GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
DOI 10.1007/s10708-009-9331-4
The significance of quality of life and sustainability
at the urban–rural fringe in the making of place-based
community
Marie Mahon • Frances Fahy • Micheál Ó Cinnéide
Published online: 7 November 2009
 Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2009
Abstract Understandings of community in urban–
rural fringe locations in Ireland are explored in this
paper. As a specific space at the interface between the
urban and the rural the fringe incorporates processes
of rapid physical, social, and demographic change.
These give rise to a range of complex and often
competing dynamics, that impact on people and place
in a variety of ways. Among the main preoccupations
and concerns in these rapidly evolving fringe loca-
tions are those relating to what can broadly be
described as ‘quality of life’. How this concept is
understood across different groups situated within the
spatial setting of the fringe, and how it influences the
development of a sustainable community there, are
central to this discussion. Drawing on household
interviews from four case-study locations surround-
ing Galway City, Ireland, this paper examines how
quality of life is experienced across a range of social
and spatial dimensions that relate to these locations,
and the extent to which they provide a common set of
interests around which community may be built.
From a wider knowledge perspective, it contributes to
debates about how the concept of community
provides explanatory power regarding the way in
which individuals are associated with one another on
M. Mahon (&)
F. Fahy
M. Ó Cinnéide
School of Geography and Archaeology, National
University of Ireland Galway, University Road,
Galway, Ireland
e-mail: marie.mahon@nuigalway.ie
the basis of a set of shared interests or concerns
within a particular spatial setting.
Keywords Quality of life

Sustainable communities
Locality

Urban-rural fringe
Ireland
Introduction
Over the last decade or so, Ireland has experienced a
period of sustained economic and social prosperity,
leading to a boom in residential development, much
of which has taken place at the rural fringes of large
urban centres, and in adjacent rural villages which
typically had not previously experienced high rates of
expansion (Williams and Shiels 2000). Although
undergoing rapid processes of physical, social, eco-
nomic and demographic transformation, fringe loca-
tions in Ireland continue to be regarded by both new and
long-established residents as possessing many attributes
which are popularly associated with good quality of life.
Such dimensions often include highly-valued physical
characteristics that are linked to rurality, as well as
certain social characteristics that relate to a sense of
community, neighbourliness, and feelings of safety and
security (van Dam et al. 2002; Mahon 2007). However,
they also draw on more broadly-based understandings.
Traditional sustainability issues such as transport, waste
management, pollution, and access to facilities and
green spaces are aspects of place that are highlighted in
123
266
research into factors contributing to quality of life at the
local level (Fahy and Ó Cinnéide 2008). In the Irish
context, recent research has emerged exploring quality
of life at the periphery of cities (see for example Leyden
2003; Corcoran et al. 2007). Overall, however, the way
that these dimensions of place matter at the fringe,
whether they provide the basis for a set of shared
interests or common concerns among residents, and
how these interests might be orchestrated to reflect a
collective wish to sustain these dimensions are not well
understood.
At the individual level, people’s lives are spread
across ever-widening domains which shape their sense
and experience of the local (Mormont 1990; Massey
1993; Massey and Jess 2003). Increasingly complex
sets of social relations stretch far beyond their
immediate locales and may not necessarily be robust
at the local level. Heightened modern-day expecta-
tions relating to material goods such as housing and
service provision may conflict with the notion of
sustainability and sustainable lifestyles (Michaelis
2002; Moser 2009). Related challenges linked to
planning for physical development reflect the
acknowledged desirability to retain rural and other
natural attributes of the fringe (Scott 2006). The issues
around establishing shared visions are particularly
pertinent in the context of fringe locations. The trend
has been towards a rapid influx of new populations,
who hold varying levels of local awareness and
connectedness (Waddington 2000). This adds addi-
tional complexity in trying to understand how a shared
consciousness may emerge and how it could be
promoted. The establishment of common and shared
interests at the level of local place is linked with the
concept of social capital (Bourdieu 1986; Putnam
1993, 1995, 2000). However, the debate around social
capital, how it should be conceptualised, how it
emerges, and whose interests it might serve, is
complex and evolving (Foley and Edwards 1999).
Research problem and methodology
The primary aim of this paper is to explore how social
and spatial dimensions of place, i.e. the urban–rural
fringe, provide a shared set of interests around which
community is built. Among the key questions
being explored therefore are whether community at
the fringe may have a collective consciousness of
123
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
place-related quality of life dimensions, whether there
is commitment to sustaining these, and, if so, how they
are mobilised to form the basis for sustainable
development of community at the urban–rural inter-
face. Field investigations were undertaken in four
rapidly developing satellite villages on the fringes of
Galway City, as part of a wider study of quality of life
in the area (Fahy and Ó Cinnéide 2008). The environs
of Galway City, situated on the west coast of Ireland,
have been the focus of intensive residential develop-
ment over the past decade or more. The 2002 Census
recorded a population of 143,245 in County Galway,
excluding Galway City. By 2006, this figure had
increased by 11% to 159,052. This represents an
increase of 27,439 or 20.8% compared with 1996.
Rural population growth between 1996 and 2006 was
reflected in significant growth within some electoral
divisions (EDs) particularly in the areas adjoining the
boundary with Galway City (Galway County Council
2009, p. 12).
The four satellite villages representing the foci of
this research are Barna, Oranmore, Moycullen and
Clarinbridge, each of which is located within 15 km
of Galway City boundary. Substantial population
increase throughout the past decade or more has been
a feature of these villages. A nested random sample
totalling 150 households was drawn from townlands
in the immediate environs of each village location,
and in rough proportion to their population (Table 1).
This sampling procedure was undertaken in recogni-
tion of the paramount importance of local context in
the assessment of quality of life. Kemp et al. (2005,
p. 15) note that ‘what is most needed, appropriate and
workable always depends heavily on the context’.
Prior to the fieldwork, advertisements were placed
in the local press to highlight the research and inform
the public about the study. Each interview took
approximately 10–20 min to complete. A represen-
tative (aged over 18 years old) from each household
selected from the Electoral Register participated in
the interviews. Fieldwork and data analysis were
conducted between March and August 2007.
Amongst a wider range of quality of life issues
raised with respondents was a series of questions
relating to (a) their level of awareness of local issues
that were of particular concern in the locality, (b)
how active they were in trying to influence issues of
local concern, and (c) how frequently they engaged in
locally organised groups or activities to pursue these
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
Table 1 Research areas,
Electoral Number
sample size, and
division of
characteristics of areas
interviews
conducted
Oranmore 50
Clarinbridge 21
Moycullen 48
Barna 31
Total 150
issues. Respondents were also asked to rank the level
of provision of services and amenities. Another series
of questions probed respondents on (a) their per-
ceived level of influence over decisions that affected
their local area, and (b) their level of trust in other
residents within the area. They also were asked to
state how long they had lived in the locality, and
whether they felt a sense of belonging to their
neighbourhood. An analysis of the responses reveals
the extent to which respondents held a shared level of
awareness of, and concern for certain dimensions of
place that may be linked to wider concerns for quality
of life and sustainability. The findings are considered
in the light of the conceptual discussions that follow,
and some broad conclusions are advanced about the
emerging context for community in the fringe.
Community and place
Discussions on the nature and formation of community
have variously emphasised the role of place and
locality. Research has evolved within sociological and
geographical studies from the earlier rejection of
267
Population Characteristics
of (CSO 2006)
electoral
division
(CSO
2006)
2,749 Located 8 km to the east of the city, Oranmore is identified
as one of five Satellite Towns in the Galway County
Development Plan 2003–2009. One of the main roles of
satellite towns is to provide for the land use and
development needs of the Galway City environs.
1,145 Clarinbridge is located in South Galway, approximately
14 km south east of Galway city. Clarinbridge ED has
experienced a 43.6% increase in population from 2,092 in
2002 to 3,005 in 2006.
2,579 Located 10 km northwest of Galway City the population of
the ED of Moycullen experienced an increase of 36.8%
between 1996 and 2002.
1,660 Barna is a coastal village situated on the western edge of
Galway City, approximately 6.5 km west of the City
centre. The population of Barna ED increased 22.6%
between 2002 and 2006. This compares to an 11% growth
rate for County Galway, 9.3% for Galway City and 8.1%
for the State in the same period.
8,133
spatially deterministic locality approaches (Day and
Murdoch 1993) to a focus on locality as socially
constructed (Massey 1993; Day 2006). This approach
to understanding community takes account of individ-
uals’ increasing range of social networks far beyond
the local, but also points to opportunities for forming
local networks of their choosing, for example, in order
to develop communities of interest (Beck 2002;
Murray 2007). The implication is that there are
qualitatively distinct experiences of these spaces
(Meegan and Mitchell 2001). Drawing on concepts
of participatory democracy, Healey (2006) posits the
idea of individuals who co-exist in shared spaces, and
who collaborate to build what she terms ‘place-based
political community’. Such communities hold an
awareness of a diversity of backgrounds, experiences
and relations, and an acceptance of diversity of values.
There is at the same time an acknowledgement that
individuals hold common concerns about shared local
or neighbourhood spaces, and that collaboration
amongst neighbours can effect desired solutions to
neighbourhood issues.
Davies and Herbert (1993) highlight three key,
interrelated dimensions of community, all of which
123
268
infer the importance of a connection to place. These
include ‘areal content, (physical or social differences
in areas), ‘behaviour or interaction’ (people’s social
and economic contacts with others in and around
their area of residence), and ‘conceptual identity’
(relating to a sense of community and a sense of
place). This latter dimension refers to aspects such as
degree of rootedness of the population, degree of
satisfaction with the residential area, feelings of
safety and security, degree to which residents feel
they have control over the area in terms of influenc-
ing its future, and extent of social cohesion or
integration. Another important element they identify
in the emergence of place-based communities is the
presence of opportunities for networks of interaction
among residents (ibid. 1993). The ability of residents
to effectively promote and encourage broad compli-
ance with a shared place ideal is also facilitated by
the existence of such networks (Meegan and Mitchell
2001).
Murray (2007) explores the influence of location
and the notion of place attachment on identity
formation, through his study of community-based
protest. His contention is that communities are
increasingly being formed through ‘shared values,
ideas and identities’ (p. 123). He draws on Rou-
dometof’s (2005) ‘cosmopolitan-local continuum’,
enabling identity with a locality to be conceptualized
in terms of ‘degrees of attachment’ to it, which in
turn takes account of the influence of cosmopolitan or
local dispositions or outlooks on a place, and the way
they relate to each other on the continuum. Such
attachment communities are described as being in
continuous decline, as people’s social, economic, and
other networks increasingly reach beyond the bound-
aries of local neighbourhoods, and often convey a
sense of little need for neighbours or for a local,
place-based identity (Bridge et al. 2004; Ziller 2004).
The mechanics of engagement: the social capital
debate
The ability of individuals to achieve a collective vision
is predicated to a large extent on their capacities to
interact and collaborate. The dynamic behind collab-
orative action at the local level is most often linked
with the concept of social capital. However, the way
the concept is applied to interpret the presence of
123
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
certain resources that facilitate such action, and the
conditions under which it might emerge are subject to
ongoing debate (Foley and Edwards 1999; Shorthall
2008). One main theoretical strand underpinning the
interpretation of social capital is linked to the work of
Bourdieu (1986), who connects social capital to access
to resources via networks of social relationships.
Access to this capital, and therefore its reproduction, is
not driven by individual, utility-maximising behav-
iour, but through the ongoing building of networks of
connections, producing a sense of ‘durable obliga-
tions’ (ibid. p. 250). A second approach, advanced by
Coleman (1988, 1990), is that social capital can be
viewed in terms of obligations and expectations,
information potential, norms and effective sanctions,
and authority relations. Coleman’s conceptualisation
of relations has also been linked to ideas of self-
interestedness, rational choice and trust related to the
specific context in question. Both Bourdieu and
Coleman posit the concept of social relationships
which provide individuals with access to resources
that would not be available even with adequate human
and financial capital (Foley and Edwards 1999). Third,
social capital, as described by Putnam (1993, 1995) is
also a resource formed through the existence of dense
networks of association, but in this case, what is
produced is a capacity for civic engagement, arising
from the development of generalised social trust,
norms of reciprocity and co-operation, which facili-
tates the achievement of collective action and pro-
motes democracy. Putnam’s interpretation of social
capital emphasises certain dimensions that he regards
as critical to good governance. Principal among these
is his contention that social capital emerges from the
bottom up as the product of voluntary associational
networks at the local level, with particular emphasis
on face-to-face, horizontal relations among individu-
als (Whiteley 1999). This approach does not address
how and why such networks do or do not develop in
specific places, how exactly face-to-face interactions
translate into norms of trust, reciprocity and civic-
mindedness, or how social capital could be generated
for less altruistic or self-interested ends (DeFilippis
2001). The promotion and maintenance of social
capital has been particularly linked by some writers to
the issue of institutional trust and perceptions of the
state as democratic and acting in the public good (Levi
1998; Hooghe and Stolle 2003; Stolle 2003; Uslaner
2003).
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
Putnam’s conceptualisation of social capital has
focused research attention on the significance of
associational activity at the level of local groups for
generating norms of trust and reciprocity, which in
turn generate conditions under which social capital
emerges. However, Bourdieu and Coleman’s focus
on individuals’ access to networks of relations flags
the relevance of specific circumstances and condi-
tions which potentially influence production of and
access to social capital (Burt 2005; Woolcock and
Narayan 2006). In other words, this focus takes
account of the nature and density of networks, what
resources individuals may bring to them in terms of
physical and human capital endowments, the condi-
tions that might inhibit or promote these, how
successfully they may be accessed and mobilised to
produce and apply social capital in a collective sense
for a specific purpose, and how it can be appropriated
for other purposes (Roseland 2000). This implies an
understanding of social capital as highly context-
specific, and not an equally available resource to all
people in all circumstances (Coleman 1988; Foley
and Edwards 1999; Maloney et al. 2000).
To dwell or to engage: ‘measuring’ community
commitment
Much of the literature linking community with place,
identity and shared interests in certain dimensions of
place posits the notion of engagement as a means to
achieving these. The idea of engagement is also
inherent in concepts of social capital and civic society
(Coleman 1988; Coates et al. 2001). However, one of
the major challenges associated with conceptualising
community in the urban–rural fringe is that conven-
tional understandings of engagement are more prob-
lematic when applied to fringe populations that are
widely diverse in terms of their degree of social and
spatial embeddedness, and for whom more traditional
forms of identity based around space and place are
difficult to apply (Giddens 1991; Massey 1993, 2005)
At one level, the evidence for civic engagement in
these locales appears to be relatively low, whilst other
indicators suggest that a sense of connectedness at the
more informal, individual level is strong (Mahon and
Ó Cinnéide 2009). Gallent (2007) suggests that some
of the difficulties in understanding and accepting the
validity of changing forms of community lie in
269
prevailing conceptualisations of ‘dwelling’, and spe-
cifically, in the enduring notion that to dwell also
implies to engage.
Dwelling is hereby seen as a process, something
measurable, with the idea that different forms of
dwelling contribute more or less to the building of
‘community’, as measured through levels of engage-
ment that give rise to what is termed ‘interactive
productivity’ (Falk and Kilpatrick 2000, p. 93). For
example, individuals who live, work, shop and
socialise in a locality are seen as engaging in high
levels of interactive productivity. Under this norma-
tive conception, those forms of dwelling that con-
tribute more to interactive productivity are also those
which contribute to social capital and to building
community, particularly in traditional place-based
communities. The perception of sustainable commu-
nities is also inherent in this idea of engagement.
Drawing on the work of Heidegger (1971), Gallent
attempts to unpack these inbuilt assumptions around
dwelling as process, to explore the idea of ‘private
dwelling’ and its importance in enabling a sense of
self-identity and connection with place, without the
element of process; in other words, dwelling as
‘being’ rather than dwelling as ‘doing’ (Heidegger
1993). As such, individuals may not necessarily
engage, but do nevertheless contribute towards sus-
tainable community through the act of dwelling. This
idea of dwelling is highly significant in the context of
fringe locations, particularly in the case of new
residents whose motivations for moving to the fringe
involve specific lifestyle choices or other, more
functional factors (e.g. cost of housing), and may
not include any particular intention or desire to
engage locally in ways that would constitute interac-
tive productivity. Such individuals may even face
resistance to interaction at certain levels, reflecting
tensions between newcomers and longer-established
inhabitants (Moran 2007). Nevertheless, their pres-
ence in the form of dwelling also implies a resource
that has value for developing a shared, local
community identity.
Sustainability and quality of life as unifying
themes for community at the fringe
Sustainability is a critical but highly contested and
abstract concept. It is linked intrinsically with the
123
270
integration of ecological, economic and social con-
siderations at all geographic scales; people’s sense of
place and their relationship with nature and the
environment are critical in this regard (Cheney et al.
2004). At one level within the discourse of sustain-
able communities the term ‘sustainability’ is posited
as a social value, with many diverging views
regarding how to achieve it, and with a gap between
the rhetoric and empirical reality. As highlighted by
Evans and Percy (1999), however, it is the fact that
that people believe sustainability to be important is
what is paramount.
Over the past two decades there has been an
emerging body of literature exploring topics of
sustainable communities and visions of sustainable
localities. Local Agenda 21 (LA 21) is the global
blueprint for sustainable development agreed at the
1992 Earth Summit in Rio de Janeiro. LA 21 is the
mechanism that emerged to implement this plan
(Evans et al. 2005), and that has been the catalyst for
much of this work in both policy and academic
arenas. LA 21 is characterised by two key features:
Local action plans to achieve sustainability and a
bottom-up approach to the resolution of local issues.
Many of the problems and solutions outlined in LA
21 are grounded in local activities. Along with local
level government, citizens play vital roles in making
sustainable development happen. Bridger and Luloff
(1999, p. 380) state that ‘the locality is the level of
social organization where the consequences of envi-
ronmental degradation are most keenly felt and where
successful intervention is most noticeable’.
The term ‘sustainable communities’ was coined by
the UK government in an attempt to establish means
through which communities could improve under-
standing and action on issues such as waste, transport,
energy, pollution and nature conservation (Davies
2002). Barton’s (2002) research on sustainable com-
munity planning at the local level across the UK in
the late 1990s demonstrates that certain visions of a
sustainable locality were predominant in all cases.
These included a visually appealing, safe and green
neighbourhood, which is uncongested and free from
pollution; a sense of local community and access to
facilities and friends both locally and regionally
(Barton 2002). It is interesting to note that, although
there were differences between those who conjured
visions of a vibrant city and those who envisioned a
rural idyll, there were more similarities than
123
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
differences between the key elements of these
visions. Both village and urban inhabitants longed
for an ‘‘attractive, convivial and healthy place that
balances privacy with community and local provision
with city access’’ (Barton 2002, p. 11). While the
literature relating to sustainable communities is quite
wide ranging, the importance of sustainability in the
local context constantly emerges: ‘Sustainability
must be a locally defined and locally acceptable
construct, no matter how it is framed at international
and national scale’ (Voisey et al. 1996, p. 35). It is
argued that sustainable development rooted in place-
based communities has the advantage of flexibility.
Of importance in terms of its role in building
dimensions of community, definitions of sustainable
community development emphasise the key chal-
lenge of balancing development objectives with
environmental concerns, while at the same time
enhancing local social relations (Bridger and Luloff
1999).
Policies and strategies for sustainable develop-
ment at the local level are strongly influenced by
quality of life considerations. The prospect of
generating improvements to quality of life at the
local level and indeed at the level of the individual
incentivises local effort towards sustainable activity
(Fahy and Ó Cinnéide 2008). Although quality of
life is increasingly accepted as an essential element
of sustainability, there is little consensus on what
quality of life constitutes or how it should be
included (Bell and Morse 1999). A useful categor-
isation is provided by Bowling (2005) who distin-
guishes between macro and micro determinates of
quality of life. Macro factors incorporate societal
influences such as employment, income, housing and
education, as well as elements of the built environ-
ment (Seasons 2005). Micro aspects encompass
individuals’ values, experiences and perceptions.
Other definitions stress the importance of both
subjective states of satisfaction with life and the
environment (Cutter 1985), possession of sufficient
resources (Bowling 2005), and access to services
and facilities (Kline 2001).
Evidence from the fringe
The following section reports the responses of indi-
viduals residing in four urban–rural fringe locations to
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278 271

a range of questions pertaining to quality of life across attributes, certain of which run contrary to notions of
a number of physical and social dimensions of place. the rural, even though they may be within the
They establish the place-based issues that are of parameters of sustainability. Broad agreement on
particular concern to residents, the degree to which quality of life dimensions demonstrates the existence
they reflect evidence of a common set of shared of strong shared values about place. The clear sense
community interests, and the extent to which residents of neighbourliness and trust articulated by many
wish to ‘engage’ and at what levels, to promote their respondents suggest the existence of social networks,
shared place ideals. Of relevance then is whether although there was little evidence to indicate that
associational activity appears to form part of the these extended much beyond the informal level.
dynamic in this view of community, or whether The degree of concern with local issues that may
community may be identified and acknowledged in adversely impact on quality of life and sustainability
other ways. Also assessed is the extent to which is summarised in Table 3. The vast majority of
certain dimensions of place reflect an association with respondents did not have serious concerns in regard
quality of life, and how these were linked with notions to most issues. However, three areas in which
of sustainability. concerns were raised related to traffic, insensitive
building development (mainly comprised of addi-
Quality of life—identifying ‘shared’ values tional housing estates) and litter.
In a further exploration of perceptions relating to
Table 2 summarises the most important place-based factors impacting on quality of life dimensions,
attributes that were identified as contributing signif- respondents were asked to rate on a scale of 1–10,
icantly to satisfaction with quality of life in the local their level of satisfaction with a range of local services
areas. The most frequently reported physical attribute and facilities available to them. The results as
was the peace and quiet of these locations, which still presented in Table 4 are in the form of mean values
possessed strong elements of rural village settings. for each service or facility. What is immediately
Other, related physical aspects featuring strongly evident is that all services were ranked well below the
included the existence of green surrounds and scenic maximum score of 10, indicating a strong level of
views. Prominent among the social dimensions were dissatisfaction on this front. Bus services and cycling
features such as good neighbours, community spirit, facilities were regarded as particularly inadequate,
personal safety and trust. The importance of ameni- with the poor level of provisions of playgrounds for
ties was also highlighted, providing an acknowledge- children also singled out. Inadequate public transport
ment that quality of life in contemporary fringe services and cycling facilities were, in turn, linked
locations is conditioned by access to a broader set of with escalating traffic problems in these areas, by
creating an over-reliance on private car transport.
Table 2 Attributes contributing to quality of life One respondent, who had recently retired from
Dublin city, moved to the area because of the ‘lovely
Attribute Rating 1 Rating 2 Rating 3
natural environment, proximity to the sea, and the
No. % No. % No. % quality of life’. However, she expressed a number of
strong opinions highlighting how the ‘amount of
Good neighbours 19 12.7 16 10.7 20 13.3
development…poor water quality… and apparent
Quiet area 20 13.3 17 11.3 11 7.3
lack of planning’ was already detracting from her
Good amenities 20 13.3 16 10.7 8 5.3
satisfaction with life in the area. Her objections to
Proximity to Galway city 16 10.7 20 13.3 8 5.3
what she perceived as unfair planning regulations
Green/rural areas 16 10.7 15 10.0 4 2.7
were raised again when she was asked whether she
Overall nice area 12 8.0 15 10.0 5 3.3
had trust in her locally elected officials. She responded
Excellent community spirit 7 4.7 5 3.3 2 1.3
in the negative commenting that ‘evidence would
Scenery/sea views 5 3.3 3 2.0 – –
suggest that no-one should trust them, whether they
Feel safe/trust people 2 1.3 5 3.3 1 0.7
allow houses to be built or not’. Another respondent
Small village 6 4.0 – –
identified green space, the neighbours and the location
n = 150 (‘just about the right distance from Galway City, not

123
272 GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278

Table 3 Perceived seriousness of local issues

Description Serious problem Problem but not serious Not a problem Do not know
No. % No. % No. % No. %

Litter 15 10.0 28 18.6 105 70.0 2 1.3

Traffic 60 40.0 34 22.6 55 36.6 1 0.6
Waterway pollution 8 5.3 6 4.0 133 88.6 3 2.0
Noise pollution 7 4.6 11 7.3 131 87.3 1 0.6
Air pollution 5 3.3 5 3.3 138 92.0 2 1.3
Insensitive building 29 19.3 25 16.6 95 63.3 1 0.6
Neglected land 6 4.0 8 5.3 133 88.6 3 2.0
Abandoned cars 3 2.0 8 5.3 136 90.6 3 2.0
Anti-social behavior 6 4.0 15 10.0 127 84.6 2 1.3
Graffiti 1 0.6 7 4.6 141 94.0 1 0.6
Dog fouling 2 1.3 7 4.6 140 93.3 1 0.6
Vandalism 4 1.7 9 6.0 135 90.0 2 1.3
Lack of green space 9 6.0 14 9.3 126 84.0 1 0.6
Access to green space 6 4.0 8 5.3 132 88.0 4 1.7
n = 150

Table 4 Level of satisfaction with local services and facilities school here so we are not well connected…this will
Service/facility Rank (out Service/ Rank (out
probably improve’’. This respondent proffered the
of 10) facility of 10) presence of the woods (‘where kids can get out for
walks’) and the location (‘it’s a rural town yet close
Bus services 3.36 Health 6.40 to the city’) as the main factors which contributed to
services
her satisfaction with the local area. However, ‘rush-
Cycling facilities 1.55 Local schools 6.48
hour traffic’ significantly detracted from her satisfac-
Active leisure 4.63 Playgrounds 4.14
facilities
tion. One respondent, who had moved in just
Passive leisure 5.40 Access to 6.41
3 months previously, claimed that the place ‘lacked
facilities facilities community spirit’. She herself had already attended
Services for 5.93 Recycling 5.50 two local group meetings about a proposal for a new
elderly motorway bypass and had verbal exchanges with a
Services for 5.20 local councillor complaining about this development
special needs proposal. Clearly in this case, the meaning of
n = 150 community held different connotations, in terms of
whether it is seen as something related to a sense of
too close, not too far’) as the three most important active engagement in place-related interests, but at a
factors contributing to satisfaction with life in her more formal level of organisation.
local area. However lack of facilities featured as the
primary factor which detracted from her satisfaction. The nature of local ‘engagement’
She commented that ‘better planning with referral to
the local community, where they have a real say, is the Active engagement through organised formal channels
only effective way of making an impact and improv- in activities pertaining to local issues is at a generally
ing quality of life in the local area’. low level. Just under 5% said they were ‘very active’ in
One homemaker commented that ‘the environment this regard, with another 27% stating that they were
was the most important part of quality of life in the ‘active’ or ‘moderately active’. This is in significant
[her] local area’. She felt that she did not belong in contrast to the 64% who regarded themselves as ‘not
the neighbourhood, because ‘‘the kids are not in very active’ and a further 4% who said they were ‘not

123
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278 273

interested’ in becoming active. Respondents were also engagement (that presuppose the identification of an
questioned about their level of preparedness to engage issue of some collective local interest) respondents
in local activity to try and influence issues that were asked to state whether they had been involved in
adversely impacted on quality of life. Just over half any kind of local community group in the previous
of those questioned stated that they would be prepared year. Just under 25% confirmed that they had, with
to take some kind of action, such as organising into 13% stating they had been committee members.
action groups, holding public meetings, raising the Activities involved attending meetings on a local
issue with the local community council, development issue, writing letters or lobbying elected political
committee or residents’ association, and contacting representatives, or writing to newspapers regarding
elected local members of municipal authorities. This in local issues. Twenty-one percent also stated they had
itself indicated an awareness of locally available, more contacted the local authority about a local issue,
formal structures for engagement. A small number usually relating to physical planning. Of interest in
suggested they would use the planning process to this regard is the somewhat higher level of active
object to development, once again reflecting an engagement reported by respondents in the Clarin-
awareness of this means of action. bridge location. This may be attributable to the fact
However, these comments also clearly indicated a that at the time of the fieldwork, the first ever Local
set of untested assumptions, in that the majority of Area Plan for Clarinbridge had just been completed,
residents had not actually been actively involved in with a number of residents stating that that they had
any such activities up to that time. Just over 17% of been involved in lobbying for changes to certain of
respondents strongly agreed with the proposition that the proposals. This is in contrast to the other three
they could influence decisions relating to place and locations, for which Local Area Plans had been
quality of life, with a further 29% somewhat agreeing implemented for some time.
(see Table 5 for a breakdown across the four case The level of active involvement in trying to
study locations). Over 18% strongly disagreed and a influence change was compared with length of resi-
further 24% somewhat disagreed with the notion that dence (Table 6), to ascertain whether those living in
they had influence in this regard. Referring to
changes in the physical environment and engagement
with the planning process in particular, one respon- Table 6 Willingness to address issues of local concern, clas-
sified by length of residence
dent commented negatively on the nature of residen-
tial development: ‘‘There is no control on huge Length of residence 0– 6– 11? years
estates; we have gone through everything; there is no 5 years 10 years
participation [by residents] allowed’’. Another No. % No. % No. %
respondent, reflecting an actual attempt to engage at
Prepared to take measures 36 25.7 14 9.9 31 22.1
this level commented: ‘‘I’ve tried and have failed’’
Unwilling to take measures 4 2.8 0 0 1 0.7
Another remarked: ‘‘You could voice your opinions,
Beyond my control 30 21.4 5 3.5 19 13.5
but we do not have a voice as local residents’’.
Focusing on more organised structures of local n = 140

Table 5 Level of engagement in local issues by individual study location

Level of active engagement in local issues (%) Study locations
Clarinbridge Oranmore Moycullen Barna Average
(%) (%) (%) (%) (%)

Actively engaged 47.2 26.6 31.3 22.6 31.5

Not actively engaged 38.1 71.4 64.6 71 64.4
Not interested in engaging 4.8 2.0 4.2 6.5 4.0
Feel they can influence decisions affecting local area 52.4 42.9 56.3 36.7 47.3
n = 150

123
274
the locations for longer periods exhibited a stronger
inclination to be actively involved, drawing to some
extent on Moran’s (2007) contentions around insider
and outsider status and possible perceived legitimacy
to act. In this case, length of residence was divided into
three groupings: those who were resident for 5 years or
less, those resident for between 6–10 years, and those
resident for 11 years or more. Much of the residential
development in these fringe locations was undertaken
since the late 1990s; thus, a significant new population
took up residence in these locations within this time
period. However, no apparent pattern reflecting levels
of involvement with length of residence is evident.
Similarly, there was no apparent link between length of
residence and stated willingness to take measures on
local issues at some future date, with newer residents
equally as committed to taking action as longer-
established residents, possibly indicating that the
protection of those dimensions of place that provide
quality of life transcend any local social practices
around legitimacy to act. The belief that capacity to
effect change in regard to local issues did not reside
solely in the local community was strongly held across
all three groups.
Levels of active engagement were also considered
in the context of length of residence. However, no
particularly strong evidence emerged to suggest that
those living for particular lengths of time were more
or less likely to be actively engaged in local issues
(Table 7).
Local trust and implications for social capital
Respondents were also questioned on matters of trust
(Table 8). The vast majority of respondents (78%)
reported strong levels of trust in other people living in
their locality, suggesting that certain informal net-
works of interaction existed, and that an important
Table 7 Levels of active engagement, by length of residence
Length of Actively Not actively Not interested in
Residence engaged (%) engaged (%) engaging (%)
0–5 years 27.4 67.1 5.5
(n = 71)
6–10 years 37.5 58.3 4.2
(n = 24)
11? years 34.7 63.5 1.9
(n = 52)
123
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
Table 8 Level of trust in local people
Level of agreement Trust in people living in local
area
Number %
Strongly agree 118 78.0
Somewhat agree 21 14.0
Somewhat disagree 5 3.3
Strongly disagree 1 0.7
Not applicable/donot know 5 3.3
n = 150
basis for establishing common interests was in place.
Although one resident strongly disagreed that she
could influence decisions in her local area, she
nevertheless commented on the importance of local
knowledge in order to ‘get things done’ in the area. In
a reflection of the significance of local, informal
levels of engagement, she cited high levels of trust in
local people, and commented that they were always
there to ‘have a chat to about all local concerns’.
Discussion
This paper began by setting the context for develop-
ment of sustainable communities at the urban–rural
fringe, with particular reference to Ireland. It posited
the notion that certain dimensions of place still
mattered, even though issues such as the diversity of
populations now present in fringe locations and the
variety of motivations for residing there, combined
with the complexity of their social and spatial relations
with place, and the pressures of modern day existence
presented an array of tensions and conflicts, rendering
the idea of community at the fringe somewhat
problematic. It then considered a number of factors
that are regarded as integral to this assessment of
community at the fringe, namely, the role of place, the
formation of social capital, the nature of engagement
through dwelling, and the pursuit of quality of life and
sustainability. It is within this context that the empir-
ical evidence is now considered.
The role of place in this research has emerged as a
distinct dimension in evaluating the formation of
sustainable communities that in many ways reflects
little of the suggested influences of individuals’
networks of relations stretching well beyond the
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
local. Although respondents may well hold qualita-
tively distinct experiences of these places (Meegan
and Mitchell 2001), there is broad agreement on
social and spatial dimensions of quality of life. There
is, however, little evidence of the presence of
Healey’s ‘place-based political community’ (2006)
which suggests that diverse groups co-exist and hold
a set of common concerns about local place and
space, with the implication that a level of collabora-
tion takes place to sustain mutually agreed place
related interests. Although some level of conceptual
identity relating to place appears to have been
achieved by respondents (Davies and Herbert 1993),
this is not consolidated through any expressed sense
of control over potential threats to those dimensions
of place that contribute to quality of life.
The high levels of trust that residents have in their
neighbours suggests the presence of an important
element for building social capital, though this
apparently is not being harnessed in terms of pro-
actively developing more civically-engaged and col-
lective approaches to local concerns. The empirical
evidence from this research also shows that residents
are not particularly pro-active in trying to remedy any
local issues, in contradiction to their stated level of
preparedness to take measures to address concerns. It
is clear that residents hold what amounts to a shared
vision of quality of life, and that there is broad
consensus amongst them in relation to the dimensions
of place that are supportive of this vision. However,
what is also apparent is that the mechanisms to
mobilise what may be conceptualised as a locally-
held resource in order to generate a form of local
‘capital’ are not in place. The relatively low level of
engagement by respondents in formal community
based organisations in these locales contrasts sharply
with practices in more traditional rural communities
(Ó Cearbhaill and Ó Cinnéide 1986; Brennan 2007).
This contrast is attributable in large measure to
differences in work-life balance that prevail in the
two types of communities, and specifically, the
increasingly pressured lifestyles that typify many
residents of the urban–rural fringe. Under these
circumstances, active engagement in these organisa-
tions is difficult to countenance and sustain even
though the remit of these organisations is not an
issue, and though they may even enjoy broad local,
although passive, support. There is also little indica-
tion of respondents accessing outside resources as
275
part of wider networks in which they are involved,
creating a potential form of trade-off between less
efficiency in mobilizing collectively at the local level
with greater effectiveness in accessing outside
resources (Bridge et al. 2004). This evidence of
overall limited development of networks of social
relationships at the local level suggests that a sense of
‘durable obligations’ (Bourdieu 1986, p. 250) has not
been effected. This in turn has meant that although
there may be stores of human and financial capital
available at the level of individual residents, these are
not being effectively accessed and developed into the
resource that is social capital (Foley and Edwards
1999). Given the presence of certain important
elements that would facilitate such associational
activity, particularly those of local trust, shared
interests and common cause, the reasons for the
apparently weak development of, or levels of access
to, networks of relations is not entirely clear. Such a
situation does however bear out the contention of
Coleman (1990), Burt (2005), and others, that the
development of such networks, and through them, of
social capital, is highly context-specific, and condi-
tional upon a range of interrelated factors and
circumstances that arguably can only be understood
through a detailed focus on particular situations or
events for which social capital as a resource is
successfully produced and accessed, as reported in
the case of Mahon and Ó Cinnéide’s (2009) work on
housing-related issues in much the same study area.
On the nature of dwelling as process measured
through engagement and levels of interactive pro-
ductivity, it is evident that more traditional place-
related identifiers such as length of residence do not
play a significant role when it comes to determining
individuals’ involvement in trying to influence
change; rather, a more complex picture of place
identity emerges, in which engagement at more active
levels does not feature. There was however a strong
indication across all groups, regardless of factors
such as length of residence, that quality of life
dimensions are integral to the way people ‘dwell’ at
the fringe (Heidegger 1993; Gallent 2007). The
question then is how this form of dwelling can be
understood as a resource that individuals themselves
somehow reinvest in the place through sustainable
practices, and also how it can be captured as a form
of capital that reflects a more widely-held set of
principles and values which in turn produce a
123
276
collective sense of community. This infers a change
in the way dwelling as ‘being’ rather than dwelling as
‘doing’ is recognised and valorised among local
residents, which in turn implies more flexible
approaches to enrolling individuals in networks of
interaction that hinge on more affective ties to place
(Murray 2007). Such affective ties reflect a more fluid
sense of place attachment, and a desire to realise a
particular dimension or dimensions of dwelling that
are issue-specific, that might be temporary in nature,
and that consequently may not translate easily into a
more formalised resource.
On the question of quality of life and sustainabil-
ity, although residents are generally satisfied with life
at the fringe across a range of physical and social
dimensions, specific common issues were widely
identified as posing threats. These related particularly
to large-scale, infrastructural matters such as the built
environment and volumes of traffic. Similarly, the
level of provision of services and facilities, particu-
larly public transport, cycling facilities and play
areas, were regarded as less than adequate. Most of
the issues that residents identified as being of
particular concern are strongly linked to planning.
The tendency for residential development to precede
service and facility provision in these settings is
strongly apparent. The empirical evidence points to a
related lack of confidence in the processes of
planning at the local level.
The usefulness of conceptualising communities in
the fringe in terms of a collective interest in
achieving quality of life through protecting and
enhancing certain place-related attributes was
explored in this paper. In so doing, it has attempted
to take account not only of the complex set of
processes and realities that are part of contemporary,
everyday existence, but also of the importance of
place in enabling a collective community identity to
emerge. In other words, contrary to frequent asser-
tions about communities in demise, the contention
here is that community in the sense of individuals
who share common interests and concerns, particu-
larly those that relate to place, is still strongly
applicable. Many of these notions do undoubtedly
continue to be rooted in traditional ideas of commu-
nity, reflective of dense, local networks of relation-
ships to which native or longer-established residents
belong, and in more organised groups that are
established in response to particular local interests
123
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
or needs. At other levels, the evidence suggests that a
range of contemporary, but less formalised place-
based concerns that focus on sustainability in the
widest sense, are also issues around which a sense of
community is apparent.
References
Barton, H. (2002). Sustainable communities. London:
Earthscan.
Beck, U. (2002). The cosmopolitan society and its enemies.
Media, Theory & Society, 19(1–2), 17–44.
Bell, S., & Morse, S. (1999). Sustainability indicators: Mea-
suring the immeasurable. London: Earthscan.
Bourdieu, P. (1986). The forms of capital. In J. Richardson
(Ed.), Handbook of theory and research for the sociology
of education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Bowling, A. (2005). Measuring health: A review of quality of
life measurement scales. Mainhead: Open University
Press.
Brennan, M. (2007). Community development in the West of
Ireland: Twenty years on in the Killala area. Community
Development Journal, 42(3), 330–347.
Bridge, G., Forrest, R., & Holland, E. (2004). Neighbouring: A
review of the evidence. CNR Research Paper 24. London:
ESRC Centre for Neighbourhood Research.
Bridger, J. C., & Luloff, A. E. (1999). Towards an interactional
approach to sustainable community development. Journal
of Rural Studies, 15(4), 377–387.
Burt, R. S. (2005). Brokerage & closure: An introduction to
social capital. New York: Oxford University Press.
Central Statistics Office (CSO). (2006). Census of Ireland
2006. Dublin: Stationary Office.
Cheney, H., Nheu, N., & Vecellio, L. (2004). Sustainability as
social change: Values and power in sustainability dis-
course. In H. Cheney, E. Katz, & F. Solomon (Eds.),
Sustainability and social science: Roundtable proceedings
(pp. 225–246). Melbourne: Institute for Sustainable
Futures and CSIRO Minerals.
Coates, A., Farnsworth, K., & Zulaf, M. (2001) Social exclu-
sion and inclusion: Partnerships for neighbourhood
regeneration in London. Social Science Research Papers
No. 15. London: South Bank University.
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human
capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Coleman, J. (1990). Foundations of social theory. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Corcoran, M. P., Gray, J., & Peillon, M. (2007). Ties that bind?
The social fabric of daily life in new suburbs. In T. Fahey,
Helen. Russell, & Christopher. Whelan (Eds.), Best of
times? The social impact of the Celtic Tiger. Dublin:
Institute of Public Administration.
Cutter, S. L. (1985). Rating places: A geographer’s view on
quality of life. US: Association of American Geographical
Research Publishers.
Davies, A. R. (2002). Power, politics and networks: Shaping
partnerships for sustainable communities. Area, 34(2),
190–203.
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
Davies, W. K. D., & Herbert, D. T. (1993). Communities within
cities: An urban social geography. London: Belhaven
Press.
Day, G. (2006). Community and everyday life. London:
Routledge.
Day, G., & Murdoch, J. (1993). Locality and community:
Coming to terms with place. Sociological Review, 41(1),
82–111.
DeFilippis, J. (2001). The myth of social capital in community
development. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 781–806.
Evans, B., Joas, M., Sundback, S., & Theolbald, K. (2005).
Governing sustainable cities. London: Earthscan.
Evans, B., & Percy, S. (1999). The opportunities and chal-
lenges for local environmental policy and action in the
UK. In S. Buckingham-Hatfield & S. Percy (Eds.), Con-
structing local environmental agendas (pp. 172–185).
London: Routledge.
Fahy, F., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2008). The reality of the locality:
Exploring spatial aspects of quality of life in Galway City,
Ireland. International Journal of Sustainable Development
and Planning, 3(1), 29–44.
Falk, I., & Kilpatrick, S. (2000). What is social capital? A
study of interaction in a rural community. Sociologia
Ruralis, 40(1), 87–110.
Foley, M. W., & Edwards, B. (1999). Is it time to disinvest in
social capital? Journal of Public Policy, 19(2), 141–173.
Gallent, N. (2007). Second homes, community and a hierarchy
of dwelling. Area, 39(1), 97–106.
Galway County Council. (2009). Galway city development
plan review 2009. Galway: City Hall.
Giddens, A. (1991). The consequences of modernity. Cam-
bridge: Polity Press.
Healey, P. (2006). Collaborative planning: Shaping places in
fragmented societies. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
Heidegger, M. (1971). Poetry, language, thought. New York:
Harper & Row.
Heidegger, M. (1993) Basic writing. In D. Farrell Krell (Ed.).
London: Routledge.
Hooghe, M., & Stolle, D. (2003). Introduction: Generating
social capital. In M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Gener-
ating social capital: Civil society and institutions in
comparative perspective (pp. 1–18). New York: Palgrave
MacMillan.
Kemp, R., Parto, S., & Gibson, R. B. (2005). Governance for
sustainable development: Moving from theory to practice.
International Journal of Sustainable Development, 8(1),
12–30.
Kline, E. (2001). Indicators for sustainable development in
urban areas. In D. Devuyst, L. Hens, & W. De Lannoy
(Eds.), How green is the city? (pp. 275–298). USA:
Columbia.
Levi, M. (1998). A state of trust. In V. Braithwaite & M. Levi
(Eds.), Trust and governance. Oxford: Oxford University
Press.
Leyden, K. (2003). Social capital and the built environment:
The importance of walkable neighbourhoods. American
Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546–1556.
Mahon, M. (2007). New populations; shifting expectations:
The changing experience of Irish rural space and place.
Journal of Rural Studies, 23(3), 345–356.
277
Mahon, M., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (2009). Governance deficits in
residential housing estates in Ireland. Urban Studies,
46(1), 93–116.
Maloney, W., Smith, G., & Stoker, G. (2000). Social capital
and urban governance: adding a more contextualized ‘top-
down’ perspective. Political Studies, 48(2), 802–820.
Massey, D. (1993). Questions of locality. Geography, 78(2),
142–149.
Massey, D. (2005). For space. London: Sage.
Massey, D., & Jess, P. (2003). A place in the world?. Oxford:
The Open University.
Meegan, R., & Mitchell, A. (2001). ‘It’s not community around
here, it’s neighbourhood’: Neighbourhood change and
cohesion in urban regeneration policies. Urban Studies,
38(12), 2167–2194.
Michaelis, L. (2002). Ethics of consumption. In T. Jackson
(Ed.), The Earthscan reader in sustainable consumption.
London: Earthscan.
Moran, L. (2007). Negotiating boundaries or drawing the line?
Transcending ‘insider/outsider’ distinctions in Conne-
mara. Irish Journal of Sociology, 16(2), 136–159.
Mormont, M. (1990). Who is rural? Or, how to be rural:
Towards a sociology of the rural. In T. Marsden, P. Lowe,
& S. Whatmore (Eds.), Rural restructuring: Global pro-
cesses and their responses (pp. 21–44). London: David
Fulton Publishers.
Moser, G. (2009) Quality of life and sustainability: Toward
person–environment congruity. Journal of Environmental
Psychology, 29(3), 351–357.
Murray, M. (2007). Cosmopolitan versus the locals: Commu-
nity-based protest in the age of globalisation. Irish Jour-
nal of Sociology, 16(2), 117–135.
Ó Cearbhaill, D., & Ó Cinnéide, M. (1986). Community
development in the West of Ireland: A case study of the
Killala area. Community Development Journal, 12(3),
195–207.
Putnam, R. (1993). Making democracy work: Civil traditions in
modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R. (1995). Tuning, tuning out: The strange disap-
pearance of social capital in America. Political Science,
28(4), 664–683.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of
American community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Roseland, M. (2000). Sustainable community development:
Integrating environmental, economic, and social objec-
tive. Progress in Planning, 54(2), 73–132.
Roudometof, V. (2005). Transnationalism, cosmopolitanism
and glocalization. Current Sociology, 53(1), 113–135.
Scott, M. (2006). Strategic spatial planning and contested ru-
ralities: Insights from the Republic of Ireland. European
Planning Studies, 14(6), 811–829.
Seasons, M. (2005). Indicators and core area planning. In R.
Phillips (Ed.), Community indicators measuring systems
(pp. 96–115). UK: Ashgate.
Shorthall, S. (2008). Are rural development programmes
socially inclusive? Social inclusion, civic engagement,
participation, and social capital: Exploring the differ-
ences. Journal of Rural Studies, 24(4), 450–457.
Stolle, D. (2003). The sources of social capital. In M. Hooghe
& D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital: Civil
123
278
society and institutions in comparative perspective (pp.
19–42). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Uslaner, E. M. (2003). Trust, democracy and governance. In
M. Hooghe & D. Stolle (Eds.), Generating social capital:
Civil society and institutions in comparative perspective
(pp. 171–190). New York: Palgrave MacMillan.
Van Dam, F., Heins, S., & Elbersen, B. S. (2002). Lay dis-
courses of the rural and state and revealed preferences for
rural living. Some evidence of the existence of a rural
idyll in the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 18(4),
461–476.
Voisey, H., Beurermann, C., Sverdrup, A. L., & O’Riordan, T.
(1996). The political significance of Local Agenda 21:
The early stages of some European experience. Local
Environment, 1(1), 33–50.
Waddington, S. B. (2000). Changing life in the towns of north
Kildare. Irish Geography, 33(1), 74–89.
123
GeoJournal (2012) 77:265–278
Whiteley, P. F. (1999). The origins of social capital. In J. van
Deth, M. Maraffi, K. Newton, & P. F. Whiteley (Eds.),
Social capital and European democracy (pp. 25–44).
London: Routledge.
Williams, B., & Shiels, P. (2000). Acceleration into sprawl:
Causes and potential policy responses. ESRI Quarterly
Economic Commentary 37–62 (pp. 37–62). Dublin: Eco-
nomic and Social Research Institute.
Woolcock, M., & Narayan, D. (2006). Social capital: Impli-
cations for development theory, research, and policy
revisited. In A. Bebbington, M. Woolcock, S. Guggen-
heim, & E. A. Olson (Eds.), The search for empowerment:
Social capital as idea and practice at the World Bank (pp.
31–62). Bloomfield, USA: Kumarian Press Inc.
Ziller, A. (2004). The community is not a place and why it
matters–case study: Green Square. Urban Policy and
Research, 22(4), 465–479.