dagfinn as neighbouring in norway - irbnet.de · dagfinn as neighbouring in norway introduction the...

Dagfinn As

Neighbouring in Norway

Introduction The settlement structure in Norway differs considerably from what is commonly found in

Europe. The topography, of course, largely determines this. Mountains, cliffs and steep valleys are not places for habitation and the settled land is typically strung along valley bottoms and along the coastline. There are also exceptions to this in the south eastern part of the country, which is relatively flat. The point, however, is that nowhere in Norway do we find the village or hamlet which is so typical in Europe. Norwegian families and households have historically built their dwellings more or less in the middle of their fields, thereby living at the maximum distance from their neighbours. This fact has popularly been used to explain the alleged aloofness of Norwegians and their wish to live a "stone's throw" away from the nearest neighbour.

In what kind of surroundings do Norwegians wish to live? This question has been studied in detail in large national surveys and the results from these studies are clear. When asked to compare their present residence with their desired residence, Norwegians express three wishes: A wish to live in a smaller settlement or town, a wish to live hrther away from the local centre, and finally a wish to live at a greater distance from their nearest neighbours.

This paper does not look at the large question of cultural differences between rural and urban ways of life. It selects for closer study just one aspect, the relations between neighbours in neighbourhoods and local residential areas. To provide a backdrop for this, however, it first presents some results from a national housing survey in 1981 which explored neighbour relations. Respondents were asked, "How many families in the neighbourhood do you know so well that you visit with each other?" One fourth of all households reported that they didn't know anybody that well, while another fourth said that they visit with five or more families.

There are however, dramatic differences between town and countryside in these matters, which are shown in figure 1. This phenomenon, the strong and linear relationship between the urban-rural dimension and everyday behaviour, is most often labelled a cultural phenomenon, reflecting an "urban way of life" versus the remnants of "folk culture" in the countryside. Few researchers, however, have tried to explain and interpret this difference, which can be observed in many other countries besides Norway.

This paper reports on an attempt to search for other correlates for this behaviour, which for short we will call neighbouring. We will first explain the data we are using. Then we will show the results of a statistical analysis before we call on possible theoretical points of view that give sense and meaning to this phenomenon.

"How many families in the neighbarhood do you know so well that you visit with each other ? " (percent)

Pop. over 100.000

Pop. 20-100.000

Pop. 2-19.000

Pop. under 2000

Rural areas

Know and visit no-one Know and visit 3-4 families

Know and visit 1 family Know and visit five or more

Know and visit 2 families

Figure I . Visiting Rehaviour by Size of Settlement.

Data and Methods The data we present stem from ongoing research in Norway concerned with the study of

everyday life and activities in residential areas. We aim to describe, analyse and report on the state of the milieu for the inhabitants in Norway today. By the term milieu (a French word which is adopted in Nonvay: m i u we refer to the interplay of the physical surroundings, the human inhabitants and the prevailing social organisation. The milieu is a concrete phenomenon and can be observed in daily life and activity in the public spaces outside private dwellings.

This research makes use of two interrelated approaches: First, "the view from the outside", which consists of observational studies and interviews with key informants in order to record and describe objective things in terms of physical and social structures; and second, "the view from the inside", which is obtained by surveys in which inhabitants report on their experiences and evaluation of their residential areas as places to reside and live in.

In this research we have selected a series of residential areas of different type and age. So far, four parallel studies have been carried out in the two largest towns in Norway, Oslo and Bergen. Later, smaller towns and less urban areas will be added to the research program. In both these cities we have selected an old residential area close to the city centre and a relatively new housing development on the periphery. These areas are rather different in many ways. We will not here give a f i l l description of their character. Some of this will be described along with the following statistical analysis. The delineation of these areas was done in a pragmatic way. They are bordered by other inhabited areas but we have tried to draw the border so as to follow both topographical characteristics and other "borderlines" that are seen by the inhabitants as such. These areas each have between 4000 and 7000 inhabitants.

The form and structure of the housing differ considerably between these four areas as described in table 1 below. In the analysis we will in each area use a variable called density with three values which refer to the size of the buildings and the resulting number of next door neighbours.

The questionnaire used in these studies was administered by interviewers in two areas, and in the other two a postal questionnaire was used. The samples are representative

samples of people twenty years and older and results in data sets with 300 to 400 cases. There are clear limitahons on the depth to which we can carry the analysis of data sets with so few cases. We will for that reason carry out parallel analysis in the four areas and look for consistency in trends more than the significance in the single case.

1 Oslo periphery apartment houses, 4-8 stories I ! 2. New row houses, 2 stories

t-- / 3 . New detached one and two fainily houses

Oslo central

Bergen periphery

1. New high rise freestanding apartment houses, 12- 15 stories

2. Large old city apartment houses, 6-8 stones

3. Smaller old city apartment houses, 3-5 stories

] 1. New freestanding high rise, 14 stories I I

Rergen central

/ 2. New attached blocks of housmg, 4-5 stories 1 !

1 3. New terraced blocks, 4 stories, and new row houses I / I . Old city apartment housing, 3-5 stones

2. Old single and mulu-family attached houses. 1-2 stories I I

Table I . Description of Sluliy Areas

The Dependent Variables The four studies all cover neighbour relations in great detail and from the data we have

extracted three variables that serve as our dependent ones. One question dealt with mutual visits between neighbours, similar to the national survey mentioned above. The results are shown in figure 2.

Although the differences are small, we can detect a tendency. Bergen is a smaller city than Oslo, and here people report more frequent daily visits, while those that have noth~ng to do with their neighbours are more frequently found in the central areas.

"How often do you visit, or are you visited by your neighbours?"

Bergen central

Bergen periphery I

Oslo periphery

Oslo central I I I I I I I I I

Daily Monthly Weekly Q Seldom or never

Figure 2. Mutual Visiting by Neighbours.

The second two dependent variables are based on two questions which asked for opinions, rather than actual behaviour. The questions were:

What do you see as the most appropriate type of relations between neighbours in a residential area like this where you live? Do you want more contact or less contact with your neighbours compared to the amount of contact you now have?

The first of these questions had five possible answers:

1. As little as possible 2. Know, greet and talk to, but no more 3. Know a few well, but no relation to most of the others 4. Know well so we can help each other 5. Learn to know each other by frequent visiting.

In figure 3, the first two and last two answers are grouped together, leaving the middle category as "some contact". While the first question places no restnctions on the answer, the second question refers to the present situation and asks whether people desire more or less contact with their neighbours than they now have. The results for those who want more contact are given in table 2.

"What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live ?"

Bzrgen central

Bergell periphery

Oslo periphery

Oslo central

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Little contact Some contact Much contact

Figure 3. Appropriate Relations between Neighbours.

Table 2. Percentage oflnhabitants Desiring More Contact with their Neighbours.

Oslo central

Oslo periphery

Bergen periphery

Bergen central

No doubt, there is great potential, which is presently untapped, for more contact and cooperation between people in these residential districts,. The differences between the four residential areas are, however, very difficult to interpret.

42

29

4 1

28

The Independent Variables The choice of independent variables has not been guided by any overall theory, but by a

set of common sense considerations. We will here make use of seven:

1. Sex 2. Age 3. Length of education as an indicator of social class 4. Nationality: Norwegian versus immigrants 5. Length of residence 6. Type of household 7. Density of immediate neighbourhood.

The first three variables need no explanation as they appear in any sociological analysis where personal characteristics are considered as relevant variables.

Length of residence stands out as a very relevant variable in this study. One thinks that it takes some time to know your neighbours and be known.

There are of course very many types of households. We have, however, isolated only two in the analysis: Single person households and families with children. All other types of households have been grouped together. There are reasons to believe that these two types of households behave differently towards neighbours.

Finally, the density of neighbourhood variable refers to the structure and character of the housing in the immediate neighbourhood. In all four districts we have grouped this variable into three categories (see table 1 above). The categories will have somewhat different content in the four districts, but the variable does constitute an ordinal scale in all of them, indicating how many neighbours are found in the immediate neighbourhood.

Searching for relationships Seven independent variables, three dependent variables, in four different areas results in

very many numbers to evaluate and compare. For that reason, it is necessary to use simple ways of reporting.

The initial analysis consisted of comparingpercentagefigures. For each of the four areas we have cross tabulated the seven independent variables with the three dependent variables. Each of the dependent variables has been presented as having three values, along the lines used in figure 3. Due to the size of the sample, we have not attempted to compute the significance of the relationships, or analyse the separate cross tabulations within each area. What we are looking for is whether there is consistency in the direction of relationships across the areas.

In order to evaluate all the relationships, the analysis focuses on consistency among the high and low values of the dependent variables. Finally, in order to help the reader, we have inserted some symbols in the tables to show the general tendencies in the material.

Results The analysis below looks separately at the effects of each of the independent variables on

all three of the dependent variables. In other words, it is answering the question: What seems to shape behaviour and attitudes towards neighbouring?

Table A. I : Diflerences in Attitudes and Behaviour by Sex.

,,What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live?" (percent)

Oslo central Oslo periphery Bergen periphery Bergen central

Least possible contact

< 41

43 < 48

Greatest possible contact

41 > 3 9

,,Do you want more or less contact with your neighbors compared to the amount of contact you now have?" (percent)


,,How often do you visit, or being visited by, your neighbors?"


Dail

9

Want less contact

0 1

Seldom or never

63

The dzflerences between men and women are relatively small. They show, however, a certain consistency. Men report no contact with the neighbours more often than women. They consequently want more contact than the women. When asked about the preferred kind of relations, however, they more often than women say that "the least possible contact7' is best and consequently, less often than women say that "the greatest possible contact" is best.

Table A.2: Diflerences in Alriludes and Behaviour by Age.

,,What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live?' (Figures for ,,Some contact ..." left out)

Oslo central Oslo periphery Bergen penphery Bergen central

,,Do you want more or less contact with your neighbors compared to the amount od contact you now have?' (Figures for ,,Want no change" left out)


,,How often do you visit, or being visited by, your neighbors?" (Figures for ,,Weekly or monthly" left out)

Oslo central Oslo periphery Bergen penphery Bergen central

Age appears, among the independent variables, to be one of the most important determinants of neighbour relations. First we find, somewhat unexpectedly, that the older the person, the more often they report no contact with the neighbours. We also see a clear and marked tendency for old people to say that "the least possible contact" is best. In comparison with the young, they also less often say that "the greatest possible contact" is best. In addition, to somewhat .underscore this attitude and behaviour, we see that young people, more often than older people, want more contact than they have now.

Length of Education

Table A.3: Diflerences in Attitude and Behaviour by Level ojEducation.

,,What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live?'(Figures for ,,Some contact ..." left out)


,,Do you want more or less contact with your neighbors compared to the amount of contact you now have?" (Figures for ,,Want no change" left out)


,,How often do you visit, or being visited by, your neighbors?' (Figures for ,,Weekly or monthly" left out)


There is a clear and consistent tendency that people with high education want more contact with their neighbours than now, compared to people with less education. The figures for the present degree of contact, however, show a surprising difference between Oslo and Bergen. In Oslo, there is less visiting among the more highly educated while there is more visiting among this group in Bergen. This is difficult to interpret since it is those who have a low level of education that most often want "the least possible contact" and, consequently, least often say that "the greatest possible contact" is best.

Nationality

Table A.4: Differences in Attitude and Behaviour b,v Nationali@.

,,What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live ?' (percent)


contact Forei n Now.

nei hbors

16 20 15 14

Greatest possible contact

44 > 48 >

,,Do you want more or less contact with your neighbors compared to the amount of contact you now have ?'(percent)


,,How often do you visit, or being visited by, your neighbors ?"


Want less contact Forei n Norw.

0

Seldom or never

75 > 52 >

The d~gerence in attitudes between persons born in Nonvay and people coming from other nations is consistent but relatively small. When it comes to actual behaviour, however, the immigrants report more often than the Norwegians that they have no contact with their neighbours. There is one interesting exception, Oslo central. This is the district where foreign born people congregate. The possibility of being in contact with people from ones own culture is greater here. Consequently, in Oslo central it is the Norwegians who most often report no contact. Foreign people express the strongest wish for more contact than now.

Length of Residence

Table A.5: Differences in Attitudes and Behaviour by Length of Residence

,, What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live ?" (Figures for ,,Some contact ..." left out)

Oslo central Oslo periphery Bergen pheriphery Bergren central

,,Do you want more or less contact with your neighbors compared to the amount of contact you now have?' (Figures for ,,Want no change" left out)


,,How often do you visit, or being visited by, your neighbors?' (Figures for ,,Weekly or monthly" left out)


The dtfferences here are relatively large, but highly complex. We had expected at the outset that length of residence would be a strong determinant of all three independent variables and we see that people who have lived in an area longer are less likely to report seldom or no contact with the neighbours. However, there is a very complex pattern in relationship to the other variables. It is the people with a middle length of residence that favour "the greatest possible contact", and consequently less often than the others favour "the least possible contact". The figures comparing actual and desired contact do not fit any pattern and are difficult to interpret.

Type of Household

Table A.6: Differences in Attitude and Behaviour by Type oj'Household.

,,What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live?' (Figures for ,,Some contact ..." left out)


,,Do you want more or less contact with your neighbors compared to the amount ot contact you now have?' (Figures for ,,Want no change" left out)


,,How often do you visit, or being visited by, your neighbors?"igures for ,,Weekly or monthly" left out)


7his variable is not a rank ordered scale and has to be analysed drfferently. We will concentrate our attention on single person households and families with children since the third category is a very mixed group. The single persons much more often report "seldom and no contact" with neighbours. However, this is not systematically followed by a greater wish to have more contact. The pattern here is mixed. Looking at the attitudes towards the appropriate kinds of relationships with neighbours, we also find that single people often favour "the least possible contact" and seldom favour the opposite, "the greatest possible contact".

Density of Neighbourhood

lbble A. 7: Differences in Attitudes and Behnviour by Density of Neighbourhood

,,What do you see as the most appropriate relations between neighbors in a residential area like this where you live?" (Figures for ,,Some contact ..." left out)


,,Do yoy want more or less contact with your neighbors compared to the amount od contact you now have?" (Figures for ,,Want no change" left out)


,,How often do you visit, or being visited by, your neighbors?"igures for ,,Weekly pr monthly" left out)


Who wants more contact? It is those that live at "middle" densities. We note that the higher the density, the more frequently people report "seldom or no contact" with their neighbours. The differences are also relatively big. At the same time, the higher the density, the more often people prefer "the least possible contact" and the less often "the greatest possible contact".

Discussion This data can be analysed at different levels. So far we have only looked for consistency

in the relationships for each independent variable across the housing areas. This has isolated the variables we will pursue in further analysis and is thefirst level of analysis. The second level of analysis will search for correlates using each housing area as the unit of analysis. The initial analysis has shown a great degree of similarity between the areas. We must bear in mind that all these four housing areas are urban environments, even if some are central and some are peripheral. The third level of analysis will use some kind of regression analysis to determine the relative importance of each of the independent variables and to uncover possible interactions among them.

What, then, are we able to conclude on the basis of the initial analysis? To be honest, not very much. We have found however that the degree of contact between neighbours is determined partly by certain personal characteristics, most importantly by the age of the person. The relationship we found, however, is counter to what many people have believed. Older people are, in fact, not very concerned about their relations with their neighbours. They do not have much to do with them and often consider that very little contact is best.

The second finding worth underlining is the effect of the shape and structure of the buildings and houses. This is also a phenomenon that has relevance for the dramatic differences between urban and rural areas noted in the introduction.

A very densely built and populated housing area can lead to a situation of "crowding". This is a social psychological phenomenon and has to do with having altogether too many people too close and feelings that personal and private spaces are being invaded or threatened. Prime defence mechanisms in this context are to block off the surroundings and to reduce contact with immediate neighbours. This can easily be observed in high rise buildings where the behaviour of people in the common comdors of the buildings is like behaviour in crowded downtown streets. People pass each other by without noticing each other.

Some people will ask, why this interest in neighbouring? Is this something to promote in our modem time when we have easy access to areas away from home for our activities. Are neighbours of any importance at all?

Studies of time and the use of time have shown in the one country after another that during the day of 24 hours we spend almost all of our time either inside our own dwelling or far away at work or other activities. The amount of time spent in the immediate neighbourhood or within the borders of the housing area come to, on the average, one hour and twenty minutes. Apart from visiting, this is the time frame within which neighbouring will take place. It is obvious that other arenas are more important for individuals than the neighbourhood.

In a study of the milieu of housing environments, however, the study of neighbour relations will be important. Equally important is the registration of various arenas for meeting your next door neighbour and others, whether they are physical installations or social organisations, providing services or recreation. A high degree of contact between neighbours will probably be dependent upon both the physical and the social infrastructure in a housing area and possibly be a good indicator of the quality of life.

It is the search for phenomena that foster and support the quality of life that the present research programme is all about.

dagfinn as neighbouring in norway - irbnet.de · dagfinn as neighbouring in norway introduction the...

Documents