeschini, G. (2011). Home sweet

home: The emotional construction of places. Journal of Aging

Studies, 25, 225–232.

DeMarco, A., & DeMarco, M. (2010). Conceptualization and

measurement of the neighborhood in rural settings: A systematic

review of the literature. Journal of Community Psychology, 38,

99–114.

Foster Fishman, P., Nowell, B., Deacon, Z., Nievar, M. A., &

McCann, P. (2005). Using methods that matter: The impact of

reflection, dialogue, and voice. American Journal of Community

Psychology, 36(3/4), 275–291.

Galster, G. (2001). On the nature of neighborhood. Urban Studies, 38,

2111–2124.

Genereux, R. L., Ward, L. M., & Russell, J. A. (1983). The behavioral

component in the meaning of places. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 3, 43–55.

Glaser, B. G., & Strauss, A. L. (1967). The discovery of grounded

theory: Strategies for qualitative research. Chicago: Aldine

Publishing Company.

Grannis, R. (1998). The importance of trivial streets: Residential

streets and residential segregation. American Journal of Sociol-

ogy, 106, 1530–1564.

Guest, A. M., & Lee, B. A. (1984). How urbanites define their

neighborhoods. Population and Environment, 7, 32–56.

Guo, J. Y., & Bhat, C. R. (2007). Operationalizing the concept of

neighborhood: Application to residential location by choice

analysis. Journal of Transport Geography, 15, 31–45.

Hay, R. (1998). Sense of place in developmental context. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 18, 5–29.

Hernandez, B., Hidalgo, M. C., Salazar-Laplace, M. E., & Hess, S.

(2007). Place attachment and place identity in natives and non-

natives. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 27, 310–319.

Hunter, A. (1979). The urban neighborhood: Its analytical and social

contexts. Urban Affairs Quarterly, 14, 267–288.

Keller, S. (1968). The urban neighborhood. New York: Random

House.

King, D. W., Snipes, S. A., Herrera, A. P., & Jones, L. A. (2009).

Health and healthcare perspectives of African American resi-

dents of an unincorporated community: A qualitative assess-

ment. Health and Place, 15, 420–428.

Kruger, D. J. (2007). Verifying the operational definition of

neighborhood for the psychosocial impact of structural deteri-

oration. Journal of Community Psychology, 36, 53–60.

Lee, B. A., & Campbell, K. E. (1997). Common ground? Urban

neighborhoods as survey respondents see them. Social Science

Quarterly, 78, 922–936.

Lenzi, M., Vieno, A., Pastore, M., & Santinello, M. (2013).

Neighborhood social connectedness and adolescent civic

engagement: An integrative model. Journal of Environmental

Psychology, 34, 45–54.

Lewicka, M. (2005). Ways to make people active: The role of place-

attachment, cultural capital, and neighborhood ties. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 25, 381–395.

Lewicka, M. (2011). Place attachment: How far have we come in the

last 40 years? Journal of Environmental Psychology, 31, 207–230.

Manzo, L., & Perkins, D. (2006). Finding common ground: The

importance of place attachment to community participation and

planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 20, 335–350.

Martin, D. G. (2003). Enacting neighborhood. Urban Geography, 24,

361–385.

Nicotera, N. (2007). Measuring neighborhood: A conundrum for

human services researchers and practitioners. American Journal

of Community Psychology, 40, 26–51.

Nowell, B. L., Berkowitz, S. L., Deacon, Z., & Foster-Fishman, P.

(2006). Revealing the cues within community places: Stories of

identity, history, and possibility. American Journal of Commu-

nity Psychology, 37, 29–46.

Pierce, S. J. (2010). Using geostatistical models to study neighbor-

hood effects: An alternative to using hierarchical linear models

(Doctoral Dissertation). Retrieved from Proquest Dissertations

and Theses Database (UMI No. 3417821).

Prilleltensky, I. (2012). Wellness as fairness. American Journal of

Community Psychology, 49, 1–21.

Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-

identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 3, 57–83.

Smaldone, D., Harris, C., & Sanyal, N. (2005). An exploration of

place as a process: The case of Jackson Hole, WY. Journal of

Environmental Psychology, 25, 397–414.

Sokolow, A. D. (2000). Caring for unincorporated communities.

Retrieved May 10, 2011 from California Counties Magazine.

http://www.sanlorenzoexpress.com/unincorp.htm.

Stoneall, L. (1983). Where are you from? A case study of rural

residential identification. Qualitative Sociology, 6, 51–65.

Valera, S., & Pol, E. (2002). El concepto de identidad social urbana:

Una aproximacion entre la psicologıa social y la psicologıa

ambiental. Anuario de Psicologıa, 62, 5–24.

Vidal, T., & Pol, E. (2005). La apropiacion del espacio: Una propuesa

teorica para la comprender la vinculacion entre las persona y los

lugares. Anuario de Psicologia, 36, 281–297.

Wang, C. C., & Burris, M. A. (1994). Empowerment through photo

novellas: Portraits of participation. Health Education Quarterly,

21, 171–186.

Am J Community Psychol (2014) 53:122–133 133

123