URBAN SOCIAL IDENTITY AND SUSTAINABILITY ...

ENVIRONMENT Valera, Guàrdia / SOCIAL AND BEHAVIOR IDENTITY/ IN January BARCELONA 2002

URBAN SOCIAL IDENTITY AND SUSTAINABILITY Barcelona’s Olympic Village

SERGI VALERA has a Ph.D. in social psychology from the University of Barcelona and a master’s degree in environmental intervention. He is a professor of social and environmental psychology. At present he is lecturer and coordinator of the master’s degree program Environmental Intervention: People, Society, and Management at the University of Barcelona. His research interests include urban identity, the symbolism of urban space, and risk perception. JOAN GUÀRDIA Ph.D. in psychology from the University of Barcelona, has been professor of methodology of behavioral sciences since 1987. Dr. Guàrdia’s related academic activities involve the field of statistical data analysis for psychology and include several scientific publications on the topics of multivariate data analysis, especially structural equation models, and applied statistical data analysis.

ABSTRACT: One of the most recent fields of investigation in environmental psychology focuses on the relationship between human behavior and management of environmental resources, aspects related to what is known today as sustainable human development. For the authors, this kind of behavior is linked to the relation that people establish with particular environments, specifically, the processes of socioenvironmental identity that condition the people-environment relationship. The authors present the results of a study conducted in the Olympic Village of Barcelona. The urban social identity of residents was analyzed, focusing on three main factors: identification-satisfaction, image of the neighborhood, and perceived social homogeneity. These three factors were analyzed in relation to a series of items in the initial questionnaire referring to proenvironmental behavior, representation of particular natural resources, and environmental attitudes. The authors expected the answers to these questions would differ significantly according to the degree of identification of residents with their neighborhood.

One of the most recent fields of investigation in environmental psychology is the relationship between human behavior and management of environmental resources, that is, aspects related to sustainable human behavior. ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR, Vol. 34 No. 1, January 2002 54-66 © 2002 Sage Publications

54

Valera, Guàrdia / SOCIAL IDENTITY IN BARCELONA

55

Following the Brundtland (1987) report, we understand sustainability as the capacity to satisfy the needs of current generations without compromising the capacity of future generations to satisfy theirs. Thus, our interest is in both intergenerational and intragenerational solidarity. However, what can explain the genesis and maintenance of sustainable behavior? Our starting point is that broadly, proenvironmental behavior is related to the link that people establish with particular environments and specifically with the processes of socioenvironmental identity that shape the person-environment relationships. The concept of “place-identity” developed by Proshansky (Proshansky, 1976; Proshansky, Fabian, & Kaminoff, 1983) proposes the inclusion of the physical dimension of the environment into self-identity studies (Dixon & Durrheim, 2000; Graumann & Kruse, 1993; Korpela, 1989; Krupat, 1983; Rose, 1996; Sarbin, 1983; Twigger-Ross & Uzell, 1996). Furthermore, several studies have integrated this proposal into social identity theories (Devine-Wright & Lyons, 1997; Hunter, 1987; Lalli, 1988, 1992; Simon, Kulla, & Zobel, 1995). In this regard, we have argued that it seems necessary to broaden the social identity concept by assuming that it also derives from a sense of belonging or attachment to specific significant surroundings (city, town, or neighborhood as spatial categories). People may perceive themselves as a social group based on a shared spatial category. The spatial category thus becomes a social (spatial) category and one that may be critical in supporting or consolidating social identity processes (Pol et al., 1998; Valera, 1993, 1997; Valera, Guàrdia & Pol, 1998; Valera & Pol, 1994). Therefore, in this case study urban space can be socially represented as a set of shared features defining the inhabitants as belonging to a particular social urban category at a particular level of inclusion or abstraction in the sense of Turner (1987). This process allows the inhabitants of a city, an urban area, or a neighborhood to differentiate themselves from the inhabitants of other surroundings based on salient categorical dimensions at the same level of abstraction. The level selected depends on the situation of interaction in which the social identification occurs (e.g., I am from my neighborhood as opposed to other neighborhoods, I am from my city as opposed to other cities, and so on). This process constitutes what we have called elsewhere “urban social identity” (Valera & Pol, 1994). The dimensions that may be salient in this process of categorization have been postulated previously (Valera, 1997; Valera et al., 1998; Valera & Pol, 1994): territorial (perceived boundaries), temporal (history and temporal relation to the surroundings), behavioral (characteristic practices), psychosocial (lifestyle and social relations), social (perceived social homogeneity), and ideological (shared cultural and ideological values). Furthermore, social

56

ENVIRONMENT AND BEHAVIOR / January 2002

urban identity allows the integration of both physical and social features of the milieu and its resources, positioning the self within the environment and generating environmental appraisals and attitudes toward it (Pol, 1997). In addition, the role of place identity and place attachment in predicting environmental concern has been analyzed recently by Vorkinn and Riese (2001). Their results show that place attachment explained more of the variances in attitudes than the sociodemographic variables all together. In our case, sustainable behavior could be viewed as an indicator of these psychoenvironmental processes.

CHARACTERISTICS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD

Hosting the Olympic Games is an event of huge proportions for any city. It involves large-scale urban transformations such as the construction of the Olympic village and sports facilities for the athletes, new road and transport systems, and other public developments that have a major affect on the urban landscape. Once the games are over, the fruits of the Olympic planning remain, not only as a commemoration of the event but also as a set of facilities for use by the population. The exploitation of the new facilities, however, is not always as successful as expected, and Olympic villages are a case in point. Designed to be villages or temporary residences for sportspeople, after the event they must become a new city district and be completely integrated into its urban and social framework. The case of the Olympic Village in Poblenou in the city of Barcelona is a paradigmatic example. The village is located very close to the city’s historic nucleus, and so its centrality is unquestionable. Its proximity to the sea is another undeniable attraction. The village conforms fully to the new, modern image of Barcelona in which the concepts of quality of life and the relevance of the environment are of vital importance. During its planning, reputed architects were commissioned to design and supervise the construction of high-quality apartments, organizing them in blocks with inner courtyards and gardens for community use. The Olympic Village of Poblenou, Barcelona has another attraction for researchers. It is not often that an area so geographically close to the city center becomes completely repopulated. Before the Olympic games, the Poblenou district had a preponderance of disused factories and warehouses; the demolition of all the buildings in the area, the removal of the railway track, and the relocation of the affected residents all led to a spectacular


57

transformation. Poblenou is now a new neighborhood with new residents, infrastructures, and facilities—a new neighborhood inside the city of Barcelona. From an architectural point of view, creating a new district is a relatively easy task; establishing the district as a social entity, however, is not as straightforward. Thus, the area represents a unique opportunity to analyze the emergence of a neighborhood (both in physical and social terms), to examine the socioenvironmental characteristics that contribute to define it as such, and to assess how residents experience the process.

PROCEDURE

This study applied a methodological strategy that allowed us to obtain two types of information. On one hand, documentary analysis (documents included geographical maps, historical social reports, guides, etc.) was performed, and on the other, a questionnaire was designed to collect data regarding the study’s objectives and its analysis via a range of statistical procedures, mainly incidence percentages analysis, factor analysis, and correlational analysis. The information was complemented by interviews and, in fact, the information presented here is the data obtained from the questionnaire. The sample comprised residents of the Olympic Village neighborhood in Barcelona ages 18 and older. The sample was selected through a nonprobabilistic survey covering all the zones and times of day, and genders were balanced. Three hundred people were interviewed, and 295 valid questionnaires were obtained (N = 295). Age range was 18 to 80, though the mode was between 26 and 46 (63%). Most participants had lived in the neighborhood for 1 to 3 years (62%). Seventy percent had university degrees, and many were qualified professionals (economists, architects, designers, and so on). Following previous investigations (Valera, 1993, 1997; Valera & Pol, 1994), the present questionnaire included two general blocks: identity and sustainability.

RESULTS

First, the results corresponding to the block identity were analyzed. A factor analysis revealed a three-factor structure. Second, the relationship between these factors and the items corresponding to the block sustainability were analyzed.

58


TABLE 1 Saturation Coefficients of Each Variable in Relation to the Principle Factors

Item 9 25 26 4 5 6 20 10 7 18 11

Social prestige Sense of belonging Residential satisfaction Purchase of basic items Remainder of purchases Use of neighborhood for leisure Relations with neighbors Publicity vs. personal experience Sensation of living outside Barcelona Perceived social homogeneity Identification with neighborhood

Factor 1

Factor 2

Factor 3

.11760 .77775. .67221 .62466 .60740 .42790 .60234 .09367 .09576 –.09890 .62406

.66360 .19303 .34668 .04803 –.08801 .35732 .10852 .66811 .72971 –.04039 .42633

–.26120 –.01361 .15671 .31131 –.09139 .51226 –.24847 .32420 .03539 .82585 .19467

NOTE: Boldface indicates the highest saturation for each factor.

IDENTITY

The factor analysis of the data in the identity block distinguished three principal factors or components accounting for 60.6% of the variance (see Table 1). Factor 1: Identification-Satisfaction. This factor accounted for 28% of the variance and covered the variables referring to identification with the neighborhood, sense of belonging or appropriation of the neighborhood, satisfaction with it, residential satisfaction, use of the neighborhood, and, finally, relationship with neighbors. Factor 2: Image of Neighborhood. This factor obtained an explanatory weight of 19.1% of the variance. It is related to the image of neighborhood created by its urban planning and architecture and by the image promoted for publicity purposes, advertising the neighborhood and encouraging people to buy property there. This factor includes the perception of living outside Barcelona, the social prestige conferred by the fact of living in a new and modern neighborhood, and the correspondence between the image presented by the publicity and the residents’ own experience in daily life. Factor 3: Perceived Social Heterogeneity. This factor accounted for 13.5% of the variance. One variable predominated, the neighborhood’s sociocultural diversity or similarity perceived by residents.


59

We will describe the most relevant aspects derived from these factors and implications. IDENTIFICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD

The first notable effect is the clear identification of the Poblenou Olympic Village population with their surroundings; that is, the residents consider the spatial referent to be particularly relevant. Several items (see below) provide information on this first element in the form of direct data, but the most relevant information about this phenomenon is probably to be found in the basis of the first factor extracted from the analysis (Identification-Satisfaction), which, in the context of the investigation, contributes highly salient information due both to its weight in terms of explained variance and to the conceptual grouping of variables that it includes. This factor establishes a relationship between items such as • Identification with the space (“I identify with the neighborhood”). This item has important repercussions for the definition of a person’s identity and of the groups associated with the environment (75.2% of the sample agreed with the sentence). This item is an important indicator of what we call “social urban identity” (Valera & Pol, 1994). • Spatial appropriation (“To what extent do you feel the neighborhood is your own?”). Through a process of appropriation of a specific environmental image, people assume the symbolical values of the social group linked with this environment and, therefore, generate a social identity in relation to it (Pol, 1996). Of the sample, 65.4% felt the neighborhood was “their own.” • Relationship with neighbors (“What relationship do you have with your neighbors?” on a scale of 1 to 5). This aspect broadens the spatial dimension to the sphere of social interaction, which is of great importance to the development of social networks characteristic of and linked to an individual’s environment. In our study, this item was marked 4 or 5 by 38.3% of the respondents. • Daily use of spaces (“How much time do you spend in the neighborhood during the week?”). This item is an indicator of the characteristic trait of the lifestyle of the resident: the short time they spend there during the week compared to the time they spend during the weekends. The use they make of their neighborhood in their spare time suggests a relationship with it that is basically concentrated at the weekend, both for shopping and for free-time activities. These aspects are clearly consistent with the general profile of the sample. • Residential satisfaction, here expressed in terms of satisfaction with the neighborhood (“To what extent are you satisfied with your neighborhood?”). This aspect is especially relevant because residential satisfaction, often linked above all to satisfaction with accommodation and related aspects (Amérigo,

60


1995), here takes on a much wider dimension by including aspects of identification with and spatial appropriation of the neighborhood. The underlying hypothesis may be related to people’s motives for moving here. Moving to the Olympic Village is a voluntary choice that could be based on the neighborhood image advertised but, in any case, the change seems to involve an improvement in living conditions and, in general, an improvement in the quality of life of the new inhabitants. Thus, whether due to the actual conditions and the nature of the area or due to a cognitive consistency with the decision taken, residential satisfaction is an important aspect noted by the residents: 77.3 % of the sample reported that they were satisfied with the neighborhood.

Thus, this first factor covers—that is to say, links—a set of relevant items of the questionnaire and, at the same time, shows a clearly positive attitude on the part of the sample as a whole. Moreover, this first factor allows us to speak of the existence of a social identity of the neighborhood. This result is borne out by other items that act as supplementary indicators. One of these is the name given to the neighborhood. Previous studies have shown the name to be a crucial element, as it establishes direct ties with a particular environment understood as the social reference category for spatial identity (Valera, 1993). This study is no exception, because the name of the neighborhood correlated significantly with a large number of the items analyzed. The data obtained show, in general, a very clear tendency of the inhabitants to use the name Vila Olímpica (87.5%) rather than Nova Icaria (4.7%)—the neighborhood’s official name—in everyday life. Additionally, the perceived boundaries of the neighborhood by the inhabitants—the territorial dimension of urban social identity—are clearly defined and broadly accepted. THE IMAGE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD

The set of items that compose this second factor links three aspects that are closely related to the area’s advertising image—an image that may well be widespread among many of Barcelona’s residents. People with the highest scores on this factor are those who most strongly agree that living in the Olympic Village confers social prestige (28.1% in direct data), share the feeling of living outside Barcelona (57.6%), and find the highest correspondence between the image given by advertising and their daily life experience of the neighborhood (47.1%). Thus, this is another highly relevant factor as far as the level of explained variance is concerned and is supported by substantial percentages. On the other hand, because the first factor shows evidence of a neighborhood identity, the second one indicates that this identity is based on a process


61

of appropriation of a particular neighborhood image. Furthermore, although we can consider this image as a social construction, it is the result of external factors (advertising, mass media, etc.,) more than internal ones (common history, social network, etc.). PERCEIVED SOCIAL HOMOGENEITY

The analysis of this last factor requires some clarification. First, the weight of this factor in terms of the explained variance is lower than that of the other two factors. Second, the only item in this factor (“The people in your neighborhood are . . .” ranging from 1, more similar socially based, to 5, more different) shows a clear tendency toward perceiving similarities among the residents (56.6% of the sample marked 1 or 2), but this appears to be due more to socioeconomic similarity (observed earlier in the composition of the sample) than to the particular criteria of a social group. Moreover, the relationship between neighbors is not very close, as we showed above. In other words, social homogeneity is not the same as social cohesion (this element being traditionally considered key to a consideration of the group from a psychosocial perspective and based on feelings of intergroup attraction). We find evidence of social homogeneity but few signs of social cohesion.

SUSTAINABILITY

The questionnaire included items relating to residents’ sustainable behaviors and attitudes, which are shown in Table 2. From the data obtained on these items after the administration of the questionnaire, a statistical analysis was carried out by crossing the three main identity factors with sustainability. Table 3 shows a number of significant results from this cross. There is a clear tendency in the Identity-Satisfaction factor as regards the perception of the adequate use of natural resources by the residents in the neighborhood (nonparametric analysis, U = 5893.0, p = .0327). From range analysis, people with the highest scores on this first factor consider that natural resources are well used in the neighborhood. In relation to the social construction of water as a natural resource, the first factor shows significant correlations in three items. Thus, from the statistical significances found, people scoring highest on Identity-Satisfaction see natural resources as exhaustible (χ22 = 26.7642, p = .0000), limited (χ2 = 18.1504, p = .0012), and nonrecyclable (χ2 = 12.3943, p = .0146).

62


TABLE 2 Items in the Questionnaire Referring to Sustainable Human Behavior Perceived adequate use of natural resources in the neighborhood. Social construction of water as a natural resource Exhaustible vs. inexhaustible Abundant vs. scarce Individual vs. collective asset Recyclable vs. nonrecyclable What to do with household rubbish Joint responsibility for general cleaning, state of the streets, etc., in the neighborhood

Habits of buying and consumption: Purchase of products according to brand name Purchase of products according to low energy consumption Purchase of products according to aesthetic appearance or design Purchase of disposable products due to convenience Purchase of products according to price Purchase of reusable products Purchase of products with little packaging

On the other hand, people scoring high on the Perceived Social Heterogeneity factor correlate with the same items but in the opposite direction. This means that those who perceive residents as more different (with reference to origin, culture, etc.) tend to consider water as inexhaustible (χ2 = 46.7023, p = .0000), abundant (χ2 = 45.8340, p = .0000), and recyclable (χ2 = 27.1253, p = .0000). As regards the shopping and consumption habits of the interviewees, it seems that people scoring highest on the Identity-Satisfaction factor value aesthetic appearance and design when shopping (χ2 = 9.9196, p = .0418) and disposable products due to their convenience (χ2 = 10.7825, p = .0291), although they also value reusable products (χ2 = 14.4907, p = .0059). The second factor, Image of the Neighborhood, correlates here with three items: People scoring highest on this factor tend to value brand names (χ2 = 14.1347, p = .0069), aesthetic appearance and design (χ2 = 9.6638, p = .0465), and the lack of elaborate packaging (χ2 = 9.6708, p = .0464). As for the third factor, Perceived Social Heterogeneity, significant correlations are obtained in four items; thus, people who score higher on this factor (perceiving themselves as different) tend to choose products without paying particular attention to the brand name (χ2 = 20.7961, p = .0003), valuing to some extent the product’s low energy consumption (χ2 = 15.3442, p = .0090), ignoring the aesthetic appearance or the design (χ2 = 10.0314, p = .0399), and are in favor of reusable products (χ2 = 16.0645, p = .0029).

63

.0012 .5979 .0000

.0000 .2141 .0000

NOTE: Boldface indicates statistically significant relationships.

IdentitySatisfaction .0327 Image of the Neighborhood .3530 Perceived Social Heterogeneity .2936

Factor

Habits of buying and consumption Purchase Products According to

.0069 .0003

.0000

.0586

.5276

.0146

.0090

.5313

.5978

.0399

.0465

.0418

.1093

.8992

.0291

.0029

.3976

.0059

.7726

.0464

.1884

Use of Exhaustible Abundant Recyclable Low Natural vs. vs. vs. Brand Energy Design or Reusable Little Resources Inexhaustible Scarce Nonrecyclable Name Consumption Aesthetics Convenience Products Packaging

Water as a natural resource

TABLE 3 Levels of Significance: Relationships of Principal Factors With the Variables Considered in the Questionnaire

64


CONCLUSIONS

There is indeed a process of social identity construction in the neighborhood that most people refer to as the Olympic Village. This identity, however, is still closely linked to a particular image of the neighborhood. This image is undeniably borne out by the urban shape of this neighborhood, its location in the city grid, and its architectural characteristics. However, this image derives from the social discourse about the neighborhood when it was promoted for publicity reasons in order to attract inhabitants. This gave the neighborhood a distinctive image and function inside the city of Barcelona. These are the elements that distinguish the Olympic Village from other areas of the city, and a strong feeling of residential satisfaction among its inhabitants reflects this identification. However, there is still no social construction of an urban social identity, though people see themselves as similar in social aspects and a high level of perceived social homogeneity is noted. Social cohesion, understood as interpersonal attraction, does not seem— so far at least—to be a main element in the construction of the neighborhood identity. It seems that, as Turner (1987) stated, the categorical identification is at the core of the phenomenon studied. The analysis of the relationship between urban social identity and aspects of sustainability would require further study. By broadening both the number of items of sustainable human behavior and the contexts to explore, the results would be more generalizable. In spite of this, the study indicates a clear relationship between the factors of Identity-Satisfaction and Social Heterogeneity of the neighborhood with respect to the proenvironmental behaviors evaluated. We confirm that the greater the social identity, sense of belonging to the neighborhood, and residential satisfaction, the greater the awareness of the environment. The more values shared and the greater the spatial appropriation of the area, the more the residents will take care for their surroundings, and probably the more they will tend to express solidarity attitudes. Thus, sustainability-oriented behaviors are more likely to be incorporated and accepted in the future. The factors, then, tend to behave as the theoretical framework of the City-Identity-Sustainability project suggests (see Pol, 2002 [this issue]).


65

REFERENCES Amérigo, M. (1995). Satisfacción residencial. Un análisis psicológico de la vivienda y su entorno [Residential satisfaction. A psychological analysis of housing and its surroundings]. Madrid, Spain: Alianza. Brundtland, G. H. (1987). Our common future (Report for the World Commission on Environment and Development, United Nations). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press. Devine-Wright, P., & Lyons, E. (1997). Remembering pasts and representing places: The construction of national identities in Ireland. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 17, 33-45. Dixon, J., & Durrheim, K. (2000). Displacing place-identity: A discursive approach to locating self and other. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 27-44. Graumann, C. F., & Kruse, L. (1993). Place identity and the physical structure of the city. In M. Bonnes (Ed.), Perception and evaluation of urban environment quality. A pluridisciplinary approach in the European context (pp. 155-163). Proceedings of the UNESCO Programme on Man and Biosphere International Symposium, Rome, 1991. Rome: UNESCO-ENEL. Hunter, A. (1987). The symbolic ecology of suburbia. In I. Altman & A. Wandersman (Eds.), Neighborhood and community environments: Vol. 9. Human behavior and environment: Advances in theory and research (pp. 191-219). New York: Plenum Press. Korpela, K. M. (1989). Place-identity as a product of environmental self-regulation. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 9, 241-256. Krupat, E. (1983). A place for place identity. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 343-344. Lalli, M. (1988). Urban identity. In D. Canter, J.-C. Jesuino, L. Soczka, & G. M. Stephenson (Eds.), Environmental social psychology (NATO Advanced Studies Institute Series, Vol. 45, pp. 303-311). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers. Lalli, M. (1992). Urban-related identity. Theory, measurement, and empirical findings. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 12, 285-303. Pol, E. (1996). La apropriación del espacio [Space appropriation]. In L. Íñiguez & E. Pol (Comp.), Cognición, representación y apropriación del espacio. Monografies Psico-SocioEnvironmentals (Vol. 9, pp. 71-76). Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona. Pol, E. (1997). Symbolism a priori-symbolism a posteriori. In A. Remesar (Ed), Urban regeneration. A challenge for public art. Monografies Psico-Socio-Ambientals (Vol. 6, pp. 71-76). Barcelona, Spain: University of Barcelona. Pol, E., Valera, S., Cruells, E., Aparicio, A., Pol, O., Reixach, N., Schilman, N., & Vallés, N. (1998). Environment and urban social identity, a case study: Barcelona’s Olympic Village. In J. Teklenburg, J. van Andel, J. Smeets, & A. Seidel (Eds.) Shifting balances: Changing roles in policy, research and design (pp. 222-233). Eindhoven, The Netherlands: Technical University of Eindhoven, EIRASS. Proshansky, H. M. (1976). Appropriation et non appropriation de löe space [Appropriation and misappropriation of space]. In P. Korosec (Ed.), Appropriation de l’espace (Actes de la A.P. 76 Conférence de Strasbourg, pp. 34-49). Strasbourg, France: CIACO. Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 57-83. Rose, G. (1996). Place and identity: A sense of place. In D. Massey & P. Jess (Eds.), A place in the world? (pp. 87-132.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.

66


Sarbin, T. R. (1983). Place identity as a component of self: An addendum. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3, 337-342. Simon, B., Kulla, C., & Zobel, M. (1995). On being more than just part of the whole: Regional identity and social distinctiveness. European Journal of Social Psychology, 25, 325-340. Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group. A self-categorization theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell. Twigger-Ross, C. L. & Uzzell, D. L. (1996). Place and identity processes. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 16, 205-220. Valera, S. (1993). El simbolisme de la ciutat. Funcions de l’espai simbòlic urbà [Symbolism of the city. Functions of urban symbolic space]. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Barcelona. Valera, S. (1997). Estudio de la relación entre el espacio simbólico urbano y el procesos de identidad social [Study of the relationship between symbolic space and social identity processes]. Revista de Psicología Social, 12(1), 17-30. Valera, S., Guàrdia, J., & Pol, E. (1998). A study of the symbolic aspects of space using nonquantitative techniques of analysis. Quality and Quantity, 32, 367-381. Valera, S., & Pol, E. (1994). El concepto de identidad social urbana: Una aproximación entre la psicología social y la psicología ambiental [The concept of urban social identity: An approach between social psychology and environmental psychology]. Anuario de Psicología, 62(3), 5-24. Vorkinn, M., & Riese, H. (2001). Environmental concern in a local context. The significance of place attachment. Environment & Behavior, 33, 249-263.