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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAS QUESTIONNAIRES

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

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

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

LOCATION OF PARKS AND RESPONDENTS’ DWELLINGS

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

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

METROPARK VISITS, BY DISTANCE TO NEAREST METROPARK (percent of respondents visiting metroparks 3 time or more annually) Distance to Nearest Metropark (miles) More than 6 times 3- 6 times

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

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

METROPARK VISITS, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND (percent of respondents visiting city or county parks 3 time or more annually) None Less than or more Amount of Parkland within 1/4 mile (acres) More than 6 times 3- 6 times

LOCAL PARK VISITS, BY AMOUNT OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKLAND (percent of respondents visiting city or county parks 3 time or more annually) None Less than or more Amount of Parkland within 1/4 mile (acres) More than 6 times 3- 6 times

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DAS 2001 RESEARCH TEAM Amy Brooks George Carter Jessica Eisenman Elizabeth Miller Linda Nubani Eric Pratt DAS 2001 SPONSORS Southeast Michigan Council of Governments University of Michigan USDA-Forest Service Washtenaw County Board of Commissioners Ann Arbor Transportation Authority DaimlerChrysler Macomb County Board of Commissioners Michigan Economic Development Corporation Asli Gocmen Jocelyn Hain Tae-Kyung Kim Elizabeth Schreiner Jessica Willhoft Christine Vogt DAS 2001 WEBSITE