UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

Attitudes of mobile home owners toward mobile home parks Contractor, Roda 1972

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

Notice for Google Chrome users:
If you are having trouble viewing or searching the PDF with Google Chrome, please download it here instead.

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1972_A8 C65_8.pdf [ 7.84MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0101612.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0101612-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0101612-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0101612-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0101612-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0101612-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0101612-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0101612-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0101612.ris

Full Text

ATTITUDES OF MOBILE HOME OWNERS TOYfARD MOBILE ' HOME PARKS by RODA CONTRACTOR BiA. , University of Toronto, 1970 A THESIS SUBMITTED I F PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF • MASTER OF ARTS im the School of Community and Regional Planning We accept t h i s thesis as conforming to the required standard THE UNIVERSITY: OF BRITISH COLUMBIA MAY; 1972;' .In: presenting this: thesis: im partial fulfilment o f the. requirements:- for an advanced degree at the University of British Columbia, I agree that the Library; shall make i t freely available for reference and study. X further agree that permission for extensive copying of this.? thesis: for scholarly purposes: may be granted by the Head of my Department or by; his - representatives. It i s understood that.copying or publication of this thesis for financial gain:shall not be allowed without my written: permission. School of Community and Regional Planning The University of British Columbia Vancouver 8, Canada Date April 28th, 1972 i i i ABSTRACT Planning is:concerned with understanding and rela-ting to the needs of various; segments- of the population. Thus i t is; imperative that planners; should comprehend the views of any group which f a l l s within their adminis-trative or regulatory jurisdiction; This; study has undertaken: to examine the attitudes; of mobile home owners: toward the park i n which their mobile home is; located. Responses to: a questionnaire by 281. residents; l i v i n g im a total of 31 parks were used as:, the primary, source of information; U t i l i z i n g multivariate analytical techniques-, the study investigated, f i r s * , the dimensions involved im mobile home l i v i n g and, second, the relationship between resident satisfaction; and physical and social character-i s t i c s of the mobile home, park.' Physical park charac-teristics:-that were examined included:: size and age of the mobile home parkj; services and f a c i l i t i e s ; within; the parkf size of lots;, location: of the parki,, Social characteristics of the park included resident perception! of: differences between conventional single family/neigh-borhoods, and mobile home parks; degree of friendliness of park dwellers as; compared to residents; of other types; of neighborhoods;:, constraints on social interaction: out-side the park because of distance from other residential neighborhoods; and/or community facilities;; constraints / on social interaction outside the park due to negative attitudes of nomrpark dwellers; In; additions, information concerning; attitudes toward rules and regulations as: well as the extent of resident interaction: within, the park" was; sought out, A number of conclusions emerged from: the study which; are considered to be useful to planners; in; making future decisions concerning mobile home parks. These conclu-sions indicated; the minimum size for development of a satisfactory park; those park features that account . significantly for resident satisfaction; the role of the municipality i n the development of mobile home parks; the appropriate location for mobile home parks; Finally, a number of questions were raised that were considered to require further research. TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION-I GENERAL INTRODUCTION: Page Chapter 1 I n t r o d u c t i o n . 1 Chapter 2 Overview:; Mobile Home Parks; Manufacturing; S o c i a l Aspects..... 5 SECTION I I HYPOTHESIS: SURVEY' Chapter 3 Hypothesis 22 Chapter 4 Methodology........ 30 SECTION I I I ANALYSIS Chapter 5 Sample P o p u l a t i o n : Socio-Ecohomic P r o f i l e ; ; Length o f Residency.. 38 Chapter 6 Km Examination' o f the Dimensions o f Mobile Home Park L i v i n g . 64 Chapter 7; Ah: Examination: o f the R e l a t i o n s h i p Between: Respondent A t t i t u d e s and P h y s i c a l and S o c i a l C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s = of Mobile Home Parks. 92 C h a p t e r s The Residents Speak..... ...109 SECTION IV CONCLUSION Chapter 9 P l a n n i n g I m p l i c a t i o n s ; . . . . . 130 BIBLIOGRAPHY 146 APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE 157 v i LIST OF TABLES Table Page . I Twelve American States w i t h L a r g e s t Number o f Mobile Home- Parks; i n : 1 9 6 8 . . 6 I I Number o f Mobile Home Parks: and Mobile* Homes: im Canada - 1968 8 H I : Mobile Home Pr o d u c t i o n i m the U n i t e d States: and Canada............... 9 IV Sampling Procedure f o r Mobile Home Parks: i n . the Lower Mainland and Vancouver I s l a n d January/1972..... 35 V, Annual Family Income 40, 41 VI S i z e o f Household 43 V I I Age o f Respondents* 45, 46 V I I I Age Distribution:! o f C h i l d r e n . . 48* 49, 50 IX Occupation: o f the Maim Breadwinner....... 54, 55 X Edu c a t i o n a l Background o f Respondent..... 57, 58 XI Length o f Time in: P r e s e n t Park........... 60 X I I T o t a l Number of Parks L i v e d I n . 61 X I I I Highest Loading V a r i a b l e s on: 24 Factors.. 70 v i i Table Page XIV Tne' Independent -Dimensions:: A t t i t u d e - D e t e r m i n i n g V a r i a b l e s 95 XV Loadings o f A t t i t u d i n a l V a r i a b l e s on 2 Factors. 98 C o r r e l a t i o n s Between O r i g i n a l V a r i a b l e s " and Derived Canonical V a r i a t e s 99 XVII Frequency o f Mention by Subject Cate-gories; o f 187 Responses to. the Ques-t i o n : ; "Are there any f u r t h e r comments; you? wish to make concerning p h y s i c a l con-d i t i o n s , r e g u l a t i o n s , and/or s o c i a l l i f e w i t h i n ; youi* mobile home park o r parks' i n general?". I l l XV I I I General Subject Categories and Frequency o f Mention; by 187 Respondents; to the Question: "Are there any f u r t h e r com-ments you wish to make concerning phy-s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , r e g u l a t i o n s , and/or s o c i a l l i f e w ithin.your mobile home park or parks; i n : general?". 112~ v i i i LIST OP FIGURES Figure page. 1 Factor Scores o f 281 Respondents on. Factor I and Factor V...... . 84 2 281 Factor Scores om Factors; IX and X I I . 87 3 • . . 281 Factor Scores on: Factors; I I and XXI.,^ 89 . , CHART Chart • " Page 1 S i z e o f Mobile • Home Parks: i n the Province I I -i x ACKNOWLEDGEMENT. Sincere a p p r e c i a t i o n ! and g r a t i t u d e are extended to Dr. N.d. Cherukupalle f o r her v i t a l contribution;.and p a r t i c i p a t i o n ; , i n a very worthwhile l e a r n i n g experience. . The i n t e r e s t and h e l p f u l suggestions o f P r o f e s s o r B. Wiesmam have a l s o been much appreciated. For her i n t r o -duction! to an unknown f i e l d , , I am indebted to Miss Jean. C. Downing o f the Ontario Department o f Mu n i c i p a l A f f a i r s . F i n a l l y , I wish to g r a t e f u l l y , but inadequately, acknowledge the c o n t i n u i n g i n t e r e s t , a s s i s t a n c e and support o f my parents; throughout t h i s ; study. ATTITUDES OF MOBILE HOME OWNERS TOWARD MOBILE HOME PARKS SECTION' i : GENERAL INTRODUCTION: CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION More than any other type o f housing, mobile homes have, over the years, developed such a c l e a r stereotype i n the p u b l i c 1 s mind, t h a t any study i n v e s t i g a t i n g them must make some acknowledgement o f t h i s f a c t . This s t e r e o -type has l a r g e l y been negative, concerned with the sup-posedly t r a n s i t o r y nature o f the occupants, the slum-l i k e appearance mobile homes presumably create wherever they l o c a t e , the consequent d e p r e c i a t i o n of l a n d values surrounding the area, and the f a i l u r e o f occupants to bear t h e i r f a i r share o f municipal taxes f o r s e r v i c e s provided. The purpose o f t h i s paper i s not to delve i n t o the accuracy o f these stereotypes. I t must be s t a t e d , however, that these stereotypes are both the reason and the impetus f o r t h i s study. Thus, i t i s because o f what i s considered to be the u n s a t i s f a c t o r y nature o f past assumptions con-cerning mobile home parks that t h i s study i s being under-taken. P r i m a r i l y , the i n v e s t i g a t i o n i s concerned with the a t t i t u d e s and opinions o f mobile home owners toward the park i n which they r e s i d e . Such a statement i s based on the premise that mobile home park l i v i n g i s indeed d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n other types of housing neighbor-hoods. Moreover, i t i s f e l t t h a t mobile home park l i v i n g i s something more than the circumstance o f people l i v i n g i n mobile home u n i t s ; t h a t park l i v i n g i s a s p e c i a l e n t i t y that must be i n v e s t i g a t e d d i r e c t l y ; the i n d i v i d u a l mobile home u n i t must take a secondary r o l e f o r purposes of the study. In the past, the two main sources of i n f o r m a t i o n concerning mobile home l i v i n g have been, f i r s t l y , the manufacturers and t h e i r a n c i l l a r y o r g a n i z a t i o n s such as the American Mobile Home Manufacturers A s s o c i a t i o n and, secondly, governmental agencies at a l l l e v e l s , m u n i c i p a l , p r o v i n c i a l , n a t i o n a l . Some independent r e -search has been conducted, mostly by u n i v e r s i t i e s . The main concern o f a l l these s t u d i e s has focused on four aspects: demographic data concerning mobile home owners; f i n a n c i a l data concerning the purchasing of the mobile home; o p i n i o n surveys i n v e s t i g a t i n g s a t i s -f a c t i o n w i t h the mobile home u n i t ; t r a d i t i o n a l p lanning matters such as health standards and zoning regulations?. At present, increasing research i s being conducted into the taxation.problems surrounding mobile homes (i.e. whether to tax them as personal property or real estate). This study does not attempt to examine a l l thes« aspects of mobile home l i v i n g . The general introduction covers two aspects: of mobile home l i v i n g for which im-formation, is: required to lay the basis for the subse-quent investigation; these are the social aspects of park l i v i n g and the geographical dispersion of mobile home parks in: Forth America. The bibliography has: been arranged so that various: reports:, studies?-, articles and books have been grouped according to the particular aspect of mobile home l i v i n g being investigated. Cer-tain' books: may be considered basic texts i n that they are well-knowna for their comprehensive treatment of the 1 whole subject-matter. Other reports, are concerned 2 primarily with local park situations', while others: concentrate om national survey techniques, to gather 3 s t a t i s t i c a l data. Taxation and finance issues: form 4 another specialized area of concern, ) while works: dealing with park design and standards, probably best 5 f i t within the traditional planning frame of reference. FOOTNOTES 4 1. See e s p e c i a l l y E.R. Bartley,£iF.H. B a i r , Mobile Home  Parks and Comprehensive Community Planning,' I960. S e c t i o n A o f the B i b l i o g r a p h y . 2. See Sections B, C, and E o f the B i b l i o g r a p h y . 3. This data w i l l be used i n Chapter 5 which i s con-cerned w i t h personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f mobile home park dwellers:. See Section. D o f the B i b l i o -graphy. 4. See S e c t i o n H o f the B i b l i o g r a p h y . 5. See S e c t i o n G o f the B i b l i o g r a p h y . fef. CHAPTER 2 OVERVIEW: MOBILE HOME PARKS; MANUFACTURING; SOCIAL ASPECTS Mobile Home Parks. Manufacturing The major source o f i n f o r m a t i o n on the geographi-c a l d i s t r i b u t i o n o f mobile home parks i n North America i s an American p u b l i s h i n g house, Woodall, which a n n u a l l y p u b l i s h e s the names o f mobile home parks i n North Amer-i c a as w e l l as r a t i n g each i n terms o f p h y s i c a l q u a l i t y . I n 1968, Woodall estimated t h a t there were 22,000 mobile 1 home parks i n the United States. The major geographical d i s t r i b u t i o n as i n d i c a t e d i n Table I: shows t h a t American s t a t e s w i t h the l a r g e s t number o f mobile home parks and the l a r g e s t number o f homesites are F l o r i d a and C a l i f o r n i a . This r e f l e c t s the general p o p u l a r i t y o f mobile home l i v i n g i n the more temperate c l i m a t e s o f the ; United States and, i n d i r e c t l y , i t s presence i n areas w i t h a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e number o f r e t i r e d persons. I t should be noted t h a t Woodall estimates t h a t n e a r l y 1,000 mobile home parks go out o f business every year: "Some o f those disappearing are too small to be economical, others, o r i g i n a l l y b u i l t on the o u t s k i r t s o f urban areas, now occupy choice r e a l estate s i t e s and 6 • TABLE I: TWELVE AMERICAN STATES WITH LARGEST NUMBER OF MOBILE HQME PARKS IN' 1968 Number o f Number^of State Paries; Home S i f e s F l o r i d a 1,271 165,023 C a l i f o r n i a 2,058 160,107 Ar i z o n a 475 40,304 Michigan 402 39,496 Ohio: 498 36,318 I l l i n o i s ; 386 33,740 New York 445 24,037 Washington! 487 23,334 Indiana 337 21,220 Texas 374 20,675 Pennsylvania. 437 . 19,460 Oregon- 395 17,577 Souxce: Woodall P u b l i s h i n g Company, Mobile Home S i t e s  Show Sharp Increase i n 1968, Highland Park, I l l i n o i s , 1968, p. 3. ~ 7 are being purchased f o r other developments. I n a d d i t i o n , t e c h n i c a l trends i n the mobile home b u i l d i n g industry-have made many o l d e r parks obsolete. Most o l d e r parks, even though they may have f u l l p l a n t i n g s and f u l l u t i l i t y developments, were b u i l t f o r e i g h t - f o o t wide mobile homes^ and very few o f these are manufactured today. The i n -c r e a s i n g trend toward twelve-foot wide mobile homes and another trend toward double-wides (twenty-four-foot wide) has made i t impossible f o r many o l d e r parks to house the newer mobile homes." 2 An accurate o v e r a l l p i c t u r e o f mobile home parks i n Canada i s much more d i f f i c u l t to o b t a i n because o f the l a c k o f comprehensive surveys. A study conducted by the Canadian Mobile Home and Travel T r a i l e r A s s o c i a t i o n (CMHTTA) i n 1968 can only be considered accurate i n terms o f 3 minimum f i g u r e s s i n c e i t was not a comprehensive survey. Table I I i n d i c a t e s t h i s e s t i m a t e i o f mobile home parks i n Canada as w e l l as the estimated number of mobile homes^. ( I t w i l l be seen s h o r t l y t h a t the estimates f o r B r i t i s h Columbia, a t l e a s t , are much too low.) Correspondence w i t h t h i s w r i t e r from the Executive Secretary o f the CMHTTA i n February, 1972, s t a t e d t h a t i t was now estimated t h a t 4 there are 125,000 mobile homes i n Canada. In Canada, there are twenty companies manufacturing mobile homes, two o f which are s u b s i d i a r i e s o f l e a d i n g 5 mobile home manufacturers i n the United States. The main c o n c e n t r a t i o n o f manufacturing i s i n southern A l b e r t a . Table I I I i n d i c a t e s the c o n t i n u i n g s t r e n g t h o f the 8 TABLE II NUMBER OF MOBILE HOME PARKS AND MOBILE HOMES IF CANADA - 1968 No. o f No. -of; No. of Mobile Home ss Mobile Home S3 Province Parks: im Parks: Not in Parks.: Total Newfoundland 8- 538 700 1,238 Prince Edward I Si 7 357 . 250 607 Fova Scotia 47 1,599 1 ,600 3,199 Few Brunswick 31 1,511 2 ,789 4,300 Quebec:; 60 2, ..500 "4 ,500 7,000 Ontario 81 3,676 8 ,324 12;000 Manitoba 20 1,041 3 ,959 5,000 Saskatchewam 132 3,000 1 ,700 4,700 Alberta 105 3,789 4 ,450 8,;239 Briti s h Columbia 230 3,,950 4 ,200 8,150 721 21,961 ' 32 ,472 . 54,433 Source; Canadian Mobile Home and Travel Trailer Association, Brief to the Federal Task Force oni Housing and Urban: Development, December, 1968, p. 10. 9 TABLE I I I MOBILE HOME. PRODUCTION"" IF" THE UNITED STATES AND CANADA 1 |2 T o t a l U n i t s; 2 Year. United States; Canada Sold i n ; Canada 1963 150,840 1,562 3,075 1964 191,320 • 2,152 4,112 1965 216,470 3,093 4,877 1966; 217,350 3,215 4,688 1967 240 ,.360 5,179 ' 7,463 1968 317,950 7,068 10,103 1969 400,000 (approx.) 12,000 (es t . ) 15,000 (est.) Sources:- 1. S t a t i s t i c a l A b s t r a c t o f the United States.y 1969, p. 698, as s t a t e d i m B r i t i s h Columbia Depart-ment of I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade and Commerce, Mobile Homes i n B r i t i s h Columbia,. 1971, p. 11.' 2. Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, Canada, The Mobile Home in.Canada, 1970, p. 13. 10 . mobile home i n d u s t r y i n terms o f the number o f u n i t s pro-duced both i n Canada and the United States as w e l l as the number o f u n i t s s o l d i n Canada, from 1963 to 1969. . A 1971 study by the B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade, and Commerce i n d i c a t e d t h a t there were 502 mobile home parks i n B r i t i s h Columbia 6 wi t h some 12,206 home s i t e s . "They are widely dispersed over the whole province w i t h concentrations appearing i n the East Kootenays, the Okanagan, the Northern I n t e r i o r and 7 the lower Mainland." U n l i k e the United S t a t e s where the average park s i z e c o n s i s t e d o f 70 mobile home s i t e s per park i n 1968, the B.C. survey i n d i c a t e d an average o f 21 homes i n each park, w i t h an average park p o p u l a t i o n o f 58 people. Chart 1 i n d i c a t e s the general d i s t r i b u t i o n o f mobile home parks by s i z e , i n a c r e s , i n the Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia. The m a j o r i t y of parks i n B.C. have been i n o p e r a t i o n f o r f i v e years o r l e s s (54$), although i t should be noted t h a t 30$ have been i n o p e r a t i o n f o r 10 years or more. I n B r i t i s h Columbia, there are 6 manufacturers o f C H A R T 1 Source: B r i t i s h Columbia Department o f I n d u s t r i a l - Develop-ment, Trade, and Commerce, Mobile Homes i n B r i t i s h Columbia, V i c t o r i a , March 197l, p. 13. ~~ 12 o f mobile homes. I n 1970 an estimated 1,208 mobile homes were manufactured i n B.C. I n 1969, 2,870 mobile homes were s o l d i n B r i t i s h Columbia w i t h some 3,434 marketed i n 1970. These two years are presented i n order to give some i n d i c a t i o n o f the c o n t i n u i n g growth and s t r e n g t h o f the mobile home market i n B.C. S o c i a l Aspects Very few s t u d i e s have been conducted concerning the s o c i a l aspects o f park l i v i n g . " S o c i a l " i n t h i s context i n c l u d e s , i n d i r e c t l y and d i r e c t l y , both p h y s i c a l a t t r i -butes and s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s o f the park. One o f the most i n s i g h t f u l examinations was conducted i n the 8 e a r l y 1950's i n a F l o r i d a mobile home park by G.C. Hoyt. The focus o f Hoyt 1s study was not the mobile home park per se but the l i f e o f r e t i r e d i n a t r a i l e r community e x c l u s i v e l y f o r r e t i r e d persons. As he s t a t e s : "For the most part our i n t e r e s t i n t h i s community stems more f rom from the f a c t t h a t at l e a s t p a r t i a l retirement i s a con-d i t i o n o f residence than from the i n c i d e n t a l f a c t t h a t i t 9 i s a t r a i l e r park." However, h i s study i n d i c a t e s t h a t there i s something p e c u l i a r t o mobile home l i v i n g t h a t would not be present 13 i n . s i m p l y any r e t i r e d community. "To most r e s i d e n t s , " Hoyt s t a t e s , " l i v i n g i n F l o r i d a " , " l i v i n g i n a t r a i l e r " , and " l i v i n g i n t h i s community" are .so c l o s e l y a s s o c i a t e d 10 t h a t d i s t i n c t i o n s are d i f f i c u l t to make." - Hoyt points; out that the p o t e n t i a l m o b i l i t y o f the mobile home i s seldom a c t u a l l y u t i l i z e d by the occupants o f these homes, and thus suggests t h a t other types o f housing communities may be j u s t as e f f e c t i v e . However, he negates t h i s l a t t e r statement to an extent i n s t a t i n g t h a t "the p o t e n t i a l m o b i l i t y o f the t r a i l e r home provides a sense o f freedom, important to many persons, which cannot be provided i n the cottage community." Hoyt found that t h a t p a r t o f park l i v i n g w i t h most appeal to the 186 male respondents i n the park was " s o c i a -b i l i t y and a s s o c i a t i o n " (55$), with park a c t i v i t i e s as the second most appealing aspect (15$). I n terms o f the c h i e f advantages o f mobile home l i v i n g t h i s same group f e l t t h a t s o c i a b i l i t y and a c t i v i t i e s was the most important f a c t o r (52$), w i t h economy (25$) being the second most important f a c t o r . Hoyt f e l t t h a t there were s e v e r a l reasons f o r the h i g h l e v e l o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the park. One o f the most obvious reasons was t h a t , being a retirement 14 community, " a l l r e s i d e n t s are g r e a t l y i n t e r e s t e d i n r e -c r e a t i o n and l e i s u r e p u r s u i t s , (so that) these a c t i v i t i e s tend to "be more h i g h l y sanctioned than, would be l i k e l y . to be the case i n a community i n which the predominant 12 i n t e r e s t s centered around economic a c t i v i t y . " However, Hoyt a l s o s t a t e s t h a t " i n a 'favorable c l i m a t e e s p e c i a l l y , the l i m i t e d s i z e o f the d w e l l i n g u n i t may l e a d to increa s e d time being spent out o f doors, and t h i s f a c t , when taken i n con j u n c t i o n w i t h the elose phy-s i c a l p r o x i m i t y o f the d w e l l i n g u n i t s and the use o f cen-t r a l laundry and l a v a t o r y f a c i l i t i e s , gives r i s e to i n -creased s o c i a l contact and, i n time, to i n f o r m a l a s s o c i -13 a t i o n s o f a more i n t i m a t e nature." Such a statement i s very r e l e v a n t f o r any study concerned w i t h park l i v i n g and w i l l be examined as part o f the study conducted i n the Vancouver Region. Although, on the one hand, mobile home park l i v i n g can be considered unique i n many o f i t s f e a t u r e s , on the other hand, i t s t i l l r e t a i n s t i e s to t r a d i t i o n a l concepts concerned w i t h neighborhoods i n general. Indeed i t solves very n e a t l y one conceptual problem u s u a l l y a s s o c i a t e d w i t h neighborhoods, namely, the d e f i n i t i o n of boundaries. Rarely can-there be doubt as to where a mobile home park 15 begins and where i t ends. Within a developed area, i t i s w e l l demarcated e i t h e r by a t r e e d b u f f e r , fences, e x t e r n a l roads, or n o n - s i m i l a r adjacent l a n d uses such as i n d u s t r y or commerce. I n the r u r a l s e t t i n g , the mobile home park i s c l e a r l y defined by the absence o f any other grouping o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s i n i t s immediate environs. Two concepts concerned w i t h the s o c i a l aspects o f neighborhoods are o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t to t h i s study.. The f i r s t concerns the r e l a t i o n s h i p between homogeneity o f populations and the degree o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n ; ; the second i n v e s t i g a t e s the r o l e o f distance or p r o p i n q u i t y on the development o f personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I t has been s t a t e d t h a t where homogeneity i s not present, a neighborhood does not e x i s t ? that the one . .14 i s i n d i s p e n s a b l e f o r the l i f e o f the other. The ques-t i o n o f homogeneity has f o r a l o n g time presented many problems f o r the planner i n terms o f the extent t o which i t creates a more favourable environment and thus to be encouraged. On the one hand, i t i s argued t h a t people wi t h s i m i l a r backgrounds and i n t e r e s t s are more l i k e l y to develop s i g n i f i c a n t personal r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; on the other hand, i t i s s t a t e d that such a p o i n t o f view l e ^ d s to. ' ' 16; • d i s c r i m i n a t o r y p r a c t i c e s ; towards m i n o r i t y groups; (e.g; r a c i a l , c u l t u r a l , low-income) which c l e a r l y manifests i t s e l f , f o r example, i n . r e s t r i c t i v e covenants. Mobile home park dw e l l e r s g e n e r a l l y -display a s i g n i -f i c a n t degree o f homogeneity v i s r - a - v i s ; e d u c a t i o n a l , back-ground, income, and types., of occupation. They al s o tend to be c l u s t e r e d w i t h i n : certain'! age groups. This homo-geneity, o f the population;must be considered i m examining; a l l aspects of the s o c i a l l i f e o f mobile home parks. This; study does not d i r e c t l y attempt to measure the degree to which homogeneity p l a y s a part i n . r e s i d e n t s ' a t t i t u d e s ; , i t does attempt to discover whether the mobile home park i s ; considered s u f f i c i e n t as a u n i t f o r s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n s I t i s w e l l worth; bearing i m mind Hoyt's o b s e r v a t i o n that "perhaps;the important t h i n g i s ; t hat there are no sharp f e e l i n g s o f s t a t u s - the r e s i d e n t s are l i k e l y to a s s e r t • 15 that there are no status; d i f f e r e n c e s . " The u n i f o r m i t y o f p h y s i c a l appearance o f the d w e l l i n g u n i t s may f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e the f e e l i n g o f s o c i a l homo-geneity w i t h i n ; a park. I t may be worthwhile to i n v e s t i -gate, i n ; the coming years, the e f f e c t o f the presence o f double-wide mobile home u n i t s ; w i t h i n ; a park on s t a t u s d i f -f e r e n t i a t i o n s , between: these owners and those o f the t r a d i t i o n a l single-wides. Distance between neighbors or p r o p i n q u i t y a l s o has been considered an important i n g r e d i e n t i n s u c c e s s f u l group formation. At one end i s . the p h y s i c a l determinism poin t of view which s t a t e s t h a t the planner or a r c h i t e c t can decide the p a t t e r n o f s o c i a l l i f e among people by the manner i n which roads and l o t s are l a i d out, i . e . by the o v e r a l l s i t e p l a n . Obviously, t h i s designates a very l a r g e and s i g n i f i c a n r o l e to the p r o f e s s i o n a l planner and a r c h i t e c t . ( I t i s h a r d l y s u r p r i s i n g t h a t t h i s view i s g e n e r a l l y propounded by a r c h i t e c t s and p h y s i c a l planners.). A more moderate poin t o f view i s s t a t e d by Herbert G-ans: "Although p r o p i n q u i t y i n i t i a t e s many s o c i a l r e l a t i o n -s h i p s and maintains l e s s i n t e n s i v e ones, such as "being neighborly", i t i s not s u f f i c i e n t by i t s e l f to create i n t e n s i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p s . F r i e n d s h i p r e q u i r e s homogeneity." 16 P r o p i n q u i t y i s o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t f o r purposes o f t h i s study because of the h i g h d e n s i t y d i s p l a y e d w i t h i n a l a r g e number o f mobile home parks. "The opportunity f o r v i s u a l and s o c i a l contact i s greater a t h i g h d e n s i t i e s than at low ones, but only i f neighbors are adjacent 17 horizontally.» As i n the case o f homogeneity, t h i s study does not d i r e c t l y attempt to seek out the r o l e o f p r o p i n q u i t y . I t does, however, attempt to e s t a b l i s h 18 whether d i s t a n c e between -neighbors i s considered s u f f i c i e n t by r e s i d e n t s , as w e l l as whether such d i s t a n c e , s u f f i c i e n t or not, r e s u l t s i m incre a s e d communlcation; Studies o f mobile home dwellers' previous experiences! w i t h housing; (and thus, a pro s p e c t i v e i n d i c a t i o n , o f t h e i r a t t i t u d e to t h e i r present dwelling) are very few. Wo such study e x i s t s , i m Canada*, however, a recent p u b l i c a t i o n o f the Owen/Corning P i b e r g l a s Company does provide am • 18 in d i c a t i o n 1 , o f the American s i t u a t i o n . Park d w e l l e r s were surveyed throughout the United S t a t e s ; I t was found t h a t 44$ o f the respondents had l i v e d ini a s i n g l e f a m i l y house before moving i n t o t h e i r present mobile home, t h a t 30$ had l i v e d i n an apartment and th a t 21$ had l i v e d i m another mobile home. Asked what types?of housing they had considered before buying a mobile home,. 39$ r e p l i e d a s i n g l e f a m i l y house, 39$ an apartment, and 2$ a towm-house This examination, o f the s o c i a l aspects; o f park l i v i n g has been, considered necessary; groundwork f o r the formu-la t i o n ; , of a hypothesis concerning s o c i a l l i f e w i t h i m the park. Thus, i t may be assumed th a t the mobile home park •• i s ; a neighborhood, u n i t and that i t s ; s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ; cam be i n v e s t i g a t e d w i t h i n ; the framework o f t r a d i t i o n a l 19 neighborhood theory. Indeed, Hoyt* si a n a l y s i s : i n d i c a t e s ; t h a t , f o r purposes of s o c i o l o g i c a l analysis:, the mobile .home park has i m p l i c i t l y beeni t r e a t e d as a neighborhood, 1 F i n a l l y , a b r i e f d e s c r i p t i o n : of past housing experiences^ and housing preferences o f park dwellers has; been i n c l u d e d i n . order t h a t these may serve as a backdrop to. attitudes., to ward mo b i l e home l i v i n g . . 20 FOOTNOTES' 1 . Woodall P u b l i s h i n g Company, "Mobile Home S i t e s Show Sharp Increase i n 1968", n e w s l e t t e r , 1968. 2 . Ibid.« p. 3 . 3 . Canadian Mobile Home and Travel T r a i l e r A s s o c i a t i o n , B r i e f Submitted To The Federal Task Force On Housing  And Urban Development, Toronto. 1968. 4. Frank Young, Executive Sec r e t a r y , CMHTTAf l e t t e r to the w r i t e r , February 2 1 , 1 9 7 2 . 5 . Department o f Indu s t r y , Trade and Commerce, The Mobile Home i n Canada, M a t e r i a l s Branch, Ottawa, 1970, p. 2 0 . 6 . B r i t i s h Columbia, Department o f I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade, and Commerce, Mobile Homes I n B r i t i s h Columbia, 1971, p. 8. 7 . I b i d . , p. 1 1 . 8. Hoyt, G.C., "The L i f e o f the R e t i r e d i n a T r a i l e r Park", American J o u r n a l o f Sociology, V o l . 5 9 , July-May 1 9 5 3 , pp. 361-370. 9 . I b i d . , p. 3 6 9 . 1 0 . I b i d . . p. 368 1 1 . I b i d . , p. 3 7 0 . 1 2 . I b i d . , p. 3 6 9 . 21 13. I b i d . , p. 369. I t should be noted t h a t c e r t a i n ob-s e r v a t i o n s are obsolete since a l l mobile homes now co n t a i n t h e i r own l a v a t o r y f a c i l i t i e s and many, t h e i r own laundry f a c i l i t i e s . 14. Caplow, T., Forman, R., "Neighborhood I n t e r a c t i o n i n a Homogeneous Community/, American S o c i o l o g i c a l iReview, V o l . 15, No. 3,'.-June 1950, pp. 357-66."" 15. Hoyt, E.C., op. c i t . , p. 370. 16. Gans, H.J., "Planning and S o c i a l l i f e " , J o u r n a l o f  the American I n s t i t u t e o f Planners, V o l . 277 No. 2, May 1961, p. 135. 17. I b i d . 18. Owens/Corning F i b e r g l a s , Focus On The Mobile Home Market, 1971. SECTION I I v HYPOTHESIS:; SURVEY 22 CHAPTER 3 HYPOTHESIS Very l i t t l e r e s e a r c h has been undertaken o f the mobile home park, as seen through the eyes o f the r e s i -dent. This i s probably due to two reasons: f i r s t , most o f the p u b l i c i t y concerning mobile homes emanate from the manufacturers who are more i n t e r e s t e d i n s e l l i n g an i n d i v i d u a l u n i t than i n i t s u l t i m a t e d e s t i n a t i o n ; second, the mobile home park may not appear to'be any-t h i n g more than a group o f mobile homes c l u s t e r e d together i n r e l a t i v e l y c l o s e p r o x i m i t y . Indeed we define a mobile home park f o r purposes o f t h i s study simply as: "any p l o t of ground upon which spaces are l e a s e d or rented 'for two or more independent mobile homes occupied and used as 1 d w e l l i n g s . " As opposed to t r a i l e r s t h a t are only used s e a s o n a l l y , i t i s considered here that mobile homes i n 2 a park are occupied, in.most cases, on a year-round b a s i s . I n i t i a l i n p u t f o r the f o r m u l a t i o n o f a hypothesis took place i n the summer of.1971 when the w r i t e r v i s i t e d over t h i r t y mobile home parks i n the Province o f Ontario. Outstanding features t h a t were observed, and c l e a r l y r e q u i r e d f u r t h e r i n v e s t i g a t i o n were: the r o l e o f management 23 and the lan d l o r d - t e n a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p ; s e r v i c e s and f a c i l -i t i e s w i t h i n the park; appearance o f the park; l o c a t i o n o f the park w i t h i n the community; the degree o f s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the park. The f o l l o w i n g hypothesis was subsequently formulated: V a r y i n g a t t i t u d e s o f mobile home r e s i d e n t s toward t h e i r park i s a f u n c t i o n of the 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 o f the park i n which the mobile home i s l o c a t e d . I n measuring a t t i t u d e s o f the mobile home park dwel-l e r s , we are, i n the main, attempting to measure l e v e l s o f s a t i s f a c t i o n . S a t i s f a c t i o n i n t h i s context i s considered to be whatever the respondent perceives i t to be i n h i s own h i e r a r c h y of values and expectations^. " I f the para-meters and v a r i a b l e s i n the model are allowed to represent expected values o f a normally d i s t r i b u t e d p o p u l a t i o n , then the model can be u s e f u l as a d e s c r i p t i o n o f the most pro-3 bable preference response." H o p e f u l l y , one expects to see a trend develop which r e v e a l s a c o n s i s t e n t standard. This standard would be comprised o f va r i o u s s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s o f the park a l i g n e d i n such a manner tha t movement towards t h i s standard i n d i c a t e s i n c r e a s i n g s a t i s f a c t i o n and movement away i n d i c a t e s i n c r e a s i n g d i s -s a t i s f a c t i o n . Measurement o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l be considered both d i r e c t l y and i n d i r e c t l y . D i r e c t l y , respondents w i l l be asked about t h e i r degree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h p h y s i c a l aspects such as: park d e n s i t y ; physical.appearance o f the park; l o c a t i o n o f the park; a t t i t u d e toward overnight t r a i l e r s ; preference as to type of housing i f no c o n s t r a i n t s were present. I n d i r e c t l y , measurement o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h s o c i a l aspects o f park l i v i n g w i l l be: degree o f s o c i a l i n t e r -a c t i o n ; s u f f i c i e n c y o f the park as a s o c i a l u n i t ; extent o f agreement w i t h present r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s ; degree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the park management. This study d i f f e r s from Robert Zehner's recent a n a l y s i s o f neighborhood s a t i s f a c t i o n i n one s i g n i f i c a n t 4 respect. Zehner e s t a b l i s h e s a s i n g l e o v e r a l l neighbor-hood s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e by aski n g respondents to r a t e t h e i r neighborhood on three f i v e - p o i n t a t t i t u d e items ( a t t r a c t i v e - u n a t t r a c t i v e , pleasant-unpleasant, very good place to l i v e - v e r y poor place to l i v e ) and one item f o r which responses could range from "agree s t r o n g l y " to "disagree s t r o n g l y " : "When I go ou t s i d e and l o o k around me a t the s t r e e t and the neighbors' home I l i k e what I 5 see." Having e s t a b l i s h e d t h i s s i n g l e s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e , 25 Z'ehner questions r e s i d e n t s on twent y , p l a u s i b l e sources o f neighborhood s a t i s f a c t i o n . This present study, however, i n i t i a l l y attempts to determine s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l s on a more' disaggregated l e v e l . Thus s a t i s f a c t i o n here i s measured i n three p r i -mary areas: i n t e r n a l p h y s i c a l park features?; p h y s i c a l f a c t o r s e x t e r n a l to the park; i n t e r n a l and e x t e r n a l s o c i a l f a c t o r s r e l a t i n g to the park. I t i s ' - f e l t t h a t such a disaggregated approach leads to more meaningful a n a l y s i s and i s a more h e l p f u l a i d to the planning o f mobile home parks f o r both the developer and the muni c i p a l planner. However, as p r e v i o u s l y s t a t e d , i t i s hoped that a c o n s i s -t e n t standard o f s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s w i l l emerge t h a t , combined, would a l l o w f o r a s i n g l e s a t i s -f a c t i o n , s c a l e . " P h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s " o f the park, both e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l , t h a t are considered to a f f e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l s are* a) s i z e o f the mobile home park; b) age o f the mobile home park; c) s i z e o f l o t s i n r e l a t i o n to s i z e of the mobile home; d) presence of overnight t r a i l e r s ; e) s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n the park; 26 f ) l o c a t i o n o f the park; g) r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the park to other types o f housing neighborhoods!, " S o c i a l a t t r i b u t e s " o f the park that are considered to a f f e c t s a t i s f a c t i o n l e v e l s are: a) p e r c e p t i o n o f d i f f e r e n c e s between conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y neighborhoods and mobile home parks; b) p e r c e p t i o n o f the degree o f ' f r i e n d l i n e s s ' o f mobile home park dwellers as compared to r e s i d e n t s o f other types of housing neighborhoods; c) c o n s t r a i n t s on s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o utside the park because o f distance from r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods and/or community f a c i l i t i e s ; d) p e r c e p t i o n o f a t t i t u d e s o f those i n the outside com-munity toward mobile home park d w e l l e r s ; e) a t t i t u d e toward r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h i n the park. In order to determine the p r e d i s p o s i t i o n o f respon-dents toward the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s ' o f the park, the s i g n i f i c a n c e o f v a r i o u s f a c t o r s i n i n i t i a l s e l e c t i o n o f the p a r t i c u l a r park w i l l be sought out as w e l l as the reasons f o r l i v i n g i n a mobile home. Zehner, i n h i s study, i n v e s t i g a t e d the reasons f o r a community or nieghborhood's appeal to a r e s i d e n t p r i o r to moving to i t on the premise that "given these a f f l u e n t , well-educated r e s i d e n t s who presumably could have a f f o r d e d to l i v e i m a number o f communities, i t dis o f i n t e r e s t to 27 know what a t t r c t e d them to the community environment 6 they a c t u a l l y chose." However the approach o f t h i s study i s one step backward and one step f©reward o f Zehner''s approach. F i r s t , we make no assumption.concern-i n g the degree of choice a v a i l a b l e but w i l l ask r e s p o n T dents t h e i r housing: preference as: w e l l as the number o f parks v i s i t e d # i n i t i a l l y . Secondj our i n t e r e s t i n examin-i n g p r i o r appeal o f a park l i e s i n the b e l i e f that both p o s i t i v e and negative f a c t o r s may be i n v o l v e d i n park s e l e c t i o n which, i n t u r n , c ould a f f e c t the respondent 1 s a t t i t u d e toward .the park once he/she has moved i n . Thus, f a c t o r s to be examined i n park s e l e c t i o n are: a b c d e f g h l a c k o f other space a v a i l a b l e ( i . e . no c h o i c e ) ; a c c e s s i b i l i t y to work; a c c e s s i b i l i t y ' t o shopping; a c c e s s i b i l i t y to schools; appearance of area surrounding the park; s i z e o f lots:; s e r v i c e s provided by management; presence o f f r i e n d s or r e l a t i v e s i m the park. Factors considered r e l e v a n t to the d e c i s i o n to l i v e i n a mobile home are: , a) ; l i t t l e maintenance compared to other types o f housing; b) s u i t a b l e f a m i l y space needs; c) m o b i l i t y ; 28 d) l i k e l i v i n g a t ground l e v e l ; e) l a c k o f other housing i n d e s i r e d area; f) s u i t a b l e monthly expenses;" g) purchase p r i c e o f mobile home. F i n a l l y , background o f the respondent must be con-s i d e r e d , not only i n terms o f demographic data, but a l s o i n terms o f previous experiences w i t h mobile home parks as w e l l as other types o f housing neighborhoods. 29 FOOTNOTES 1. M e t r o p o l i t a n Corporation of Greater Winnipeg, P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , Mobile Homes In M e t r o p o l i t a n Winnipeg And The  A d d i t i o n a l T o n e , February. 1970. p. o~l 2. Downing, Jean C., The Mobile Home From A Pl a n n i n g Standpoint, Seminar on mobile home parks, St. C l a i r Region Development C o u n c i l , November 1971, p. 1. 3. Peterson, G.I., "A Model o f Preference: Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s o f the Perception: o f the V i s u a l Appearance o f R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhoods," J o u r n a l o f Regional  Science, V o l . 7, No. 1, 1967, p. 19. 4. Zehner, R.B., "Neighborhood and Community S a t i s f a c t i o n ! i n New Towns and l e s s Planned Suburbs", AIP, V o l . 37, No. 6, November 1971, p. 375-385. 5. 6. I b i d . , p. 383. I b i d . , p. 380. CHAPTER 4 METHODOLOGY Im determining the researc h methodology/,, two a l t e r -n a t i v e s were considered: f i r s t , there could be interviews; conducted w i t h park d w e l l e r s ; second, there could be quesr-t i o n n a i r e s ; mailed or handed to park r e s i d e n t s . The f i r s t a l t e r n a t i v e was; r e j e c t e d f o r a v a r i e t y o f reasons. Since i t was p o s t u l a t e d that the a t t i t u d e s of r e s i d e n t s - w i t h i n ; a s i n g l e mobile home park would d i s p l a y a high degree o f homogeneity,; i t was; not considered s u f f i c i e n t to i n t e r -view a l a r g e number o f r e s i d e n t s w i t h i n ; a s i n g l e park, or a few parks. I t was; thus; considered necessary to . seek out the views; o f r e s i d e n t s i m a r e l a t i v e l y l a r g e number o f d i f f e r e n t parks; T h i s , i n ; t u r n , r e q u i r e d a s u f f i c i e n t l y l a r g e sample within.each park i m order to obtain ; s t a t i s t i c a l l y s i g n i f i c a n t data f o r subsequent analysis;. Given, the time c o n s t r a i n t s w i t h i n which the study was; to operate, the i n t e r v i e w method was not con-s i d e r e d f e a s i b l e . Secondly, i t would not have been; pos:-s i b l e , as l a t e r confirmed i m the p r e - t e s t questionnaire,, to adequately forewarn; prospective respondents o f the impending interview. 1 31 Given the r e l a t i v e l y non-open-ended nature of the inf o r m a t i o n d e s i r e d , the questionnaire method was decided upon> since i t could be completed q u i c k l y and a t the resr-pondent's convenience. Furthermore, i t would a l l o w the respondent more time to mull over questions to which he/she might need to r e c o l l e c t past experiences or d e c i -s i o n s . The Pre-Test A p r e - t e s t q u e s t i o n n a i r e was mailed to two mobile home parks i n December o f 1971. The purpose of t h i s pre-l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e was to determine whether any am-b i g u i t i e s or d i f f i c u l t i e s were present i n the questions i n order t h a t they might be c l a r i f i e d before the f i n a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e was sent out. The sample c o n s i s t e d o f a l a r g e park in:Kamloops, B r i t i s h Columbia, w i t h 92 mobile home spaces o f which 25$ or 23 mobile home r e s i d e n t s were to be sampled, and, a small park i n P o r t A l b e r n i , Vancouver I s l a n d , w i t h 21 mobile home spaces o f which 50% or 11 mobile home r e s i d e n t s were to be sampled. The o r i g i n a l l i s t from which the mobile home parks were s e l e c t e d came from the Economic and S t a t i s t i c s Branch o f the B.C. Depart-ment of I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade, and Commerce, which 32 had compiled i t i n order to c a r r y out i t s survey o f parks i n B r i t i s h Columbia i m l 9 7 0 . The l i s t i n g s d i d not give the s i z e of each mobile home park. Therefore, i t was necessary to examine the Muni c i p a l D i r e c t o r i e s o f the v a r i o u s m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i n which these parks were l o c a t e d . Obviously, those parks t h a t were l o c a t e d i n unincorporated areas could not be sampled as i t was impossible to determine beforehand the s i z e o f the i n d i v i d u a l mobile home park. The p r e - t e s t was an extremely v a l u a b l e p a r t o f the study, although not i n the manner expected and s t a t e d above. Two major problems were encountered: f i r s t , no r e s i d e n t o f the Kamloops mobile home park r e c e i v e d a ques-t i o n n a i r e since mailmen only knew r e s i d e n t s by name and not by the l o t or bay number by which the quest i o n n a i r e envelopes: had been addressed (to ensure anonymity f o r the respondent); second, s e v e r a l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s from the P o r t A l b e r n i mobile home park were returned u n d e l i v e r e d be-cause, although a mobile home space d i d e x i s t a t the bay number given , no mobile home was a t the time i n the par-t i c u l a r space. The 33$ r a t e o f response from "the P o r t A l b e r n i park 33 was not s u f f i c i e n t to s i g n i f i c a n t l y a f f e c t the f i n a l ques-t i o n n a i r e although a few changes were made as a r e s u l t o f t h i s p r e l i m i n a r y q u e s t i o n n a i r e . The major r e s u l t o f the p r e - t e s t was twofold: f i r s t , i t was determined tha/t a l l q u e s t i o n n a i r e s must be d e l i v e r e d i n person i n order to ensure th a t every r e s i d e n t i n the sample d i d r e c e i v e a q u e s t i o n n a i r e and t h a t no problems o f empty bays would be encountered. Consequently, i t was; a l s o decided t h a t time and f i n a n c i a l c o n s t r a i n t s ; would n e c e s s i t a t e l i m i t i n g the study to parks i n the Greater Vancouver Region and a p a r t o f C e n t r a l Vancouver I s l a n d , i n s t e a d of the e n t i r e province as o r i g i n a l l y planned. This l a t t e r d e c i s i o n was, i n essence, a t r a d e - o f f between l o s i n g , i n f o r m a t i o n concerned w i t h geographical d i f f e r e n c e s (e.g. B. park i n a northern resource-based community as opposed to one l o c a t e d i n a southern retirement community), and g a i n i n g v a l u a b l e i n f o r m a t i o n by d i r e c t observation o f the i n d i v i d u a l parks a t the time o f d e l i v e r y o f the ques-t i o n n a i r e s and on subsequent occasions. L a t e r evidence bore out t h a t , under the circumstances, i t was a worth-while t r a d e - o f f . 34 The Survey A t o t a l o f 31 mobile home parks were v i s i t e d i n the f i r s t h a l f of January 1972. Of these, 24 were l o c a t e d i n the Greater Vancouver Region and 7 were l o c a t e d i n the c e n t r a l p a r t of Vancouver I s l a n d . Questionnaires were d e l i v e r e d e i t h e r d i r e c t l y to the mobile home r e s i d e n t or placed i n mailboxes. A self - a d d r e s s e d envelope, was en-clo s e d f o r r e t u r n o f the qu e s t i o n n a i r e s . conservations and notes on the p h y s i c a l f e a t u r e s of each park was made by the w r i t e r a t the time of questio n -n a i r e d e l i v e r y . I n a d d i t i o n , s e v e r a l random i n t e r v i e w -conversations took place between the w r i t e r and park r e -s i d e n t s . A l l these were intended to be used as a rough g u i d e l i n e f o r subsequent a n a l y s i s o f residents?' responses. The parks were d i v i d e d i n t o 6 major s i z e c a t e g o r i e s . A s t r a t i f i e d sampling procedure was used, wi t h sample. s i z e v a r y i n g according to the s i z e o f the mobile home park and the degree of v a r i a t i o n a n t i c i p a t e d w i t h i n 1 each category. A t o t a l of 639 mobile home park r e s i d e n t s were sam-pled . The r a t e of response was 44$ or 281 completed ques-t i o n n a i r e s . Table IV i n d i c a t e s t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n i n more 35 TABLE IV SAMPLING PROCEDURE FOR MOBILE HOME PARKS I F THE LOWER MAINLAND AND VANCOUVER ISLAND JANUARY 1972 Park Size (No. o f Homes?)-No. of: Parks: Percentage  o f Population! Sampled Questionnaires; Delivered! Returned under 20 20 - 29 30 - 49 50 - 74 75 - 100 over 100 11 5 S 5 1 1 100 ($) 75 50 50 50 50 126 69 172 150 44 78 47 28 80 68-13 45 3T 539 281 36 disaggregated form. The r a t e o f response was a p p r o x i -mately 10$ greater than the response, r a t e a n t i c i p a t e d through previous .surveys; FOOTNOTE S t u a r t , A., Basic Ideas o f S c i e n t i f i c Sampling. 1962. SECTION I I I ANALYSIS CHAPTER 5 SAMPLE POPULATION: SOCIO-ECONOMIC PROFILE; LENGTH OF RESIDENCY Socio-Economic P r o f i l e : I n t r o d u c t i o n Before c a r r y i n g out an i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the hypo-t h e s i s i t i s imperative to understand the nature of the population under examination. Thus, there must be some knowledge of the socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the sample population. Socio-economic c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s are comprised o f the sub-categories of fa m i l y income, household s i a e , age of occupants, and occupation and educational background of the main breadwinner. A l l respondents can be placed on each o f the sub-category continuums; these continuums, together, form the substance of the socio-economic pro-f i l e . Annual Family Income Out of a t o t a l of 281 respondents, 247 answered the question concerning annual f a m i l y income. I t was found th a t both the mean and median income was i n the $6,000-$7,999 category. The income span ranged from under 39 $2,000 (6$) to over $14,000 (7$). Tables Y(a) and V("b) i n d i c a t e the r e s u l t s more c l e a r l y . I n , r e l a t i o n to other s t u d i e s t h a t have been con-ducted examining income c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f mobile home park r e s i d e n t s , the median income would appear to be near-l y the same. A survy conducted i n the United States i n 1970 i n d i c a t e d that 25$ of mobile home r e s i d e n t s f e l l w i t h i n the $5,000-17,499 income range, w i t h 25$ and 14$ i n the $7,500-^9,999 and $10,000-$14,999 income ranges 1 r e s p e c t i v e l y . A survey conducted i n : t h e lower B r i t i s h Columbia Mainland i n 1968 was compared wi t h the. r e s u l t s o f the present i n v e s t i g a t i o n . The1 former study had a somewhat l a r g e r number o f r e s i d e n t s in. the lower income ranges, 2 w i t h 46$ having f a m i l y incomes under $5,999. This d i f f e r e n c e may be due e i t h e r to sampling v a g a r i e s or to the expected r i s e i n incomes over a three-year p e r i o d . To provide a source f o r comparison w i t h the general p o p u l a t i o n , i t should be noted that the average f a m i l y income i m B r i t i s h Columbia i n 1970 was estimated a t 3 $9,800. This i s a somewhat higher income l e v e l than that o f mobile home r e s i d e n t s examined i n t h i s study. (e)A 3 i av i 001 06 09 OL 09 09 0 ti 01 0?: OL 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SKNO I I SJW ON I (:>s I;;SI u) J.Od (hC ) » + *« + *•******#«*«*»•*>»»**««••** + «* O'O 1 I II l i A 0 fl M V 0 0 0 ' li I 5 I 1T>C I " L (02 ) • » » t » * t t * » t * t « * * * t t H O'J'H . ' I I bbb'i. I S-000 'ii £ I J3d Z"H (CZ ) ***•**••»» x »•>»**•»**••*« * OO'i. I I ecu'I I-coo'01 $ 1 IDti 5 *C I (9t ) ***•*»*•**• i *•*** + **• + **•* * *#**•*»«•*•* • 03*9 I I tSbb ' 6S-000 ' H $ 1 I t,ht. '/_:f-0l)0'91 1 i 1 Cbt,'5'f-000'tiJ I IOd b"8 (SZ ) *********• + **••*•*•**»*••* 00" I' 1 1 (iCfc'f r - o o o ' r s T X3d £"01 (b£ ) #**•«*»*#*•»•«**>•«»>*••»»**•» 00"£ I I ooo' Z't N vi,,i, s'jau i 13d ( *D L ) *»«****»«•**«*»• 00" l I moo •1 WD DN 1 A 1 1 K V 3 1VI1KNV ANNUAL F A M I L Y INCOME VALUE AflSOLUTE RELATIVE ADJUSTED CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY ADJ FREQ (PERCENT) (PERCENT) (PERCENT) L E S S THAN' £ 2 , 0 0 0 1.00 IS 5 . 3 6. 1 6. 1 $ 2 , 0 0 0 - 1.1, 999 2 . 0 0 29 1 0 . 3 1 1 . 7 1 7 . 8 «4 ,OOO- .T . 5,999 3 .00 25 8.9 1 0. 1 2 7 . 9 ti,, 0 0 0 - tl, 009 '1.00 4 3 1 5 . 3 1 7.U ll 5 . 3 $n,ooo-.f. *),')•)') 5 . 0 0 54 19 . 2 2 1 . 9 6 7 . 2 $ IO , ooo- 1 1 , 999 6 . 0 0 38 1.3.5 1 S . 4 8 2 . 6 $ 1 2 , 0 0 0 - $ 1 3 , 9 9 9 7 . 0 0 23 8 . 2 9 . 3 9 1 .9 $ 1 U , 0 0 0 AMD OVER H.OO 20 7 . 1 a. i 1 0 0 . 0 NU R E S P O N S E 0 . 0 34 12 . 1 MISSING 100 . 0 TOTAL 2U 1 J O O . O 1 0 0 . 0 100. 0 S T A T I S T I C S , fl KAN 1 0 U E KURTOSIS a J N mm «.f.ll 5 . 0 0 0 - 0 . 7 6 5 1 . 0 0 0 V A L T O OI1SERVATIOXS -M I S S I N C O B S E R V A T I O N S -2 47 34 STD ERROR STD D EV SK EWN ESS MAXIMUM 0 . 1 2 3 1 .930 - 0 . 0 8 0 8 . 0 0 0 MEDIAN VARIANCE S ANGE 4 . 7 13 3 . 7 2 6 7 . 0 0 0 T A B L E V ( b ) 42 Household S i z e Of the sampled mobile home households, 59$ c o n s i s t e d of two occupants, 18$ o f one occupant, and 11$ o f three and four occupants r e s p e c t i v e l y . Table VI shows t h i s , more c l e a r l y . A 1970 U.S. survey o f mobile home r e s i d e n t s i n d i c a t e d t h a t there were s l i g h t l y more three-person households (27$) and s l i g h t l y l e s s one-person households (9$) than 4 found i n t h i s study. The 1968 lower Mainland survey c l o s e l y approximates 5 the present study i n terms o f household s i z e . I n Canada and B r i t i s h Columbia the average household 6 s i z e i n 1966 was 3.7 and 3.4 r e s p e c t i v e l y . This study i n d i c a t e s t h a t the average mobile home household s i z e i s s m a l l e r , a t 2.2 persons per household, than the pro-v i n c i a l and n a t i o n a l averages. S I Z E OF HOUSEHOLD 1 O C C U P A N T 2 O C C U P A N T S 3 O C C U P A N T S 4 O C C U P A N T S 5 O C C U P A N T S NO R E S P O N S E VALUE A B S O L U T E R E L A T I V E A D J U S T E D C U M U L A T I V E FREQUENCY F R E Q U E N C Y F R E Q U E N C Y A D J FREQ ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) 1 . 0 0 50 .17.8 1 8 . 0 1 8 . 0 2 . 0 0 16 5 5 8 . 7 5 9 .4 7 7 . 3 3 . 0 0 30 1 0 . 7 1 0 . 8 8 8.1 4 . 00 24 8 . 5 8. 6 9 6 . 8 5 . 0 0 8 2 . 8 2 . 9 9 9 . 6 7 . 0 0 1 0 .4 0 . 4 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 3 1.1 M I S S I N G 1 0 0 . 0 T O T A L 28 1 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE VI Age of Respondents; 44 Of the-278 male or female head o f households answer-i n g the question.concerning t h e i r age, 35$ s t a t e d that they were over 60 years o f age,. 27$ were between 50-59 years, 17$ between 20^29 years and the remaining were between 30-49 years o l d (21$). The median,age was n e a r l y 50 years; Tables V I I ( a ) and VII(b) i n d i c a t e the outcome more c l e a r l y . In;a 1970 United States; survey of mobile home r e s i -dents, i t was found t h a t 22$ o f the respondents were unr-der 25 yea r s , 28$ were between; 25-34 years o l d but, more important t o r t h i s study, i t was found that only 19$ o f 7 household hears were 55 years o l d o r over. However, another study conducted i n : the same year showed that 8-33$ o f mobile home r e s i d e n t s were over 58 years o l d . The 1966 Canadian; Census i n d i c a t e d that 10$ o f the 9 p o p u l a t i o n was over 60 years o l d . Of the t o t a l num-ber w i t h i n ; t h i s age group, 10$ l i v e d i n r t h e Province of. B r i t i s h Columbia. Thus i t i s : apparent that a pro-p o r t i o n a l l y l a r g e r number of persons i n . t h i s age group are l i v i n g i m m o b i l e home parks. The pr o p o r t i o n s o f the remaining.adult age groups i n the sample popula-t i o n d i d not s i g n i f i c a n t l y v ary from the general Cana-dian; p r o f i l e . U a, r-U O « * C J • OJ * tf O tf t • o r- * cr r- x • o * r- o * cr *— o * • • t * m  « * * M OR * • * * * UJ * * O * •z. *» * < <. w w ir M • • o C= z * * •< * * an tf * O o * » in c r sC c « tf X o * * tf c — w o * o • • * t • • E- • tf o O in • U # | •— tf * * • • ro * • • * W o * cr  « Z3 tf tf * # • tf » # ex • * « o to * vO tf > 10 *E » CN • « ir . CO CD tf * « EC * • s * tf » « < o a Q UJ X « • * p" E- i t ; • tf tf •* LTi '-0 tf * • * • # * tf tf tf • « tf * * # « tf  » tf tf tf tf « tf tf tf tf tf # •» O • tf » * tf M c 4 tf tf * *- X tf « * « « # • tf •0- > • rs * «- • «• C tf -0- * * tf # # a # 11 LO « ct; » -"X * ~ •» * *c O * >- tf >* * >" tf >• -•> tf » «• « tf t". •_J o tf c r » tf tf CT' tf cr: f~ rs: C O i 1 tf rg tf 1" * =r » •_r tf >- >• o o tf l • 1 tf i c i tf o C o L", « cr tf o tf o tf o » O o zr. • • t • •zr T. tf *-~ tf <~~ * «• •jo vO '— sr. a: *— C * « 4 <• 1 H n • « « tf c-• tf » tf tf i . ; * • • tf tf cn *> > • M «• p—i a. 1—* o W c : c c C C , . CCi CO o o o O O O • • • t t « (JT O 6- tr f-0 CD v. to o CCl tr. *>* t— t,-: n < *c Q cr. -— r- >-* < 3C ^: JC IT OQ < AGE OF RESPONDENT 19-29 YRS 30-39 YRS 40 -49 YRS 5 0 - 5 9 YRS 60 YRS AND OVER NO RESPONSE VALUE ABSOLUTE R E L A T I V E ADJUSTED CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY FREQUENCY FREQUENCY A D J F R EQ (PERCENT) ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) 1.00 48 17.1 17.3 17.3 2.00 26 9. 3 9. 4 2 6.6 3.00 v3 1 1 1. 0. 1 1 . 2 3 7.8 4.00 7 6 2 7. 0 2 7. 3 br>. 1 5.00 97 34 .5 3 4 . 9 100.0 0.0 3 1.1 MISSING 100.0 TOTAL 28 1 100.0 100. 0 100.0 TABLE V I I (b) 47? C h i l d r e n I n t h i s study, there were 51 mobile home households (18$) w i t h a t o t a l of 66 c h i l d r e n . Of the 31 c h i l d r e n i n the under 5 age group, 65$ o f these households had only one c h i l d i n t h i s group, 29$ had two c h i l d r e n , and 7$ had three c h i l d r e n under 5 years. Of the 21 c h i l d r e n i n the 5-12 age group, 62$ o f the households had only one c h i l d o f t h i s age group, and 29$ had two c h i l d r e n f a l l i n g w i t h i n t h i s group. Of the 14 c h i l r e n i n the 13-18 age group, 71$ o f these households had only one c h i l d o f t h i s age and 29$ had two c h i l d r e n . Tables V I I I ( a ) , V I I I ( b ) , and V I I I ( c ) c l a r i f y these r e s u l t s f u r t h e r . I n a U.S. survey conducted i n 1970, 32$ o f mobile 10 home households had c h i l d r e n l i v i n g a t home. This i s a somewhat higher percentage than those households examined i n t h i s study. The 1968 Lower Mainland survey i n d i c a t e d t h a t 29$ of the sample p o p u l a t i o n had c h i l d r e n l i v i n g i n the mo-b i l e home. Once a g a i n . t h i s i s a higher percentage than 11 t h a t c i t e d i n the present. The whole question o f c h i l d r e n w i t h i n mobile home parks must be examined withisa number o f q u a l i f i c a t i o n s . CHILDREN il N Dc R r> Y K 1 O C C U P A N T 2 O C C U P A N T S NO O C C U P A N T S V A L U E A B S O L U T E R E L A T I V E A D J U S T E D C U M U L A T I V E F R E Q U E N C Y F R E Q U E N C Y F R E Q U E N C Y A D J PR EQ ( P E R C E N T ) . ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) 1 . 0 0 9 3 . 2 8 1 . 8 8 1 . 8 2 . 0 0 2 0 . 7 1 8 . 2 10 0 . 0 0 . 0 2 7 0 96 . 1 K I S S I N G 1 0 0 . 0 T O T A L 2 f t1 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE V III (a ) CH I LDREN 5 - 1 2 Y R S . 1 O C C U P A N T • 2 O C C U P A N T S NO O C C U P A N T S V A L U E A B S O L U T E R E L A T I V E A D J U S T E D C HP! U L A T I V S FK E C U EN CY Fi? EQU 0NC Y F R E Q U E N C Y ADO FH EQ ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) 1. OO 2 . 0 0 0 . 0 TO T A L 6 2 27 3 28 1 2 . 1 0 . 7 0 7 . 2 10 0 . 0 7 5 . 0 2 5 . 0 K I S S ! lie,' 1 0 0 . 0 7 5 . 0 1 0 0 . C 10 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 TABLE VI I l(b) CHILDREN 1 3 - 1 8 Y f i ! O C C U P A NT 0 O C C U P A N T S V A L U E A B S O L U T E R E L A T I V E A D J U S T E D C U M U L A T I V E F R E Q U E N C Y F R E Q U E N C Y F R E Q U E N C Y A D J FR EQ ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) 1 . 0 0 0 . 0 T O T A L 4 27 7 28 1 1 . 4 98 .6 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 K I S S I NG 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 TABLE VI I I ( c ) Many parks ins the Vancouver .Region, have r e s t r i c t i o n s : con-ce r n i n g c h i l d r e n , e i t h e r by not a l l o w i n g any to l i v e w i t h -i n the park, or only a c c e p t i n g c h i l d r e n ! under a certain:age ( i . e . p r e - s c h o o l ) , or by p l a c i n g a c e i l i n g om the number o f c h i l d r e n permitted to l i v e i n the park a t a. given, time. One o f the maim reasons; f o r the unstable c h i l d p o p u l a t i o n . i s the l a c k o f c l a r i t y o f l o c a l t a x a t i o n , po-l i c i e s concerning park dw e l l e r s i n : regard to assessment f o r school taxes. . 52 Occupation The primary goal i n req u e s t i n g i n f o r m a t i o n concern-i n g the occupations o f park dwellers was not to have a f i n e breakdown o f a number o f occupation,categories but to c l a s s i f y according to broad s o c i a l groupings. These broad groupings would thus a l l o w f o r a b e t t e r pers-p e c t i v e o f the s o c i a l p r o f i l e of mobile home park dwel-l e r s i n r e l a t i o n to the populace a t l a r g e . .The four broad occupation c a t e g o r i e s are: u n s k i l l e d blue c o l l a r ; s k i l l e d blue c o l l a r ; white c o l l a r - o f f i c e ; white c o l l a r - p r o f e s s i o n a l . The p r o f e s s i o n a l category i n c l u d e s such occupations as teachers, nurses, and en-gineers ( w i t h u n i v e r s i t y t r a i n i n g ) . The white c o l l a r -o f f i c e category i n c l u d e s c l e r k s , salesmen, managers, and s e c r e t a r i e s . The s k i l l e r blue c o l l a r group c o n s i s t s o f such trades as locomotive engineer, plumber, b o i l e r -maker, and welder. F i n a l l y , the u n s k i l l e d blue c o l l a r category i s comprised of those engaged as l a b o u r e r s , warehousemen, and j a n i t o r s . Not only those who were p r e s e n t l y employed were asked to name t h e i r occupation, but those r e t i r e d were als o asked to s t a t e t h e i r past occuation. However i t i s 53 important to note that 29$ o f a l l respondents were r e -t i r e d . Gf the 237 responses to the question concerning occupation, 26$ were found to belong to the u n s k i l l e d blue c o l l a r group, 40$ were i n the s k i l l e d blue c o l l a r category, while 27$ and 7$ were in. the white c o l l a r -o f f i c e , , and p r o f e s s i o n a l groupings r e s p e c t i v e l y . Tables: IX(a) and IX(b) more c l e a r l y i n d i c a t e the trend. . A 1967 mobile home survey by the U.S. Department o f Housing, and Urban Development revealed t h a t , whereas only 15$ of mobile home dwellers were concentrated i n the p r o f e s s i o n a l , managers, and p r o p r i e t o r s c a t e g o r i e s , 43$ could be found i n such occupations as craftsmen, 12 foremen, and operators, i . e . s k i l l e d and s e m i - s k i l l e d . This i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the findings? o f the present study. Ino the 1968 lower Mainland survey, 22$ o f the r e s -pondents i n d i c a t e d t h a t they were r e t i r e d - a somewhat 13 smaller percentage than t h i s study r e v e a l s . OCCUPATION OF THE MATS M<RADWINNEU COCE I 1. C0 »•**»»*••**»«<••*«•*•«*+*<»*****+#*+*•+»•««•+»**•**•**»*»***** ( 61) 21.7 PCT I UNSKILLED-BLUE COLI.K 1 1 2. CO *«»»*»*»•*«***•«»«»*»**«»»*«•<*** + *»*****»***********«*********•*•*********•***»***»**#**»*••*• ( gn) 33.5 PCT I SKILLED-i>.L.M E COLLAR I I 3. CO *•«*«****«»•« * 4 »*» t <•** t *•«*«••********* +*•*«#*••***••<•**<'*******• » ( 6 ri) 23.1 PCT T OFFICE-WHITE COLLAR I, r 1.0 0 * * * « » * * * » * + * * * 4 « + * ( 17) 0.0 PCT I PROFESSIONAL I I O^ o <.««»»*******• * <.»**#*<.»#*•*<.*«»*»»«**# *« 4 * < * » * ( [((») 15.7 PCT (MISSING) I NO RESPONSE I I I I I I I T I I I I 0 10 20 30 UO 50 60 70 80 90 100 FREQUENCY STATISTICS. . DEAN 2.160 MODE 2.000 KURTOSIS -0.7.3U n i s i n i l n 1.000 VALID OBSERVATIONS - 237 KISSING OBSERVATIONS - HH ST D EFKOR 0.058 STD DEV 0.892 SK^HNESS 0.29 1 MAXIMUM U.000 MEDIAN 2.112 VARIANCE 0.796 RANGE 3.000 TABLE IX (a) O C C U P A T I O N O F T H E M A I N B R E A D W I N N E R V A L U E A B S O L U T E FR ECU EN CY U N S K I L L E D - D L U E C O L L R S K I L L E D - H L U E . C O L L A R O F F I C E - W H I T E C O L L A R P R O F E S S I O N A L SO R E S P O N S E 1 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 0 . 0 T O T A L 6 1 9 4 6 5 17 4 4 2 0 1 R E L A T I V E F R E Q U E N C Y ( P E R C E N T ) A D J U S T E D F R E Q U E NCY ( P E R C E N T ) 2 1 . 7 3 3 . 5 2 3 . 1 6 . 0 1 5 . 7 10 0 . 0 2 5 . 7 .3 9 . 7 2 7 . 4 7 . 2 M I S S I N G 1 0 0 . 0 C U M U L A T I V E A D J F R EQ ( P E R C E N T ) 2 5 . 7 6 5 . 4 9 2 . 8 1 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 TABLE IX (b ) 56 Education? Of the 263 responses concerning educational back-, ground, 11$ s t a t e d that they had completed elementary school; 28$ s t a t e d t h a t they had had some h i g h school t r a i n i n g . ( t h e median schooling) while 30$ s a i d t h a t they had completed high school. Some 13$ o f the respondents s a i d t h a t , e i t h e r they had had some v o c a t i o n a l or com-munity c o l l e g e t r a i n i n g , or that they had completed t h i s : type o f education. There were 10$ who had e i t h e r comple-ted or p a r t i a l l y completed u n i v e r s i t y education, while 2$ had post-graduate g r a i n i n g . Tables X(a) and 1(b) show these r e s u l t s : more c l e a r l y . The 1967 HUD mobile home survey i n d i c a t e d t h a t 8$ o f mobile home heads had 7th grade or l e s s , 29$ had par-t i a l l y completed high s c h o o l , 44$ had completed high sc h o o l , while 16$ had e i t h e r completed or had some c o l -14 lege educations These percentages are r e l a t i v e l y s i m i l a r to those i n t h i s study. EDUCATIONAL- BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENT CODE I 1.(10 * » • * * * » * « • * * * ( 12) U.3 PCT I SOME ELEMENT.OR LESS I r. ?.C0 # 4 **•**•«<•*•« t « * * * * * + * * * * » • • • * * * ( 31) 11.0 PCT I CO MP LE T EC EL EM EN T A!l Y t I •^00 ( 73) 26.0 PCT I SOME IIIGI! SCHOOL T. I Li^  00 <.****»****»**«» + « » * * » • * * • 4•«»» * *• *» *• * * *« 4 « * »» *»» * * * * * • * »• 4 * » ( 79) 28. 1 PCT I CO MP L ET. !l Tfill SCHOOL I I 5.00 ( id) 5.7 PCT T SOME VOCAT-COM.COLL I T 6.CO »4»•******••4<4**+** ( 19) 6.8 PCT I CO MP T.VOCAT-COM.COLL I I 7^00 ( 17) 6.0 PCT I SOME UNIVERSITY I I l i . C 0 * * * * » * * * * * * ( 10) 3.6 PCT I COMPLT.UNIVERSITY I T 9. CO 4 «•(.*»* ( „) 2.1 PCT I POST-CRACUATE I I 0.0 4»»44 + *4*44«4»44*** ( 1(1) 6.U PCT (MISSING) I NO RESPONSE I I I I I 1 1 I I I I I 0 10' 20 30 UO 50 ' 60 70 80 90 100 FREQUENCY TABLE X (a ) EDUCATIONAL BACKGROUND OF RESPONDENT VALUE ABSOLUTE F R Z CU E N CY R ELAT IVH FREQU ENCY (PERCENT) ADJUSTED FREQUENCY (PERCENT) CUMULATIVE A DJ FREQ (PERCENT) SUM" ELEMENT.OR LESS COMPLETED ELEMENTARY SOME MICH SCHOOL CO MP LET. II10II SCHOOL SOME VOCAT-COM.COLL COMPT.VOCAT-COM.COLL SOME UNIV EHS TTY CoM"LT. UNIV E R S I. T Y POS T-G K A L'U ATE SO RESPONSE 1.00 2.00 3.00 U.00 5.00 6.00 7.00 n.oo 9.00 0.0 TOTAL 12 3 1 73 79 16 19 17 10 6 lil 20 1 4. 3 1 1.0 26.0 28. 1 5.7 6.8 6.0 3.6 2. 1 6.U 100.0 4.6 1 1. fi 2 7. 8 30. 0 6. 1 7. 2 6. 5 3. 8 • 2 . 3 MISSING 100. 0 4. 6 16.3 44. 1 74. 1 80.2 87. 5 93.9 9 7. 7 100.0 100. 0 100.0 STATISTICS., MEAN MODE K!)|> TOS IS M IN T Ml' M 4.015 4.OOO 0.367 1.000 VALID OBSERVATIONS M I .IS ING CHS L'RVATIONS 263 18 STD EFKOR STD D EV SKEW MESS MAXIMUM 0.112 1.812 0.R57 9.000 MEDIAN VARIANCE RANGE 3.696 3. 282 8.000 TABLE X (b ) 59 Length of Residency Given the r e a d i l y understandable stereotype of the t r a n s i t o r y nature of "mobile" home d w e l l e r s , i t i s o f s p e c i a l i n t e r e s t to know the l e n g t h o f residency o f park d w e l l e r s . I t was found t h a t 31$ o f the respondents had l i v e d i n t h e i r present park f o r between 3-5 years, the same percentage had r e s i d e d f o r 1-2 years, while 24$ had l i v e d i n t h e i r present park f o r l e s s than one year. The remaining 13$ had l i v e d i n t h e i r park f o r over s i x years. Table XI summarizes these r e s u l t s . Some 72$ o f the respondents s t a t e d that they had only l i v e d i n . one mobile home park, while 16$ wrote t h a t they had l i v e d i n two parks. Table X I I i n d i c a t e s more c l e a r l y t h i s outcome. The stereotype o f park dwellers as being t r a n s i -t o r y does not appear to be a true assumptions from the r e s u l t s o f t h i s study. L E N G T H O F T I M E I N P R E S E N T P A R K V A L U E A B S O L U T E F R E Q U E N C Y L E S S T H A N 1 YR 1 - 2 Y R S 3 - 5 Y R S 6 - 1 0 Y R S M O R E T H A N 10 Y R S MO R E S P O N S E 1. 0 0 2 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 0 . 0 T O T A L R E L AT I V E F R E Q U E N C Y ( P E R C E N T ) A D J U S T E D F R E Q U E N C Y ( P E R C E N T ) 6 8 8 8 8 8 2 0 7 1 28 1 2 4 . 2 3 1 . 3 3 1 . 3 1 0 . 3 2 . 5 0 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 2 4 . 3 3 1 . 4 3 1 . 4 1 0 . 4 2 . 5 M I S S I N G 10 0 . 0 CUM UL AT I V E A D J F R EQ ( P E R C E N T ) 2 4 . 3 5 5 . 7 8 7 . 1 9 7 . 5 1 0 0 . 0 1 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 T A B L E XI T O T A L MIIM DF. R OF P A R K S L I V E D I N V A L U E A B S O L U T E FR EQU ENCY 1 P A R K 2 P A R K S 3 P A R K S 4 P A R KS 5 OR MOT? E P A R K : NO R E S P O N S E 1 . 0 0 2 . 0 0 3 . 0 0 4 . 0 0 5 . 0 0 6 . 0 0 0 . 0 T O T A L R E L A T I V E A D J U S T E D F R E Q U E N C Y F R E Q U E N C Y ( P E R C E N T ) ( P E R C E N T ) 2 0 3 4 4 14 8 10 1 1 28 1 7 2 . 2 1 5 . 7 5 . 0 2 . 8 3 . 6 0 . 4 0 . 4 1 0 0 . 0 7 2 . 5 1 5 . 7 5. 0 2 . 9 3 . 6 0 . 4 M I S S I N G 1 0 0 . 0 C U M U L A T I V E A D J F R E Q ( P E R C E N T ) 7 2 . 5 8 8 . 2 9 3 . 2 9 6 . 1 9 9 . 6 1 0 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 10 0 . 0 T A B L E XI I 62 FOOTNOTES 1. Owens/Corning F i b e r g l a s , .Focus on the Mobile Home Market, 1971, p. 6. 2. United Community Se r v i c e s of the Greater Vancouver Area,, Mobile Home L i v i n g i n the Lower Mainland, 1971, Appendix I I , Table'VI. ' • 3. As st a t e d i n B r i t i s h Columbia, Department o f I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade,, and Commerce, Econo-mics and S t a t i s t i c s Branch, Mobile Homes i n B r i t i s h Columbia, p. 28. 4. Owens/Corning F i b e r g l a s , op.' c i t . . , p. 6. 5. United Community S e r v i c e s o f the Greater Vancouver Area,, op. c i t . , Appendix I I , Table I I . 6. Dominion Bureau o f S t a t i s t i c s - , Catalogue No*, 93.603, Households and F a m i l i e s , 1966. 7. Owens/Corning F i b e r g l a s , op. c i t . , p. 6. 8. e d i t by CM. Edwards, "A Survey o f the Mobilehome Consumer", T r a i l e r Topics, 1970, p. 1. 9. As; c a l c u l a t e d ,from Dominion; Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s , Catalogue Ho~ 92.625,-1966. 10. Edwards, CM.,, op. c i t . , p. 1. 11 United Community Se r v i c e s of the Greater Vancouver Area, op. cit»,. p. 8. 63 IT,S. Department o f Housing and Urban Development, Housing Surveys, P a r t 2, Mobile Homes and the  Housing Supply, 196T, p; 90. United Community S e r v i c e s o f the Greater Vancouver Area, op. c i t . , p. 10. U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development,. op. c i t . , p. 88. CHAPTER 6 AF EXAMINATION*7 OF THE DIMENSIONS OP MOBILE HOME PARK LIVING? In t r o d u c t i o n : to M u l t i v a r i a t e Techniques Used i n , t h i s Study Given the l a r g e a r r a y o f v a r i a b l e s concerned w i t h mobile home park l i v i n g , i t i s o f i n t e r e s t to dis c o v e r the i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s that, e x i s t among these v a r i a b l e s * Moreover, we wish to minimize the redundancies; o c c u r r i n g whem l o r e than one v a r i a b l e i s measuring the same dimen--s i o n . U l t i m a t e l y , our aim i s to reduce the t o t a l number o f v a r i a b l e s r e q u i r e d to f u l l y comprehend the phenomena, under i n v e s t i g a t i o n s I n order to f u l f i l these goals, the best.approach i s to conduct a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . A f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . w i l l , f i r s t o f a l l , reduce the dimensions: o f the set of 75 var i a b l e s , by t a k i n g advantage o f the i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s : e x i s t i n g among them. Second, i t w i l l r e v e a l how s e v e r a l v a r i a b l e s can. be combined to produce maximum di s c r i m i n a t i o n ? among i n d i v i d u a l s along a. s i n g l e dimension. F i n a l l y , a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s should a l l o w us tq i d e n t i f y and describe the fundamental and meaningful dimensions w i t h i n the m u l t i -v a r i a t e domain; 65 I t i s important to c l a r i f y , i n i t i a l l y , that m u l t i -v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s i s comprised of two broad c a t e g o r i e s : a n a l y s i s of dependence and a n a l y s i s . o f independence. "In the l a t t e r we are i n t e r e s t e d in.how a group of v a r i -ates' are r e l a t e d among, themselves, no one being marked out by the c o n d i t i o n s o f the problem as o f greater p r i o r importance than the o t h e r s , whereas i n the a n a l y s i s o f dependence we are i n t e r e s t e d i n how a. c e r t a i n s p e c i f i e d group (the dependent v a r i a t e s ) depend on the others:;" 1 The approach of t h i s study i s t o , f i r s t o f a l l , conduct a f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , t h a t i s to say, an a n a l y s i s o f i n t e r -dependence. Prom t h i s v a r i a b l e s w i l l be e x t r a c t e d t o be used f o r an a n a l y s i s o f dependence, namely, can o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n 1 . Wo: attempt w i l l be made to undertake an e x p o s i t i o n o f the mathematical procedures behind these analyses; these are adequately d e a l t w i t h i n p a r t i c u l a r 2 s t a t i s t i c a l works. However, a b r i e f summary o f b a s i c theory w i l l be given. A B r i e f Review of Factor A n a l y s i s Although there are s e v e r a l f a c t o r i n g methods, the one u t i l i z e d i n t h i s study i s the p r i n c i p a l components method. Im the p r i n c i p a l components method, each f a c t o r accounts f o r a d i m i n i s h i n g p r o p o r t i o n of the l i n e a r l y independent dimensions. Thus the f i r s t f a c t o r accounts f o r the greatest variance;; the second f a c t o r accounts f o r l e s s variance than the f i r s t f a c t o r ; the t h i r d l e s s tham the second, and so f o r t h . 66 The outcome o f a p r i n c i p a l components a n a l y s i s should give the f o l l o w i n g "byproducts:: (1) i n d i c a t i o n o f the p r o p o r t i o n o f variance accounted f o r by each f a c t o r ; (2) i n d i c a t i o n of the composition of each f a c t o r ; (3) i n d i c a t i o n o f the c r i t e r i o n : : f o r determining the number of f a c t o r s ; (4) i n d i c a t i o n , of v a r i a t i o n s of dimensions w i t him v a r i -a b l e s within^ the new f a c t o r s . A b r i e f explanation'of each Of these byproducts; f o l l o w s . (1) The p r o p o r t i o n . o f t o t a l v a r i a n c e accounted f o r by a p a r t i c u l a r f a c t o r can be determined by examining the corresponding l a t e n t root (eigenvalue), o f that f a c t o r . ('2) The weight o f v a r i a b l e x om f a c t o r Z can be d e f i n e d as the f a c t o r l o a d i n g o f the v a r i a b l e on t h a t f a c t o r . Thus the sum of the f a c t o r l o a d i n g s on-a f a c t o r deter-mines the eigenvalue o f that: f a c t o r . (3) I h our p r i n c i p a l components" s o l u t i o n we wish to r e t a i m only those f i r s t m f a c t o r s , which w i l l account, f o r a s u f f i c i e n t l y , l a r g e amount o f the variance w i t h i n the o r i g i n a l variables;. For t h i s reason we s h a l l s p e c i -f y t h a t only f a c t o r s w i t h corresponding eigenvalues;great-er t h a m l are t o be considered, the assumption being that, w i t h i n : t h i s c r i t e r i o n , an acceptable amount o f the t o t a l v a r i a n c e w i l l be accounted f o r . (4) Factor scores a l l o w p r e c i s e measurements to be pro-v i d e d o f the l o c a t i o n . o f a l l o r i g i n a l observations on the f a c t o r s c a l e . Thus, since each respondent i n t h i s : study has a f a c t o r score on; each f a c t o r , a c l e a r i n d i -c a t i o n : i s allowed of where t h i s respondent i s placed on the f a c t o r scale i n . r e l a t i o n , to a l l other respondents:. Factor scores.have the great advantage over o r i g i n a l values i n that the computation.procedure produces a standardized or normalized v a l u e . This i s e s p e c i a l l y u s e f u l i n subsequent a n a l y s i s o f dependence. A n a l y s i s o f the Dimensions o f Responses Before examining the r e s u l t s o f the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i t i s important to place t h i s a n a l y s i s w i t h i n the frame-work o f the o r i g i n a l hypothesis. The hypothesis, i t w i l l be r e c a l l e d , s t a t e d that:. (1) v a r y i n g a t t i t u d e s o f mobile home r e s i d e n t s toward .. t h e i r park i s a f u n c t i o n : o f the 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 o f the park i n which the mobile home i s : l o c a t e d . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , we s t a t e d t h a t we were attempting t o r (2) d i s c e r n the r e l a t i o n s h i p between r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c -t i o n and p a r t i c u l a r a t t r i b u t e s o f the mobile home park;, (3) i n v e s t i g a t e v a r i a b i l i t y i n s a t i s f a c t i o n on a d i s -aggregated l e v e l , t h a t i s . t o say, i n terms o f park f a c i l i t i e s and s e r v i c e s , park l o c a t i o n , and s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the park. The r e s u l t s o f the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s proved to be extremely i n t e r e s t i n g , both i m terms o f the o r i g i n a l hypotheses as w e l l as i n terms o f the o r i g i n a l a r r a y o f questions asked to park dwellers :; The s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e proved, i n . f a c t , to be i n t e r -r e l a t e d and thus "became a s i n g l e dimension w i t h i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . A l s o , the v a r i a b l e s i n many cases grouped themselves i n the same order as they had been grouped on the o r i g i n a l q u estionnaire (on the assumption that they were concerned w i t h measuring the same aspect of park l i v i n g . , - See Appendix I ) . Thus the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s bore out t h a t the ques t i o n n a i r e was indeed measuring the range o f phenomena that had o r i g i n a l l y been:postulated to r e -l a t e to the hypothesis. Since i t had been s p e c i f i e d t h a t o n l y f a c t o r s ; w i t h corresponding- eigenvalues equal or greater t o 1 were t o be considered,, the r e s u l t was: the emergence o f 24 inde-pendent, l i n e a r dimensions.to account f o r the o r i g i n a l 75 variables:-; These 24 f a c t o r s accounted for. 70$ o f t r a c e , t h a t i s t o say, the p r o p o r t i o n o f t o t a l v a r i a -b i l i t y i m t h e data accounted f o r by these 24 factors- was. 70$. Although not an e x c e p t i o n a l l y h i g h percentage, i t i s c e r t a i n l y adequate f o r the purposes o f t h i s study. 69 Of the 24 f a c t o r s , 18 are described below, each under a t i t l e which best s u i t s that p a r t i c u l a r dimension. Scattered throughout the f a c t o r m a t r i x , but g e n e r a l l y i n . t h e t a i l - e n d , are f a c t o r s which cannot be considered "coherent" in.terms of f i t t i n g a nomenclature o f what tha t dimension represents. These w i l l not be described.. HOwever, a l l f a c t o r s w i t h t h e i r highest l o a d i n g variables;; are shown- i n Table X I I I . Park Q u a l i t y Index (Factor 1) The f i r s t and most important f a c t o r , the Park Quality-Index, r e v e a l s those f a c e t s o f the mobile home park which, taken together, can be considered an i n d i c a t i o n of the q u a l i t y o f the park. The s i z e o f the park, ina terms o f the number of mobile homes, would appear to have a s t r o n g i n f l u e n c e on: the q u a l i t y o f the park, t h a t i s to say, the l a r g e r the park the b e t t e r the q u a l i t y o f the park i m terms of f a c i l i t i e s such as indoor storage u n i t s , out-door storage areas, s t r e e t l i g h t i n g , underground w i r i n g , and amenities such as shuffleboards. I n terms o f park location^, i t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t the b e t t e r the q u a l i t y o f the park the l e s s l i k e l y i t i s to be l o c a t e d next to a highway (s i n c e t h i s v a r i a b l e c o r r e l a t e s nega-t i v e l y o n . t h i s f a c t o r ) but the more l i k e l y t h a t i t i s next to a r e s i d e n t i a l area. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , the b e t t e r TABLE X I I I HIGHEST LOADING VARIABLES OF 24 FACTORS 70a Factor 1 (11.83$ o f Common: Variance) V a r i a b l e Loading Indoor storage u n i t ~.8A Size of mobile home park (number o f mobile homes?) ^81 Outdoor storage area . 78 Other f a c i l i t i e s : ,75 Underground wires .67 Rent .64 L o c a t i o n : next to r e s i d e n t i a l area .49 S t r e e t l i g h t i n g . 36 Location: next to highway -..79 Factor 2 (6.15$) Age o f respondent . 48; Employment s t a t u s of wife - . 7 1 Employment status: of main, breadwinner - . 7 1 Income - . 7 1 Factor 5 (4.73$) Importance o f purchase p r i c e o f mobile home .72 Importance of monthly expenses • .69 Importance o f l a c k of maintenance .56 Importance o f l i v i n g at ground l e v e l .53 Importance of m o b i l i t y .35 Factor 4 (3.94$) L o c a t i o n next to f i e l d s .86 Location! next to commercial business -v76 Factor 5 (3.89$) S a t i s f a c t i o n s w i t h park appearance .71 S a t i s f a c t i o n , w i t h park l o c a t i o n : . 68; S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h distance between mobile homes: .65 S a t i s f a c t i o n ! w i t h management .61 Grassy area w i t h i n mobile home park .48 Preference re owning or r e n t i n g l o t .48 Age o f mobile home park .39 Area of l o t (square feet) .32 70b) Factor 6 (3.34$) l o a d i n g Length o f time spent i n : a l l parks .90 Length of time spent i n present park .79 To t a l number o f parks l i v e d i n .50 Factor 7 (2.97$) Pool ,81 Factor 8 (2.82$) Number o f c h i l d r e n .81 Size o f household . - .77 Factor 9 (2.76$) D i f f i c u l t y meeting people because community f a c i l i t i e s f a r D i f f i c u l t y meeting people because other neigh-borhoods f a r D i f f i c u l t y meeting people because they don , !t wish to be f r i e n d l y w i t h mobile home park dwellers? Mobile home park s u f f i c i e n t f o r making f r i e n d s ; Factor 10 (2.57$) L o c a t i o n next to water Playground equipment w i t h i m park Factor 11 (2.38$) -P revious d w e l l i n g - s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house .84 Previous d w e l l i n g - apartment ( l o w - r i s e and/or h i g h - r i s e ) .80 Factor 12 (2.31$) Degree of s o c i a l i z i n g w i t h i n park .61 Mobile home park l i v i n g d i f f e r e n t , .32 Park d w e l l e r s f r i e n d l i e r than apartment dwellers? -.66 Park d w e l l e r s f r i e n d l i e r than s i n g l e f a m i l y house dwellers? -.70 Factor 15 (2.18$) Importance o f being near work -.62 Importance o f being near schools -.72 Importance o f being near shopping -.73 .78 .72 .50 .55 70c; Factor 14 (2.05$) --.Loading Laundry f a c i l i t y within park ".11 Location next to industry -.69 Factor 15 (1.89$) Importance of services provided by management -.358 Importance of general appearance of park -.42 Importance of cost of renting l o t -.60 Importance of size of lo t -.66 Importance of area surrounding the park -.67 Factor 16 (1.82$) Sex of respondent .79 Factor 17 (1.76$) Preference re location", of mobile homes -.66 Factor 18 (1.64$) Store within park .58 Location next to h i l l s .53 Roads paved withimpark -.86 Factor 19 (1.59$) Education;of respondent . .83 Occupation! of maim breadwinner .72 Factor 20 (1.54$) Other reasons for l i v i n g i n a mobile home -•75 Factor 21 (1.46$) Preference re type of housing .66 Importance of no other housing available im desired area .65 Importance of no other space or l o t available .47 Factor 22 (1.43$) Area of mobile home (square feet) -.41 Number of other parks visited -.45 Recreation building within park -.46 70d Factor 23 (1.38$) Loading Degree of s t r i c t n e s s o f r e g u l a t i o n s .77 Regulations disagreed w i t h -. 53 Fac t o r 24 (1.34$) Presence o f temporary t r a i l e r s w i t h i n park -.78 E f f e c t on.appearance o f park of temporary t r a i l e r s -.80 71 the q u a l i t y o f the park, the higher i s the r e n t f o r a l o t within, t h a t park. The Park Q u a l i t y Index emerges as the most important dimension o f the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s not only i n terms of the p r o p o r t i o n o f t o t a l v a r i a b i l i t y accounted f o r by t h i s f a c t o r , but a l s o because i t gives us a standard, comprised of a number o f sub-categories (variables?) whereby a l l parks? may be judged. Thus, respondents displaying- h i g h p o s i t i v e f a c t o r scores o m t h i s f a c t o r can.be considered to be l i v i n g i n a h i g h - q u a l i t y park. Socio-Economic Index (Factor 2) The second f a c t o r c l e a r l y d e f i nes the socio-economic sta t u s o f the respondent. I t i s concerned w i t h the age and f a m i l y income o f the respondent, whether the wife o f the main breadwinner works (where a p p l i c a b l e ) , and whether the maim breadwinner i s r e t i r e d or employed. I t must be noted t h a t three of these v a r i a b l e s , employment s t a t u s o f the main breadwinner, employment "status of the w i f e , and annual f a m i l y income, c o r r e l a t e n e g a t i v e l y on t h i s f a c t o r . Thus, hi g h negative f a c t o r scores on t h i s dimen-sion! would i n d i c a t e that the respondent i s over s i x t y years o l d , t h a t he/she i s r e t i r e d , that the wife o f the 72 male head o f household does not work, and that the annual f a m i l y income i s i n the lower income, brackets.. Needless to say, such i s g e n e r a l l y the.case o f a r e t i r e d s t a t u s . Reasons f o r L i v i n g i n a Mobile Home (Factor 3) A group o f questions were asked concerning the de-gree o f importance of s e v e r a l f a c t o r s i n the d e c i s i o n . t o l i v e i n a mobile home. Factor 3 n e a t l y summarizes a number o f these reasons, i n c l u d i n g the importance o f the p r i c e o f the mobile home, the monthly expenses, the l a c k o f maintenance f o r the mobile home, the s u f f i c i e n c y o f the space w i t h i n the home f o r f a m i l y requirements, the importance of l i v i n g at ground l e v e l (as opposed to am apartment) and the m o b i l i t y features ( r e a l or Implied) of the mobile home. Respondents d i s p l a y i n g h i g h p o s i -t i v e f a c t o r scores o m t h i s f a c t o r would consider a l l these reasons f o r l i v i n g i n a^m'oMle home to be very important. Park L o c a t i o m (Factor 4) Although the Park Q u a l i t y Index i n c l u d e s l o c a t i o n a l aspects, t h i s f a c t o r deals s p e c i f i c a l l y w i t h park l o c a -t i o n . B a s i c a l l y , i t concerns i t s e l f w i t h a park l o c a t i o n ! which i s next to f i e l d s ( i . e . r u r a l ) but not next to 73 commercial business. Such a r e l a t i o n s h i p can be s a i d to be g e n e r a l l y t r u e . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note t h a t t h i s f a c t o r c o r r e l a t e s n e g a t i v e l y (but not h i g h l y ) w i t h the importance o f being; near work, schools and shopping; Thus, f o r those l i v i n g i n a r u r a l surrounding such matters; are l e s s important i n the s e l e c t i o n o f a mobile home park. S a t i s f a c t i o n , I n d e x (Factor 5) The S a t i s f a c t i o n Index i s , i n terms o f our hypothesis the second most important f a c t o r to emerge. Within t h i s f a c t o r i s encompassed a l l those i n d i c a t o r s t h a t measure s a t i s f a c t i o n concerning a v a r i e t y o f fe a t u r e s of mohile home park l i v i n g . These i n c l u d e s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h park appearance, w i t h park lo c a t i o n s and park, management. Per-c e p t i o n o f the adequacy o f the distance between mobile homes by the respondent i s yet another s a t i s f a c t i o n im-di e a t o r w i t h i n t h i s dimension, l o t s u r p r i s i n g l y , the s i z e o f the i n d i v i d u a l l o t s and the age o f the park (generally,, the newer the park, the l a r g e r the l o t s i z e ) p l a y a p o s i -t i v e r o l e in:, determining, t h i s l a t t e r o p i n i o n ; I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the d e s i r e to own or rent a l o t i s p o s i t i v e l y c o r r e -l a t e d , which i n d i c a t e s t h a t the more s a t i s f i e d the park d w e l l e r , the more l i k e l y t hat he/she would wish to rent the l o t . The l e s s s a t i s f i e d the respondent, the greater 74 i s the de s i r e to own a l o t . . Such an a t t i t u d e may w e l l be the r e s u l t o f a d e s i r e to increase c o n t r o l over a s i t u a t i o n which, at present, would be out of; the hands o f the renter/tenant. Respondents d i s p l a y i n g ; h i g h p o s i t i v e f a c t o r s scores: o n : t h i s dimension, c l e a r l y , are very s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r park. Mobile Home Park Experience (Factor 6) This f a c t o r i s : concerned w i t h the l e n g t h o f time l i v e d i n mobile home parks. This i n c l u d e s the t o t a l number of parks l i v e d i n , the l e n g t h o f time spent i n the present park, and the l e n g t h o f time l i v e d i n a l l mobile home parks. Respondents w i t h h i g h p o s i t i v e factor" scores have had the lon g e s t experience w i t h mobile home park l i v i n g . Household S i z e (Factor 8). This f a c t o r i s concerned w i t h the s i z e o f the house-ho l d and the number o f c h i l d r e n w i t h i n the household -an. obvious r e l a t i o n s h i p . Thus those respondents w i t h h i g h p o s i t i v e f a c t o r scores have households w i t h c h i l d r e n ( i . e . l a r g e r households). 75 E x t e r n a l -Social Aspects; (F a c t o r 9) The conclusions which cam he deriv e d from t h i s : f a c t o r are extremely i n t e r e s t i n g . F i r s t , i t should he noted t h a t a l l f o u r v a r i a b l e s , l o a d i n g h i g h l y on t h i s f a c t o r had o r i g i n a l l y been grouped w i t h i n a s i n g l e question; which;began: "Have you found, on occ a s i o n , that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to meet and become acquainted w i t h people out-side the park because:....." The suggested reasons f o r d i f f i c u l t y i m meeting people were p o s t u l a t e d to be: distance from other neighborhoods;, distance from commu:-n i t y f a c i l i t i e s ; ; ; general u n f r i e n d l i n e s s o f people t o r -ward mobile home park dwellers;, the opiniom t h a t the park was s u f f i c i e n t f o r making f r i e n d s . Since a l l these v a r i a b l e s loaded p o s i t i v e l y on t h i s f a c t o r , respondents; having h i g h f a c t o r scores: would f e e l t h a t the park was s u f f i c i e n t f o r making f r i e n d s , but on.the other hand, th a t i t was d i f f i c u l t to become acquain-ted w i t h outside people because community f a c i l i t i e s and other neighborhoods were f a r away,, and a l s o , other people d i d not want to be acquainted w i t h mobile home park dwel-lers:; In,other words, i t can be p o s t u l a t e d t h a t the park i s : c onsidered s u f f i c i e n t only, because e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s : do not. a l l o w formation of r e l a t i o n s h i p s other than: those w i t h i n : the park. 76 In.terms o f our o r i g i n a l hypothesis which s t a t e d t h a t a t t i t u d e s o f r e s i d e n t s toward t h e i r park was, i n p a r t , a f u n c t i o n of the s o c i a l a t t r i b u t e s o f the park, we can see here t h a t p h y s i c a l 1 o c a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s , as w e l l as e x t e r n a l s o c i a l f a c t o r s are prime determinants o f these a t t i t u d e s . Previous Housing Experience,(Factor 11) The two v a r i a b l e s l o a d i n g h i g h l y on Factor 11 are concerned w i t h the previous housing experience of the park dweller. Since both past residency i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house as w e l l as i n , an apartment ( e i t h e r h i g h - r i s e and/or l o w - r i s e ) l o a d p o s i t i v e l y on.this: f a c t o r , high p o s i t i v e f a c t o r scores i n d i c a t e t h a t the respondent has l i v e d i n both these types of d w e l l i n g u n i t s . S o c i a b i l i t y Index (Factor 12) This f a c t o r , the S o c i a b i l i t y Index, should be examined c l o s e l y w i t h Factor 9 , E x t e r n a l S o c i a l Aspects. Variables? l o a d i n g h i g h l y on t h i s f a c t o r are concerned w i t h how o f t e n the r e s i d e n t s o c i a l i z e s w i t h others i n the park,, whether the r e s i d e n t perceives l i v i n g i n a mobile home park to be d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n . a conventional s i n g l e . f a m i l y housing neighborhood, and whether he/she considers. 77 park dwellers to be f r i e n d l i e r than those l i v i n g i n an. apartment or s i n g l e f a m i l y housing neighborhood. I n - s e v e r a l ways the manner i n which v a r i a b l e s have loaded on: t h i s f a c t o r i s p a r a d o x i c a l . The f i r s t two v a r i a b l e s loaded p o s i t i v e l y on t h i s f a c t o r while the l a s t two loaded n e g a t i v e l y . This: would i n d i c a t e that w h i l e , on the one hand, the park dweller s o c i a l i z e s ; f r e -quently w i t h i n -the park and considers l i v i n g i n a park to be d i f f e r e n t from a. conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y housing: neighborhood ( f r e q u e n t l y c i t i n g the reason f o r the d i f f e r -ence as being t h a t park, dwellers are f r i e n d l i e r ) , on the other hand, he/she does not consider people l i v i n g i m mobile home parks to be any f r i e n d l i e r than those people l i v i n g i n . an.apartment or a s i n g l e f a m i l y house. In. terms o f the o r i g i n a l hypothesis, I t . can be s a i d t h a t the degree o f s o c i a l i nteraction., w i t h i n , the park i s t i e d w i t h the perception t h a t l i v i n g i n : a park is? d i f f e r e n t from other kinds o f neighborhoods. Park S e l e c t i o n ; - A c c e s s i b i l i t y Features (F a c t o r 13) Respondents were asked a number o f questions con-c e r n i n g why a p a r t i c u l a r park had been s e l e c t e d i n which to l i v e . This f a c t o r summarizes? those aspects o f s e l e c t i o n . 78 concerned w i t h l o c a t i o n o f the park i n r e l a t i o n to ex-t e r n a l p o i n t s o f importance, these being a c c e s s i b i l i t y to work, schools, and shopping. Respondents d i s p l a y i n g high p o s i t i v e f a c t o r scores i n d i c a t e t h a t these a c c e s s i -b i l i t y reasons were very important i n t h e i r s e l e c t i o n o f a park. Park S e l e c t i o n - I n t e r n a l Park Features-(Factor 15) While Factor 13 revealed the e x t e r n a l l o c a t i o n a l dimension o f park s e l e c t i o n , t h i s f a c t o r r e v e a l s the im-portance of i n t e r n a l f e a t u r e s i n choosing a park. These include:, s e r v i c e s provided by management;, general appear-ance of the park; cost o f r e n t i n g a. l o t ; s i z e of the lots;; I n t e r e s t i n g l y , the appearance of the general area sur-rounding the park a l s o loads h i g h l y on t h i s f a c t o r . A high p o s i t i v e f a c t o r score would show t h a t the respondent found a l l o f these aspects very important i n . h i s / h e r d e c i s i o n to l i v e i n a p a r t i c u l a r park. L o c a t i o n o f the Mobile Home (Factor 17) Only one v a r i a b l e loaded h i g h l y on: t h i s f a c t o r . This v a r i a b l e was concerned with, e l i c i t i n g the resident's? opinion;.concerning where, i n r e l a t i o n , to other types o f housing,, mobile homes should be l o c a t e d - w i t h i n a mobile 79 home park/subdivision, or w i t h i n a conventional s i n g l e , f a m i l y housing neighborhood. The r e s i d e n t was: a l s o given the o p t i o n o f s t a t i n g - t h a t he d i d not know where mobile homes should be l o c a t e d . I t i s i n t e r e s t i n g to note here that no other v a r i a b l e loaded h i g h l y on to t h i s f a c t o r , i n d i c a t i n g t h a t the question of l o c a t i o n o f mobile homes i s a completely independent dimension. High negative f a c t o r scores i n d i c a t e that respondents f e e l t h a t mobile homes should be l o c a t e d i n mobile home p a r k s / s u b d i v i s i o n s . Occupation! - Education; (Factor 19) The i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s f a c t o r concerning edu-c a t i o n a l and occupational c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s i s obvious. Those respondents, w i t h h i g h p o s i t i v e f a c t o r g s c o r e s have a h i g h degree o f education! ( r e l a t i v e l y speaking) as w e l l as h i g h e r - s t a t u s occupations. Other Seasons f o r L i v i n g i m a Mobile Home (Factor 20) In a d d i t i o n t o aski n g the importance o f a v a r i e t y o f reasons i n the d e c i s i o n to l i v e i n a mobile home (as r e -veal e d i n Factor 3 ) , the park dweller was a l s o given, the option, o f s t a t i n g any "other reason" t h a t was considered important. Not s u r p r i s i n g l y , these "other reasons" came out as a separate dimension, i n the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . Other reasons that were s t a t e d i n c l u d e d ; "to b u i l d e q u i t y " ; "good f o r one person.";; "shorter l e n g t h o f mort-gage"; "p r i v a c y over apartment";•"close to married c h i l d -ren"; "reasonable downp'ayment"* "preparation f o r r e t i r e -ment"; "greater independence in. l i v i n g s t y l e " ; : "close to outdoor l i v i n g " ; "mobile home, assigned by employer". A' h i g h p o s i t i v e f a c t o r score would i n d i c a t e t h a t such reasons were very important i n the decision, to l i v e i n a mobile home. Choice i n Housing.-, (Factor 21) This f a c t o r i s concerned with.both r e a l and hypo-t h e t i c a l choices i n housing. Residents were asked t h a t i f they had the choice, what type o f housing would be p r e f e r r e d (e.g. s i n g l e f a m i l y house, mobile home, a p a r t -ment e t c . f . A l s o , i n terms of park s e l e c t i o n ! and the d e c i s i o n . t o l i v e i n a mobile home, i t was asked how im-portant to t h i s d e c i s i o n was the f a c t t h a t no other space was a v a i l a b l e and t h a t no other housing was; a v a i l -able i n the de s i r e d area. Since.** a l l v a r i a b l e s loaded p o s i t i v e l y , two i n t e r -p r e t a t i o n s - a r e p o s s i b l e . The f i r s t i n t e r p r e t a t i o n could be that the respondent, having had to make a second-best 81 d e c i s i o n i n terms o f housing, would not wish to admit th a t the choice was a poor one, and thus would s t a t e t h a t he/she p r e f e r r e d to l i v e i n a mobile home. The second i n t e r p r e t a t i o n could be that while the d e c i s i o n to l i v e i n a mobile home may w e l l have been.by d e f a u l t , the r e s -pondent found t h a t once the decision, was made, i t was a good one. We tend to l e a n h e a v i l y toward t h i s l a t t e r i n t e r p r e t a t i o n f o r s e v e r a l reasons. F i r s t , the acute shortage o f mobile home spaces a v a i l a b l e a t present irfc-d i c a t e s t h a t t h i s i s f a r more o f a problem than the l a c k o f s u i t a b l e h o u s i n g - a l t e r n a t i v e s . Put i n another way, i t can be s a i d that probably s u f f i c i e n t a l t e r n a t e housing does e x i s t , and that the choice o f a mobile home goes beyond a simple l a c k o f a l t e r n a t i v e s . This must be con-s i d e r e d e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i n the case of higher-income r e s i d e n t s . Secondly, those' expressing s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h t h e i r mobile home park may w e l l have found t h a t , having: moved i n t o the park, a d d i t i o n a l b e n e f i t s accrued which o r i g i n a l l y had not played an important r o l e i n t h e i r d e c i s i o n to l i v e i n a mobile home. I n other words, ex-perience w i t h mobile home l i v i n g may w e l l have "mellowed" or e r a d i c a t e d previous m i s g i v i n g s . 82 Regulations (Factor 23) This f a c t o r very n e a t l y summarizes the a t t i t u d e s o f park r e s i d e n t s toward r e g u l a t i o n s and r e s t r i c t i o n s con-c e r n i n g the park set down by management. Respondents were asked whether r e g u l a t i o n s should be l e s s or more s t r i c t , or the same as the present ones. They were a l s o asked to s t a t e whether there were any r e g u l a t i o n s t h a t were disagreed w i t h . Since the former v a r i a b l e loads p o s i t i v e l y , t h i s : would i n d i c a t e a d e s i r e f o r s t r i c t e r r e g u l a t i o n s , while the l a t t e r v a r i a b l e , l o a d i n g nega-t i v e l y , , i n d i c a t e s t h a t there are no r e g u l a t i o n s that are disagreed with. Temporary T r a i l e r s (Factor 24) This f i n a l f a c t o r i s concerned w i t h the e f f e c t o f the presence of temporary t r a i l e r s i n the park ( i f , i n f a c t , they are allowed). The negative l o a d i n g s i n d i -cate t h a t i f no temporary t r a i l e r s are permitted w i t h i n , the park, there i s , o b v i o u s l y , no d i f f e r e n c e to the ap-pearance o f the park. Conversely, a h i g h p o s i t i v e f a c t o r score would show tha t temporary t r a i l e r s are allowed and that they n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t the appearance o f the mobile home park. H i g h l i g h t s o f .the Dimensions o f Responses;: Summary Having examined the 24 factors:-, i t i s o f i n t e r e s t to. i n v e s t i g a t e the manner i n : which respondents; were place d on. the f a c t o r space. Thus, i n order t o more c l e a r l y un-derstand the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f Factor 1, Park Q u a l i t y Index,, and Factor 5, S a t i s f a c t i o n ; Index, respondents: were f i r s t grouped a c c o r d i n g to the s i z e o f the park i m which they r e s i d e d . Next, t h e i r f a c t o r scores: on: these two f a c t o r s : were p l o t t e d . The outcome i s shown: i n : Figure 1. As can be seen, 22$ o f the respondents; l i v e i m h i g h q u a l i t y mobile home parks w i t h which they are very w e l l s a t i s f i e d (Quadrant I ) . Two o f the park s i z e c a t e g o r i e s pre-dominate i n : t h i s group, namely,, parks: w i t h 50 - 74 homes: and a park w i t h over 100 homes. I t should be emphasized here t h a t there was: only one park sampled i m each o f the 75 - 100 homes, and over 100 homes c a t e g o r i e s , so t h a t r e -sults-must be examined bearing t h i s - i m mind. Respondents l i v i n g i n : s m a l l e r s i z e d parks (under 48 homes), possessing few or none o f the f a c i l i t i e s and f e a t u r e s comprising the Park Q u a l i t y Index, are d i v i d e d concerning t h e i r l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the park, although a somewhat l a r g e r number f e l l w i t h i n : the p o s i -t i v e s a t i s f a c t i o n ; q u a d r a n t . These l a t t e r , however, with: I P A R K OURLITX . . 2-40 .. f .JO A - l . x o - i . o ( T -I.fro *I.C© - l -MO - i . i o - i - o o - . 8 0 - . t o -.MO - . t o + -4- »-• + ° + + + A / . t o J.4so .*«o .10 5misFfic-r I O N a. .20 . *<o .to .5o i.oo n o /. io* i.to i.po z.oo i..2,o T T _t 1 1 1 =» 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 .MO 6 0 S i t e OP R^SPONQSNT'S o 0 Less THAN Zo Kones •o "L6 hones •f heroes o A 50 - 14 honCS A fS- loohoneS ( | P A R K ) ^ Qv/eR loohones (I P A M ) + + « -f- ^ + i - . . o o° + * + * +4-- i . i o w o 0 o o -f-o © ' © 0 FACTOR SCORES OF t£2l ResPON DENTS ON FACTOR I AND FACTOI? y F I G U R E 1 (oOlo 85 very few exceptions, are not h i g h l y s a t i s f i e d . Ambiva-lence may w e l l be due to the f a c t t h a t , although d i s -s a t i s f i e d w i t h park appearance, these r e s i d e n t s neverthe-l e s s have good,, i . e . s a t i s f a c t o r y , r e l a t i o n s w i t h t h e i r management. Because o f t h e i r s c a t t e r through a l l f o u r quadrants^ mobile home parks i n : the 50 - 74 homes category i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s s i z e o f park may w e l l be the t r a n s i t i o n a l zone between a h i g h - q u a l i t y , h i g h l y s a t i s f a c t o r y park, and one th a t i s the opposite. Thus we see i n : t h i s group parks; r a n k i n g p o s i t i v e l y on; both the Park Q u a l i t y and Satisr-f a c t i o n . I n d i c e s , parks of poor q u a l i t y and marginal s a t i s -f a c t i o n ; or d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n ; l e v e l s , and parks w i t h p o s i -t i v e park q u a l i t i e s but w i t h d i s s a t i s f i e d residents;. The l a s t case may w e l l be due to poor r e l a t i o n s ; w i t h manage-ment which i s not n e c e s s a r i l y connected wi t h the appear-ance o f the park. Ihi summary, we are able to conclude t h a t , g e n e r a l l y , the l a r g e r the park, the higher the q u a l i t y o f the park and the greater the r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . Factor scores were also, p l o t t e d a g a i n s t Factor 9 86 E x t e r n a l S o c i a l Aspects, and Fact o r 12, the S o c i a b i l i t y Index. As shown i n Figure 2, the outstanding f e a t u r e s are the l a c k o f s c a t t e r , the l a c k of high f a c t o r scores, the c l u s t e r i n g at quadrant axes, and the n e a r l y even, groupings w i t h i n the f o u r quadrants. The 31$ o f the respondents l o c a t e d i n the f i r s t quadrant can'febe i n t e r p r e t e d to f e e l that e x t e r n a l f a c -t o r s hinder the development o f r e l a t i o n s outside the park, that r e s i d e n t s s o c i a l i z e o f t e n w i t h neighbors; w i t h -i n , the park and that they consider l i v i n g i m a park to be d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n other types of housing neigh-borhoods. The 25$ o f respondents i n the second quadrant a l s o consider e x t e r n a l f a c t o r s l i m i t i n g to the forma t i o n of outside r e l a t i o n s h i p s but, on. the other hand, they do not consider those l i v i n g i n mobile home parks to be any f r i e n d l i e r than people i n other types o f housing neigh-borhoods. The 44$ found i n the t h i r d and f o u r t h quadrants do not f e e l t h a t e x t e r n a l circumstances prevent t h e i r meeting people o u t s i d e the park. However, 20$ o f these residents?, although f e e l i n g mobile home park dwellers are f r i e n d l i e r , An 249 I 5 2 177 2 3 8 61 1% 70 7 2 115 241 202 2 9 0 2*o ISI 2.73 50 «9 222 250 " ._. ax I3Z 73 "2Ao -zio ~Z-ao -1.So -1.40 -1.^0 ~J.2o - 1 . 0 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 * »— ,(,0 -MO -.10 - J 1 1 9 5 / 3 o 2 * 5 Z9 4 7 44 2u Zoo 59 78 »5S 3t 2 ' 3 2.'° 224 I36> 9 7 /42 2?? 2/^ 135 2.40-2 2 ° 2-oo 1.90 • /50 1.40 '7£ 9 , 191 m. „ p tit 5 2S5 2A, 103 ,ir~ J.XO 3 0 MO , g A « L »5f '75 z,f I0Z t6o lot* 228 LOM&V '89. 53 5 3 , 9 7 W 'if. 4o ZSg 7.X, IOO 139 HO 1.4,0 I.SO 200 ZZO Z90 JX _4 ( { —I ! ! 2CR in 193 13 277 2*6 « •\%°1o%± . £ 7 , %t\z> 5 7 1 I9O EXTERNAL SOCIAL FtSPQCTS xo io<r 4.-1.00 253 9 272 I3H 7/ 75 9 3 9 9 10 2X1 I-,40 2 2 9 264 I1* I 77 ZZ1 ?2 ZSl ni m 105 113 \5t> lis 1-1.40 ill &9 I5Z 133 l-J.So 65 I*i5 Z3S $5% 1/0 F I G U R E 2 Z<$\ FACTOR ScOftCS OM FACTORS TX AfoD 1*4% 31% 10% 88 do not s o c i a l i z e o f t e n among t h e i r neighbors. The r e -maining 24$ do s o c i a l i z e o f t e n w i t h t h e i r neighbors. The c o n c l u s i o n drawn would be tha t no general con-sensus e x i s t s among park d w e l l e r s concerning a t t i t u d e s toward s o c i a l aspects o f mobile home l i v i n g , f u r t h e r -more, i t i s evident t h a t there i s a v a r i e t y of shades and nuances that must c o n s t a n t l y be examined when i n -v e s t i g a t i n g the s o c i a l aspects o f mobile home park l i v i n g . F i n a l l y , f a c t o r scores were p l o t t e d against Factor 2, Socio-Economic Index, and Factor 21, Choice i n Housing. Some very i n t e r e s t i n g p a t t e r n s emerged as i n d i c a t e d i n Figure 3. The near-even groupings w i t h i n the f o u r quad-r a n t s would i n d i c a t e t h a t the choice o f housing p r e f e r r e d , i f no c o n s t r a i n t s are present, i s due to reasons other than economic ones. Thus we see those of higher income st a t u s p r e f e r r i n g mobile homes; (25$), while the same per-centage p r e f e r r i n g to l i v e i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y detached house. We see the same percentage w i t h i n the lower eco-nomic grouping p r e f e r r i n g a mobile home, while a s l i g h t l y l a r g e r percentage o f t h i s group s t a t i n g a d e s i r e to l i v e i n a s i n g l e f a m i l y house. 51 rn 17. 39 us w 93 i?6 . 9 ? 230 tt<r 22% Wo 0-33 ; Si 2J3 97 lU 107 ,.l-9° i.oo 26 ("73 4? 13^ 65 /77 »6S 2 4 , 2<*3 3« 3«f. 2S2 5<? ^7 2 3 t »« ~LMO -I.IO - 2 . 0 O 1 f-244 i « 9 «... 5o * , 2 ' 2 ' " " 3 5 27t «5 V 131 /«2 103 73 26» «7 2<} 3 3 46 264 in 51 33 207 10* 9? 2 6 2 . HI ISS. 2?o »38 I 3 5, 2 3 23S 70 89 53 in" 277 110 »o3 111- m H5 206 HO 25 .228 12o* II 20 &7. 1:4© 100 ZSI 2X3 119 m 9 19 7Z '« 235 /4 17 2oo MO <?5 i ? * * 7 5 " .41 O * * * * 9 3 " 2 « * " HS m IIS*** W »5™ i 4 9 - 2 Q , . y W..4o .go /op f 2 o ^ A 4 o r / 9 o • -ALS ^ ' 1 *r • 8 1 ! ! 193 19 '] 27/ 24? n? jo| z n 2*7 3 ' « 47 ' 22 " t o Iff*, So JO 263 1S3 *>5 170 108 Zl1 106 /7? I/3 77 V.0O 110 111 HI 2H* IS to 18 li S 75 Zoo, -279 270 "UO Vt 2-00 "220 58 262. «232* P6 52% 36 55 iSS )3 52% <2?7. 2^% 1 FIGURE 3 2?I FACTOR ScoRes O N T n c T o R s II ANJO SO 7? 2^% 90 Given the general stereotype o f mobile home l i v i n g as a second-best, low-income form o f housing, the r e -s u l t s presented would i n d i c a t e t h a t t h i s indeed i s not n e c e s s a r i l y the case. I n other words, we must l o o k e l s e -where i n attempting to analyze why people choose to l i v e i n a mobile home. Our co n c e n t r a t i o n on the park aspects: o f mobile home l i v i n g may w e l l be an important key to understanding these preferences:. I n sho r t , the q u a l i t y o f the mobile home park, as w e l l a s . i t s s o c i a l charac-t e r i s t i c s , can be considered to p l a y an important r o l e i n determining housing preferences^ 91. FOOTNOTE 1. K e n d a l l , M.G., Smith, B.B., "Factor A n a l y s i s " , J o u r n a l ; o f the Royal S t a t i s t i c a l S o c i e t y , S e r i e s B., V o l . 12fJ NO. 1, 1950, p. 60. 2. See e s p e c i a l l y Cooley, W.W., Lohnes, P.R., M u l t i v a r i a t e Procedures For The B e h a v i o r a l Sciences, (John Wiley & Sons, New York) 1962. CHAPTER 7 AFEXAMINATION OF THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENT ATTITUDES AND PHYSICAL AND SOCIAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MOBILE HOME PARKS I n t r o d u c t i o n to Canonical C o r r e l a t i o n : The previous chapter l a i d out the dimensions of mobile home park l i v i n g . I t was observed that measure-ment of respondent s a t i s f a c t i o n f e l l w i t h i n a s i n g l e l i n e a r dimension; t h a t a dimension emerged which would a l l o w us to judge the q u a l i t y o f the mobile home park i n terms;; o f p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s ; t h a t the p e r c e p t i o n o f s o c i a l aspects o f park l i v i n g was i n f l u e n c e d by negative e x t e r n a l f o r c e s and that group i n t e r a c t i o n : w i t h i n . t h e park could not be analysed w i t h i n c l e a r - c u t b e h a v i o r - a t t i t u d e r e s -ponses; Having discerned the broad o u t l i n e o f mobile home park l i v i n g , we have y e t , however, to determine how the a t t i t u d i n a l v a r i a b l e s ( i n c l u d i n g the s a t i s f a c t i o n scales) f u n c t i o m i n r e l a t i o n to other v a r i a b l e s measuring v a r i -ous aspects o f park l i v i n g (the a t t i t u d e - d e t e r m i n i n g va r i a b l e s ; ) . 93 Although one could attempt to examine b i v a r i a t e r e l a t i o n s , t h i s method i s too cumbersome and would pro-duce mutually i n c o n s i s t e n t r e s u l t s ; The best approach i s to i n v e s t i g a t e how the a t t i t u d i n a l v a r i a b l e s behave i m relation}, to the a t t i t u d e - d e t e r m i n i n g ones. A canoni-c a l correlation?, should succeed i n c a r r y i n g out t h i s goal. Such an a n a l y s i s w i l l c o r r e l a t e the a t t i t u d i n a l v a r i a b l e s ? ( i . e . the dependent v a r i a b l e s ) w i t h the a t t i t u d e - d e t e r -mining; ones ( i . e . the independent v a r i a b l e s ) . "The canonical c o r r e l a t i o n ? is? the maximum c o r r e l a t i o n between l i n e a r f u n c t i o n s o f the two v e c t o r v a r i a b l e s Geo-m e t r i c a l l y , the c a n o n i c a l model can be considered an ex-p l o r a t i o n o f the extent to which i n d i v i d u a l s occupy the same r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s i m one measurement space as they T. do in? the other." Moreover,, there may w e l l e x i s t more than one set o f r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s . Thus, having l o c a t e d t h a t p a i r o f independent and dependent v a r i a b l e s that maximally c o r -r e l a t e , the c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n a n a l y s i s w i l l them attempt to l o c a t e a d d i t i o n a l p a i r s o f maximally c o r r e -l a t i n g v e c t o r v a r i a b l e s . This i s subject only t o the r e s t r i c t i o n . t h a t each new p a i r must be orthogonal and independent to a l l p r e v i o u s l y l o c a t e d p a i r s o f depen-dent and independent v a r i a b l e s . 94; Role of Factor A n a l y s i s i n Canonical Correlation?; A n a l y s i s Normalized f a c t o r scores w i l l be used as dependent and independent dimensions i n : a c a n o n i c a l c o r r e l a t i o n ? a n a l y s i s . However, the f a c t o r scores from the f i r s t , all-encompassing f a c t o r a n a l y s i s o f the previous chapter cannot be u t i l i z e d . This i s due to the obvious reason tha t a l l f a c t o r s w i t h i n . a f a c t o r m a t r i x a r e , by d e f i n i -tion?, orthogonal to each other, and thus, have zero c o r r e -l a t i o n s . Therefore, two more f a c t o r analyses must be conducted, one c o n s i s t i n g of a t t i t u d i n a l v a r i a b l e s , the other o f a t t i t u d e - d e t e r m i n i n g v a r i a b l e s . As expected, the a t t i t u d e - d e t e r m i n i n g f a c t o r analysis? d i f f e r e d o n l y s l i g h t l y from the f i r s t f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , except f o r the m i s s i n g a t t i t u d e - s a t i s f a c t i o n v a r i a b l e s . The r e s u l t s : of the second f a c t o r a n a l y s i s are shown i n Table XIV. Dimensions of A t t i t u d e s and S a t i s f a c t i o n ? The t h i r d f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was concerned w i t h f i v e v a r i a b l e s measuring a t t i t u d e s of mobile home park r e s i -dents toward the s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l aspects of t h e i r park. These c o n s i s t e d of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the appear-ance of the park, s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the l o c a t i o n o f the 95a TABLE XIV THE INDEPENDENT DIMENSIONS: ATTITUDE-DETERMINING VARIABLES Factor Comments: Park Q u a l i t y Index (1) Economic Status (2) Reasons f o r L i v i n g i m a Mobile Hbme (3) Park L o c a t i o n (4) General I n t e r n a l Park Features (5) The same as:- f a c t o r 1 o f the f i r s t ana-l y s i s save that the v a r i a b l e - l o c a -t i o n , next to a r e s i d e n t i a l area - d i d not l o a d h i g h l y . U n l i k e f a c t o r 2 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s , t h i s f a c t o r only loaded h i g h l y on ec-onomic i n d i c e s , i . e . the annual f a m i l y income, whether the respondent was r e -t i r e d or employed, whether the wife a l s worked. Same as f a c t o r 3 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s . This; f a c t o r came out more c l e a r l y de-f i n e d than.the same f a c t o r i n the f i r s t a n a l y s i s . V a r i a b l e s : l o a d i n g high l y : park l o c a t i o n , next to commercial business, f i e l d s , and/or r e s i d e n t i a l areas. Parks: l o c a t e d next to r e s i -d e n t i a l and/or commercial areas are not l o c a t e d i n a r u r a l - t y p e s e t t i n g -g e n e r a l l y a true observations; V a r i a b l e s l o a d i n g h i g h l y : s i z e of the l o t ; whether there i s : considered to be s u f f i c i e n t distance between mobile homes; whether temporary t r a i l e r s are permitted and, i f ao, whether they n e g a t i v e l y a f f e c t the park appearance; whether any park r e g u l a t i o n s : are dis?-agreed wit h . Mobile Home park Experience (6) Same as f a c t o r 6 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s . E x t e r n a l S o c i a l Aspects: (8) Same as f a c t o r 9 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s . S o c i a b i l i t y Index (9) Same as f a c t o r 12 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s 95b Factor Comments Occupation - Education (10) Same as f a c t o r 19 of the f i r s t analysis Park S e l e c t i o n - A c c e s s i -b i l i t y Features (11) Same as f a c t o r 13 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s Previous Housing Exper-ience (12) Park S e l e c t i o n - I n t e r n a l Park Features (13) l o c a t i o n o f the Mobile Home (17) Sex (18) Family L i f e Cycle (20) Same as f a c t o r 11 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s Same as f a c t o r 15 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s Same as f a c t o r 17 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s Same as f a c t o r 16 o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s A negative f a c t o r score i n d i c a t e s the respondent i s male. This f a c t o r can be considered an ex-te n s i o n o f the Household Size f a c t o r o f the f i r s t a n a l y s i s . V a r i a b l e s l o a d i n g h i g h l y : age o f the respondent; number of c h i l d r e n ; s i z e of the house-hold. A p o s i t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n on the f i r s t v a r i a b l e and negative ones on the other two i n d i c a t e t h a t the o l d e r the respondent, the l e s s l i k e l y t h a t c h i l d -ren are l i v i n g i n the mobile home, and consequently, the sm a l l e r the household s i z e . 96 park, s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h management, p r e f e r r e d type o f d w e l l i n g ( i f a choice were to e x i s t ) , p e r c e p t i o n o f park l i v i n g as being d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n other types o f housing neighborhoods. As expected from the f i r s t f a c t o r a n a l y s i s , the s a t i s f a c t i o n s c a l e s f e l l w i t h i n a . s i n g l e , l i n e a r dimen-s i o n , the S a t i s f a c t i o n Index. High p o s i t i v e f a c t o r scores; on t h i s f a c t o r would i n d i c a t e a hig h l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c -t i o n ; Less expected, however, was the outcome f o r the other two v a r i a b l e s , both o f which loaded h i g h l y on: the second f a c t o r . This f a c t o r can be termed L i v i n g S t y l e . High p o s i t i v e f a c t o r scores on:, the L i v i n g S t y l e f a c t o r r e v e a l that r e s i d e n t s consider mobile home park l i v i n g to be d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n other types o f housing neighborhoods. Generally, t h i s d i f f e r e n c e was c i t e d as being due to the f a c t t h a t r e s i d e n t s were " f r i e n d -l i e r " ; however, negative reasons f o r d i f f e r e n c e s were a l s o c i t e d , these i n c l u d i n g a l e s s e r degree o f p r i v a c y and the watchful presence o f management. I n a d d i t i o n , a h i g h p o s i t i v e f a c t o r score would i n d i c a t e t h a t , given the c h o i c e , the r e s i d e n t would p r e f e r to l i v e i n a mobile home. The f a c t o r l o a d i n g s on these two dimensions are 97 summarized in.Table XV. A n a l y s i s of R e l a t i o n s h i p s Between Respondent A t t i t u d e s and  Personal/Park C h a r a c t e r ! s t i e s The independent v a r i a b l e s o f the c a n o n i c a l c o r r e -l a t i o n a n a l y s i s were comprised o f the 1 5 defined dimemr sions (out o f 2 1 ) emerging from the second f a c t o r a n a l y s i s . The dependent v a r i a b l e s c o n s i s t e d of the 2 a t t i t u d i n a l f a c t o r s . The outcome i s i n d i c a t e d i n Table XV3T, i n which the c o r r e l a t i o n s between each o f the o r i g i n a l v a r i -ables and the deriv e d c a n o n i c a l v a r i a t e s are l i s t e d . As i s evident, there are two s i g n i f i c a n t c a n o n i c a l c o r r e -l a t i o n s . In:other words, there are two independent d i -mensions on the dependent set o f v a r i a b l e s , which are s i g -n i f i c a n t l y r e l a t e d to corresponding dimensions of the independent set of v a r i a b l e s . The f i r s t dependent dimension: i s seen to be p o s i -t i v e l y r e l a t e d w i t h park q u a l i t y , general park features^ and park s e l e c t i o n - i n t e r n a l f e a t u r e s . A l l these l a t t e r independent v a r i a t e s are concerned w i t h the p h y s i c a l appearance o f the mobile home park. We can conclude that the presence o f indoor storage u n i t s , outdoor storage areas, s t r e e t l i g h t i n g , underground TABLE XV' LOADINGS OP ATTITUDINAL VARIABLES OW. 2 FACTORS Factor 1 (33?31$ o f Common Variance) V a r i a b l e Loading S a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h park appearance ,85 S a t i s f a c t i o n i w i t h park l o c a t i o n ! '^80 S a t i s f a c t i o n : w i t h park management ",69 Factor 2 (21.54$) Housing preference .'73 Mobile home park l i v i n g d i f f e r e n t from other r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods ,72 99 TABLE XVI CORRELATIONS BETWEEN ORIGINAL VARIABLES AND DERIVED CANONICAL VARIATES 1 s t Canonical Dependent V a r i a b l e s Independent V a r i a b l e s .57 S a t i s f a c t i o n Index .93 Park Q u a l i t y Index .42 L i v i n g S t y l e .35 S o c i a b i l i t y Index -.40 Park L o c a t i o n -138 General I n t e r n a l park Features . 35 L o c a t i o n o f the Mobile Home -.30 Previous Housing Experience-. 25 Park S e l e c t i o n - I n t e r n a l Features . 25 Economic Status -.22 Family L i f e Cycle . 21 Occupation - Education -. 20 Park S e l e c t i o n - A c c e s s i -b i l i t y Features .14 Reasons f o r L i v i n g i n a Mobile Home .05 Mobile Home Park Experience .03 Sex .02 E x t e r n a l S o c i a l Aspects .01 2nd Canonical 31 L i v i n g S t y l e .93 Previous Housing Experience-.45 S a t i s f a c t i o n Index-.35 General I n t e r n a l park Features -.41 Sex .37 E x t e r n a l S o c i a l Aspects -.33 Park S e l e c t i o n - I n t e r n a l Features -.30 Economic Status.; -. 26 S o c i a b i l i t y Index -. 25 Park Q u a l i t y Index -.15 Reasons f o r L i v i n g i n a Mobile Home ,15 Mobile Home Park Experience-^15 Family L i f e Cycle .13 Occupation* - Education .13 L o c a t i o n o f the Mobile Home .12 Park Location. -.12 Park S e l e c t i o n . - A c c e s s i -b i l i t y Features- -.04 100 w i r i n g , and amenities such as shuffleboards a l l c o n t r i -bute to r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . Furthermore, general i n t e r n a l park f e a t u r e s such as the s i z e o f the l o t s and whether the r e s i d e n t considers the s i z e to be s u f f i c i e n t a l s o a f f e c t r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . The negative c o r r e l a t i o n on the present l o c a t i o n o f the park r e v e a l s that a r u r a l - t y p e s e t t i n g next to f i e l d s and away from commercial businesses and/or r e s i -d e n t i a l areas i n c r e a s e s r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . Furthermore, the r e s i d e n t ' s l e v e l of s a t i s f a c t i o n w i l l a l s o be a f f e c t e d by the degree of importance o f p a r t i c u l a r f e a t u r e s i n s e l e c t i n g a park, such as s e r v i c e s provided by management, s i z e o f the l o t s , c ost o f r e n t i n g a l o t , and appearance o f the area surrounding the park. Inaother words, the more important are these reasons f o r s e l e c t i n g a p a r t i c u l a r park, the greater i s the s a t i s -f a c t i o n w i t h the park. This would i n d i c a t e t h a t those respondents who were i n a p o s i t i o n t o make a choice be-tween parks, chose that park which best met the r e q u i r e -ments l i s t e d above. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n on l o c a t i o n o f mobile homes? i n : r e l a t i o n , to other types o f housing i n d i c a t e s that the 16$ more s a t i s f i e d the r e s i d e n t , the more he/she f e e l s t h a t mobile homes should be l o c a t e d w i t h i n parks or subdi-v i s i o n s , i . e . not mixed w i t h other types: o f d w e l l i n g u n i t s ; Pour independent v a r i a b l e s concerned w i t h the per-sonal h i s t o r y o f the respondent c o r r e l a t e d n e g a t i v e l y , while one c o r r e l a t e d p o s i t i v e l y . These were:- economic s t a t u s ; mobile home park experience; educationr-occupation; previous d w e l l i n g s ; f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e . This: would i n d i c a t e , f i r s t o f a l l , t hat r e s i d e n t s on the lower end o f the income and educations-occupation: s c a l e s , as w e l l as o l d e r r e s i d e n t s are more s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r park. Such a f i n d i n g may w e l l be r e l a t e d to expectations^, that i s to say, i t can be hypothesized t h a t those o f lower socio-economic^ s t a t u s expect l e s s : o f t h e i r park i n terms o f the q u a l i t y o f the surrounding environment and thus are more r e a d i l y s a t i s f i e d . I t was^ a l s o found t h a t the l e s s e r the p e r i o d o f time the respondent has r e s i d e d i n a mobile home park, the greater i s : the degree o f s a t i s f a c t i o n . This may-w e l l be due to the f a c t t h a t mobile home l i v i n g i s : i n -c r e a s i n g l y being viewed as. the f i r s t choice i n : housing 102 and not the second-best, as was: more g e n e r a l l y the case i n the past. A l s o , those having r e s i d e d f o r a sh o r t e r p e r i o d o f time i n . a mobile home park probably l i v e i n newer mobile homes which not only are l a r g e r , but a l s o i n c o r p o r a t e features: not found i n : the o l d e r homes; F i n a l l y , the negative c o r r e l a t i o n on previous dwel-l i n g s r e v e a l s t h a t , i f the respondent has l i v e d i n an; apartment, the greater i s the s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h the mobile home park. This may w e l l be more a r e f l e c t i o n , on apartment l i v i n g tham on park l i v i n g . The negative c o r r e l a t i o n ; on the s o c i a b i l i t y index would i n d i c a t e t h a t , w i t h i n c r e a s i n g park s a t i s f a c t i o n , mobile home dwellers are not viewed as; being any/ more f r i e n d l y thano. persons i m other types o f housing neigh-borhoods. More s p e c i f i c a l l y , t h i s : may be am. i n d i c a t i o n ; t h a t the more s a t i s f i e d a r e s i d e n t i s w i t h h i s / h e r park, the l e s s does he/she view mobile home park dw e l l e r s as. being- d i f f e r e n t from other people. The second ca n o n i c a l f a c t o r r e v ealed some i n t e r e s t i n g -r e l a t i o n s h i p s between the dimensions concerned w i t h 103 personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the park dweller and those concerned w i t h l i v i n g s t y l e . Negative c o r r e l a t i o n s were found on., economic s t a t u s , mobile home park experience, previous d w e l l i n g s , and sex o f the respondent. This would i n d i c a t e , f i r s t o f a l l , that the lower-income residents? viev; park l i v i n g as being d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i m other types? o f neighborhoods. Such am a t t i t u d e c ould t e n t a t i v e l y be considered an i n d i c a t i o n of a general f e e l i n g o f a l i e n a t i o n from the community and m i d d l e - c l a s s s o c i e t y . I t was also? found t h a t the l e s s the p e r i o d o f time l i v e d i m p a r k s , the greater the perception; o f " d i f f e r -entness". This could w e l l be an i n d i c a t i o n of gr e a t e r s e n s i t i v i t y to a s t i l l new environment.. Uurthermore, those havings l i v e d p r e v i o u s l y i m apartments were more l i k e l y to perceive park l i v i n g as? being d i f f e r e n t ( i m a p o s i t i v e sense). F i n a l l y , more females? considered park l i v i n g to be d i f f e r e n t than male r e s i d e n t s - a t o t a l l y unexpected f i n d i n g . Although i t is? d i f f i c u l t to p o s t u l a t e the reasons f o r such an outcome, i t can. be contemplated that women, e s p e c i a l l y those not employed, are g e n e r a l l y more s e n s i t i v e t o , and possess greater awareness o f s o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a p a r t i c u l a r neighborhood environment. The negative c o r r e l a t i o n on the park q u a l i t y index would i n d i c a t e t h a t the poorer the q u a l i t y o f the park, the more l i k e l y the perception' t h a t park l i v i n g was; d i f -f e r e n t . More s p e c i f i c a l l y , park l i v i n g here can be con-s i d e r e d n e g a t i v e l y d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n . other types?, o f housing neighborhoods^ The negative c o r r e l a t i o n ! om "park s e l e c t i o n ! - i n t e r -n a l f e a t u r e s " r e v e a l s t h a t c r i t e r i a f o r park s e l e c t i o n ; such as s i z e and cos t o f l o t s : , area surrounding the park, general appearance o f the park,, and s e r v i c e s provided by management were not important i n perception, o f d i f f e r -entness i n park l i v i n g . The negative c o r r e l a t i o n : on. the s o c i a b i l i t y index i n d i c a t e s t h a t the general perception! o f d i f f e r e n t n e s s i n ; park l i v i n g i s ; not r e l a t e d to a c o n s i d e r a t i o n t h a t mobile home park dwellers are f r i e n d l i e r . The negative c o r r e l a t i o n ; w i t h e x t e r n a l s o c i a l aspects r e v e a l s t h a t perception;! o f park l i v i n g as a s t y l e o f l i f e i s not due to d i f f i c u l t i e s i n : meeting ou t s i d e people because community f a c i l i t i e s and/or other neighborhoods are f a r away, or because people are u n f r i e n d l y w i t h park dwellers.. 105 The negative c o r r e l a t i o n . o h general i n t e r n a l park fea t u r e s i s d i f f i c u l t to analyze since i t i s composed o f a mixture of p o s i t i v e l y and n e g a t i v e l y loaded items. Summary The r e l a t i o n s h i p s we have seen emerge between xesr-pondent a t t i t u d e s and personal and park c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s : have aided s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n : our understanding o f the o r i g i n a l hypothesis. We have seen that the l e v e l o f s a t i s f a c t i o n : 1 i s r e l a t e d to p h y s i c a l a t t r i b u t e s of the park,, both i n t e r n a l i n : terms of. f a c i l i t i e s : and l a y o u t , and e x t e r n a l i n : terms, o f l o c a t i o n ; Thus the presence o f indoor storage u n i t s , outdoor storage areas, s t r e e t l i g h t i n g , underground w i r i n g a l l c o n t r i b u t e d to r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . Furthermore, i t can be s t a t e d t h a t general i n t e r n a l park features such as: s i z e o f the l o t s a l s o a f f e c t e d r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . In: a d d i t i o n , l o c a t i o n i n . a r u r a l - t y p e area was found to increase r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n ; .106' I t was a l s o found t h a t the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the respondent, i n c l u d i n g income, age, l e n g t h of r e -sidency i n mobile home parks, and previous types o f dw e l l i n g s , a l l r e l a t e d to park s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t was? surmised t h a t o l d e r r e s i d e n t s and those om the lower end o f the income and education s c a l e s expected l e s s .from t h e i r park in. terms o f f a c i l i t i e s and amenities and thus? were more r e a d i l y s a t i s f i e d . I n a d d i t i o n , those who had l i v e d i n . p a r k s f o r a l e s s e r p e r i o d of time were more s a t i s f i e d . This was considered to be an i n d i c a t i o n that satisfaction.stemmed not only from the park i t s e l f but a l s o from the mobile home which was assumed to be, g e n e r a l l y , newer and more modern f o r the newer r e s i d e n t . The a n a l y s i s a l s o found that those r e s i d e n t s who had considered, or were i n a p o s i t i o n to con s i d e r , a number of feat u r e s p a r t i c u l a r to the park before moving-i n , were found to be more s a t i s f i e d . These park s e l e c -t i o n , f eatures included: s e r v i c e s provided by management, s i z e of the l o t s , cost o f r e n t i n g a l o t , and appearance of the area surrounding the park. The r e l a t i o n s h i p between l i v i n g s t y l e and e x t e r n a l and i n t e r n a l s o c i a l a t t r i b u t e s o f the park was: found not to be r e a d i l y d e f i n a b l e and represents the most d e l i c a t e area of the i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I t was c l e a r l y ob-served, however, th a t a t t i t u d e s toward l i v i n g s t y l e were r e l a t e d to the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the park d w e l l e r , i n c l u d i n g income, age, sex, l e n g t h o f r e -sidency i n mobile home parks, and previous types o f dwel-l i n g s l i v e d i n . Iir. a d d i t i o n , the presence or l a c k o f c e r t a i n p h y s i c a l f a c i l i t i e s and features w i t h i n the park a f f e c t e d the r e s i d e n t ' s p e r c e p t i o n o f park residency as a p a r t i c u l a r s t y l e o f l i v i n g . 108 FOOTNOTE 1. Cboley, W.W. , lohnes, P.R., M u l t i v a r i a t e Data A n a l y s i s , (John-.Wiley, New York) 1971, p. 169. CHAPTER 8. THE RESIDENTS SPEAK One o f the most i l l u m i n a t i n g aspects o f t h i s ; study-was: the response to the f i n a l q u e s t i o n i n the qu e s t i o n -n a i r e : "Are there any f u r t h e r comments you wish to make concerning p h y s i c a l c o n d i t i o n s , r e g u l a t i o n s and/or s o c i a l l i f e w i t h i n , your mobile home park or parks in. general?" The answers to t h i s : q u e s tion are o f importance i n : t h a t they, r e v e a l those matters that are o f p a r t i c u l a r concern to mobile home park r e s i d e n t s . W i t h i n the context of t h i s study, these comments can be taken:as a framework w i t h i n i w h i c h to conduct the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s des-c r i b e d i m e a r l i e r chapters and thus: these comments: allovr f o r a. proper s e t t i n g f o r t h i s analysis:. Of the t o t a l 281 respondents, 188 chose to answer t h i s f i n a l question:. Respondents: answering t h i s question: l i v e d i n parks o f a l l s i z e s and v a r y i n g q u a l i t i e s . Thus:, there would not appear to be any b i a s towards responses: from-a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f park. Answers, ranged from a few words or sentences to h a l f a page to two pages; most answers, however, were o f h a l f page l e n g t h . l i o C e r t a i n subject-matters r e c u r r e d w i t h c o n t i n u i n g r e g u l a r i t y and a hand t a b u l a t i o n was made o f the frequency o f responses i n a p a r t i c u l a r area. Table XVII i n d i c a t e s the subject-matters mentioned, by category, i n decreasing order o f frequency. Of course, many respondents; covered more than one subject category so t h a t t o t a l frequencies;, exceed the t o t a l number o f respondents. The r a t h e r extensive breakdown o f responses? i n Table XVII can be regrouped i n t o broader c a t e g o r i e s as? i n d i c a t e d i n Table XVIII. These s i x broader c a t e g o r i e s o f I n t e r n a l Park Features, S o c i a l life/Regulations/Manage-ment, Government and E x t e r n a l Community, Park l o c a t i o n , l o t Ownership, and Other Subjects? w i l l be more c l o s e l y examined by s e l e c t i n g a v a r i e t y o f responses w i t h i n each category i n order to f u r t h e r understand the s p e c i f i c concerns and a t t i t u d e s o f mobile home park r e s i d e n t s * I n t e r n a l Park Features In. general, one would consider the use o f the word "park" i n the phrase "mobile home park" as a p u b l i c i t y device f o r a t t r a c t i n g p o t e n t i a l consumers;; however, a t l e a s t one respondent took the word q u i t e s e r i o u s l y : "Our choice o f the park, the 8th we checked, was decided by I l l TABLE XVII FREQUENCY OF MENTION" BY SUBJECT CATEGORIES OF 187 RESPONSES TO THE QUESTION': "ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE CONCERNING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS! REGULATIONS, AND/OR SOCIAL LIFE WITHIN: YOUR MOBILE HOME PARK OR PARKS IN GENERAL?" Frequency o f Subject Category k Mention" Improve (poor) s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s w i t h i n park.^ 30 More r e c o g n i t i o n : by governments and m u n i c i p a l i t i e s 1 ; . . . . . . 2 5 Desire owned l o t s and/or mobile home s u b d i v i s i o n s 124 More s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s : w i t h i n park 21 Large r l o t s ; r e q u i r e d 20 Poor r e l a t i o n s w i t h management 19 More good mobile home parks r e q u i r e d 18 P r e s e n t l y l i v i n g i n a good mobile home park. 17 Need a r e c r e a t i o n , b u i l d i n g w i t h i n park..... 15 Rent too high f o r s e r v i c e s provided. • 9 Problems w i t h car par k i n g w i t h i n park 9 Good r e l a t i o n s w i t h management o f park 8 Regulations w i t h i n park should be enforced.. 8 Mobile home owners should r e c e i v e Home Owners' Grant 7 Mobile home park has community s p i r i t . • 7 Frequent rent increases;; 6 B e t t e r park l o c a t i o n r e q u i r e d . 5 B e t t e r s e r v i c e f o r aged and i n f i r m w i t h i n park 5 Mobile home park r e s i d e n t s considered 2nd c l a s s c i t i z e n s . 5 S t r i c t e r r e g u l a t i o n s w i t h i n , the park 4 Parks l o c a t e d c l o s e r to c i t y r e q u i r e d 4 Poor r e l a t i o n s w i t h other tenants 3 Mobile home dealers?should not rent and hold spaces..^... 3 Park r e g u l a t i o n s f o r b i d d i n g c h i l d r e n . d i s c r i m i n a t o r y 3 Mobile home l i v i n g good f o r o l d e r people.. 3 Lack of s o c i a l l i f e w i t h i n park.. • 2 Mobile homes - low-cost housing 2 Mobile homes - not low-cost housing 1 Lack o f p r i v a c y 1 Choice r e q u i r e d i n buying a mobile home 1 D i f f i c u l t y f i n d i n g s u i t a b l e mobile home space 1 TABLE XVIII 11% GENERAL SUBJECT CATEGORIES AND FREQUENCY OF MENTION BY 187 RESPONDENTS .TO. THE. QUESTION: .."ARE THERE ANY FURTHER COMMENTS YOU WISH TO MAKE CONCERNING PHYSICAL CONDITIONS, REGULATIONS, AND/OR SOCIAL LIFE WITHIN YOUR MOBILE HOME PARK OR PARKS I F GENERAL?" Frequency/ o f General Subject Category Mention Government and E x t e r n a l Community T o t a l 37 more recognition) by govts:; and muaic... 25 Home owners!' grant 7 2nd c l a s s c i t i z e n s 5 I n t e r n a l Park Features T o t a l 112 l i v i n g i m a good park .17 improve s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s 30 more s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s ; .....21 need a r e c r e a t i o m b u i l d i n g 15 problems wi t h car p a r k i n g 9 l a r g e r l o t s r e q u i r e d . 20 Park Locatiom T o t a l 9 b e t t e r park l o c a t i o n . . 5 parks c l o s e r to c i t y . . . . . . 4 S o c i a l Life/Regulations/Management T o t a l 58 good r e l a t i o n s w i t h management 8 park has community s p i r i t 7 mobile home l i v i n g good f o r r e t i r e d . . . . 3 poor r e l a t i o n s w i t h management 19 enforce r e g u l a t i o n s 8 s t r i c t e r r e g u l a t i o n s 4 poor r e l a t i o n s w i t h other tenants 3 f o r b i d d i n g c h i l d r e n - d i s c r i m i n a t o r y . . . 3 l a c k o f s o c i a l l i f e 2 l a c k of p r i v a c y 1 Lot Ownership T o t a l 24 Other Subjects T o t a l 46 more good parks .18 ren t too high 9 frequent r e n t i n c r e a s e s . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 b e t t e r s e r v i c e f o r aged 5 dealers should not rent spaces... 3 mobile homes - low-cost housing........ 2 mobile homes - not low-cost housing.... 1 choice i n buying mobile home 1 d i f f i c u l t y i m f i n d i n g s u i t a b l e space... 1 113 the t r e e s , which means b i r d s too. L i k e housing develop-ments, so many parks were s t a r t e d by removing the PARK features - t r e e s . " A number o f respondents, however, were not as s a t i s f i e d w i t h the park i n which they r e s i d e d . As one respondent sta t e d : "The r a t i o of decent parks to l i v e i n : and the ones, that do e x i s t are a disgrace. People shouldn l !t be compelled to l i v e l i k e sheep herded i n t o the confines of these ungodly establishments be-cause o f income and/or p r a c t i c a b i l i t y problems " W i t h i n ' t h i s statement l i e s a number of p o i n t s o f d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n expressed by many respondents: "There are no paved roads, no snow removal, no r e g u l a r road maintenance. Poor water pressure and poor neatness standards are a l s o problems. There i s a c r y i n g need f o r b e t t e r p o l i c i n g o f bylaws, b e t t e r design: i n . mobile parks. They should be planned as a place f o r people to l i v e as opposed t o a place to stack mobile homes." One r e s -pondent f e l t t h a t there ought to be "regular weekly i n r -spections by municipal and p r o v i n c i a l i n s p e c t o r s to see th a t a l l bylaws are enforced." P a r t i c u l a r age groups appeared to have p a r t i c u l a r problems: "To a young f a m i l y , g e n e r a l l y , mobile home parks are u n s a t i s f a c t o r y . The good parks do not a l l o w c h i l d r e n i n them. I would c e r t a i n l y l i k e to move to a park where i t was set up f o r mobile home l i v i n g . I r e a -l i z e I would pay more r e n t , but i f the park was l a i d out p r o p e r l y one could be much more proud o f h i s investment." Another respondent s t a t e d the problem o f the f a m i l y w i t h a young c h i l d more simply: "Nothing f o r c h i l d r e n to do; ean''t even r i d e around on b i k e s . " Older age groups a l s o s t r e s s e d p a r t i c u l a r problems. One female respondent over s i x t y years o l d , l i v i n g alone, mentioned t h a t she "would l i k e i n the park a sto r e or t r a n s p o r t a t i o n to one from the park on a r e g u l a r b a s i s ; a l s o f o r a mailbox o n : t h i s side of the highway as I cannot get across busy highway." Further d i f f i c u l t i e s f o r the e l d e r l y were pointed out by a young respondent: "....snow removal p a t h e t i c - emergency v e h i c l e s could not get i n t h i s w i n t e r , and w i t h most occupants being e l d e r l y , t h i s i s a r e a l problem." Several respondents mentioned t h a t they p r e f e r r e d parks to be d i v i d e d so t h a t one s e c t i o n was s o l e l y f o r those w i t h c h i l d r e n and another s e c t i o n f o r those r e t i r e d . A l l age groups were i n t e r e s t e d i n having a d d i t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s , f i r s t l y , a r e c r e a t i o n : b u i l d i n g and, secondly, a po o l . One gentleman described a park i n Ontario as a 1 1 5 good example:- " I t ' s a completely s e l f - c o n t a i n e d park w i t h a l l the amenities - swimming p o o l , r e c r e a t i o n : c e n t r e , shopping centre e t c . " Problems w i t h small l o t s , e s p e c i a l l y i n : the o l d e r mobile home parks., were continuously mentioned. " I t h i n k the t r a i l e r s : should be a l o t f u r t h e r apart as: our neigh-bors have complained as we h i t the w a l l i n our s l e e p . " Several respondents pointed out f u r t h e r dangers due to mobile homes being c l o s e together: "Very d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h the amount o f l a n d allowed f o r the mobile home space... Consider the cramped space a f i r e hazard. " Suggestions: f o r i n c r e a s i n g l o t s i z e ranged from 3200 square f e e t to a minimum o f 5000 square f e e t . One respondent s t a t e d t h a t "a mobile home w i t h an attached c a r p o r t and cabana, not jammed up a g a i n s t others;, i s a t h i n g o f beauty " Certa i n : park features were looked upon more p o s i t i v e l y by some respondents: than others. Por example, one house-h o l d head wrote: "Some parks have got c a r r i e d away w i t h the number o f speed bumps used to slow down: t r a f f i c i n ; the parks." On: the other hand, a female respondent wrote that "we have speed bumps placed throughout the park and although a l i t t l e annoying i t i s b e a u t i f u l l y q u i e t . R e a l l y 116 appreciated by a l l I'm sure." Several respondents had v a r y i n g comments concerning the upkeep and maintenance o f i n d i v i d u a l mobile homes and l o t s . One female respondent s t a t e d : "Mobile home owners should be forced to keep t h e i r homes neat, clean: and r e p a i r e d on the outside when necessary. Older mobile homes can become very shabby as they get o l d e r , as any accomodation cam This i n t u r n can make a park l o o k neglected and run.down." Probably the f e e l i n g s o f many were summed up by one respondent who wrote:' "I t h i n k a w e l l kept, w e l l c o n t r o l l e d park such as the one I l i v e i n i s an asset to the community." S o c i a l Life/Regulations/Management Mobile home park r e s i d e n t s are not ambivalent about t h e i r management. As tenants, they express e i t h e r s t r o n g -l y p o s i t i v e views about t h e i r management or s t r o n g l y ne-ga t i v e ones. P o s i t i v e a t t i t u d e s towards management were g e n e r a l l y expressed by those who f e l t t hat they were being t r e a t e d f a i r l y . I n l o o k i n g f o r a mobile home park, one respondent expressed d i f f i c u l t y " i n f i n d i n g honest owners o f parks. Ours i s f a i r l y reasonable i n comparison to many others we i n v e s t i g a t e d . " Another s t a t e d : "The owner o f t h i s mobile home park i s very n i c e and f a i r to a l l i f you are f a i r to him. 1 1 Another appreciated the f a c t t h a t , "the l a n d l o r d i s very good i n not r a i s i n g r e n t s to a r i d i c u l o u s f i g u r e and t r i e s to make th i n g s pleasant. Owning a court i s a b i g job." One respon-dent who f e l t t hat she had good management a l s o added that "we t r y to be good tenants." A somewhat l a r g e r number o f tenants f e l t d i s p l e a s e d w i t h t h e i r management. The causes f o r t h i s were e i t h e r poor s e r v i c e s and/or f a c i l i t i e s , or s t r i n g e n t r e g u l a t i o n s , or what was considered to be " u n f a i r " treatment. A few simply s t a t e d t h a t they wanted "a new manager to l o o k a f t e r the park." Others elaborated, s t a t i n g that "the park owners are only i n t e r e s t e d i n what they can get out o f i t , not the w e l l - b e i n g or i n t e r e s t o f the tenants -a l l business has to make a p r o f i t but notHDO^v" "I t h i n k t h a t management could make t h i s mobile home park look a l o t neater than i t does." Several respondents f e l t t h a t management d i d not t r e a t a l l tenants i m p a r t i a l l y : "Some people get away wi t h abusing r e g u l a t i o n s while others don't. For example, you cannot have dogs but about approximately 10 mobile home owners have them. A l s o , some don't pay $2.50 e x t r a ,118 f o r another car while others do." A few s o l u t i o n s were o f f e r e d to remedy poor l a n d l o r d -tenant r e l a t i o n s . One male respondent suggested: "Bet-t e r or more communication with management e s p e c i a l l y w i t h regard to snow removal, parking a f t e r midnight and com-f i r m i n g of w r i t t e n r e g u l a t i o n s . " A more f a r - r e a c h i n g suggestion; was the development of co-operative s u b d i v i -sions: "In a l a n d l o r d park the tenants l i v e i n f e a r of the l a n d l o r d . In: a . c o n t r o l l e d (co-operative) s u b d i v i -s i o n the management can be changed by the m a j o r i t y o f tenants." Regulations d e a l i n g w i t h p e t s , c h i l d r e n and parking; were a l l sources o f f r i c t i o n between l a n d l o r d and tenant. Some tenants wanted to be allowed to have pets whereas others f e l t they ought to be forbidden or s t r i c t l y con-t r o l l e d . Some young f a m i l i e s considered the f o r b i d d i n g of c h i l d r e n i n some parks? to be d i s c r i m i n a t o r y whereas o l d e r r e s i d e n t s wished parks r e s t r i c t e d to a d u l t s only. The l a c k o f parking f a c i l i t i e s and e s p e c i a l l y v i s i t o r p a r k i ng was another source o f t e n s i o n between l a n d l o r d and tenant. One r e s i d e n t f e l t t h a t "the more r e s t r i c t i v e regu-l a t i o n s are brought about by the tenants, e.g. parked cars b l o c k i n g s t r e e t s , i g n o r i n g speed l i m i t s w i t h i n the t r a i l e r park, t u r n i n g dogs loos e to l i t t e r streets? and neighbors' lawns. 1 1 The method o f communicating r e g u l a t i o n s was c o n s i -dered important by some: "We f e e l t h a t a set o f w r i t t e n r e g u l a t i o n s should be posted so as to be a p p l i c a b l e to a l l r e s i d e n t s r a t h e r than spoken r u l e s which vary from person to person." Numerous respondents made comments concerning the s o c i a l l i f e w i t h i n the park. A few s t a t e d that "there i s no s o c i a l l i f e w i t h i n t h i s park", however, others g e n e r a l l y were e n t h u s i a s t i c about the v a r i o u s s o c i a l aspects o f park l i v i n g - "one can be as f r i e n d l y or as r e c l u s e d as one wants to be i n a park." "The s o c i a l l i f e can be tremendous f o r anyone who i s seeking f r i e n d -s h i p , " wrote another respondent, while another r e s i d e n t s t a t e d t h a t : "In the short p e r i o d I have been here more people have spoken to me than while l i v i n g 10 years i n the C i t y o f Vancouver where I didn't know the next door neighbor i n the apartment." Others f e l t t h a t park l i v i n g was a "wonderful way 120 o f l i v i n g f o r o l d e r people.... There i s always someone nearby who w i l l help i n case o f s i c k n e s s . " "People f r i e n d l i e r and more considerate and not a l o n e l y l i f e . Helps o l d e r people to be happier and l i v e l o n g e r , " was";. •:• another comment. The theme o f neighbors a i d i n g each other was echoed by yet another occupant: "Why I moved i n a t r a i l e r park was f o r s e c u r i t y . ( I l i v e alone.) I n a t r a i l e r park your neighbors watch over you and your t r a i l e r w hile you^re a t work, so I f e e l more secure than i n a house'. " By way o f e l a b o r a t i o n o f s o c i a l a c t i v i t i e s w i t h i n the park, one female respondent described how "we have bingo games every two weeks i n winter. The odd p o t - l u c k suppers. At Xmas, owners give a dinner f o r a l l tenants:> w i t h f r i e n d s coming i n a f t e r f o r a dance. We are allowed to have our guests use pool w i t h us." Government and E x t e r n a l Community The theme o f second c l a s s c i t i z e n s h i p r a n through s e v e r a l respondents' answers: "The m a j o r i t y o f we mobile home owners have at one time or another owned our own home and we would l i k e to be t r e a t e d again as f i r s t class? c i t i z e n s . We are looked upon by M u n i c i p a l Councils as slum d w e l l e r s and they wish we would v a n i s h . " Another wrote: "I wish the m u n i c i p a l i t y would stop t r e a t i n g us l i k e t r a n s i e n t s and second c l a s s c i t i z e n s . I have been here t h i r t y years and i n t e n d to s t a y . " A female house-h o l d head pointed out t h a t : " I t h i n k mobile homes are as w e l l i f not b e t t e r b u i l t than conventional type houses. Yet they are not as w e l l accepted. I don 11 know why as I have seen some run-down houses." Two s p e c i f i c types o f a c t i o n were suggested to help a l l e v i a t e the s i t u a t i o n . F i r s t , i t was f e l t t h a t " i f m u n i c i p a l i t i e s would uphold the r e g u l a t i o n s they have set f o r mobile home parks, they c o u l d be very n i c e a d d i -t i o n s to a community." Another respondent put the same suggestion somewhat d i f f e r e n t l y : " I f these Councils would enforce t h e i r own bylaws and make the court own-ers abide by them, there wouldn 11 be the "slummy" courts around to be eyesores." A second suggestion was a program o f education o f the p u b l i c and government: "In the f i r s t place we have got to make the p u b l i c r e a l i z e there i s a d i f f e r e n c e between the o l d t r a i l e r parks and new mobile home parks or s u b d i v i s i o n s . . . . . T r a i l e r parks are f o r t o u r i s t s t h a t are never s a t i s f i e d and keep on the move; mobile home 3 2 2 parks can be made very a t t r a c t i v e , as we l i k e our own l i t t l e l o t o f grass and flowers and not too much to l o o k a f t e r and can be p a i d f o r by o r d i n a r y peoples' earnings.... There i s no reason we can't become f i r s t c l a s s c i t i z e n s and l i v e i n peace and harmony wi t h our neighbors and coun-c i l o f the D i s t r i c t . " Another male respondent l i v i n g i n one o f the more modern mobile home parks s t a t e d t h a t "people have no i d e a what a mobile home i s . I t e l l people t h a t I l i v e i n a mobile home and they l o o k down t h e i r noses; when they come i n t o the u n i t I have, they express s u r p r i s e . They expected to come i n a small t r a i l e r i n a d i r t y o l d t r a i l e r court not a three-bedroom, two-bath, 1560 square f e e t o f l i v i n g space." A greater awareness on the part o f government was urged by many: "I would suggest that most problems per-t a i n i n g to mobile home park l i v i n g can be a t t r i b u t e d to l a c k o f knowledge and i n t e r e s t , when mobile homes f i r s t became a way o f l i f e , by the P r o v i n c i a l Government." A r e t i r e d r e s i d e n t wrote: "Over 50$ o f r e s i d e n t s i n t h i s park are on f i x e d income or r e t i r e d . More c o n s i d e r a t i o n should be shown by m u n i c i p a l i t i e s and government f o r t h i s type o f residence f o r Senior C i t i z e n s who do not wish to l i v e i n condominiums or apartments." 223 Two problems o f p a r t i c u l a r concern to mobile home r e s i d e n t s were the s a l e s tax a t the time o f purchase o f the mobile home, the 5$ monthly tax p a i d on the mobile home and the non-receipt o f a B r i t i s h Columbia Home Owners' Grant. "The most annoying p a r t o f mobile home ownership i s government r e g u l a t i o n s , i . e . paying a 5$ sa l e s t a x on o r i g i n a l purchase and a l l other purchases o f mobile homes - as i f they were cars r a t h e r than homes. A l s o , the p a r t about paying an "occupancy f e e " r a t h e r than a t a x , thus e l i m i n a t i n g us from home owners' grants, government second mortgages etc . I t i s time the mobile home owners were t r e a t e d as home owners and not as t r a n -s i e n t g y pies." A male respondent wrote that "the s a l e s t a x (5$) should be removed and the mobile homes pay t h e i r f a i r share o f community taxes. The park operator pays taxes at commercial r a t e s and passes on these taxes as ren t to the tenants who then pay these property taxes and are denied a vote on money matters tha$; d i r e c t l y a f f e c t the tenants." A pensioner wrote t h a t " i t i s suggested that taxes on property do not i n c l u d e a t a x on the mobile home as the t a x has already been p a i d a t the time o f pur-chase o f the mobile home. With o l d age pensioners i n p a r t i c u l a r , w i t h t h e i r l i m i t e d income, t h i s would give them the f e e l i n g of independence and assure them o f an 124 adequate standard o f l i v i n g and a decent way o f l i f e without being taxed beyond t h e i r means wherein hardship i s experienced." F i n a l l y , a female respondent wrote: "I thoroughly disagree w i t h the $12.00 t a x put on us t h i s past year ( c a l l e d a property t a x - when we own no pro-p e r t y ) . The "leeches" make i t more d i f f i c u l t f o r those on pensions, year by year. I f e e l s o r r y f o r them and am very t h a n k f u l I have employment." Lot Ownership Many respondents mentioned, e i t h e r d i r e c t l y or i n passing, t h a t they would l i k e to be able to own t h e i r p l o t of l a n d on which to place t h e i r mobile home. I t was suggested t h a t l a n d be developed e i t h e r as co-oper-a t i v e s u b d i v i s i o n s or as s u b d i v i s i o n s l a i d out by muni-c i p a l i t i e s . T y p i c a l comments were: "People should be able to put mobile homes on t h e i r own property"; " a l l owners want to own a piece o f l a n d f o r t h e i r mobile home and pay taxes l i k e other people and have a r o o f to c a l l our own"; "I would l i k e to be able to buy a mobile home l o t i n a s u b d i v i s i o n near a r e c r e a t i o n a l area w i t h the same r e g u l a t i o n s as a home owner." 125: The r o l e played "by Government i n l o t ownership was perceived as a c r u c i a l one. As one male respondent wrote: "Mobile homes are the answer to the housing prob-lems i f we were allowed to b u i l d co-operative s u b d i v i -s i o n s where we would own l a n d . I am a member o f a co-op tha t was formed to t r y to b u i l d such a development but c o u n c i l s refuse to rezone l a n d t h a t we s e l e c t e d . Their o p i n i o n seems to be t h a t as l o n g as we are i n some out o f the way spot where no one can be contaminated by us t h a t i t would be f i n e . " Another a l s o mentioned the im-portance o f l o c a t i o n : "The property i f allowed should not be wasteland next t o , f o r example, a r e f i n e r y o r saw-m i l l . " This respondent went on to say: "Most people i n mobile homes take p r i d e i n t h e i r homes and would do so even more i f they owned t h e i r own p r o p e r t y . " One respondent pointed out b e n e f i t s t h a t would accrue to m u n i c i p a l i t i e s i f owned l o t s were permitted: "Our Mobile Home Owners' A s s o c i a t i o n has repeatedly t r i e d to show these Councils that i f they opened up s u b d i v i s i o n s f o r mobile homes and s o l d l o t s o f approximately 80 f e e t by 40 f e e t , we could be taxed l i k e conventional home owners and the m u n i c i p a l i t y would gain much more than they do now." This same respondent a l s o added t h a t , " i f s u b d i v i s i o n s opened up, the present court owners 126 would not s u f f e r , because the courts would be fre e to accomodate t o u r i s t t r a v e l t r a i l e r s , space f o r which i s badly needed. The m a j o r i t y o f our present c o u r t s were b u i l t to accomodate th a t s i z e u n i t , not these b i g homes we have. 1 1 Park L o c a t i o n Several respondents expressed opinions concerning the l o c a t i o n o f mobile home parks: "Parks or mobile s u b d i v i -s ions should not be tucked away i n some f a r corner o f an area. They should be near shopping and r e c r e a t i o n a l f a c i l i t i e s ( i f p o s s i b l e ) as they are a very good f a c i l i t y f o r r e t irement l i v i n g . " Another respondent wrote: "I would l i k e to see more parks opened near towns or shop-p i n g centres or b e t t e r t r a n s p o r t a t i o n f o r mothers and o l d e r people who don't d r i v e . " Another p o i n t e d out that because so many mobile home parks are b u i l t next to highways, "excessive t r a f f i c noise has always been a major problem i n mobile home l i v i n g . " Changes f e l t to be r e q u i r e d i n zoning bylaws due to t e c h n o l o g i c a l advances i n mobile homes were a l s o p o inted out: " I t h i n k our community laws o f zoning are out-dated i n not p e r m i t t i n g double-width t r a i l e r s i n any r e s i d e n t i a l 127;: area o f s i m i l a r cost houses." Other Subjects The theme o f mobile homes as low-cost housing ran through the comments o f s e v e r a l respondents, both from a negative p o i n t o f view ( i . e . could a f f o r d no other type o f housing), as w e l l as a p o s i t i v e one ( i . e . c o uld a f f o r d other type o f housing but p r e f e r r e d mobile home). On the p o s i t i v e s i d e i t was st a t e d : "I do not t h i n k mobile home owners are i n f e r i o r c i t i z e n s any more than home owners i n suburbia; some o f us j u s t do not p r e f e r to t i e ourselves down to e x o r b i t a n t mortgage p r i c e s f o r a house we are h a r d l y ever i n and keep up these payments f o r n e a r l y our whole l i f e t i m e . I t h i n k t h a t there i s a very r e a l place f o r mobile homes i n our modern day...." Another respondent wrote: "We are very happy l i v i n g here. We have more time to r e l a x and able to get out more. Also expenses are so much l e s s , so we are not t i e d down to l a r g e mortgages and t a x e s . . . . " More on the negative s i d e i t was s t a t e d t h a t , "though we would a l l l i k e to d r i v e C a d i l l a c s , some of us have to dr i v e Volkswagons; we l i v e i n these o l d e r parks because 128 o f our economic c o n d i t i o n and because of our c h o i c e . " Another respondent l i v i n g i n an o l d e r park wrote: "The only comment I have i s , why can't t r a i l e r courts: be l e f t alone and as i s ? Anyone who i s n T t s a t i s f i e d can always move to a park where he w i l l be s a t i s f i e d . I f we are p r i c e d out o f the parks, where w i l l we l i v e , on s k i d road or some place l i k e t h a t ? " Several respondents mentioned h i g h monthly r e n t s and c o n t i n u a l l y i n c r e a s i n g r e n t s . "Stop the s p i r a l i n g r e n t s f o r the r e t i r e d f o l k s , " wrote one respondent, and another sta t e d : "Rent o f space f a r i n excess o f servi c e s : rendered and s i z e o f l o t . " F i n a l l y , as s t a t e d i n d i r e c t l y e a r l i e r i n t h i s chap-ter , , a number of respondents f e l t the need f o r more w e l l l a i d out mobile home parks: " I found i t very hard t o f i n d a l o t . There should be more av a i l a b l e . , " Another wrote: " A l l areas should increase mobile home parks:. This; would help the overcrowding." 129 Conclusion The comments t h a t have been described here i n d i c a t e t h a t mobile home park r e s i d e n t s have a wide range o f con-cerns. Not a l l views expressed were negative and many attempted not j u s t to s t a t e the problem, but a l s o to o f f e r s o l u t i o n s . Within the context of t h i s study i t i s important to note these comments f o r they a l l o w em-phasis to be placed on those aspects of the problem un-der i n v e s t i g a t i o n which r e q u i r e g reater a t t e n t i o n i n the planning f i e l d . These comments a l s o a l l o w f o r a more r e a d i l y understandable and coherent context w i t h i n which to place the s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s described i n t h i s study. And f i n a l l y , as planners i n a day of i n c r e a s i n g c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n matters o f p u b l i c concern, i t i s impor-t a n t to l i s t e n to those d i r e c t l y i n v o l v e d and a f f e c t e d by planning d e c i s i o n s before such d e c i s i o n s are made. SECTION" IV CONCLUSION" CHAPTER 9 PLANNING IMPLICATIONS In. coming to the clo s e o f t h i s i n v e s t i g a t i o n ! o f mobile home park residents? i t i s apparent t h a t a number of questions have been answered but a l s o a number have been.raised. Although am i n i t i a l attempt was made to examine r e -s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n ! om a dissaggregated l e v e l , i m terms: o f park appearance, park l o c a t i o n ; and r e l a t i o n s h i p o f the respondent w i t h management, i t was found that a l l these s a t i s f a c t i o n scales: were, i m f a c t , i n t e r r e l a t e d . The r e s u l t was a s i n g l e s c a l e that could be u t i l i z e d fOr measuring r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n ; Thus we could d e s c r i b e , w i t h confidence, r e s i d e n t response i n terms o f t h i s a l l -encompassing s a t i s f a c t i o n ; s c a l e . The degree of s a t i s f a c t i o n ! w a s found t o ve r y accor-ding to s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the park, as w e l l as personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the respondent. The p h y s i c a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s were concerned with: s i z e and age o f the mobile home park;, s e r v i c e s and f a c i l i t i e s ? w i t h i n ; the park; s i z e o f l o t s ; l o c a t i o n o f the park. 131 S o c i a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f the park i n c l u d e d p e r c e p t i o n of: d i f f e r e n c e s between conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y neigh-borhoods and mobile home parks; the degree o f " f r i e n d l i -ness" of park dwellers as compared to r e s i d e n t s o f other types: o f r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods:; c o n s t r a i n t s on s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , outside the park because o f distance from other r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods and/or community f a c i l i -t i e s ; constraints:: on s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n o utside the park due to negative a t t i t u d e s : o f non-park dwellers.. I n a d d i -t i o n , i n f o r m a t i o n concerning a t t i t u d e s : toward r u l e s : and r e g u l a t i o n s as w e l l as the extent o f r e s i d e n t i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the park was; sought out. The more general a t t i t u d e v a r i a b l e concerning the l i v i n g s t y l e i n v o l v e d i n r e s i d i n g i n a mobile home park, was a l s o found to be r e l a t e d to s o c i a l and p h y s i c a l a t t r i -butes o f the park as w e l l as the personal background o f the respondent. The l i v i n g s t y l e v a r i a b l e i n d i c a t e d whether r e s i d e n t s considered mobile homes to be the pre-f e r r e d housing choice as; w e l l as: whether they p e r c e i v e d park l i v i n g to be d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n a conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y neighborhood. 132 I t i s necessary, however, to ask what these r e l a t i o n t -ships mean in.terms o f p l a n n i n g f o r mobile home parks. The matter can be viewed from two, e q u a l l y important, p e r s p e c t i v e s . The f i r s t p e r s p e c t i v e i s . that o f the muni-c i p a l planner concerned w i t h the d i r e c t and immediate p l a n n i n g implications:; the second p e r s p e c t i v e i s a more general view with a broader frame o f reference. The question, the municipal planner w i l l pose i s : "Of what a i d are the views of mobile home park r e s i d e n t s : in. determining questions o f zoning, park l a y o u t , and park q u a l i t y standards?" Another manner of p u t t i n g t h i s q u e s t i o n would be:; "What have we l e a r n e d i m t h i s study about a p a r t i c u l a r group w i t h i n ; the p o p u l a t i o n t h a t can a i d planners in:making d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g t h i s group?" In: answer to these questions the most s i g n i f i c a n t f i n d i n g s : w i l l now be s t a t e d . ' I S i z e o f the Mobile Home park One o f the most important f i n d i n g s o f t h i s study i s concerned w i t h the s i z e of the mobile home park. The study examined a r e l a t i v e l y wide range o f mobile home s i z e s , from those w i t h under 20 mobile homes to one w i t h over 100 homes; A c h i e f concern o f planners must be to determine what s i z e o f park to encourage. 133 What are the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f encouraging small parks?', and how does one define "small"?? A l t e r n a t e l y , what are the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f encouraging' " l a r g e " parks? This study found t h a t , from the p e r s p e c t i v e o f the resident,, those most s a t i s f i e d w i t h t h e i r parks g e n e r a l l y l i v e d in-ones; o f over 50 homes. Conversely, those l i v i n g -i n parks w i t h under 50 homes were, g e n e r a l l y , the most d i s s a t i s f i e d . Thus the planner i s : given here an i n d i c a t i o n ) o f a minimum park s i z e , i . e . the t h r e s h o l d s i z e t h a t de-termines r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . Further research w i t h parks of s e v e r a l hundred mobile homes would be r e q u i r e d to d i s c o v e r what the maximum s a t i s f a c t o r y sizec i s : con-s i d e r e d to be from the p e r s p e c t i v e o f those who: l i v e i n . these parks. IT Park F a c i l i t i e s UO concerted e f f o r t has; been made i n . t h i s study to define a l l those p h y s i c a l features: and f a c i l i t i e s ? within? a park t h a t c o n t r i b u t e to r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . I t was found, however, t h a t p r o v i s i o n o f indoor storage units:, a general storage area f o r outdoor equipment, as w e l l as the existence o f underground wires and s t r e e t l i g h t i n g a l l c o n t r i b u t e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y to r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n . 134 Im a d d i t i o n , a park l o c a t i o n near r e s i d e n t i a l areas and away.-from highways a l s o was s i g n i f i c a n t i n determining r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n ; A l t e r n a t e l y , not as s i g n i f i c a n t was the c o n t r i b u t i o n : o f a r e c r e a t i o n b u i l d i n g , pool and playground equipment withine the park. We cam t e n t a t i v e l y view the f i r s t set o f f a c i l i t i e s : as e s s e n t i a l s or basic minimums f o r r e s i d e n t s a t i s f a c t i o n , whereas the second group might be contemplated as: o p t i o n a l f e a t u r e s . However, i t i s up t o the planner and future researchers to devise a f a r more s o p h i s t i c a t e d and compre-hensive s c a l e o f park q u a l i t y f o r v a r y i n g l e v e l s of r e s i -dent s a t i s f a c t i o n ; I I I Socio-Economic P r o f i l e This study found th a t age and f i n a n c i a l p o s i t i o n ; could not be used as am i n d i c a t o r o f whether the r e s -pondent p r e f e r r e d a s i n g l e f a m i l y house or a mobile home (these were, overwhelmingly, the only two a l t e r n a t i v e s : chosen). In; other words, the r e s i d e n t s socio-economic s t a t u s d i d not r e f l e c t or p r e d i c t h i s / h e r housing p r e f e r -ence. Im the p a s t , planners have g e n e r a l l y viewed mobile homes as low-income housing f o r those who co u l d a f f o r d 135 nothing b e t t e r . However, the key f o r the planner i s : to r e a l i z e t h a t mobile home l i v i n g is:- a f l e x i b l e form o:f housing; Ini r e a l i z i n g this:, the planner must then r e a l i z e t h a t i t i s : i n s u f f i c i e n t to view a l l parks as m o n o l i t h i c i m terms o f q u a l i t y and standards: - " q u a l i t y " here being d e f i n e d as f a c i l i t i e s and standards over and above those acknowledged as basic minimums. Thus, c e r t a i n : parks may be designed s p e c i f i c a l l y to serve low-income groups', others f o r r e t i r e d groups, others f o r those who are w i l l -i n g to pay f o r luxury, f a c i l i t i e s ; In: other words, the c l i e n t e l e to be served cannot be viewed as homogeneous and park p l a n n i n g , consequently,, must show a responsive a t t i t u d e toward p a r t i c u l a r needs o f p a r t i c u l a r groups; TV Role o f M u n i c i p a l i t i e s : Im connection: w i t h t h i s : view o f v a r y i n g types: of mobile home parks, the idea suggested by s e v e r a l respon-dents that m u n i c i p a l i t i e s ; be r e s p o n s i b l e f o r developing parks; becomes., f a r more meaningful. There i s ; no doubt t h a t p r i v a t e market f o r c e s cannot s a t i s f y the needs o f a l l c i t i z e n s . However, i t i s : c e r t a i n l y not necessary t h a t m u n i c i p a l i t i e s be the sole developers: o f parks, j u s t as there i s no reason: why p r i v a t e entrepreneurs; should dominate the e n t i r e f i e l d , as i s the case at 136 present. I t can.be argued that there i s a very r e a l p o s i t i o n ; f o r the m u n i c i p a l i t y i n . a s s i s t i n g i n the d e v e l -opment o f parks f o r lower-income c i t i z e n s through l a n d assembly and s e r v i c i n g . These parks c o u l d e i t h e r rent l o t s a t s u b s i d i z e d rates: or s e l l l o t s a t cost p r i c e or do both as circumstances; i n d i c a t e . v Role o f Entrepreneur - Co-operative Mobile Home Parks: C e r t a i n l y there i s s t i l l a r o l e f o r the entrepreneur e s p e c i a l l y : i m the development o f l u x u r y parks. These parks could i n c o r p o r a t e numerous e x t r a f a c i l i t i e s y features;, and s e r v i c e s which are only l i m i t e d by the extent o f the p o t e n t i a l consumer market w i l l i n g - to pajr the higher r e n t s . There i s , i m a d d i t i o n , a place f o r the co-operative mobile home park which probably would l i e between: the other two types: i n : terms o f q u a l i t y . VI Location: o f Parks. I t should be apparent that there i s no need to assume th a t the l o c a t i o n a l c r i t e r i a f o r mobile home parks are g e n e r a l l y the same f o r a l l parks:, although i t i s c l e a r from t h i s study that only l o c a t i o n s : compatible w i t h r e -s i d e n t i a l environments: should be considered. 137 Once again: the key I s f l e x i b i l i t y i n : p lanning f o r park locations:; A park which has? beem planned as a s e l f -contained u n i t i n c l u d i n g a v a r i e t y of amenities as w e l l as shopping f a c i l i t i e s would not n e c e s s a r i l y r e q u i r e a l o c a t i o n : near the same community f a c i l i t i e s . Moreover, a park designed f o r r e t i r e d persons would h a r d l y have need f o r a l o c a t i o n : near schools. Probably those parks; planned e s p e c i a l l y f o r lower-income groups should be so l o c a t e d as to be able to maximally, b e n e f i t from commur-n i t y f a c i l i t i e s - . V I 1 S o c i a l I m p l i c a t i o n s o f Park l o c a t i o n : I t was found i n t h i s study t h a t distance from com-munity f a c i l i t i e s ; - , other neighborhoods: as w e l l as: per-ceived negative a t t i t u d e s o f nom-park d w e l l e r s , i n c r e a s e d s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n , w i t h i n , the park. Such am outcome i n d i r e c t l y r e f l e c t s both on: past zoning p o l i c i e s (e.g p l a c i n g parks i n . areas zoned commericial), as ; w e l l as; negative o f f i c i a l a t t i t u d e s (which m i r r o r community ones}. Past p o l i c i e s : have refused to acknowledge mobile homes as a l e g i t i m a t e housing form and mobile home parks as;a l e g i t i m a t e r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhood. The r e s u l t has been the i s o l a t i o n , both l i t e r a l l y and f i g u r a t i v e l y , 138 o f a segment of the population- from the r e s t o f the community. I t i s f o r f u r t h e r research to determine to what extent the acceptance and development of mobile home parks as a conventional housing form, w i t h the same c r i t e r i a and requirements as f o r other r e s i d e n t i a l neigh-borhoods w i l l a f f e c t s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h i n the mobile home park. V I I I Location) of Mobile Homes:; This study has found that the more s a t i s f i e d the r e s i d e n t i s w i t h the park, the more he/she prefers- mobile homes to be l o c a t e d w i t h i n . p a r k s or s u b d i v i s i o n s . Be-cause mobile homes have, f o r a l o n g time, had the ste r e o -type o f being a low-income, second- or t h i r d - b e s t housing choice, the mobile home park has; been viewed and t r e a t e d as a v e r i t a b l e low-income ghetto by municipal o f f i c i a l s ; " P r o g r e s s i v e " elements: w i t h i n : the planning p r o f e s s i o n : f r e q u e n t l y demand i n t e g r a t i o n : o f a l l segments: o f the pop u l a t i o n . This: study r e v e a l s t h a t the answers are not n e a r l y so c l e a r - c u t . On: the one hand, there has: emerged an: obvious need to t r e a t mobile home parks as conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods i n : terms o f c r i t e r i a f o r general l o c a t i o n ; On: the other hand, we 139 f i n d that r e s i d e n t s consider the mobile home "unique" and wish to maintain a c e r t a i n homogeneity der i v e d by keeping together those who have chosen t h i s ; form o f hous^ i n g . What i s c a l l e d f o r , then, i s : a n o r m a l i z a t i o n o f p u b l i c and planning a t t i t u d e s toward mobile home parks: i n . r e l a t i o n to other r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t s ; y e t , a t the same time, there must be r e c o g n i t i o n , o f the unique p o s i t i o n : o f mobile homes; w i t h i n the spectrum o f housing forms. I n sh o r t , mobile homes must be viewed as a p o s i t i v e a d d i t i o n to the housing stock as w e l l as a means whereby the housing choices: a v a i l a b l e to the consumer are expanded. IX The Mobile Home Park As A R e s i d e n t i a l Environment I t was re v e a l e d i m t h i s study that the poorer the q u a l i t y o f the park, the more l i k e l y t h a t the r e s i d e n t viewed park l i v i n g as being d i f f e r e n t from l i v i n g i n other types: o f r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods. This has been i n t e r p r e t e d to mean that r e s i d e n t s view t h i s ; " d i f -f e r e n t n e s s " negatively,,, t h a t i s : to say, as being i n terms: of the poorer q u a l i t y o f t h e i r environment i n : compari-son: to other neighborhoods. This l e a d s to two impor-ta n t c o n c l u s i o n s . 140 F i r s * , we see t h a t the r e s i d e n t l i v i n g i n . a poor q u a l i t y park possesses the same negative a t t i t u d e s t o -ward the park as a r e s i d e n t i a l u n i t as can be found i n : the negative stereotype o f the general p u b l i c . : Following-from t h i s , i t can be concluded t h a t park r e s i d e n t s a s p i r e f o r the same type o f housing environment as e x i s t s i n the conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y housing neighborhood. Thus, although i t has p r e v i o u s l y been s t a t e d that r e s i -dents view the mobile home as a unique housing form i n a p o s i t i v e sense i n tha t I t i s : t h e i r p r e f e r r e d choice o f d w e l l i n g , n e v e r t h e l e s s , w i t h i n t h e i r parks they d e s i r e the same type o f environment as possessed by t h e i r more t r a d i t i o n a l housing counterparts. Therefore, to the extent t h a t a park has f a i l e d to "be l i k e " other r e s i -d e n t i a l neighborhoods, the r e s i d e n t o f a poor q u a l i t y park views the park as being unique, i . e . i n a negative sense. This can be corroborated from another p e r s p e c t i v e by the f i n d i n g t h a t the more s a t i s f i e d a r e s i d e n t i s : w i t h the park, the l e s s does he/she view park dwellers: as: being d i f f e r e n t from other people. Thus a poor q u a l -i t y park l e a d s to a sense o f s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n i n which dwellers are viewed as being d i f f e r e n t , whereas a higher 141 q u a l i t y park f u l f i l s the midd l e - c l a s s norms concerning s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l neighborhoods and thereby r e -moves any sense o f s o c i a l i s o l a t i o n ; For the planner the i m p l i c a t i o n s are c l e a r . Although, as pointed out e a r l i e r , d i f f e r e n t c a t e g o r i e s and types o f parks should be encouraged, n e v e r t h e l e s s , the general o r i e n t a t i o n or context o f r e s i d e n t a s p i r a t i o n s i s t o -wards the conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y r e s i d e n t i a l envirom-ment. Park l a y o u t and standards would r e q u i r e t h a t t h i s : be kept c o n s t a n t l y i n mind, e s p e c i a l l y i n the determination o f minimum requirements; long-Range I m p l i c a t i o n s SO f a r we have viewed the question o f mobile home parks from the perspect i v e of the municipal planner whose concern i s focused on the immediate and d i r e c t implications.' t h a t may be derived from t h i s study. However, there i s a l s o a r o l e f o r pl a n n i n g on a d i f f e r e n t plane; a r o l e which must attempt to stand back from immediate planning-problems. Im the case o f mobile home l i v i n g , t h i s type of planning w i l l ask the questions: "Why do people chose 142 to l i v e i n mobile homes?"; "What i s the p o s i t i o n o f mobile homes i n r e l a t i o n to other types o f housing?"; "Is. mobile home l i v i n g a t r a n s i t o r y or permanent pheno-menon! i n our s o c i e t y ? , and e i t h e r way, why?"' I t has been; suggested t h a t we view the conventional s i n g l e f a m i l y f r e e - s t a n d i n g house as a symbol, o f s e l f , the o u t s i d e being what we wish to present to the world, 1 the i n s i d e being our r e a l and p r i v a t e s e l v e s . To view a home as something whose e x t e r n a l facade r e a l l y i s not so important, and which may be traded i n every few years, as mobile home manufacturers- are encouraging, s t r i k e s a t the very root o f our f r o n t i e r concepts o f house and home. Any form o f housing that threatens the t r a d i t i o n a l con-cept can be considered r e v o l u t i o n a r y . T h i s , i m p a r t , may ex p l a i n : p u b l i c a n t i p a t h y toward mobile homes. The planner has not been; i n the vanguard o f examin-i n g what the long-range i m p l i c a t i o n s o f mobile homes are. Is ; the mobile home a harbinger o f housing forms: to come?; should mobile home parks be l a i d out i n a s u f f i c i e n t l y f l e x i b l e manner i n order t h a t they may r e a d i l y adapt to future housing innovations?. The planner has not sought answers to these v i t a l questions. 143 Even more important i s . the questions "What do r e s i d e n t s f e e l about mobile homes and how would they l i k e to see them develop?" Too i n f r e q u e n t l y has the planner asked t h i s question. I n a day when groups; w i t h i n our s o c i e t y are becoming i n c r e a s i n g l y a r t i c u l a t e i n v o i c i n g t h e i r d e s i r e s and needs, t h i s unacceptable. We have seen that r e s i d e n t s o f mobile home p a r k s ; d i s -p l a y a wide range o f concerns. These have in c l u d e d : the desire f o r a more p o s i t i v e and sympathetic a t t i t u d e o n the part of government o f f i c i a l s and the general p u b l i c ; more c l e a r l y defined r e l a t i o n s h i p s ; w i t h management; v a r i o u s suggestions f o r the improvement o f mobile home parks; i n v e s t i g a t i o n o f the p o s s i b i l i t y o f owning l o t s on, which to place mobile homes-. These are j u s t a few o f the concerns o f r e s i d e n t s which r e q u i r e thorough i n v e s t i g a t i o n . I n c o n c l u s i o n ^ i t i s apparent t h a t the r o l e o f the planner has become i n c r e a s i n g l y more complex. The t r a d i t i o n a l r o l e o f planner as r e g u l a t o r , a d m i n i s t r a t o r , and a s s i s t a n t i n policy-making i s s t i l l very much a pa r t o f the plan n i n g f u n c t i o n . I n a d d i t i o n , however, the planner i s now c a l l e d upon to be i n the vanguard o f examining the i m p l i c a t i o n s o f new t e c h n o l o g i c a l inno-v a t i o n s such as f a c t o r y - b u i l t houses. Moreover, the 1 4 4 planner is:; expected to r e a d i l y comprehend and prepare f o r new and ever-changing s t y l e s o f l i v i n g . In. a d d i t i o n , the planner' s constituency can.no longer be considered simply as "the general p u b l i c " . He/she must a l s o recog-n i z e those d i s t i n c t e n t i t i e s and groups which comprise t h i s - g e n e r a l p u b l i c . These groups/not only r e q u i r e to be kept c o n t i n u a l l y informed about p l a n n i n g d e c i s i o n s a f f e c t i n g them.but, e q u a l l y as important, they must be sought out by the planner as a source o f i n f o r m a t i o n and knowledge. I t i s only by wholeheartedly a c c e p t i n g and working w i t h i m t h i s ; expanded framework, th a t the planner cam make t r u l y wise d e c i s i o n s concerning matters? o f daily, concern. This i s e s p e c i a l l y t r u e i m a l l matters p e r t a i n i n g to mobile home l i v i n g . 145 FOOTNOTE Cooper, C l a r e , The House As Symbol Of S e l f , I n s t i t u t e o f Urban and Regional Development t u n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, Working Paper No. 120, May 1971. BIBLIOGRAPHY 14-6 BIBLIOGRAPHY Section; A; Comprehensive Studies B a r t l e y , E.R., and B a i r , P.H., Mobile Home parks and  Comprehensive Community P l a n n i n g , Studies i n P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , NO. 19, ( P u b l i c A d m i n i s t r a t i o n C l e a r i n g S e r v i c e , U n i v e r s i t y o f F l o r i d a ) I960. Department o f In d u s t r y , Trade and Commerce, Canada, The Mobile Home i n Canada, BEAM Program, Materials? Program, M a t e r i a l s " B r a n c h , Ottawa, 1970. Drury, M.J., Mobile Homes? The Unrecognized R e v o l u t i o n i n American Housing, Master 1s; t h e s i s , Department o f Housing and Design, C o r n e l l U n i v e r s i t y , I t h a c a , New York, 1967. Symonds, D., Standards- f o r Mobile Home Developments i n the Urban Area, unpublished M a s t e r 1 ^ t h e s i s , U n i v e r s i t y olTToronto, "Toronto, 1970. Urban Land I n s t i t u t e , Mobile Home Parks; P a r t I , T e c h n i c a l B u l l e t i n ? 6 6 , Washington, 1971. S e c t i o n B; Panada - Mu n i c i p a l and P r o v i n c i a l Studies ( e x c l u d i n g B r i t i s h Columbia) Calgary, P l a n n i n g Department, Survey o f T r a i l e r Courts  i n Calgary, Calgary, 1969. Edmonton, Planning Department, Mobile Home Parks i n the  Urban Environment, Edmonton, 1968. Me t r o p o l i t a n Corporation of Greater Winnipeg, P l a n n i n g D i v i s i o n , Mobile Homes i n M e t r o p o l i t a n Winnipeg and the A d d i t i o n a l 2one, Winnipeg, 1970. Regina, P l a n n i n g Department, Survey o f Mobile Homes i n  Regina, Regina, 1969. Saskatchewan, Department o f M u n i c i p a l A f f a i r s , Community-Plan n i n g Branch, T r a i l e r Courts and Mobile Home Parks i n Saskatchewan, Regina, 1971. Saskatoon, P l a n n i n g and B u i l d i n g Department, T r a i l e r  Court Study, Saskatoon, 1969. S e c t i o n C: B r i t i s h Columbia Studies 148 Burnaby, P l a n n i n g Department, Mobile Home Study, Burnaby, 1969; Corporation o f the D i s t r i c t o f Saanich, P l a n n i n g Depart-ment, The Mobile Home, 1969. Lower Mainland Regional p l a n n i n g Board, D r a f t Report on  Mobile Home Developments, New Westminster, 1368. Province o f B r i t i s h Columbia, Department o f I n d u s t r i a l Development, Trade,, and Commerce, Economics and S t a t i s t i c s Branch, Mobile Homes i n B r i t i s h Columbia, V i c t o r i a , 1971. Unite d Community S e r v i c e s of the Greater Vancouver Area, Mobile HOme L i v i n g i n the Lower Mainland, Vancouver, T97T: S e c t i o n D: Surveys o f Parks and Residents 149 Owens/Corning F i b e r g l a s , Focus on the Mobile Home Market, 1971. e d i t , by Edwards, CM., "A Survey o f the Mobilehome Consumer", T r a i l e r Topics, 1970. United States Department o f Housing and Urban Develop-ment, Housing Surveys, P a r t 2, Mobile Homes and the  Housing~Supply, (U.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Wash-in g t o n D.C.)~T967. Woodall P u b l i s h i n g Company, Mobile Home S i t e s Show Sharp Increase i n 1968, n e w s l e t t e r , (Hyacinth P l a c e , I l l i n o i s ) 1968. 1 5 0 S e c t i o n E: United States - L o c a l Studies. G u i l f o r d County Pl a n n i n g Department, Mobile Homes i n G u i l f o r d County, North C a r o l i n a , Greensboro, North Carolina,' 1969. ~~ Macomb County Planning Commission, Mobile Home parks, Macomb County, Michigan, 1969. 151 Section. F; Studies Concerned With Or R e l a t i n g To S o c i a l  Aspects of Park L i v i n g " " Caplow, T., and Forman, R., "Neighborhood I n t e r a c t i o n i n a Homogeneous Community", American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, V o l . 15, No. 3, June 1950, pp. 357-366. Cooper, C., The House As Symbol of S e l f , Working Paper NO. 120, I n s t i t u t e o f Urban & Regional Development, U n i v e r s i t y o f C a l i f o r n i a , Berkeley, May 1971. Gans, H.J., "Planning and S o c i a l L i f e " , J o u r n a l o f the  American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, Vol..27, No. 2, May 1961, pp. 1 3 4 - 1 4 0 . Gutman, R., " S i t e P l a n n i n g and S o c i a l Behavior", J o u r n a l  o f S o c i a l Issues, V o l . 22, No. 4, October 1966, pp. 1 0 3-115. Hoyt, G.C., "The L i f e o f the R e t i r e d i n a T r a i l e r Park", American Journa l o f Sociology, V o l . 59, July-May 1953-54, pp. 361-370. Isaacs, R., "The Neighborhood Theory, An A n a l y s i s o f i t s ? Adequacy", Journa l o f the American I n s t i t u t e o f Planners, V o l . 14, Spring 1948, pp. 15-23. Lansing, J.B., and Marans, R.W., "Evaluation o f Neigh-borhood Q u a l i t y " , J o u r n a l of the American I n s t i t u t e o f  Planners, V o l . 35, No. 3, May 1969, pp. 195-199. Michelon, L . C , "The New L e i s u r e C l a s s " , American J o u r n a l  o f Sociology, V o l . 59, July-May 1953-54, pp. 371-378. Condon, G., " P u b l i c and P r i v a t e A t t i t u d e s to Mobile Home Parks", Nova S c o t i a Community Pla n n i n g Conference, Octo-ber 29-30, 1970, I n s t i t u t e o f P u b l i c A f f a i r s , Dalhousie U n i v e r s i t y , No. 86, H a l i f a x , 1971. 1 5 2 Peterson, G.L., !!A Model o f Preference: Q u a n t i t a t i v e A n a l y s i s o f . t h e . P e r c e p t i o n o f the V i s u a l Appearance of R e s i d e n t i a l Neighborhoods", J o u r n a l o f Regional Science, V o l . 7, No. 1, 1967, pp. 19-31. . Zehner, R.B., "Neighborhood and Community S a t i s f a c t i o n i n New Towns and Less Planned Suburbs", Journa l o f the American I n s t i t u t e o f Planners, V o l . 37, No. 6, Novem-ber 1971, pp. 375-585: 1 5 3 S e c t i o n G: Design Standards f o r Mobile Home Parks C a l i f o r n i a , Mobilehomes and Mobilehome Parks, Requirements  f o r C o n s t r u c t i o n and Operation of Mobilehqme Parks i n C a l i f o r n i a , Departmencof Housing and Community Develop-ment, D i v i s i o n o f Building., and Housing Standards, Sacra-vtmento, 1965. Canadian Mobile Home A s s o c i a t i o n , Hints on B u i l d i n g a Mobile Home Park, Toronto, I960. ~~ Canadian Mobile Home A s s o c i a t i o n , Suggested By-Law Covering  L i c e n s i n g , Regulating and Governing Mobile Home Parks, 1960. Council o f the Forest I n d u s t r i e s o f B r i t i s h Columbia, How To Make The Most Out Of A Mobile Home Space, Vancouver, 1971. M i n i s t r y o f Housing and L o c a l Government, Caravan Parks, (Her Majesty's S t a t i o n e r y O f f i c e , London, United King-dom) 1962. Swaback, V.D., "Production Dwellings: An Opportunity f o r E x c e l l e n c e " , Land Economics, V o l . 47, No. 4, November 1971. U n i t e d States Federal Housing A d m i n i s t r a t i o n , Minimum  Property Standards f o r Mobile Home Courts, (U.S. Govt. P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C.) 1962. United States Department o f Housing and Urban Development, Mobile Home Court Development Guide, (U.S. Govt. P r i n t i n g O f f i c e , Washington D.C.) 19l0~~. 154 Se c t i o n H: Taxation and Finance Berney, R.E., and Larson, A.J., "Micro-Analysis o f Mobile Home C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s w i t h I m p l i c a t i o n s f o r Tax P o l i c y " , Land Economics, V o l . 44, No. 3, November 1966. Boehm, H.R., Mobile Housing: Factors and Prospects f o r the  1970's, E l e c t r i c U t i l i t y Market Research C o u n c i l , Denver, Colorado, May 5, 1971. Hodes, B., and Robinson, G.G., The Law o f Mobile Homes, (Commerce C l e a r i n g House In c . , New York) 1957. "How Mobile Home Parks Generate Income and De p r e c i a t i o n f o r B u i l d e r s and I n v e s t o r s " , P r o f e s s i o n a l B u i l d e r , November 1969. "Mobile Home Parks", Small Business Reporter, Bank o f America Small Business Advisory S e r v i c e , 1966. Wehrly, M.S., "The E v o l u t i o n o f the House T r a i l e r " , Urban Land, V o l . 26, March 1967. 155 S e c t i o n I : Other Studies and Reports Canadian Mobile Home and Travel T r a i l e r A s s o c i a t i o n and the Western Canadian Mobile Home and Trav e l T r a i l e r A s s o c i a t i o n , B r i e f Presented, to the Federal Task Force  on Housing ana"Urban Development, Toronto, 1968. Downing, J.C., The Mobile Home From A Plan n i n g Standpoint, Seminar on Mobile Home Parks, St. C l a i r Region Develop-ment C o u n c i l , Chatham, Ontario, November 9, 1971. "Mobile Homes: 'Tin Boxes' or a Housing S o l u t i o n ? " , Appalachia, V o l . 4, No. 7, May-June 1971. 156 Section J: Sta t i s t i c a l References Cooley, W.W., and lohnes, P.R., Multivariate Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences, (John Wiley & Sons, Hew York) 1962. : : ; . . , Multivariate Data Analysis, (John Wiley & Sons, New York) 1971. Kendall, M.G., and Smith, B.B., "Factor Analysis", Journal of the Royal St a t i s t i c a l Society, Series B, Vol. 12, No. 1, 1950, pp. 60-73. Ray, D.M., and Berry, B.J.I., "Multivariate Socio-Economic Regionalization: A Pilot Study i n Central Canada", Papers on Regional Statistical Studies, (no locationsfgiven) 1965: : Stuart, A., Basic Ideas of Scientific Sampling, Griffin's Statistical Monographs & Courses, No. 4, 1968. APPEFDIX A NOTE: PLEASE CHECK THE APPROPRIATE SQDARE(S) AND PILL IN THE INDICATED BLANKS. 1. How many mobile home parks have you lived i n (total number)? • 1 Q> Cb D4 D 5 or more 2. How long have you l i v e d i n mobile home parks (including a l l parka) ? years 3. How long have you lived i n this mobile home park? years months 4. How many other mobile home parks did you v i s i t or seriously consider before selecting this one? •o O l D2 D3 04 • 5 or more How important were the following factors i n choosing your present mobile home park? Very Import no other space a v a i l a b l e . . , . . . -within easy reach of work..... within easy reach of shopping, within easy reach of schools., area surrounding the park (e.g. mountains, industry)... size of lots cost of renting l o t , general appearance of park.... services provided by management •>.. had friends or relatives l i v i n g i n park Import. Some Import. Ho Import. •... 3 . . . . » * . < Approximately when was your present mobile home park begun? •before I960 Dl960-1965 Ch.966-1970 Ddon't know 7. 8. 9. 10. What i s the size of your lot? Length_ f t . Width f t . What i s the length and width of your mobile home? Length f t . Width f t . Do you feel that there i s sufficient distance between your mobile home and those next to your's? DSTes ONo How satisfied are you with the general physioal appearance of your park? Rvery satisfied • satisfied D n o t too satisfied dissatisfied 11. Are overnight or temporary t r a i l e r s allowed i n your park? • Yes QNO 12. If 'Yes' to Question 11, do you feel that temporary t r a i l e r i negatively affect the appearance of the park? •Yes QNo •Doesn't make any differenoe 13. 14. 15. 17. 18. How important are the following factors i n determining the appearance of a mobile home park? Rank i n order of impor-tance with '1' being the most important Taotor an<T"* 6' or ' 7' being the least important. Rank landscaping within the park (e.g. trees, shrubs) appearance of roads park lay-out (e.g. shape of roads, positioning of mobile homes location of wires (i.e. above ground or underground) neatness of individual lots age of mobile homes other ( l i s t ) What services and f a c i l i t i e s does management provide? Check f ^ f as many answers as applicable. Hpaved streets " underground wires " s t r e e t lighting lockers or storage sheds Bstorage area for outdoor equipment laundry f a c i l i t i e s shopping area grassy open area playground equipment swimming pool Trecreation building other ( l i s t ) Where i s your mobile home park located? answers as applicable. Check as many next to a highway next to a residential area next to commercial business next to industry next to woods/fields next to hills/mountains next to water 16. Are you satisfied with the location of your park? ery satisfied dissatisfied Q s a t i 3 f i e d []not too satisfied If you had the choice would you prefer to own your l o t or to rent i t ? Qown Qrent In relation to other types of single family housing, where should mobile homes be located? Qmobile homes should be mixed with conventional single family housing. Dnobile homes should be separate within mobile home parks or subdivisions. Qdon» t know 19- Have you ever lived in any of the following types of housing? B single family detached house f l low-rise apartment single family attached house [ j high-rise apartment 20. If you had the choice, in what type of housing would you prefer to live? single family house (rented) low-rise apartment _ single family house (owned) high-rise apartment mobile home other ( l i s t ) 21. How important were the following factors in your decision to l i v e in a mobile home? Very Some No Import. Import. Import. Import. l i t t l e maintenance Q Q I I T~\ suited family space needs O • • • a b i l i t y £j H U M like l i v i n g at ground level • |_J Q • no other housing a v a i l - , able in desired area J_J (_J |_j |_j satisfactory monthly expenses........ • • • • purchase price of osyiiS ° n D a .•• • 22. Do you consider l i v i n g in a mobile home park to be different from l i v i n g in a conventional single family housing neigh-bourhood? a No Q Don't know Yes (in what respects) 23. Do you think that residents of mobile home parks are friend-l i e r with their neighbours than in the following types of housing communities? apartment O^es PNO • Don't know single family housing _ neighbourhood |_J Yes |_JN° LJ Don't know 24. How often do you socialize with other residents of the park (e.g. v i s i t each other, play cards, go on outings together)? Q often Qsometimes Qnever 25- Have you found, on occasion, that i t i s d i f f i c u l t to meet and become acquainted with people outside the park because: other neighbourhoods are far off Q Yes No the mobile home park is sufficient for making friends Q Yes (Z1 No community f a c i l i t i e s are far off LJYes I 1 No people don't like to be friendly with residents of mobile home parks Yes | I No 26. How are the regulations of your mobile home park communicated? B written regulations Qspoken regulations no regulations 27. Do mobile homes situated in your park have to be bought from the park owner? • Yes • No 28. If 'Yes' to Question 27, would you prefer to have a choice as to where to buy your mobile home? B would prefer choice fjdoes not matter would buy from park owner 29- Are children allowed in the park? DYes Q No fjDon't know 30. Is there an extra charge for each additional occupant after a certain number? QYes DNO QDon't know 31. Is there a restriction concerning the number of people allowed to live in each mobile home? QYes 0 N o • Don't know 32. Is a security deposit required when a mobile home moves into the park? • Yes Amount $ DNO DDon't know 33. How much advance notice must a resident give the management when vacating a lot? Don't know 34. In the case of eviction, how much advance notice must the management give the resident? Q Don' t know 35. Under what circumstances can the management enter a mobile home? QDon't know 36. Can a mobile home owner sub-let (rent) his mobile home to another person? BYes D Yes, depending on park management's permission No P Don't know 37. Are there any regulations or restrictions that you disagree with? • No Dies (explain) 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. Should regulations in the park be..... .Q more striot " l e s s striot same as present? To what extent do you agree or disagree with the following statement: "Living in this park is made more pleasant because the management is concerned about my satisfaction." B strongly agree Qagree strongly disagree fl unc ertaln D di sagree What is the lot rental per month? /month What is or was the occupation of the main breadwinner of your household? Is the main breadwinner D retired...... Q employed? Does the wife of the head of the household work? OYes QNO Ouot applicable How many members of your household f a l l within the following age groups? Age Croup under 5 5 to 12 13 to 18 19 to 24 25 to 29 No. of house-hold members Age Group 30 to 34 35 to 39 40 to 49 50 to 59 60 and over No. of house-hold members 45. What is the total annual family income before taxes? less than 2,000 2,000 to 3,999 J4,000 to 5,999 6,000 to 7,999 8,000 to 9,999 10,000 to 11,999 ^12,000 to 13,999 14,000 and over •6. What is your eduoational background? Tsome elementary or less ™ completed elementary _ some high school Jcompleted high school some vocational school • or community college completed vocational sohool or community college some university completed university post-graduate studies Pleas* state whether this questionnaire has been completed njthe male household head Othe female household head Are there any further comments you wish to make oonoerning physical conditions, regulations, and/or social l i f e within your mobile home park or parks in general? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR ASSISTANCE! 

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}]}"
                            data-media="{[{embed.selectedMedia}]}"
                            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:
https://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0101612/manifest

Comment

Related Items