II’IIZ 3 1293 10495 1524 ll/I/lll/I/llll l(Ill/l/I/l/l[Ill/II/llllllI/II/l/lII/IlH/l _ This is to certify that the thesis entitled Neighborhood Satisfaction and Satisfaction with Other Life-Spaces in a Rural Community . presented by Elizabeth Ann Schultz has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for ' a Master 5 degree in Urban Planning Lia/n4 I. >70w My» / Major professor November 14, 1977 I)ate 0-7639 l l NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION AND SATISFACTION WITH OTHER LIFE-SPACES IN A RURAL COMMUNITY By Elizabeth Ann Schultz A THESIS Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF URBAN PLANNING .Department of Urban Planning 1977 ABSTRACT NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION AND SATISFACTION WITH OTHER LIFE-SPACES IN A RURAL COMMUNITY By Elizabeth Ann Schultz The research undertaken for this thesis examined the importance of the neighborhood unit to the other spaces in which people in a rural area live their daily lives. Specifically, these other spaces include the dwelling unit and the local community. The study's major hypothesis was: The neighborhood provided an important link between the individual's dwelling place and the wider community, and thereby contributes significantly to his sense of personal well-being. The data, with some reservations, generally support this notion. This research is an outgrowth of a much larger study, Impacts of Rapid Population Growth on Housing and Public Services in a Rural Community, under the direction of Peter M. Gladhart in the Department of Family Ecology at Michigan State University. Data manipulation was accomplished using the CDC 6000-Series Statistical Package for the Social Sciences, Version 5.5, Computer program. The discussion of this research begins with a review of the literature in which special note is made of the Elizabeth Ann Schultz continuing controversy surrounding the importance of the neighborhood unit. Theoreticians are also cited who feel that the neighborhood has a very significant role to play in our complex social systems. Chapter Two defines con— cepts which underlie the entire research effort; discusses the methodology used; and outlines the study in general terms. The remaining two chapters discuss the research project in detail. LIST OF TABLES LIST OF FIGURES INTRODUCTION CHAPTER ONE: CHAPTER TWO: CHAPTER THREE: CHAPTER FOUR: APPENDIX A: APPENDIX B: BIBLIOGRAPHY TABLE OF CONTENTS REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE THE HAYES TOWNSHIP STUDY: DEFINITIONS, STUDY AREA, METHODOLOGY, AND VARIABLES STUDY RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP OF NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION TO SATISFACTION WITH OTHER LIFE-SPACES SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS THE SURVEY A COMPARISON OF SPEARMAN AND PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS ii Page iii A2 86 101 106 129 136 TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE LIST OF TABLES EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES AND THEIR RANKS INCOME CATEGORIES AND THEIR RANKS EDUCATION CATEGORIES AND THEIR RANKS PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS VARIABLE WITH THE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER ELEMENT PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS SATISFACTION VARIABLE WITH THE WHOLE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE HOUSING SATISFACTION VARIABLE WITH THE WHOLE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE LOCAL INVOLVEMENT VARIABLE WITH THE WHOLE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE COMMUNITY SATISFACTION VARIABLE WITH THE WHOLE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE PERSONAL SATISFACTION VARIABLE WITH THE WHOLE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER iii r=Page 62 62 63 614 66 68 72 75 8O TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE TABLE 10 ll 12 B-A B-S PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE NEIGHBOR- HOOD SATISFACTION VARIABLE WITH THE WHOLE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR ALL PROJECT VARIABLES WITH EACH OTHER PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR FOUR VARIABLES WITH PERSONEL WELL-BEING PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR ALL PROJECT VARIABLES WITH EACH OTHER SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR ALL PROJECT VARIABLES WITH EACH OTHER PEARSON AND SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND THEIR LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR LENGTH OF RESI- DENCE WITH RURAL/SUBDIVISION DWELLER PEARSON AND SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR COMMUNITY SATISFACTION WITH LOCAL INVOLVE- MENT AND NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION WITH PERSONAL WELL-BEING SIGNIFICANT PEARSON AND SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR PAIRS OF STUDY VARIABLES iV Page 82 87 97 130 131 129 132 133 FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE FIGURE U'I-t‘UO LIST OF FIGURES HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STUDY VARIABLES LOCATION OF HAYES TOWNSHIP DOXIADIS' EKISTIC GRID A's "IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD" THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE VAR— IOUS LIFE—SPACES TO THE INDIVIDUAL HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STUDY VARIABLES LOCATION OF HAYES TOWNSHIP SIGNIFICANT CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS (PEARSON) BETWEEN STUDY VARIABLES HYPOTHESIZED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN STUDY VARIABLES Page 21 AA 50 53 55 88 9A INTRODUCTION VOICE OF AMERICA: 'LEAVE ME ALONE!‘ Politics, morality, war, integration, infla- tion, crime and the like have distressed and bewildered millions of Americans. They resent much of it, but since they have felt overwhelmed by it all or helpless to change it, they tend to turn off to the outside world.1 More and more these days statements like the above find their way into the media. Massive governments with miles of red tape, new machines and new technologies over— whelm men. More and more people are beginning to experience the quiet desperation of Albert Camus' faceless man in The Stranger. However, unlike him they are incapable of creat- ing meaning for their lives through the kind of dramatic action which he took.2 A more technically oriented, mech- anized, impersonal world finds more people like the two bums waiting for the fantasy Godot3 or the man and woman in Ionesco's Bald Soprano“ who speak to each other for some time before realizing that they are man and wife. Sorokin would see this alienation and fragmentation as a result of a breakdown in society's multibonded groups.5 In other words, formerly, a man was born, raised, married and buried within the same, small local area or village. His family, work, and social ties, therefore, involved the same individuals from birth to death. The extended family formed an extremely strong central core in all of his relationships. The extended family was culturally defined, but could include a man's parents, grandparents, and all of his siblings and their children, his children and grandchildren and his wife's parents, grandparents, and all her siblings and their children. His actions reflected upon them; theirs upon him. Furthermore, the physical boundaries of an individual's life space were so small that nothing he did could escape the knowledge or judgment of his family group, his peers, his neighbors, his church, and the other groups important to his socio- psychological well-being. Today, however, increased technology has allowed con- tacts to be considerably multiplied. In addition, it has resulted in a splintering of the once multibonded group into many unibonded ones.6 In other words, a man associates with one set of people in his work situation; one set in each of his recreation activity groups; one set in and around his dwelling unit; the list goes on and on. In addition, increased mobility has tended to disperse families, thereby further breaking down the once powerful extended family cluster. This fragmentation into many single valued, single purpose units has many important implications for the indi- vidual, for the entire range of social interaction patterns, and for the functions and configuration of the institutional structure which monitors and controls the nature of these patterns. Formerly, the multibonded group was able to exer- cise a great deal of control over an individual's values and behavior. Along with this control, the individual received a large measure of security -- i.e., the conse- quences of his actions were clearly predictable; his behav— ior within the system was clearly defined. Unibonded groups do not exercise the same amount of control. By definition they are single—valued and single-purpose units.7 The result is that a man today is free to act in a variety of inconsistent or immoral ways without fear of retribution from groups or individuals which are very important to him, because the fragmentation of his life-space allows him to maintain any facade he can skillfully manage. Perhaps the most recent, blatant example of this phenomenon is Richard Nixon who was able to project an image of a law abiding, puritanical citizen when, in fact, he was just the opposite. Nevertheless, this increased freedom brings with it a loss of individual security and feelings of alienation due to a lack of trust. The individual loses his sense of predicta- bility. That there is a need for and, indeed, a movement toward a reduction in some of society's fragmentation is evident in the article which began this introduction. It continues: Retiring from anonymous endeavors of national scope to engage in limited pursuits where the results can be grasped and measured meaningfully, that seems to be where it's at. People can recognize in the smaller groups an extension of themselves,...and this is a solace, an identification they can get nowhere else. This study began as a feeling that there must be some vehicle which would allow individuals to rediscover a sense of predictability and identity in their environment; a feeling of control over their own destinies. This author felt that the neighborhood unit had a great possibility for becoming that vehicle. Current literature supports this premise and will be reviewed in the first chapter. Current literature suggests the notion that the neighborhood unit will have to acquire new functions which will make it dif- ferent from, but no less important than, the neighborhood of the past. Moreover, it shows that the neighborhood is, in fact, acquiring new functions to meet new needs. It should be the planner's job to assist the neighborhood in acquiring new, meaningful functions. However, before suggesting new functions for the neighborhood to perform, it seemed necessary to establish the exact relationship of this unit with the other parts of an individual's life—space. This study, then, examines the relationship of the neighborhood to the individual's dwelling unit and the larger community. It also looks at the individual's feeling of personal well-being as this relates to satisfaction with the above, three life-spaces. Finally, it considers the effect of an individual's socio- economic status, his involvement in the local area, his length of residency and the location of his dwelling unit on the entire, proposed configuration. The hypothesized relationship between these factors is presented in the dia- gram on the next page. The main hypothesis of the study is: EENGTH OF RESIDENCE! L 2 HOUSING SATISFACTIONL- HOUSING A I—HF CHARACTERISTICS _SATISFACTION f\ 80010 ECONOMIC NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTIOj STATUS | LOCAL ‘l FENVOLVEMENT URAL/SUBDIVISION E0 OMMUNITY SATISFACTION] DWELLER _ l EERSONAL WELL- BEING] FIGURE 1. PROPOSED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES USED IN THIS STUDY. The neighborhood provides an important link between the individual's dwelling place and the wider community and thereby contributes Significantly to his sense of personal well— being. Each of the parts and the hypotheses related to them will be discussed fully in Chapter 2. The study's scope is, out of necessity, limited in that it examines the importance of the neighborhood unit in a rural, Michigan township with a relatively small popu- lation. In addition, this township has been experiencing rapid growth primarily due to retirees permanently moving into housing which was once only used for seasonal, recrea- tional purposes. Furthermore, the scope is narrow in that I have chosen to look at only a limited number of the pos- sible variables which could impact an individual's percep- tion of and satisfaction with his neighborhood unit. A map showing the location of Hayes Township appears as Figure 2 on the following page. A brief look at the existing literature is given in Chapter One. It discusses the importance of the neighbor- hood unit, looks briefly at some hierarchies of community organization, and presents a number of concepts which are important to a complete understanding of the nature of this study. In Chapter Two I have presented definitions Of a number of terms which are used throughout the discussion of the study and which are essential to it, as well as dis— cussed the various hypotheses; the methodologies used; v "vvvvvvvv‘vv WV ‘ L r» ' i. 'L. r’ 1...... .J . I L. .., - l Imam ( -- in“ L...!=5"""‘i {m ' i -1 Lumen ‘~‘\ ! T’“ ’.__ Em Lunar-Li ..... l i MlCHlGAN HAYES TOWN SH 1? ‘A‘ -A-A .0“ l ' v i its“ ...".:i-—- '-— f- - ,0 L—.W1l-m'l. I . -. E. / ,'.:.'..."'.;rm"':aa-lm i ! ! -CIIPO-C. ._.:‘:-!.— .‘0-0 1 ! 1 I I --i-&‘—|.—.-r_.o—g.-Jo-i— .5 .— i i I ' I -" u-I-o ._ ' 'AAAAAA‘A‘AA A- FIGURE 2 . LOCATION OF HAYES TOWNSHIP O and the Characteristics of the study area. In Chapter Three the study results are discussed and Chapter Four concludes the text. NOTES FOR THE INTRODUCTION 1. Jerry LeBlanc, "Voice of America: 'Leave Me Alonel'," Detroit Free Press, Sunday, July 7, 197A, Section C. Camus' character commits a senseless, totally unneces- sary murder, but from that point on his life becomes an inexorable chain of events which give all of his actions from that point a purpose -— they all lead to his inevitable death sentence. In Samuel Beckett's play, Waiting for Godot, we see two bums waiting for a person named Godot. Their lives throughout the play revolve entirely around this wait which they cannot seem to abandon even though it becomes apparent that Godot is not coming. The final irony of their situation is made apparent when the audience discovers that Godot is merely a figment of their imaginations -— he will never come no matter how long they wait, yet he forms the sole meaning of their lives. Ionesco's Bald Soprano is similar to Waiting for Godot in its absurd, pointless dialog. The first scene finds a man and a woman in a long, spontaneous discussion where after some length it becomes apparent to them that they are not strangers, but are man and wife. In fact they left their house to come to their friends' home where they are engaged in the conversation. The entire play continues in the same vein, the irony being that at the end the characters have learned no- thing -- the very last scene is a verbatim repeat of the opening one. Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics, p. 199. For a complete discussion of multibonded and unibonded groups see Chapters 9 and 13. Ibid. Ibid., p. 172. Jerry LeBlanc, 9p. Cit. CHAPTER I REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE A. THE CONTINUED IMPORTANCE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A SOCIAL LIFE SPACE As Lewis Mumford notes in The City in History, men have been clustering together for milennia -— first for reproduc- tive and burial rites, later for protection against animals and other enemies, still later for help in cultivating the land and rearing children, and finally for the more com- plex mercantile functions which characterize our cities today.1 In this development the neighborhood has played an important role. Mumford notes that as an integral part of the village it preceded the city.2 In this work he states that The order and stability of the Village, along with its maternal enclosure and intimacy and its oneness with the forces of nature, were carried over into the city: if lost in the city at large, through its overexpansion, it nevertheless remains in the quar- ter of the neighborhood.3 Mumford further notes the importance of the neighborhood unit in the lives of the young: Without this communal identification and mothering, the young become demoralized: indeed, their very power to become fully human may vanish, along with neolithic man's first obligation -- the cherishing and nurturing of life. What we call morality began in the morefi, the life-conserving customs, of the village. AS he traces the growth and development Of the city into the complex forms we know today, Mumford finds the neighborhood or local unit playing a significant part in the daily lives of the city's inhabitants. From the neighborhood's primar- ily religious function in ancient societies5 to its 10 ll deliberate formation by the Greeks6 to its combined reli- 7 gious-secular functions in the Middle Ages to its expres- sion in modern societies, Mumford reveals that this unit is an omnipresent element in the urban fabric. Despite the historical importance of the small, local group, a controversy has raged over whether the neighbor- hood Or local unit remains a viable element in city life in the face of advanced technologies, increasing intra-city mobility and increasing inter-city migration. Current researchers agree, almost without exception, that the neigh- borhood is "in a period of very rapid change."8 In a more recent work, Mumford states flatly that in a rudimentary form neighborhoods exist, as a fact of nature, whether or not we recognize them or provide for their particular function. For neighborg are simply people who live near one another. Pitirim Sorokin, a noted sociologist, agrees with this View. He says: The mere fact of living in Close proximity to others, imbues one with Similar characteristics to his neigh- bors i.e. the same physical and social characteristics and proBlems affect all residents Of a small local group. Other more recent work tends to corroborate these two socio- logists.ll Moreover, in a recent discussion of the local unit, Gerald Suttles states that A reasonable or rational approach to urban life depends on a mental template of its structure and the way some natural and man-made featureslaf the environment help determine that structure. 12 This notion is only one hypothesis which he uses in his detailed examination of the social functions of the neigh- borhood which concludes with suggestions for new functions which it might perform. This stance is a far cry from "writing the neighborhood Off" as an archaic, dying form. C. A. Doxiadis in a 1968 article in the Saturday Review presents a rationale for the necessity of the "small-scale" unit. After noting that man's knowledge of the world and his contacts with an ever larger segment of that world are rapidly increasing, he admonishes Whereas the gain of new scales is beneficial for man, provided always that he uses them properly, the loss of the old scales is very much against nature, and therefore, dangerous. Man's body does not shrink, nor his steps, pace or senses. His apparent physical dimensions do not shrink. If the earth is Shrinking we cannot allow man to shrink with it; if man is expanding we cannot allow him to expand in the minor scales since this would threaten his very existence. In both cases we have a lack of balance between man and the space around him, and man is in danger. It is therefore natural for man to try to develop the contacts with his surroundings he had in the past -- but we are depriving him Of this opportunity by leading him toward a human settlement which is losing its minor scales. The "shrinking earth" is crampigg the nonshrinking man in a very dangerous way. Further, Suzanne Keller, in The Urban Neighborhood, her landmark book which reviews studies of the neighborhood and which tries to pull together existing information about this unit of settlement systems, finds that the structure and function of the neighborhood varies. This phenomenon, she feels, is primarily a function of the self—sufficiency of individuals and groups as reflected in their established tradi- tions and practices. 13 Although her main thrust in this book appears to be to point out the weaknesses in the knowledge and understanding of neighborhood forms and functions, Ms. Keller, neverthe- less, injects many of her own theories about this form into the text. Even though She feels that the neighborhood is declining in importance for society, she does admit that "the local area is clearly more important for some groups than for others."15 She feels that the groups which find the neighborhood so important are children and adolescents -- the less mobile portions Of society. We must now add to these two groups the elderly who are beginning to form an ever larger portion of the total population16 and who, like children and adolescents, are also a less mobile segment of society. In a 1973 article David Popenoe very explicitly recognizes the importance of the neighborhood to these same segments of the population: Just as the neighborhood is least important for those with the highest geographic mobility, how- ever, it is most important for those with the lowest mobility: the child (into the teen years), older people, the Sick and handicapped, those who care for theserersons (especially housewives), and the poor. Even though many Of the categories do overlap, added togeth- er they form a very sizable portion of the population. The only major groups left out are the very wealthy who can afford to hire others to care for their less mobile members, the single man or woman, and the adult, working male under the age of sixty-five. Moreover, current reports by the U. S. Census Bureau do not predict a substantial decline in 1A the numbers of children and elderly in the population. As the post World War II baby boom segment of the popula- tion ages, we will even be seeing an increase in the pro- portion of elderly persons to the rest of the population. We should therefore continue to see a heavy reliance on the more localized unit by these groups. In fact, many research- ers are now saying that the local neighborhood environment plays a critical role in the socialization of children and in overall hUman development.18 Finally, researchers investigating a variety of commun- ities have found the neighborhood to be a salient concept for a majority of their respondents. This finding is per— haps the most important in establishing the necessity for studying the neighborhood and for seeking to understand its significance in people's lives -- people are still finding meaning in the word; they are still using it to define a specific concept. In a study in Cambridge, England, Terence Lee found that 75% of the respondents were I918 to conceptualize and draw a neighborhood map. Although each respondent's map was unique, Lee found that the average neighborhood map had a half-mile radius, regard- 20 less of the population density. He concludes that his evidence suggests that planning should be directed toward heterogeneous physical and social layouts, deliberatelyZEmpha- sizing the local...satisfaction of needs. 15 In an exploratory study in the southeast section Of Raleigh, North Carolina, Henry Sanoff Obtained similar results22 with a sample from a predominantly black popula— tion. Likewise, doing a comparative study of Sweden and Poland, John Warren found the neighborhood unit had a firm place in the highly centralized community planning in both countries. The Swedes found increasing public support for the neighborhood unit in Stockholm, coupled with ad— verSe public reaction to that city's new high density houSing areas . 23 In Poland a noted sociologist, Dr. Pioro, told Warren that we continue to support the neighborhood idea, not so much because we accept its claims for promoting community life and social integration but because we believe that people still need tO2Be able to identify with the area they live in. Warren found in Sweden that even though residents apparent- ly preferred the neighborhood unit, the local shops and other services were often poorly patronized. To this writ— er, these results suggest a need for the traditional local neighborhood unit with new functions. People it seems need something besides the obvious goods and services which the old size and configuration had to offer. Finally, Litwak and Szelenyi feel that the neighborhood group still exists and is important, even though its func- tion is shifting.25 The primary importance of the neighbor- hood, they feel, is its ability to perform those tasks which require face-to-face contact. This type of contact falls basically into three categories: (1) emergency or 16 very short-term assistance; (2) actions requiring group cooperation which aim toward the betterment of conditions in the area for all those involved; and (3) development of patterns of behavior which require continuous Observation to become established.26 These three types of contact are basic to human existence -- there will always be unexpected emergencies; no place will ever enjoy a utopian existence; and the nature of the way human beings learn certain things precludes the disappearance of the third condition. In other words, the type of inter-personal relation- ships which evolve in a socially functioning neighborhood fall between the intimate or primary, relationships charac— teristic of the nuclear family unit and the casual, Often one-dimensional relationships of the unibonded groups (page 2) which comprise the majority of human contacts for modern man in Western society. The neighborhood unit has the potential for replacing at least some of the socio- psychological support functions formerly supplied entirely by the extended family unit, when members of this unit lived in close proximity to one another. For example, before the dispersion of the extended family unit, its members supplied the immediate support each required at the birth or death of one of the members. However, with the dispersion of the extended family members, it is now more likely that a neighbor will fulfill an individual's need of immediate sup— port, with the extended family coming together to offer each other the required emotional support hours, days, and in 17 some cases even weeks after the birth or death has occurred. Whereas, a neighborhood cannot supply the most intimate kind of support because it lacks knowledge of the intrica- cies of the particular family unit, a neighbor can supply enough support -— in the form of food; errand-running; transportation; a patient, understanding ear; and previous experience with a similar event -- to enable the affected individuals to cope with the more intimate, psychological re-ordering or re-organizing which must accompany this kind of occurence, until members of the extended family arrive to take over. A study Of Boston's West End, discussed in more detail on page 32, found that "immediate kinship relationships create as much a sense of satisfaction as close relationships with neighbors." It therefore appears that the small neighborhood unit will continue to exert a substantial influence on man whether we provide for it or not. We have only looked at a few of the most recent scholars who have investigated the neighborhood and who find its importance a significant factor in human settlement 27 patterns. The common thread which runs throughout the various theories and investigations is that the neighbor- hood is in a period of rapid change which will result in new functions expressed in new forms but which will never— theless, continue to exert considerable influence on the lives of all men as they pass from childhood into old 28 age This researcher, therefore, finds that undertaking a study of the importance of neighborhood satisfaction 18 as it relates to other life-space satisfactions can contribute substantially to current planning and sociolog- ical thought. B. THE VALIDITY OF A HIERARCHY OF UNITS IN HUMAN SETTLEMENT SYSTEMS A major assumption of this study is that there exist several levels of human settlement units and that people relate first to that level which is closest to them. After finding this level satisfactory, they are then free to move on to the next, farther removed level. The hierarchy which this study assumes and the reasons for it will be discussed in Chapter 2 in detail. The intent now is to establish the validity of this assumption and to present some Of the schema Offered by established researchers in the field. Erik Erikson, noted psychologist, in a recent article in Ekistics, points out the importance of several layers or levels of society to the development of the individual as a whole himan being, i.e., in his quest to move from a total- ly self-centered being to an outward-reaching, self-actual- ized adult.29 In a Similar vein Christopher Alexander, utilizing the work of Leighton, Abraham Maslow and Erik Erikson, has formulated a kind of utopia based on ever larger units beneath it.30 The individual would be free to move through all levels as he so desired or as his needs determined. 19 Likewise, James Cunningham feels that there is a hier- archy of urban forms. He agrees with and quotes Jane Jacobs (Life and Death of Great American Cities) and Greer (The Emerging City). Jacobs finds three communities with— in a city: (1) the street area where people live; (2) the district neighborhood; and (3) the metropolis, itself.31 Greer has Sifted out four levels: (1) the family or kin- ship group; (2) the immediate, across the fence relation— ships; (3) the local neighborhood district; and (A) the metropolis.32 In their proposal for creating a fine—grained cellular pattern of neighborhoods which meet many differ- ent life-style needs, Hendricks and MacNair present a "spectrum" of life spaces which includes the local level, the community level, the city level, the metropolitan level, the national level and the world level.33 This configura— tion is somewhat more encompassing than those mentioned previously, yet it is no less useful. We still see a progression from a group with a very limited membership to groups with increasingly more inclusive memberships. C. A. Doxiadis has expanded all these notions. In 1968 he stated that There are fifteen levels on our earth today and one at least beyond it, a total of sixteen levels of community organization for present-day man. These levels begin from the biological unit of the single man, proceed to the room, and then to the biological and social unit of the family, to the neighborhoods of several sizes, to the town of the past, to the large City, to the metropolis and beyond it, until they arrive at thguwhole earth and communities that may be beyond it. 20 Further, in another article in the same year, he notes the cyclical nature of man's need for different size spaces at different times of his life: man begins life in the womb, a very small, restrictive, and protective environment, and ... his spatial needs gradually increas§5to a point when they then decline in old age again. Here, then, is support for the concept of different levels, as well as for the importance of the smaller unit to man's overall functioning. Doxiadis uses his level designations in his thinking in all aspects of his work. His "ekistic grid" which appears in each issue of his magazine appears as Figure 3.36 It shows in greater detail the levels which are noted in the text above. This schema is a useful tool for looking at problems related to human settlements for it puts a particular problem in a systemic framework. From there it is possible to Obtain a more realistic perspective concerning the nature of the problem in order to bring the most effective means for understanding and solving the issue to bear upon it. As we have seen earlier (page 12; Doxiadis finds each level absolutely essential to the healthy func- tioning of the entire system. With this complex scheme, the discussion of hierarchies of human settlement patterns is closed. There seems to be little doubt that major researchers in the field find a hierarchical framework for the units of human settlement patterns a useful concept. At the same time the reader should not forget that the boundaries between levels are 21 THE EKISTIC GRID COMMUNITY SCALE 1 11 iii I II II IV’ V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII l 2 3 F S 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13113 15 EKISTIC S UNITS o on 2 a, n: o o z a: o H (3 OO 2 >4 no HH .4 m m :3 E< H H A: o (as. o o (3 a: a: o .4 >3 E4 0 n1 uJZ m z z c: C) a c: o < n. m ace: 0 H H mm mm 0 H22 4 t: .Jx :: a in o m .1 z :2». m z .2 .4 .20 c .3 z o a: a < <: <54 2 assssasssmszse‘MR :moamzzmsfif-E‘SESESS NATURE MAN SOCIETY SHELLS NETWORKS SYNTHESIS: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS . 4 Population ~~=seassszsssss T (Thousands) N H m a H g S. g 8 M (Millions) . mo ' M Ekistic Elements (Revised December, 1972) NATURE 1. Environmental analysis 2. Resource utilization 3. Land use, landscape h. Recreation areas Key to Individual Grids MAN 1. Physiological needs SHELL 2. Safety, security . 1. Housing ' 3. Affection, belonging, esteem 2. Service facilities: hospitals, fire A. Self-realization, knowledge, aesthetics stations, etc. 3. Shops, offices, factories SOCIETY A. Cultural and educational units 1. Public administration, participation and law 2. Social relations, population trends, NETWORKS cultural patterns 1. Public utility systems: water, power, 3. Urban systems and urban change sewerage h. Economics 2. Transportation systems: road, rail, air 3. Personal and mass communication systems A. Computer and information technology SYNTHESIS: HUMAN SETTLEMENTS 1. 2. Physical planning Ekistic theory FIGURE 3: DOXIADIS' EKISTIC GRID 22 indistinct; there will always be that gray area between theoretical levels where it is not certain whether a real form belongs at one level or at the next higher level. Such is the nature of man and his creations. In the follow- ing text I take a closer look at one of these levels —- the neighborhood. C. THE NEIGHBORHOOD: ITS TWO COMPONENTS Before looking at how the current literature deals with the concept Of the neighborhood, it is important to recognize that the neighborhood has two components; it is at once a physical unit and a social phenomenon.37 As a physical unit its boundaries are externally defined by a developer, a political unit, or other non-resident person or group. These boundaries may be local streets, major arterial highways, or some natural barrier such as a river. They may be arrived at capriciously -- i.e., due to the whim of an administrator or developer -- or more logically, due to the actual, physical Obstruction the boundary cre— ates between settlement areas. Examples of the second type of boundary are a river or a multi-lane highway, both of which create considerable difficulty in crossing and there- fore inhibit close, daily interaction between residents on either side. Furthermore, as a physical unit the neighborhood con- sists of dwellings, Shops, churches, streets and all of the other artifacts which go into creating a life—support 23 system for a group of people. The physical component does not include people, attitudes, life—styles and the like which give the neighborhood life. These are part of the social component which coexists with the physical. The physical component may be compared to the subdivision before anyone has moved in, or a new multi—function high-rise before any of its tenants have taken occupancy. Yet, the neighborhood is more than the physical. Even two very similar looking areas are different; they have a different "flavor" or character. The social component of the neighborhood is responsible for these differences. It is a network of social relationships and contacts which serve as outlets or expressions Of attitudes, life—styles, ethnicity, values, and similar things which give an area its distinctiveness. This social component is what has made the "neighborhood" such an illusive entity for planners and 38 It is the aspect of the neighborhood which sociologists. has made it extremely difficult for low-income families to adjust to a new neighborhood when urban renewal demolishes their deteriorated, physical, neighborhood structures.39 The dictionary defines a neighbor as "one who lives near another." But, how near is near? Certainly, the per- son who lives next door to someone is his neighbor in the strict dictionary sense, but what about the person two, three, or four doors down? "Nearness" is socially or culturally defined and is related to the number and kind of 24 contacts a person has with another. The quality and quan- tity Of contacts an individual makes with others around him are a function of a variety of things -- many which sociologists and psychologists are unable to adequately measure. They include: the stage in the family cycle a family is in; the local definition of a "good neighbor;" the individual's own personality traits; the individual's age and relative mobility, any cultural or ethnic concept of neighboring which an individual may adhere to; and so forth.Ll0 These individual factors greatly influence a resident's definition of his neighborhood -- its boundar— ies, its peculiar characteristics (such as friendliness), its functions, its importance in his life, etc. It is these factors which result in the unique responses an investigator receives when he asks a person to "Show on this map your neighborhood boundaries," or to "describe your neighborhood for me." Even in well-established neigh- borhoods the boundaries which may be obtained by combining the unique maps Of each resident may or may not coincide with those set by non-residents -- those of the physical neighborhood. In reality it is impossible to fully separate the two aspects of the neighborhood. When a person is asked whether or not he likes his neighborhood, does his response re- flect his opinion about the physical or social nature of his neighborhood —— or both? Can an individual in fact com- pletely separate his feelings about his neighbors from his 25 feelings about the physical condition Of his neighborhood -— or vice versa? Because we are human can we ever hope to fully objectify our perceptions about our environments? The complexity Of the neighborhood can be dealt with in another way. Professor Sanford Farness of Michigan State University posits a hierarchy of forms which may be used to study the entire ecosystem (the whole of existence) and which he uses in studying human settlement patterns, problems, and issues. The levels in the hierarchy from highest to lowest arezul IDEAL SELF CULTURAL PERSONALITY INSTITUTIONS ARTIFACTS BIOLOGICAL CHEMICAL PHYSICAL The Ideal realm consists of the world of pure ideas or con- cepts. The neighborhood exists at this high level -- people are able to conceptualize a neighborhood, to have an idea of a neighborhood without having a specific, real example of one. The Self is defined as the "transcendental ego or self.”2 The social component Of the neighborhood is deter- mined, to a great degree, by the individual's perception of self -— by his psychological needs and position at any particular moment in time. At the Cultural level the neigh- borhood acquires the definition of what is a good neighbor. This level also contributes notions of privacy, amount Of acceptable space in a dwelling unit, acceptable behaviors, 26 and so on. The Cultural level is made up of "knowledge, 113 theories, world views;" it is the "source of all values and meanings which are not original," i.e., formed solely by the Self.uu Culture is what gives particular neighbor- hoods their distinctive "ethnic" character. At the Person— ality level the values, meanings, knowledge of the Cultural level find expression through the actions of individuals. Here we find persons acting out their numerous roles or persona. In terms of the neighborhood, this level is where the idea of what makes a "good neighbor" is acted out. The roles of "street gang member," "neighborhood policeman," "local grocer," "local gossip" and other, similar roles which are primarily associated with neighbor— hood life, form this level. The neighborhood can be both an institution and consist of institutions. Some Of its institutional com- ponents include: the family, the local church, the local police precinct and fire station, the local school, the lo- cal bar, and so forth. It can be an institution itself if it is awarded a specific territorial coverage, as occurs in the formation of neighborhood corporations, associations or "block" groups. Of the three types of institutions"'5 the neighborhood is a production and service type. As an exten— sion of the family unit, it prepares new individuals for the other institutions; it is often the first glimpse a child has of the larger world. Likewise, the neighborhood is both an artifact and composed of artifacts. As an 27 artifact it is but one small segment Of the much larger urban fabric (or human settlement pattern). Here is the physical component of which we spoke earlier. The neigh- borhood as defined by school administrators, government Officials, church officials, politicians, and developers is an artifact. The artifacts, man—made items, which the neighborhood is composed Of include churches, dwellings, stores, other buildings, streets, street lights, benches, and all the other things which man has formed to create a life-support system in this unit. Going back for a moment let me relate my original proposition —— the neighborhood has two distinctive fea- tures; a social component and a physical component -- to the Farness scheme. At first I said that the neighbor- hood consists Of a pattern of social interaction -- a social network -- which is related to, yet distinct from, its physical qualities. Using the Farness hierarchy the social component Of the neighborhood is defined primarily at the Personality, Cultural, Self, and Ideal levels, where— as the physical component exists primarily at the Artifact level. Institutions belong to both -— they are structures, property, and they are also social networks. This scheme is more important though in that it gives us a way of see- ing the complexity of the neighborhood unit. Culture, while defining social roles, values and behaviors, also deter- mines what kind Of dwellings are built and what institutions are allowed to flourish. Likewise, the positioning of a 28 street or major highway, an artifact, influences the amount and kind of interaction which takes place on either side Of it. Suzanne Keller recognizes the complexity of the neighborhood unit. In what may be safely labeled under- statement she notes that The term "neighborhood," most investigfigors agree, is not without its ambiguities. Nevertheless, she follows the line of reasoning used here and separates this unit into a social and a physical element. She adopts the definition that neighborhoods are places with a name known to their inhabitants and smaller in size than a community, having common facilities such as a general store, a grist mill, or a school, and marked by social relations that include t e exchange of assistance and friendly visiting. At the physical level MS. Keller finds The neighborhood, viewed as an area or a place within a larger entity, has boundaries -— either physical or symbolic and usually both -- where streets, railway lines, or parks separate off an area and its inhabitants or where historical and social traditions make people View an area as a distinctive unit ... a neighborhood is marked off from other neighborhoods in some distinctive and recognizable manner and thus has an efiglogic— a1 relation to the rest of the community. On the other hand, the sociological conception or social component of the neighborhood emphasizes the notion of shared activities, exper- iences, and values, common loyalties and perspec- tives, and human networks that give to an area a sense of continuity and persistence over time. Residents of a neighborhood are seen to share a special and somewhat unique destiny arising from their ecological position in the city, their ties of past and present, and their geneggl orientations toward the area and to one another. Both of these statements relate well to what was said previously. The first contains elements of the Artifact and Cultural levels in the Farness hierarchy; the second contains elements Of the Cultural, Personality, and Insti- tutional levels of the scheme. Here I have tried to sort out some Of the ambiguities surrounding the neighborhood concept. In Chapter 2 where I discuss the variables used in this study, I will note which aspect -- the social or the physical -- they are attempting to measure, bearing in mind the inter-relatedness of the two components. D. NEIGHBORHOOD DEFINITIONS/CONCEPTS Most researchers are now accepting and attempting to deal with multiple definitions of the neighborhood which have arisen because of the ambiguous nature of the original concept. In 1968 Suzanne Keller recorded several investi— gators' division of the concept into two parts. She noted the "smaller, personal neighboring circle or network and "50 a larger impersonal service area. The smaller unit could include all relatives and acquaintances within a given area, all known by sight, greeted, or chatted with, or only those wgih whom more intimate contacts are maintained. 30 The larger unit is "an amenity area with shops, schools, institutions, Open spaces, and road patterns laid down in accordance with a thought-out plan."52 Percy Johnson—Marshall proposed a similar distinction in 1966. The level above the dwelling unit he called the "dwelling group unit." This unit, he felt, was similar to the "village Of rural tradition" and could take the form of a "street, cul-de—sac, or block of apartments."53 In addition to dwelling units it could also include "minor community facilities such as a creche, nursery or corner shop," and it allowed "face-to-face meetings to take "5“ His next level was the "neighborhood unit." place. This form would consist of "a cluster of dwelling group units" and a much broader range of community facilities including "Shops, primary schools, nursery schools, clubs, playgrounds, and other facilities of direct concern to the population as home dwellers."55 The last unit to which Johnson—Marshall addressed himself was the "community unit." He felt that this unit was the key unit in the urban hierarchy,...It will normally consist of an urban core of mixed commercial, cultural, recreational, residential, and even some industrial uses; and will be sur- rounded by residential areas, either in t e form of neighborhood or dwelling group units.5 Likewise, Doxiadis feels that it is necessary to separate the neighborhood into several types. His Ekistic Grid (see page 21) includes the dwelling group, the small neighborhood, and the neighborhood -— each a successively 31 larger unit encompassing those below it. The importance of all of the levels in his grid and the necessity to main— tain or define their boundaries, Doxiadis feels, is paramount. He says: the elimination of community boundaries and con- sequent condemnation Of people to lives deprived of all minor levels of community organization -— would mean imposing life at one scale only, would mean imposing society on man, and this would threaten our own freedog:7 It could possibly destroy the indiv1dual. In a more recent article Terrence Lee distinguishes between three neighborhood units: (1) the social acquaint- ance neighborhood, (2) the homogeneous neighborhood, and (3) the unit neighborhood.58 The social acquaintance neighborhood is small, contains only a few streets, and is made up only Of houses, but may include a pub or corner store.59 There is not a tremendous amount of interaction. The homogeneous neighborhood has boundaries which are set by the "size, price and condition of housing."60 There may be some interaction between homes; "mutual awareness" is the dominant social relationship.61 Finally, the unit neighborhood contains the full range of services; boundaries are larger; the population is more heterogeneous; and friends are scattered throughout the area.62 The continuing significance of the neighborhood unit as a socio-physical entity, which is at least felt by all of the researchers mentioned above, provides an important rationale for undertaking this study. The work here is another attempt to corroborate some Of the previous work; 32 it tries to verify through the use of actual data some of the theoretical concepts delineated by the persons mentioned herein. The concepts of the neighborhood, men- tioned above, have played an important role in shaping the hierarchical structure which is assumed in this study and which will be presented in detail in Chapter 2. Now let me turn to a discussion of several studies which have con- tributed to the formation of the study format. The concepts of the neighborhood mentioned above have played an important role in Shaping the hierarchical struc- ture which is assumed in this study and which will be pre— sented in detail in Chapter 2. Now I will turn to a discussion of several studies which have contributed to the formation of the study format. E. RELEVANT STUDIES Several studies have played an important role in de- vising the variables used in this study and in postulating the relationships which the study investigates. From the Freid and Gleicher study Of Boston's West End, two find- ings support the hypotheses posited here. These researchers found that (l) immediate kinship relationships create as much a sense of satisfaction as close relationships with neighbors, and (2) the greater one's interpersonal commitments in the area, in the form of close contact or strongly positive feelings, the greater the likelihood of highlysgositive feelings about the area as a whole. 33 The first finding helped in the formation of the local involvement variable used in the study. The second finding aided in the formulation of the relationships between variables. Both of these items are discussed in detail in Chapter 2. A study by Stanislav V. Kasl and Ernest Harburg, which appeared in the Journal of the American Institute Of Planners in 1972, also contributed significantly to this study in terms of its data handling techniques. The study dealt with perception Of a neighborhood as unsafe and the desire to move out. It used Pearson and biserial correla- tions to analyze patterns of inter—relationships within the data. Similarly, Pearson correlations are used in the present undertaking. The Kasl/Harburg study found that within each of their sample groups older respondents, or those with lower education, or both tended to have somewhat more positive evaluations of thguneighborhood and a weaker de- SIre to move out. The present undertaking looked for a repeat of this phenom- enon in its data. The results are presented in Chapter 3. In his article on urban residential segregation, David Popenoe notes that of the three variables -- income, occupation, and education -— usually used to measure socio- economic status, education is probably the most important, because it is "a good predictor of shared values among people."65 The discussion in Chapter 2 shows that the mea- sure of sociO—economic status used in this study tends to 3A corroborate this earlier finding. Popenoe also notes the importance of length of time a group has resided in an area to aspects of community life.66 This study does consider the relationship of length of residence of a respondent to the other variables. Lansing and Marans did a study which attempted to measure neighborhood quality. They found that the quality of structures in a c1uster...was by far the most important Of all his ratings as a pre- dictor of how people liked their neighborhood. Quality of structures gefers to the quality of the structures themselves. This finding was utilized in postulating the relationship between the housing satisfaction variable and the neighbor- hood satisfaction variable used in this study. It was also used in looking at the relationships between the other var— iables and each other and the other variables and housing satisfaction. Finally, a 1971 study by Robert Zehner helped in the formulation Of the hypothesized relationships between study variables. He found that in a less planned community (such as the study area) residents tend to place more emphasis on the micro—residential environment (the house and lot and the friendliness of neighbors) and on rather specific community attributes (good schools and access 68 freeways) in evaluating the residential setting ‘ than residents in more stringently planned communities. He also found that "a respondent's ratings of the mainten— ance level of the neighborhood and compatibility of the 35 neighbors proved to be the most effective predictors Of 69 neighborhood satisfaction." Zehner's study compares two new towns to two socio-economically similar, but relatively unplanned suburbs. He finds that high levels of what he calls "micro—neighborhood" satisfaction are associated with high levels of community satisfaction.70 The "micro- neighborhood" is similar to Keller's smaller neighborhood unit; it is defined as "what you can see from your front door, that is the five or six homes nearest yours around here."71 Other items from Zehner's study useful in this parti— cular investigation include his method Of data analysis —- a similar procedure is used here -- and his finding that while accessibility to work, shopping and similar facilities appeared important in the evaluation of a community setting, the convenience and proximity of such facilities were virtually unrelated to the evaluation of the neighborhood. F. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION The most basic assumption this study makes is that the neighborhood is an important unit in the pattern Of human settlements. This chapter has cited current litera— ture which generally supports this premise. The research being done seems to concentrate on trying (1) to redefine the neighborhood concept to fit the Observed changes in its form and function, and (2) to uncover the new functions which the neighborhood is or can be performing as a result of the changing sociO-technological fabric. This study 36 goes one step further and attempts to look at the relation- ship Of the neighborhood to the larger whole. In an increas- ingly complex society, the neighborhood unit's ability to provide meaningful contact points with the larger whole could be very important to the successful functioning of that larger whole. Facilitating the role of the neighborhood unit would become an important planning function. In the next chapter terms which are used in the in- vestigation are defined, before proceeding to a full discus- sion of the project. 37 NOTES FOR CHAPTER I 1. IO. ll. l2. 13. 1A. 15. 16. \OCDNONUTJI‘UJ Lewis Mumford, The City in History, Chapter 1. Chapter 1 discusses in some detail the role Of pre- historic gatherings of early men. Ibid,, pp. lA-15. Ibid., p. 15. Ibid., p. 15. Ibid., p. 7“. Ibid., p. 193. Ibid., pp. 305-312. James V. Cunningham, The Resurgent Neighborhood, p. 2A. Lewis Mumford, The Urban Prospect, pp. 58—59. Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture and Personality, p- 197. Howard Hallman in an article entitled "Neighborhood Government Can Work!" proposes a local government to deal with local problems. Terence Lee in "Urban Neighborhood as a Socio-spatial Schema" says repeated transaction with people and places in the urban en- vironment leads, by a process of differentiation, to the separation of an organized socio-spatial whole." (p. 121) James Cunningham mentions this same shaping function of the neighborhood on page 26 of his book, The Resurgent Neighborhood. Oscar Newman in Defensible Space presents in a very dramatic way the need for a strengthening of the small local group in an effort to combat crime on the city streets. Gerald Suttles, The Social Construction of the Commu— nity, p. 7. C. A. Doxiadis, "Man and the Space Around Him," Saturday Review, p. 21. Suzanne Keller, The Urban Neighborhood, p. 107. Ibid., p. 105. Current Population Reports: Special Studies: 'Some Demographic Aspects of Aging in the United States, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Series P-A3, no. A3, February 1873. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2A. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 38 David Popenoe, "Urban Residential Differentiation," Ekistics, pp. 365-366. Margaret Mead, "Neighborhoods and Human Needs," in Human Identity in the Urban Environment edited by Gwen Bell and Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, p. 2A5.; Gerald Suttles, The Social Construction of Communities, pp. 38—39.; Margaret Willis, "Sociological Aspects of Urban Structure," in Human Identity in the Urban Environment, edited by Gwen Bell and Jaqueline Tyrwhitt, p. 263.; Christopher Alexander "Major Changes in Environmental Form Required by Social and Psychological Demands," Ekistics, p. 81.; Erik Erikson, Notes on the Life Cycle," Ekistics, p. 260— 265. C. A. Doxiadis, "A City for Human Development," Ekistics, p. 388. Terence Lee, "Urban Neighborhood as a SociO-Spatial Schema," Ekistics, p. 121. Ibid., p. 127-128. Ibid., p. 128. Henry Sanoff, "Social Perception of the Ecological Neighborhood, Ekistics, p. 132. John Warren, "The Neighborhood Center," Journal Of the Royal Town Planning Institute, p. 271. Ibid., p. 271. Eugene Litwak and Ivan Szelenyi, "Primary Group Structures and their Functions: Kin, Neighbors, Friends," American Sociological Review, p. A66—A67. Ibid., p. “70. Others include: R. J. Crothers, "Factors Related to the Community Index of Satisfactoriness," Ekistics; Karl Linn, "Neighborhood Commons," Ekistics; Francis Hendricks and Malcolm MacNair, "Concepts Of Environ— mental Quality Standards Based on Life Styles," Ekistics; A. E. Parr, "Environmental Design and Psychology," Landscape; to name a few. See especially C. A. Doxiadis, "A City for Human Development," Ekistics, vol 25, no. 151, pp. 37A-39A. Erik Erikson, "Notes of the Life Cycle," Ekistics. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3A. 35. 36. 37. 38. 39. A0. Al. A2. “3. AA. “5. 39 Christopher Alexander, "Major Changes in Environ- mental Form Required by Social and Psychological Demands," Ekistics, pp. 81+. James V. Cunningham, The Resurgent Neighborhood, p. 35. Ibid., pp. 35-36. Francis Hendricks and Malcolm Mac Nair, "Concepts of Environmental Quality Standards Based on Life Styles," Ekistics, p. 1A2. C. A. Doxiadis, "Man and the Space Around Him," Saturday Review, p. 22. C. A. Doxiadis, "A City for Human Development," Ekistics, pp. 382—386. C. A. Doxiadis, Ekistics, every issue on the inside front cover. Sanford Farness, notes from a class entitled The Ecological Bases gf Planning, Fall 1972. Suzanne Keller, The Urban Neighborhood, Chapter 2; Gerald Suttles, The Social Construction 9: Communities, Chapters 1 and 2, among others. M. Fried and P. Gleicher, "Some Sources of Residential Satisfaction in an Urban Slum," JAIP; M. Fried, "Grieving for a Lost Home: Psychological Costs of Relocation," Urban Renewal: The Record and the Controversy, edited by James Q. Wilson, pp. 379; Edward T. Hall, "Human Needs and Inhuman Cities," Ekistics, p. 183. Suzanne Keller, The Urban Neighborhood, Chapter 1; R. J. Crothers, "Factors Related to the Community Index of Satisfactoriness," Ekistics, p. 107. Sanford Farness, Lecture Notes from The Ecological Bases 9: Planning, October 11, 1972. Ibid., October 11, 1972. Ibid., October 11, 1972. Ibid., October 11, 1972. Farness defines three types of institutions: (1) Value and Meaning which create and provide the ends, goals, or objectives for the other types of institu— tions and for society; (2) Design and Regulatory A6. A7. A8. A9. 50. 51. 52. 53. 5A. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 61. 62. 63. 6A. 65. AO which provide the rules and regulations for society; and (3) Production and Service which include all the other institutions in society. Notes from November 3 and November 6, 1972. Suzanne Keller, The Urban Neighborhood, p. 87. 88. ngg., p. £p;g., p. 89. p. 91. p. 13“. $219... .1121... Ibid., p. 134. ngg,, p. 136. Percy Johnson-Marshall, "Notes of the Neighborhood Concept," Ekistics, p. 127. Ibid., p. 127. Ibid., p. 127. Ibid., p. 127. C. A. Doxiadis, "Man and the Space Around Him," Saturday Review, p. 22. Terence Lee, "Urban Neighborhood as a Socio—Spatial Schema," Ekistics, p. 122. Ibid., p. 122. Ibid., p. 122. Ibid., p. 122. Ibid., p. 123. M. Fried and P. Gleicher, "Some Sources of Residential Satisfaction in an Urban Slum," JAIP, pp. 309-310. Stanislav V. Kasl and Ernest Harburg, "Research Report: Perceptions Of the Neighborhood and the Desire to Move Out," JAIP, p. 32“. David Popenoe, "Urban Residentiation," Ekistics, p. 368. A2 Ibid., p. 368. John B. Lansing and Robert W. Marans, "Planner's Notebook: Evaluation of Neighborhood Quality," JAIP, p. 198. Robert Zehner, "Research Report: Neighborhood and Community Satisfaction in New Towns and Less Planned Suburbs," JAIP, p. 382. Ibid., p. 383. Ibid., p. 383. Ibid., p. 383. Ibid., P. 38A. CHAPTER TWO: THE HAYES TOWNSHIP STUDY: DEFINITIONS, STUDY AREA, METHODOLOGY, AND VARIABLES The present investigation concerns itself with the relationship between neighborhood satisfaction and satis- faction with other life—spaces in a rural community. The other life—spaces, specifically, are the individual dwelling unit and the larger community. Satisfaction with these two spaces are the measures used in the study of the relationships between these three units. The study com- pletely skirts the issue of trying to define or delimit the boundaries Of the neighborhood or the community, for reasons discussed earlier. In each case, the respondent was simply asked questions about his neighborhood and community and allowed to interpret these terms for himself. Before proceding further with the discussion of the study itself and the methodologies used, it is necessary at this point to clarify some of the concepts which have been assumed throughout its execution and design. The definitions presented below are by no means absolute. They are distinctions which are supported by recent in— vestigations by others, as detailed in the preceding chapter, and which have been adopted for use here. It is hoped that these definitions will also identify some of this researcher's biases and will clarify her position for the reader. A2 A3 DEFINITIONS DWELLING UNITS In this study dwelling unit will be defined as that place containing separate cooking and/or sanitary facilities wherein a family (one or more persons living together as a unit) resides. It includes single family houses, apartment units, townhouses, rowhouses, mobile homes, duplex units and other similar structures. This definition is consistent with those frequently found in zoning ordinances. A decision was made to use the "and/ or" construction, because a number of the dwelling units in the sample did not have indoor sanitary facilities, yet it was felt that these units constituted bonafide dwelling units. Otherwise, there did not seem to be any reason to deviate from the commonly used planning definition. A somewhat loose definition of the family is utilized due to the relatively large proportion of single—person house- holds in the sample. IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD The immediate neighborhood will be minimally defined as consisting of all those properties which are contiguous with a given dwelling unit or the property upon which that dwelling unit sits, and which are in the same place as the given dwelling unit. In other words, for a given apart- ment unit, the immediate neighborhood includes the unit immediately to its left and the unit immediately to its AA right. For a single family house the immediate neighbor- hood includes, at least, the properties on either side and the property directly to the rear of the lot. (See Figure A) SINGLE FAMILY DIVELOPMENT n l - APARTMENT I ll] HA LL H n; A’s immediate neighborhood FIGUREyA: A's IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD The most important, primary characteristic Of the imme- diate neighborhood, however, is that its boundaries are personally determined--each individual has his own concept of the immediate neighborhood. Consequently, the imme- diate neighborhood may be considerably larger than the minimums designated in the definition. This concept is consistent with Keller's "natural neighborhood," Lee's "social acquaintance neighborhood," Alexander's "cells," and other concepts reviewed in the previous chapter. Moreover, the immediate neighborhood as conceived of in this study is subject to the characteristics Of the individual who is defining it. The individual's A5 conception of his immediate neighborhood is related to his personality--extrovert or introvert——the length of time he has lived in his dwelling unit, whether or not he has children, his age, his sex, his culture, his socio- economic status, and his life experiences——to name but a few determining factors. EXTENDED NEIGHBORHOOD In contrast to the immediate neighborhood which is an extremely personal concept, the extended neighborhood will be conceptualized as a more de-personalized, externally determined aggregate. It will be viewed more in terms of a service area. This concept is similar to Suttle's administrative unit, Doxiadis' neighborhood, and other, similar configurations discussed in Chapter 1. The ex- tended neighborhood is large enough to have potential for exerting political pressure, for determining the type and character of environment its residents desire, for pro— viding its residents with a sense of identity and a sense of control over their lives. This level is where the planner can intervene by creating new functions which will enhance the definition of distinct extended neighborhoods in an area. Through interventions here, the size of the immediate neighborhood can be expanded by making people more aware Of their immediate surroundings and their neighbors. A6 COMMUNITY A community is bigger than an extended neighborhood, yet it is smaller than a whole city. It has been defined in many ways, and sociologists are still arguing over its exact nature. For this study, however, the community will include the whole of Hayes Township, the study area. The rural character of the study area would appear to justify this rather arbitrary boundary. In this situation, the community is probably individually defined and may well extend into the county or even into outlying counties, depending upon the number of ties each person has within this area. Nevertheless, if one looks at a community as that area where an individual can meet most of his basic needs, the data support the notion that for most of the households, their community is Hayes Township. More people purchase food, medicine, hardware and other house- hold items, furniture and appliances, automobile services, and medical services of a doctor and dentist in Harrison, the largest town in the township, than anywhere else. THE STUDY Based upon the above discussion, the reader should bear in mind that the concept of neighborhood with which this investigation deals is the "immediate neighborhood," as defined. A7 Likewise, community is personally defined, but for reasons sited in the last chapter, it will be assumed to encompass the entire township. These factors could be considered weaknesses in the study. However, the primary goal Of the study is to look at the relationships between these Spaces, not to try to discover the exact nature of their boundaries. The ambiguous nature Of both of these concepts has been well documented in the past. Moreover, because Of the rural nature Of the study area, there is not the social complexity which exists in larger urban areas. For example, Harrison, the county seat, is the only place in the township with any semblance of variety in retail shops. Even so, people must go to Clare for many major purchases. It therefore seems reasonable to assume that the definition of community would be fairly constant between respondents. Furthermore, people live either on farms or other similar large tracts of land, or they live in subdivision clusters. The possible varia~ tions in individual definitions of "neighborhood" are similarly limited by these factors when compared to the myriad possibilities which exist in more urbanized areas. In addition, there are cogent arguments presented for maintaining and encouraging the variety Of spatial forms which exist and the resultant complexity Of their relation— ships.1 All of these questions have been dealt with in the past. A more fruitful line of inquiry seemed to be the relationship between the neighborhood and other life— A8 spaces as these relate to resident satisfaction with their lives. In this study I was primarily interested in per- sonal perceptions. Most importantly, the nature of the data which was available left no alternative but the method chosen. A rural area was Chosen, partly because of the availability of data, but more importantly because ex- isting research seems to show that the neighborhood in rural areas is more likely to have retained a multi— bonded character than an urban or suburban neighborhood.2 Therefore, such an area should provide the clearest evidence Of any relationships between the dwelling unit, the immediate neighborhood unit, and the community. The data for the investigation is the result of a study entitled Impacts 9f Rapid Population Growth 93 Housing and Public Services lg_g Rural Community under- taken by Peter M. Gladhart and Elizabeth B. Mowery of the Departments of Family Ecology and Resource Development at Michigan State University. This author was not involved in writing the initial survey instrument. Therefore, the variables which were created during this investigation did not have the advantage of input from this source. Any weaknesses in the variables due to this factor will be discussed in the appropriate place in the text. Given this background, the following variables have been created for use in this investigation: A9 . Socio—economic Status Housing Characteristics Satisfaction Housing Satisfaction Local Involvement Community Satisfaction Personal Well—being . Neighborhood Satisfaction. \lONU'l-EUONH In addition to these variables, this study utilizes two items drawn directly from the data: 1. Length of Residence 2. Location of the dwelling unit in a rural or subdivided area. The study proceeds on the initial premise that people react most strongly to that portion of their life-space which is closest to them. Only when that portion is satisfactory do they move outward to consider the quality of the life-spaces which are farther removed. As we saw in Chapter 1, there is ample data to support this notion. Likewise, people need to feel that they have some degree of control over the life-spaces at each level before they can proceed to consider the next, more distant space. Control depends upon some assurance of predictability. When a life—space exhibits predictable qualities, an in- dividual can anticipate them and can alter, avoid or live with them. The life-spaces with which this study deals are the dwelling unit, the immediate neighborhood as defined earlier, and the community. Their relationship to the individual is diagrammed below. 50 .JOMMUNHY EXTENDED N EIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD DWELLING UNIT INDIVIDUAL FIGURE 5: THE RELATIONSHIP OF THE VARIOUS LIFE-SPACES TO THE INDIVIDUAL The primary reason for using this configuration, in— stead of one of the more complex hierarchies presented in Chapter 1, is the rural character of the study area. A small population and low population density combine to reduce the number and kind of levels which exist in this settlement. It is doubtful whether the residents would even have a concept of the "extended neighborhood" since many public services are handled at the county or township level. We have included the concept here primarily for the reader's benefit—~to provide another reference point for the concept of the "immediate neighborhood." In addition, the hierarchy which is utilized here can be readily expanded or "plugged" into the more complex ones. In essence, then, all I have done is choose to deal with only a small portion of what is recognized as a more complex system. STUDY HYPOTHESES 51 The hypotheses which were initially posited for this study were: Major Hypothesis: Secondary Hypotheses: l. The neighborhood provides an im— portant link between the indivi- dual's dwelling place and the wider community and thereby contri- butes significantly to his sense Of personal well—being. Predictability results, in part, from familiarity which, in turn, depends in part on the length of residence. Therefore, length of residence will affect satisfaction with an individual's life—Space on all levels. An individual's dwelling unit must be satisfactory, in his opinion, before he will exhibit strong feelings of satisfaction with his larger life-space. An individual must be satisfied with his neighborhood before he will exhibit strong feelings of satisfaction for his community. Feelings of personal well—being are dependent upon satisfaction with one's life—space, among other things. Whereas dwelling unit satisfaction, neighborhood satisfaction, com- munity satisfaction, and personal satisfaction are all inter—related, i.e. may feed each other, the strongest relationships will be in the directions indicated (Figure 6). 52 6. The degree of an individual's local involvement or integration will affect the degree of satis- faction he feels with the neigh- borhood and the community and his personal sense of well-being. 7. The effects of socio-economic status will be mediated through housing satisfaction, because the higher an individual's socio- economic status, the wider is his housing choice potential which means that he will be more likely to find a house which he wants (i.e. which he can be satisfied with) in a place where he wants it. The first five secondary hypotheses follow from the discussion in Chapter 1 of the validity of hierarchical patterns. The Lansing/Marans study and the Zehner study also support the second, third and fifth propositions. The sixth secondary hypothesis is an outgrowth of the study done by Fried and Gleicher, also discussed in Chap- ter 1. Likewise, R. J. Crothers has found that "the presence of friends tends to result in a higher level of (community) satisfaction."3 The presence of friends in- dicates some level of local involvement, since some psychological effort would have to be expended to acquire them. The seventh hypothesis utilizes the work of David Popenoe and the Kasl/Harburg study in its formulation}l The prOposed relationships may be visualized utilizing Figure 6 on the next page. The task of this study was to verify and indicate the strength of these relationships. Now I will turn to a description of the study area: Hayes Township. 53 EENGTH OF RESIDENCELA I_ >[@USING SATISFACTIONIEV HOUSING ; CHARACTERISTICS SATISFACTION LA ‘SOCIO-ECONOMIC NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTIQQ f STATUS ] LOCAL " ‘ENVOLVEMENT URAL/SUBDIVISION‘ COMMUNITYSATISFACTIONI DWELLER TERSONAL WELL-BEING] FIGURE 6. PROPOSED RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN THE VARIABLES USED IN THIS STUDY. - 5A DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA Hayes Township is located in the north—central por- tion of Michigan's lower penninsula (see map following page). The largest town in the township and the county seat is Harrison with a 1970 population of 1A60. The largest town in the county is Clare with a 1970 population of 2639. Other small communities in the county include Beaverton and Farwell which mainly service the surrounding area with only the most basic commodities such as food and gasoline. The township's economy is primarily oriented towards its function as the county seat and toward providing the basic goods and services required by its residents. How- ever it is rapidly becoming a popular recreation area for other Michigan residents, and as such its population is expanding at a rate which is causing concern over the po- tential consequences of this growth. The data indicate that fully 57.7% of the families currently residing in the township on a year—round basis have moved to their present home since 1970. As of November 1973, Hayes Township had an estimated total permanent population of 85A households. Permanent, here, is used to designate those families who reside in *NOTE: The statistics used in this description are drawn directly from responses obtained from the study questionnaire. ‘55 MICHIGAN HAYES TOWN SHIP IIII‘III‘N‘HQHHN‘. A AAA-A-A-A-A“_‘LAA“I LOCATION OF HAYES TOWNSHIP FIGURE 7: 56 the township on a year-round, as Opposed to a seasonal, basis. Of this number 11.A% are headed by women. Almost one-third (31.3%) of the female-headed househOlds have heads under 25 years of age. In the remaining two-thirds, the women are over 56 years old. Almost half (A7.l%) of the heads of the permanent households are retired. Most of the people in the township own their own home (92.1%). Consistent with the high number of retired people in the area, 36.1% of the permanent households say that their present home was formerly a seasonal residence. Both of these factors may also account for the relatively small size of the dwelling units; the median number of rooms, excluding kitchens and baths, is A.06A. Most of the households (81.A%) live in subdivisions; i.e. a cluster of homes, each on a small lot, usually (in Hayes Township) without any public facilities such as sewer or water. The remaining households live in what the study classifies as "open country"—-a single dwelling unit on an unsubdivided piece Of land which may be any size and is usually several acres in size. Nevertheless, more than one-third (37.3%) of the respondents said they had spent their childhood in the country or in a rural area. Another 20.2% say they spent their childhood in a village or small town. We are therefore dealing with a rural or rurally oriented population, which though it may have Spent a number of years in a more populous area, nevertheless has 57 returned to the country. The high level Of neighborhood and community satisfaction reported later in this text may be explained in part by this factor. Although most of the population (81.5%) did not spend their childhood in nor- thern Michigan, 96.8% are previous Michigan residents. The educational level of the residents of the area is on the low Side. Only 33.2% Of the household heads have completed the twelfth grade. The high median age for household heads (52 years) may be a contributing factor here, along with the additional information that 13.3% of the household heads are 65 years old or more. When these heads were high school age there was not the same emphasis on or need for a high school diploma; a person could make a decent living without twelve years of schooling. The high number of elderly persons in the area re— flects a recent population trend. The 1970 census figures Show that 18.9% of the total U.S. population is 55 years of age or Older.5 Furthermore, the census predicts that the proportion of elderly to the total population will in- crease in the coming years due to greater longevity and the aging of the Offspring produced by the post World War II baby boom.6 The composition of this population may provide some clues concerning attitudes and needs which will be expressed in future populations. This brief outline of the Character of the study area will be used later in discussing the results of this in— 58 vestigation. It is also given to impart a greater under- standing of the nature of the community in which the study data was collected and will, hopefully, add to the reader's understanding of the following material. On the following pages there is a brief discussion of the data analysis techniques used and the study's general proce- dures. DATA ANALYSIS PROCEDURES The data for this study were analyzed with the aid of the Michigan State University computer facilities. The basic program utilized was the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences which was originally developed at Stan— ford University. The version used here was the CDC 6000- Series, Version 5.5, revised as of October 15, 1973. This version was modified from the original by the Vogelback Computing Center at Northwestern University. Pearson product-moment correlations were used to Obtain measures of association between the variables. Except for the length of residence variable, the variables used in the study are not interval scales; they are ordinal scales which indicate that perhaps Spearman or Kendall's tau rank—order correlations might be more appropriate. However, Richard P. Boyle states in a recent article in the American Journal 9: Sociology that: 59 The correlation coefficient is, with adjustments, a measure Of how close the data fall to the re- gression line. This can be decomposed into variation around the category means, and varia- tion of the category means around the regression line. A measure which is appropriate for the zigzag line is the correlation ratio, which utili— zes only the first kind of variation. Since the correlation coefficient adds to this the second kind of variation, the correlation coefficient will always be smaller than the correlation ratio. Further, under the intuitive assumption that the zigzag line will almost always be a closer approximation to the true regression line, it follows that correlation coefficients com— puted in terms of an arbitrary equal—interval assumption will always be conservative estimates Of the true correlation. Further, he finds that: the distortion in regression coefficients can be in either direction (conservative or "radical"), but these distortions are not so likely to occur at all since they depend on a coincidence of errors rather than on the magnitude of error. Furthermore, it seems even less likely that these coincidences will produce really drastic distor- tions of the sort which will lead to differegt substantive interpretations of the analysis. As a check on the data I ran Pearson correlation co- efficients and Spearman correlation coefficients on selec- tive pieces of data. For the most part, both methods yielded results of the same order of magnitude with levels of significance which were relatively close together. See Appendix B for a detailed discussion. All variables were tested for their internal validity. Two kinds of tests were run. Pearson correlation coeffi— cients were obtained for each variable component with the complete variable. Pearson correlation coefficients were also Obtained for each part with each other part for each 60 variable. The purpose of the second procedure was to see if any components could be eliminated from the complete variable without changing the measure. The results of these two procedures will be discussed along with the other information pertinent to each variable. GENERAL PROCEDURES The original survey instrument was given to 2A8 resi- dents in Hayes Township. Of this number 58 were seasonal residents, 10 questionaires were rejected as incomplete. The total sample size of permanent, year—round residents which resulted numbered 180 respondents. The sample is a stratified area probability sample of the entire township. It was later weighted to Obtain statistics based on the estimated 85A households in the township. The questionaire was administered by trained interviewers, and included a wide range of questions about the community, the res— pondent's dwelling unit, the respondent's family and family history, the respondent's Opinions about his community and community services, his activities and his mobility history. It took about one hour to administer. The entire text of the survey appears in Appendix A. In creating the variables used in this investigation from the sample survey, the questionaire was examined for questions which might have a bearing on the hypotheses. These questions were then grouped together and combined to form the variables used in the study. Except where indi- 61 cated, each variable has been created by adding the numbers assigned to the answer which the respondent gave to the component questions. For example, each respondent was asked, "Do you like living on this road?" Possible answers were: (0)No, (1)Blank, Don't know, (2)Yes. This question is one component of the variable, Neighborhood Satisfaction. If a respondent replied "Yes" he received a value of 2 for this component of the measure of his degree of neighborhood satisfaction. For all variables and variable components, the higher numbers represent a greater positive response. In the following text I will discuss the constructed variables and their components. DISCUSSION OF STUDY VARIABLES SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS The usual proxies for socio-economic status have been utilized in the creation of this variable: (1) education, (2) income, (3) employment. Jobs in the employment factor have been categorized according to the 1970 U.S. Census classifications. These classifications have then been ranked in the manner shown in Table 1, based on the amount of skill required in each category. Tables 2 and 3 Show how income and education are categorized and ranked. 62’ TABLE 1: EMPLOYMENT CATEGORIES AND THEIR RANKS CATEGORY RANK Not Employed 0 Service Workers 1 Laborers 2 Operatives Sales Workers A Clerical, Kindred Workers 5 Farmers and Farm Workers 6 Craftsmen, Kindred Workers 7 Managers, Administrative 8 (not farm) Professional, Technical, Kindred 9 Workers TABLE 2: INCOME CATEGORIES AND THEIR RANKS CATEGORY RANK No Information 0 0—2999 1 3000-A999 2 5000-6999 3 7000-9999 10,000—1A,999 5 15,000-2A,999 6 25,000 and up 7 63 TABLE 3: EDUCATION CATEGORIES AND THEIR RANKS CATEGORY RANK No Information 0 Less than 8, Special Education 1 Graduated Grade 8 2 Less than 12 3 Graduated High School Some College AA, RN with NO BS BA, BS, BE, BBA, etc. CDNOU‘I Above BA Whereas, it was felt that socio-economic status would have an effect on the entire system, it was hypo- thesized that these effects would be mediated through housing satisfaction. The premise was that the higher a respondent's sociO-economic status, the higher his housing choice potential would be. This factor, in turn, implies that he would be more likely to find a house which he wanted, i.e. which he could be satisfied with, in a place where he wanted it. The chances that an individual with high socio-ecnomic status had chosen to live in Hayes Township despite any shortcomings in the community are greater than those of a person with a lower socio-economic status who may be forced by economic necessity to live in the township. 6A In the test for the internal validity of each of its parts, the Pearson correlation coefficients shown in Table A were obtained. TABLE A: PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS FOR EACH ELEMENT OF THE SOCIO-ECONOMIC STATUS VARIABLE WITH THE VARIABLE AND WITH EACH OTHER ELEMENT* SOCIO-ECONOMICS OCCUPATION INCOME EDUCATION STATUS SOCIO—ECON. -.0872 .A726 .7660 STATUS (.2A5) (.000) (.000) OCCUPATION —.0022 .00A8 (.977) (.950) INCOME .2295 (.002) EDUCATION TiThe number in parentheses indicates the level of signi- ficance of the coefficient. It is Obvious that, for our sample, occupation is not a reliable measure of socio-economic status. This result is most probably due to the large number of retired persons who received a "score" of zero, "not employed", for this item but who, nevertheless, had a higher score on the in- come and education components of this variable. Consistent with the above finding is the lack of any significant correlation between occupation and income or education. Earlier in this chapter we have discussed the expected re- lationship between the socio-economic status variable and the other variables in this study. 65 HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS SATISFACTION For this variable the respondents were asked to indi- cate their level of satisfaction--very dissatisfied, dis- satisfied, no opinion, satisfied, or very satisfied--with the following list of housing characteristics. Cooking facilities Amount of time spent cleaning . Storage inside the house 10. Storage outside the house 11. Parking facilities for the car 12. Floor plan 1. Number of bedrooms in their house 2. Number of rooms in their house 3. Lighting in their house A. Amount of noise in their house 5. Plumbing 6. Heating 7 8 9 The relationship of this variable to the others is obvious; it is the primary component of the housing satifaction variable. Specifically, this variable rates the respondent's satisfaction with the physical components of his dwelling unit. The housing satisfaction variable asks the respondent to rate his house on a feelings level. It was expected that if an individual were satisfied with the physical aspects of his dwelling unit, he would be very likely to rate his dwelling unit high on a feelings or emotional level. This variable was expected to have minimal effects on any of the other variables in the study. In testing this variable for internal consistency, we were somewhat sur— prised to find that there were no items which could be used as sole indicators of housing characteristics satis- faction. The correlation coefficients which were obtained in this test are shown in the table on the next page. 66 seam woodwind mwn«xuaml~a “masseum acquu:OI- nousLOum evacuated “maucmogu usable «newuauwusm mausooonm "mauuaonns “asap-Sumac musicalm “unmann«41¢ .nlm .ozun "aluvoa .021~ «yam uuuuauuouuauasu msqnsozlmas Aged» ecuuouimv acouuuuuooo as» we docsuuuqsmuu mo ~o>0~ osu woodcuch oonosuaouaa a“ amass: ozhe comm Loon Aooo.v moan. unusuam Aano.v Aowo.v owsuoum Nona. nnou. ovfiuuso nooo.v ANNN.V Acoo.v owQHOum amen. some. ween. «eases Anoa.. Aosn.v Aaos.v Asoc.v ease eaou. dose. -oo. om~u. masseuse Amuc.v ~oco.. Aso~.S Amon.v Aeoo.v aoauaaauam «sea. ~om~. mama. Sosa. sand: 0:» gufia ounsuua> acuuueuawunu uuwuouuouuauago magmas: ecu mo ucoaoao some new museuuuuuoou seausdouuoo couuaom an danab 6 .7 HOUSING SATISFACTION Though a major element of the housing satisfaction variable is the previous one, this variable goes one step further and asks questions which elicit responses mainly on an emotional level. It also includes two indicators of housing satisfaction which were developed in earlier work by Peter M. Gladhart at Cornell University.9 These two indicators are (1) bedroom need, measured by subtracting the number Of rooms a family said it used for sleeping from the number of bedrooms it said it had, and (2) bed- room desire, measured by subtracting the number Of bed— rooms a family had from the number it said it would like to have.10 At the emotional level respondents were asked whether they wanted to stay in their present dwelling or whether they wanted to move to a different house. They were also asked if they were generally satisfied or dis- satisfied with their present house. The correlation coef- ficients for this variable are shown in Table 6. As expected, satisfaction with housing characteristics correlates very highly with general housing satisfaction. Earlier studies used in Gladhart's work have found that measures of excess bedrooms and bedroom desire or need were good indicators of housing satisfaction.ll His results are born out in this study. The excess bedroom variable has a Pearson correlation coefficient of .AAlA at a level of significance of .000: Apmmu emaampimv .u:maoammooo on» no oo:¢o«%acwfim mo HO>OH can mmum0H6:« mononucoama CH popes: Ones 68 mmsom pcomoum npfiz pOHMmfiuwm Aooo.v omsom mamm. . :H swam Azmo.v Amzm.v whammm mama. mmzo. Eoopcom wmo.v Awwo.v Aooo.v mEoosoom sand. coma. swan. mmmoxm coHpOHMmaumm Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v .moaumfihouom moom. omom. mmoz. swam. lasso wcawsom Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v cospowemfismm mmmm. smma. mwmm. sass. :mmm. . mcamso: Omson cofiuommmfipmm pcmmmpa . moauma nu“: omsom opfimon meoopcom iaouomamno coauommmfiumm omammfipmm Ca mmum Eoohcom mmmoxm wcfimsom wcflmsom Aomflnzv a sonpo some Sufi: can manmfinm> macs: on» new; canmamm> coapommmfiumm wcfimzon an» no u205oao comm pom ma:maoammmoo coaumamppoo nonsmom no magma 69 bedroom desire has a Pearson correlation coefficient of .5363 at the same level of significance. It is intersting to note that the excess bedroom component has a weak correlation with a household's desire to stay in its house or with a household's satisfaction with its dwelling unit. Further- more, people who score high on the housing characteristics satisfaction variable were not equally as likely to express satisfaction with their present house when asked this ques- tion directly. Housing chracteristics satisfaction has a correlation coefficient of .969A with the housing satis- faction variable and has only a coefficient of .3069 with the question: how satisfied are you with your present house? Apparently, satisfaction with a dwelling unit is determined by more than satisfaction with the physical structure. People may also be more likely to respond positively to the general question, but when asked about specific aspects of the dwelling unit dissatisfaction may become more apparent. In addition, the expressed wish for more bedrooms correlates very poorly with a household's desire to remain in its house and with a household's ex- pressed, general satisfaction with its house. The high correlation between housing satisfaction and housing characteristics satisfaction makes these two variables interchangeable. 70 LOCAL INVOLVEMENT The local involvement variable attempts to measure the respondent's ties to and awareness of the study area. This variable tests Hypothesis 6 (see page 50) that an individual will express greater satisfaction with his life— spaces if he has ties to or an awareness of these spaces. The components of this variable were as follows: Each respondent was asked Local government can't afford to do all the things they would like to do; if you were in a position to decide, which three items from this list (of community services) would you choose to improve or add to? List your first, second and third priority. The response to this question was divided up into three parts: those with an answer in the first choice, those with an answer in the second choice, and those with an answer in the third choice. For each blank that was filled in the respondent received one (1) point. The blanks were labelled Change I, Change II and Change III. The rationale behind this component was that people who were more aware of their community would be more likely to give three responses than those who were less aware. 71 Similarly, each respondent was asked to think of the or- ganizations that family members belonted to. They were then asked which three the adults in the family attended most frequently. This foil was also split into three parts and handled like the previous one. Again the rationale was that households with more ties to the area would be more involved in activities in the community. For the last component of the local involvement variable, each respondent was asked whether he had spent his child— hood in northern Michigan. The question implies that an individual who had grown up in northern Michigan would have more familial and friendship ties there than would some- one who had spent his childhood elsewhere. Table 7 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients for the local involvement variable and its components. The internal consistency of this variable is acceptable. The lowest correlation occurs between people who said they spent their childhood in northern Michigan and the whole variable yet even these have a correlation coefficient of .l5Al at a level Of significance of .039. The only com- ponents which correlate with any acceptable degree of sig- nificance (.05 or less) are the two mamor sub-groups--i.e. the "desire for change" components have ahigh degree of inter-correlation and the "organization membership" com- 72 gamma emaamuumv .ucoaoauuooo on» no oocmofihacmfim no Ho>oa on» moumouocfi mononucopwq ca poses: one: cmwfinofiz :smnusoz :« coonoHfino «mam.v HHH Nmoo. cofiumuficmwpo Acmm.v Aooo.v HH mmso. News. cofipmuficmmpo Aaws.v Aooo.v Aooo.v H ammo. ammm. ummm. coaawuacmwso Aoms.v Aszm.v Aomz.v Awmm.v HHH o:mo.o omoo.i memo.i mwao. mwcmzo madame Afios.v isms.v Amos.v Ammo.v Aooo.v HH memo. memo.u =mmo.u oH=H.u mmmm. mwcmno madame Asoa.v AMHN.V game.v AHHm.V Aooo.v Aooo.v Hmoo. wmmo. momo. Hmno.i pmmm. swmm. owcmso madame pcos Ammo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v Aaoo.v Auoo.v Aooo.v um>ao>cH Hzma. ammo. pmam. ems». mmzm. mmom. mmmm. Hmooq sewage“: . :aonuaoz HHH HH H HHH HH H aces :H coo: coauwu coauwu cofiuwu Owcwno omcmzo mwcwco ie>Ho>cH Iuaano racewao uacwwpo ificwwpo madame chance oaammo Hmooq Amuauzv spozuo some Sufi: one magmaam> oaonz on» nuaz manmfiaw> acoso>ao>ca Hwooa an» mo unosoHO some how mucoHOALEOOO coaumHoppoO connwom up manna 73 ponents likewise correlate highly with each other. This result is not really surprising. Logically, one would expect that people who are aware of the shortcomings of one community service would also be aware to the status of other community services. Likewise, belonging to one organization may be indicative Of a "joining" psyche which would be more inclined to belong to other organiza- tions as well. Perhaps the most interesting result is that these two groups of components do not correlate significantly with each other or with childhood ties to the area. In this sample the "joiner" households were not necessarily critical of their community services. Res— pondents who had spent their childhood in northern Michigan may have had other friendships or family ties in the area so that they did not feel a need to join an organized group. In terms of community services these individuals were probably the most likely to know what to expect in the way of community services in this primarily rural area. Therefore, since existing services met their ex- pectations they would be less likely to perceive a need for change. This reasoning should hold true even if these individuals had left the northern Michigan area for a substantial part of their adult lives. The local involvement variable was the most diffi- cult to construct from the existing data. It is, there— fore, probably the weakest variable in the study. Should 7A this investigation be continued or repeated in the future, a better measure of local involvement should be developed. In the survey instrument respondents should be specifi— cally questioned about friendship and family ties in the study area. COMMUNITY SATISFACTION The community satisfaction variable attempts to mea- sure a respondent's satisfaction with his community--as he personally defines it. No attempt was made to delimit the boundaries of this community.12 The initial survey instrument gave each respondent the following list of community services and asked how satisfied the respondent was with each: police protection ambulance service fire protection garbage and trash pick-up condition of roads day care facilities public medical facilities public school facilities library services utility service (power and lights) kinds of fuel available (for heating) community recreation services "Day care facilities" was dropped from the analysis be- cause there are none in the township. Pearson correlation coefficients for this variable and its elements are pre— sented in Table 8. The internal consistency of the community satisfaction variable is good; however, it is not as strong as that in the other variables in this r) 3.000 Auno.v Aa~n.v «was. Hoeo.- Shauna; .«H Aaco.v Anon.» Ange.» can". ease. noau. uqoogum .cs Aman.. Asse.o Anno.v Assn.v names Go News. ASSS. sqs~.u “neo.- soaususoo .a Aooc.v AH-.S Anon.v a-e.v Ango.. aosuoosctm Luca. once. come. «see. «and. oust .a Acaa.v asa~.. Aaaq.. Acna.v Asnc.o .ooo.e. oNoo. «aha. ammo. Leos. sans. scan. oucasasae .g Ans..o Asoo.v A~n~.. .oso.v .hso.v .Hoo.v Aon~.v aaasouuota -~o. non~.- «Nag. nsna.- «med. «seN. odds. cusses .o «assassuaa Aaao.v Amc~.. A_¢n.o Apno.v Anaa.v Asac.v Aooc.v Aooa.e Susana: seas. «and. have. use“. once. used. mneu. cone. ussnam .m swank Aooo.v .n~o.v Agu~.v Ao-.. Aonn.. Acos.v Assn.v Aanm.v a~ss.e use nms~.- «has. aeao.u SSNS. naoo. aqno.- seas. “moo.u moos.- «assume .s Asne.v Aaao.s Ammo.v Aeso.. Aooo.v “can.v Asa~.v Asos.v Aaoo.. Aoao.o auua>tom cane. cane. finno.u “no". heed. game. «one. ~c¢~.- Hana. ~m~s.- Sagas»: .n ths.v Anah.v Aea~.. Acoo.v .cmu.. Aaoo.v “one.o Anmm.v Awn~.. AHNe.V Acon.. ~>ca «sno.- case.. case. ance. ance. "coo. mace. mesa. mama. coco. coac.- cu «usage .N . acuuuuu Aooo.v Acoo.v Auco.v Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v Acco.v Acoo.v Aocc.v Aouc.v Anuo.v Aaoo.v inauam As soon. Rona. oSnN. cann. aden. noun. seas. «nan. sage. menu. was“. swam. -«ssaaoo .u as «a as o“ a a h o n e n N Load-2v cuagso noun 5..) was 0133!; 32.3 05 :33 03022, souuuauuuuau Edda-loo 05 no Eon—30 some new 3:33:03 90,336.32. scenes.— 3 023. Auaou voawcuimv .ucuuuuuuooo osu mo ousauuuucmun no ao>ua osu nousuavsa noaoguaousa an Hogan: any; noquu iaaosm sewn issued: hug: Isaaoo .na hunuwna luwo>< dosh .NH 8.34 nuno. ma Nu «a o~ o o n o n c n ~ g v.u:oo Aoanuzv auozuo no.0 saw: was empauun> anon: ecu saw) oaaowua> acquomuawuum auuqassou use no unusuao some you ausuuowuueoo sang-donned :oouaem no dunes 77 study. There are a number of possible explanations for this phenomenon. Whereas almost everyone had an Opinion about the condition of the roads, there were a substantial number Of "don't know" or "blank" responses for the other foils. Garbage and trash collection in the township is done by a private contractor on an individual basis. Many people dispose of their garbage and trash on their own property. Therefore, lack of knowledge that this service even existed probably contributed significantly to a lack Of opinion on this item. The large elderly segment in the population would preclude first-hand knowledge Of the public school system. Furthermore, the large percentage of new residents and converted summer homes suggests that people chose to live in the township knowing full well its shortcomings and accepting them. In looking at the correlations between the elements with each other, it is immediately apparent that none of the correlations is very high. Nevertheless, at the .005 level of Significance (two-tailed test) it may be possible to drop "ambulance service" from the list since "public medical facilities" and "fire protection" correlate fairly well with this element. It may also be possible to drop "police protection" from the list since it cor- related well with "fire protection." At this level of Significance "public school system" correlates well-With "library facilities" and with "community recreation facilities." 78 At the .05 level of significance the following com- ponents correlate satisfactorily with each other: utility service garbage and trash garbage and trash public medical facilities public medical facilities police protection cond. of roads fire protection fire protection ambulance service with with with with with with with with with with public school system fuel availability community rec. facilities fire protection community rec. facilities cond. of roads fuel availability condition of roads community rec. facil. condition of roads Therefore, at this level of Significance it may be possi- ble to eliminate "police and fire protection" from the list as well as "community recreation facilities" and "fuel availability." "Condition of roads,""public medical facilities," and "garbage and trash" may suffice as mea- sure for those items which would be eliminated. One caution should be given, however. The roads in Hayes Township are, for the most part, rural and unpaved, even in the subdivision—type developments. They are, there- fore, rutted, dusty and often impassable during the spring thaw. The condition Of the roads is a major concern of the township residents and in their present state could inhibit all types of public safety vehicles, thereby affecting the quality of service the township residents receive from their police and fire units. In a more 79 urbanized area it is doubtful that "condition of roads" would correlate to any significant degree with the resi— dents' feelings about the adequacy of police and fire protection. It should also be noted that at both the .005 and .05 level of significance none of the correlations mentioned is exceptionally strong. PERSONAL WELL-BEING A measure of personal satisfaction (well-being) was developed from two questions. One asked residents how satisfied they were with the way things were going for themselves and their families; the other asked how satis- fied they were with living in Clare County. The Pearson correlation coefficients (Table 9) presented some inter- esting results. The "satisfied with life (in general)" component correlates poorly with the "personal well—being" variable, because it is a constant. A look at the origi- nal data print-out Shows that 97.9% of the respondents said that they were satisfied with the way things were going for themselves and their families. What is even more interesting, though, is the lack of any significant correlation between the two, variable components. This lack of correlation may be due to the large influx of new residents to the area. Many of these new people have come from the Detroit area. Whereas, they may be generally satisfied with their lives and conditions may be better for 80 .p:OH0Hmmmoo ecu mo ceasefimacwwm mo Ho>mH on» wouHOAocfi momonpcmpmd CH moses: ones zucsoo :a mafia . nuaz ooammfipwm Aamgocom Amms.v gas mass wmmo.n zufiz poammaumm Aooo.v Aonm.v wcfiom mumm. ammo. IHHOS decompom mucsoo Ca Aawpmcmw cfiv mafia Qua: mafia Qua: wcfimniaaoz oOAMmemm nmfimmaumm HHCOmhmm Aomfluzv .smepo some as“: new manmfism> macs: we» nus: manmfism> :oauobmmfiumm Hmcomnoa on» no acoEOHo some you mpcmfioammmoo coapmacnpoO comammm "m magma 81 them in Hayes Township than in Detroit, the lack of urban-type services and opportunities may make them less than satisfied with life in Clare County. NEIGHBORHOOD SATISFACTION The components of the variable which purports to measure satisfaction with one's neighborhood make it immediately apparent that this study utilizes the concept of the "immediate" neighborhood as defined in Chapter II. Respondents were asked whether they liked living on their road; whether they liked or disliked their neighborhood; and whether they wanted to stay in their neighborhood or move to a different one. The internal consistency of this variable is high—-i.e. all components have a Pearson cor- relation coefficient Of .A382 or better at a level of significance of .000. The results Show that for this particular study this variable could have had only two components: (1) DO you like living on this road? and (2) either (a) How do you feel about this neighborhood as a place to live? or (b) If you would like to move, would you prefer to stay in the same neighborhood? Table 10 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients for this variable. LENGTH OF RESIDENCE AND LOCATION OF DWELLING UNIT These two variables are taken directly from the data and, therefore, do not require extensive discussion. It may be useful to note again that fully 57.7% of the house- 82 gums» spasmsumv .pcoaoammooo on» no cosmoamficwam go HO>OH on» houseflocfi monocucmpma :H amass: one: ooocponcwfloz CH mmum Aooo.v mamm. msfiq oe momam a ma coonpopnwamz Ammo.v Aamo.v esom mema. cond. mane pxfiq Aooo.v Aooo.v Aooo.v . omms. zmms. mama. cosuomumfipmm eoossoanwfimz m>sq oe ooonnonnwamz oomflm m m< owom coauomMmemm :a seam noonsonnwfimz mane mafia coonsoncwamz Aomauzv anmnuo some spa: cam manmfipm> oaon: on» spa: manmfipm> coauommmwuwm coonnonswfioc on» no ucmsmam some now muCOHOHmmmoo coaumHOLLOo downmom "OH manna 83 holds which reside in the township on a permanent basis have moved to their dwelling unit since 1970 (data collected Summer 1973). The reader should also be re- minded that 81.A% of the households are located in sub- division—type developments, as opposed to rural or Open land (see page 5A). SUMMARY Chapter III has discussed, in detail, the Hayes Township study. Of particular importance to the rest of the text are the hypothese (p. 51); the discussion of the data analysis methods (p. 58); and the discussion of the variables and their components. Chapter IV will discuss the study results in terms of the hypothesized model (p. 53). In so doing it will examine the role of neighborhood satis- faction, for this particular sample, in creating satisfaction with the other life-spaces. 8A NOTES FOR CHAPTER TWO 10. See discussion in Chapter One. Pitirim A. Sorokin, Society, Culture and Personality: Their Structure and Dynamics, Cooper Square Publishers, Inc. New York, 1962, p. 199. Suzanne Keller, The Urban Neighborhood:‘ 5 Socio— logical Perspective, Random House, New York, 1968, p.7A2. R. J. Crothers, "Factors Related to the Community Index of Satisfactoriness, "Ekistics, vol. 30, no. 177, Aug. 1970, p. 109. David Popenoe, "Urban Residential Differentiation," Ekistics, vol. 36, no. 216, November 1973. Stanislav V. Kasl, Ernest Harburg, "Research Report: Perceptions of the Neighborhood and the Desire to Move Out," JAIP, vol. 37, no. 5, Sept. 1972. Current Population Reports: Special Studies: Some Demographic Aspects 9: Aging ig the United States, U.S. Dept. of Commerce, Series P-23, no. A3, Feb. 1973, p. 5. Population of the United States, Trends and Prospects: 1950-1990, SEries P-23, May 197A, p. 177: The number of people in the aged population will increase by one-third between 1972 and 1990. Ibid. Richard P. Boyle, "Path Analysis and Ordinal Data," American Journal 9: Sociology, vol. 75, no. A, part 1, January 1970, P. A6A. Ibid., pp. A6A-A65. Peter M. Gladhardt, Unpublished manuscript, "Family Housing Adjustment and the Theory of Residential Mobility: A Temporal Analysis of Family Residential Histories," Cornell University, June 1973. Ibid. 85 11. Ibid. 12. See Discussion in Chapter Two. CHAPTER THREE: STUDY RESULTS: RELATIONSHIP OF NEIGH- BORHOOD SATISFACTION TO SATISFACTION WITH OTHER LIFE-SPACES This chapter looks at the study results in terms of the posited hypotheses which are presented and discussed in the preceding chapter. Table 11 on the following page shows the Pearson correlation coefficients for each variable with each other variable. The figure on page 73, Similar to the one on page A3 in Chapter Two shows the significant relationships between the study variables. The Pearson correlation coefficient for each pair and the level of Significance Of each is shown for all relation- ships in the diagram. DISCUSSION The first Secondary Hypothesis was: Predictability results in part from familiarity which, in turn, depends in part on the length Of residence. Therefore, length of residence will affect satisfaction with an indivi- dual's life-space on all levels. The data in this study do not support this hypothesis. This result is consistent with earlier research by R. J. Crothers who found that "generally, length of residence was not found to correlate positively or negatively with l The only variable with which community satisfaction." the length of residence data has a Significant relation— ship is sociO—economic status. This relationship is a 86 .oocmoauficwam mo umou coafiwuiozu «momozuconwd a“ czonm ma oocmofimacwfim mo Hw>oq - hmaamzp. :onH>Ho unsm \Hmflzm Asmm.v mocooammm mmfio.l no camcoq museum Amoa.v Aooo.v anocoom mHmH.n mflam.u uofioom mmo. Amma.v Amom.v .mfismm sznfl.n ammo. mmmo.u mcfimso: AmmH.V Asmm.v Amflm.v Asso.v mmfimmnaspz msofi. :mmo.i memo.n mmma. Hmcomtma .mdumm Amoa.v Amap.v Aom~.v Aooo.v Aozo.v coo; msoa.n sumo. mmso.n mmam. amma. usopcmfioz .memm Amao.v Aasm.v Ammm.v Aooo.v Amoa.v Aooo.v .pwco ~m=H.n Haso. mmso.u mama. amma. mmsm. mcamso: AmHo.V Ammo.v Ammo.v Aommww. Ammw.v Aoom.v Loam.v .8>Ho>:H mesa: mmmo.n mmma.i mmzo.u memo. mmoo. sm:o.u Hmooq E: :2; SS; :8; 85+ 38; 88; :8; .328 =coo.u AHHH. amoo.n emam. oflso.u omma. Hmmm. s:m~.- Suficsesoo amaaoza cocoofimom mspwpm .mfiumm coamfi>ucnsm ho oasocoom .mauwm weaomlaaoz .mfiumm poo: .amco acoEo>Ho>cH .mfipmm \przm Samson ioHoom wcwmso: chomaom isoncwfimz mcamso: Hmoog zpficsssoo Aomanzv amazeo xo somnomm SS4 mom mezmHoHammoo one5 u< MHNIIH. ozone. . .02 9033335 2 1838.50 32125:. . 1‘36. v.1 U | 1 I 11 1100531011) ucurnzs 5 109 274 ' ; . I, " Inc—i.__ ' 331—1"- _ E (m FOLLOWIBB SECTION IS FOR ALL RESPONDENTS ; EB" " " ' “ - ‘ ‘ ’1 5-: ';::'::':; mmnsmmsmm nous, WPERMANENT on snsoxui); g: ..... - - 21: ~ - 11. Dnynuhmreameudanaven? 1. neither 3. range only 10. OK i 2. m " “only a, . . . 22. flat fuel Guyana. tneeok with? 1. wood 6. electricity j 3- “I 7- “Pm-hm 91‘“ W“ 3. humane I. no ; ‘0 w'bOtuOd ,0 ’ H s. mes-piped 3mm 23. deoymhutymrhune? 1. wheat 4. portablemdspncehuters 23! 2. portableheeters indirect; 3. fixedspece 5. central finance hunters in 6. 0M xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx mm 10. D! ' ‘ u. Nathaldoyuuuse? 1. wood 4. gas-bottled 9. n: 2‘ i- ' f 3 t 33 ‘ ' 2. and s. zes-piped 3. oil 60 electric xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx .0 ”tum I - 23. Mbmmmutm 1. Montre- 3. “1:11:11 9. D! 25 -_“t~ ' 2. 1.11 4. other nunmmmuumr 1.1» 2.?“ 10.9: _26 L ”"3?“ 21. liondnymmmmter? (Down-11m) 1. inapenonstove 27 ' r '- 9 -: ‘3 2. uterheeterettachedtocookstnve 9. DK ’ ' ‘ ' 3. electric or 5.101 water heater 28 y. 29. lbwdoywdisposeofmmr 1. Imicipnl . -2.printeenilection 3.0ther 29 ¥;-_.;-.'.. 9. I .. ' ' " ‘ 29.!!wa ofhmnuute? 1.-n1eipe1 30‘ ‘3‘:.' 2. septic «cesspool 3. Other . 9. K 31 . -: ;_ i so. noymmauuphauz 1. No 2. Yes 10. nt 32 - ' 31. Damian-sweater? 1. Ne 2. Yes 10. n: .t I .32. mmmememsmtefmmmntofl 1. no 2. Va 10. at 33 ' - ‘ ‘ 53.‘.i' ‘33.mywmemummt 1.1» 2.15. 1o.nx' u-,.."ggi.i. 9.1hmindncrflmhtniletsminstanedinthisme? 1. o z. 1 '-_._ 3.24.mmnz 10.11: 35 "fEFZS‘ 35. Mmhflumdoymhnve? 1..2..3..4..10..(See'34) 1/2b'athcnde1 35 '- " , g :: L; “.munqrnasminthnhnuu.netcnnungutdunoruthfl 37f...- :1 3:37. mumbdrmmmmmr . ‘ ‘38. Mmmmmuiaflymdforsieepinfl 38?." :Tf: 5539. Mmbodreanmldywuhtnhpve? 39’ : :- - to. Ingml. unldyou say thetycuwere satisfiedor dissatisfied with mpment ' . 1mm 1. satisfied 2. mama ‘0 .. ---...- 41. 42. 43. r‘44. 4S. Int. was any of your family income received from sources other than wages and salaries during 1972? ADC INHERI- INTEREST PENSION RENT CHILD OR TANCE AND- OR INCOME SUPPORT AFDC DIVIDENDS ANNUNITY l - No 1 - No 1 - No l - No 1 - No . l - No 2 - Yes 2 - Yes 2 - Yes 2 - \es 2 - Yes 2 - Yes SLCURITY INSUR. BENEFITS PAYBEENI‘S 1 - No 1 - No 1 - No 1 - No 1 - No 2 - Yes 2 - Yes 2 - Yes 2 - Yes 2 - Yes 10 - DK 10 - DR 10 — UK 10 - DK 10 - DK What was your total family income in 1972, including income from.all sources? Probably nobody has more money than he needs, but how would you say you get by on your income...do you feel very well off, well off, just manage to get by, or do you have to do without necessities? ‘ go without 3. well off 9 DK . just manage 4. very well off «and O I will ask some questions about your satisfaction with this house. Please indicate your feelings about your present situation with one of the following answers: (Interviewer: write 1,2,3, or 4 in the blank before each question indicating level of satisfaction reported. very dissatisfied . 3. satisfied 2. dissatisfied 4. very satisfied How satisfied are you with the number of bedrooms you have? How satisfied are you with the number of rooms you have? How satisfied are you with the lighting in this home? How satisfied are you with the amount of noise in this home? HOw satisfied are you with the plumbing? How satisfied are you with the heating? How satisfied are you with the cooking facilities? How satisfied are you with the amount of time you spend cleaning? How satisfied are you with storage inside this home? How satisfied are you with storage outside this home? (Garage, shed, etc.) How satisfied are you with parking facilities for your car? How satisfied are you with your floor plan? NHolioonxnomaqu-a O O I 0 Families consider many different things in choosing a house. I will read to you a series of statements that some families have suggested. Please indicate how important . each statement is to you with one of the following answers: (Interviewer write 1,2,3, 4 in blank before each question indicating level of importance reported.) 1. very unimportant 3. important 2. unimportant 4. very important a house remote from neighbors a house near nice neighbors . a house with plenty of room for outdoor activity a house with possibilities for fixing up a house in the open country a house near a lake or stream a house Where you can entertain friends \IO‘ UI¢DLANH o o o o o '0 ‘446. 117 i , - j _ ; . ‘ I: §. [_- - .. q 5. .-, a. z *1 mar ‘33:; g ': m, 274 ir—o, Int. 1 3 I 1‘ - ' ‘5 a . 67 .Would you think about this present home and tell me which of these categories describes your present situation? 1. owns house or M! and land 5. lives rent free. 2. rents house or M and land apartment ’08 3. owns house or NH and rents land 6. rents apartment . , 4. lives rent free-house 7. rent paid by employer ' ' 9. DK 1 ; How old is this house/Mobile home? This is, about what year . was it built/moved here. 1. 5 years 2. 6-10 years , 3.. ll-ZS years 4. 25 + g ? . ambigalotdo‘ywhave? x 19 . . 3 (feet) * (acres) - IE REVIER. Howmuch rentdoyoupayper month? .3 8 owner ‘ 50 ; IF RENTER, Is this house/apartment/M-I furnished? Are the 51 . w . e53 refrigerator supplied? pl. No , 3. furnished 10. DK ..- - 2. stove and refrigerator only 9. Owner 52‘ 1 - IF REVI'ER, If you were going to move what kind of dwelling ' ‘ would you choose? ’ 5 . 1. single family 4. mobile hone 9. DK 2 ' 2. two family 5. other - E ‘- -3. apartment in multiple unit 8. owner = _______ EVERYONE About how such do you pay on the average for: 3 """" e ectricity 3garbage removal 7 ' f , Per - 2. e1 4. sewer . . per . 3 per I. 5. water . jet . - E4 O I ['4 '5 6 I II I E m, 60 1'0 PAGE 12, HOUSING CONVERSION 53' -»— _. ...—o. - —- _-- .Eq ;. i I f 4 1 1 l 118 i s _ _ 5. ='*—'1 - . ‘ - rm n ms. 274 iii; 5°. 1,... Int. 3 " ‘ THE FOLLOWING SECTION IS Fm OWNERS ONLY. IF RESPONDENT IS REYES! fit oo '10 Q 64. 5‘ f » i S3. 1P OhNER, Are you paying on this house? i 1. No 2. Yes 9. renter 10. or 55 ' : 54. IF 011m Do you have a mortgage, land contract, or mobile ‘ _ . Kane Ioan? . 56 i 1. mortgage 5. carbination ; 2. land contract 3. said off, renters g 2 3. personal loan . ° 3 - . 4. Mi loan ? - ; : E : ' 55. IF OWNER, Could you please tell me how mch your payments are? '. < : ' é 1 per 8. renter ! ..... 56. Do the payments include taxes, fire and windstorm insurance? 38 I' i _ - l. neither 3. insurance 8. paid off, . - : 7 . f 5 -. , 2. taxes 4. insurance 6 taxes renter I l 57.Whatarethetotaltaxesandinsurancenotinc111dedinthe 59 ‘3 mortgage payment? 3 per . F ' 58.‘ Did you buy the land and house separately? (Go to appropriate - question) . . 59 1| ; ,7 1. land first (Go to Q 59-60) a A Z. homeorMifirst (GotoQ59-60) -"~‘f’ 3. land and house or M-i together (Go to Q 61-62) 3 _ _ , 6. gift of inherited land / land and house (Go to Q 59-60) 60 A 5 - ‘ 1* g. . l13'elinter . , . - 59A. Doyouremenberhwmchyoupaidfortheland?$ ' . 60 3 593. What year did you buy the land? '— SOA. isle you reenter how much you paid for the house or Mobile Home? mmqmsnmes 61. Do you remember how much you paid for the land and house 62 or ibbile home together? 3 62. What year did you buy it? 63. How much do you think you could get for it if you wanted SOB Whatyeardidyoubuythehwseoribbilehane?___ ‘1 '1 _ _ to sell it?$ 63 , “a... -.— _._ --. . 1 . 64A. ' , 648. . 2. 119 l mm; cawzasmv ID! A Int. IFHNE ISAWIRESIDENCE Has this Immebeenavaoationhmeatany time since you first ounedfrented it? 1. No 2. Yes 10. D! IF64AISYES, Wintyeardiditbecaneayearranidresidaice? IPl-IME ISAVACATIml-DE Has 'thishanebeenocaipiedasayecrmndresidence atany fie since you first owned/rented it? 1. No 2. Yes 9. Penn Res 10. DK lFMBISYES,_Whenwas,thelasttineitwasocmpiedallyurrumd? Weareinterestedinthewaythatfamiliesadaptmdchangetheirlnnestoneet theirneeds. Dm'ingthetineymhave(owned/rented)thishme,weymfindeany mjor structural changes, additions or repairs? (Majorneans avalue of at least lOOdollars) l. M)(GOTOQ. 67) 2. Yascco'mq. 66) 10. DK Startingwith thepresatandwrhngback, caadyoutellnethefollauingahmt ‘ the changes/repairs you have “5th 7:2“... 3.12:. 2.9;, an a WW - - - gating-gnaw, . . ,‘ andmterials? .1; 3. 4.. '5. 5.‘ 7. '8. 9'. In; i ’ f - -—- .---O we... ”.--- ‘-— o “fin-0‘ c. 67. Arethereanychangesyouwmldliketomakeinthishme? Ifsoughatarethey? 68. Matchmgesdoymmtomakeinthemtyear? 69. In. the next 5 years? 120 — I. ... . . ..— m m. .n .20 O Anew. acehhaccu lfiJ . , omsommé 39a ucotacou IV... .A 23:88:... 8m .23 s 3on .i .mmv abaammu ~§ou :03 3 ma: "35m . 38 one: £30 39:35 9:3. can .0: ~95» :3 "32— 05 . woueuoH uafi an x33 we no“ as: 3 9.2 .6: a «as 3 82: E: has 5&8 .393 ham—sac.— .. no @2635 98 33 39132 93 me 3333 035 9:3: 355 row a 3a and 3 8:3 PM 32 . medal: ego . o . \ .. F . 7M. 71. E. 1‘. . 7S. ,. 1‘. 121 75H i. 5— oeq4~=e :3 “ ' . slié ' " - m#_r_2L’:. 21 Int. ____ -. ., e ‘d " ibveywormynubersofmmeholdlnddiffiantiesinfindinguorkbm ' .youwantedjtinthelastfiveyears. (EYES,Probe.Nho? M? waimlly . - '. « worhdout) - 1. Ho 2. Yes (Explain) . 1 ; ,- ' Hz? : ‘35; 3 .313i3! : ’ lbwnnyllcuedaxtoobllesdoywandyun'f-ilyon? T _:€I§Z: ‘ 7- .0 11.72. 73 mama-ms om mac- muons withwhucmgm"...." . s: .j g E 5.3, thadoesymrmshmd/ywmvelmuerk? H I 5. 2; r (narkcodcforflsw) _ """" 703 e _ _ 1. works athue 4. ulks or blhes it 9. doesmtwork.nolusband 2. fullycar S. ntercycle lo. 71 n ' ‘ ' _‘ f 3. carpool 6. truckorpick-up - - hmniluperdaymnydoyeuwmshand)mltouprk? 719 ‘ 5'. ’ ‘ " : Instead wife ,, s! I’ ) nmg.mmmummmafl H l 72 ‘ 'fimmaMileer-otercycle? IF .hounuy? I ‘53:” ‘ 1. .No 2. While! 3. Iago“! 4. bed: ‘ _ _ ~ g , tc v‘ .~ mmmdmmmmummm 1. No 2. Yes 10. D‘ 72 ‘ ' ' Nu-recreatimlmofnotwcycle-mmbile? w $5.153} ' 73a .4235}: 733 ’ €IEEEE': :?i‘i'.:"-+ 7‘8 .- - 4 74M ‘ “' ‘ 4 15s 5 77. “.78. ‘ 79. " 80. 10. BK. 122 10'»! 2;: Int. (K1blmHTY'SECTION Do you feel that it is easy for newcomers to be accepted in this community? 1. No. Comments: 2. Yes. What things do you like most about this neighborhood? (Do not read list but check appropriate items in Col. 1) a. neighbors and neighborhood people b. neighborhood children c. condition of other hous d. natural beauty e. location of ne to f. location of neighborhood to shopp g. schools h. parks recrea 1. traffic j. public k. other (specify) 1. other (specify) What things do you dislike most about this neighborhood? (Check in dislike Col. above) Here is a list of community services. How satisfied are you with these services in this neighborhood? Indicate if the service is not available. If dissatisfied, indicate why. (Record reasons in block below) 1. very dissatisfied 3. satisfied 8. not available 2. dissatisfied 4. very satisfied 8 DK a. police protection h. public school facilities HJ . ambulance fire protection .____ . library services c. utility service (power 8 lights) d. garbage and trash pickup kinds of fuel available e. condition of roads . conInunity recreation services (parks, f. day care facilities - youth programs, etc.) g public medical facilities LLL (FOR EACH ITEM CODED 1 0R 2, INDICATE LETTER OF ITEM AND REASON FOR.DISSATISFACTION) o‘ E" O H H1 a 1. 7r 123 4 E ACTIVITIES ID 1’ ‘+ g Int . 0 "’ _ (Null? 1 I L ,.__4 en fl__ 3...) )1] 4m 5m -I um. WENT CAN'T AFFORD TO [1) ALL nu: THINGS I‘HEY 1011.0 LIKE TO IX). ‘ 81. '\ 82. 83. 84. gfihkocp 85. 86. If you were in a position to decide. which thxee items from this list would you chose to improve or add to: of these what is your first, 1. 2- Think of the grows or organizations to which you and others in your family belong. Which 3 do the adults in your family attend most frequently. GROUP 15 THIS ATTENDED 2: Fraternal 7: Social . 3. Political 8. Volunteer, Civic 4. Professional 9. No organization 5. Recreational 10. DK Who: 1. Wife 3. Child over 18 2. Hisband 4. Other adult Frequency: 1. Daily 5. Monthly 2. Semi-weekly 6. Nice a year 3 . Weekly 7 . Yea rly 4. Semi-monthly 8. No organization Does any number of your family attend a: 4-H Club 1. No 2. Yes 10. DK Cooperative Extension group 1. No 2. Yes 10. DK An Extension Mother's Club 1. No 2. Yes 10. DK Q 84, 85, 86 SEASWL RESIDENTS (NIX Preface questions with ”While living here..." Where does your family usually go for the follwoing items and services. (Nam of city or town). food ledicine and drugs clothina hardware and household items furniture and appliance autouobile service mtanobile sales If you or your fanin needed a doctor during the last year - where was he located town or city A dentist? town or city \ 25.0.0152 81 your second and your third priority. 3. 32: L1 L2 L3 61 62 G3 W1 W2 W3 111 32 H3 611 MC 84a 85 86 “(b'ea "p'w 1).. .w-n.“ ’- a' ..- r. ' 12” g -.-...... git} " % ID! 274 3.3.15: : .1 mmmmm Int.‘T——‘ 3"“ -..- -- 5 - 3 ?::E:: WEIRVBAFHWCNSWHM'ERWINMM) 97. llaveywnetieedanychangea intheqnlltyoflocallaleeselnceymfirstnovedlnto 87 thisneiuiborhood? 1. No 3. Yes. got worse. whatltinds 10. DK 2. Yes. got better of changes? @th qutpmiam-mmmcimmmmmr 88 ‘?=“-‘ 7 1. Pessimistic (not hopeful) 4. Slightly Optimistic 1. Slightly pessimistic S. Optimistic (hopeful) W 3. Neutral 9. fl , gnusmrnorwmmnismmmnammswemsn 39 fg¥§%3:‘ . ltlsveryiaportanttocleanuptheenvimt 1. SW! disagree 3. "astral S. Strmglyegree ~ - ----- 4 . 1, pm a, m 9, n; . W 90. Mmehuseptichnksandwflmurepresmtaujorhealdihaurdtodmeugo 72323.233?‘ measubylalaesorstreas. 1.. 2..3.. 4.. S..6. (SeeQ89) ‘ ‘ ' " ' " .91. Islchdoywthinklsaaoreeffectiveuytogetpeepletooooperateinhelp .te 91 iffiiff'm“ protect eater qulity in local lakes, by eateatlm and lncemives or by laws .‘ l.ldueationaulincentives 2.1.aweaniorntrols 9.9! 92 iiIéiié. '91. Mdhctivedoywthinkthat pollutiencentrolferlooallalnesisnod -- .-.. 1.2acellent 3.Fair $.Verypoor 9.1! 93- Z-T‘ffifilf"? 2. Good 4. Peer 6. lsn'tany _ 93. lnywrephdon,Mdtlurebepublicrewlatiaieflandmeprecticesuherem- 9‘ 3 simandother mffordlscharge problas affectthewater supply. orshouldthlshe leftwtoindividialstocontrol? 95 ':ie:se ‘2. ‘- 'l. Yes.thereshouldbesamepubliccmtrol 9. DK ' " ' ‘ " 2. No.1tshmldbelefttoladivichalmr :5. ~—_' 94. Mmmgommkmmdmwauhhaflectedwmqulltyd ... .. . _, “a" t. 'TiJPQjELI.-" 1. None 3. Mt 5. Very lad: affected 97 ' ' 1. Veryllttle twat!“ 9.3 ..",‘.'..' ' 9.. -:.'.-..._'.. 93. meewllllngtogiveuptherighttodevelepa nertofymrlandinerderto V- .. ‘ _ preeerveecnlcbemtyneerastre-erlake? 1. Yes ~ ; 5.- s t . 9.l/Amoesn'townlaul) 10.1: b ‘ - 06.1» ”abate! am (@2le mam. io-m) £34331? :5 “so minke“ Canoe. __mh ° . _'Sallheet :‘lbtorbeet _'__""?eldbeat t :};;;_;:; 97.nowoftulaeeaemdoyworubersedymr Widgetoanybodyeftaterfor -_--___,-, . recreationsudiaepicnicking. boatin.£ishlng,erswinlng? 99 Lgigggjg~c 1. Never 4. Moreeftenthanomeaweek 2. Lessettenthanenceaaonth 9.9: Harem-eaten»! a ;z.;;;,; 3.8etweenaiceaweeklonceaamfli __ --;-.--.' _’Iplbwabmttlnlaheslnthismhin? l-lowoftendoymorenymlnyun'hanelnld: 3§:;§;;. " :5 3.35": ‘ .=:« 99. www.michlalnesdoywaostfreq‘mtlymeforeechactivity? c _:33 '4’. 3. Many,various .1 -..-... -....-”- 125 3 “72'1": . “i s . , . 9 g“: .«n—nn-s——§ :8 fifif‘ft‘.“' mus: ms 274 Elm ..-.-- “2 Int. .1 3::2:3*:"‘ 2 :--~ 100. me watershed protection districtuere declared for this area. lould yoube 100. ‘ ’ ’ in of specific stanchrds for haaseholds. ferns. mnicipolities and industries? 1. SW7 favor 3. Nam-a1 s. Strongly against WK 2. Favor 4. Against 9. K . . . 101.1bvdoyu1thinkthesestandardsslnndbeaforced? 10y723;:.;. 1. lbmforcanentneeded 4. lychargea for-delay incaIpliame " 2. Drvoluntary inspection by out: beyond a set date WK 3. )yregular inspectiouond 3. 9y fines andpossible imprisomeut . . - certification forviolators ' 10.“ 102-'11:.Ee’3'; Lendmel’lamim is an issue receivim increasing attention.“ all levels of govern-mt. ' ' ‘ ‘ 102. Doyouknowof plmmgforlanduseinthisarea? (lonim.buildin¢code. .- lastarplan.etc. 1. No 2. Yes 10. or W‘ 103.00yu1thinktheseneedstobelmimforlandme-inthisareo2 7‘ " "‘f 1.11:: 2.Yes io.uoop§mon Other 103.33‘323!* 104. litherewerelandmeplaminginthisarea.dxatmitormitsofzovemtshould 104_2§§§§23 ‘ beiuvolvedintluplmimt‘ortheeann-hauflttoallf! ' (READ) S-Ammdisldfl.fiflihrmt W! 1- WWI? mt adnolorfiredistrict.d1ich - . - - - - 2. ‘l'hevillace or city covenant would Wes the entire water- . . 3. bounty shed. WI 4. ‘l'hestate 6. Federal " ’ ‘ ' ' "D" 105::3;‘..;; 103. Doyusdiinkthemhipshmldhaverestriccims thatcontrolafieredifferenttypee ~ ----- “- of 11.: mm; or commercial 6 industrial facilities may be located? ....... 1.1» 2.!“ 10.1: 106321313. 100. Doymthinkthareshouldbelinitsontheainin-lotaiteinmerees? 107 : e‘;;;;;;'.‘ .1. No 2. Yes 10. or . ~~~~~~~~ 107. wmungulatiauflntutduainin-valmofhmespemictedinm W: areaaofthetownship. l. 2. Yes l0.DK " ' 10. Mddurebesfiwmfmtofmladdchprohibitsepticflufluorm 108‘5’33"" inareaameretheaeaightmeahealthhatardtoloctresidmts? .. 1.No 2.Yes 10.02 mgijiéggéo. 109. Mdtheubemlesuzidirequinthatueesuuotherscmicfumofdumml - ..- - wimtbepreeervedinanyfuunodevelopentinthemship? u013’13933:-' 1. No 2. Yes 10. 02 C ”””””” r n0.Wtheou-nitynhatepsmattrxturefnilhsmthhmhipY-Tothh 3-3’3933" “M We . 10 m 1. Y“ me a CV. 1e NO 2e Y” 10. m .......... . 12119070“ 111. Mdmmitytabsupstodiacamgemroplefraoaimmthhmhip? ““ """" -‘l’otheoomty? M.l..\lo 2.Yes 10.0 C" -.,;-. Ctl.l.No 2.!” 10.111: 33:332-!-' mmmxmmn MIMMAMWWNWMPWSIMHW. 112 :é'3§§?§ - 112. Allinall.hovsatisfiedarevithvithtbeuythmsaregomforywaadyour 113 - - - - ,. - - f-ilrt (Donotreadansuers) 113333333” 1. Very dissatisfied 3. Satisfied 9. 0K 1 2. Dissatisfied 4. Very satisfied 0. 591301131 m , . 3 ; 3 g , ll3. Doywthinkywhsvebeenbeteroffsinceywmetothiscoouunitytlunymwere _ - beforeyoucaee? 1. No 2. Yes 9. Always lived here l0. DK 3 —‘. 3 _s - _1 ll4. morall how satisfied are you with livim in Clare County? -_____ 126 m , 274 Int. stmc; SI'RUCIURAL SURVEY We are making a survey of housing structures as part of our effort to under- stand the housing situation in this conmmity. In order to help us have more scan-ate information, could you please check off on this list whether or not any of these cmditions apply to this dwelling? WWWS‘EEI‘TORESPCNDFNI’) 116. That is all the questions I have. However, I may have overlooked sane- thing that you feel is important in our maderstanding the experiences of families with their housing hthis enmity. Can you think of anythingthatweshouldbemreofinmrsmdfl flunk you for taking the time to be interviewed. 1 have enjoyed talking to you. ...—V TO BE FILLED OUT AFTER COMPLETING 127 nmvrm ID a! _'__214 Int . l. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 9 mm SURVEY Considerable wear on imide‘ steps or floors? 1 - Yes 3. 9- OK Substantial sagging or bulging of outside walls or roof: 1 . .es 3- 9- D Shah's or unsafe porch, steps or mini?! 1-}? Brokenoraissimwindoupanes? l-Yes 3-No 9d! Rcttedorloosevindoefr-es? l-Yes 3-No 9-K Deg wearondoorsill, doorfrenes oroutside steps? l-les 3-No 9- DK Bedlv rusted or partially eissim’ gutters an! News? 1 Yes 3 No 9-1! Lctcleanendingoodorder? ‘ ‘ l-Yes 9-K Wail-iambic? l-oclur 3-electric 9-0K Mahoshift interior walls? l-Yes J-Ne 9-DK ihkeshift arterior walls orroof? l-Yes 3- No 9-1! Nointeriorualls (exposedfr-ing) 1 Yes 90K Seedlings? l-Yes 3-No 9-8 Dirtfloors‘.’ l-Yes 3-No 9-0! Holes. open cracks. rotted, loose, orseissing nterials on inside walls? 9 K. M Holes, open cracks, rotted, loose. or aissing tutorials on floors? 1 - Large area ' 3 - New 2 - Sail area 9- 0‘. "IR Holes, open cracks. rotted. loose. or eissing eaterials on ceilings“! l - Large area 3- None 2 - Stall area 9- u. M Substantial sagging of floors or walls? 1 - large area 3 - None 2 . Scull area 9 - 0!. m ibles. open cracks, rotted. loose or missing nterials on foundation? 1 . Large area 3 - None 9 - N. NIB Holes. open cracks, rotted. loose. or gissing neterials on outside walls? - Nate 9 ' u. m Holes. wen cracks. rotted, loose. or :issing eaterials on roof? - Nate 2 - Stall area 9 - IX. N/R Type of foundation: 1 - Solid Block or poured 3 - Posts 2-310c'ss 9-DK .5 Of‘3’:“_‘ eE . 33g -23.;:-:.; C J‘OJL :32.“ g: ones-n; Ct-“ ; ?::9:."._ ' 1 ,..-. 2' 5‘s: 3 1311‘s:- ‘3' ‘ 121%) 3 S ’13:;71... 6 . 4323»: 7:21:38337 0 -d. 8 ":53'1'3373. 9 7:3‘153354f7 1° 3 ate-$19.: Is— is--. 1115.;55'. 1213-5413:}: 13 13in? 131~325.733;2: 5 U- — 15 'gils‘erI-MW 16 '13:;37ga; 1732113511.:71'} 187>3§§E§§3Q ‘— aka-..“ :9 3325232329 20 7:1:3e?27-} 21 '23iil? 22 1343-5”; " 128 Housing Structural Survey Ql 27’: We are making a survey of housing structures as part of our effort to understand the housing situation in this camunity. In order to help us have more accurate infome- tion, could you please check off on this list whether or not any of these conditions apply to this dwelling? , Yes No Comiderable wear on inside steps or floors? Substantial sagging or bulging of outside walls or roof? Shaky or unsafe proch, steps or railing? Broken or missing window panes? Rotten or lose window frames? Deep wear on doorsill, door frames or outside steps? Makeshift interior walls? Makeshift exterior walls or roof? No interior walls (Exposed framing)? No ceilings? Dirt floors? Large Small none Area Area Is there substantial sagging of floors or interior walls? . Are there any holesp open cracks, rotted. loose or - missing materials in any of the following places? ' ’ on the inside walls? on the floors? on the ceilings? g on the outside wills? ontheroof? on the foundation? Vihat type of basement does this dwelling have? __Pull basanent ' __Unfinished or partially finished cellar ___le space only ' ' ___Sits directly on the ground or slab What type of foundation does this dwelling have? ___Wooden posts ___Concrete block pillars Solid block or poured founiation 129 APPENDIX B: A COMPARISON OF SPEARMAN AND PEARSON CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS Table B—1 shows the Pearson correlation coefficients and level of significance for all the variables in the study with each other; Table B-2 shows the Spearman correlation coefficients and level of significance for the same items. In only one case does the direction of the relationship change. However, in this case the correlation coefficient is small and is not significant. Table B-3 shows this dif- ference. TABLE B-3: PEARSON AND SPEARMAN CORRELATION COEFFICIENTS AND THEIR LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE FOR LENGTH OF RESIDENCE WITH RURAL/SUBDIVISION DWELLER Correlation Level of Coefficient Significance* Pearson -.0155 .837 Spearman .0010 .990 *Two-tailed test of significance. In two cases, the direction and magnitude of the re- lationship does not change substantially; however, changes in the level of significance point to a need for further study. These two cases are the correlation between com-. munity satisfaction and local involvement and between neigh- borhood satifaction and personal well-being. The Pearson and Spearman correlation coefficients for these two cases shown below in Table B-A. .oocanonuacwau ho unopiboH auuotpmfinoaosvccnan an csmnm a. mo:do.ha:man no ~m>mqn mmqgmzo Ahmm.v onmH>Hom=m mmao.n \quo>zH mmpfl.u mmmo.u mmma.u mmzo.u memo. mmoo. hmao.1 q Bomwomm AA< mom mazmHonkmoo ZOHB0 mmaamzn zOHmH>Hom=m \quo>zH mmwa.n moaa.u aamo.a ~N:H.n ammo. mmmo.u A Bomhomm an: mom mazmHUHmmmoo ZOHB