Applied Research Quality Life (2011) 6:201–213

DOI 10.1007/s11482-010-9132-4

Examining Walkability and Social Capital

as Indicators of Quality of Life at the Municipal
and Neighborhood Scales

Shannon H. Rogers & John M. Halstead &

Kevin H. Gardner & Cynthia H. Carlson

Received: 4 October 2009 / Accepted: 15 October 2010 /

Published online: 28 October 2010
# Springer Science+Business Media B.V./
The International Society for Quality-of-Life Studies (ISQOLS) 2010

Abstract Walkability has been linked to quality of life in many ways. Health related
benefits of physical exercise, the accessibility and access benefits of being able to
walk to obtain some of your daily needs, or the mental health and social benefits of
reduced isolation are a few of the many positive impacts on quality of life that can
result from a walkable neighborhood. In the age of increasing energy costs and
climate considerations, the ability to walk to important locations is a key component
of sustainable communities. While the health and environmental implications of
walkable communities are being extensively studied, the social benefits have not
been investigated as broadly. Social capital is a measure of an individual’s or group’s
networks, personal connections, and involvement. Like economic and human
capital, social capital is considered to have important values to both individuals
and communities. Through a case study approach this article argues that the
generation and maintenance of social capital is another important component of
quality of life that may be facilitated by living in a walkable community. Residents
living in neighborhoods of varying built form and thus varying levels of walkability
in three communities in New Hampshire were surveyed about their levels of social

S. H. Rogers (*) : C. H. Carlson

Natural Resources and Earth Systems Science Program, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,
USA
e-mail: [email protected]

S. H. Rogers : K. H. Gardner : C. H. Carlson

Environmental Research Group, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH, USA

J. M. Halstead
Department of Natural Resources and the Environment, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,
USA

K. H. Gardner
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of New Hampshire, Durham, NH,
USA
202 S.H. Rogers et al.

capital and travel behaviors. Comparisons between the more walkable and less
walkable neighborhoods show that levels of social capital are higher in more
walkable neighborhoods.

Keywords Social capital . Walkability . Built environment . Neighborhood scale

Introduction

One way to measure quality of life is by assessing the gap between what is hoped for
by humanity and what is experienced by humanity (Nussbaum and Sen 1993).
Quality of life is subjective; it is within the eye of the beholder taking on a variety of
different scales from individual to community to region. Examples of quality of life
include a community infrastructure that is accessible to all and supports the
gathering of residents, healthy ecosystems that provide the region with valuable
resources such as clean water and scenic vistas, and communities or regions that
support the sense of place cherished by residents.
Research can play an important role in understanding how individuals and groups
of individuals work towards narrowing that gap between the quality of life expected
and quality of life experienced. Our research looks at how social capital is used to
narrow that gap. Links between social capital and quality of life in various settings,
while not abundant, have been established in the literature. Requena (2003) details
the relationship between social capital and satisfaction in the work place, which he
calls workplace quality of life. Research has suggested that individuals learn to trust
one another each other in communities where we get a chance to meet each other
(Lund 2003). Social connections can increase the resiliency of a neighborhood in a
myriad of ways, from providing a source of emotional support when needed to
loaning a shovel or an egg. Day to day life can be enriched (Putnam 2000) and
resilience may be increased to face both acute disasters, such as earthquakes (Norris
and Ingelhart 2004), or longer-term problems, such as climate change (Adger 2003).
Quality of life indicators and measurements of community sustainability are
closely related and mutually relevant (Sirgy et al. 2006). Examining indicators of
urban quality of life, whether they are objective or subjective, is a topic of interest in
the quality of life literature (McCrea et al. 2006). Walkability and the importance of
third places (informal gathering places that are not home nor work) have been linked
to components of social capital and quality of life (Frank et al. 2009; Oldenburg
1999). Economic well-being is often included with quality of life indicators.
Communities with higher levels of social capital have been found to do better
economically (Putnam 2000). Halstead and Deller (1997) examined how community
infrastructure impacts economic development in communities and found that it was
quality of life that influenced individual companies more than physical infrastructure
such as roads and bridges. Quality of life and social capital are often discussed in
similar circles but the two are rarely examined together.
The land use design and physical infrastructure of neighborhoods and regions
provide the conduits for individuals to meet each other, theoretically increasing
social capital (Jarema et al. 2009). A neighborhood that provides residents with easy
access to municipal infrastructure such as post offices, town parks and playgrounds,
Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life 203

coffee shops, restaurants, barbershops and club meeting venues will theoretically
have high values of social capital. We argue that communities are more resilient if
they have the capacity to utilize social capital and access to physical infrastructure
that supports the interaction of residents. Thus, social capital has the potential to be
utilized in a manner that increases the community or regions’ quality of life,
narrowing that gap between what is expected and experienced. Figure 1 details the
logic behind the hypothesis that the level of walkability at the neighborhood scale
can influence social capital levels.
We selected the neighborhood scale as our primary lens based on previous studies
suggesting this scale is important for determining factors which influence
transportation (Krizek 2003) as well as social capital levels (Leyden 2003).
Additionally, in the walkability literature the importance of understanding human
scale is greatly emphasized (e.g. Frumkin et al. 2004). This article details a research
process created to examine the hypothesis that there is a relationship between
walkability and social capital (and thus quality of life) at the neighborhood scale. To
address this question, a two-step mixed methods case study approach was utilized.
The first step was a pilot study designed to test the methods, survey questions, and to
look for initial relationships. The second step was influenced by the results of the
pilot study and carried out at a larger scale.

Defining & Measuring Social Capital

Social capital is defined as the “…features of social organization, such as trust,

norms and networks, that can improve the efficiency of society by facilitating
coordinated actions” (Putnam 1993, p. 167). James Coleman, one of the leading
social capital scholars, explains social capital as being defined by its function. He
states, “It is not a single entity but a variety of different entities, with two elements in
common: they all consist of some aspect of social structures, and they facilitate
certain actions of actors—whether persons or corporate actors—within the structure”
(1988, p. 98). Like other forms of capital, social capital can be useful for achieving
community goals. In fact, Emery and Flora (2006) describe a community capital
framework that includes seven different types of capital—natural, cultural, human,
social, political, financial, and built. In defining the social capital component of the
framework they see it as reflecting connections among people and groups or the
social adhesive that can influence positive or negative outcomes.

Fig. 1 Logic behind the possible link between walkability and social capital
204 S.H. Rogers et al.

There are a number of methods for measuring social capital and these are
evolving as more and more researchers contribute to the field. Instruments from
the social sciences disciplines have been applied to the measurement of social
capital, including surveys, interviews, and focus groups. Within these methods
both quantitative and qualitative information is elicited. Robert Putnam’s
Saguaro Seminar at Harvard University has worked diligently since the
publication of Bowling Alone in 2000, to articulate ways to measure social
capital. As a follow-up to his book, Putman and his researchers administered the
Social Capital Benchmark survey, which surveyed approximately 30,000 people,
in 40 communities across 29 states in America. The extensive phone survey asked
individual respondents questions about 11 facets of social capital, which cover
trust (social and inter-racial), diversity of friendships, political participation
(conventional and protest), civic leadership and associational involvement,
informal socializing, giving and volunteering, faith-based engagement, and
equality of civic engagement across the community (www.ksg.harvard.edu/
saguaro/communitysurvey/). In 2006 the Social Capital Community Survey was
administered as a follow-up to the 2000 survey by returning to 11 of the original 40
communities and adding 11 different ones.
The World Bank has done extensive work on developing methods and indices for
measuring social capital. Specifically, the Social Capital Thematic Group within the
World Bank has two tools for assessing social capital: Social Capital Assessment
Tool (SOCAT) and the Social Capital Integrated Questionnaire (SOCAPIQ)
(http://web.worldbank.org). SOCAT is an instrument designed to collect information
about social capital at the household and community organizational levels. It is both
a quantitative and qualitative tool and includes a community profile and asset
mapping, a community questionnaire, a household questionnaire, an organizational
interview guide, and an organizational profile score sheet. The second tool is more
quantitative and can be added to existing household questionnaires. While the World
Bank has also created a more quantitative social capital tool, its tools have been
more frequently implemented at the community scale as part of a development
project in which large amounts of qualitative data are gathered.

Pilot Study

The pilot study took place in Durham, New Hampshire during the Spring of 2008.
With limited resources and a stated purpose of simply testing surveying techniques
and looking for initial interesting patterns, two neighborhoods of varying built form
were selected. Faculty neighborhood, the more dense neighborhood, abuts Mill
Plaza, the main shopping center in the town. This is the only neighborhood with
clearly defined boundaries in Durham that is close to the center of downtown. In
contrast, the Longmarsh neighborhood was chosen as a second study site because of
its relatively newer construction, more sprawling design, and greater distance from
the center of town, and thus greater distance from most social resources, such as the
library, shopping, schools, and churches.
A main goal of the pilot study was to test the survey instrument and to see
if there was a relationship between neighborhood level characteristics of the
Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life 205

built environment and individuals’ social capital. As mentioned above, social

capital has several well renowned scholars, notably Robert Putnam is one of
them. Because Robert Putnam and the Saguaro Seminar at Harvard University1
have developed a respected and often used survey tool and because a great deal of
data from the use of this tool are available for comparison, we utilized the Saguaro
Seminar’s social capital short form as a starting point to build our survey. Along
with social capital, the transportation behavior of individuals in the two
neighborhoods was of interest and a series of questions on transportation were
added. (Researchers are happy to share the survey tool upon request).
After the survey was reviewed and revised based on comments from colleagues and
experts, it was administered via telephone to 50 randomly selected residents from
Faculty neighborhood and to all 50 residents of the Longmarsh community. As there
were so few homes in the Longmarsh community, researchers decided to include them
all to increase the sample size. All individuals were contacted via telephone and attempts
were made to conduct the survey over the phone unless individuals refused the survey,
requested written copies or did not respond to a request for a telephone survey after three
attempts to reach them by telephone. If individuals did not respond after three attempts, a
paper version of the survey was mailed to them. The overall response rate for the survey
was 50%, with approximately equal response rates in each neighborhood. Table 1
summarizes some of the survey’s findings.
Strong differences in transportation behaviors, especially in the frequency of
walking to destinations in the community were found. Respondents in Faculty
neighborhood reported walking to destinations in their community (not for health
purposes) more frequently than Longmarsh residents. This is likely due to the fact
that Faculty neighborhood is closer to destinations in the town of Durham (such as a
post office, food market, restaurant, etc.)
Survey respondents were asked which destinations they felt were within walking
distance including the home of a friend, open space, shopping center, restaurant,
church, etc. Of the list of eleven potential destinations, Faculty neighborhood
respondents reported being able to walk to almost 10 of the locations on average (std
dev 1.2), while Longmarsh residents reported an average of only 3.3 of the locations
within walking distance (std dev 3.1). Longmarsh residents most often reported
being able to walk to the home of a friend (87%) and to open space (100%), while
100% of Faculty Neighborhood residents reported being able to walk to the post
office, library and shopping. There are bars and restaurants between Faculty
Neighborhood and the post office, but while 100% of residents reported being able
to walk to the post office, only 92% reported being able to walk to a bar and 96% to
a restaurant. This may reflect personal preferences as to where respondents want to
walk or do actually walk, rather than where they can walk.
Civic engagement and levels of trust are among the typical measures of
social capital (Prakash 2004; Putnam 2000). Survey respondents in both
neighborhoods had relatively high levels of trust for those in their community

1
The Saguaro Seminar is an initiative of Harvard University and was funded by Robert Putnam after the
publication of his book on civic engagement in America- Bowling Alone. The short form social capital
survey can be found at http://www.hks.harvard.edu/saguaro/
206 S.H. Rogers et al.

Table 1 Summary of survey results

Characteristic Faculty Longmarsh

(n=25) (n=23)

Demographics
Age (mean) 61 51
Very or Moderately Conservative 28% 39%
Very or Moderately Liberal 64% 35%
Very happy 48% 52%
Excellent health 40% 39%
Religious services almost every week or more often 24% 39%
Neighborhood Physical Perceptions
How many destinations within walking distance? (out of 11 options) 9.9 3.3
How many minutes are you willing to walk to reach a destination? 23 min 21 min
Travel Behaviors
Walk every day or several times a week 84% 13%
Walk once a year or never 0% 48%
Bike every day or several times a week 40% 4%
Bike once a year or never 40% 44%
Residents who commute to work 57% 65%
Of those who commute, % going by car 62% 100%
Social Capital Metrics
Reported trusting neighbors “A lot” (p=0.8) 80% 76%
Ave num of times on a community project last year (p=0.4) 9.0 14.0
Ave num of times friends at your home last year p=(0.3) 24.2 17.3
Ave num of times volunteered last year (p=0.4) 22.8 31.7
Ave num of times attended club meeting last year (p=0.6) 24.2 18.0
Agree that TV is my main form of entertainment 24% 40%

and the local government and police. Moderate levels of trust were stated for the
national government and there were no differences between the trust levels of the
two neighborhoods. Individuals responding to the survey in both neighborhoods
had similar volunteering habits in the last 12 months. They also had similar levels
of participation in other civic and neighborly activities questions. Faculty
neighborhood had slightly higher levels of trust for their neighbors than those in
Longmarsh. Residents in Longmarsh reported having friends over to their home or
being in the home of a friend an average of 17 times in the last 12 months. Faculty
neighborhood reported having friends over about 24 times in the last year (or twice
per month). While not statistically significant, most of these differences are in the
direction we would expect if the hypothesis that more walkable neighborhoods
foster greater levels of social capital. Additionally, more individuals in Longmarsh
reported that television was their main form of entertainment (40%) than Faculty
neighborhood (24%). While not a primary indicator of social capital, this question
can be used to tell a broader story of community engagement.
Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life 207

Demographics

Respondents from Faculty were an average of 60 years old, which was significantly
more than the average age of 50 years old for Longmarsh residents (p=0.004). Aside
from age, the respondents were very similar in other demographic areas, including
income and education (Authors can provide additional detail of survey results upon
request). These demographic similarities can also be quite interesting, in that these
neighborhoods really do differ in their transportation behaviors and some social capital
results. The socio-demographics being relatively similar between the neighborhoods
acts as a rough control for these measures and the observed differences in behavior can
be even more instructive.

Self Selection

Self-selection certainly could play a part in the reported outcomes from this survey.
Open-ended questions were included in the survey to gauge why residents chose to
live where they did and if they had any specific comments that might assist our
research. A noticeable difference exists between the two neighborhoods in their
responses to their reasons for deciding to reside in the area that they currently live.
The majority of respondents in Faculty neighborhood indicated that they chose the
area because of proximity to services, work and community life (such as University
activities). Residents of Longmarsh more often reported “proximity to open space”
as a reason for moving to the neighborhood.

Applying the Methods at a Larger Scale

The pilot study motivated a larger study in a number of ways. The results, while
from a small sample, suggested that a relationship might exist between walkability
and social capital and thus quality of life, at the neighborhood scale. Because the
pilot study only surveyed a small group of residents in two neighborhoods,
researchers expanded the study to look at a greater number of neighborhoods within
two different municipalities. Additionally, the method of administering the survey, as
well as some of the questions on the survey, were modified based on the results of
the pilot study and the advice of municipal officials and community leaders. Two
municipalities in the state of New Hampshire, Portsmouth and Manchester, were
chosen because of their variety of neighborhood types and social, economic, and
cultural diversity. Again, with the help of municipal officials and neighborhood
leaders, 10 neighborhoods were chosen in each of the cities and 100 residents were
randomly selected in each of the neighborhoods to receive a survey. While the pilot
study featured a phone survey, it was determined that this method of survey delivery
was too time intensive for a much larger study of 2,000 people. Therefore, a drop off
and mail back survey was created (with the option of submitting answers online
instead of paper if residents preferred). Dillman (2000) was used as a guideline for
survey design and implementation. The authors are happy to share the survey
instrument upon request.
208 S.H. Rogers et al.

Results

After one hand delivery and one follow up reminder postcard, 35% of original
surveys were returned. This yielded nearly 700 total responses. With the large
number of responses there were several perspectives from which to view the data.
Table 2 compares the responses to a number of survey questions between more
walkable and less walkable neigborhoods. As in the pilot study, respondents were
asked to indicate the number of locations they could walk to in their community
out of a list of 13 locations (two locations were added from the pilot survey). The
mean and median response for the whole sample was seven locations and thus
those responses indicating seven locations or more were designated as “more
walkable neighborhoods” and those with less than 7 were designated as “less

Table 2 Summary of comparison results for more walkable and less walkable neighborhoods

Characteristic More Walkable Less Walkable

(n=380) (n=314)

Demographics
Average Age 50 54
Very or moderately conservative 22% 33%
Very or moderately liberal 47% 32%
Very Happy 33% 25%
Excellent Health 27% 21%
Average Income Range $62,500 $62,500
Average Education Level Bachelor’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree
Attend Religious Services almost every week or more often 24% 27%
Neighborhood Physical Perceptions
Average number of places can walk to (out of 13 options) 10 3
How many minutes are you willing to walk to a destination? 21 19
Travel Behavior
Walk every day or several times per week 55% 23%
Bike every day or several times per week 11% 5%
Residents who commute to work 71% 67%
Of those who commute, % going by car 89% 95%
Social Capital Metrics
People can be trusteda (p=0.000) 41% 27%
Reported trusting neighbors a lota (p=0.000) 52% 41%
Participate in a community project in last yeara (p=0.0021) 55% 43%
Have friends at your home in last yeara (p=0.0039) 95% 91%
Volunteered in last yeara (p=0.0239) 75% 67%
Attended club meeting in last yeara (p=0.0185) 67% 58%
Agree that TV is my main form of entertainment 37% 47%

a
Indicates significance at the 0.05 level
Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life 209

walkable neighborhoods.” Once the responses were divided into these two types
of perceived neighborhoods, social capital and demographic responses were
compared.
Stata and Excel were used to examine descriptive statistics and comparison of
means (on social capital indicators). As can be seen from the percentage
comparisons, the more walkable neighborhoods score better on every measure of
social capital than the less walkable neighborhoods. Individuals in more walkable
neighborhoods have higher levels of trust and community involvement, whether that
is working on a community project, attending a club meeting, volunteering, or
simply having friends to one’s home. Interestingly, residents in the more walkable
neighborhoods indicated having excellent health and happiness more frequently than
the less walkable neighborhoods. The p-values for the t-tests done to compare means
are noted in Table 2 and meant as an illustration of the differences between the two
samples. In general, t-tests assume that the samples are from the population and are
normally distributed. Because this cannot always be assumed, the nonparametric
version of a t-test for unpaired samples is the Wilcoxan Mann Whitney rank sum test
and researchers performed these tests on the data as well. The results for the trust
indicators were the same with both tests. Indicators of community involvement
(community project, friends to home, volunteering, and attending club meeting)
produced slightly different, less powerful results with the rank sum test. However,
the t-test results remain in Table 2 because this test is considered more robust as it
considers the distribution of the data and the rank sum test does not. Additionally,
the statistical analysis is not the main focus of the paper and is meant as a
complement to the main goal of looking for relationships between walkability and
social capital.
Another way to analyze the data is to compare several neighborhoods to one
another as was done in the pilot study. Table 3 compares a more suburban, less
walkable neighborhood to a more mixed use, walkable neighborhood (both in
Manchester). The same procedure was repeated for two neighborhoods of varying
built form in Portsmouth. The descriptive and statistical analysis completed on this
data was the same as in those completed in the more and less walkable comparisons
in Table 2. Additionally, because the comparisons are only being made between
neighborhoods within the same municipalities, there is less question about whether
the samples come from the same population.
While more subtle, there are still noticeable differences between the more
walkable and less walkable neighborhoods in both municipalities. In the case of the
two Manchester neighborhoods, the more walkable neighborhood (Southside St.
Anthony) scored higher on one measure of trust (trusting neighbors) and three
measures of community involvement (community project, volunteering, and club
meeting) than the less walkable neighborhood (Bodwell). In Portsmouth, the more
walkable neighborhood (Islington Street) scored higher on the general trust question
and four of the community involvement measures (community project, volunteering,
friends over to your home, and club meeting) than less walkable neighborhood
(Sherburne).
Readers may be interested in how the overall samples from Portsmouth and
Manchester compare to one another regardless of the individual neighborhood
walkability scores. Table 4 provides this comparison.
210 S.H. Rogers et al.

Table 3 Comparisons of example neighborhoods in both Manchester and Portsmouth

Characteristic Bodwell Southside St. Anthony Sherburne Islington

(Manchester, NH) (Manchester, NH) (Portsmouth, NH) (Portsmouth, NH)
Walkability = 2.3 Walkability = 7.4 Walkability = 2 Walkability = 10

Demographics
Average Age 42 54 53 43
Very or moderately 43% 42% 28% 12%
conservative
Very or moderately liberal 17% 29% 35% 58%
Very Happy 25% 27% 20% 36%
Excellent Health 22% 22% 16% 21%
Attend Religious Services 13% 36% 16% 12%
almost every week or more
often
Average Income Level $87,500 $62,500 $62,500 $62,500
Average Education Level Bachelor’s Associates Bachelor’s Bachelor’s/Some
Grad
Neighborhood Physical Perceptions
How many destinations you can 2.3 7.4 2 10
walk to
How many minutes are you 19 21 22 17
willing to walk to a
destination?
Travel Behaviors
Walk every day or several times 16% 23% 9% 79%
per week
Walk once a year or never 52% 20% 49% 3%
Bike every day or several times 10% 0% 7% 24%
per week
Bike once per year or never 74% 88% 63% 55%
Residents who commute to 90% 65% 67% 76%
work
Of those who commute, % 100% 97% 97% 88%
going by car
Social Capital Metrics
Agree most people can be 42% (p=0.4) 29% 26% 52%a (p=0.01))
trusted
Reported trusting neighbors a 43% 53% (p=0.17) 43% (p=0.4664) 36%
lot
Participate in a community 32% 50% (p=0.14) 35% 67%a (p=0.01))
project in last 12 months
Have friends at your home last 100% (p=0.09) 91% 91% 97% (p=0.3)
year
Volunteer last year 56% 80%a (p=0.04) 64% 76% (p=0.3)
Attended club meeting last 50% 62% (p=0.09) 55% 82%a (p=0.013)
year
Agree that TV is my main 38% 56% 62% 30%
form of entertainment

a
Indicates significance at the 0.05 level. Manchester neighborhoods are shaded simply to separate them
from Portsmouth neighborhoods
Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life 211

Table 4 Portsmouth and Manchester summary results

Characteristic Portsmouth Manchester

Demographics
Average Age 51 53
Very or moderately conservative 21% 35%
Very or moderately liberal 49% 30%
Very Happy 31% 29%
Excellent Health 24% 25%
Average Income Range $62,500 $62,500
Average Education Level Bachelor’s Degree Bachelor’s Degree
Attend Religious Services almost every week or more often 22% 29%
Neighborhood Physical Perceptions
Destinations you can walk to 7.5 5.8
How many minutes are you willing to walk to a destination? 20 20
Travel Behavior
Walk every day or several times per week 49% 32%
Bike every day or several times per week 13% 3%
Residents who commute to work 67% 71%
Of those who commute, % going by car 89% 93%
Social Capital Metrics
Agree people can generally be trusted 40% 29%
Reported trusting neighbors a lot 48% 46%
Participate in a community project in last 12 months 54% 45%
Have friends at your home last year 95% 91%
Volunteer last year 75% 68%
Attended club meeting last year 68% 57%
Agree that TV is my main form of entertainment 38% 46%

Self Selection and Other Possible Confounders

It would be naïve to say that the data presented here is proof that walkability impacts
social capital at the neighborhood scale. The authors recognize that, as in the pilot
study, there are a number of possible confounders. Again, individuals who enjoy
walking may choose to live in more walkable neighborhoods. Demographic
characteristics such as education, age, and income are likely involved in the
relationship between walkability and social capital. Other factors such as family size
and weather may also play interesting roles in one’s perception of walkability in their
neighborhood. However, correlations of data points show the possibility of a
relationship between samples and are a starting point for more in-depth study.
Additionally, the correlations between walkability and measures of social capital in
this study provide further evidence for the consideration of social capital as a key
component of quality of life.
212 S.H. Rogers et al.

Discussion

The ability to comfortably walk to locations of need and importance in one’s home
neighborhood and quality of life have been linked by researchers, practitioners, and
homeowners. The research presented here suggests that there is another component
of the equation linking walkability to quality of life and that is social capital.
Analysis of a survey of neighborhoods of varying built form reveled strong
correlations between the number of locations one could walk to and indicators of
social capital. Just like economic and human capital, social capital can bring benefits
to those who possess it, such as reduced isolation, career enhancement connections,
neighborhood safety, to name a few. It is these benefits that may enhance an
individual’s quality of life. Walkability enhances social capital by providing the
means and locations for individual to connect, share information, and interact with
those that the might not otherwise meet.
Results from both steps of the research suggest interesting relationships between
walkability and social capital that should be further considered and investigated by
quality of life researchers and practitioners. As suggested by the inguaral issue of
this journal (Michalos et al. 2006) the work presented here may be useful to
community planners and decision makers. In addition to incorporating key
stakeholders in our neighborhood selection process, we have also begun to provide
our results and interpretations to planners, economic and community development
officials, and neighborhood leaders in both of the municipalities as they help address
community needs. While it is just a start, the data analyzed here shows a relationship
between the built environment and social capital may exist. We argue the importance
of social capital as a component in the link between walkability and quality of life
and invite further investigation into this area of research. Neighborhood walkability
has broad implications for health, sustainablility, and many other components of
quality of life. Social capital deserves a place in this discussion as do measures for
enhancing this vital form of capital in communities.

Acknowledgements The research described in this paper has been funded in part by the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Science to Achieve Results (STAR) Graduate
Fellowship Program. EPA has not officially endorsed this publication and the views expressed herein may
not reflect the views of the EPA. The authors would also like to Patricia Jarema of the University of New
Hampshire for her assistance in reworking this manuscript.

References

Adger, W. N. (2003) Social capital, collective action and adaptation to climate change, Economic
Geography 79(4).
Coleman, J. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94
(Supplement), S95–S120.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys. The tailored design method. New York: Wiley.
Emery, M., & Flora, C. (2006). Spiraling-up: mapping community transformation with community capitals
framework. Community Development: Journal of the Community Development Society. Vol, 37(1), 19–35.
Frank, L. D., Sallis, J. F., Saelens, B. E., Leary, L., Cain, K., Conway, T. L., et al. (2009). Development of
a Walkability Index: Application to the Neighborhood Quality of Life Study. British Journal of Sports
Medicine.
Examining Walkability and Social Capital as Indicators of Quality of Life 213

Frumkin, H., Frank, L., & Jackson, R. (2004). Urban sprawl and public health-designing, planning and
building for healthy communities. Washington: Island.
Halstead, J. M., & Deller, S. C. (1997). Public infrastructure in economic development and growth:
evidence from rural manufacturers. Journal of the Community Development Society, 28(2), 149–169.
Jarema, P., Halstead, J., & Conway, K. (2009). Civic Engagement and Land Use Policy Change: Does
Social Capital Affect Ecosystem Service Flows? Paper Presentation Northeast Agriculture and
Resource Economics Annual Conference, Burlington, VT, June 7–9.
Krizek, K. (2003). Residential relocation and changes in urban travel: does neighborhood-scale urban
form matter? JAPA, 69(3), 265–281.
Leyden, K. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: the importance of Walkable neighborhoods.
American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546–1551.
Lund, H. (2003). Testing the claims of new urbanism: local access, pedestrian travel, and neighboring
behaviors. Journal of the American Planning Association, 69(4), 414–429.
McCrea, R., Shyy, T., & Stimson, R. (2006). What is the strength of the link between objective and
subjective indicators of urban quality of life? Applied Research in Quality of Life, 1, 79–96.
Michalos, A. C., Sirgy, M. J., & Estes, R. J. (2006). Introducing the Official Journal of the International
Society for Quality of Life Studies: Applied Research in Quality of Life (ARQOL). Applied Research
in Quality of Life, 1(1), 1–3.
Norris, P., & Ingelhart, R. (2004). Sacred and secular: Religion and politics worldwide. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press.
Nussbaum, M. C., & Sen, A. K. (1993). The quality of life. New York: Oxford University Press.
Oldenburg, R. (1999). The great good place. New York: Marlowe & Company.
Prakash, S. & Selle, P. (2004) Investigating social capital: comparative perspectives on civil society,
participation, and governance. New Delhi: Sage Publications.
Putnam, R. D. (1993). Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton University
Press.
Putnam, R. D. (2000). Bowling alone. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Requena, F. (2003). Social capital, satisfaction, and quality of life in the workplace. Social Indicators
Research, 61, 331–360.
Sirgy, M. J., Rahtz, D., & Swain, D. (2006). Community Quality of Life Indicators. Best Cases II. Social
Indicators Research Series. Vol. 28. Springer.