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

1

Exploring Linkages between Parks &Exploring Linkages between Parks &Natural Sites to Park Use andNatural Sites to Park Use and

Neighborhood QualityNeighborhood Quality

Robert W. MaransZeynep Asligul Gocmen

Tae-Kyung KimChristine Vogt

University of MichiganAnn Arbor Michigan USA

18th IAPS ConferenceVienna Austria 7-10July 2004

1. Background-Issues

2. Models and Research Questions

3. Methods & Data Sources -DAS 3. Findings 4. Discussion

OVERVIEW

THEORETICAL BACKGROUND--LITERATURELITERATURE

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.

BASIC CONCEPTUAL MODEL

* Adapted from Marans and Rodgers, 1975.

ObjectiveEnvironmentalAttributes (Eo)

Eo

Eo

Eo

Perceptions ofEnvironmentalAttributes (Es)

Es

Es

Es

Assessments ofPerceivedEnvironmentalAttributes

AssessmentsMicro-NeighborhoodSatisfaction

Assessments

Assessments

Micro-Neighborhood

Housing Satisfaction

House/dwelling

Macro-Neighborhood

City, Town

Macro-NeighborhoodSatisfaction

CommunitySatisfaction

Residential Domains

Person Characteristics

Standards of Comparison

Other DomainSatisfactions

OverallQuality of LifeExperience

Residential Quality

EnvironmentalAmenities

UrbanAmenities

Person Characteristics / Standards of Comparison

CommunityQuality

OtherCommunityAttributes

Other IndividualAttributes andBehaviors

Other LifeDomains

Satisfactionwith otherCommunityAttributes

ObjectiveNatural

RecreationResources

(NRR)

CulturalResources

(CR)

Perceptionsof NRR

Perceptionsof EQ

Attributes

Perceptionsof MMRR

IndividualPhysicalHealth

CommunitySatisfaction

IndividualWell-Being

(QOL)

ObjectiveEnvironmental

QualityAttributes

(EQ)

ObjectiveMan-MadeRecreationResources

(MMRR)

Perceptionsof CR

Uses of NRR

Uses ofMMRR

Uses ofCR

Assessmentsof NRR

Assessmentsof MMRR

Assessmentsof CR

MODEL LINKING RECREATION RESOURCES & ACTIVITIES TOINDIVIDUAL WELL-BEING (QOL) AND COMMUNITY QUALITY*

* Marans and Mohai, 1991

ObjectiveEnvironmental Attributes

Park Use

Neighborhood Quality

Physical &PsychologicalWell-Being

ii

i

MODEL FOR THE STUDY (1)MODEL FOR THE STUDY (1)

Parks accessibility availability

Natural Resources accessibility availability

Park Use


i

i

MODEL FOR THE STUDY MODEL FOR THE STUDY (2)(2)

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

2. 2. Is the amount of parkland available in the neighborhood amount of parkland available in the neighborhood associated with park visits?associated with park visits?

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

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

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

METHODS AND DATA SOURCESMETHODS 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)

CANADACANADA

USAUSA

Lake St. Clair

Lake Erie

Lake Huron

Detroit

M E T R O D E T R O I TM E T R O D E T R O I T

DAS QUESTIONNAIRES

DAS RESPONDENTS

Interview Respondents

Mail Questionnaire Respondents

Number of respondentsF2F = 315 MAIL = 4077

Response ratesF2F = 60 % MAIL = 56.4 %

MERGED DATA SETS

• Attitudes• Behaviors• Preferences• Expectations

• Population• Housing• Residential Density

• MCD• Schools• Crime• Health• Growth rates• Etc.

• Land Use Mix• Natural Resources• Proximity • Brownfield Sites• Etc.

SurveyData

CensusData

EnvironmentalData

CommunityData

NATURAL RESOURCES:WATER, FORESTS, WETLANDS

1/8, 1/4, & 1/2 MILE BUFFERS AROUND RESPONDENTS

LOCATION OF PARKS AND RESPONDENTS’ DWELLINGS

MEASURESMEASURESPark 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

RESEARCH QUESTION 1RESEARCH QUESTION 1

Is accessibility to parks associated Is accessibility to parks associated with frequency of park visits?with frequency of park visits?

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)

More than 6 times

3- 6 times

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)

More than 6 times

3- 6 times


Is the amount of parkland available in amount of parkland available in the neighborhood associated with park the neighborhood associated with park use?use?

METROPARK VISITS, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND


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)

More than 6 times

3- 6 times

LOCAL PARK VISITS, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND


70

60

50

40

30

20

10

None Less than 5 5-9.9 10 or more


More than 6 times

3- 6 times


Is there a relationship between the availability of neighborhood parkland (amount & accessibility ) and neighborhood satisfaction?neighborhood satisfaction?

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND

(mean satisfaction score)

7

6

5

4

3

2

1 None Less than 5 5-9.9 10 or more


Completely Satisfied

Completely Dissatisfied

High Stress Neighborhoods

(528) (115) (41)(64)

r=.02 n.s.

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN THE URBAN CORE, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND


7

6

5

4

3

2

1 None Less than 5 5-9.9 10 or more



Completely

Dissatisfied

(529) (133) (52)

(86)

r=.10 p <.01

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION, BY DISTANCE TO NEAREST PARK

mean satisfaction score

7

6

5

4

3

2


High Stress Neighborhoods

(84) (205) (277) (94)(44)

(42)



r=.14 p <.01

r=.16 p <.01

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN THE URBAN CORE, BY DISTANCE TO

NEAREST PARK(mean satisfaction score)

7

6

5

4

3

2


(142) (240) (336)(81)



r=.04 n.s.


Are different quantities of natural resources Are different quantities of natural resources associated with neighborhood satisfaction?associated with neighborhood satisfaction?

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION, BY AVAILABILITY OF NATURAL RESOURCES


7

6

5

4

3

2

1

3

2

1


Completely Dissatisfied None 1 2 3 4 5

Number of acres within 1/4 mile of residence

r=.15 p <.01

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN URBAN CORE, BY AVAILABILITY OF

NATURAL RESOURCES(mean satisfaction score)

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

3

2

1


Completely Dissatisfied None 1 2 3 4 5

Number of acres within 1/4 mile of residence

r=.10 p <.03

(2)

(9)

(23)

(461)

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN OLDER SUBURBS, BY AVAILABILITY OF

NATURAL RESOURCES mean values

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

3

2

1


Completely Dissatisfied None 1 2 3 4

Number of acres with 1/4 mile of residence

r=.05 p <.05

(5)

(128)

(239)(1012)

NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION IN NEW SUBURBS, BY AVAILABILITY OF

NATURAL RESOURCES (mean satisfaction score)

7

6

5

4

3

2

1

3

2

1



None 1 2 3 4

Number of acres with 1/4 mile of residence

r=.10 p <.01n= 732

(149)(247)(406)

(319)

CONCLUSIONS & DISCUSSION 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)

22. Quantity of parkland available has no influence on the number of park visits

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.

Parks accessibility quantity quality

Natural Resources accessibility quantity quality

Park Use


public services, socio-cultural characteristics, physical attributes,aesthetcis

Individual characteristics-age, health, etc.neighborhood characteristics - crime, etc. substitute park sites

EXPANDED MODELEXPANDED MODEL

DAS 2001 RESEARCH TEAMAmy BrooksGeorge CarterJessica Eisenman

Elizabeth MillerLinda Nubani Eric Pratt

DAS 2001 SPONSORS• Southeast Michigan Council of

Governments• University of Michigan

• USDA-Forest Service• Washtenaw County Board of

Commissioners

• Ann Arbor Transportation Authority

• DaimlerChrysler• Macomb County Board of

Commissioners• Michigan Economic Development

Corporation

Asli GocmenJocelyn HainTae-Kyung Kim

Elizabeth SchreinerJessica WillhoftChristine Vogt

http://www.tcaup.umich.edu/workfolio/DAS2001/index.html

DAS 2001 WEBSITE

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

Documents

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