UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Neighborhood stability and attitudes toward change Coote, Robin Gale 1985

Your browser doesn't seem to have a PDF viewer, please download the PDF to view this item.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1985_A8 C65_7.pdf [ 4.6MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0096474.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0096474-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0096474-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0096474-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0096474-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0096474-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0096474-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0096474-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0096474.ris

Full Text

NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY . AND ATTITUDES TOWARD CHANGE By ROBIN GALE COOTE B.Ed., The Uni v e r s i t y of Alberta, 1978 A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS i n THE FACULTY OF GRADUATE STUDIES ( The School of Community and Regional Planning ) We accept t h i s t h e s i s as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA November 1985 ©Robin Gale Coote, 1985 In presenting t h i s t h e s i s i n p a r t i a l f u l f i l m e n t of the requirements fo r an advanced degree at the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia, I agree that the L i b r a r y s h a l l make i t f r e e l y a v a i l a b l e f o r reference and study. I further agree that permission f o r extensive copying of t h i s t h e s i s f o r s c h o l a r l y purposes may be granted by the head of my department or by h i s or her representatives. I t i s understood that copying or p u b l i c a t i o n of t h i s t h e s i s f o r f i n a n c i a l gain s h a l l not be allowed without my written permission. Department of Community and Regional Planning The University of B r i t i s h Columbia 1956 Main Mall Vancouver, Canada V6T 1Y3 Date October 1985 i i ABSTRACT The purposes of t h i s t h e s i s were: 1. to l e a r n more about neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and 2. to examine the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. E a r l i e r s t u d i e s r e v e a l e d that r e s i d e n t s f r e q u e n t l y r e s i s t environmental change in t h e i r neighborhood, t h e r e f o r e , i t was hypothesized that as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change would become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . In c o n t r a s t , i t was hypothesized that r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood would become more favourable as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s . F i n a l l y , i t was hypothesized that as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood become more favourable, t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change would become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . The l i t e r a t u r e and i n t e r v i e w s with m u n i c i p a l planners helped c l a r i f y the meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , while the hypotheses were t e s t e d using data c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g the 1984 c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Advanced L i g h t Rapid Transit(ALRT) system i n east Vancouver. The data were c o l l e c t e d from over 600 r e s i d e n t s l o c a t e d near the Broadway, Nanaimo, 29th Avenue and Joyce ALRT s t a t i o n s . I n d i c e s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood were c r e a t e d and compared using a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e . Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were used to t e s t the three hypotheses. The f i n d i n g s d i d not provide c o n c l u s i v e support f o r the hypotheses. However, the f i n d i n g s suggested that as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become s l i g h t l y l e s s f a v o u r a b l e , while t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood tend to become more f a v o u r a b l e . Furthermore, as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood become more f a v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change a l s o become more f a v o u r a b l e . Regardless of the s t a b i l i t y of the neighborhood, r e s i d e n t s were n e i t h e r f a v o u r a b l e nor unfavourable toward change i n t h e i r neighborhood. The t h e s i s concludes with a d i s c u s s i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , the r o l e of m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s and the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the three l e v e l s of government i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods. i v TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A b s t r a c t i i - i i i Table of Contents i v - v L i s t of Tables v i L i s t of F i g u r e s v i i Acknowledgement v i i i Chapter One: I n t r o d u c t i o n 1-7 Statement of purpose 1 Context 1 "2 S i g n i f icance 2-3 Methodology 3-4 Scope and l i m i t a t i o n s 4-5 O r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e s i s 5-6 D e f i n i t i o n of terms 6-7 Chapter Two: L i t e r a t u r e Review 8-20 The meaning of neighborhood 8-10 The meaning and measurement of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y 10-17 Residents' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change 17-20 Chapter Three: Planners' Views of Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y 21-40 The meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y 22-24 C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a s t a b l e neighborhood 24-27 Measuring neighborhood s t a b i l i t y 27-28 D e s i r a b i l i t y of m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods 28-30 The r o l e of the planner i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y 30-32 Government p o l i c i e s and programs to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods 33-37 Con c l u s i o n s 37-40 Chapter Four: Methodology 41-53 Data c o l l e c t i o n 42-46 The i n d i c e s Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y 46-49 Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward Change 49-50 Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood 50-53 Chapter F i v e : The F i n d i n g s 54-66 The p o p u l a t i o n 54-57 The i n d i c e s Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y 58-60 Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward Change 60 Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood 60-61 The hypotheses 61-66 V Page Chapter S i x : D i s c u s s i o n of the F i n d i n g s , P u b l i c P o l i c y Issues 67-82 The f i n d i n g s 67-71 D i s c u s s i o n q u e s t i o n s 71-77 P u b l i c p o l i c y i s s u e s 77-81 F u r t h e r r e s e a r c h 81-82 References C i t e d 83-85 Appendix A: Interview schedule f o r planners 86-87 Appendix B: Histogram of Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood 88 Appendix C: Scattergrams of b i v a r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s 89-95 v i LIST OF TABLES Table Number Page I V a r i a b l e s i n Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y 15 II - I V A n a l y s i s of V a r i a n c e by s t a t i o n area 59 II Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y I I I Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward Change IV Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood V-VII Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s 62 V Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y with Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward Change VI Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y with Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood VII Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood with Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward Change v i i LIST OF FIGURES F i g u r e Page 1 ALRT S t a t i o n Areas w i t h i n Vancouver C i t y 43 2 ALRT S t a t i o n Areas i n d e t a i l 44 v i i i ACKNOWLEDGEMENT I would l i k e to acknowledge s e v e r a l people who were in s t r u m e n t a l i n the completion of my t h e s i s . I would l i k e to express my s i n c e r e a p p r e c i a t i o n to my two committee members, Brahm Wiesman and David Ley f o r t h e i r academic guidance and support throughout the re s e a r c h p r o j e c t . I would a l s o l i k e to thank the members of the East Vancouver Neighbourhoods Study Board f o r g r a n t i n g me access to the study data f o r my research. In a d d i t i o n , I am g r a t e f u l to the Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n f o r p r o v i d i n g f i n a n c i a l a s s i s t a n c e d u r i n g most of my graduate s t u d i e s . F i n a l l y , I would l i k e to thank my f a m i l y , Jim White and other f r i e n d s f o r encouraging me to complete my M.A. 1 CHAPTER U_ INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of the t h e s i s i s to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change. Context H i s t o r i c a l l y , major environmental changes w i t h i n neighborhoods have been opposed by r e s i d e n t s . For example, i n the mid 1960's, r e s i d e n t s of the Strathcona area of Vancouver C i t y c r e a t e d a " c i t i z e n r e v o l t " a g a i n s t the freeway c o n s t r u c t i o n and urban renewal proposed f o r t h e i r neighborhoods (Horsman and Raynor i n Evenden(Ed.),1978). L a t e r , i n the e a r l y 1970's, a survey of r e s i d e n t s i n Vancouver's K i t s i l a n o area r e v e a l e d that " K i t s i l a n o r e s i d e n t s were f i r m l y opposed to the t r a n s i t i o n processes which were a l r e a d y t h r e a t e n i n g the neighborhood's s t a b i l i t y " (Ley,1981, p.137). About the same time i n the C i t y of Toronto, p r o p o s a l s f o r the Spadina and Scarborough Expressways met c o n s i d e r a b l e o p p o s i t i o n from r e s i d e n t s i n surrounding neighborhoods (Lemon in Ley(Ed.),1974). More r e c e n t l y , r e s i d e n t o p p o s i t i o n was r a i s e d over the route s e l e c t i o n f o r the Advanced L i g h t Rapid Transit(ALRT) system through neighborhoods i n east Vancouver (Hasson,1984). Why are r e s i d e n t s f r e q u e n t l y opposed to major environmental change w i t h i n t h e i r neighborhood? I b e l i e v e r e s i d e n t s oppose environmental change f o r two reasons: 1.They b e l i e v e the change w i l l have more negative than p o s i t i v e impacts on t h e i r neighborhood, and 2 2.They b e l i e v e the change w i l l d e s t a b i l i z e t h e i r neighborhood. One of the o b j e c t i v e s of t h i s t h e s i s i s to i n c r e a s e the knowledge of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change i n t h e i r neighborhood, and how the two are r e l a t e d . Other o b j e c t i v e s of the t h e s i s are to determine how the s t a b i l i t y of the neighborhood a f f e c t s r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood, and how these a t t i t u d e s a f f e c t t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. In order to accomplish the o b j e c t i v e s , the f o l l o w i n g hypotheses have been e s t a b l i s h e d and w i l l be t e s t e d as pa r t of the t h e s i s r e s e a r c h : 1. As neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . 2. As neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood become more f a v o u r a b l e . 3. As r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood become more f a v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . T h e s i s S i q n i f i c a n c e The t h e s i s r e s e a r c h i s important f o r s e v e r a l reasons. F i r s t , a c c o r d i n g to the l i t e r a t u r e , "...household a t t i t u d e s r e g a r d i n g the neighborhood are important p o t e n t i a l determinants of movement" (Boehm and Mark,1980,p.316). I t i s assumed that r e s i d e n t i a l movement i s , i n t u r n , an i n d i c a t o r of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and that one of the goals of community p l a n n i n g i s to h e l p r e s i d e n t s c r e a t e and maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. By r e v e a l i n g r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change, the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s may h e l p community 3 planners p r e d i c t changes, i n the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods. Second, the t h e s i s w i l l c o n t r i b u t e to the p r a c t i c a l world of community plan n i n g by d i s c u s s i n g what planners can do to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. T h i r d , the t h e s i s w i l l supplement the l i t e r a t u r e on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y by c l a r i f y i n g i t s meaning and by d i s c u s s i n g how i t can be measured. In a d d i t i o n , the res e a r c h f i n d i n g s w i l l supplement the l i t e r a t u r e on r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change i n t h e i r neighborhood. Fourth, the t h e s i s w i l l i n c r e a s e the l i m i t e d number of q u a n t i t a t i v e s t u d i e s in community p l a n n i n g . F i f t h , the t h e s i s w i l l d e s c r i b e and analyze neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and change in the neighborhood p r i o r to the opening of the ALRT system i n 1986. The d e s c r i p t i o n and a n a l y s i s w i l l supplement the re p o r t on the East Vancouver Neighbourhoods S t u d y ( c u r r e n t l y being e d i t e d ) , t h e market a n a l y s i s done by C o r i o l i s C o n s u l t i n g C o r p o r a t i o n , and the community study proposed by MacLeran Plansearch,another c o n s u l t i n g f i r m . In a d d i t i o n , the t h e s i s f i n d i n g s c o u l d be compared with those obtained from community surveys conducted a f t e r the opening of the ALRT system to determine whether r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the system have changed over time. Methodology The context f o r the t h e s i s w i l l be e s t a b l i s h e d by reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e on neighborhoods to determine i t s meaning, the meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and the r o l e of p l a n n e r s i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods. M u n i c i p a l planners w i l l a l s o 4 be in t e r v i e w e d to determine the views of p l a n n e r s on t h e i r r o l e in m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods. The l i t e r a t u r e on r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change w i l l be reviewed to determine t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p and t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s to the s t a b i l i t y of the neighborhood. In a d d i t i o n , the l i t e r a t u r e on r a p i d t r a n s i t w i l l be reviewed to a s c e r t a i n how i t i s p e r c e i v e d by r e s i d e n t s i n surrounding neighborhoods. The e m p i r i c a l i n v e s t i g a t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and toward environmental change w i l l be conducted using data c o l l e c t e d during a survey of over 600 r e s i d e n t s i n neighborhoods l o c a t e d i n the Broadway, Nanaimo, 29th Avenue and Joyce ALRT s t a t i o n s i n east Vancouver. The survey c o n s i s t e d of person-to-person i n t e r v i e w s conducted between May and August 1984 duri n g the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the ALRT. A n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e w i l l be used to determine d i f f e r e n c e s between the neighborhoods on the dimensions of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s w i l l be examined to determine the nature of the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the three concepts. Scope and L i m i t a t i o n s The f o c i of the t h e s i s are the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change. However, the r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s w i l l be most s u i t a b l e f o r a p p l i c a t i o n i n Canadian c i t i e s because the context w i l l be developed l a r g e l y by 5 reviewing the l i t e r a t u r e on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change i n Canadian c i t i e s . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , the l i t e r a t u r e review w i l l focus on how r e s i d e n t s i n Canadian c i t i e s f e e l about a r a p i d t r a n s i t system i n t h e i r neighborhood. In a d d i t i o n , the hypotheses w i l l be t e s t e d using a case study of neighborhoods in Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia. P o s s i b l y the most s i g n i f i c a n t l i m i t a t i o n to the t h e s i s i s the f a c t i t i s based on an ex post f a c t o r e s e a r c h d e s i g n . The data was c o l l e c t e d p r i o r to the gene r a t i o n of the hypotheses. Consequently, the assessment of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change i s not as comprehensive as i t would have been had the hypotheses been developed p r i o r to the data c o l l e c t i o n . However, I am c o n f i d e n t the data c o n t a i n an adequate number of s u i t a b l e i n d i c a t o r s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and environmental change t o - j u s t i f y t e s t i n g the hypotheses. A minor l i m i t a t i o n of the t h e s i s i s the f a c t that i t i s not designed to d e s c r i b e the boundaries or c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i n d i v i d u a l neighborhoods i n the case study. Instead, the t h e s i s r e s e a r c h focuses on r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s and neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n each of the four ALRT s t a t i o n s i n east Vancouver. O r g a n i z a t i o n of the T h e s i s The t h e s i s c o n t a i n s s i x c h a p t e r s . Chapter 1 c o n t a i n s a statement of the purpose and o b j e c t i v e s of the t h e s i s , as w e l l as a d e s c r i p t i o n of i t s c o n t e n t s . The most f r e q u e n t l y used terms are a l s o d e f i n e d i n Chapter 1. 6 Chapter 2 c o n t a i n s a review of the l i t e r a t u r e on the meaning of n e i g h b o r h o o d and neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The most r e c e n t l i t e r a t u r e on r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r n e ighborhoods and toward e n v i r o n m e n t a l change, p a r t i c u l a r l y r a p i d t r a n s i t i s a l s o r e viewed i n Chapter 2. The r e s u l t s of the i n t e r v i e w s w i t h m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s on t h e i r r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods a r e summarized i n Chapter 3. Chapter 4 c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the d a t a t h a t were used t o t e s t the h y p o t h e s e s . The d a t a c o l l e c t i o n p r o c e s s i s d e s c r i b e d , as w e l l as the m a t h e m a t i c a l c o m p u t a t i o n s t h a t were used t o c r e a t e measurement i n d i c e s f o r neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward e n v i r o n m e n t a l change. Chapter 5 c o n t a i n s h i g h l i g h t s from the a n a l y s i s of the data and the r e s u l t s of the hypotheses t e s t i n g . Chapter 6 c o n t a i n s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s , a d i s c u s s i o n of q u e s t i o n s and p o l i c y i s s u e s r a i s e d by the t h e s i s r e s e a r c h , as w e l l as s u g g e s t i o n s f o r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . D e f i n i t i o n of Terms Neighborhood: A p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l s u b u n i t w i t h i n a c i t y or town "...where peop l e i n h a b i t d w e l l i n g s and i n t e r a c t s o c i a l l y " (Hallman,1984:13). I t encompasses more than one h o u s e h o l d but l e s s than the whole c i t y or town. I t may c o n t a i n a s c h o o l , p a r k , s t o r e and/or o t h e r f a c i l i t i e s or s e r v i c e s . Each of t h e f o u r ALRT s t a t i o n a r e a s may s e r v e more than one neighborhood, and one neighborhood may c o n s i s t of r e s i d e n t s and d w e l l i n g s i n more than one s t a t i o n a r e a . 7 Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y : A concept r e f e r r i n g to the dynamic composition of a neighborhood. The dynamic composition r e f e r s to changes that occur over time i n the area's p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s t h a t the changes are w i t h i n the r e s i d e n t s ' range of a d a p t a t i o n . The range of a d a p t a t i o n r e f e r s to the extent to which r e s i d e n t s are w i l l i n g to make p s y c h o l o g i c a l , emotional and/or p h y s i c a l adjustments to accommodate change. Environmental Change: Implies a major a l t e r a t i o n i n the p h y s i c a l environment of, i n t h i s i n s t a n c e , a moderately low d e n s i t y neighborhood. Examples of environmental change i n c l u d e the c o n s t r u c t i o n of a h i g h r i s e r e s i d e n t i a l b u i l d i n g or freeway. The environmental change examined i n the t h e s i s i s the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Advanced L i g h t Rapid Transit(ALRT) system. A t t i t u d e s : A c o n s t r u c t r e f e r r i n g to "a mental p o s i t i o n or f e e l i n g toward c e r t a i n i d e a s , f a c t s , o r persons" (Thesaurus of P s y c h o l o g i c a l Index,1982). A t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood w i l l be i n f e r r e d from r e s i d e n t s * e v a l u a t i o n s of neighborhood problems. A t t i t u d e s toward environmental change w i l l be i n f e r r e d from r e s i d e n t s ' b e l i e f s about the impact of the ALRT system on t h e i r neighborhood. 8 CHAPTER 2j_ LITERATURE REVIEW The purposes of Chapter 2 are to c l a r i f y the meanings of neighborhood and neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and to d i s c u s s r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change. Neighborhood In 1968 Suzanne K e l l e r wrote that there are two common elements to most d e f i n i t i o n s of neighborhood. The elements are people and p l a c e . K e l l e r ' s o b s e r v a t i o n i s true f o r the p u b l i s h e d d e f i n i t i o n s of neighborhood and i s t y p i f i e d by one of the e a r l i e s t d e f i n i t i o n s . In 1948 Ruth G l a s s d e s c r i b e d a neighborhood as "a d i s t i n c t t e r r i t o r i a l group, d i s t i n c t by v i r t u e of the s p e c i f i c p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the area and the s p e c i f i c s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n h a b i t a n t s " ( c i t e d i n K e l l e r , 1968 p.88). More r e c e n t l y , another element, s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n amongst r e s i d e n t s has a l s o been i n c l u d e d i n d e f i n i t i o n s of neighborhood. For example, i n 1983 the s o c i o l o g i s t , S chwirian d e f i n e d a neighborhood as "a p o p u l a t i o n r e s i d i n g i n an i d e n t i f i a b l e s e c t i o n of a c i t y whose members are organized i n t o a ge n e r a l i n t e r a c t i o n network of formal and i n f o r m a l t i e s and express t h e i r common i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the area i n p u b l i c symbols" (p.84). Research by the geographer Gold(l980) confirms that the three elements are contained i n d e f i n i t i o n s of neighborhood i n the s o c i a l s c i e n c e s and p l a n n i n g l i t e r a t u r e . 9 He s t a t e s : neighbourhoods are d e f i n e d i n two ways. On the one hand, neighbourhoods are taken to be s o c i a l u n i t s that are i d e n t i f i e d by the s o c i a b i l i t y and n e i g h b o u r l i n e s s of t h e i r r e s i d e n t s ; o n the other hand,they have been taken to be p h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g u n i t s f o r p r o v i s i o n of housing and s e r v i c e f a c i l i t i e s -"neighbourhood u n i t s " , (p.109) The view of the neighborhood as a p h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g u n i t stems back to the l a t e 1800's and e a r l y 1900's when Ebenezer Howard and C l a r e n c e Perry put f o r t h the "neighborhood u n i t " concept. T h i s r e f e r r e d to "a d e l i m i t e d area and p o p u l a t i o n s h a r i n g b a s i c f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s that are c o n v e n i e n t l y a c c e s s i b l e , o n f o o t , t o the i n d i v i d u a l household" (Keller,1968,p.125). The dimension of s c a l e , that i s , the b e l i e f that a neighborhood i s l a r g e r than a household but s m a l l e r than a c i t y or town, was e x p l i c i t l y s t a t e d i n the d e f i n i t i o n s by K e l l e r ( 1 9 6 8 ) , Porteous(1977) and Clay and H o l l i s t e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) . A c c o r d i n g to Clay and H o l l i s t e r ( 1 9 8 3 ) , the neighborhood i s "a u n i q u e l y l i n k e d u n i t of s o c i a l / s p a t i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n between the f o r c e s and i n s t i t u t i o n s of the l a r g e r s o c i e t y and the l o c a l i z e d r o u t i n e s of i n d i v i d u a l s i n t h e i r everyday l i v e s " (p.4). Howard Hallman(1984) r e c e n t l y compiled a comprehensive, yet c o n c i s e d e f i n i t i o n of neighborhood by combining the three elements of t e r r i t o r y , i n h a b i t a n t s and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n with the dimension of s c a l e . He d e f i n e d a neighborhood as "a l i m i t e d t e r r i t o r y w i t h i n a l a r g e r urban area where people i n h a b i t d w e l l i n g s and i n t e r a c t s o c i a l l y " (p.13). F i n a l l y , i t can be argued t h a t the d e f i n i t i o n of neighborhood i s p a r t i a l l y c o n t i n g e n t upon r e s i d e n t s ' p e r c e p t i o n 10 of and i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the neighborhood. T h i s view i s shared by McClaughry ( c i t e d i n Duignan and Rabushka(Eds.), 1980) and Schoenberg and Rosenbaum(1980). Acco r d i n g to the l a t t e r , a neighborhood i s : an area i n which a common bounded t e r r i t o r y i s named and i d e n t i f i e d by r e s i d e n t s , a t l e a s t one i n s t i t u t i o n i s i d e n t i f i e d i n the area,and at l e a s t one common t i e i s shared. T h i s common t i e may be shared commercial f a c i l i t i e s , p u b l i c spaces or s o c i a l networks, (pp.5&6) The preceding d i s c u s s i o n r e v e a l s the numerous d e f i n i t i o n s of neighborhood. A l l c o n t a i n the b a s i c elements of t e r r i t o r y and i n h a b i t a n t s , while some r e f e r to s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n amongst r e s i d e n t s and others i n c l u d e the dimension of s c a l e . Fewer d e f i n i t i o n s c o n t a i n a l l four elements. A c o m p i l a t i o n of the four elements, i n c l u d i n g p a r t of Hallman's(1984) d e f i n i t i o n of neighborhood has been adopted f o r use i n t h i s t h e s i s . A c c o r d i n g to t h i s t h e s i s , a neighborhood i s : A p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l subunit w i t h i n a c i t y or town "...where people i n h a b i t d w e l l i n g s and i n t e r a c t s o c i a l l y " (Hallman,1984,p.13). It encompasses more than one household but l e s s than the whole c i t y or town. I t may c o n t a i n a s c h o o l , park, s t o r e and/or other f a c i l i t i e s or s e r v i c e s . Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y S e v e r a l authors such as Goetze, C o l t o n and 0'Donnell(1977), Goetze(l979) and Ley(l983) d i s c u s s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of s t a b l e neighborhoods and p r o v i d e i n s i g h t s i n t o ways of s t a b i l i z i n g neighborhoods, but the authors do not d e f i n e what they mean by neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . 11 For example, Goetze, C o l t o n and 0'Donnell(1977) s t a t e : I t i s i n the s t a b l e areas, not the r i s i n g markets, that n a t u r a l f o r c e s appear to "normalize" behavior and check d e t e r i o r a t i o n , and only here does housing  appear to maintain i t s e l f , the good p r o p e r t i e s doing v i s i b l y b e t t e r than the worse ones. Here we have something l i k e homeostasis, (p.27) According to these authors, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by w e l l maintained p r o p e r t i e s and homeostasis. Two years l a t e r , Goetze(l979) concluded that "outside i n t e r v e n t i o n s , however w e l l i n t e n t i o n e d can have d e v a s t a t i n g e f f e c t s on any neighborhood's h o m e o s t a s i s - i t s i n t e r n a l system of checks and balances that l e a d to s t a b i l i t y " (p.xv). Goetze(l979) argues that f e d e r a l programs are one of the main i n t e r v e n t i o n s r e s p o n s i b l e f o r the d i s r u p t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n American c i t i e s and towns. In comparison, f e d e r a l i n t e r v e n t i o n s i n Canadian c i t i e s and towns, such as the Neighbourhood Improvement Program (NIP) and the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program (RRAP), were e s t a b l i s h e d to "provide funds to s t a b i l i z e and preserve inner c i t y neighborhoods" (Ley,1983,p.89). However, d e s p i t e the i n t e n t of the programs, i t has been suggested t h a t the NIP and the RRAP may have been e f f e c t i v e "only i n areas that enjoy c o n s i d e r a b l e s t a b i l i t y " ( G e r t l e r and Crowley,1977,p.341). In 1981 Anthony Downs wrote at some len g t h on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . 1 2 He s t a t e d : Most people regard neighborhood s t a b i l i t y as d e s i r a b l e , b u t they do not r e a l i z e how dynamic such s t a b i l i t y r e a l l y i s i n urban ar e a s . In the si m p l e s t sense,any neighborhood i s s t a b l e as long as i t s key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do not change much.... Thus,neighborhood s t a b i l i t y can occur i n a new and a f f l u e n t area and i n a d e t e r i o r a t e d slum. However, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y never means  la c k of movement , e s p e c i a l l y of p o p u l a t i o n . Tp724l~ According to Downs(l98l), neighborhoods are c o n s t a n t l y e x p e r i e n c i n g i n f l o w s and outflows of people with c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , and investments i n money or i n - k i n d s e r v i c e s . In order to achieve neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , the i n f l o w s and outflows must be balanced, not stopped. For example, i f a neighborhood i s to remain s t a b l e , people moving out of the neighborhood must be r e p l a c e d by people moving i n who have s i m i l a r c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s to the outmovers. S i m i l a r l y , money coming i n t o a neighborhood must be e q u i v a l e n t to the money l e a v i n g a neighborhood "to keep p r o p e r t y v a l u e s e i t h e r s t a b l e or r i s i n g a long with g e n e r a l i n f l a t i o n " (Downs,1981,p.26). Th e r e f o r e , from Downs'(1981) viewpoint, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y encompasses two ide a s : one, that a balance e x i s t s between the inf l o w s and outflows of r e s i d e n t s , m a t e r i a l s and money; and two, that key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do not change much. Consequently, i t appears t h a t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the neighborhood may change w i t h i n c e r t a i n parameters. The idea that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i m p l i e s change i s found i n e a r l i e r work by Wolpert,Mumphrey and S e l e y ( l 9 7 2 ) , who d e f i n e s t a b i l i t y as "the r a t e of neighborhood change i n terms of p o p u l a t i o n , s e r v i c e s , o w n e r s h i p of housing 1 3 stock e t c . " ( p . 9 ) . There are s e v e r a l i n d i c a t o r s t hat have been used to measure neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . F i f t e e n years ago McLean, Adkins, Ladewig, Guseman, and Rodriguez(1970) used a combination of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y , p r o p o r t i o n of home ownership and p r o p o r t i o n of s i n g l e d w e l l i n g u n i t s i n t h e i r S t a b i l i t y Index, which was used to determine the impact of freeways on surrounding neighborhoods i n A u s t i n , D a l l a s and Houston. The higher the S t a b i l i t y Index, the g r e a t e r the s t a b i l i t y , with s t a b i l i t y d e f i n e d as "low r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and low pr o p e n s i t y to be mobile" (McLean et al.,1970,p.4.6). B u i l d i n g upon the e a r l i e r work of McLean et a l . ( l 9 7 0 ) , Guseman, H a l l , F u l l e r , and Burke(l976) a l s o used a combination of r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y and p r o p o r t i o n of home ownership to assess neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . In 1977 Ahlbrandt, Charney, and Cunningham suggested home ownership may be an i n d i c a t o r of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . They s t a t e d , "to the extent that homeowners are more w i l l i n g to work to make the neighborhood a b e t t e r p l a c e to l i v e than are r e n t e r s , a d e c l i n i n g homeownership r a t e w i l l have a d e s t a b i l i z i n g longterm e f f e c t on the neighborhood" (Ahlbrandt et al.,1977,p.339). In a d d i t i o n , they suggest that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y should c o r r e l a t e h i g h l y with the a v a i l a b i l i t y of mortgage and home improvement f i n a n c i n g , and that the key to a s s e s s i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s to examine the r e l a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s i n income l e v e l s between those moving i n t o and those moving out of the neighborhood. In the mid 1970's i n Canada, G e r t l e r and Crowley(1977) 14 compared the s t a b i l i t y of two areas i n Montreal by examining changes i n t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n , e t h n i c composition, persons per household, housing tenure, d w e l l i n g type, r e s i d e n t s ' income and t h e i r l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e i n the neighborhood. The 1981 Canada Census c o l l e c t e d i n f o r m a t i o n on s e v e r a l i n d i c a t o r s used i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s to assess neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The i n d i c a t o r s are: the age s t r u c t u r e of the r e s i d e n t s , t h e i r e t h n i c composition, housing tenure and type, and number of persons per household. In a d d i t i o n , the Census obtained i n f o r m a t i o n on what cou l d be c o n s i d e r e d other i n d i c a t o r s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y such as the p r o p o r t i o n of households with c h i l d r e n l i v i n g at home, and length of r e s i d e n c e at the c u r r e n t address. F i n a l l y , Downs(198l) has p u b l i s h e d an e x t e n s i v e l i s t of v a r i a b l e s to assess neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The v a r i a b l e s are shown in Table I. In summary, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y encompasses the idea that neighborhood c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s change over time, but the changes are not major. The c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s that are commonly used to assess neighborhood s t a b i l i t y are r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y ; d w e l l i n g type and tenure; the age s t r u c t u r e , income and e t h n i c composition of the p o p u l a t i o n . S e v e r a l of the i n d i c a t o r s used i n e a r l i e r s t u d i e s w i l l be used i n t h i s t h e s i s to assess the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods around the four e a s t s i d e s t a t i o n s of the Advanced L i g h t Rapid Transit(ALRT) system i n Vancouver, Canada. The i n d i c a t o r s a r e : 1. The p r o p o r t i o n of households who own t h e i r d w e l l i n g s Table I Va r i a b l e s i n Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y 1 Papulation change involves shifts in Number of households Number of residents Socioeconomic status Age distribution : Ethnic composition Crime rates Physical change involves shifts in Number of structures Physical condition of structures Vacancy rate | Mixture of building types j Mixture of land uses Amount and nature of open space Amount and nature of vehicle traffic Economic change involves shifts in Market values of property ' Sales prices of property i Rent levels Number of active buyers and sellers of property Number of housing units occupied by owners Amount invested in maintenance, repair, and renovation of property Amount of new construction Availability and cost of real estate financing and insurance Real estate taxes Amount of real estate tax delinquency Public service change involves shifts in the quality of Police and fire protection Public schools Public transportation Street and sidewalk maintenance Trash and garbage collection Psychological change involves shifts in opinions and expectations about j Socioeconomic status j Ethnic composition Physical condition of structures Property values | Personal and property security Public school quality • Desirability of neighborhood as place to live (Downs,1981,p.25) 1 6 2. The p r o p o r t i o n of households who l i v e i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s 3. The p r o p o r t i o n of households who have l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhood more than 2 years 4. The p r o p o r t i o n of households who know thr e e or more people on t h e i r block by name 5. The p r o p o r t i o n of households c o n t a i n i n g school aged c h i l d r e n , that i s , c h i l d r e n between 5 and 19 years of age Support f o r s e l e c t i n g the above i n d i c a t o r s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . F i r s t , a c c ording to McLean et a l . ( l 9 7 0 ) , owner occupants and s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g u n i t s i n a neighborhood "suggest a p r o p e n s i t y to be s t a b l e " (p.6.4). C o n c u r r e n t l y , Speare(l970) found that "on the average, r e n t e r s were 4-5 times more l i k e l y to move than home owners" (p.457). Second, Speare(l970) a l s o found that t h e r e was an i n v e r s e r e l a t i o n s h i p between d u r a t i o n at c u r r e n t r e s i d e n c e and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . L a t e r r e s e a r c h a l s o r e v e a l e d that i n t r a m e t r o p o l i t a n m o b i l i t y i s more l i k e l y among "renters,among persons not long i n the s t a t e or not long at t h e i r c u r r e n t residence,and among those with no school-age c h i l d r e n " (Speare, G o l d s t e i n , and Frey,1975,p.139). I t was Long(1972) who e a r l i e r d i s c o v e r e d the negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between the presence of school aged c h i l d r e n and r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y . He s t a t e s : " f a m i l i e s with c h i l d r e n of school age only o f t e n have a r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y r a t e only about o n e - h a l f that of f a m i l i e s with no c h i l d r e n or c h i l d r e n of p r e s c h o o l age o n l y " (Long,1972,p.382). F i n a l l y , l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e i n the neighborhood i s f r e q u e n t l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . For example, Burkhardt found that "the percentage of f a m i l i e s who have been l i v i n g at t h e i r c u r r e n t address l e s s than two 1 7 years was the most important p r e d i c t o r , i n a negative sense,of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n " ( c i t e d i n Guseman et al.,1976,p.40). Consequently, the measure of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , t h a t i s , the p r o p o r t i o n of households who know three or more people on t h e i r block by name, i s c o n s i d e r e d an a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t o r of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . A t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and environmental change Jacobs(l961) and Gans(l962) have both argued that c i t y p l anners f r e q u e n t l y act on t h e i r assumptions of the o p i n i o n s and a t t i t u d e s of neighborhood r e s i d e n t s , and t h a t planners' assumptions may be i n a c c u r a t e , l e a d i n g to i n a p p r o p r i a t e plans being made f o r the neighborhood. In order to maintain d e s i r a b l e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , such as s a f e t y i n a neighborhood, i t i s important that planners determine how r e s i d e n t s f e e l about t h e i r neighborhood because the r e s i d e n t s are l a r g e l y r e s p o n s i b l e f o r c r e a t i n g and m a i n t a i n i n g d e s i r a b l e , s t a b l e neighborhoods. With knowledge of r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and environmental change, planners should be i n a b e t t e r p o s i t i o n to prepare and implement p l a n s and programs that w i l l supplement, i f not enhance, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . A c cording to Downs(l98l), R e l a t i o n s h i p s between most neighborhoods and the l a r g e r s o c i e t y are g r e a t l y i n f l u e n c e d by c e r t a i n t y p i c a l a t t i t u d e s of neighborhood r e s i d e n t s . No matter what t h e i r income l e v e l or e t h n i c i t y , m o s t such r e s i d e n t s are both p a r o c h i a l and c o n s e r v a t i v e r e g a r d i n g any changes i n l o c a l c o n d i t i o n s , (p.172) Downs(1981) argues that r e s i d e n t s are p a r o c h i a l because "they 18 normally promote the i n t e r e s t s of t h e i r own neighborhoods over the i n t e r e s t s of other a r e a s " (p.172), and r e s i d e n t s are normally c o n s e r v a t i v e because they oppose change. S e v e r a l s t u d i e s c i t e d i n Chapter 1 (Ley,1981; Hasson,l984 et c . ) i n d i c a t e d that r e s i d e n t s i n middle and poorer c l a s s neighborhoods i n Canada f r e q u e n t l y oppose environmental changes such as r e s i d e n t i a l redevelopment and freeway c o n s t r u c t i o n . However, a l l the s t u d i e s , except f o r the one by L e y ( l 9 8 l ) , d i s c u s s e d o p p o s i t i o n to environmental change p r i o r to i t s appearance i n the neighborhood. L e y ( l 9 8 l ) analyzed the r e s u l t s of a survey used to determine r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the redevelopment underway i n K i t s i l a n o , V a n c o u v e r . He found that "the m a j o r i t y of both home owners and tenants was s c e p t i c a l or openly a n t a g o n i s t i c toward redevelopment and i t s consequences" (Ley,1981,p.141). An a d d i t i o n a l concern about the relevance of the e a r l i e r s t u d i e s i s the f a c t t h at the documentation of r e s i d e n t o p p o s i t i o n to impending change was based l a r g e l y on the a c t i o n s of neighborhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as C i t i z e n s Concerned About Spadina i n Toronto, and Save Our Neighborhood Committee i n the Cedar Cottage area of Vancouver. The o r g a n i z a t i o n s may not have a c c u r a t e l y represented the views of the m a j o r i t y of neighborhood r e s i d e n t s . In summary, there i s c l e a r l y a dearth of l i t e r a t u r e on a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change based on a s t a t i s t i c a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of r e s i d e n t s . L i t e r a t u r e on r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward l i g h t r a p i d t r a n s i t i n t h e i r neighborhood i s a l s o c o n s p i c u o u s l y absent. In the l a t e 1970's, a study on the impact of the Bay Area Rapid T r a n s i t System(BART) on r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y i n San F r a n c i s c o 19 was p u b l i s h e d by Bald a s s a r e , Knight, and Swan(l979). The authors found that reasons u n r e l a t e d to BART's impact, such as neighborhood q u a l i t y , stage i n the f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e , appeared to be more s i g n i f i c a n t determinants of p r e f e r e n c e s to move. Baldassare et a l . conclude t h a t : the environmental c o s t s and b e n e f i t s of a major urban s e r v i c e such as BART l e a d to d i f f e r e n t reasons f o r wanting to leave the l o c a l e and v a r y i n g r e p o r t s concerning m o b i l i t y . B a s i c a l l y , BART was more o f t e n mentioned as a reason f o r moving away from an area as the system's environmental impacts worsened ( i . e . , a e r i a l s i t e s ) , and people r e p o r t e d that they were a t t r a c t e d to areas because of BART presumably as i t s easy a v a i l a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d ( i . e . , s t a t i o n s i t e s ) . F u r t h e r , w i t h i n neighborhoods with s i m i l a r BART a t t r i b u t e s (e.g. s t a t i o n s i t e s , a e r i a l s i t e s ) the g r e a t e r the l e v e l of adverse c o n d i t i o n s c r e a t e d by BART, the l e s s the d e s i r e to r e s i d e i n the area, (pp.445 & 446) However, the authors c a u t i o n the reader that they have l i t t l e data that i n d i c a t e s m o b i l i t y was s i g n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to s p e c i f i c BART- r e l a t e d c o n d i t i o n s , and they s t r e s s that "mention of BART as a reason f o r m o b i l i t y p r e f e r e n c e s v a r i e d with s i t e type and s p e c i f i c s i t e c o n d i t i o n s " (Baldassare et al.,1979,p.446). F i n a l l y , as the authors p o i n t out, "data on m o b i l i t y p r e f e r e n c e s and reasons f o r moving may merely be surrogates f o r lack of s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighborhood or t r a n s i t system which might not r e s u l t i n a c t u a l m o b i l i t y " (Baldassare et al.,1979,p.446). T h i s t h e s i s w i l l l e a d to g r e a t e r understanding of the r e l a t i o n s h i p between s a t i s f a c t i o n with the neighborhood and r a p i d t r a n s i t on the one hand, and m o b i l i t y on the other hand, by r e v e a l i n g r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood and r a p i d t r a n s i t , and how they are l i k e l y to 20 a f f e c t m o b i l i t y i n the neighborhood. In 1981, the C o u n c i l of Planning L i b r a r i a n s p u b l i s h e d the b i b l i o g r a p h y , L i g h t R a i l T r a n s i t i n Canada: A S e l e c t e d  Bibliography,1970-1980 . The b i b l i o g r a p h y c o n t a i n s r e f e r e n c e s on the economic, a r c h i t e c t u r a l and e n g i n e e r i n g aspects of l i g h t r a i l t r a n s i t in Canada, but i t does not c o n t a i n r e f e r e n c e s on the s o c i a l a s p e c t s . S i m i l a r l y , there are p u b l i c a t i o n s on the management and p o l i c y concerns a s s o c i a t e d with r a p i d t r a n s i t (Hamilton and Hamilton,1981; F i t c h and Associates,1964 r e s p e c t i v e l y ) . However, there i s a vacuum i n the l i t e r a t u r e on r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward l i g h t r a p i d t r a n s i t i n t h e i r neighborhood. 21 CHAPTER 3j_ PLANNERS' VIEWS OF NEIGHBORHOOD STABILITY The l i t e r a t u r e reviewed i n the p r e c e d i n g chapter c o n t a i n e d i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y h e l d by r e s e a r c h e r s such as Wolpert et a l ( l 9 7 2 ) and Downs(l98l). However, the l i t e r a t u r e d i d not provide any i n d i c a t i o n s of how neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s d e f i n e d by m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s , who have the mandate to work on neighborhood concerns. The contents of t h i s chapter w i l l supplement the l i t e r a t u r e on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y by r e v e a l i n g how the concept i s d e f i n e d by p r a c t i s i n g p l a n n e r s , and t h e i r views on p u b l i c s e c t o r involvement i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods. P u b l i c s e c t o r involvement i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods w i l l be d i s c u s s e d again Chapter 6. The r e s e a r c h f o r t h i s chapter was conducted through person-to- person i n t e r v i e w s with e i g h t planners working f o r Burnaby, Richmond, and the C i t y of Vancouver i n t h e i r Planning Departments. The i n t e r v i e w s were conducted between June 17 and 20, 1985 i n the three Planning Departments. A copy of the i n t e r v i e w schedule i s c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix A. Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y was d e f i n e d e a r l i e r i n Chapter 1 as a concept r e f e r r i n g to the dynamic composition of a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . The dynamic composition r e f e r s to changes t h a t occur over time i n the area's p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s that the changes are w i t h i n the r e s i d e n t s ' range of a d a p t a t i o n . The range of a d a p t a t i o n r e f e r s to the extent to which r e s i d e n t s are w i l l i n g to make p s y c h o l o g i c a l , emotional and/or p h y s i c a l adjustments to accommodate change. In order to determine whether 22 t h i s view of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s compatible with the views h e l d by m u n i c i p a l planners, and whether t h e i r views are compatible with d e f i n i t i o n s i n the l i t e r a t u r e , planners were asked to d e f i n e the concept. The meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y (Question #1) P r a c t i s i n g p l a n n e r s d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y in one of three ways: 1. i n conceptual terms, 2. using s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a s s o c i a t e d with neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , or 3. i n both conceptual terms and s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Three of the e i g h t planners d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n conceptual terms. For example, one planner s t a t e d that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y " i m p l i e s a sense of e q u i l i b r i u m " , i t i s an " e c o l o g i c a l s t a t e " . Furthermore, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y r e f e r s to a " s t a t i c economy" that neighborhoods r a r e l y reach. Here, there are "no p r e s s u r e s f o r change or growth". F i n a l l y , t h i s planner s t a t e d that "absolute s t a b i l i t y " does not e x i s t , i t i s a t h e o r e t i c a l concept r e f e r r i n g to a " p e r f e c t s t a t e of changelessness". He i n d i c a t e d r e l a t i v e s t a b i l i t y i s a t t a i n a b l e . In c o n t r a s t , another planner s t a t e d t h a t neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s "a s t a t e or c o n d i t i o n i n a neighborhood". I t i s not s t a t i c , and i t r e q u i r e s growth and change. Furthermore, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s "a stage i n the e v o l u t i o n of a neighborhood". The same planner s t a t e d that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i m p l i e s "freedom from t h r e a t " , both from a p h y s i c a l standpoint of no land use c o n f l i c t s and from a p e r c e p t u a l standpoint of the r e s i d e n t s not f e e l i n g the neighborhood i s threatened by change. According to t h i s planner, r e s i d e n t s have a "range of t o l e r a n c e f o r change". The t h i r d planner emphasized that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y does 23 not n e c e s s a r i l y mean no change. He s t a t e d that i t r e f e r s to "a neighborhood comfortably reaching toward i t s f u t u r e " . I t i m p l i e s "not having major changes that are out s i d e r e s i d e n t s ' mindsets". According to t h i s planner, change i s p o s s i b l e i f people understand i t . Two of the planners d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y using s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . For example, one planner i n d i c a t e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y r e f e r s to a p h y s i c a l p l a n n i n g concept s i m i l a r to a neighborhood u n i t . H is d e s c r i p t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y was a r e s i d e n t i a l area bounded by major s t r e e t s but having l i m i t e d a c c e s s . I t c o n t a i n s " s i n g l e f a m i l y d w e l l i n g s of the same age" and "a school as the f o c a l p o i n t " . T h i s planner s t a t e d , "you c r e a t e neighborhood s t a b i l i t y when you move i n " . The other planner equated neighborhood s t a b i l i t y with homeownership. T h i s , i n t u r n , i m p l i e s " r e s i d e n t s have a stake i n the neighborhood". Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s a l s o a s s o c i a t e d with long term r e s i d e n t s . F i n a l l y , both p l a n n e r s s a i d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y means r e s i d e n t s i d e n t i f y with the area. The remaining three planners d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c o n c e p t u a l terms supplemented by s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . One planner d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y as " c e r t a i n t y " , that no major changes are a n t i c i p a t e d i n land use or s o c i a l f a c t o r s , such as the age s t r u c t u r e of r e s i d e n t s . Another planner s t a t e d that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y r e f e r s to a " p o s i t i v e s t a b l e environment t h a t can respond p o s i t i v e l y to s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l change". The environment c o n s i s t s of "cohesive, w e l l - d e f i n e d land uses", a "minimal l e v e l of i n f r a s t r u c t u r e " , r e s i d e n t s who have l i v e d there f o r some time and who "see the area as s t a b l e " . 24 T h i s planner c o n t r a s t e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y with an u n s t a b l e r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a , or one i n t r a n s i t i o n , which i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by "changing and incompatible lan d uses" and segmentation by major roadways. Here there i s " u n c e r t a i n t y about the f u t u r e of the neighborhood". The t h i r d planner i n t h i s group s t a t e d that h i s d e f i n i t i o n depends upon the type of neighborhood. He s t a t e d t h a t s t a b i l i t y i n a r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhood i m p l i e s long term r e s i d e n t s and "ethnic and s o c i a l c l a s s neighborhoods". Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y a l s o r e f e r s to " s t r u c t u r e s that g r a d u a l l y a d j u s t to change" and "no massive removal of people". F i n a l l y , t h i s planner s t a t e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y r e f e r s to a " p o l i t i c a l s t r u c t u r e " and a v a r i e t y of f a m i l i e s and d w e l l i n g s to accommodate changes i n the demographic composition of the neighborhood. In summary, planners d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y u s i n g e i t h e r concepts such as "freedom from t h r e a t " , or s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as the presence of long term r e s i d e n t s , or a combination of both concepts and s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as " c e r t a i n t y " combined with "no major changes i n land use". Furthermore, h a l f of the plan n e r s i n d i c a t e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s not a s t a t i c c o n d i t i o n implying no change i n the area's p h y s i c a l and/or s o c i a l composition. The same group of plann e r s a l s o i n d i c a t e d that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i m p l i e s the area can a d j u s t to change. Two pla n n e r s a s s o c i a t e d no change with neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . One planner s a i d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s "a stage i n the e v o l u t i o n of a neighborhood". A s t a b l e neighborhood (Question #2) T h i s q u e s t i o n was i n c l u d e d i n the i n t e r v i e w t o a l l o w 25 p l a n n e r s to d e s c r i b e s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a s t a b l e neighborhood. The responses would i n d i c a t e whether the v a r i a b l e s proposed to measure neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n t h i s t h e s i s are a p p r o p r i a t e . Two plan n e r s i n i t i a l l y p o i n t e d out that neighborhoods can be composed of s e v e r a l types of land use. The responses to t h i s q u e s t i o n r e f e r to s t a b l e neighborhoods c o n t a i n i n g p r i m a r i l y r e s i d e n t i a l l a n d . The most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned a t t r i b u t e of s t a b l e neighborhoods i s the absence of major changes. Three of the e i g h t p l a n n e r s i n d i c a t e d that i n s t a b l e neighborhoods there are no apparent p r e s s u r e s f o r change i n the s o c i a l , economic and/or p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Two other planners s t i p u l a t e d that there are no major land use changes i n s t a b l e neighborhoods. A l l but one of the plan n e r s d e s c r i b e d a s t a b l e neighborhood as having p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l a t t r i b u t e s . The remaining planner s t a t e d that p h y s i c a l i n d i c a t o r s may be " s u p e r f i c i a l " . He d e s c r i b e d a s t a b l e neighborhood as one where a " s o c i a l network i s i n p l a c e " . T h i s i n c l u d e s s e r v i c e o r g a n i z a t i o n s and support f o r the l e s s a b l e r e s i d e n t s . Furthermore, t h i s planner s t a t e d that when i s s u e s emerge i n a s t a b l e neighborhood, the r e a c t i o n i s " p r o a c t i v e , not one of f e a r " . F i n a l l y , a s t a b l e neighborhood i s a p l a c e where "people come to something good and they leave of t h e i r own a c c o r d " . Another planner a l s o i n d i c a t e d that the s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e i s important i n a s t a b l e neighborhood. He s t a t e d that i n a s t a b l e neighborhood there i s a "sense of community" and " r e s i d e n t s i d e n t i f y with the a r e a " . To t h i s p l a n n e r , a s t a b l e neighborhood a l s o meant that a " s u b s t a n t i a l 26 number of people are not f o r c e d out due to p h y s i c a l d e t e r i o r a t i o n , unemployment and r a p i d change", and i t i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by c h i l d r e n who have attended only one school throughout t h e i r elementary school aged years. Two p l a n n e r s a s s o c i a t e d long term r e s i d e n t s with s t a b l e neighborhoods, while three other planners mentioned r e s i d e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with the area as a c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of s t a b l e neighborhoods. One of the planners s a i d "most s t a b l e neighborhoods are populated by homeowners" who have a " t i e to the l a n d " . Furthermore, a s t a b l e neighborhood has an atmosphere where "owners f e e l c omfortable". Another planner d e s c r i b e d a s t a b l e neighborhood as having a " h i s t o r i c a l c o n t e x t " , "a range of p o p u l a t i o n age groups", t r a n s p o r t a t i o n p a t t e r n s and "human and l e i s u r e s e r v i c e s " that remain the same. The t h i r d planner i n d i c a t e d t hat i n a s t a b l e neighborhood, r e s i d e n t s not only "perceive themselves as p a r t of i t " , they a l s o p a r t i c i p a t e i n neighborhood a c t i v i t i e s such as Neighbourhood Watch, and a "minimal l e v e l of n e i g h b o r i n g " . In a d d i t i o n , t h i s planner s t a t e d that a s t a b l e neighborhood "has the a b i l i t y to grow and change and yet appear to stay the same". F i n a l l y , two planners r e f e r r e d to a s t a b l e neighborhood as a healthy u n i t where a l l p a r t s work t o g e t h e r . One of the planners emphasized the c o m p a t i b i l i t y of land uses i n a s t a b l e neighborhood, as w e l l as the homogeneity of l o t s i z e s and property maintenance. In a d d i t i o n , she shared the planner's o p i n i o n c i t e d e a r l i e r that a s t a b l e neighborhood has an " a b i l i t y to withstand change". Moreover, change can be i n c o r p o r a t e d i n a " p o s i t i v e way". 27 In summary, the absence of major change was the most commonly mentioned c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of a s t a b l e neighborhood. However, r e s i d e n t i d e n t i f i c a t i o n w i t h the a r e a was mentioned almost as f r e q u e n t l y . The maintenance of p r o p e r t y , the presence of l o n g term r e s i d e n t s , homeowners, c h i l d r e n who have a t t e n d e d o n l y one e l e m e n t a r y s c h o o l , and the e x i s t e n c e of both a s t r u c t u r e d , s o c i a l s e r v i c e network and an u n s t r u c t u r e d network of r e s i d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n were l e s s f r e q u e n t l y mentioned a t t r i b u t e s of a s t a b l e n e i g h b o r h o o d . Measuring neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ( Q u e s t i o n #3) The purpose of t h i s t h e s i s i s t o determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between n e i g h b o r h o o d s t a b i l i t y , and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and e n v i r o n m e n t a l change. In o r d e r t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e t a s k , neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s t oward b o t h t h e i r n eighborhood and e n v i r o n m e n t a l change must be measured and examined i n l i g h t of the hypotheses e s t a b l i s h e d i n C h a p t e r 1. P l a n n e r s ' o p i n i o n s were sought i n o r d e r t o determine whether i t i s f e a s i b l e t o measure neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . Seven out of the e i g h t p l a n n e r s s a i d t h a t neighborhood s t a b i l i t y can be measured. W i t h o u t s o l i c i t a t i o n , the m a j o r i t y of p l a n n e r s a l s o v o l u n t e e r e d s u g g e s t i o n s f o r i n d i c a t o r s t h a t would measure neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . These i n c l u d e : d e m o l i t i o n s , p r o p e r t y s a l e s , the age s t r u c t u r e of the p o p u l a t i o n , l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e , d w e l l i n g t y p e s , p r o p e r t y maintenance, s c h o o l e n r o l l m e n t t u r n o v e r , l e v e l of use of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the n e i g h b o r h o o d and s o c i a l economic s t a t u s i n f o r m a t i o n on r e s i d e n t s . P l a n n e r s gave no i n d i c a t i o n s as t o 28 which v a r i a b l e s would p r o v i d e the most accurate measurement of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . P u b l i c Sector Involvement i n M a i n t a i n i n g S t a b l e Neighborhoods The remaining q u e s t i o n s were designed to o b t a i n p l a n n e r s ' o p i n i o n s on the d e s i r a b i l i t y of m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods, the p l a n n e r ' s r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods, and p o l i c i e s and programs that can be i n i t i a t e d by the m u n i c i p a l , p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. T h i s i n f o r m a t i o n w i l l p r o v i d e the foundation f o r the d i s c u s s i o n i n Chapter 6 on the p o l i c i e s and programs for s t a b i l i z i n g neighborhoods. D e s i r a b i l i t y of m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods (Questions #4-6) T h i s t h e s i s i s based on the b e l i e f that i t i s d e s i r a b l e to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods as they are d e s c r i b e d at the beginning of t h i s c h a p t e r , that i s , a concept r e f e r r i n g to the dynamic composition of a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . Questions 4 through 6 were i n c l u d e d to determine whether my b e l i e f was shared by p r a c t i s i n g p l a n n e r s . F i v e of the e i g h t planners agreed u n e q u i v o c a l l y that i t i s d e s i r a b l e to maintain neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The three other p l a n n e r s agreed c o n d i t i o n a l l y t h a t i t i s d e s i r a b l e to maintain neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . One planner q u a l i f i e d h i s response by saying "yes, sometimes but not always. I t depends on the p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s " . He s a i d some neighborhoods have to accommodate urban growth. S i m i l a r l y , another planner s a i d yes, " i f i t ' s an o b j e c t i v e of the community". The t h i r d planner s t a t e d i t i s d e s i r a b l e to " s t r i v e toward s t a b i l i t y " . 29 The most f r e q u e n t l y mentioned reasons f o r m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods are v a r i a t i o n s on the b e l i e f that s t a b l e neighborhoods " f a c i l i t a t e people being happy", as one planner r e p l i e d . Another planner s a i d a s t a b l e neighborhood i s "the b a s i s of peoples' l i v e s " and i t may l e a d to "a s t a b l e homebase". A t h i r d planner s a i d that "the h e a l t h of the c i t y depends on the h e a l t h of every c i t i z e n " which depends upon t h e i r comfort i n the neighborhood. A f o u r t h planner s t a t e d that a s t a b l e neighborhood c o n t r i b u t e s to peoples' " q u a l i t y of l i f e " and to a "well balanced community", while a f i f t h planner s a i d t h a t i f the neighborhood i s not s t a b l e , " r e s i d e n t s w i l l be unhappy and move". Another planner s a i d "you can a t t r a c t people to l i v e i n s t a b l e neighborhoods". One planner i n d i c a t e d that people have a " r i g h t " t o a sense of c o n t r o l over t h e i r environment, while a second planner s a i d people "need to f e e l i n c o n t r o l of t h e i r own neighborhood". A t h i r d planner s a i d people have a r i g h t to " d e s i r a b l e , s t a b l e neighborhoods". Three planners i n d i c a t e d i t i s d e s i r a b l e to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods f o r economic reasons. One planner s a i d i t i s important to p r o t e c t i n d i v i d u a l s ' f i n a n c i a l investments as p r o p e r t y owners, while a second planner s a i d "people are more comfortable i n home investment" i n s t a b l e neighborhoods. Another planner s t a t e d i t i s "more e f f i c i e n t " to provide p h y s i c a l i n f r a s t r u c t u r e and s o c i a l s e r v i c e s i n s t a b l e neighborhoods. F i n a l l y , t hree planners d i s c u s s e d the importance of m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods because they nurture s o c i a l exchange i n the neighborhood. As one planner s a i d , a s t a b l e 30 neighborhood " f o s t e r s a h i g h degree of s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n " , w h i l e a n o t h e r s t a t e d , " s t a b l e neighborhoods are n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t a i n a sense of community". The t h i r d p l a n n e r s t a t e d t h a t s t a b l e neighborhoods are "good b u i l d i n g b l o c k s " and t h a t people i n s t a b l e neighborhoods "are more w i l l i n g t o g i v e t o the l a r g e r m u n i c i p a l i t y " . In summary, the m a j o r i t y of p l a n n e r s c o n s i d e r e d the maintenance of s t a b l e neighborhoods d e s i r a b l e because r e s i d e n t s a r e h a p p i e r i n s t a b l e n e i g h b o r h o o d s , and t h e i r h a p p i n e s s c o n t r i b u t e s t o g r e a t e r h a p p i n e s s i n the l a r g e r s o c i e t y . In a d d i t i o n , p r o p e r t y i n v e s t m e n t s a r e p r o t e c t e d and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n i s f o s t e r e d i n s t a b l e n e i g h b o r h o o d s . The r o l e of the p l a n n e r i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ( Q u e s t i o n s #7 & 8) The e i g h t p l a n n e r s agreed t h e r e i s a r o l e f o r p l a n n e r s i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . One p l a n n e r s t a t e d t h a t p l a n n e r s have "the c e n t r a l l e a d e r s h i p r o l e " i n m a i n t a i n i n g and r e e s t a b l i s h i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . He saw s e v e r a l p a r t s t o the p l a n n e r ' s r o l e , such a s : i d e n t i f y i n g and h i g h l i g h t i n g major and s u p p o r t i n g "problems", o r g a n i z i n g the community and " p r o v o k i n g " p e o p l e t o view the problems as i m p o r t a n t as the p l a n n e r sees them, i d e n t i f y i n g p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s , f o r c i n g o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n s and i n d i v i d u a l s t o t a k e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r s o l v i n g p roblems, and s o l v i n g problems. Another p l a n n e r i n d i c a t e d t h a t the r o l e of the p l a n n e r i s t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on the p h y s i c a l and s o c i a l c o m p o s i t i o n of the ne i g h b o r h o o d , and on l a r g e changes p l a n n e d f o r the a r e a , t o p r e s e n t t h e i n f o r m a t i o n t o r e s i d e n t s , and t o guide change t o make i t " c o m p a t i b l e w i t h p e o p l e s ' d e s i r e s 31 for the neighborhood". Three pl a n n e r s i n d i c a t e d the planner may be a neighborhood "advocate". One of the three s t a t e d the planner's r o l e i s to f a c i l i t a t e the processes of d i s c u s s i o n and n e g o t i a t i o n between neighborhood r e s i d e n t s on the one hand, and other r e s i d e n t s , developers and c o u n c i l members on the other hand. C o n s u l t a t i o n with neighborhood r e s i d e n t s and communication of t h e i r views to c o u n c i l are of prime importance a c c o r d i n g to t h i s planner. She r e f e r r e d to planners as "the ears of the bureaucracy". A comparable view was expressed by another planner who s t a t e d that the major r o l e of the planner i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s to work with r e s i d e n t s to i d e n t i f y "the problem". He a l s o saw the planner as mediating between neighborhood r e s i d e n t s , p o l i t i c i a n s and d e v e l o p e r s . He s a i d the planner "may h e l p p o l i c i e s e v o l v e " . Another planner who s t a t e d that advocacy may be part of the planner's r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , a l s o saw the planner wearing s e v e r a l d i f f e r e n t h a t s . For example, he saw the planner as a " t e c h n i c i a n " a n a l y z i n g trends i n a neighborhood, a " p o l i t i c i a n " h e l p i n g c i t i z e n s understand the pl a n n i n g p r o c e s s , an " a d v i s o r " to the p o l i t i c i a n , a " c o o r d i n a t o r " of other m u n i c i p a l departments i n v o l v e d i n the planning p r o c e s s , and a " d i s c u s s a n t " of a l t e r n a t i v e s to neighborhood r e s i d e n t s . The t h i r d planner s a i d p l a n n e r s p l a y an advocate r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g "a sense of community and c o n t i n u i t y " . He a l s o s t a t e d that p l a n n e r s should " i n t e r c e d e to stop or slow down i n s t a b i l i t y " , and they should develop a framework f o r managing growth. A somewhat s i m i l a r view was 32 expressed by another planner who s t a t e d that p l a n n e r s should " a r t i c u l a t e community goals and o b j e c t i v e s " , work out plans and p o l i c i e s to achieve them, " f a c i l i t a t e growth and development" to meet the g o a l s , and "where change i s necessary", minimize the negative impacts. T h i s planner f e l t s o c i a l s e r v i c e programs and the communication process with r e s i d e n t s are as important as land use r e g u l a t i o n i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . One p l a n n e r ' s d e s c r i p t i o n of the p l a n n e r ' s r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y emphasized the r e g u l a t o r y and r e a c t i v e , r a t h e r than p r o a c t i v e powers a v a i l a b l e to a planner. He s t a t e d that the planner can r e g u l a t e development, maintain neighborhood amenities such as parks and s c h o o l s , enforce minimum maintenance standards and h i s t o r i c a l p r e s e r v a t i o n , and i n t e r v e n e i n t r a f f i c management. However, the same planner i n d i c a t e d that b u i l d i n g a p o s i t i v e image of the neighborhood and " f o s t e r i n g a sense of community" are p a r t of the p l a n n e r ' s r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . In summary, a l l p l a n n e r s saw a r o l e f o r the planner i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . A l l but one planner emphasized the p r o a c t i v e powers of the planner such as working with r e s i d e n t s to i d e n t i f y problems and e s t a b l i s h o b j e c t i v e s , n e g o t i a t i n g between r e s i d e n t s , d e velopers amd p o l i t i c i a n s i n v o l v e d i n the p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s , g e n e r a t i n g a l t e r n a t i v e s t o s o l v e problems and meet o b j e c t i v e s , and implementing chosen a l t e r n a t i v e s . Less than h a l f of the p l a n n e r s saw the planner as a neighborhood advocate. 33 Government p o l i c i e s and programs to maintain s t a b l e  neighborhoods (Questions #9-11) When asked to d i s c u s s p o l i c i e s and programs that can be i n i t i a t e d at the m u n i c i p a l , p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l l e v e l s of government, one planner responded i n i t i a l l y by saying the p u b l i c s e c t o r i s o f t e n a very small " a c t o r " i n the process of m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods. He s t r e s s e d that the p r i v a t e s e c t o r , community groups and i n d i v i d u a l s have a l a r g e r o l e to p l a y as w e l l . Another planner s a i d the m u n i c i p a l i t y has the prime r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. He s t a t e d that "the l o c a l l e v e l i s capable of understanding neighborhood s t a b i l i t y " . Three of the e i g h t planners s a i d the m u n i c i p a l i t y has the l a r g e s t , most e f f e c t i v e r o l e in m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods because the m u n i c i p a l i t y i s c l o s e s t t o , and most knowledgeable about i t s neighborhoods. However, a few planners p o i n t e d out that m u n i c i p a l i t i e s are l e g i s l a t i v e l y subordinate to t h e i r host p r o v i n c e , and t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p l i m i t s the a b i l i t y of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to i n i t i a t e programs t h a t would maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. In any event, one planner s t a t e d that m u n i c i p a l p lans must i n c l u d e p o l i c i e s f o r the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments, and planners must work to have the p o l i c i e s implemented. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s can implement zoning and develop community and l o c a l area plans, growth management s t r a t e g i e s , and s o c i a l , r e c r e a t i o n a l and h e a l t h p o l i c i e s to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. Furthermore, one planner suggested that m u n i c i p a l input i n t o the s o c i a l housing p o l i c y of Canada Mortgage and Housing C o r p o r a t i o n (CMHC) would help maintain s t a b l e 34 neighborhoods. Another planner s a i d i t i s important f o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to " e s t a b l i s h a t i e to each neighborhood" through neighborhood houses or a s s o c i a t i o n s , or c i t i z e n s ' p l a n n i n g committees, to ensure r e s i d e n t s can communicate wi t h the m u n i c i p a l i t y . A t h i r d planner f e l t i t i s important f o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to hold p u b l i c i n f o r m a t i o n meetings i n neighborhoods s e l e c t e d f o r changes. The m a j o r i t y of planners i n d i c a t e d that the p r o v i n c i a l government has a r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods. A c c o r d i n g to one planner, the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to interve n e to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods when s e v e r a l m u n i c i p a l i t i e s "experience a need" or when change occurs "too q u i c k l y f o r l o c a l s to handle". A few i n d i c a t e d the p r o v i n c i a l government i n B r i t i s h Columbia has "a ways to go to c a t c h up with the a c t i v i t i e s of other p r o v i n c i a l governments" such as A l b e r t a and O n t a r i o , and one planner s a i d he c o u l d not imagine the M i n i s t r y of Lands, Parks and Housing "doing any l e s s f o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s " . One planner mentioned that the p r o v i n c i a l government has not " a r t i c u l a t e d p o l i c i e s f o r m u n i c i p a l i t i e s " . One planner s t a t e d that the p r o v i n c i a l government should be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r p o l i c y development and economic concerns. The p o l i c i e s should take r e g i o n a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n t o account. The m u n i c i p a l i t i e s should be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r d e v e l o p i n g and a d m i n i s t e r i n g s p e c i f i c programs. The same planner s a i d t h a t i n order t o maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods, the p r o v i n c e should p r o v i d e more block funding to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s to h e l p them pay the c o s t of improving the i n f r a s t r u c t u r e , such as sewerage, and 35 implementing s p e c i a l needs housing programs. The p r o v i n c e should a l s o i n i t i a t e "demonstration p r o j e c t s " such as housing. One planner s t a t e d The L i v a b l e Region Program, developed by 1975, was " s e n s i t i v e " to neighborhood s t a b i l i t y through i t s l o c a t i o n of t r a n s p o r t a t i o n routes and r e g i o n a l town c e n t e r s . Another planner mentioned the former Downtown R e v i t a l i z a t i o n Program as an attempt to s t a b i l i z e m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . F i n a l l y , one planner suggested that the p r o p e r t y tax d e f e r r a l program f o r s e n i o r c i t i z e n s may h e l p to s t a b i l i z e neighborhoods. S i m i l a r l y , another planner suggested that p r o v i d i n g housing f o r s e n i o r s i n the neighborhood would enable o l d e r r e s i d e n t s to continue l i v i n g i n t h e i r neighborhood. T h i s would be a s t a b i l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e on the neighborhood. The f e d e r a l government has had an i n f l u e n c e on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y through the Neighbourhood Improvement Program (NIP) and the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program (RRAP) mentioned i n Chapter 2. G e n e r a l l y , the planners saw the programs as having p o s i t i v e impacts on neighborhoods through improving the housing stock and neighborhood amenities such as parks, g e n e r a t i n g r e s i d e n t involvement i n the neighborhood, teaching people new s k i l l s and demonstrating to people t h a t a process can work. Two p l a n n e r s noted t h a t , d e s p i t e the success of the NIP and the RRAP, the f e d e r a l government f r e q u e n t l y makes d e c i s i o n s which may s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods. For example, one planner suggested that e l i m i n a t i n g the c a p i t a l gains tax may a f f e c t neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . S i m i l a r l y , p o l i c i e s on f o r e i g n and absentee ownership, i f a l l o w a b l e under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are l i k e l y to a f f e c t 36 the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods. In c l o s i n g , the planner s t a t e d , " f e d e r a l p o l i c i e s may be as s i g n i f i c a n t as l o c a l p l a n n i n g e f f o r t s i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y " . Two planners s t a t e d that the f e d e r a l government c o u l d h e l p maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods by p r o v i d i n g funding f o r s o c i a l housing, while two other planners suggested that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y c o u l d be enhanced by employment c r e a t i o n programs funded by the f e d e r a l government and implemented by the m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . One of the same planners suggested f e d e r a l l y i n i t i a t e d b u s i n e s s and i n d u s t r i a l development would h e l p maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. Another planner i n d i c a t e d that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s l a r g e l y dependent upon an economic development s t r a t e g y that should be prepared c o l l e c t i v e l y by the three l e v e l s of government. A t h i r d planner suggested that the f e d e r a l government c o u l d h e l p maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods by p r o v i d i n g money to broaden the economic bases of m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . In summary, the m u n i c i p a l government i s c o n s i d e r e d to have the prime r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods, d e s p i t e i t s f i n a n c i a l and l e g i s l a t i v e s u b o r d i n a t i o n to the p r o v i n c i a l government. The m u n i c i p a l i t y can maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods through both p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s such as developing zoning bylaws and housing p o l i c y , and i n i t i a t i v e s that focus on the p r o c e s s , such as e s t a b l i s h i n g neighborhood p l a n n i n g groups. The c u r r e n t p r o v i n c i a l government i n B r i t i s h Columbia i s seen as mi n i m a l l y i n v o l v e d i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods, but i t c o u l d become more i n v o l v e d by p r o v i d i n g block funding to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r improving sewerage and implementing demonstration p r o j e c t s such as housing f o r s p e c i a l needs groups 37 and s e n i o r s . L i k e the p r o v i n c e , the f e d e r a l government i s c r e d i t e d with h e l p i n g to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods i n the 1970's. The f e d e r a l government can resume i t s pa r t i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods by p r o v i d i n g funding f o r s o c i a l housing and job c r e a t i o n programs, and pr e p a r i n g an economic development s t r a t e g y . C o n c l u s i o n s With few ex c e p t i o n s , p l a n n e r s ' d e f i n i t i o n s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y are l a r g e l y compatible with the d e f i n i t i o n proposed in t h i s t h e s i s . In a d d i t i o n , the ideas c o n t a i n e d i n both are l a r g e l y compatible with the ideas expressed i n the most recent l i t e r a t u r e on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y by Downs(l98l), which was reviewed i n Chapter 2. According to Downs(l98l), neighborhood s t a b i l i t y encompasses two i d e a s : one, that a balance e x i s t s between the i n f l o w s and outflows of r e s i d e n t s , m a t e r i a l s and money; and two, that key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do not change much. Given the c o m p a t i b i l i t y of the d e f i n i t i o n s , I have decided to adopt the proposed d e f i n i t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . A c c o r d i n g to t h i s t h e s i s , neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s a concept r e f e r r i n g to the dynamic composition of a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . The dynamic composition r e f e r s to the changes that occur over time i n the area's p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s that the changes are w i t h i n the r e s i d e n t s ' range of a d a p t a t i o n . The range of a d a p t a t i o n r e f e r s to the extent to which r e s i d e n t s are w i l l i n g to make p s y c h o l o g i c a l , emotional and/or p h y s i c a l adjustments i n order to accommodate change. The f e a s i b i l i t y of measuring neighborhood s t a b i l i t y has 38 been confirmed by the p l a n n e r s . In a d d i t i o n , t h e i r suggestions f o r i n d i c a t o r s t o measure neighborhood s t a b i l i t y combined with both those c i t e d i n the l i t e r a t u r e and those proposed e a r l i e r i n the t h e s i s , c r e a t e an e x t e n s i v e , yet not comprehensive invent o r y of i n d i c a t o r s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . In order to thoroughly assess neighborhood s t a b i l i t y I b e l i e v e the f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t o r s should be examined f o r changes over time, f o r example, w i t h i n a 5 year time p e r i o d . The i n d i c a t o r s a r e : 1. r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and change i n the neighborhood 2. p r o p e r t y maintenance 3. s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n amongst r e s i d e n t s 4. ownership of r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s 5. zoning 6. the t o t a l number of d w e l l i n g u n i t s 7. the mixture of d w e l l i n g types 8. the p r o p o r t i o n s of owners and r e n t e r s 9. the a v a i l a b i l i t y of d w e l l i n g s to rent 10. the a v a i l a b i l i t y of d w e l l i n g s to buy 11. household composition 12. the presence of s c h o o l aged c h i l d r e n 13. the t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n 14. the income l e v e l of r e s i d e n t s 15. s c h o o l e n r o l l m e n t turnover 16. r e s i d e n t i a l m o b i l i t y 17. the age s t r u c t u r e of the p o p u l a t i o n 18. r e s i d e n t s ' p o l i t i c a l p r e f e r e n c e s 1.9. l e v e l s of crime and vandalism 20. the l e v e l of use of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s 39 21. r e s i d e n t a d a p t a t i o n to change 22. e t h n i c composition U n f o r t u n a t e l y a thorough assessment of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . However, a p a r t i a l assessment of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s p o s s i b l e by using a v a i l a b l e data on some of the above i n d i c a t o r s . The i n d i c a t o r s a r e : 1. the p r o p o r t i o n of households who own t h e i r d w e l l i n g 2. the p r o p o r t i o n of households who l i v e i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s 3. the p r o p o r t i o n of households who know more than three people on t h e i r block by name 4. the p r o p o r t i o n of households who have l i v e d i n t h e i r neighborhood f o r more than two years 5. the p r o p o r t i o n of households c o n t a i n i n g school aged c h i l d r e n , t h at i s , c h i l d r e n between 5 and 19 years of age The m a j o r i t y of planners share my b e l i e f that i t i s d e s i r a b l e t o maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. Furthermore, although perhaps not s u r p r i s i n g l y , there i s a consensus t h a t p l a n n e r s have a r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods. The p r e v a i l i n g view of the planner's r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s s i m i l a r to the t r a d i t i o n a l view of the pl a n n e r ' s r o l e i n community p l a n n i n g , where the planner i n i t i a l l y works with neighborhood r e s i d e n t s to i d e n t i f y areas of concern, and to e s t a b l i s h g o a ls and o b j e c t i v e s . In c o n j u n c t i o n with other p r o f e s s i o n a l s , the planner then generates p o s s i b l e s o l u t i o n s to "problems", and develops programs and p o l i c i e s t o meet the g o a l s and o b j e c t i v e s . F i n a l l y , the planner r e t u r n s t o the neighborhood to help implement s p e c i f i c s o l u t i o n s and programs s e l e c t e d by neighborhood r e s i d e n t s and p o l i t i c i a n s . Consequently, i t appears that planners see the maintenance of 40 neighborhood s t a b i l i t y as w i t h i n t h e i r c a p a b i l i t y and the c o n f i n e s of community p l a n n i n g . M u n i c i p a l i t i e s are seen as having the l a r g e s t and most e f f e c t i v e p u b l i c s e c t o r r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods because they are c l o s e s t to and most knowledgeable about t h e i r neighborhoods. However, m u n i c i p a l i t i e s lack the l e g i s l a t i v e powers and f i n a n c i a l resources to implement p o l i c i e s and programs that would maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods. M u n i c i p a l i t i e s can h e l p to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods by pr e p a r i n g community p l a n s , e n f o r c i n g zoning bylaws and working with neighborhood c i t i z e n s ' groups. In the 1970's both the p r o v i n c i a l government of B r i t i s h Columbia and the f e d e r a l government set precedences f o r h e l p i n g to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods through t h e i r Downtown R e v i t a l i z a t i o n Program and the NIP and RRAP, r e s p e c t i v e l y . However, recent p r o v i n c i a l i n i t i a t i v e s to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods are c o n s p i c u o u s l y absent in B.C. The p r o v i n c i a l government c o u l d once again a s s i s t i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods by p r o v i d i n g a d d i t i o n a l block funding to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s f o r housing p r o j e c t s f o r s p e c i a l needs groups, and d e f e r r i n g s e n i o r s ' p r o p e r t y tax payments. The f e d e r a l government c o u l d a l s o a s s i s t i n m a i n t a i n i n g s t a b l e neighborhoods d u r i n g the 1980's f o r example, by p r e p a r i n g an economic development s t r a t e g y or by p r o v i d i n g funding f o r s o c i a l housing and job c r e a t i o n programs. 41 CHAPTER 4_[_ METHODOLOGY According to p r a c t i s i n g planners and rese a r c h e r s such as McLean et a l ( l 9 7 0 ) , Guseman et a l d 976), G e r t l e r and Crowley(1977) and Downs(l98l), neighborhood s t a b i l i t y can be measured. In a d d i t i o n , the suggestions of planners d i s c u s s e d i n Chapter 3 f o r ways of measuring neighborhood s t a b i l i t y are l a r g e l y compatible with those found i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Some of the i n d i c a t o r s a re: r e s i d e n t i a l d e m o l i t i o n s , property s a l e s , l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e , d w e l l i n g types, property maintenance, school enrollment turnover, l e v e l of use of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y would be assessed using d i f f e r e n t c r i t e r i a from each i n d i c a t o r . For example, the number and frequency of r e s i d e n t i a l d e m o l i t i o n s and the number, frequency and t o t a l value of pro p e r t y s a l e s would be assessed to determine neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . More s t a b l e neighborhoods would be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by r e l a t i v e l y few r e s i d e n t i a l d e m o l i t i o n s at any one point i n time, and by f a i r l y p r e d i c t a b l e , not widely f l u c t u a t i n g house p r i c e s . L i k e w i s e , the frequency and magnitude of p u p i l enrollment turnover and use of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s would provide an i n d i c a t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , with more s t a b l e neighborhoods e x p e r i e n c i n g comparatively low l e v e l s of student enrollment turnover and low l e v e l s of s o c i a l s e r v i c e use. The l e v e l of pro p e r t y maintenance and the frequency of r e s i d e n t s ' favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood would a l s o provide a measure of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . More s t a b l e neighborhoods would be c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a higher standard of prop e r t y maintenance and r e s i d e n t s who have more favo u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r 42 neighborhood. F i n a l l y , the composition of d w e l l i n g types and the balance between long term and short term r e s i d e n t s i n the neighborhood would provide a d d i t i o n a l i n f o r m a t i o n on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . A c cording to the l i t e r a t u r e , more s t a b l e neighborhoods c o n t a i n higher p r o p o r t i o n s of s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s and more long term r e s i d e n t s . However, I b e l i e v e neighborhoods can c o n t a i n a s u b s t a n t i a l p r o p o r t i o n of apartments and remain s t a b l e , as long as the r e s i d e n t s remain i n the neighborhood f o r s e v e r a l y e ars. S e v e r a l of the suggested i n d i c a t o r s should be combined and supplemented, by a few others such as zoning changes and s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n amongst r e s i d e n t s to provide a f a i r l y thorough assessment of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . U n f o r t u n a t e l y a thorough assessment of aeighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s beyond the scope of t h i s t h e s i s . However, i n order to t e s t the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both the neighborhood and environmental change, a p a r t i a l assessment of the three concepts w i l l be made using data c o l l e c t e d d u r i n g a survey. T h i s chapter c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n of how the data were c o l l e c t e d and how the concepts w i l l be measured. Data C o l l e c t i o n  The survey Data on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both the neighborhood and environmental change were ob t a i n e d from a survey of r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g around the four ALRT s t a t i o n s in east Vancouver. The s t a t i o n areas are Broadway, Nanaimo, 29th Avenue and Joyce (see Maps 1 and 2). The survey MAP A ALRT S t a t i o n Areas Within Vancouver C i t y (East Vancouver Neighbourhoods Study,1985) MAP 2 ALRT S t a t i o n Areas i n d e t a i l L E G E N D STUDY AREA BOUNDARY l l l l l l l l l l l A.L.R.T. LINE A.LiR.T. STATION nJ^ l g g (East Vancouver Neighbourhoods Study,1985) 45 c o n s i s t e d of person-to-person i n t e r v i e w s conducted between May and August 1984 as p a r t of a f e d e r a l l y funded Canada Works p r o j e c t known as the East Vancouver Neighbourhoods Study(EVNS). The purpose of the study was to o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n on r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s and behaviours t h a t would h e l p the s t a t i o n area pla n n i n g committees i n t h e i r l o c a l area plan making. There are three p l a n n i n g committees i n v o l v e d i n p r e p a r i n g l o c a l area p l a n s : Broadway, Nanaimo and 29th Avenue, and Joyce. The i n t e r v i e w schedule A l l the i n f o r m a t i o n t h a t w i l l be used to assess neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change w i l l be obtained from q u e s t i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n the EVNS i n t e r v i e w schedule. T h i s i n t e r v i e w schedule c o n t a i n e d over 50 q u e s t i o n s on s e v e r a l areas of i n t e r e s t to r e s i d e n t s , such as: t h e i r use of parks, community c e n t r e s , l i b r a r i e s and c h i l d c a r e f a c i l i t i e s , as w e l l as t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n s of the neighborhood and how i t w i l l be a f f e c t e d by the ALRT. The EVNS i n t e r v i e w schedule was compiled from q u e s t i o n s prepared by s e v e r a l sources. For example, the q u e s t i o n s used to assess neighborhood s t a b i l i t y were designed by the EVNS P r o j e c t Managers, B i l l Thomson and Robin Coote, while the q u e s t i o n s used to assess r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood were taken from the Vancouver Urban Survey-1983 , prepared by B i l l Glackman and V i n c e n t Sacco of the Criminology Research Centre at Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y . The q u e s t i o n s used to a s s ess r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change were prepared by Paul Roer of MacLeran Plansearch and P r o f e s s o r Henry Hightower of the School of Community and Regional Planning at 46 the U n i v e r s i t y of B r i t i s h Columbia. The sampling frame, sample and i n t e r v i e w procedures The sampling frame c o n s i s t e d of households that were both l i s t e d in the C i t y D i r e c t o r y 1983-84 and l o c a t e d i n the ALRT s t a t i o n areas as d e f i n e d by the C i t y of Vancouver Planning Department (See Maps 1 and 2). A sample of 1013 households was s e l e c t e d to be interviewed. The sample was obtained by s e l e c t i n g every n i n t h household from the sampling frame. The s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r the sample s e l e c t i o n was obtained from a t a b l e of random numbers. Adults over the age of 18, who were not boarders, were e l i g i b l e to be i n t e r v i e w e d i n t h e i r home. At l e a s t three attempts were made to i n t e r v i e w a member of the p r e s e l e c t e d household unless the household member r e f u s e d to be i n t e r v i e w e d , or there was a p h y s i c a l d i s a b i l i t y or language b a r r i e r that prevented the i n t e r v i e w . The i n t e r v i e w e r s were capable of conducting i n t e r v i e w s i n Cantonese, Vietnamese, H i n d i and I t a l i a n as w e l l as E n g l i s h . The I n d i c e s The data that w i l l be used to p r o v i d e i n d i c a t i o n s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change were recorded on d i f f e r e n t measurement s c a l e s . In order to examine the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p s , the data were converted to standard Z scores and three i n d i c e s were c r e a t e d from the v a r i a b l e s that were c o n s i d e r e d a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t o r s of the three concepts. Z scores are measured on the same s c a l e , thereby p e r m i t t i n g comparisons between v a r i a b l e s . 47 Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y The index f o r neighborhood s t a b i l i t y was c r e a t e d by combining the f o l l o w i n g f i v e v a r i a b l e s : 1. d w e l l i n g type 2. h o u s i n g t e n u r e , i . e . r e n t e r or owner 3. l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e i n the neighborhood 4. number of pe o p l e known on the b l o c k by name 5. presence of s c h o o l aged c h i l d r e n For each v a r i a b l e , the responses i n d i c a t i n g t he most s t a b l e c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d the h i g h e s t v a l u e s , w h i l e the responses i n d i c a t i n g the l e a s t s t a b l e c o n d i t i o n r e c e i v e d the lowe s t v a l u e s . For example, r e s i d e n t s who l i v e d i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s and s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s w i t h basement s u i t e s were coded one, w h i l e d u p l e x e s , c o n v e r s i o n s , apartments i n b u i l d i n g s l e s s than f i v e s t o r e y s and apartments i n b u i l d i n g s more than f i v e s t o r e y s were coded z e r o . S i m i l a r l y , r e s i d e n t s who owned t h e i r d w e l l i n g u n i t were coded one, w h i l e r e n t e r s and r e s i d e n t s who had o t h e r forms of t e n u r e (e.g. members of a ho u s i n g c o o p e r a t i v e ) were coded z e r o . Length of r e s i d e n c e i n the neighborhood and number of peo p l e known on the b l o c k by name were not coded d i c h o t o m o u s l y . 48 Rather, l e n g t h of reside n c e was coded as f o l l o w s : l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e value l e s s than 2 years 1 2-4.9 years 2 5-9.9 years 3 10-14.9 years 4 15-19.9 years 5 20-29.9 years 6 30-40 years 7 more than 40 years 8 The number of people known on the block by name was s i m i l a r l y coded on a m u l t i - v a l u e s c a l e . number of people known value 0 0 1 or 2 1 3-5 2 6-10 3 11-15 4 more than 15 5 F i n a l l y , the presence of school aged c h i l d r e n was compiled from two v a r i a b l e s . Residents who had at l e a s t one c h i l d between 5 and 19 years of age l i v i n g at home were coded one. Residents who had two or more c h i l d r e n between 5 and 19 years of age were counted once. Respondents who d i d not have c h i l d r e n between 5 and 19 years of age l i v i n g at home were coded zero. A Z score f o r every household on each of the f i v e v a r i a b l e s 49 was c a l c u l a t e d using the means and standard d e v i a t i o n s of the r e s p e c t i v e v a r i a b l e s . ( R e c a l l Z=Xi-X/sdX, where Xi i s the value of a p a r t i c u l a r X, X i s the mean of a l l the Xs and sdX i s the standard d e v i a t i o n of X.) The Z s c o r e s f o r the f i v e v a r i a b l e s were then added and the sum was d i v i d e d by f i v e to produce the mean score f o r neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . T h i s score was t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y and the r e s u l t i n g alpha of .4856 i n d i c a t e d that the index was not h i g h l y r e l i a b l e because only 48% of the v a r i a n c e was due to d i f f e r e n c e s between i n d i v i d u a l s on the common f a c t o r , neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . Over 50% of the v a r i a n c e was due to e r r o r s of measurement such as the i n c l u s i o n of i n a p p r o p r i a t e i n d i c a t o r s , and mistakes that occur d u r i n g the a d m i n i s t r a t i o n and coding of the i n t e r v i e w schedule. However, a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d that the index d i s c r i m i n a t e d adequately between the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods i n the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas. (See Chapter 5 f o r the d i s c u s s i o n of the s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the s t a b i l i t y of the s t a t i o n area neighborhoods.) A l s o , data on other i n d i c a t o r s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y was not as r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e as the survey data. For these two reasons, the index of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y was maintained as c o n s t r u c t e d . Favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change The index measuring favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change was c r e a t e d from r e s i d e n t s ' o p i n i o n s on the f u t u r e impact of the ALRT system on the f o l l o w i n g : 1. p u b l i c t r a n s i t s e r v i c e i n the neighborhood 2. t r a f f i c on l o c a l s t r e e t s 3. the c h a r a c t e r of the neighborhood 4. n o i s e l e v e l s near t h e i r home 5. views from t h e i r home 6. p r i v a c y i n t h e i r home 50 For each q u e s t i o n , the response r e p r e s e n t i n g the l e a s t o f f e n s i v e impact was coded one and was equated with the most favourable a t t i t u d e toward change. The responses r e p r e s e n t i n g the most o f f e n s i v e impacts were coded negative one and were equated with the l e a s t favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change. For example, r e s i d e n t s who s t a t e d p u b l i c t r a n s i t s e r v i c e i n the neighborhood w i l l be b e t t e r a f t e r ALRT i s i n o p e r a t i o n were coded one, and were assumed to have more favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change than r e s i d e n t s who s t a t e d the s e r v i c e w i l l be worse. They would have been coded negative one. S i m i l a r l y , r e s i d e n t s who s t a t e d n o i s e l e v e l s where they l i v e w i l l be lower a f t e r ALRT i s i n o p e r a t i o n were coded one, and were assumed to have more p o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s toward change than r e s i d e n t s who s a i d noise l e v e l s w i l l be h i g h e r . They would have been coded negative one. Residents who s a i d there w i l l be no change i n p u b l i c t r a n s i t s e r v i c e i n t h e i r neighborhood, noise l e v e l s or any of the remaining v a r i a b l e s were coded zero. Once again, means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r each of the v a r i a b l e s were c a l c u l a t e d and used to prepare a Z score f o r every household on each v a r i a b l e . The i n d i v i d u a l Z scores were then added and the sum was d i v i d e d by s i x to produce the mean score f o r favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change. The index had an alpha of 0.6037 i n d i c a t i n g i t was moderately r e l i a b l e . Favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood R e s i d e n t s ' e v a l u a t i o n s of p o t e n t i a l problems i n the neighborhood were combined to c r e a t e the index of favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , r e s i d e n t s were asked to d e s c r i b e the magnitude of the f o l l o w i n g p o t e n t i a l 51 neighborhood problems: 1. misbehaving j u v e n i l e s 2. n o i s y neighbours 3. run-down b u i l d i n g s and houses 4. crime As p a r t of the Vancouver Urban Survey-1983 r e s i d e n t s throughout the C i t y of Vancouver were asked whether n o i s y neighbours, e t c . were smal l or l a r g e problems i n t h e i r neighborhoods. In order to compare t h e i r responses with those of r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g around the ALRT s t a t i o n s in east Vancouver, the r e s i d e n t s i n eas t Vancouver were a l s o asked whether n o i s y neighbours, e t c . were small or l a r g e problems i n the neighborhood. In four of the f i v e q u e s t i o n s the values ranged from z e r o , i n d i c a t i n g there was a l a r g e problem, to ten, i n d i c a t i n g t h e r e was no problem. For example, a r e s i d e n t who f e l t n o i s y neighbours are a r e l a t i v e l y small problem i n the neighborhood may have a s s i g n e d seven to the problem. Another r e s i d e n t who f e l t misbehaving j u v e n i l e s are a f a i r l y l a r g e problem i n the neighborhood may have assigned three to the problem. In a d d i t i o n , r e s i d e n t s were asked whether t h e i r neighborhood i s an area with a h i g h , average or low amount of crime. A low amount of crime was coded th r e e , an average amount of crime was coded two and a high amount was coded one. The most favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood were i n d i c a t e d by high scores assigned to each of the p o t e n t i a l problems. For example, the r e s i d e n t who a s s i g n e d seven to the problem of n o i s y neighbours i s assumed to have a more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e toward the neighborhood than a r e s i d e n t who a s s i g n e d three to the problem. S i m i l a r l y , a r e s i d e n t who s a i d t h e i r 52 neighborhood i s an area with a low amount of crime i s assumed to have a more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e toward the neighborhood than a r e s i d e n t who s a i d the area has a high amount of crime. The means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r each of the f i v e v a r i a b l e s were c a l c u l a t e d and used to prepare Z scores f o r each household on each v a r i a b l e . These scores were then added together and the sum was d i v i d e d by f i v e to o b t a i n the mean score f o r the index of f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. The index had an alpha of 0.7354 i n d i c a t i n g i t was q u i t e r e l i a b l e . The i n d i c e s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward change are l e s s r e l i a b l e than the index of fav o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. The l a t t e r index was c o n s t r u c t e d from q u e s t i o n s that were t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y i n e a r l i e r surveys, while the f i r s t two i n d i c e s were c o n s t r u c t e d from q u e s t i o n s that were not p r e v i o u s l y t e s t e d f o r r e l i a b i l i t y . Furthermore, i t i s l i k e l y that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l concept and the f i v e i n d i c a t o r s p r o v i d e only p a r t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n on more than one dimension. A d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i s needed to determine whether neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l concept and i f i t i s , to determine the i n d i c a t o r s t h a t w i l l p r o v i d e a more thorough assessment of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . D e s p i t e the lower r e l i a b i l i t y of f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward change and neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n p a r t i c u l a r , both i n d i c e s d i s c r i m i n a t e d between neighborhoods i n l a t e r a n a l y s e s , thereby f a c i l i t a t i n g the t e s t i n g of the three hypotheses l i s t e d i n Chapter 1. The r e s u l t s of the t e s t i n g are c o n t a i n e d i n the 53 f o l l o w i n g c h a p t e r . 54 CHAPTER 5j_ THE FINDINGS In the methodology d e s c r i b e d i n the pr e v i o u s chapter I s t a t e d that the three i n d i c e s would r e v e a l d i f f e r e n c e s between neighborhoods i n t h e i r s t a b i l i t y , as w e l l as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change. T h i s chapter c o n t a i n s a d e s c r i p t i o n of the r e s i d e n t s i n the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the i n d i c e s and the d i f f e r e n c e s between the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s as r e v e a l e d by the hypotheses t e s t i n g . The P o p u l a t i o n A t o t a l of 1013 households were contacted d u r i n g the 16 week p e r i o d of the EVNS survey and p e r s o n a l i n t e r v i e w s were conducted with 688 r e s i d e n t s . T h i s represented seven percent of the p r i v a t e households in the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas counted d u r i n g the 1981 Canada Census. The l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n (30%) of r e s i d e n t s who were interviewed l i v e d i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area, while the sm a l l e s t p r o p o r t i o n (20%) r e s i d e d i n the Joyce s t a t i o n a r ea. The remaining i n t e r v i e w s were conducted with r e s i d e n t s i n Nanaimo (24%) and 29th Avenue (26%) s t a t i o n areas. These f i g u r e s are compatible with the f i g u r e s f o r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of p r i v a t e households obtained d u r i n g the 1981 Census. Acco r d i n g to the Census, the l a r g e s t p r o p o r t i o n of p r i v a t e households (34%) was l o c a t e d i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area, while a c o n s i d e r a b l y s m a l l e r p r o p o r t i o n (21%) was l o c a t e d i n the Joyce s t a t i o n area. The remaining households were l o c a t e d e i t h e r i n Nanaimo (19%) or 29th Avenue (26%) s t a t i o n a r e a s . The o v e r a l l response r a t e f o r the survey was 68%. I t ranged from a low of 61% i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area, to a hi g h of 73% 55 in the Nanaimo s t a t i o n a r e a . Response r a t e s f o r the 29th Avenue and Joyce s t a t i o n areas were 72% and 69% r e s p e c t i v e l y . Interviews were conducted with more females (57%) than males (43%). Age d i s t r i b u t i o n A c c o r d i n g to the 1981 Census, the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the r e s i d e n t s who were i n t e r v i e w e d were r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n l i v i n g i n the four e a s t s i d e ALRT s t a t i o n s . ( H e r e a f t e r the r e s i d e n t s who were i n t e r v i e w e d d u r i n g the EVNS survey w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as the sample, while the e n t i r e p o p u l a t i o n i n the four e a s t s i d e ALRT s t a t i o n s w i l l be r e f e r r e d to as the po p u l a t i o n . ) For example, the d i s t r i b u t i o n of household members amongst age groups was almost i d e n t i c a l between the sample and the p o p u l a t i o n . As an i l l u s t r a t i o n , 10% of the r e s i d e n t s accounted f o r i n the sample were between 20 and 24 years of age. The 1981 Census r e v e a l e d t h a t 11% of the p o p u l a t i o n were between 20 and 24 years of age. The l a r g e s t d i s c r e p a n c y between the sample and the p o p u l a t i o n occurred i n the p r o p o r t i o n of r e s i d e n t s between 15 and 19 years of age. Acco r d i n g to the EVNS survey, seven percent of the sample was between 15 and 19 years of age, while the 1981 Canada Census r e v e a l e d that nine percent of the p o p u l a t i o n was between 15 and 19 years of age. Household s i z e In terms of household s i z e , the sample was a l s o s i m i l a r t o the p o p u l a t i o n . However, households c o n t a i n i n g three or more people were s l i g h t l y o v e r r e p r e s e n t e d , while s i n g l e person households were s l i g h t l y underrepresented i n the sample. For example, the Census r e v e a l e d that h a l f the households i n the 56 p o p u l a t i o n c o n t a i n e d three or more people, while s l i g h t l y more than h a l f of the i n t e r v i e w s (56%) were conducted with r e s i d e n t s i n households c o n t a i n i n g three or more people. In c o n t r a s t , i n 1981 almost one-quarter (22%) of the households i n the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas c o n t a i n e d one person, but i n t e r v i e w e r s were s u c c e s s f u l i n i n t e r v i e w i n g only 16% of the s i n g l e person households. D w e l l i n g type and tenure The 1981 Canada Census r e v e a l e d that the vast m a j o r i t y of r e s i d e n t s i n the Nanaimo (91%), 29th Avenue (89%) and Joyce (76%) s t a t i o n areas l i v e d i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s , while approximately o n e - t h i r d (35%) of the r e s i d e n t s i n Broadway s t a t i o n area l i v e d i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s . Almost h a l f (48%) of the r e s i d e n t s i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area l i v e d i n apartment b u i l d i n g s of l e s s than f i v e s t o r e y s . The sample co n t a i n e d almost i d e n t i c a l p r o p o r t i o n s of r e s i d e n t s i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s , and a l s o the r e p r e s e n t a t i v e p r o p o r t i o n of r e s i d e n t s i n Broadway s t a t i o n area i n apartment b u i l d i n g s l e s s than f i v e s t o r e y s . For example, 93% of the r e s i d e n t s i n the Nanaimo and 29th Avenue s t a t i o n areas l i v e d i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s , while s l i g h t l y more than o n e - t h i r d (38%) of the r e s i d e n t s i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area l i v e d i n e q u i v a l e n t d w e l l i n g s . Furthermore, c o n s i s t e n t with the Census data, almost h a l f (47%) of the sample i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area l i v e d i n apartment b u i l d i n g s l e s s than f i v e s t o r e y s . The l a r g e s t d i s c r e p a n c y between the sample and the p o p u l a t i o n o c c u r r e d i n the p r o p o r t i o n s of r e s i d e n t s l i v i n g i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s i n the Joyce s t a t i o n a r ea. According t o the Census, 57 approximately t h r e e - q u a r t e r s (76%) of the p o p u l a t i o n i n the Joyce s t a t i o n area l i v e d i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s , while the EVNS survey data i n d i c a t e d a l a r g e r p r o p o r t i o n of the sample (86%) l i v e d i n s i n g l e detached d w e l l i n g s in the Joyce s t a t i o n a r e a. F i n a l l y , the sample was a l s o s i m i l a r to the p o p u l a t i o n i n housing tenure. For example, the m a j o r i t y of the sample in the Nanaimo (83%), 29th Avenue (76%) and Joyce (71%) s t a t i o n areas, but a m i n o r i t y (31%) i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area owned t h e i r d w e l l i n g u n i t . The 1981 Canada Census i n d i c a t e d that comparable p r o p o r t i o n s of the p o p u l a t i o n owned t h e i r d w e l l i n g s i n the Broadway (33%), Nanaimo (79%), 29th Avenue (76%) and Joyce (65%) s t a t i o n a r e a s . In summary, the sample was r e p r e s e n t a t i v e of the p o p u l a t i o n when age d i s t r i b u t i o n , household s i z e , d w e l l i n g type and tenure are used as i n d i c a t o r s . The r e l a t i v e l y minor d i s c r e p a n c i e s between the sample and the p o p u l a t i o n may be due to a c t u a l changes over time in the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s being measured, and/or to e r r o r s i n the sampling f o r the EVNS survey. In e i t h e r case, the d i s c r e p a n c i e s are r e l a t i v e l y minor and t h e r e f o r e I am c o n f i d e n t the sample adequately r e p r e s e n t s the p o p u l a t i o n i n terms of the s t a b i l i t y of t h e i r neighborhoods, a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhoods and a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. The I n d i c e s I mentioned e a r l i e r i n Chapter 4 that the three i n d i c e s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , f avourable a t t i t u d e s toward change, and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood were compiled from standard Z s c o r e s . These sc o r e s , i n t u r n , were used to c a l c u l a t e 58 means and standard d e v i a t i o n s f o r each index. In a p e r f e c t l y normal d i s t r i b u t i o n of standard Z scores the mean i s zero and the standard d e v i a t i o n i s one. Furthermore, i n a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n , h a l f the values are l o c a t e d to the r i g h t of the mean and h a l f the values are l o c a t e d to the l e f t of the mean. T h i s symmetric d i s t i b u t i o n of values produces the w e l l known b e l l - s h a p e d curve. Before d i s c u s s i n g the d i f f e r e n c e s between the s t a t i o n areas on the three i n d i c e s , another word about methodology i s warranted. L e v e l s of s t a t i s t i c a l s i g n i f i c a n c e are s t r i c t l y used only when the data has been obtained from a sample that was randomly s e l e c t e d . The data that were used to t e s t the hypotheses i n t h i s t h e s i s were ob t a i n e d from a sample that was s y s t e m a t i c a l l y s e l e c t e d from a random s t a r t i n g p o i n t . However, I w i l l f o l l o w convention by us i n g s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l s on t h i s d a t a. Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y approximated a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n with a mean of 0.140 and a standard d e v i a t i o n of 0.709. Approximately h a l f of the value s were l o c a t e d to the l e f t of the mean and h a l f were l o c a t e d on the r i g h t of the mean. The most f r e q u e n t l y obtained v a l u e , the mode, was l o c a t e d to the r i g h t of the mean at 0.426. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of values produced a curve that i s f l a t t e r than the curve of a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The value s f o r neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ranged from -1.17 to 1.63. As can be seen from Table I I , there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods i n the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas. Broadway s t a t i o n area had the l e a s t s t a b l e neighborhoods (mean=-0.2764), while Nanaimo and Joyce s t a t i o n 59 Analysis of Variances Table II Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y * Broadway Nanaimo 29th Ave. Joyce A l l 4 Stations mean . -0.2764 0.3225 0.3042 0.3315 0.1402 (cases) (202) (161) (178) (134) (675) F=38.779 .at' 3 degrees of freedom. S i g n i f i c a n c e ^ . 0 0 0 Table I I I Favourable Attitudes Toward Change Broadway I Nanaimo mean 0.0395 I 0.0569 (cases) (129) (118) 29th Ave, 0.0938 (132) Joyce 0.0414 (90) A l l 4 Stations 0.0595 (469)++ IN 1.496 at 3 degrees of freedom. Significance= 0 . 2 l 5 Table IV favourable Attitudes Toward the Neighborhood* Broadway rnean 2.6204 (cases) (177) Nanaimo 3.8817 (148) 29th Ave. 3.8890 (164) Joyce 3.4318 (116) A l l 4 Stations 3.4284 (605) P=20,261 at 3 degrees of freedom. Significance=0 .000 * Indicates a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p at P=0.05 or l e s s . F= Variance Between Subsamples. In general, the higher the Variance Within Subsamples . F r a t i o the more l i k e l y i t i s that the subsamples are s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t from each other. . ++ The smaller sample s i z e r e s u l t e d from residents not pro v i d i n g v a l i d answers to some of the questions on neighborhood change. 60 areas were almost t i e d f o r having the most s t a b l e neighborhoods. Th e i r means were 0.3225 and 0.3315 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The negative mean of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n Broadway i n d i c a t e s the neighborhoods were c o n s i d e r a b l y l e s s s t a b l e than the neighborhoods i n Nanaimo, 29th Avenue and Joyce s t a t i o n a reas. The l a t t e r three s t a t i o n areas were approximately e q u i v a l e n t i n the s t a b i l i t y of t h e i r neighborhoods. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of fav o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward change a l s o shared c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The mean of favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change was 0.060, while the standard d e v i a t i o n was 0.350. S i x t y percent of the val u e s were l o c a t e d to the r i g h t of the mean. The mode was a l s o l o c a t e d to the r i g h t of the mean at 0.262. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of values produced a curve that i s s l i g h t l y f l a t t e r than a curve from a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . Favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change ranged from -0.905 to 1.095. A c c o r d i n g to Table I I I , there were not s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between s t a t i o n areas i n r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change. In each of the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas the mean was very c l o s e to zero i n d i c a t i n g r e s i d e n t s were n e i t h e r f a v o u r a b l e nor unfavourable toward change i n t h e i r neighborhood. Residents i n 29th Avenue s t a t i o n area were s l i g h t l y more fav o u r a b l e toward change (mean=0.0938) than r e s i d e n t s i n the three other s t a t i o n areas. The d i s t r i b u t i o n of fav o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the  neighborhood d e v i a t e d the most from a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The mean of favo u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood was 3.428 and the standard d e v i a t i o n was 1.805. J u s t over h a l f the values 61 were l o c a t e d to the r i g h t of the mean. The mode was a l s o on the righ t - h a n d s i d e of the mean at 5.894. The curve of val u e s f o r favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood was f l a t t e r than the curve of a normal d i s t r i b u t i o n . The val u e s ranged from -2.31 to 5.89. A histogram of the d i s t r i b u t i o n of fa v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood i s c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix B. Table IV r e v e a l s there were s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r e n c e s between ALRT s t a t i o n areas i n r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhoods. In a l l four s t a t i o n areas r e s i d e n t s i n d i c a t e d they had q u i t e h i g h l y f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhoods. However, r e s i d e n t s i n the Broadway s t a t i o n area had l e s s f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhoods (mean=2.6204) than r e s i d e n t s i n the three other s t a t i o n a reas. Residents i n the Nanaimo (mean=3.8817) and 29th Avenue (mean=3.8890) s t a t i o n areas had the most fav o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhoods. The a n a l y s i s of v a r i a n c e r e v e a l e d that neighborhoods were moderately s t a b l e i n Nanaimo, 29th Avenue and Joyce s t a t i o n a reas. Furthermore, the a n a l y s i s r e v e a l e d that while r e s i d e n t s i n a l l four s t a t i o n areas were n e i t h e r f a v o u r a b l e nor unfavourable toward environmental change, a l l had q u i t e h i g h l y f avourable a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood. The f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n w i l l r e v e a l how the i n d i c e s are r e l a t e d when b i v a r i a t e c o r r e l a t i o n s are computed. The Hypotheses Hypothesis I: As neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . Pearson C o r r e l a t i o n C o e f f i c i e n t s Table V Favourable Attitudes Toward Change Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y Eta++ (cases) Broadway -0.2140 P=.008*j 0.4718 (126) Nanaimo -0.0986 P=.144 0.4378 (118) 29th Ave. -0.1109 P=.105 0,4460 (130) J-oyce -0.2401 P=.012* 0.4821 (88) A l l 4 Stations -0.1390 P=.001* 0.2091 (462) Table VI Favourable Attitudes Toward the Neighborhood Broadway Nanaimo 29th Ave. Joyce A l l 4 Stations Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y -0.0018 -0.0138 -0.1141 -0.1160 +0.0647 P=.490 P=.434 P=.073 P=.110 P=.058 Eta O.32OO 0.3241 0.2891 0.3618 0.2112 (cases) (174) (146) (160) (114) (594) Table VII Favourable Attitudes Toward Change Favourable Broadway Nanaimo 29th Ave. Joyce A l l 4 Stations Attitudes Toward the 0.1151 0.2662 0.0703 0.1899 0.1710 Neighborhood P=.107 P=.002* P=.223 P=.045* P=.000* Eta 0.6183 0.5732 0.4163 0.6082 0.3482 (cases) (118) (111) (120) (81) (430) P indicates the' p r o b a b i l i t y of obtaining the c o e f f i c i e n t by chance. * Indicates a s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p at P=.05 or l e s s . ++ Eta, l i k e r , when squared indicates the proportion of variance i n favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change that i s explained by neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . In a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p , eta i s l a r g e r than r . 63 Table V r e v e a l s that as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d , r e s i d e n t s i n each of the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas had l e s s f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward change i n t h e i r neighborhood. The negative l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p was s t r o n g e s t i n Joyce and Broadway s t a t i o n areas where the Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s were -0.2401 and -0.2140 r e s p e c t i v e l y . The r e l a t i o n s h i p was weakest in Nanaimo s t a t i o n area where the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was -0.0986. The negative r e l a t i o n s h i p was s i g n i f i c a n t at P=.05 i n the Broadway and Joyce s t a t i o n areas, as w e l l as throughout the four s t a t i o n areas when they were analyzed as a u n i t . T h e r e f o r e , t h i s hypothesis i s accepted as a p p l y i n g i n neighborhoods i n the Broadway and Joyce s t a t i o n areas, as w e l l as throughout the combined s t a t i o n areas. (Please note: Scattergrams d e p i c t i n g the b i v a r i a t e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , f a v ourable a t t i t u d e s toward change and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood are c o n t a i n e d in Appendix C. The r e g r e s s i o n l i n e i s drawn on each scattergram, as w e l l as the curve c o n n e c t i n g the mean dependent value f o r each q u a r t i l e of the independent v a l u e . If the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s n o n l i n e a r , t h i s curve w i l l more a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t the r e l a t i o n s h i p between the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s . I f the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l i n e a r , the r e g r e s s i o n l i n e w i l l more a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t the r e l a t i o n s h i p . ) Hypothesis I I : As neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood become more f a v o u r a b l e . In each of the four s t a t i o n areas, there was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' 64 a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood (see Table V I ) . In each of the four s t a t i o n areas there was a very s l i g h t n egative r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. When the data from a l l four s t a t i o n areas were analyzed i n a block, a s l i g h t p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p emerged, i n d i c a t i n g that throughout the four ALRT s t a t i o n areas, as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood tended to become more f a v o u r a b l e . However, the small c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t of 0.065 i n d i c a t e s the r e l a t i o n s h i p was weak, and not s i g n i f i c a n t (P=0.058). Scattergrams were examined to determine why the r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood was negative i n each of the four s t a t i o n areas, but p o s i t i v e throughout the combined s t a t i o n a r e a s . The scattergrams re v e a l e d that the b i v a r i a t e d i s t r i b u t i o n was c u r v i l i n e a r i n each of the four s t a t i o n a r e a s , while the d i s t r i b u t i o n was more l i n e a r throughout the combined s t a t i o n a r e a s . When the four c u r v i l i n e a r d i s t r i b u t i o n s were combined, they produced a weak p o s i t i v e d i s t r i b u t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y with favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. Furthermore, the eta values f o r the r e l a t i o n s h i p i n d i c a t e d i t was more a c c u r a t e l y d e p i c t e d as a curve than as a s t r a i g h t l i n e i n each of the four s t a t i o n areas, as w e l l as throughout the combined s t a t i o n areas. The eta v a l u e s are shown i n Table VI. E t a , l i k e the Pearson c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t r , when squared, i n d i c a t e s the p r o p o r t i o n of v a r i a t i o n i n f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood that i s e x p l a i n e d by neighborhood 65 s t a b i l i t y . E t a squared and r squared range from 0 to +1. In a l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p eta equals r . In a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p eta i s l a r g e r than r . Eta ranges from 0 to +1. The c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t s , scattergrams and eta v a l u e s a l l i n d i c a t e d there was not a s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood e i t h e r throughout the combined s t a t i o n areas or i n any of the four i n d i v i d u a l s t a t i o n a r e a s . However, the e t a values and scattergrams r e v e a l e d that as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood tended to become more f a v o u r a b l e . T h e r e f o r e , the second h y p o t h e s i s i s t e n t a t i v e l y accepted. Hypothesis I I I : As r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood become more f a v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . In each of the four s t a t i o n a r e a s , as w e l l as throughout the four s t a t i o n areas, as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood became more f a v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change a l s o became more f a v o u r a b l e . The p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p was s t r o n g e s t i n Nanaimo where the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was 0.2662. The r e l a t i o n s h i p was s l i g h t l y weaker i n Joyce s t a t i o n area where the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was 0.1899, but, as i n Nanaimo, the r e l a t i o n s h i p was s i g n i f i c a n t . The weakest r e l a t i o n s h i p between fav o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward change was found i n 29th Avenue s t a t i o n area where the c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t was 0 .0703. Throughout the four s t a t i o n a reas, the p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p was not str o n g 66 ( c o r r e l a t i o n c o e f f i c i e n t = 0 . 1 7 1 0 ) but i t was s i g n i f i c a n t . T h e r e f o r e , the hypothesis that f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood are n e g a t i v e l y a s s o c i a t e d with fa v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change i s not accepted. The r e s u l t s of the hypotheses t e s t i n g r e v e a l e d the f o l l o w i n g : 1. There was a weak negative l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. T h e r e f o r e , as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change became s l i g h t l y l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . The f i n d i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r neighborhoods i n Broadway and Joyce s t a t i o n a r e a s , as w e l l as f o r neighborhoods throughout the four e a s t s i d e ALRT s t a t i o n a reas. 2. There was a very weak p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. T h e r e f o r e , as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood tended to become more f a v o u r a b l e . However, the r e l a t i o n s h i p was more c u r v i l i n e a r than l i n e a r i n each of the four s t a t i o n areas, as w e l l as throughout the s t a t i o n areas when they were analyzed as a u n i t . Furthermore, the f i n d i n g was not s i g n i f i c a n t f o r neighborhoods i n any of the four s t a t i o n a reas. 3. There was a moderate p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between fa v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. T h e r e f o r e , as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood became more fav o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change a l s o became s l i g h t l y more f a v o u r a b l e . The f i n d i n g was s i g n i f i c a n t f o r neighborhoods i n Nanaimo and Joyce s t a t i o n areas, as w e l l as f o r neighborhoods throughout the four s t a t i o n areas. The f o l l o w i n g c o n c l u d i n g chapter c o n t a i n s a d i s c u s s i o n of the i m p l i c a t i o n s and recommendations that stem from these f i n d i n g s . 67 CHAPTER 6± DISCUSSION OF THE FINDINGS, POLICY ISSUES In Chapter 1 I d e s c r i b e d s e v e r a l o b j e c t i v e s that would be achieved through t h i s t h e s i s r e s e a r c h . The o b j e c t i v e s were: 1. to i n c r e a s e knowledge about neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change i n t h e i r neighborhood, 2. to determine the r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change and 3. to determine how neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change are r e l a t e d to r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood. Chapters 2 through 5 r e v e a l e d s u b s t a n t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n about the above three concepts and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . T h i s chapter w i l l conclude the t h e s i s with a d i s c u s s i o n of the f i n d i n g s presented i n Chapter 5, q u e s t i o n s r a i s e d by the f i n d i n g s , i m p l i c a t i o n s of the f i n d i n g s f o r p u b l i c p o l i c y and suggestions fo r f u r t h e r r e s e a r c h . The F i n d i n g s Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and a t t i t u d e s toward change The f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d that t h e r e was a weak negative l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. (See Table V ) . T h e r e f o r e , as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change became s l i g h t l y l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . T h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p was c o n s i s t e n t with Hypothesis I which read: As neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . The negative r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward change can be e x p l a i n e d by reexamining the concept of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . In Chapter 3 68 I s t a t e d that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y r e f e r s to the dynamic composition of a r e s i d e n t i a l area, and that r e s i d e n t s have a range of a d a p t a t i o n s to change t h a t occurs over time i n the area's p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . The f i n d i n g s suggest that r e s i d e n t s i n l e s s s t a b l e neighborhoods f i t t h i s dynamic view of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . These r e s i d e n t s b e l i e v e t h e i r neighborhood can a d j u s t to the changes the ALRT w i l l b r i n g without major d i s r u p t i o n i n the neighborhood. Furthermore, i t i s a l s o c o n c e i v a b l e that i n the long run, the change may have a s t a b i l i z i n g i n f l u e n c e on the neighborhoods. For i n s t a n c e , the s t a t i o n may a t t r a c t a d d i t i o n a l r e t a i l , r e c r e a t i o n a l and other s e r v i c e developments to the surrounding neighborhoods, thereby making them more d e s i r a b l e and s t a b l e p l a c e s to l i v e . T h i s would a l s o cause r e s i d e n t s i n l e s s s t a b l e neighborhoods to have s l i g h t l y more favo u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. At the other extreme, r e s i d e n t s i n more s t a b l e neighborhoods appear to have a more s t a t i c view of t h e i r neighborhood. They e i t h e r l i k e the neighborhood the way i t i s , and/or they do not want the u n c e r t a i n outcomes that f r e q u e n t l y accompany change. Furthermore, r e s i d e n t s i n more s t a b l e neighborhoods may have had l e s s experience a d j u s t i n g to change; t h e r e f o r e they are l e s s f a v o u r a b l e to change. In summary, as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s respond as though t h e i r neighborhood i s more s t a t i c than dynamic and t h e r e f o r e , they are l e s s f a v o u r a b l e toward change that w i l l d i s r u p t t h e i r s t a t i c view of the neighborhood. 69 Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood T a b l e VI r e v e a l e d that there was no s i g n i f i c a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. There was a very weak neg a t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y and f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood i n each of the four s t a t i o n a r e a s . However, when t h e i r data were combined and a n a l y z e d as a u n i t , a weak p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p emerged. ( R e c a l l the scattergrams f o r t h i s r e l a t i o n s h i p are c o n t a i n e d i n Appendix C.) T h i s f i n d i n g p r o v i d e d minimal support f o r Hypothesis II which read: As neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood become more f a v o u r a b l e . However, the r e l a t i o n s h i p was more curved than l i n e a r , i n d i c a t i n g that r e s i d e n t s i n both the l e a s t and most s t a b l e neighborhoods have s l i g h t l y l e s s f avourable a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhoods than r e s i d e n t s i n neighborhoods that are i n between the l e a s t and most s t a b l e neighborhoods. One p l a u s i b l e e x p l a n a t i o n f o r the f i n d i n g s i s r e l a t e d to the way r e s i d e n t s view p o t e n t i a l problems i n t h e i r neighborhood. It i s c o n c e i v a b l e that r e s i d e n t s i n both the l e a s t s t a b l e and the most s t a b l e neighborhoods tend to be more s e n s i t i v e to misbehaving j u v e n i l e s , n o i s y neighbours and crime r e g a r d l e s s of whether they are c u r r e n t l y problems i n t h e i r neighborhoods. On the one hand, r e s i d e n t s i n the l e a s t s t a b l e neighborhoods can be seen as having the l e a s t s t a b i l i t y to l o s e and t h e r e f o r e , the r e s i d e n t s are more l i k e l y to have unfavourable a t t i t u d e s toward crime and other problems that w i l l reduce t h e i r neighborhood s t a b i l i t y to perhaps a p r e c i p i t o u s l e v e l . On the other hand, 70 r e s i d e n t s in the most s t a b l e neighborhoods can be seen as having the most s t a b i l i t y to l o s e and t h e r e f o r e , these r e s i d e n t s are a l s o more l i k e l y to be unfavourable toward anything that may d i m i n i s h t h e i r s t a b i l i t y . I t should be r e c a l l e d that r e s i d e n t s in the most s t a b l e neighborhoods a l s o had the l e a s t favourable a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. A t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and change The f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d that there was a moderate, s i g n i f i c a n t p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. (See Table V I I ) . Th e r e f o r e , as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood became more fa v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change a l s o became s l i g h t l y more f a v o u r a b l e . T h i s f i n d i n g was c o n t r a r y to Hypothesis III which read: As r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood become more fa v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . The p o s i t i v e l i n e a r r e l a t i o n s h i p between favourable a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and favourable a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change suggests that r e s i d e n t s ' c u r r e n t a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood have a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the f u t u r e of the neighborhood. T h e r e f o r e , when r e s i d e n t s c o n s i d e r p o t e n t i a l neighborhood problems such as misbehaving j u v e n i l e s and noisy neighbours r e l a t i v e l y small problems i n t h e i r neighborhood, the r e s i d e n t s tend to be o p t i m i s t i c about the impacts of the ALRT system on t h e i r neighborhood. As a consequence, as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood become more fa v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s 71 toward environmental change, as measured by the impact of the ALRT system, a l s o become more f a v o u r a b l e . In summary, I have suggested that as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become s l i g h t l y l e s s f a v o u r a b l e because r e s i d e n t s i n d i c a t e they have a more s t a t i c than dynamic view of t h e i r neighborhood. In c o n t r a s t , as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s tend to have more fav o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood. However, i n l e s s s t a b l e neighborhoods and more s t a b l e neighborhoods, r e s i d e n t s have s l i g h t l y l e s s f avourable a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood perhaps because the r e s i d e n t s are more s e n s i t i v e to the p o t e n t i a l r e d u c t i o n i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y that may come from n o i s y neighbours, misbehaving j u v e n i l e s and other problems i n the neighborhood. F i n a l l y , I suggested that r e s i d e n t s ' c u r r e n t a t t i t u d e s toward t h e i r neighborhood have a p o s i t i v e i n f l u e n c e on t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the f u t u r e of the neighborhood. T h e r e f o r e , as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood become more f a v o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change a l s o become more f a v o u r a b l e . The f i n d i n g s d i d not provide c o n v i n c i n g support f o r the three hypotheses. However, the f i n d i n g s r a i s e d s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n s which are d i s c u s s e d i n the f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n . D i s c u s s i o n Questions The t h e s i s r e s e a r c h r a i s e d f i v e major q u e s t i o n s . F i r s t , what does the re s e a r c h suggest about the meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ? Second, can neighborhood s t a b i l i t y be measured using the index suggested i n t h i s t h e s i s ? T h i r d , can changes i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y be recognized e a r l y enough to prevent 72 major d i s r u p t i o n s i n neighborhoods? and i f so, what are the e a r l y i n d i c a t i o n s of changes i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ? Fourth, why would r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change become l e s s f avourable as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s ? F i f t h , why would r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change become more favou r a b l e as t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood become more favou r a b l e ? The meaning of neighborhood s t a b i 1 i t y In Chapter 2 I s t r e s s e d that there was a p a u c i t y of d e f i n i t i o n s of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n the l i t e r a t u r e . Downs(l98l) was the only author who i n d i c a t e d the essence of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y c o u l d be communicated i n two id e a s : one, that a balance e x i s t s between the i n f l o w s and outflows of r e s i d e n t s , m a t e r i a l s and money; and two, that key c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s do not change much. M u n i c i p a l planners d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y using e i t h e r c o n c e p t u a l terms such as "freedom from t h r e a t " and "a sense of e q u i l i b r i u m " , or s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s such as the presence of long term r e s i d e n t s . A few pla n n e r s used both concepts and s p e c i f i c c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t o d e f i n e neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . H a l f of the e i g h t planners i n d i c a t e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s not a s t a t i c c o n d i t i o n implying no change i n the area's p h y s i c a l and/or s o c i a l c omposition. The same group of pl a n n e r s i n d i c a t e d the area can a d j u s t to change. In Chapter 1 I d e f i n e d neighborhood s t a b i l i t y as a concept r e f e r r i n g to the dynamic composition of a r e s i d e n t i a l a r e a . The dynamic composition r e f e r s t o changes over time i n the area's p h y s i c a l , s o c i a l , p o l i t i c a l and economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . 73 Furthermore, I s t r e s s e d that the c r u c i a l f a c t o r i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s that the changes are w i t h i n the r e s i d e n t s ' range of a d a p t a t i o n . T h e r e f o r e , three ideas are expressed i n t h i s d e s c r i p t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y : 1. i t r e f e r s to a dynamic ra t h e r than a s t a t i c c o n d i t i o n , 2. i t i m p l i e s that r e s i d e n t s can a d j u s t to change i n t h e i r neighborhood and 3. i t i s a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l concept. The m a j o r i t y of ideas about neighborhood s t a b i l i t y expressed i n the l i t e r a t u r e and by the p r a c t i s i n g planners who were i n t e r v i e w e d are c o n t a i n e d i n the t h e s i s d e f i n i t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . However, the f i n d i n g s suggested that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s c o n s i d e r e d more of a s t a t i c than dynamic c o n d i t i o n . I t appears that i n l e s s s t a b l e neighborhoods, neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s more dynamic than s t a t i c . However, as neighborhoods become more s t a b l e , neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s more s t a t i c than dynamic. D e s p i t e t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n I b e l i e v e that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s a dynamic c o n d i t i o n r e g a r d l e s s of the s t a b i l i t y of the neighborhood. Measuring neighborhood s t a b i l i t y A c c o r d i n g to r e s e a r c h e r s such as McLean et a l ( l 9 7 0 ) , Guseman et a l ( l 9 7 6 ) , G e r t l e r and Crowley(1977) and Downs(l98l), neighborhood s t a b i l i t y can be measured. Furthermore, the vast m a j o r i t y of planners who were i n t e r v i e w e d agreed that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y can be measured u s i n g a v a r i e t y of i n d i c a t o r s such as: p r o p e r t y s a l e s , the age s t r u c t u r e of the p o p u l a t i o n , l e n g t h of r e s i d e n c e , p r o p e r t y maintenance, school enrollment t u r n o v e r , and l e v e l of use of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s . In t h i s t h e s i s neighborhood s t a b i l i t y was measured using an 74 index that was compiled from standard Z scores f o r each household on the f o l l o w i n g f i v e v a r i a b l e s : 1. d w e l l i n g type 2. housing tenure i . e . r e n t e r or owner 3. l e n g t h of residence i n the neighborhood 4. number of people known on the block by name 5. presence of school aged c h i l d r e n A ccording to the l i t e r a t u r e , these v a r i a b l e s should provide an i n d i c a t i o n of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . However, the alpha value f o r the index was r e l a t i v e l y low at 0.4856, which i n d i c a t e d the f i v e v a r i a b l e s d i d not have a l o t i n common i n t h e i r measurement of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . Consequently, i t was concluded that neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s a m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l concept and the f i v e v a r i a b l e s provide only p a r t i a l i n f o r m a t i o n on more than one dimension. The f i v e v a r i a b l e s must be combined with other i n d i c a t o r s to obt a i n a more r e l i a b l e measure of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The f i v e v a r i a b l e s should be combined with the f o l l o w i n g i n d i c a t o r s to o b t a i n a more accurate assessment of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The i n d i c a t o r s should be examined every four to f i v e years, f o r example to r e c o r d changes that have o c c u r r e d . The i n d i c a t o r s a r e : 1. pr o p e r t y maintenance 2. s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n amongst r e s i d e n t s 3. l e v e l of use of s o c i a l s e r v i c e s 4. i n d i c a t i o n s of crime and vandalism 5. i n d i c a t i o n s of d w e l l i n g s to rent 6. i n d i c a t i o n s of d w e l l i n g s to buy 7. school enrollment turnover 8. zoning 75 9. ownership of r e s i d e n t i a l p r o p e r t i e s 10. household composition 11. income l e v e l of r e s i d e n t s 12. t o t a l p o p u l a t i o n 13. t o t a l number of d w e l l i n g u n i t s 14. the age s t r u c t u r e of the p o p u l a t i o n 15. r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward both t h e i r neighborhood and environmental change 16. r e s i d e n t s ' p o l i t i c a l p r e f e r e n c e s 17. r e s i d e n t a d a p t a t i o n to change 18. e t h n i c composition A d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h i s needed to determine how the p r e c e d i n g i n d i c a t o r s should be weighted and combined with the f i v e v a r i a b l e s to provide the most a c c u r a t e assessment of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . E a r l y i n d i c a t i o n s of changes in neighborhood s t a b i l i t y I s t a t e d e a r l i e r that change i s i n h e r e n t i n the meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , and what i s important i s that the change i s w i t h i n the r e s i d e n t s ' range of a d a p t a t i o n . E a r l y i n d i c a t i o n s of changes that are not w i t h i n r e s i d e n t s ' range of a d a p t a t i o n can be obtained by d i r e c t l y o b s e r v i n g what goes on i n the neighborhood. For example, how w e l l are p r o p e r t i e s maintained? How do r e s i d e n t s i n t e r a c t with each o t h e r ? Are there v i s i b l e s igns of crime and vandalism? How many d w e l l i n g s are for s a l e or rent? Changes i n these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i l l i n d i c a t e whether the neighborhood i s becoming more or l e s s s t a b l e . If there i s a d e t e r i o r a t i o n in property maintenance and i n t e r a c t i o n amongst r e s i d e n t s , i n c r e a s e d crime and vandalism, and an unusually l a r g e 76 number of d w e l l i n g s f o r rent or s a l e , the neighborhood i s l i k e l y becoming l e s s s t a b l e . I f , on the other hand property maintenance i s improving, r e s i d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n i s more frequent and i f there are fewer s i g n s of crime and vandalism, and fewer d w e l l i n g s f o r rent or s a l e , the neighborhood i s l i k e l y becoming more s t a b l e . Neighborhoods can accommodate a c o n s i d e r a b l e amount of change without undergoing major changes i n t h e i r s t a b i l i t y . However, i t i s important to d i r e c t l y observe what i s going on i n the neighborhoods to l e a r n more about the p r e c u r s o r s of change i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . Neighborhood s t a b i 1 i t y and a t t i t u d e s toward change The f i n d i n g s r e v e a l e d that as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e d , r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change i n t h e i r neighborhood tended to become l e s s f a v o u r a b l e . (See Table V ) . I t was suggested e a r l i e r i n t h i s chapter that as neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s appear to have a more s t a t i c than dynamic view of t h e i r neighborhood. In l e s s s t a b l e neighborhoods, r e s i d e n t s may be e i t h e r i n d i f f e r e n t to change as the data has shown, or they may b e l i e v e the neighborhood can ad j u s t to change without major d i s r u p t i o n . R e s i d e nts i n l e s s s t a b l e neighborhoods may have had to a d j u s t to other environmental changes i n the p a s t ; t h e r e f o r e the r e s i d e n t s are more c o n f i d e n t they can adapt t o another change. As a consequence, they have s l i g h t l y more f a v o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change. However, once neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i n c r e a s e s , r e s i d e n t s appear to have a more s t a t i c view of t h e i r neighborhood. They e i t h e r l i k e i t the way i t i s and/or they do not want the u n c e r t a i n t y that f r e q u e n t l y comes with change. 77 A l s o , r e s i d e n t s i n more s t a b l e neighborhoods may be l e s s s k i l l e d at a d j u s t i n g to change; t h e r e f o r e they are s l i g h t l y l e s s f a v o u r a b l e toward environmental change. A t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and toward change Ac c o r d i n g to the f i n d i n g s , as r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood became more fav o u r a b l e , t h e i r a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change a l s o tended to become more f a v o u r a b l e . (See Table V I I ) . T h i s f i n d i n g was unexpected given the s t u d i e s c i t e d e a r l i e r in Chapter 1 of r e s i d e n t o p p o s i t i o n and r e s i s t a n c e to change i n t h e i r neighborhood. However, i t was suggested i n Chapter 2 that the r e s i s t a n c e may have r e p r e s e n t e d the f e e l i n g s of a m i n o r i t y of r e s i d e n t s . If a l a r g e r sample of r e s i d e n t s had been asked to comment upon the proposed change, the m a j o r i t y of r e s i d e n t s may have been i n d i f f e r e n t to the change. The unexpected f i n d i n g may a l s o be p a r t i a l l y due to the p a r t i c u l a r change being s t u d i e d . The vast m a j o r i t y of respondents were l o c a t e d more than one block from the ALRT alignment; t h e r e f o r e they are u n l i k e l y to be d i r e c t l y a f f e c t e d by impacts a t t r i b u t e d to the system. A l s o i t i s c o n c e i v a b l e that the m a j o r i t y of respondents were u n f a m i l i a r with p o t e n t i a l adverse impacts of an above grade r a p i d t r a n s i t system, such as in c r e a s e d n o i s e l e v e l s near the alignment. As a consequence, the ALRT system may be c o n s i d e r e d more of an asse t than a l i a b i l i t y to the surrounding neighborhoods. P u b l i c P o l i c y Issues There are a number of p u b l i c p o l i c y i s s u e s that were r a i s e d by the t h e s i s research, l a r g e l y through the i n t e r v i e w s with m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s . F i r s t , should the maintenance of 78 neighborhood s t a b i l i t y be a goal of m u n i c i p a l planners? Second, i s there a r o l e f o r m u n i c i p a l planners i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ? and i f so, what i s the r o l e ? T h i r d , what are the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of the m u n i c i p a l , p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments v i s - a - v i s neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ? Fourth, should i n i t i a t o r s of environmental change have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to c o n s i d e r the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods before imposing changes? Each of these q u e s t i o n s i s d i s c u s s e d below. F i r s t , the vast m a j o r i t y of the planners who were int e r v i e w e d i n d i c a t e d that m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y should be a goal of m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s . I agree with the p l a n n e r s , but I f e e l more s t r o n g l y that m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y should be a goal of m u n i c i p a l planners i_f i t i s a l s o a goal of the neighborhood r e s i d e n t s . There are numerous i m p l i c a t i o n s to m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y such as monitoring development and change in the neighborhood, and to the best of t h e i r a b i l i t y , planners should endeavour to r e v e a l the i m p l i c a t i o n s to the r e s i d e n t s . Second, there i s a r o l e , fo r m u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The r o l e of the planner c o n s i s t s l a r g e l y of working with r e s i d e n t s to help them i d e n t i f y areas of concern and to e s t a b l i s h goals and o b j e c t i v e s f o r the neighborhood, developing p o l i c i e s , programs and plans that w i l l meet the goals and o b j e c t i v e s , and n e g o t i a t i n g with developers and p o l i t i c i a n s to help implement the p o l i c i e s , programs and plans s e l e c t e d by the r e s i d e n t s . M u n i c i p a l p l a n n e r s may be c o n s i d e r e d a neighborhood advocate because they f r e q u e n t l y represent r e s i d e n t s ' d e s i r e s to p o l i t i c i a n s and d e v e l o p e r s . 79 However, plan n e r s should not n e c e s s a r i l y advocate r e s i d e n t s ' d e s i r e s i f they d i m i n i s h the q u a l i t y of l i f e f o r r e s i d e n t s i n other nearby neighborhoods. In summary, the m u n i c i p a l planner's r o l e i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y encompasses the r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s of a t r a d i t i o n a l community planner. T h i r d , the three l e v e l s of government should share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h e l p i n g to maintain neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The m u n i c i p a l government c u r r e n t l y has the most d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y through i t s zoning bylaws, development and b u i l d i n g permits, l o c a l area p l a n n i n g programs and a v a r i e t y of s o c i a l , a r t i s t i c and r e c r e a t i o n a l commitments such as Neighbourhood Houses and Parks Board programs. The m u n i c i p a l government should maintain i t s c u r r e n t involvement with neighborhoods but i t should a l s o work with the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments to ensure they continue t h e i r f i n a n c i a l support f o r s o c i a l housing, i n f r a s t r u c t u r e maintenance, the p r o p e r t y tax d e f e r r a l program f o r s e n i o r s , and the R e s i d e n t i a l R e h a b i l i t a t i o n A s s i s t a n c e Program(RRAP). The m u n i c i p a l government should a l s o take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r monitoring the e f f e c t s of other f e d e r a l and p r o v i n c i a l i n i t i a t i v e s on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . With lower revenues and i n c r e a s e d debt loads the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments are u n l i k e l y to p r o v i d e a d d i t i o n a l d i r e c t funding f o r p o l i c i e s and programs that w i l l h e l p maintain neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . However, both l e v e l s of government can i n d i r e c t l y h e l p maintain neighborhood s t a b i l i t y by t r y i n g to a n t i c i p a t e how neighborhoods w i l l be a f f e c t e d by t h e i r p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s . For example, w i l l the a b o l i t i o n of the f e d e r a l 80 c a p i t a l gains tax r e s u l t i n more frequent house s a l e s and a decrease i n neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ? W i l l the c o n s t r u c t i o n of the Trans Mountain P i p e l i n e from A l b e r t a to Vancouver e l i m i n a t e the need f o r o i l r e f i n e r i e s i n l o c o , and t h e r e f o r e d i s r u p t the s t a b i l i t y of the surrounding neighborhoods? These are j u s t two examples of how d e c i s i o n s made by the f e d e r a l government can a f f e c t neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . D e c i s i o n s on the l o c a t i o n or expansion of p r o v i n c i a l roadways can have a s i m i l a r e f f e c t , of d i s r u p t i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . T h e r e f o r e , by a n t i c i p a t i n g the impacts of t h e i r p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s on neighborhoods the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments can assume pa r t of the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . F i n a l l y , i n i t i a t o r s of environmental change should have a r e s p o n s i b i l i t y to c o n s i d e r the s t a b i l i t y of neighborhoods b e f o r e a p p r o v a l i s given f o r the proposed change. Neighborhood s t a b i l i t y should be i n c l u d e d with economic, p h y s i c a l and other s o c i a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n a p r e c o n s t r u c t i o n assessment statement. In summary then, m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y should be a goal of planners i f i t i s a l s o a goal of the neighborhood r e s i d e n t s . The r o l e of the planner i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s the same as the r o l e of the t r a d i t i o n a l community pla n n e r , where the planner, 1). helps neighborhood r e s i d e n t s i d e n t i f y areas of concern and e s t a b l i s h goals and o b j e c t i v e s f o r the neighborhood; 2). develops p o l i c i e s , programs and plans to meet the goals and o b j e c t i v e s ; and 3). n e g o t i a t e s with developers and p o l i t i c i a n s to h e l p implement the p o l i c i e s , programs and plans s e l e c t e d by the r e s i d e n t s . The three l e v e l s of government should share the r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r h e l p i n g to 81 maintain neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . The municipal government should maintain i t s d i r e c t i n f l u e n c e on neighborhood s t a b i l i t y through p o l i c y i n i t i a t i v e s such as zoning bylaws, and process i n i t i a t i v e s such as l o c a l area p l a n n i n g programs. The m u n i c i p a l government should a l s o encourage the p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments to continue t h e i r f i n a n c i a l support f o r s o c i a l housing, the RRAP and the property tax d e f e r r a l program f o r s e n i o r s . The p r o v i n c i a l and f e d e r a l governments should a l s o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s e s s i n g how t h e i r p o l i c y d e c i s i o n s w i l l a f f e c t neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . In a d d i t i o n , a l l i n i t i a t o r s of major environmental changes such as the i n t r o d u c t i o n or expansion of a t r a n s p o r t a t i o n c o r r i d o r should take r e s p o n s i b i l i t y f o r a s s e s s i n g and documenting how neighborhood s t a b i l i t y i s l i k e l y to be a f f e c t e d . F u r t h e r Research T h i s t h e s i s r e s e a r c h has increased knowledge about neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , a t t i t u d e s toward change, a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood and t h e i r i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s . However, i t has a l s o r e v e a l e d that much more research i s needed i n order to more thoroughly understand the meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , how i t can be measured and how i t i s r e l a t e d to r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward change in t h e i r neighborhood. T h e r e f o r e , a d d i t i o n a l r e s e a r c h should i n i t i a l l y focus on c l a r i f y i n g the meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y to determine whether i t encompasses the ideas of dynamism, r e s i d e n t a d a p t a t i o n to change and m u l t i d i m e n s i o n a l i t y . L a t e r r e s e a r c h should be designed to determine whether the i n d i c a t o r s suggested e a r l i e r i n the chapter provide a more accurate assessment of 82 neighborhood s t a b i l i t y . More t h e o r e t i c a l r e s e a r c h should f o l l o w to determine the nature of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s between neighborhood s t a b i l i t y , f avourable a t t i t u d e s toward change and fav o u r a b l e a t t i t u d e s toward the neighborhood. I t i s suggested that higher order polynomial equations may more a c c u r a t e l y represent the b i v a r i a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . F i n a l l y , when the meaning of neighborhood s t a b i l i t y has been c l a r i f i e d , i t s measurement has been v e r i f i e d and i t s mathematical r e l a t i o n s h i p s with favourable a t t i t u d e s toward both the neighborhood and environmental change have been e s t a b l i s h e d , another study should be conducted a f t e r the ALRT system s t a r t s o p e r a t i n g to determine whether r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s toward environmental change and t h e i r neighborhood have changed over time. 83 References C i t e d A h lbrandt, R.S.Jr., Charney, M.K., & Cunningham, J.V. (1977). C i t i z e n P e r c e p t i o n s of T h e i r Neighborhoods. J o u r n a l of Housing , 34 , 338-341. B a l d a s s a r e , M., Knight, R., & Swan, S. (1979). Urban S e r v i c e and Environmental S t r e s s o r . The Impact of the Bay Area Rapid T r a n s i t System(BART) on R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y . Environment and Behavior , JJ. , 435-450. Boehm, T.P., & Mark, J . (1980). A P r i n c i p a l Component L o g i s t i c A n a l y s i s of the M o b i l i t y D e c i s i o n i n T r a n s i t i o n a l Neighborhoods. American Real E s t a t e and Urban Economics A s s o c i a t i o n J o u r n a l , 8 , 299-319. B r i t i s h Columbia D i r e c t o r i e s . (1983). 1983/84 Vancouver BC C i t y  D i r e c t o r y . Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada: R.L.Polk. Clay, P.L., & H o l l i s t e r , R.M. (Eds.). (1983). Neighborhood  P o l i c y and Planning . Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Coote, R.G., & Thomson, W. (1985). East Vancouver Neighbourhoods  Study . Report submitted to the C i t y of Vancouver P l a n n i n g Department f o r e d i t i n g and p u b l i c a t i o n . Downs, A. (1981). Neighborhoods and Urban Development Washington, DC: The Brookings I n s t i t u t i o n . Duignan, P., & Rabushka, A. ( E d s . ) . (1980). The U n i t e d S t a t e s i n  the 1980s . Palo A l t o , CA: S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y , Hoover I n s t i t u t i o n . Evenden, L . J . (Ed.). (1978). Vancouver Western M e t r o p o l i s (Western Geographical S e r i e s V o l . 1 6 ) . V i c t o r i a , B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada: U n i v e r s i t y of V i c t o r i a , Department of Geography. F i t c h , L.C. and A s s o c i a t e s . (1964). Urban T r a n s p o r t a t i o n and  P u b l i c P o l i c y . San F r a n c i s c o : Chandler. Gans, H. (1962). The Urban V i l l a g e r s . New York: Free P r e s s . G e r t l e r , L.O., & Crowley, R.W. (1977). Changing Canadian C i t i e s . T oronto: M c C l e l l a n d and Stewart. Glackman, W., & Sacco, V. (1983). Vancouver Urban Survey-1983 . Burnaby, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada: Simon F r a s e r U n i v e r s i t y , C r i m i n o l o g y Research Centre. Goetze, R. (1979). Understanding Neighborhood Change Cambridge, MA: B a l l i n g e r . 84 Goetze, R., C o l t o n , K.W., & O'Donnell, V.F. (1977). S t a b i l i z i n g  Neighborhoods: A Fresh Approach to Housing Dynamics and  P e r c e p t i o n s . Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development, O f f i c e of P o l i c y Development and Research. Gold, J.R. (1980). An I n t r o d u c t i o n to Behavioural Geography . Oxford: Oxford U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . Guseman, P.K., H a l l , J.M., F u l l e r , T.K., & Burke, D. (1976). S o c i a l Impacts: E v a l u a t i o n of Highway P r o j e c t Development i n  Urban R e s i d e n t i a l Areas TResearch Report 190-1). C o l l e g e S t a t i o n , TX: Texas A & M U n i v e r s i t y , Texas T r a n s p o r t a t i o n I n s t i t u t e . (NTIS No. PB-255 684). Hallman, H.W. (1984). Neighborhoods T h e i r Place i n Urban L i f e B e v e r l y H i l l s , CA: Sage. Hamilton, N.W., & Hamilton, P.R. (1981). Governance of P u b l i c  E n t e r p r i s e . Lexington, MA: D.C. Heath. Jacobs, J . (1961). The Death and L i f e of Great American C i t i e s . New York: Vintage Books. K e l l e r , S. (1968). The Urban Neighborhood: The S o c i o l o g i c a l  P e r s p e c t i v e . New York: Random House. Ley, D. (Ed.). (1974). Community P a r t i c i p a t i o n and the S p a t i a l  Order of the C i t y (B.C. G e o g r a p h i c a l S e r i e s No.19). Vancouver, B r i t i s h Columbia, Canada: T a n t a l u s Research. Ley, D. (1981). I n n e r - C i t y R e v i t a l i z a t i o n i n Canada: A Vancouver Case Study. Canadian Geographer , 25 , 124-145. Ley, D. (1983). A S o c i a l Geography of the C i t y . New York: Harper and Row. Long, H.H. (1972). The I n f l u e n c e of Number and Ages of C h i l d r e n on R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y . Demography , 9 , 371-382. McLean, E.L., Adkins, W.G., Ladewig, H.W., Guseman, P.B., & Rodriguez, W. (1970). F u r t h e r I n v e s t i g a t i o n of the M o b i l i t y  Index For Use i n P r e d i c t i n g Freeway E f f e c t s on Neighborhood  S t a b i l i t y ( B u l l e t i n 41). C o l l e g e S t a t i o n , TX: Texas A & M U n i v e r s i t y , Texas A & M Research Foundation. Porteous, D.J. (1977). Environment and Behavior: P l a n n i n g and  Everyday Urban L i f e . Don M i l l s , O n t a r i o , Canada: Addison-Wesley. Schoenberg, S.P., & Rosenbaum, P.L. (1980). Neighborhoods That  Work . New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s . S c h w i r i a n , K.P. (1983). Models of Neighborhood Change. Annual  Review of S o c i o l o g y , 9 , 83-102. 85 Speare, A . , J r . (1970). Homeownership, L i f e C y c l e Stage, and R e s i d e n t i a l M o b i l i t y . Demography , 1_ , 449-458. Speare, A . , J r . , G o l d s t e i n , S., & Frey, W. (1975). R e s i d e n t i a l  M o b i l i t y , M i g r a t i o n and M e t r o p o l i t a n Change . Cambridge, MA: B a l l i n g e r . S t a t i s t i c s Canada. (1983). 1981 Census of Canada . Ottawa, O n t a r i o , Canada: M i n i s t e r of Supply and S e r v i c e s . Wolpert, J . , Mumphrey, A., & Seley, J . (1972). M e t r o p o l i t a n  Neighborhoods: P a r t i c i p a t i o n and C o n f l i c t Over Change ( A s s o c i a t i o n of American Geographers Resource Paper No.16). Washington, DC: Commission on C o l l e g e Geography. 86 Appendix A: Interview.schedule f o r planners Name P o s i t i o n • Date 1. What does "neighborhood s t a b i l i t y " mean to you? 2. How would you describe a stable neighborhood? 3« Can neighborhood s t a b i l i t y be measured? Yes No 4. I s i t desirable to maintain stable neighborhoods? Yes . No(go to #6) 5. Why i s i t desirable?(to maintain stable neighborhoods) 6* Why i s i t not desirable?(to maintain stable neighborhoods) 87 7. Is there a r o l e f o r community(and s o c i a l ) planners i n m a i n t a i n i n g neighborhood .stability? Yes No(go to #9) 8. What i s the r o l e of planners i n maintaining neighborhood s t a b i l i t y ? 9« What p o l i c i e s and/or programs can be i n i t i a t e d at the mu n i c i p a l l e v e l to maintain s t a b l e neighborhoods? 10. at the p r o v i n c i a l l e v e l ? 11. a t the f e d e r a l l e v e l ? Appendix B: Histogram of Favourable Attitudes Tov/ard the Neighborhood COUNT MIDPOINT ONE SYMBOL EQUALS APPROXIMATELY 1.50 OCCURRENCES 2 -2 .2 * 4 -1 .8 * * » 1 -1 .4 * 2 -1 .0 * 7 - .6 * * * * * 10 - .2 * * * * * * * 11 .2 * * * * * * * 10 .6 * * * * * * * 25 1 .0 * * * * * * * * 30 1 .4 * * * * * * * * 40 1 .8 * * * * * * * * 42 2 .2 * * * * * * * * 31 2 .6 * * * * * * * * 31 3 .0 * * * * * * * * 48 3 .4 * * * * * * * * 49 3 .8 * * * * * * * * 42 4 .2 * * * * * * * * 45 4 .6 * * * * * * * * 53 5 .0 * * * * * * * * 52 5 .4 * * * * * * * * 70 5 .8 * * * * * * * * I + I + I + ....I + + ....I 0 15 30 45 60 75 HISTOGRAM FREQUENCY VALID CASES 605 MISSING CASES 83 Appendix C: Scattergram of Favourable Att i t u d e s Toward Change with Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y f o r a l l four ALRT S t a t i o n Areas CHGATT -1 095 • .034 - . 7 5 4 • - 474 ACROSS .194 STABLE 086 .366 .646 .926 1 .206 1 4S6 • 1.095 89S + » } i . 8 9 5 I * 2 • j 2 2 « \ 2 I 695 + | * : . 6 9 5 ] • 2 4 2 5 I 2 • ] 2 * • \ 495 + i . 4 9 5 i 295 + 13 7 5 9 8 I 9 a 9 9 3 1 7 7 4 • i . 2 9 5 095 +3 6 6 7 2 1 4 ' —-e-_ _ ^ 7 7 S I S B 9 3 ** . 0 9 5 12 105 + 2 5 3 3 I 3 5 8 9 9 I 9 3 4 * j - . 103 305 + - . 3 0 5 I * 2 * 3 I 4 2 6 3 * i 3 * 2 3 * i 505 + j \ - . 5 0 5 j • » • 2 I 3 • • 4 3 S • \ 705 * 2 » 2 2 2 • i • \ - . 7 0 5 905 + - 1 . 1 7 4 894 614 - . 3 3 4 • - . 0 5 4 « .226 .506 .786 1.066 1 • 346 + 1.626 - . 9 0 5 462 plot t e d values Appendix C: Scattergram of Favourable Attitudes Toward the Neighborhood with Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y f o r a l l four ALRT S t a t i o n Areas DOWN: NBRATT S . 8 9 4 +2 5 . 0 7 4 4 . 2 5 4 3 . 4 3 4 2 . 6 1 4 1.794 . 154 - . S 6 6 - 1 . 4 8 6 ! . 3 0 5 • - 1 . 0 3 4 .754 .474 ACROSS: STABLE .194 .086 366 .646 .926 1.206 1.486 .894 - . 6 1 4 • .334 .054 .226 .506 594- p l o t t e d values 5 . 8 9 4 5 . 0 7 4 ' 4 . 2 5 4 3 . 4 3 4 1 .794 - . 6 6 6 - 1 . 4 8 6 * - 2 . 3 0 6 .786 1.066 1.346 1.626 Appendix C: Scattergram of Favourable Att i t u d e s Toward Change with Favourable Attitudes Toward the Neighborhood f o r a l l fou r S t a t i o n Areas DOWN: CHGATT 1 .095 • - 1 . 8 9 6 - 1 . 0 7 6 - . 2 5 6 ACROSS: NBRATT .564 1.384 2 . 2 0 4 3 . 0 2 4 3 . 0 4 4 4 . 6 6 4 5 . 4 8 4 • * * • . 9 0 5 * • 4 2 • 2 • 2 4 3 * 2 • 3 • 4 • 6 3 4 3 4 2 3 4 2 4 7 « 2 • 4 •> 2 2 2 • 2 • * * « - 2 - 4 - - 6 - 4 - - 2 - 2 - - « - 4 3 7 3 2 6 2 3 3 5 5 7 8 3 6 3 5 2 3 3 4 3 ' 4 J " - S - - - 3 - - 2 — 3 - 3 2 • * • * * j . * * • 2 « * 3 » • * » .+ + + + + + * + 1 + * t ^ + 1 + + + * + * - 2 . 3 0 6 - 1 . 4 8 6 - . 6 6 6 .154 .974 1.794 2 . 5 1 4 3 . 4 3 4 4 . 2 5 4 5 . 0 7 4 3 . 8 9 4 430 plo t t e d values Appendix C: Seattergram of Favourable Att i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood with Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y f o r the Broadway Sta t i o n Area S T A T I O N : i BROADWAY DOWN: NBRATT -i.044 3 . 8 9 4 5 . 0 7 4 4 . 2 5 4 3 . 4 3 4 2 . 6 1 4 1 .794 . 8 7 4 . 154 - 1 . 4 8 6 - 2 . 3 0 6 .784 - . 5 2 4 ACROSS: STABLE .264 - . 0 0 4 .236 .516 .776 1.036 1.296 - . 9 1 4 - . 6 5 4 .394 . 126 .386 .646 5 . 8 9 4 * - 2 . 3 0 6 .906 1.166 1.426 174 "plotted values. The means were derived from the q u a r t i l e s f o r the s t a t i o n areas combined as a u n i t . Appendix C: Scattergram of Favourable Attitudes Toward the Neighborhood with Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y f o r the Nanaimo S t a t i o n Area STATION: 2 NANAJMG DOWN: NBRATT ACROSS: STABLE - 1 . G 3 4 - . 7 3 4 - . 4 7 4 - . ( 9 4 .086 .366 .646 .926 1.206 1.486 5 . 8 9 4 S . 2 1 4 4 . S 3 4 3 . 8 5 4 3 . 174 1.814 .454 - . 9 0 6 + -1 . 174 - . 8 9 4 - . 6 1 4 - . 3 3 4 - . 0 5 4 .226 5 . 8 9 4 i 5 . 2 1 4 i > J',', 4 . 5 3 4 f • s 3 . 8 5 4 .226 .786 1 .066 1.346 1.626 146 p l o t t e d values. The means were derived from the q u a r t i l e s f o r the s t a t i o n areas combined as a u n i t . Appendix C: Scattergram of Favourable A t t i t u d e s Toward the Neighborhood with Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y f o r the 29th Avenue S t a t i o n Area S T A T I O N : 3 29 AVE DOWN: NBRATT ACROSS: STABLE - . 8 4 4 - . 3 8 4 - . 3 2 4 - . 0 6 4 .196 .456 .716 .976 i . 2 3 6 1.496 3 . 8 9 4 5 . 3 1 4 4 . 7 3 4 3 . 5 7 4 2 . 9 9 4 2 . 4 1 4 1.834 1.254 3 3 3 2 2 • 2 « 2 - . 7 1 4 - . 4 5 4 + 5 . 8 9 4 5 . 3 1 4 4 . 7 3 4 3 . 5 7 4 2 . 9 9 4 1 .834 .326 .846 1.106 1.366 1.626 16(5 pTotted'values. The means were derived from the q u a r t i l e s f o r the s t a t i o n areas combined as a u n i t . Appendix C: Scattergram of Favourable Attitudes Toward the Neighborhood "" with Neighborhood S t a b i l i t y f o r the Joyce S t a t i o n Area S T A T I O N : 4 DOWN: NBRAT 5 . 6 S 4 5 . 114 3 . 5 3 4 2 . T 7 4 . 4 3 4 - . 3 4 6 - 1 . 1 2 6 - 1 . 9 0 6 JOYCE - 1 . 0 3 4 - . 7 5 4 - . 4 7 4 ACROSS: STABLE .194 .086 .366 646 .926 1.206 1.486 + • 5 . 8 9 4 5 . 1 1 4 , 4 . 3 3 4 , 3 .554 2 . 7 7 4 1 .214 - 1 . 126 • - 1.906 174 - . 8 9 4 - . 6 1 4 - . 3 3 4 - . 0 5 4 .226 .306 .786 1.066 1.346 1.626 114 p l o t t e d values. The means were derived from the q u a r t i l e s f o r the s t a t i o n areas combined as a u n i t . 

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0096474/manifest

Comment

Related Items