{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.021404109589041095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.68, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Understanding Social Capital in Recently Restructured Urban Neighbourhoods: Two Case Studies in Rotterdam

In the major Dutch cities, social rented housing in post-war neighbourhoods has been demolished and largely replaced by more expensive owner-occupied and rental housing. Through residential mobility, these measures can trigger substantial population changes. This paper studies residents' social capital in two recently restructured neighbourhoods in the city of Rotterdam. It distinguishes between the stayers, movers and newcomers. In a neighbourhood context, social capital refers to the benefit of cursory interactions, shared norms, trust and collective action of residents. Survey data show that social capital is not only an asset of long-term stayers, but that in particular newcomers are relatively rich in social capital. Factors associated with higher levels of social capital are a higher net income, presence of households with children, stronger place attachment, higher perceived neighbourhood quality, homeownership and single-family dwellings. The expected future length of residence in the area appears of little importance for social capital.