1 / 35

1. Background-Issues 2. Models and Research Questions 3. Methods & Data Sources -DAS 3. Findings

OVERVIEW. 1. Background-Issues 2. Models and Research Questions 3. Methods & Data Sources -DAS 3. Findings 4. Discussion. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND -LITERATURE

mio
Download Presentation

1. Background-Issues 2. Models and Research Questions 3. Methods & Data Sources -DAS 3. Findings

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. OVERVIEW 1. Background-Issues 2. Models and Research Questions 3. Methods & Data Sources -DAS 3. Findings 4. Discussion

  2. THEORETICAL BACKGROUND-LITERATURE Residential Choice & Satisfaction - importance of natural resources and recreational opportunities in choosing where to live and in contributing to residential quality. Garling & Friman, 2002; Vogt & Marans, 2003; Marans & Rogers, 1975; Allen, 1990 Recreation Site Choice - importance of parks in contributing to QOL & health through use and enhanced satisfaction with place of residence Dwyer, Klenosky, & LeBlanc, 2004; Peterson, Dwyer, & Darragh, 1983, Marans & Mohai, 1991.

  3. BASIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL Person Characteristics Standards of Comparison Residential Domains Residential Quality Assessments of Perceived Environmental Attributes Objective Environmental Attributes (Eo) Perceptions of Environmental Attributes (Es) Housing Satisfaction House/dwelling Micro- Neighborhood Satisfaction Micro- Neighborhood Eo Es Assessments Macro- Neighborhood Satisfaction Macro- Neighborhood Eo Es Assessments Community Satisfaction Overall Quality of Life Experience Eo Es Assessments City, Town Other Domain Satisfactions * Adapted from Marans and Rodgers, 1975.

  4. MODEL LINKING RECREATION RESOURCES & ACTIVITIES TO INDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING (QOL) AND COMMUNITY QUALITY* Objective Environmental Attributes Person Characteristics / Standards of Comparison Objective Natural Recreation Resources (NRR) Satisfaction with other Community Attributes Perceptions of NRR Other Life Domains Assessments of NRR Uses of NRR Environmental Amenities Objective Environmental Quality Attributes (EQ) Perceptions of EQ Attributes Individual Well-Being (QOL) Community Satisfaction Objective Man-Made Recreation Resources (MMRR) Assessments of MMRR Perceptions of MMRR Uses of MMRR Urban Amenities Cultural Resources (CR) Assessments of CR Perceptions of CR Uses of CR Other Individual Attributes and Behaviors Other Community Attributes Individual Physical Health Community Quality * Marans and Mohai, 1991

  5. MODEL FOR THE STUDY (1) i Park Use Physical & Psychological Well-Being Neighborhood Quality i i

  6. MODEL FOR THE STUDY (2) Parks accessibility availability Park Use i Neighborhood Quality Natural Resources accessibility availability i

  7. 1. Is accessibility to parks associated with frequency of park visits? 2. Is the amount of parkland available in the neighborhood associated with park visits? 3. Is there a relationship between the availability of neighborhood parkland (amount and accessibility ) and neighborhood satisfaction? 4. Are different quantities of natural resources associated with neighborhood satisfaction? RESEARCH QUESTIONS

  8. METHODS AND DATA SOURCES METHODS: Survey research (attitudes, behaviors, etc) Geographic Information Systems DATA SOURCES: questionnaires linked environmental data VEHICLE: Detroit Area Study -2001 A program of research aimed at periodically assessing the quality of community life in the metro Detroit area (7 counties including core city)

  9. Lake Huron M E T R O D E T R O I T Lake St. Clair Detroit CANADA USA Lake Erie

  10. DAS QUESTIONNAIRES

  11. DAS RESPONDENTS Number of respondents F2F = 315 MAIL = 4077 Response rates F2F = 60 % MAIL = 56.4 % Interview Respondents Mail Questionnaire Respondents

  12. MERGED DATA SETS Census Data Survey Data • Population • Housing • Residential Density • Attitudes • Behaviors • Preferences • Expectations Community Data Environmental Data • MCD • Schools • Crime • Health • Growth rates • Etc. • Land Use Mix • Natural Resources • Proximity • Brownfield Sites • Etc.

  13. NATURAL RESOURCES: WATER, FORESTS, WETLANDS 1/8, 1/4, & 1/2 MILE BUFFERS AROUND RESPONDENTS

  14. LOCATION OF PARKS AND RESPONDENTS’ DWELLINGS

  15. MEASURES Park use - annual visits to metroparks annual visits to local parks Neighborhood quality - neighborhood satisfaction Accessibility - distance to nearest metropark distance to nearest local park Availability - amount of parkland within 1/4 mile Natural resources - woods, wetlands, water

  16. RESEARCH QUESTION 1 Is accessibility to parks associated with frequency of park visits?

  17. METROPARK VISITS, BY DISTANCE TO NEAREST METROPARK (percent of respondents visiting metroparks 3 time or more annually) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 Distance to Nearest Metropark (miles) 3- 6 times More than 6 times

  18. LOCAL PARK VISITS, BY DISTANCE TO NEAREST COUNTY OR CITY PARK (percent of respondents visiting city or county parks 3 time or more annually) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 1/4 1/2 1 1 1/2 2 Distance to Nearest City or County Park (miles) 3- 6 times More than 6 times

  19. RESEARCH QUESTION 2 Is the amount of parkland available in the neighborhood associated with park use?

  20. METROPARK VISITS, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND (percent of respondents visiting city or county parks 3 time or more annually) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 None Less than 5 5-9.9 10 or more Amount of Parkland within 1/4 mile (acres) 3- 6 times More than 6 times

  21. LOCAL PARK VISITS, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND (percent of respondents visiting city or county parks 3 time or more annually) 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 None Less than 5 5-9.9 10 or more Amount of Parkland within 1/4 mile (acres) 3- 6 times More than 6 times

  22. RESEARCH QUESTION 3 Is there a relationship between the availability of neighborhood parkland (amount & accessibility ) and neighborhood satisfaction?

  23. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND (mean satisfaction score) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Completely Satisfied (528) (64) (115) (41) r=.02 n.s. Completely Dissatisfied None Less than 5 5-9.9 10 or more Amount of Parkland within 1/4 mile (acres) High Stress Neighborhoods

  24. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN THE URBAN CORE, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND (mean satisfaction score) 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Completely Satisfied (86) (529) (133) (52) r=.10 p <.01 Completely Dissatisfied None Less than 5 5-9.9 10 or more Amount of Parkland within 1/4 mile (acres)

  25. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION, BY DISTANCE TO NEAREST PARK mean satisfaction score Completely Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (42) (44) (84) (205) (277) (94) r=.14 p <.01 r=.16 p <.01 Completely Dissatisfied 1/4 1/2 1 1 1/2 2 Distance to Nearest City or County Park (miles) High Stress Neighborhoods

  26. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN THE URBAN CORE, BY DISTANCE TO NEAREST PARK (mean satisfaction score) Completely Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (336) (142) (240) (81) r=.04 n.s. Completely Dissatisfied 1/4 1/2 1 1 1/2 2 Distance to Nearest City or County Park (miles)

  27. RESEARCH QUESTION 4 Are different quantities of natural resources associated with neighborhood satisfaction?

  28. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION, BY AVAILABILITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (mean satisfaction score) Completely Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 r=.15 p <.01 Completely Dissatisfied None 1 2 3 4 5 Number of acres within 1/4 mile of residence

  29. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN URBAN CORE, BY AVAILABILITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (mean satisfaction score) Completely Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 (2) (9) (461) (23) r=.10 p <.03 Completely Dissatisfied None 1 2 3 4 5 Number of acres within 1/4 mile of residence

  30. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN OLDER SUBURBS, BY AVAILABILITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES mean values Completely Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 (5) (128) (239) (1012) r=.05 p <.05 Completely Dissatisfied None 1 2 3 4 Number of acres with 1/4 mile of residence

  31. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN NEW SUBURBS, BY AVAILABILITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES (mean satisfaction score) Completely Satisfied 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 3 2 1 (149) (406) (247) (319) r=.10 p <.01 n= 732 Completely Dissatisfied None 1 2 3 4 Number of acres with 1/4 mile of residence

  32. CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION 1. Living near a park influences the number of park visits However, number of visits differ greatly depending on the type of park (metropark or local park) 2. Quantity of parkland available has no influence on the number of park visits 2 3. Living near a park and the quantity of parkland are weakly associated with neighborhood satisfaction, but not in the urban core (Detroit) 4. Quantity of natural resources in neighborhood is moderately associated with neighborhood satisfaction.

  33. EXPANDED MODEL Individual characteristics-age, health, etc. neighborhood characteristics - crime, etc. substitute park sites Parks accessibility quantity quality Park Use Neighborhood Quality Natural Resources accessibility quantity quality public services, socio-cultural characteristics, physical attributes, aesthetcis

  34. Amy Brooks George Carter Jessica Eisenman Elizabeth Miller Linda Nubani Eric Pratt DAS 2001 RESEARCH TEAM Elizabeth Schreiner Jessica Willhoft Christine Vogt Asli Gocmen Jocelyn Hain Tae-Kyung Kim DAS 2001 SPONSORS • Ann Arbor Transportation Authority • DaimlerChrysler • Macomb County Board of Commissioners • Michigan Economic Development Corporation • Southeast Michigan Council of Governments • University of Michigan • USDA-Forest Service • Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners DAS 2001 WEBSITE http://www.tcaup.umich.edu/workfolio/DAS2001/index.html

More Related