Residential Choice, Demographics, and Sustainability: Lessons from State College, PA
Open Access
- Author:
- Ji, Bianjie
- Graduate Program:
- Landscape Architecture
- Degree:
- Master of Science
- Document Type:
- Master Thesis
- Date of Defense:
- June 12, 2019
- Committee Members:
- Mallika Bose, Thesis Advisor/Co-Advisor
Charles Andrew Cole, Committee Member
Lisa Domenica Iulo, Committee Member - Keywords:
- Residential choice
Demographics
Housing/neighborhood satisfaction
Sustainability - Abstract:
- The purpose of this thesis is to examine concerns towards sustainable development of residents living in different neighborhoods with divergent sustainability levels (most, medium, and least sustainable urban forms) in a campus town, State College, PA. The research questions considered the role of participants’ demographics and neighborhood features in relationship to articulated sustainability concerns as they intersected with residential choices related to residential features, housing/neighborhood satisfaction, and neighborhood of residence. The study contributes to sustainability research by investigating to what extent neighborhood choices examined through the lens of sustainable urban form (in State College) are impacted by concerns for sustainable development. Since housing preferences (e.g., electricity and air-conditioning/heating) and neighborhood of residence (e.g., transportation – auto dependence versus transit) are linked to energy consumption, this linkage allows us to begin to understand the degree to which sustainability influences the decision-making process regarding housing. Residents are informed about the sustainability impact of their choices and activities, yet often continue to engage in extravagant, over-consumptive, and non-sustainable behavior. So, it is imperative to identify the barriers to sustainable behavior by examining residents’ attitudes towards residential features, sustainability, and residential satisfaction. Through survey and self-report, this study contributes to exploring and understanding these residential choices. Participants’ concern for sustainability was assessed by answers to questions derived from the United Nation’s Sustainable Development Goals or SDGs (United Nations, 2015). Measures of preference for neighborhood features were derived from the Perceived Residential Environmental Quality Index or PREQI (Bonaiuto, Aiello, Perugini, Bonnes, and Ercolani, 1999). Neighborhood satisfaction was assessed by participant self-report using a seven-point Likert scale. Neighborhood of residence was assessed by identifying residents of different neighborhoods (most, medium, and least sustainable) based on a validated measure of sustainable urban form (Song & Knaap, 2004). Within the three selected neighborhood types, a stratified random sampling strategy was used to select households for data collection. A door-to-door survey was distributed to collect responses in the selected neighborhoods. This was supplemented with mailed surveys. Finally, I surveyed 30 households in each of the three neighborhood types for a total of 90 subjects. ANOVA (Analysis of Variances), Correlation, T-test, and Chi-square tests were the primary data analysis methods. I found relatively little difference in concerns towards sustainable development between residents of neighborhoods with differing urban form (most, medium, and least sustainable urban forms). I also found that less educated, lower-income, and/or younger people were more likely to live in the most sustainable urban-form neighborhoods although they had similarly high concerns for sustainable development as more educated, higher-income, and/or older people. Additionally, it is noted that residents in different sustainable urban form neighborhoods and/or different demographics had different reasons for living in their neighborhoods assessed by PREQIs. For example, residents of the most sustainable urban form neighborhoods placed more value on school and commercial services, while those of the least sustainable urban form neighborhoods esteemed upkeep more. Both housing satisfaction and neighborhood satisfaction were significantly (positively) correlated with sociability and transport services. Housing satisfaction was also significantly (positively) correlated with building aesthetics while neighborhood satisfaction was significantly (positively) correlated with sports and school services, internal functionality (e.g. easiness to cycle around), and green areas. However, residents living in different sustainable urban form neighborhoods had no significant differences in housing or neighborhood satisfaction; they all had high housing/neighborhood satisfaction. Thus, I conclude that all study participants valued sustainability goals irrespective of where they lived. One possible explanation is that since Sustainable Development Goals are disconnected from daily living context, study participants were unable to make linkages between sustainability goals and sustainable urban form. So, I recommend the development of detailed actionable sustainable development goals that are linked to daily activities.