Open Collections

UBC Theses and Dissertations

UBC Theses Logo

UBC Theses and Dissertations

The use of newcomers' experiences in the urban planning process Gallins, Myra Berk 1971

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

Item Metadata

Download

Media
831-UBC_1971_A8 G34.pdf [ 6.22MB ]
Metadata
JSON: 831-1.0102201.json
JSON-LD: 831-1.0102201-ld.json
RDF/XML (Pretty): 831-1.0102201-rdf.xml
RDF/JSON: 831-1.0102201-rdf.json
Turtle: 831-1.0102201-turtle.txt
N-Triples: 831-1.0102201-rdf-ntriples.txt
Original Record: 831-1.0102201-source.json
Full Text
831-1.0102201-fulltext.txt
Citation
831-1.0102201.ris

Full Text

THE USE OF NEWCOMERS' EXPERIENCES IN THE URBAN PLANNING PROCESS by MYRA BERK GALLINS B.A., U n i v e r s i t y of Wisconsin, 1969  A THESIS SUBMITTED IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS in 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 A p r i l , 1971  In presenting this thesis in partial fulfilment of 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. I 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 is 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  flffciL.  3 k \<\l\  .  ;  ABSTRACT  The purpose of t h i s study was to determine whether newcomers to a large urban area, could be of special assistance to the planner.  In  order to discover whether newcomers could be of special use in the p l a n ning process, i t was necessary to determine i f newcomers' opinions of the c i t y d i f f e r e d from those of longterm r e s i d e n t s .  For i f they d i d , ^  then the planner might be able to derive from the newcomers fresh i n sight into the planning problems posed by his c i t y .  t  Hence three hypotheses were formulated: I.  Newer r e s i d e n t s ' opinions regarding the q u a l i t y of t h e i r neighi  bourhood's services and f a c i l i t i e s vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those of longterm r e s i d e n t s . II.  Newer r e s i d e n t s ' community p a r t i c i p a t i o n varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of longterm r e s i d e n t s .  III.  Newer r e s i d e n t s ' views on the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood services and f a c i l i t i e s and the extent of t h e i r community p a r t i c i p a t i o n vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y according to the s i z e and l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former residence.  .  These hypotheses were tested by means of a questionnaire o r a l l y administered to a random sample of 108 residents of the K i t s i l a n o area  o f Vancouver.  On the b a s i s o f the answers o b t a i n e d , each o f the h y p o t h -  eses was s u b m i t t e d t o the s t a t i s t i c a l s c r u t i n y o f m u l t i p l e d i s c r i m i n a n t a n a l y s i s , m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n a n a l y s i s , and percentage  comparisons.  Newer r e s i d e n t s were found t o have d i f f e r e n t o p i n i o n s from l o n g term r e s i d e n t s on the q u a l i t y o f t h e i r n e i g h b o u r h o o d ' s s e r v i c e s f a c i l i t i e s and t o p a r t i c i p a t e l e s s ; i n community a c t i v i t i e s .  and  W i t h i n the  newcomer ranks f o r m e r l o c a t i o n was,an i m p o r t a n t d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i a b l e . Thus a l l t h r e e hypotheses^ were s u b s t a n t i a t e d by the r e s u l t s o f  this  study as w e l l as by some e a r l i e r r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s . Hence i t was c o n c l u d e d t h a t r e s i d e n c e l e n g t h d i f f e r e n c e s  alone,  were s i g n i f i c a n t enough to d e v i s e some way o f c o n s u l t i n g newcomersj as i one a i d t o the urban p l a n n i n g p r o c e s s . use o f the newcomers'  The p l a n n e r can p o t e n t i a l l y make  p r e v i o u s e x p e r i e n c e and unencumbered  perceptions  t o g a i n f r e s h i n s i g h t i n t o the p l a n n i n g problems posed by h i s  city:  Page LIST OF TABLES  vii  Chapter I.  INTRODUCTION  .  1  Hypotheses  2  L i t e r a t u r e Review  .  Summary II.  10  PROCEDURAL METHODS USED IN THIS STUDY  13  Operationalizing the Hypothesis  .13  Choice of Test Area  14  Boundaries of Test Area  15  Questionnaire Design  .;  16  Sample Selection  III.  4  19  Administration of the Study  .  20  Summary  .  24  CHARACTERISTICS OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED  26  Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 108 People Interviewed  ,  26  Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Newcomers  ,  37  Factor Analysis  47  p  Chapter  Summary IV.  56  RESULTS: HYPOTHESIS I  60  D e s c r i p t i o n o f R e g r e s s i o n A n a l y s i s and Discriminant Analysis  -60  T e s t s o f t h e F i r s t H y p o t h e s i s by Discriminant Analysis  64  T e s t s o f t h e F i r s t H y p o t h e s i s by Regression Analysis  66  T e s t s o f t h e F i r s t H y p o t h e s i s by P e r c e n t a g e Comparisons  ' 69  Summary V.  a g e  RESULTS: HYPOTHESIS I I  74 .  77  T e s t s o f t h e Second H y p o t h e s i s by Discriminant Analysis  77  T e s t s o f t h e Second H y p o t h e s i s by: Regression Analysis  79  T e s t s o f t h e Second H y p o t h e s i s by P e r c e n t a g e Comparisons  79  Summary  82 i  VI.  RESULTS: HYPOTHESIS I I I  .  86  T e s t s o f t h e T h i r d H y p o t h e s i s by Discriminant Analysis  86  T e s t s o f t h e T h i r d H y p o t h e s i s by Regression Analysis  89  T e s t s o f t h e T h i r d H y p o t h e s i s by P e r c e n t a g e and A v e r a g e Comparisons  91  Summary.  99  Chapter VII.  Page  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  103  Summary  103  Suggestions f o r Further Research  108  Implications f o r Planning  109  BIBLIOGRAPHY  . . . . . .  1  113 1  APPENDICES  . . . . .  115  A.  Questionnaire  117  B.  L e t t e r of N o t i f i c a t i o n Concerning Interview  126  C.  Census Comparison to Determine the Representativeness of t h i s Study's Sample  128  D.  Regression Analysis Results  131  E.  Membership Type Breakdown by Residence Length  136  F.  Lessons Learned i n the Process of Interviewing  138  LIST OF TABLES Table I I . 1.  Page P a r t i c i p a n t Response  23  Educational Attainment  27  2.  Occupation  28  3.  Occupation (Condensed)  29  4.  Income  30  5.  Age  31  6.  M a r i t a l Status  32  7.  Stages i n Family L i f e Cycle  8.  Dwelling Location  35  9.  Dwelling Type  35  10.  Homeownership  36  11.  Education Breakdown by Residence Length  38  12.  Occupation Breakdown by Residence Length  38  13.  Income Breakdown by Residence Length  39  14.  Age Breakdown by Residence Length  39  15.  M a r i t a l Status Breakdown by Residence Length  40  16.  Children Breakdown by Residence Length  40  17.  L i f e Cycle Breakdown by Residence Length  42  18.  Dwelling Location Breakdown by Residence Length  43  III."I.  .  33  111.19.  Dwelling Type Breakdown by Residence Length  44  20.  Homeownership Breakdown by Residence Length  44  21.  Newcomers' Former Place of Residence  ,-46  22.  Zero-Order C o r r e l a t i o n Matrix for 11  ,  Variables to be Factor Analyzed  49  23.  Summary of Factors  50  24.  Loadings f o r Factor One  51  25.  Individuals with High Factor Scores on Factor One  26.  Loadings for Factor Two  27.  Individuals with High Factor Scores on Factor Two  .51 52  53  28.  Loadings for Factor Three  54  29.  Individuals with High Factor Scores on Factor Three . . . . . . .  55  F Ratio for Individual Variables  65  Number of Cases C l a s s i f i e d i n t o Group  66  Per cent of Residence Group Not Providing Answers for Rank  71  4.  Quality Breakdown by Residence Length  72  V.l.  Number of Cases C l a s s i f i e d i n t o Group  78  F Ratio for Individual Variables  87  Number of Cases C l a s s i f i e d into Group Regression Analysis Summary  88 90  IV.1. 2. . 3.  V I . 1. 2. 3.  ACKNOWLEDGEMENT  I wish to express my s p e c i a l thanks to Dr. Nirmala devi Cherukupalle whose advice was invaluable i n preparing t h i s thesis. Thanks are also due to Dr. Robert C o l l i e r for his helpful  suggestions.  And f i n a l l y , I am grateful to my husband Glenn for his patience, sympathy, and active encouragement.  THE USE OF NEWCOMERS' EXPERIENCES IN THE URBAN PLANNING PROCESS  INTRODUCTION Purpose The purpose of t h i s study was to determine whether newcomers to a large urban area could be of s p e c i a l assistance to the planner.  Spec-  i f i c a l l y , could the experience of newcomers i n other environments be drawn upon by the planner i n formulating planning p o l i c y ? In order to discover whether newcomers could be of s p e c i a l use in the planning process i t was necessary to determine i f newcomers' opinions of the c i t y d i f f e r e d from those of longterm r e s i d e n t s .  For i f  they d i d , then the planner might be able to derive from the newcomers fresh i n s i g h t i n t o planning problems posed by his c i t y . Impetus for t h i s Study Two factors led to the undertaking of t h i s study.  The f i r s t was  the author's conviction that c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n should play an 1* important part i n the planning process.  This conviction d i c t a t e d that  the subject matter of t h i s study be one which attempted to discover a mode by which planners could use c i t i z e n s i n the planning process.  But  which c i t i z e n s should be used? This was answered by the second factor Footnotes follow end of chapter.  the fact that population trends revealed that i n the future Canada would 2 be predominantly an urban s o c i e t y concentrated i n a few large c i t i e s . One obvious r e s u l t of t h i s increased urban concentration w i l l be that there would be many newcomers to the c i t i e s of Canada.  Hence the author  resolved to i n v e s t i g a t e whether newcomers as a s p e c i a l resource group; could be used for planning.  In order to do t h i s three hypotheses were  formulated.  A.  Hypotheses  The three hypotheses that tested the usefulness of newcomers as an a i d to urban planning were t h a t : I.  Newer r e s i d e n t s  1  opinions regarding the q u a l i t y of t h e i r  neighbourhood's services and f a c i l i t i e s vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those of longterm r e s i d e n t s . II.  Newer r e s i d e n t s '  community p a r t i c i p a t i o n varies  significantly  from that of longterm r e s i d e n t s . III.  ,  Newer r e s i d e n t s ' views on the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood services and f a c i l i t i e s and the extent of t h e i r community part i c i p a t i o n vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y according to the s i z e and  (  f-  l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former residence. To understand these hypotheses the term newer resident must be defined.  This term has two aspects.  The f i r s t aspect i s o r i g i n .  For  the purpose of t h i s study newer residents were defined as those people moving i n t o the c i t y from places outside the c i t y .  The s i z e of t h e i r  former place of residence ( o r i g i n ) was broken down i n t o c i t i e s of over 3  and under 100,000 i n population.  The l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former place of  residence was categorized as: (1) the same province as the t e s t c i t y , (  (2) a l l other places i n Canada, and (3) outside of Canada. aspect of the term newer resident i s length of residence.  :  The se.cond In this- study  i t was f e l t that any a r b i t r a r y number of years to define a newer resident would be meaningless.  As w i l l be seen, the term was o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d by  placing length of residence of the, people used to t e s t the hypotheses,; on a continuum.  F i f t y per cent (those with the shortest residence length)  were designated newer r e s i d e n t s , and the remainder were considered, longterm r e s i d e n t s .  ,  <•  I t should also be observed that Hypotheses I and III deal with opinions about the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood as opposed to c i t y - w i d e ser4  vices and f a c i l i t i e s .  The reasonj that opinions about neighbourhoods^  were emphasized was because i t has been found i n other studies that people can more r e a d i l y a r t i c u l a t e t h e i r neighbourhood needs.  For ex-  ample, i n a study conducted i n theisouthern United States i t was found that people had a more c r i t i c a l a t t i t u d e toward t h e i r neighbourhood than 5 toward the c i t y as a whole. Before proceeding with the method by which these hypotheses were t e s t e d , i t may be useful to review what has been discovered about the  (  effect of differences i n residence length on the views of the neighbourhood by other  researchers.  B.  L i t e r a t u r e Review  There were many possible avenues of discussion related to the hypotheses l a i d out above.  However, at a l l times the author had to re-  member that t h i s was to be a thesis i n Community and Regional P l a n n i n g , not i n Psychology, Sociology, or Geography. 6 migration,  Thus a l l discussion of  7 perception,  and a t t i t u d e formation and change have been  considered to be outside the scope of t h i s t h e s i s .  There was also, tocbe  no elaboration on the theory-behind or the costs and benefits of c i t i z e n participation.  For the purposes of t h i s study an assumption was made  that some form of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n the planning process  is,val-  uable, and that obtaining opinions from c i t i z e n s i s one form of c i t i z e n participation.  .  ,  -  t  Hence, the l i t e r a t u r e to be referred t o , though l i m i t e d i n nature, was a l l concerned with topics d i r e c t l y related to the formal hypotheses of t h i s study.  In format f i r s t two authors'  reasons for obtaining the  opinions of newcomers w i l l be set out, then l i t e r a t u r e p e r t a i n i n g to each of the three hypotheses i n turn w i l l be mentioned. •' Reasons for Obtaining Newcomers' Views  i i  ^ s  D. W. Blackburn from his work with newcomers in Conway, Arkansas was able to state s i x d i f f e r e n t reasons for using the views of newcomers Q  as an a i d to community planning: 1.  The newcomer sees f a u l t s that the native w i l l not see for the reason that the native has\ become immune to conditions andjproblems.  2.  The newcomer will be more objective, less prejudiced, sentimental, and emotional in sizing up community conditions and problems than will the native.  3.  The newcomer has standards with which to compare since he has lived in other places, observed other ways of doing things. He is in a position to know what has worked and failed in other places.  4.  The consideration of the views of newcomer (sic) provides a way for introducing new ideas from progressive communities elsewhere. The newcomer brings a fresh, new outlook.  5.  The consideration of the views of the people, such as the newcomer segment makes for better relations between the administration of the community and the people. This is especially true for the newcomer-since i t makes him feel welcome, wanted, and accepted.  6.  The newcomer is less influenced than is the native by other individuals and groups, is not afraid to speak his views. Blackburn also pointed out two disadvantages,  (1) that the newj-  comer may not have observed and experienced the community long enough to be in position to make suggestions, and (2) that the natives may resent the giving of extra attention to views of the newcomers.  However, he  concluded that "the disadvantages in using the views of newcomers are. important but the advantages in using them as one aid in community plang ning more than offset the disadvantages."  j  In passing i t might be noted that Joseph Sonnenfeld suggests another reason for learning the views of nonnatives, i.e., to keep them in the community. area may,  He believes that "what attracts the nonnative to an  i f i t is realized, act to hold the nonnative to that area."  Hypothesis I Several people have conducted studies, which, in part, related^ satisfaction with the community to* length of residence.  The results  10  R. J . Crothers tested the s a t i s f a c t i o n of 3,500 households by asking "Do you l i k e your community?"  He found that length of residence  in the community was not markedly or c o n s i s t e n t l y c o r r e l a t e d with s a t i s f a c t i o n with the community.  Respondents who had l i v e d i n t h e i r commun-  i t i e s for more than 17 years or less than 5 years tended to have high indices of s a t i s f a c t i o n .  On the other hand, those communities with  r e l a t i v e l y high average per capita incomes showed only a small increase in t h e i r Indices of S a t i s f a c t o r i n e s s with increasing length of residence.^  i  Caplow's study of residents  i n Puerto Rico showed that f a m i l i e s  who had l i v e d more than f i v e years at t h e i r present addresses expressed much less i n t e n t i o n to move than those who had l i v e d i n one place for a shorter time.  Caplow f e l t that i t was " e n t i r e l y conceivable that i f  neighborhood d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n were the r u l e , the patience of the average family might be gradually eroded i n such a way as to produce a steady^ 12 increase of moving intentions with increasing tenure."  However,,'he  found that t h i s was not the case with the people he s t u d i e d .  Instead  neighbourhood evaluation rose with increasing tenure. G u l i c k ' s work with residents  i  i n Durham and Greensboro, North  Carolina also showed that the percentage of informants expressing high s a t i s f a c t i o n increased with lengthiof residence.  Newcomers tended to be  less s a t i s f i e d , generally and s p e c i f i c a l l y , than o l d t i m e r s . And the , 13 s p e c i f i c d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s r e c u r r e d ; i n consistent ways. Robert Sommer's research attempted to investigate more of the i  s p e c i f i c d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n differences  between residence length groups,  but i n quite a d i f f e r e n t s e t t i n g , that of a mental h o s p i t a l .  Breaking  down the patients by length of stay he found that long-stay patients (10 years or more) made fewer complaints than medium- or patients.  short-stay  The s p e c i f i c d i f f e r e n c e s , e . g . , concerning crowding, have  l i t t l e a p p l i c a b i l i t y elsewhere except f o r the fact of t h e i r existence.; Sommer f e l t that " i f meaningful information can be secured from people who have extreme d i f f i c u l t y i n communicating and r e l a t i n g to o t h e r s , the r e s u l t s should be even more useful when one interviews f a c t o r y , workers, l i b r a r y patrons and a i r l i n e passengers"^ (or residents of the same area of a c i t y ) .  ;  To conclude, the r e s u l t s of the studies discussed above were somewhat c o n t r a d i c t o r y .  However, the majority indicated that d i f f e r -  ences i n residence length led to marked differences  in s a t i s f a c t i o n .  ,  Hypothesis II A l l three studies that attempted to deal with aspects of the second hypothesis about residence length differences c i p a t i o n reached s i m i l a r conclusions.  i n community p a r t i -  A l l three found that residence  length and community involvement were d i r e c t l y r e l a t e d . Terence Lee used Nh.Q., a measure of i n d i v i d u a l involvement-.in the urban s o c i a l / p h y s i c a l m i l i e u to t e s t the r e l a t i o n s h i p .  He found that  a p o s i t i v e r e l a t i o n s h i p was shown when the scale was p l o t t e d years of residence, but only for the period above f i v e years.  against He con-  cluded that newcomers to a l o c a l i t y become i n v o l v e d , up to a given.low  l e v e l , quite q u i c k l y .  Thereafter they remain more or less s t a t i c for  about f i v e y e a r s , after which t h e i r involvement begins to increase 15 steadily. G u l i c k ' s work on newcomer e n c u l t u r a t i o n examined both formal association membership and community involvement and found d i r e c t r e l a tionships with length of residence.  In Durham and Greensboro those with  no formal associations were most frequent among the most recent newcomers.  And while membership i n three or more associations occurred  among people of a l l ages and lengths of residence, i t was most frequent among the migrants who had l i v e d i n Greensboro 6 or more y e a r s , and j 1  second most frequent among the n a t i v e s .  C.  The Gulick study also found  that the "doers" about public concerns were very heavily concentrated among the people over 35 years who had l i v e d i n Greensboro 6 or more i years.  "In general, the natives i n both age categories [were] somewhat  less p a r t i c i p a n t than the newcomers of more than 6 y e a r s ' residence, ,  :  though d e f i n i t e l y more p a r t i c i p a n t than the more recent newcomers."^ The t h i r d work dealing with residence length differences in,community p a r t i c i p a t i o n was B a s i l G. Zimmer's " P a r t i c i p a t i o n of M i g r a n t s i n 3  Urban S t r u c t u r e s . "  He used the married male occupants of a random  sample of dwelling units i n a midwestern community with a population of 20,000.  In t e s t i n g whether migrants to an urban centre become p a r t i c i -  pants to the same extent, he c o n t r o l l e d for age, sex, education, and occupation to demonstrate the s i g n i f i c a n c e of migrant status i t s e l f . Zimmer found that membership i n formal organizations tended to increase d i r e c t l y with length of time i n the community w i t h i n age, occupational  and educational categories.  High status f a c i l i t a t e d p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  How-  ever, regardless of s t a t u s , i t took migrants 10 years or more to become 19 integrated i n t h i s aspect of the organized structure of the community. Thus the three previous studies a l l i n d i c a t e that there should be differences found between residence length groups, with newcomers p a r t i c i p a t i n g less than longterm r e s i d e n t s .  ,  >  Hypothesis III Regarding the t h i r d hypothesis of differences w i t h i n newcomer groups on the basis of the s i z e and l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former residences, one set of w r i t e r s on urban Canada f e l t that s i z e differences are disappearing.  However, two recent studies conducted i n the United States i n d i -  cated that such differences s t i l l e x i s t .  ,  5  James and Robert Simmons in Urban Canada f e l t that rural-urban differences were r a p i d l y disappearing as urban areas expanded, that many of the values and attitudes of:the. young c o l l e g e - t r a i n e d farmer were i n d i s t i n g u i s h a b l e from those of his urban cousin.  They stated unequi-  v o c a l l y that now "the urban l i f e - s t y l e and urban mores reach and rule 20 a l l parts of the country."  I f the Simmons are c o r r e c t , the t h i r d r  hypothesis should be disproved by t h i s study. However, Zimmer i n the a r t i c l e mentioned previously above found great differences to s t i l l  be in e x i s t e n c e .  He found that no matter how  long farm migrants had been i n , t h e i community, they had a lower p a r t i c i pation rate than did other types of migrants who had l i v e d i n the com21 munity the same length of time. . A l s o , urban migrants tended to enter  Blackburn, too, found s i g n i f i c a n t differences among newcomers from d i f f e r e n t areas.  He had asked a group of 159 people l i v i n g i n  Conway, Arkansas between one and two years to rate 25 d i f f e r e n t s e r v i c e s , programs, and a c t i v i t i e s on a scale from zero to 100. that ratings followed a d e f i n i t e pattern. rural areas gave the highest r a t i n g s . gave the intermediate r a t i n g s .  He discovered  Those newcomers from Arkansas-  Those from Arkansas-urban areas  And those who came from out-of-state  ;  23 gave the lowest r a t i n g s . While the Simmons f e l t that urban-rural differences were d i s a p  r  pearing, these l a s t mentioned studies seem to support the t h i r d hypothesis, i . e . , there should be differences showing up with regard to q u a l i t y of services and community p a r t i c i p a t i o n depending on the s i z e and l o c a t i o n of the person's former place of residence.  C.  s ,  Summary  Having set out the purpose for t h i s study and the three hypotheses to be t e s t e d , a review of the l i t e r a t u r e was then set f o r t h . Chapter II w i l l go on to r e l a t e the methods decided upon t o . t e s t the hypotheses propounded i n t h i s  chapter.  FOOTNOTES  Pros and cons of t h i s can be found i n the bibliography compiled by the author i n December, 1970. This bibliography included a complete analysis of c i t i z e n p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n everyday planning. 2 For example, Economic Council of Canada, Fourth Annual Review: The Canadian Economy From the 1960's to the 1970's (Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967), p. 184. 3 100,000 i s quite a common d i v i d i n g point between c i t y s i z e s , = e.g., Ibid. ! [ 4 This i s despite the fact that the hypotheses dealt with newer residents of the c i t y . The difference was of l i t t l e consequence to t h i s study. 5 Robert L . Wilson, " L i v a b i l i t y of the C i t y : A t t i t u d e and Urban Development," i n Urban Growth Dynamics i n a_ Regional C l u s t e r of C i t i e s , ed. by F. Stuart Chapin, J r . and S h i r l e y F. Weiss (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962), pp. 371, 381-382. Migration i s usually discussed i n terms of rural-to-urban i n stead of interurban and i s u s u a l l y on the large scale instead of considering individual decisions. ^Most perception discussions r e l a t e p r i m a r i l y to c i t y design  :  anyway. o  "Using the Views of Newcomers as an Aid to Community Planning" (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , New Orleans, L o u i s i a n a , A p r i l 7-9, 1966), p. 134. 9  Ibid.  Joseph Sonnenfeld, "Variable Values i n Space Landscape: An Inquiry into the Nature of Environmental N e c e s s i t y , " Journal of Social Issues, XXII (October, 1966), 78-80. ^ R . J . Crothers, "Factors Related to the Community Index of Sati s f a c t o r i n e s s , " E k i s t i e s , XXX (August, 1970), p. 109.  Theodore Caplow, Sheldon S t r y k e r , and Samuel E. Wallace, The Urban Ambiance (Totowa, N. J . : Bedminster, 1964), p. 198. 13 John G u l i c k , Charles E. Bowerman, and Kurt W. B l a c k , "Newcomer Enculturation i n the C i t y : Attitudes and P a r t i c i p a t i o n , " i n Urban Growth Dynamics, pp. 324, 327. ^ R o b e r t Sommer, Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design (Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1969), pp. 89-90. , 15 Terence Lee, "Urban Neighborhood as a S o c i o - S p a t i a l Human R e l a t i o n s , XXI (August, 1968), p. 259. 16 "Newcomer E n c u l t u r a t i o n , " pp. 342-343. 1 7  I b i d . , p. 347.  "  -  Schema," , _ ' ;  :  }  18 In C i t i e s and S o c i e t y , ed. by Paul K. Hatt and A l b e r t J . R e i s s , J r . (revised e d . ; New York: The Free Press, 1957), pp. 730-738. 1 9  1 b i d . , p. 733.  Of)  (The Copp Clark Publishing Company, 1969), p. 6. 21 " P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Migrants i n Urban S t r u c t u r e s , " i n C i t i e s and S o c i e t y , p. 733. , • ; 22 I b i d . , p. 738. 23,  Using the Views of Newcomers," p. 132.  PROCEDURAL METHODS USED IN THIS STUDY The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to discuss the methods used to design and carry out t h i s study.  The solutions to problems w i l l be d i s -  cussed in the order i n which the problems were met.  The problem areas  included (A) how the hypotheses were o p e r a t i o n a l i z e d , (B) how the area to be sampled from was s e l e c t e d , (C) how the boundaries of the t e s t area were defined, (D) how the questionnaire was designed, (E) how. the sample was s e l e c t e d , and (F) how the questionnaire was administered. ,  A.  O p e r a t i o n a l i z i n g the Hypotheses c  It was decided that the best way to t e s t the hypotheses of t h i s thesis was to carry out a p i l o t study. some form of questionnaire.  This study was to be based on  However, to y i e l d a higher percentage of  responses, i t was necessary to administer the questionnaire o r a l l y .  To  d i r e c t l y t e s t the hypotheses i t was decided that a cross section of a l l residents of one area of Metropolitan Vancouver be sampled.  I t was  f e l t that t h i s would be preferable: to merely studying a cross section of newcomers throughout the c i t y .  1  B.  Choice of Test Area  In order to a i d i n the s e l e c t i o n of the t e s t area, a l i s t of f i v e c r i t e r i a was compiled. The f i r s t c r i t e r i o n was that the area selected be part of the C i t y of Vancouver, rather than one of the surrounding m u n i c i p a l i t i e s . This i s because i t was postulated that newcomers to a metropolitan area w i l l s e t t l e f i r s t i n the c i t y proper. The second c r i t e r i o n was that the area chosen have a high proport i o n of i t s a v a i l a b l e housing i n the form of suites or apartments.:  This  is because i t was postulated that newcomers w i l l take up temporary r e s i dence i n a s u i t e before deciding to purchase a house. The next c r i t e r i o n was that the area to be selected be as heterogeneous as p o s s i b l e .  This would allow c o n t r o l l i n g f o r such factors as  d i f f e r i n g age, income, and ethnic groups. The fourth c r i t e r i o n i n choosing a t e s t area was that the area have some o v e r a l l s t a b i l i t y rather than a high turnover of the population.  This constraint was imposedifor two reasons.  The f i r s t was.;t05  insure that persons interviewed would have some degree of f a m i l i a r i t y with the area i n which they were l i v i n g .  The second reason f o r imposing  t h i s c r i t e r i o n was for ease i n contacting dwelling units included i n . the f i n a l sample.  Letters were sent out i n advance to n o t i f y people of  the impending i n t e r v i e w .  But i n an area of high turnover too many of  these l e t t e r s might have been received by people who w i l l have moved out by the time the interviewer v i s i t e d .  ,  And the f i n a l c r i t e r i o n was that the area chosen have an establ i s h e d sense of community i d e n t i t y .  One i n d i c a t i o n of t h i s would be i f  people already l i v i n g there knew the name of t h e i r community.  Thereby  an established community could be used to determine whether newcomers have i d e n t i f i e d with the area at l e a s t to the extent of learning i t s name.  ,  1  ;  The only area i n Metropolitan Vancouver that seemed to f i t a,ll 2 the above c r i t e r i a for the t e s t area was K i t s i l a n o .  K i t s i l a n o i s part  of the C i t y of Vancouver with a large number of suites of a l l types included in i t s d w e l l i n g s .  K i t s i l a n o ' s population i s heterogeneous, and  there i s f a i r l y low population turnover.  In a d d i t i o n , there i s an  established sense of community i d e n t i t y .  C.  ;  Boundaries of Test Area  There were three already established ways of defining the boun-. daries of K i t s i l a n o .  The f i r s t was to use the boundaries determined by  the Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s f o r the Census. use the e l e c t o r a l d i s t r i c t boundaries.  The second was to  And f i n a l l y , the boundaries de-  fined by the United Community Services of Vancouver could have been, used. However, the three sets of boundaries defined by these outside agencies were rejected because preliminary i n v e s t i g a t i o n indicated that the < people i n the community i d e n t i f i e d with a d i f f e r e n t d e f i n i t i o n of t h e i r area.  Hence, the following boundaries were s u b s t i t u t e d for those which  might have been adopted: English Bay on the North, Sixteenth Avenue on.  the South, Burrard Street on the East, and MacDonald Street on the West.  D.  Questionnaire Design  Two aspects of questionnaire design w i l l be dealt with i n t h i s section.  The f i r s t deals with what questions should be asked to y i e l d  the required information.. The second deals with ways of most effect i v e l y asking these questions. Questions to be Asked  i To keep the questionnaire as short as possible and yet be able to obtain enough information to use i n t e s t i n g the hypotheses  the  questionnaire was divided into three s e c t i o n s . The f i r s t section was designed to obtain opinions on the l e v e l of q u a l i t y of services and f a c i l i t i e s i n the immediate v i c i n i t y of the home of the person interviewed., To obtain t h i s information a l i s t was compiled of eighteen types of services and f a c i l i t i e s to be ranked. The second section was designed to obtain information about^ p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n community a c t i v i t i e s .  This involved awareness of the  popular name of K i t s i l a n o , awareness of and p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s , attendance at government meetings, and involvement in organizations i n general. The f i n a l section of the questionnaire was designed to e l i c i t e  ;  information about the personal background of the people interviewed. ^  Along with the more usual questions used to derive socioeconomic status and stage i n family l i f e c y c l e , i t was necessary to obtain information about length of residence i n Vancouver.  In a d d i t i o n , newcomers to  Vancouver were required to answer questions revealing t h e i r former place of residence and t h e i r motives f o r moving to Vancouver. plete questionnaire i s Appendix A ) .  (The com;  ,  i  Administering the Questions During the administration of the questionnaire, required to a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e two times.  respondents;were  I t was hoped by having the  respondents p a r t i c i p a t e that they would be more i n t e r e s t e d i n the i n t e r view. With regard to the ranking of services and f a c i l i t i e s , people . interviewed were asked to pick from note cards.  I t was f e l t that t h i s  would be better than merely reading off 18 names or g i v i n g them a typed l i s t of 18 items from which to choose. used i s on the next page.  A sample of the 18 note cards  The 18 cards were placed, i n alphabetical  order, i n columns of s i x e i t h e r on a nearby table or on the f l o o r . ; The respondent was asked to choose t h e . f i v e things he f e l t were the biggest problem i n his area and the f i v e things he f e l t were the l e a s t problem, and place them i n two separate p i l e s .  In t h i s way those services and  f a c i l i t i e s he was merely neutral about were e l i m i n a t e d .  The person was  then forced to place the items selected i n t h e i r r e l a t i v e p o s i t i o n s . . ;  The positions were best to worst i n the category of l e a s t problems-and worst to best i n the category of biggest problems.  I t was assumed that  FIRE  PROTECTION  PARKS  POLICE  TmWmDWfflM  features  to be evaluated, and would also be more i n t e r e s t i n g .  The other time that people interviewed were required to a c t i v e l y p a r t i c i p a t e during the administration of the questionnaire was i n the section dealing with personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  People interviewed;were  handed a card showing d i f f e r e n t income groups and were asked to choose the l e t t e r of the group t h e i r family belonged to on the basis of t h e i r average annual income.  This device of t e l l i n g income by l e t t e r  rather  than by d o l l a r value was also used to avoid what might have been seen; 3  as a personal threat by the  respondent.  The remainder of the questions required the respondents to p a r t i cipate to a l e s s e r degree.  However, their, task s t i l l required some  -  e f f o r t on t h e i r part i n that they were c a l l e d upon to answer open-ended questions.  For example, instead of asking "Are you aware of the e x i s -  tence of one of the three major neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s : Kitsijlano Ratepayers, K i t s i l a n o Area Resources C o u n c i l , or K i t s i l a n o Community , Centre?" the respondents were merely asked "Is there any neighbourhood organization?"  !  E.  .  Sample S e l e c t i o n  In order to pick a sample of respondents, a l i s t i n g was made of the one hundred and f i f t y blocks w i t h i n the area defined previously as Kitsilano.  Since a sample made up of newcomers and longer term residents  was desired for comparative purposes, i t was decided that areas other  than merely those zoned for apartments should be included.  For that  reason the sample of 17 blocks consisted of 50 per cent blocks randomly chosen from those zoned for m u l t i p l e family use, 20 per cent blocks randomly chosen from those zoned for two family use, and 30 per cent blocks randomly chosen from those zoned for s i n g l e family use o n l y . These blocks are shown on the map on the next page.  i  The next step was to make a complete l i s t i n g of a l l dwelling units on each of these chosen b l o c k s .  For t h i s purpose the 1970  }  Vancouver C i t y Directory was used. ; Although i t s usefulness may be questioned when a sample of names i s d e s i r e d , the C i t y Directory i s extremely useful when accuracy i s l i m i t e d to a correct l i s t i n g of a l l addresses and unit numbers only.  Hence, i t was r e l a t i v e l y simple to choose a  random sample of 10 household units from each of the 17 b l o c k s .  This ,  gave a t o t a l possible sample s i z e of 170 households.  F.  .  Administration of the Study  Most of the interviews were iconducted.between 19 December 1970 and 18 January 1971 by three d i f f e r e n t i n t e r v i e w e r s , of which the author completed 82.4 per cent. In what follows a number of the d i f f i c u l t i e s met i n administering the questionnaire w i l l be presented.  Among these d i f f i c u l t i e s were  what constituted an i n e l i g i b l e u n i t , what to do i f people to be i n t e r viewed were not a v a i l a b l e , and what caused people to refuse to be interviewed.  uu. uu  £i]zzzi nrzi LZZZZJ c  5rfaaaczlJ  rzzzzj  g|aBrlE3(  Oil  ^4  EZXI  ZJ LZ ZH Z3  i:. ::iinr.:;_:.  toizzzj czi ixczzj rzzi  1  B RO A 0 w A Y  LZZZZL  ZJLZ  zzz LZZZZJ c  ZJ C  ZD r r z i z z i cn ZJ _ z i gorzzzi CZZZZJ  I L  ZJL"  ! 1 c 1 3C ziizzziLzzz3zzzza.LZzzzjx z ^ c z i i e g r z z z z j c ! : IT [ZJzzFTzzzz Z Z Z Z J c z z r c ZZJH :ZJ c z z z i LZZZZJ LZZZZJ LZZZZJ nrzzz] LZ LZZZ):. z i i z z z z h i z z z z LZZZZJ" ZZIZZZJJZZZZZD LZ ^ C Z 3 Tr-z : : j T z z z z n z z z z : c HZZZZDiCZZZ^rz ZeC cz ZTLZ zzfizzrzzizzzz T 7 T ZJ-C 3C ZZJ,C;Z:J rzzir • LZZZZJ: ZJ i) r ZZTZ • LZZZLJ ZJLZZ I—  —<r.-r 1 — 1 1  :irz, -  ZZ  c  • L  J1 II I! 1i • !i 1i 1  xzzza,rf  z Tr:z:zrz:'zirSIXTEENTH  'i.r AVENUE  in n n a  it  3* ZJ  ZJ  BLOCKS INCLUDED IN SAMPLE  1 inch = 1000 feet  D  Single Family  ED  2-Family  HI  Multiple Family  Occasionally a dwelling u n i t l i s t e d i n the sample had to be considered i n e l i g i b l e .  There were several possible reasons f o r t h i s .  Two  of the most important included units vacant at the time an interview was attempted and units that d i d not c o n s t i t u t e a residence. In cases where there was no:one at home at a dwelling u n i t i n -  s  eluded i n the sample an attempt was made to return at a d i f f e r e n t time of day o r , i f necessary, on a weekend afternoon.  Whenever a p o t e n t i a l  respondent expressed i n t e r e s t but could not see the interviewer at that time, an appointment was made for another time that would be more con^ venient for the respondent.  However, the number of return v i s i t s was •  l i m i t e d to two per dwelling u n i t . A pretest was c a r r i e d out the weekend of the 21st of November 1970, with no advance warning given to p o t e n t i a l respondents.  Since a  number of negative responses were r e c e i v e d , the bulk of the interviews were then conducted only after a l e t t e r of n o t i f i c a t i o n had been sent (see Appendix B ) .  The p r i o r warning seemed to make p o t e n t i a l respon-  dents more l i k e to cooperate w i l l i n g l y . ever.  Some people did refuse, how-,  Reasons included not wanting to be bothered, a f e e l i n g that they  had nothing to c o n t r i b u t e , and d i s t r u s t of the i n t e r v i e w e r , despite receipt of the n o t i f y i n g  letter.  For a complete breakdown of p a r t i c i p a n t response the following table should be consulted.  TABLE II.1 PARTICIPANT RESPONSE  OF 170 DWELLING UNITS CONTACTED:  108 were interviewed  63.5%  26 refused to be interviewed  15.3%  18 women 7 men 1 couple i  21 not at home a f t e r two callbacks  12.4%  15 i n e l i g i b l e units  8.8%  5 vacant 4 unfamiliar with the c i t y 3 out of town for a prolonged period 2 not residences 1 no one English speaking 100.0%  G.  Summary  In t h i s chapter i t was decided that a p i l o t study be c a r r i e d out to t e s t the hypotheses of t h i s t h e s i s . t e s t area were then set f o r t h .  The c r i t e r i a used to s e l e c t the  This was followed by a d e s c r i p t i o n of  the boundaries of K i t s i l a n o , the t e s t area s e l e c t e d . of questionnaire design were presented.  Next two aspects  These were what questions;  should be asked to y i e l d the required information and how these questions could most e f f e c t i v e l y be asked.  Having described how the questionnaire  was designed, the method by which the sample was selected was set f o r t h . And f i n a l l y , some of the p r a c t i c a l : aspects of the administration of t h i s study were reported.  •'  s i  Henry Sanoff i n "Social Perception of the E c o l o g i c a l Neighborhood" i n E k i s t i c s , XXX (August, 1970), p. 132 suggested something s i m i l a r . In his study of Raleigh, N . C . "When asked about the Ltname3 of t h e i r neighborhood, the respondents tended to give the name of t h e i r s t r e e t whereas few tended to locate t h e i r section geographically with respect to the c i t y . In„neighborhoods that have previously been ident i f i e d by a name, t h i s strategy would serve as a measure of the subject i v e perceptions of i n d i v i d u a l s as they do or do not correspond to the public image of t h e i r neighborhood." \ 2  The other areas of Vancouver that met most of the c r i t e r i a were Marpole, K e r r i s d a l e , and the West End. However, these did not f i t the c r i t e r i a for the following reasons: K e r r i s d a l e was not as heterogeneous at that moment; the West End appeared to have an above average rate of turnover; and Marpole d i d not seem to r e a l l y have an establ i s h e d community i d e n t i t y . 3 Charles Herbert Backstrom and Gerald D. Hursh, Survey Research (Chicago: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963), p. 106.  CHARACTERISTICS OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED The purpose of t h i s chapter i s to present, from three d i f f e r e n t perspectives, a p r o f i l e of the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 108 people i n t e r viewed for t h i s study.  In the f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s chapter an over-  view of the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the people interviewed w i l l be presented.  Having discussed the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of a l l the people! i n  the sample, the second section w i l l focus on the personal of the newer residents only.  ;  characteristics  In the f i n a l s e c t i o n , the f a c t o r a n a l y s i s  c a r r i e d out on the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the e n t i r e sample of 108 people w i l l be described.  A.  Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 108 People Interviewed  The personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the people interviewed can be described under three basic c a t e g o r i e s , socioeconomic s t a t u s , stage i n family l i f e c y c l e , and dwelling unit c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  These w i l l be ex-  amined separately below. Socioeconomic Status Socioeconomic status i s commonly based upon three i n t e r r e l a t e d : v a r i a b l e s , education, occupation, and income.  With regard to education, the sample as a whole was f a i r l y well educated (see Table 1 ) . school graduation.  The mean and median l e v e l of education was high  Hence, above the median, almost 30 per cent of the  sample had attended u n i v e r s i t y , while 10 per cent had graduated from u n i v e r s i t y , and another 10 per icent had completed some graduate or professional t r a i n i n g beyond u n i v e r s i t y graduation.  Below the median, only  5 people out of 108 ( i . e . , 4.6 per cent) had never reached high s c h o o l , while 25 people ( i . e . , 23.2 per cent) attended high school but did-not graduate.  TABLE II1.1 EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT  Education Level  Number  Per  cent  Some Elementary (0-7 years)  1  0.93  Elementary Graduation (8 years)  4  3.70  Some High School (9-11 years)  25  23.15  High School Graduation (12 years)  26  24.07  Some U n i v e r s i t y (13-15 years)  30  27.78  U n i v e r s i t y Graduation (16 years)  11  10.19  Graduate or Professional Training (16+ years)  11  10.19  108  100.00  The second component of socioeconomic status i s occupation.  From  the r e s u l t s of t h i s sample, as reported i n Table 2, i t i s obvious that  K i t s i l a n o i s not a "working c l a s s " neighbourhood. of the respondents f e l l  Rather, 20.4 per cent  into the highest occupation category, that of  professional and technical workers, while 12.0 per cent of the sample were managers, o f f i c i a l s , and p r o p r i e t o r s . were c l e r i c a l workers.  Thirteen point zero per cent  Sales workers comprised 7.4 per cent of the  people interviewed, while 11.1 per cent were craftsmen and foremen.  Four  point s i x per cent were o p e r a t i v e s , and 7.4 per cent were service workers. Merely 1.8 per cent were l a b o r e r s , while 11.1 per cent were students and 6.5 per cent were r e t i r e d . TABLE I I I . 2 OCCUPATION Occupation Category  Number  Per cent  Professional and Technical  22  20.37  Managers, O f f i c i a l s , and Proprietors  13  12.04  C l e r i c a l Workers  14  12.96  8  7.41  12  11.11  Operatives  5  4.63  Service Workers  8  7.41  Laborers  2  1 .85  Students  12  11.11  Retired  7  6.48  Other  5  4.63  108  100.00  Sales Workers Craftsmen and Foremen  Based on these percentages i t i s c l e a r that the white c o l l a r - b l u e c o l l a r dichotomy does not apply to t h i s data.  Therefore a breakdown of occupa-  tions was made w i t h i n the white c o l l a r category.  High status white  c o l l a r occupations included professional and technical workers and managers, o f f i c i a l s , and p r o p r i e t o r s ; while low status white c o l l a r occupations included s a l e s , c l e r i c a l a n d service workers.  The following  condensed table (Table 3) w i l l make c l e a r e r the d i s t r i b u t i o n of occupations described above. TABLE 111.3 OCCUPATION (Condensed) Number  Occupation Category  Per  cent  High Status White C o l l a r  35  33.97  Low Status White C o l l a r  30  29.13  Blue C o l l a r  19  18.45  Students  12  11.65  7  6.80  103  100.00  Reti red  The t h i r d component of socioeconomic status i s income.  Within  the sample the most frequently chosen response category was that of people earning $7,000 to $9,999 a year ( i . e . , 27 per cent of those res2 ponding ) .  However, the average y e a r l y income for a household was  $5,000 to $6,999.  And at the extremes, 16 per cent of the people who re-  vealed t h e i r incomes claimed to have earned less than $3,0Q0 a year,  while 10 per cent claimed incomes of more than $15,000 a y e a r .  For f u l l  d e t a i l s of the responses to t h i s question reference should be made to Table 4. TABLE 111.4 INCOME Yearly Income Refused  Number  Per  cent  6  5.56  Under $3,000  17  15.74  $3,000 to $4,999  17  15.74  $5,000 to $6,999  17  15.74  $7,000 to $9,999  28  25.93  $10,000 to $14,999  13  12.04  $15,000 and Above  10  |9.26  108  100.00  Having examined the three components of socioeconomic s t a t u s , edu c a t i o n , occupation, and income, i t can be concluded on the basis of t h i s sample that the socioeconomic status of K i t s i l a n o i s somewhat heterogeneous w i t h i n the middle class l e v e l s , with some lower middle class and some upper middle class households in evidence. Family L i f e Cycle The concept of family l i f e cycle i s one which i s useful in r e v e a l ing the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the people interviewed i n t h i s study.  To determine an i n d i v i d u a l ' s stage i n family l i f e cycle four components are used.  These include age, marital s t a t u s , presence of c h i l d r e n i n  the household, and the age of the youngest of these c h i l d r e n .  Each of  these w i l l be examined s e p a r a t e l y , and then the composite stage i n family l i f e cycle w i l l be determined f o r each person interviewed f o r  :  t h i s study. With regard to age, Table 5,reveals that younger age groups were overrepresented.  In f a c t , e x a c t l y 50 per cent of a l l respondents were  under 30 years of age. sented.  The middle age groups are almost equally repre-  That i s , approximately 14 per cent of the sample were 31-40,  15 per cent were 41-50, and 10 per cent were 51-60.  Those over 60 years  of age comprised approximately 11 per cent of the sample.  The mean age  of the e n t i r e sample was 31-40. TABLE I I I . 5 AGE Age Level  Number  Per  cent  18-24  31  28.70  25-30  23  21.30  31-40  15  13.89  41-50  16  14.81  51-60  11  10.19  61-65  4  3.70  65+  8  •7.41  108  100.00  The second component of family l i f e cycle i s m a r i t a l s t a t u s . was expected, the majority of cases f e l l  As  i n t o the two main categories.  T h i r t y - e i g h t per cent were s i n g l e , and 47 per cent were married.  The  remaining 15 per cent were c l a s s i f i e d between married and s i n g l e , i . e . , as being married at one time but not considering themselves married at present.  The precise breakdown can be seen i n Table 6. TABLE 111.6 MARITAL STATUS  Marital  Status  Number  Single  Per  cent  41  37.96  Widowed  7  6.48  Divorced  4  3.70  Separated  5  4.63  51  47.22  108  100.00  Married  The next component of family l i f e cycle i s presence of c h i l d r e n . Within the sample 29 households reported that they had children at home.  living  Of these the majority had only one c h i l d ( i . e . , 48 per c e n t ) .  Twenty-eight per cent had 2 c h i l d r e n , 14 per cent had 3 c h i l d r e n , and 10 per cent had more than 3.  Thus the average number of c h i l d r e n per  household for the e n t i r e sample was 0.52. The f i n a l  component necessary to derive the composite stage i n  family l i f e cycle i s the age of the youngest c h i l d l i v i n g at home. Of  the 29 households with c h i l d r e n , the youngest c h i l d i n 7 of those households was under the age of 6. between 6 and 14.  For 12 households the youngest c h i l d was  And i n the remaining 10 households the youngest c h i l d  was between 14 and 18 years of age. Having presented the data on age, marital s t a t u s , number o f - c h i l dren, and age of c h i l d r e n , the stages i n family l i f e cycle for each per3 son interviewed can now be set forth i n Table 7. -  TABLE I I I . 7  STAGES IN FAMILY LIFE CYCLE Number  Per cent  Young s i n g l e  38  35.19  Young married, no children  18  16.67  L i f e Cycle Category  Young married, youngest c h i l d under 6 years of age  5  4.63  Young married, youngest c h i l d 6 or older  4  3.70  12  11.11  12  11.11  12  11.11  Older married, with children Older married, without children at home  living  Older s i n g l e Others (1 parent o n l y , plus children under the age of 18)  6.43 108  100.00  This table indicates that the l a r g e s t s i n g l e category of people by stage i n family l i f e cycle was composed of those who are young and  s i n g l e ( i . e . , 35 per cent of the sample).  The next most frequent cate-  gory was young marrieds without c h i l d r e n ( i . e . , 17 per c e n t ) .  Following  the young marrieds without c h i l d r e n , three categories contained the same number of i n d i v i d u a l s .  These three categories included older s i n g l e  people and older married people, both with and without c h i l d r e n .  The.  l e a s t commonly occurring household compositions are young married couple with children of any age and the more unusual combinations with only one parent. Dwelling  Characteristics  The f i n a l factor which w i l l be used to reveal personal  character-  i s t i c s of the sample is that of the l o c a t i o n and type of dwelling i n which the persons interviewed l i v e d . With regard to l o c a t i o n , 75 per cent of the people interviewed l i v e d West of Arbutus S t r e e t .  On a North-South axis, of the four possibl  l o c a t i o n s , most of the homes of persons interviewed were in the area located between Cornwall and Fourth Avenue (43.5 per c e n t ) .  Complete de  4 t a i l s of dwelling l o c a t i o n can be seen in Table 8.  >  Now exactly what types of dwellings did the people interviewed l i v e in?  Forty-three of the 108 people interviewed ( i . e . , 39.8 per  cent) l i v e d in l o w - r i s e apartment b l o c k s .  The second most frequent  type of dwelling i n which respondents l i v e d was the s i n g l e family detached house ( i . e . , 32.4 per cent).  The complete breakdown of dwelling  type i s presented i n Table 9. The f i n a l personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of people interviewed that has  DWELLING LOCATION East-West Axis  Number  Per cent  East of Arbutus Street  27  25.00  West of Arbutus Street  81  75.00  108  100.00  Number  Per cent  North-South Axis North of Cornwall  6  5.56  Between Cornwall and Fourth Avenue  47  43.52  Between Fourth Avenue and Broadway  20  18.52  Between Broadway and Sixteenth Avenue  35  32.41  108  100.00  Number  Per cent  TABLE I I I . 9 DWELLING TYPE Type of Dwelling H i g h - r i s e apartment  4  3.70  Low-rise apartment  43  39.81  Suite i n a house  17  15.74  9  8.33  35  32.41  Duplex Single family detached house  to do with dwellings i s the extent of homeownership.  Seventy-four per  cent of the sample were tenants, while the other 26 per cent of the people interviewed l i v e d i n dwellings that they owned.  Breaking down  the sample by type of d w e l l i n g , 70 per cent of the people interviewed l i v i n g in s i n g l e family detached houses owned t h e i r own home.  Eighteen  per cent of people l i v i n g i n a s i n g l e family house divided into several suites owned the e n t i r e house. owned t h e i r d w e l l i n g .  Only 11 per cent of duplex residents  And 5 per cent of the people interviewed l i v i n g  in l o w - r i s e apartments owned the apartment blocks i n which they were . living.  Table 10 summarizes t h i s information on owneroccupancy.  ,  TABLE I I I .10 HOMEOWNERSHIP  Type of Dwelling  Number of Owners Tenants  Per cent Owner-occupied  4  0  0.00  Low-rise apartment  41  2  4.65  Suite i n a house  14  3  17.65  8  1  11.11  10  23  69.69  77  29  26.85 (Average)  H i g h - r i s e apartment  Duplex Single family house  This concludes the discussion of the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the 108 people interviewed.  The question which must be answered now i s :  what are the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of an important segment of the  sample?  That i s , what are the c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of newcomers to  Vancouver?  B.  Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of Newcomers  This section w i l l c o n s i s t of two p a r t s .  The f i r s t w i l l be a  b r i e f summary of the information of Section A of t h i s chapter broken down by d i f f e r e n t lengths, of residence.  The other part of t h i s section  w i l l deal e x c l u s i v e l y with the two newer groups of r e s i d e n t s , and w i l l be a comparison and contrast i n terms of t h e i r former places of residence and t h e i r reasons for moving to Vancouver. Personal C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s I t was decided that any a r b i t r a r y time span to define "newcomers" would be meaningless.  Instead the sample has been divided into approxi-  mate q u a r t i l e s , so that 27 respondents have l i v e d i n Vancouver for 0-2 years, 27 for  2.5-6  y e a r s , 29 for 7-21 y e a r s , and 25 for 22-60 y e a r s .  The most important personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of newcomers, as derived from Tables 11-20, are as f o l l o w s :  Tables 11-13 i n d i c a t e that on  the basis of socioeconomic v a r i a b l e s , newer residents tend to be b e t t e r educated, in white c o l l a r occupations and have medium to high incomes. Table 14 shows that newer residents c l u s t e r i n the younger age groups. And while the majority have no c h i l d r e n , i n Table 16 i t can be seen that newer residents are the ones who tend toward large f a m i l i e s of 3 or more children.  EDUCATION BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence in Vancouver 0--2  School Level  2.5-6  7--21  -  Some Elementary Elementary Grad *  22--60  Total Number  100 .00  1  25.00  50 .00  25 .00  4  Some High School  24,.00  12.00  16 .00  48 .00  25  High School Grad  ' 30,.77  30.77  26 .92  11 .54  26  Some U n i v e r s i t y  26, .67  26.67  30 .00  16 .67  30  U n i v e r s i t y Grad  9 .09  36.36  27 .27  27 .27  11  36, .36  27.27  36 .36  Graduate or Professional Training  11 108 i  TABLE I I I . 1 2 OCCUPATION BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence i n Vancouver 0--2  2.5-6  7--21  22- -60  Total Number  High White C o l l a r  18 .36  31.99  19 .75  29 .90  35  Low White C o l l a r  43 .45  13.69  30, .36  12 .50  30  Blue C o l l a r  22 .23  15.00  28, .33  34 .44  19  Student  33 .33  41. .67  16 .67  8 .33  12  Retired  14 .29  28 .57  57 .14  7  Occupation Category  INCOME BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence in Vancouver 0-2  2.5-6  7-21  22-60  Total Number  -  -  66.67  33.33  6  Under $3,000  11.76  35.29  29.41  23.53  17  $3,000 to $4,999  52.94  23.53  11.76  11.76  17  $5,000 to $6,999  ' 17-65  35.29  29.41  17.65  17  $7,000 to $9,999  25.00  21.43  17.86  35.71  28  $10,000 to $15,000  23.08  30.77  23.08  23.08  13  $15,000 +  30.00  10.00  50.00  10.00  10  Yearly Income Refused  108 Table I I I . 1 4 j  AGE BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence i n Vancouver 0-2  2.5-6  7-21  22-60  Total Number  18-24  38.71  32.26  19.35  9.68  31  25-30  34.78  34.78  26.09  4.35  23  31-40  13.33  40.00  40.00  6.67  15  41-50  18.75  12.50  25.00  43.75  16  51-60  9.09  -  27.27  63.64  11  61-65  25.00  -  -  75.00  4  65 +  -  12.50  50.00  37.50  8  Age Level  MARITAL STATUS BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence i n Vancouver 0-2  2.5-6  7-21  22-60  Total Number  Single  23.08  35.90  25.64  15.38  39  Wi dowed  14.29  14.29  28.. 57  42.86  7  Divorced  25.00  -  75.00  -  4  Separated  '20.00  40.00  20.00  20.00  25.49  19.61  25.49  29.41  Marital Status  Married  •  5 51 108  TABLE I I I . 1 6 CHILDREN BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years <' of Residence i n Vancouver 0-2 ,  2.5-6  7-21  22-60  Total Number  None  24.05  26.58  29.11  20.25  79  One (1)  28.57  7.14  14.29  50.00  14  Two (2)  37.50  25.00  25.00  12.50  8  Three or More (3+)  14.28  42.86  28.57  14.28  1  Number of Children  108  TABLE I I I . 17 LIFE CYCLE BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence i n Vancouver L i f e Cycle Category  0--2 |  2.E3-6  7-21  22-60  Total Numb<  Young Single  34,.21  36,.84  21.05  7.89  38  Young Married, No Children  27 .78  27,.78  38.89  5.56  18  Young Married, Children Under 6  40,.00  40,.00  -  20.00  5  Young M a r r i e d , Children Over 6 *  50 .00  25 .00  25.00 .  -  •4  Older Married, With ChiIdren  16 .67  16 .67  16.67  50.00  12  Older Married, No Children  16 .67  25.00  58.33  12  16 .67  41.67  41.67  12  14 .29  42.86  28.57  7  Older Single Other  14,.29  108  In terms of dwelling u n i t v a r i a b l e s , there i s very l i t t l e  differ-  ence between residence lengths on an East-West a x i s , while a difference does e x i s t on a North-South a x i s .  Table 18 indicates that newer r e s i -  dents tend to be located between Broadway and Cornwall, while older residents predominate between Sixteenth Avenue and Broadway.  Table 19  c l e a r l y shows that the newer residents mostly l i v e i n apartment blocks and duplexes, while more of the longer-term residents are found i n suites i n houses and i n s i n g l e family detached d w e l l i n g s .  And therefore  i t follows that the newer residents are mostly tenants, while the o l d e r residents dominate the homeowners category (Table 20). Having summarized the personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of the people i n terviewed i n terms of d i f f e r e n t residence lengths, the next part of t h i s section w i l l set forth the o r i g i n s of newcomers and t h e i r reasons f o r s e t t l i n g i n Vancouver. Former Places of Residence and Reasons f o r Moving A l l people interviewed who have l i v e d i n Vancouver for less than f i v e years were asked where they l i v e d immediately p r i o r to moving to Vancouver.  Forty-nine people answered t h i s question.  Of these, 30 (or  61.2 per cent) came from c i t i e s with population over 100,000, while the remaining 19 were from smaller towns.  The former place of residence was  also c l a s s i f i e d according to i t s l o c a t i o n .  On t h i s basis 20 respondents  ( i . e . , 40.8 per cent) were from other provinces i n Canada, 17 (34.7 per cent) were from places i n B r i t i s h Columbia, and the remaining 12 i n d i 5 viduals (24.5 per cent) were from outside of Canada.  TABLE I I I . 1 8 DWELLING LOCATION BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence in Vancouver 0-2  2.5-6  7-21  22-60  Total Number  East-West Axis  i  27  East of Arbutus  29.63  25.93  18.52  25.93  West of Arbutus  23.46  24.69  29.63  22.22  81 108  North-South Axis 33 .33  6  31, .91  12 .77  47  35 .00  25 .00  20 .00  20  8 .57  25 .71  37 .14  35  North of Cornwall  33, .33  33 .33  Fourth Ave. to Cornwall  23 .40  31 .91  Broadway to Fourth Ave.  20 .00  16th Ave. to Broadway  28 .57  108  TABLE I I I . 19 DWELLING TYPE BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence i n Vancouver Type of Dwelling  Total Number  0--2  2.5-6  7-21  H i g h - r i s e Apartment  25 .00  50.00  25.00  Low-rise Apartment  30 .23  32.56  20.93  16 .28  43  Suite i n a House  29 .41:  11 .76  47.06  11 .76  17  -22 .22  44.44  22.22  11 .11  17 .14  14.29  25.71  42 .86  Duplex Single Family House  22--60  4  •  9 35 108  TABLE 111.20 HOMEOWNERSHIP BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Years of Residence i n Vancouver Total Occupant's Class  0-2  2.5-6  7-21  22-60  Number  Tenant  32.47  29.87  24.68  12.99  77  Owner  6.90  10.34  31.03  51.72  29 106  The next thing to examine i n connection with former place of residence i s the difference between the two classes of newcomers--those who have l i v e d i n Vancouver for less than two years and those who have l i v e d i n Vancouver between  2.5  and 6 years.  For convenience the  former class of newcomers w i l l be referred to as the "newest" group, while those i n Vancouver 2.5-6  years w i l l be c l a s s i f i e d as the "newer"  group of r e s i d e n t s . I t can be seen from Table 21 t h a t , on the basis of the sample of t h i s study, the older wave of immigrants to Vancouver was mostly made up of people from smaller towns w i t h i n the province of B r i t i s h Columbia., The newest wave of immigrants, on the other hand, was l a r g e l y from big c i t i e s across Canada, excluding B r i t i s h Columbia.  Or, to phrase t h i s ;  d i f f e r e n t l y , i t would seem that between 3 and 6 years ago Vancouver's growth was a t t r i b u t a b l e to a ruralrto-urban migration w i t h i n the province.  More r e c e n t l y , however, migrants to Vancouver are of the i n t e r -  urban o r , to be more exact, intermetropolitan type.  i  One reservation should be set forth as to the v e r a c i t y of t h i s conclusion. dents s t i l l  The g e n e r a l i z a t i o n j u s t made was based s o l e l y on new r e s i l i v i n g i n the K i t s i l a n o area.  It i s quite possible that a  large group moved to Vancouver from metropolitan Canada between 2 and 6 years ago and e i t h e r d i d not s e t t l e i n K i t s i l a n o , or s e t t l e d there and moved out again.  To be able to make a d e f i n i t i v e statement based on the  trends of t h i s sample i s impossible.  Rather, a p a r a l l e l sample must be  drawn from a c r o s s - s e c t i o n of newcomers dwelling throughout Metropolitan Vancouver.  TABLE III.21 NEWCOMERS' FORMER PLACES OF RESIDENCE A.  Newest Group (0-2 years i n Vancouver) Size Location  Under 100,000  Over 100,000  Total  B r i t i s h Columbia  5  1  6  Canada (except B . C . )  1  14  15  Outside Canada  1  TOTALS  B.  '  5  1  6 20  27  Newer Group (2.5-6 years i n Vancouver) Size Location  Under 100,000  Over 100,000  Total  B r i t i s h Columbia  8  3  11  Canada (except B . C . )  1  4  5  2  3  5  11  10  21  Outside Canada TOTALS  1  Now the f i n a l question to ask with regard to newcomers i s why did they come to Vancouver?  I t would appear that there are three p o s s i b i l -  ities.  E i t h e r there was a push or a p u l l or a combination of push and  pull.  To i l l u s t r a t e , "loss of job i n Winnipeg" would be a push, while Ft  "having a job o f f e r i n Vancouver" would be a p u l l .  i  Seven of 45 people ( i . e . , 15 per cent) gave answers coded as push factors.  Six (or 13 per cent) gave answers that had to be coded as a  combination of push and p u l l , while the vast m a j o r i t y , 32 of 45 ( i . e . , 71 per c e n t ) , named purely p u l l f a c t o r s .  This would seem to i n d i c a t e  that Vancouver has a great a t t r a c t i o n for o u t s i d e r s .  C.  Factor Analysis  In the previous two sections of t h i s chapter the personal  charac-  t e r i s t i c s of the e n t i r e sample and of the sample broken down by r e s i dence length were described. those d e s c r i p t i o n s .  E s s e n t i a l l y 11 key v a r i a b l e s were used i n  These included education, occupation, income, age,  marital s t a t u s , c h i l d r e n , age of youngest c h i l d , l o c a t i o n of dwelling on an East-West a x i s , l o c a t i o n of dwelling on a North-South a x i s , dwelling type, and homeownership.  In the following discussion the age of the  youngest c h i l d w i l l not be employed.''  However, a v a r i a b l e based on zon-  ing w i l l be used. It was assumed that a factor analysis could be c a r r i e d out to . break the 11 background variables into a few basic dimensions.  This was  thought to be useful for the purposes of l a t e r analysis since so many of  these variables are commonly known to be i n t e r r e l a t e d ; e . g . , occupation i s usually r e l a t e d to education and dwelling type i s u s u a l l y c o r r e l a t e d with homeownership.  I t was further supposed o r i g i n a l l y that three  factors could be derived to account for most of the v a r i a t i o n in the 11 original variables.  The three predicted factors corresponded to the  topics i n the previous s e c t i o n s , that i s , socioeconomic s t a t u s , stage i n family l i f e c y c l e , and c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of dwelling units and t h e i r l o c a tion.  ,  \  ,  The f a c t o r analysis was based on the zero-order c o r r e l a t i o n matrix reproduced on the next page (Table 22).  S u r p r i s i n g l y very few of the  variables e x h i b i t e d high i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n s . were r e l a t e d .  However, a few v a r i a b l e s ,  Zoning was highly c o r r e l a t e d with dwelling type and with  North-South a x i s , while homeownership was highly c o r r e l a t e d with both: age and dwelling type.  I n i t i a l l y i t would appear that there was very  l i t t l e c o r r e l a t i o n among the three areas socioeconomic s t a t u s , l i f e  cycle,  and dwelling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , except for the r e l a t i o n s h i p between agei (a l i f e cycle v a r i a b l e ) and homeownership (a dwelling c h a r a c t e r i s t i c ) . The d i s c u s s i o n of the factor a n a l y s i s w i l l show whether t h i s was i n f a c t the case.  ;  g The results of the factor analysis are summarized i n Table 23. The names given to the three factors were based, not n e c e s s a r i l y on the variables most highly correlated with them, but rather on the v a r i a b l e s that seemed to account the most f o r high factor scores for p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l s on that f a c t o r .  However, for two of the three factors  this  name and that of the most highly correlated v a r i a b l e were i d e n t i c a l .  ZERO-ORDER CORRELATION MATRIX FOR 11 VARIABLES TO BE FACTOR ANALYZED  1  1 Zoning 2 Marital  Z  ° "9 n 1  2  ftllls  3  **  . Education  r Occupation  r Chi1• dren  7  H o m e  ° " 8 Income w  nership  9  D  f  1 1 i n g  Type  * 1.00000 Status  3 Age  0.18231 * 1.00000 0.37579  0.18139 * 1.00000  -0.14552  -0.00274  5 Occupation  0.02435  -0.17033  0.07022  -0.00393 * 1.00000  6 Children  0.24098  ,0.36268  0.14897  -0.03470  -0.19174*1.00000  0.54365  0.29411*0.67066  -0.35906  -0.03374  0.15357*1.00000  0.03754  0.51954  0.12047  0.07053  -0.50809  0.30042  * 0.81336  0.24919  0.45728  -0.25755  0.01849  1 n l u  -0.10017  0.04844  -0.06635  0.11370  0.02539  -0.08082  0.00553  0.05509  0.03137  1 1  * 0.73881  0.05012  0.28636  -0.15553  -0.07976  0.13090  0.39706  -0.02567  0.52212  4 Education  7  Homeownership  8 Income q Dwel1ing type East-West Axis North-South Axis  10 East-West Axis East-West Axis North-South 11 Axis 10  -0.48239*1.00000  0.36246*0.62767  0.06616*1.00000  11 North-South Axis * Indicates an absolute value qreater than or equal to 0.60000.  * 1.00000 -0.19934  0.10149 * 1.00000  1.00000  SUMMARY OF FACTORS  Factor Number  Main D e s c r i p t i v e Variable  Number of Variables Described  One  North-South Axis  4  Two  Income  4  Three  Age and Education  3 11  I t appears that the three factors which explain most of the vari a t i o n i n t h i s set of data do indeed break down by the three basic dimensions hypothesized e a r l i e r .  I t seems that North-South axis repre-  sents a dwelling dimension; income represents a socioeconomic dimension; and age and education represent a l i f e cycle dimension.  However, as  each factor i s now analyzed separately in d e t a i l , i t can be seen that the three seemingly autonomous dimensions do overlap to some degree.  (  Factor One Factor One i d e n t i f i e d the North-South contrasts i n zoning, dwell i n g type, and homeownership.  Table 24 gives the factor loadings, or  c o r r e l a t i o n s , for these four variables most c l o s e l y associated with Factor One.  Since a l l variables had p o s i t i v e loadings t h i s i s an i n d i -  cation that i n d i v i d u a l s that had higher rank scores on zoning, i . e . , that were from s i n g l e family zoned areas, also had higher rank scores on the other three v a r i a b l e s .  This means that they owned t h e i r own s i n g l e  LOADINGS FOR FACTOR ONE Loading Variable Number  Variable Name  1 9  ,  11 7  Positive  Zoning  0.93474  Dwelling Type  0.82426  North-South Axis  0.81410  Homeownership  0.51496  Negative  family detached house i n the most southerly area, that area between Broadway and Sixteenth Avenue. Table 25 summarizes f o r i n d i v i d u a l s with highest f a c t o r scores on Factor One (greater than +1.2 and less than -1.2) the mean rankings of these i n d i v i d u a l s on a l l four v a r i a b l e s associated with t h i s f a c t o r . TABLE I I I . 2 5 INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGH FACTOR SCORES ON FACTOR ONE  Zoning  Average Rankings on V a r i a b l e s : Dwelling Type North-South Homeownership  P o s i t i v e Scores Range 1.236 to 1.978 19 Subjects  3.000  4.736  4.000  1.722  1.000  1.857  1.286  1.000  1.741  3.259  2.778  1.274  Negative Scores Range -1.201 to -1.594 7 Subjects Total Sample  The i n d i v i d u a l s with high p o s i t i v e f a c t o r scores on Factor One can be characterized as was stated i n the immediately preceding paragraph.  At the opposite extreme, people with high negative scores on  t h i s f a c t o r can be described as i n d i v i d u a l s renting suites i n l o w - r i s e apartment blocks in that part of K i t s i l a n o zoned for m u l t i p l e family use that i s located between Cornwall and English Bay, the most northerly 9 location. Factor Two i  Factor Two i s p r i m a r i l y a socioeconomic status f a c t o r .  A differ-  ent set of four v a r i a b l e s c o r r e l a t e d highly with t h i s f a c t o r . was the s i n g l e most highly c o r r e l a t e d v a r i a b l e .  Income  (See Table 26)  The  other three variables included marital s t a t u s , occupation, and c h i l d r e n . TABLE 111.26 LOADINGS FOR FACTOR TWO  Variable Name  Loading Positive Negati ve  8  Income  0.86689  2  Marital  5  Occupation  6  Children  Variable Number  Status  The negative loading for occupation i s deceptive.  0.69684 0.68641 0.56312 This occurred because  occupation was coded i n reverse order from other v a r i a b l e s .  Instead of i  giving the higher status occupations the highest number ranks, the professional category was given a rank of 1.  The mean rankings on the four d i s t i n g u i s h i n g v a r i a b l e s for i n d i viduals having high scores on Factor Two are given i n Table 27. TABLE I I I . 2 7 INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGH FACTOR SCORES ON FACTOR TWO Average Rankings on V a r i a b l e s : Income M a r i t a l Status Occupation Children P o s i t i v e Scores Range 1.276 to 2.711 10 Subjects  5.300  5.800  1.500  2.400  1.000  1.133  8.867  0.000  3.324  3.713  4.670  0.518  Negative Scores Range -1.204 to -1.791 15 Subjects Total Sample  It can be seen that respondents having 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 were mostly i n the highest income group with the highest status occupations.  Most were married and had c h i l d r e n .  By contrast high  negative scores i n d i c a t e s i n g l e i n d i v i d u a l s , and thus no c h i l d r e n i n the household.  These people were also i n the lowest income bracket (mostly  earning less than $3,000 y e a r l y ) and had lowest status occupations. This group includes 8 of the 12 people i n the sample who were presently u n i v e r s i t y students along with 2 of the 7 r e t i r e d i n d i v i d u a l s . From the variables highly c o r r e l a t e d with t h i s f a c t o r , two were included i n the e a r l i e r a n a l y s i s in the category socioeconomic status and two i n the category stage i n family l i f e c y c l e .  This can i n d i c a t e  e i t h e r that the f a c t o r analysis did not break down into the three dimensions hypothesized or that the variables were wrongly c l a s s i f i e d i n t o the three dimensions e a r l i e r . analysis of the f i n a l  Judgment w i l l be reserved u n t i l a f t e r  the  factor.  Factor Three Factor Three was h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d with three of the o r i g i n a l 11 variables.  Education was. very highly c o r r e l a t e d i n a p o s i t i v e d i r e c t i o n ,  while age was almost as h i g h l y c o r r e l a t e d i n a negative d i r e c t i o n . ownership was the t h i r d v a r i a b l e correlated with t h i s f a c t o r .  Home-  (See  Table 28)  \ TABLE I I I . 2 8 LOADINGS FOR FACTOR THREE  Variable Name  Loading P o s i t i v e Negative  4  Education  0.82708  3  Age  0.82221  7  Homeownership  0.65520  Variable Number  Table 29 of high p o s i t i v e and negative f a c t o r scores  indicates  that high p o s i t i v e scores went along with highly educated young people who were tenants, while high negative scores were attained by e l d e r l y people (average age of nearly 60) who had very l i t t l e education compared to the rest of the respondents, yet who owned t h e i r own d w e l l i n g .  INDIVIDUALS WITH HIGH FACTOR SCORES ON FACTOR THREE Average Rankings on V a r i a b l e s : Education Age Homeownership P o s i t i v e Scores Range 1.203 to  1.818  11 Subjects  6.636  1.364  1.000  3.000  5.929  1.929  4.454  2.972  1.274  Negative Scores Range -1.203 to -2.645 14 Subjects Total Sample  While the v a r i a b l e homeownership loaded h i g h l y on Factor One and Factor Three, only 5 of 26 respondents who had high scores e i t h e r p o s i t i v e or negative on Factor One also had high factor scores on Factor Three.  Because of t h i s education and age can be considered the main  variables.  Homeownership made a much smaller c o n t r i b u t i o n to Factor -  Three. Factor Analysis Conclusions Three factors  have been derived which account for a great deal of  the variance in the 11 o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s (approximately 60 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n ) .  While a l l these variables were o r i g i n a l l y c l a s s i f i e d  into socioeconomic s t a t u s , stage in family l i f e c y c l e , and dwelling characteristics  categories,  the three kinds of categories did not  determine the f a c t o r s .  This i s because 1 of the 3 factors included v a r -  iables from 2 of the 3 o r i g i n a l s e t s , and another of the factors i n cluded variables from each of the o r i g i n a l sets of v a r i a b l e s . At one stage during the i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h i s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s i t was surmised that a l l the variables put together determined factors that would s o l e l y characterize d i f f e r e n t stages i n the family l i f e c y c l e .  At  that point i t was assumed that Factor One described older homeowners with older c h i l d r e n , Factor Two higher income younger f a m i l i e s who were tenants, and Factor Three unmarried highly educated people with lower status occupations.  However, when the complete i n t e r p r e t a t i o n j u s t des-  cribed was c a r r i e d out, t h i s assumption was found to be erroneous.; Rather, i t was necessary to know a person's f a c t o r score on at l e a s t 2 and often a l l of the three factors to be able to derive a complete desc r i p t i o n of his c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  And t h i s seemed to be e s p e c i a l l y ; t r u e  for those i n d i v i d u a l s who had only moderate or low f a c t o r scores.  For  admittedly, high f a c t o r scores represent the extreme cases, and only r a r e l y would people ranking near the. means be i n c l u d e d . ^  D.  Summary  Chapter III was designed to give a complete background d e s c r i p t i o n of the subjects making up the sample.  To do t h i s the f i r s t section tabu-  lated the responses to the background questions under three headings, socioeconomic s t a t u s , stage i n family l i f e c y c l e , and dwelling characteristics.  Next Section B was designed to break down the previously  analyzed personal c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s by four residence length c a t e g o r i e s , 0-2 y e a r s ,  2.5-6  y e a r s , 7-21 y e a r s , and 22-60 years.  v i o u s l y described table was summarized on t h i s b a s i s .  Each of the preThen the two  newer groups were examined i n more d e t a i l to discover where they had come from and why.  The conclusion was that most people moved to Vancouver  because they were pulled by some (as yet undefined) a t t r a c t i o n i n Vancouver.  And on the basis of K i t s i l a n o alone i t would seem that the  a t t r a c t i v e power drew mostly rural residents of B r i t i s h Columbia 3-6 years ago, but i s now drawing mostly people from c i t i e s of over 100,000 in other parts of Canada. And i n Section C a f a c t o r analysis was c a r r i e d out on the data of Section A to see i f the three categories would be maintained.  In f a c t ,  the f a c t o r analysis d i d come up with three basic dimensions i n t h e ' d a t a . But these were e n t i t l e d l o c a t i o n of dwelling on a North-South a x i s , income, and age and education.  The question on the questionnaire dealing with occupation of the main breadwinner i n the family was not coded u n t i l a l l interviews were complete. At that time i t was discovered that the information a v a i l a b l e from respondents would make c l a s s i f i c a t i o n on the basis of Dominion Bureau of S t a t i s t i c s categories nearly impossible. For that reason, the categories of the U . S . Census were used. However, two a d d i t i o n a l categories were added. Since K i t s i l a n o i s u s u a l l y assumed to c o n s i s t of a high proportion of u n i v e r s i t y students and of older pensioners, these two categories were added instead of c l a s s i f y i n g these groups as "unemployed." , 2  ! Six i n d i v i d u a l s interviewed refused to divulge t h e i r income. .  3  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n comes from John B. Lansing and L e s l i e K i s h , "Family L i f e Cycle as an Independent V a r i a b l e , " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, XXII (October, 1957), 512-519. Since the authors of that a r t i c l e never stated an age to use as a c u t - o f f p o i n t , the age of 35 was used to d i s t i n g u i s h between young and o l d . ^The sample was o r i g i n a l l y drawn so that 90 dwelling units would be contacted i n m u l t i p l e family zoned areas of K i t s i l a n o , 30 units i n 2-family areas, and 50 units i n s i n g l e family areas (p.20). I t would now be useful to see the p r o f i l e of respondents i n t h i s regard. Of the 90 possible respondents i n m u l t i p l e areas, 57 or 63.3 per cent were interviewed; of the 50 possible respondents i n s i n g l e family areas 29 or 58 per cent were interviewed; and of the 30 possible respondents i n 2family areas 22 or 73.3 per cent were interviewed. Thus the f i n a l sample consisted of units drawn from zoning areas i n almost the exact proportions desired at the outset: 52.78 per cent from m u l t i p l e family areas, 20.37 per cent from 2-family areas, and 26.85 per cent from s i n g l e family zoned areas of K i t s i l a n o . 5 I t seems that t h i s information can be used to p r e d i c t where the newer residents are l i k e l y to s e t t l e w i t h i n one area of a c i t y . Newcomers from B r i t i s h Columbia can be found almost e x c l u s i v e l y i n the m u l t i p l e family area of K i t s i l a n o . Not one newcomer from B . C . who was interviewed l i v e d w i t h i n the s i n g l e family area. This i s not the case with newer residents coming to Vancouver from other parts of Canada. . One t h i r d of these newcomers are i n s i n g l e family zoning, 57 per cent i n  the m u l t i p l e areas, and 10 per cent in the 2-family zoned areas. When i t comes to l o c a t i n g newcomers from outside of Canada the 2-family area seems to be the most popular. Five of the 12 people from outside Canada dwell i n 2-family zoned areas, while the remainder are evenly s p l i t between s i n g l e family and m u l t i p l e areas. ^In order to keep the interview as short as p o s s i b l e , the response to reason for moving to Vancouver was taken at face v a l u e , with no probing for hidden or subjective reasons. -, T h i s v a r i a b l e had too few observations to be of use ( i t only . applied to 22 of 108 respondents).' Before t h i s v a r i a b l e was omitted one factor analysis was run, and t h i s v a r i a b l e loaded nearly equally on a l l the f a c t o r s . Thus i t could l o g i c a l l y be deleted with l i t t l e d i f f i c u l t y . 7  8  ' The computer program-used was UBC BMDX72, implemented from the UCLA BMD Package by Jason Helm, December, 1970. The output of the fact o r analysis included mean, standard d e v i a t i o n , maximum, minimum, variance, and sum for each v a r i a b l e ; a complete c o r r e l a t i o n matrix f o r a l l v a r i a b l e s ; the unrotated and varimax (maximized variance) rotated f a c t o r loadings matrices; f a c t o r scores r a t i n g the i n d i v i d u a l respondents.on, each of the dimensions; and mean, standard d e v i a t i o n , and c o r r e l a t i o n ; matrix of the f a c t o r s . One source that was of s p e c i a l help i n i n t e r p r e t i n g the r e s u l t s of t h i s f a c t o r a n a l y s i s was "The Socio-Economic Dimensions and S p a t i a l Structure of Canadian C i t i e s " by D. Michael Ray, e_t a l . , a Report on the F i r s t Phase of a CMHC P r o j e c t , U n i v e r s i t y of Waterloo, Summer 1968 (mimeographed). g Many of the respondents could have had high negative f a c t o r scores on Factor One because they f i t the d e s c r i p t i o n of 3 out of the 4 v a r i a b l e s . However, they did not l i v e i n the most northerly area. Thus the North-South axis v a r i a b l e was the determining one, and deserves to name t h i s dimension. ^ F a c t o r analysis i s based on the zero-order c o r r e l a t i o n m a t r i x . However, very few of the 11 v a r i a b l e s from t h i s data that were f a c t o r analyzed were highly i n t e r c o r r e l a t e d . Thus i t i s not s u r p r i s i n g that the three factors only accounted for 60 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n i n the set of data. S i x t y per cent i s not very high by comparison with other s t u d i e s . For t h i s reason, and also because of the low degree of i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n , the f a c t o r analysis w i l l not be used e x t e n s i v e l y i n t e s t i n g the hypotheses. Rather, the raw data w i l l be a p p l i e d . However, regression was c a r r i e d out with the factor scores. Where t h i s has been done and the r e s u l t s were d i f f e r e n t than with the raw data, the factor scores' r e s u l t s w i l l be reported i n the footnotes.  RESULTS: HYPOTHESIS I In t h i s chapter and the two- that f o l l o w , the tests c a r r i e d out on the three hypotheses set out i n Chapter I w i l l be presented. ing each of these hypotheses three s t a t i s t i c a l methods were used.  In t e s t These  included percentage and average comparisons, regression a n a l y s i s , and multiple discriminant a n a l y s i s .  Percentage comparisons are so widely  understood that no d e s c r i p t i o n pf that technique w i l l be needed.  How-  ever, i n Section A of t h i s chapter the two more s o p h i s t i c a t e d techniques, regression analysis and discriminant a n a l y s i s , w i l l be described. Following the explanation of these techniques, f i r s t d i s c r i m i n ant a n a l y s i s , then regression analysis and percentage comparisons w i l l be used to t e s t the hypothesis that newer r e s i d e n t s ' opinions regarding the q u a l i t y of t h e i r neighbourhood's services and f a c i l i t i e s vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those of longterm r e s i d e n t s .  A.  D e s c r i p t i o n of Regression Analysis and Discriminant Analysis  Regression Analysis The f i r s t s t a t i s t i c a l technique that needs to be described i s regression a n a l y s i s .  The d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l include f i r s t what the technique  i s and how i t works, second the assumptions underlying the technique, and l a s t l y what the computer output i s when t h i s technique i s used. This type of analysis can t e l l whether two properties are r e l a t e d i n a l i n e a r manner such that the value of one (the independent v a r i a b l e or "predictor") can be used to p r e d i c t the value of the other (the dependent or " c r i t e r i o n " v a r i a b l e ) . ••Both simple and m u l t i p l e regression have been used. variable.  Simple regression has one dependent and one independent  M u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , while only dealing with one dependent]  v a r i a b l e at a time, considers several possible independent v a r i a b l e s . . The computer program used  1  selects independent variables one at a time  and adds them to the l i n e a r equation such that the v a r i a b l e chosen makes the maximum explanatory c o n t r i b u t i o n to the regression explanation and 2 eliminates redundancy or i n t e r c o r r e l a t i o n as much as p o s s i b l e . The basic assumptions underlying the regression model that should be remembered are 1.  that y (the dependent v a r i a b l e ) i s a random v a r i a b l e and i t s values are normally d i s t r i b u t e d around the regression equation;  2.  that x ' s (the independent v a r i a b l e s ) are not random variates but are  constants;  3.  that observations are  independent;  4.  that the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l i n e a r ;  5.  that the p r e d i c t o r variables are independent of each other.  3  The computer output includes the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the F r a t i o , used to t e s t the s i g n i f i c a n c e of the regression c o e f f i c i e n t , for  o  i a b l e w i t h F p r o b a b i l i t y less than 0.05.  The p r i n t o u t also gives an r  figure and the standard e r r o r of estimate of the dependent v a r i a b l e . 2 r  i s the proportion of t o t a l v a r i a t i o n that has been explained by the  regression l i n e . prediction.  The standard e r r o r i s a measure of the accuracy of .  I f the standard e r r o r i s large ( r e l a t i v e to the mean of the  v a r i a b l e ) , the conclusion must be that the regression model i s u n s a t i s factory. Discriminant Analysis The second s t a t i s t i c a l technique that needs to be described i s m u l t i p l e discriminant a n a l y s i s .  The d e s c r i p t i o n w i l l f i r s t include what  the technique does and how i t works and then w i l l o u t l i n e the assumptions underlying the technique. Discriminant analysis s t a r t s with a predetermined c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of groups ( i n t h i s study on the basis of length of residence i n Vancouver), while in other multidimensional techniques group membership determination follows from the r e s u l t s of the a n a l y s i s .  This technique  attempts to maximize the d i s c r i m i n a t i o n s between s o c i a l groups that are perceived as natural ( e . g . , sex) or that have already been defined, 5 theoretically.  In maximizing the*discriminations between the groups  the analysis answers the following four questions: 1) Is the a p r i o r i c l a s s i f i c a t i o n under consideration v a l i d i n terms of the variables that are being suggested as relevant to the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n ? 2) What "dimensions" v a l i d a t e t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , i f i t was found i n fact to be, v a l i d ?  3) Where do the groups l i e i n terms of these dimensions, i . e . , what i s the composite score for each group on the dimensions? and 4) Given the score of a new subject i n terms of the o r i g i n a l v a r i a b l e s , which group does i t f i t i n best? In essence the m u l t i p l e discriminant analysis technique compares the degree of homogeneity w i t h i n the groups to the degree of heterogeneity between the groups.  }  And the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the F  r a t i o ( i n t h i s computer program,' always less than 0.05 to be counted 7  s i g n i f i c a n t ) represents the p r o b a b i l i t y that t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n might have been produced by chance. There are some basic assumptions underlying t h i s technique that should be mentioned.  F i r s t , i t i s assumed that the groups exhaust;the  universe with which one i s d e a l i n g .  This i s e s p e c i a l l y necessary i n  order to answer the fourth question mentioned above.  A l s o , the l i n e a r  discriminant functions or "dimensions" are assumed to be independent, a d d i t i v e , and orthogonal (which means u n c o r r e c t e d with one another).: Summary Regression analysis and discriminant analysis can be summed up in n o n s t a t i s t i c a l terms.  E s s e n t i a l l y , regression analysis indicates to  what degree knowing a person's  "score" on one v a r i a b l e ( e . g . , g  length) w i l l p r e d i c t his score on another v a r i a b l e .  residence  Discriminant a n a l -  y s i s , on the other hand, indicates what variables d i s c r i m i n a t e between d i f f e r e n t groups.  In terms of t h i s study, discriminant analysis picks  out those variables on which the d i f f e r e n t residence length groups have s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t "scores."  :  B.  Tests of the F i r s t Hypothesis by Discriminant Analysis  A discriminant analysis was run on 28 q u a l i t y v a r i a b l e s at one time.  These variables were derived from a r e s t r u c t u r i n g of the o r i g i n a l  information obtained from the questionnaire.  This r e s t r u c t u r i n g was  accomplished by using two d i f f e r e n t procedures.  The f i r s t  y i e l d e d 18 variables that were derived as f o l l o w s .  procedure  The 18 o r i g i n a l  services and f a c i l i t i e s were given a number corresponding to the ranks to which they were assigned by the people interviewed.  That i s , i f a  service or f a c i l i t y was placed i n the category "best" i t was given a rank of 1; "2nd best" resulted i n a rank of 2; and so on down to "worst" with a rank of 10. The second set of variables was obtained as f o l l o w s .  The answers  given to each of the 10 possible rankings of services and f a c i l i t i e s (from 5th best to best and from 5th worst to worst) were made into f r e quency scores.  The most popular answer i n each ranking category was  given a score of 10, while answers only r a r e l y mentioned i n that category resulted i n a score of 1.  For example, i n the rank category of "best"  f a c i l i t y or s e r v i c e , 30 people mentioned l o c a t i o n of major shopping. Therefore t h i s answer resulted i n a score of 10.  On the other hand,  only 2 people f e l t that a i r p o l l u t i o n was "best," so t h i s answer resulted in a score of only 1. Having thus derived 28 q u a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , these were used i n a discriminant analysis of four categories of residence l e n g t h , 0-2 y e a r s , 2.5-6  years, 7-21 y e a r s , and 22-60 years.  be s i g n i f i c a n t .  The analysis turned out to  However, i n examining those v a r i a b l e s that v a l i d a t e d  t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n , i t was s u r p r i s i n g at f i r s t to notice that both of the s i g n i f i c a n t variables came from the 10 ranking v a r i a b l e s and none at all  from the 18 o r i g i n a l s e r v i c e and f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e s .  The two var-  iables that v a l i d a t e d the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of residence length were the best rank and the 5th best rank. TABLE I V . l F RATIO FOR INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES* Variable  F Ratio  Degrees of Freedom  Level of S i g n i f i c a n c e  Best  4.0566  3 and 104  0.0091  5th Best  2.8133  3 and 103 .  0.0423  Overall  3.4106  6 and 206  0.0032  S i g n i f i c a n t Only I t would seem from the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the F r a t i o s that there i s l i t t l e p r o b a b i l i t y that t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n might have been produced by chance.  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n has been v a l i d a t e d .  Next the members of each group were compared to the composite scores f o r the groups on the v a l i d a t i n g dimensions to see which group they f i t i n best.  When t h i s step was accomplished the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  seemed to be less useful than was i n d i c a t e d by i t s F p r o b a b i l i t y . When a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s a good one most cases w i l l f a l l diagonal.  on the  But as can be seen i n Table 2 t h i s was not the case with t h i s  classification.  None of the newest cases, 44.4 per cent of the newer,  51.7 per cent of the o l d e r , and 36.0 per cent of the oldest f e l l on the  TABLE IV.2 NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO GROUP: Newest  Newer  Older  Oldest  Newest  0  12  8  7  Newer  0  12  8  7  Older  0  9  15  5  Oldest  0  7  9  9  0  40  40  28  diagonal.  There must be some other underlying c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that could  help explain t h i s unsatisfactory  posterior c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  The prelim-  inary conclusion must be that on the basis of opinions on the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood  services and f a c i l i t i e s the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of residence  lengths i s v a l i d but not the only c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that explains the ferent responses of d i f f e r e n t  C.  dif-  individuals.  Tests of the F i r s t Hypothesis by Regression Analysis  Regression analysis was applied to the f i r s t hypothesis using same 28 q u a l i t y v a r i a b l e s .  the  The 0.05 s i g n i f i c a n c e l e v e l f o r the F r a t i o  was used as the c r i t e r i o n f o r accepting or r e j e c t i n g the independent variables.  F i r s t the r e s u l t s on the 10 rankings w i l l be presented, then  the r e s u l t s on the 18 o r i g i n a l services and f a c i l i t i e s . of a l l m u l t i p l e regression  A complete table  r e s u l t s can be found i n Appendix D.  Residence length proved s i g n i f i c a n t i n simple regression for only the ranking 5th best.  This would seem l i k e l y since 5th best  was one of the two s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e s . the effects  equations  However, when  of a l l of the other background variables were held constant  in stepwise m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , length was no longer a s i g n i f i c a n t independent v a r i a b l e f o r 5th best.  Rather, the effects  of education, home-  ownership, and l o c a t i o n of dwelling on a North-South axis were much greater. Residence length became s i g n i f i c a n t i n m u l t i p l e regression f o r 4th best and for worst, when i t was not s i g n i f i c a n t on these rankings, in simple regression.  Residence length was the only independent  that was s i g n i f i c a n t on 4th best.  As such i t explained 1.4 per cent of  the v a r i a t i o n i n the dependent v a r i a b l e (r =0.014). 2 r  variable  This i s a very small  and indicates that the c o r r e l a t i o n between the two variables was only  0.118.  This too i s not a very high f i g u r e .  I t i s p o s i t i v e , however, and  indicates that newer residents gave less popular responses on 4th best. Another way of t e s t i n g the goodness of the p r e d i c t i o n of 4th best from residence length i s by noting the s i z e of the standard e r r o r .  The stan-  dard e r r o r for 4th best was approximately 50 per cent of the value of i t s mean.  This too indicates that there i s a great deal of e r r o r or var-  i a t i o n unexplained by residence length alone. In the m u l t i p l e regression f o r the ranking worst,  residence  length was not the only independent v a r i a b l e entered as s i g n i f i c a n t .  Rather, age was selected f i r s t and accounted for 5.1 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n in worst by i t s e l f .  Residence length and age together accoun-  ted for 9.2 per c e n t ' o f the v a r i a t i o n i n worst.  The c o r r e l a t i o n between  residence length and worst was 0.0752 (a f a i r l y low figure but since i t was p o s i t i v e t h i s would i n d i c a t e that newer residents chose less popular responses on w o r s t ) .  When t h i s figure i s squared i t would i n d i c a t e that  residence length alone should be explaining 5.6 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n in worst.  The difference, between 5.6 per cent and 4.1 per cent (9.2  per cent-5.1 per cent) must be accounted for by the i n t e r a c t i o n between age and residence length.  Even 4.1 per cent i s much higher than the  per cent explained v a r i a t i o n f o r 4th best.  However, the standard  1.3  error  for worst was also too h i g h , approximately 50 per cent of i t s mean, g -  again causing one to question the accuracy of the p r e d i c t i o n . Service and F a c i l i t y Variables Residence length was a s i g n i f i c a n t independent v a r i a b l e i n simple 2 regression for h o s p i t a l s o n l y , with an F p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.0127 and an r of 0.0566 (or 5.66 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n e x p l a i n e d ) . In m u l t i p l e regression, residence length was s i g n i f i c a n t and i n cluded again for hospitals o n l y .  As was the case for worst,  length was not the only independent v a r i a b l e .  residence  Location on a North-South  axis was entered f i r s t and explained 9.4 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n .  North-  South axis had an F p r o b a b i l i t y o f , 0 . 0 0 3 3 , while residence length showed an F p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.0317. of the v a r i a t i o n .  Together they accounted f o r 13.2 per cent  This indicates that the c o n t r i b u t i o n of residence .  length alone was 3.8 per cent. 2 t h i s value and that of the r  Here, t o o , there was a difference between i n the simple regression that i s accounted  for by i n t e r a c t i o n between North-South axis and residence l e n g t h . dence length and h o s p i t a l s had a c o r r e l a t i o n of -0.2379.  Resi-  This negative  c o r r e l a t i o n indicates that newer residents rated h o s p i t a l services lower than older r e s i d e n t s .  A caveat should be mentioned at t h i s time.  While  the standard e r r o r of residence length was only 12 per cent of the value of i t s mean, that f o r h o s p i t a l s was greater than 100 per cent of the value of i t s mean.  This i s a very high standard e r r o r which makes the  r e s u l t s rather q u e s t i o n a b l e .  10  2 In summary, although the standard errors were high and the r  s  low, residence length was s i g n i f i c a n t i n p r e d i c t i n g the ranking v a r i a b l e s 4th best and worst and the s e r v i c e and f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e h o s p i t a l s . Newer residents on the whole chose less popular answers on these two ranking variables and f e l t that the q u a l i t y of h o s p i t a l s was much worst than did longterm r e s i d e n t s . D.  Tests of the F i r s t Hypothesis by Percentage Comparisons  The l a s t method which was used to t e s t the f i r s t hypothesis was simple percentage comparisons.  These comparisons could not be tested  with a Chi-square technique because the number of responses i n each category was too few.  However, t h i s examination can i n d i c a t e tendencies and  thereby add to the evidence of the two more s t a t i s t i c a l techniques.  Many respondents were not able to pick out f i v e biggest and f i v e l e a s t problems. length.  Even t h i s group i s meaningful i n terms of residence  Table 3 d i s p l a y s the residence length for people who d i d not  choose any answer f o r the p a r t i c u l a r ranking.  Generally speaking, i t  would seem that residents of K i t s i l a n o could f i n d more good things about t h e i r area than problems.  This comes out from the number of respondents  not answering each question. - Once a person did not provide an answer for a rank, a l l ranks lower than that one also were answerless.  So that  to say that 45 people could not provide answers to the best ranks while 69 people could not f i n d enough bad things i n the area i s not quite accurate.  However, i t does i n d i c a t e that people on the whole stopped  providing answers to the worst rankings e a r l i e r than to the best rankings.  That i s , they could f i n d more things good with the area than bad. The residence length differences are very c l e a r cut i n those not  providing answers to the best rankings, but not so c l e a r i n the worst categories.  Remembering that the t o t a l s are not t r u l y accurate but pre-  sent trends or i m p l i c a t i o n s , the newer group (2.5-6 years i n Vancouver) only had 5 of i t s members not providing answers to some of* the best questions, while 9 people from the newest and oldest groups d i d likewise.  However, 22 people from the older residence length group  (7-21 years i n Vancouver) could not provide answers for a l l f i v e problem ranks.  least  I t would seem that people i n Vancouver f o r 7-21 years  can f i n d the l e a s t amount of things to praise i n t h e i r area, and people in Vancouver for 0-2 years can f i n d the most to p r a i s e .  PER CENT OF RESIDENCE GROUP NOT PROVIDING ANSWERS FOR RANK: Ranks  Newest  Newer  Older  Oldest  Total  Number  •5th Best  18.2  18.2  36.4  27.2  100.0  22  4th Best  18.2  9.1  54.5  18.2  100.0  11  3rd Best  33.3  -  50.0  16.7  100.0  6  2nd Best  25.0.  -  Best  -  75.0  -  100.0  4  100.0  -  100.0  2 i  Worst  25.0  25.0  50.0  2nd Worst  16.7  16.7  33.3  3rd Worst  18.1  27.3  4th Worst  25.0  5th Worst  25.0  -  100.0  4  33.3  100.0  6  27.3  27.3  100.0  11  25.0  20.0  30.0  100.0  20  17.9  25.0  32.1  100.0  28  Quality Rank Variables Third Best Rank.  Disregarding the two lowest ranks i n the best  and worst sections for s i g n i f i c a n t lack of responses, the f i r s t rank to examine i s that of 3rd best.  Here f i r e p r o t e c t i o n , h o s p i t a l s , and hous-  ing conditions seem d i f f e r e n t  for d i f f e r e n t  residence length groups.  No  one from the newest group mentioned the f i r s t of these, but i t was mainly newest residents mentioning the other two. Second Best Rank.  (See Table 4)  ;  In the 2nd best rank there were differences  the mention of shopping, parking, and parks.  ? on  The newest group mentioned  QUALITY RANK BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Newest  Newer  Older  Oldest  Total  Number  30 .0 12 .5  30 .0 12 .5  40 .0 12 .5  100 .0 100 .0 100 .0  10 8 2  9 .1 60 .0 37 .5  27 .3 25 .0  36 .3 20 .0 12 .5  27 .3 20 .0 25 .0  100 .0 100 .0 100 .0  11 5 16  50 .0 30 .0  25 .0 33 .3  10 .0  25 .0 26 .7  100 .0 100 .0  4 30  17 .6 Pollution Back Lanes 16 .7 F i r e Protection 100 .0 Housing Conditions 30 .0 50 .0 Public Schools Lighting 100 .0 Maintenance  23 .5 16 .7  44 .1 33 .3  14 .7 33 .3  50 .0 25 .0  10 .0  10 .0 25 .0  20 .0  40 .0  40 .0  99 .9 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0  34 6 2 10 4 2 5  3rd  Best  F i r e Protection Hospitals 62 .5 Housing Conditions 100 .0 2nd Best Shopping Parking Parks  -  Best Hospitals Shopping Worst  2nd Worst Pollution Hospitals Maintenance T r a f f i c Control  •  35 .7 83 .3 33 .3 12 .5  21 .4  21 .4  33 .3 12 .5  16 .7 37 .5  38 .5 33 .3 50 .0  23 .1 33 .3 25 .0  15 .3 16 .7  21 .4 16 .7 16 .7 37 .5  99 .9 100 .0 100 .0 100 .0  14 6 6 8  23 .1 16 .7 25 .0  100 .0 100 .0 100 .0  13 6 4  3rd Worst Pollution Lighting T r a f f i c Control  shopping l e a s t , but mentioned parking and parks more than any of the other groups. Best Rank.  When the answers i n the best category are examined,  one can find residence length differences on the mention of h o s p i t a l s and shopping. pitals.  Again i t was mostly the newest group that mentioned hos-  I t was a l s o the two newer groups that mentioned shopping most  frequently. Worst Rank.  There seem to be seven answers d i f f e r e n t for the d i f -  ferent residence length groups on the ranking of worst.  These were a i r  p o l l u t i o n , back lanes, f i r e p r o t e c t i o n , housing c o n d i t i o n s , p u b l i c schools, s t r e e t l i g h t i n g , and s t r e e t maintenance.  People i n the newest  category gave answers of f i r e p r o t e c t i o n , p u b l i c s c h o o l s , and s t r e e t l i g h t i n g more frequently than a l l the other groups, and answered less frequently on a l l the other 4 services and f a c i l i t i e s . Second Worst Rank.  In the category of 2nd worst the newest group  answered more frequently a i r p o l l u t i o n , h o s p i t a l s , and s t r e e t maintenance and less frequently than other groups mentioned t r a f f i c c o n t r o l . Third Worst Rank.  In the 3rd worst rank, the newest  residents  more frequently mentioned p o l l u t i o n , s t r e e t l i g h t i n g , and t r a f f i c cont r o l than longerterm r e s i d e n t s . Summary In summary, percentage comparisons demonstrated that people, who had l i v e d i n Vancouver for less than 2 years could f i n d the most  features  to praise i n t h e i r area, while people l i v i n g i n Vancouver 7-21  years could f i n d the l e a s t things to p r a i s e .  And i n each of the ranks  from 3rd best to best and from worst to 3rd worst anywhere from 2 to 7 of the service and f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e s were mentioned with seemingly s i g n i f i c a n t l y d i f f e r e n t frequencies by the various residence length groups. Newer residents u s u a l l y named items not u n i v e r s a l l y popular for the part i c u l a r category.  E.  Summary  In t h i s chapter the hypothesis that newer r e s i d e n t s ' opinions regarding the q u a l i t y of t h e i r neighbourhood's services and f a c i l i t i e s vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those of longterm residents was submitted to three types of s t a t i s t i c a l s c r u t i n y . Discriminant analysis found:that differences between the 4 d i f f e r ent residence length groups were s i g n i f i c a n t l y greater than the d i f f e r ences w i t h i n each group on the two rank v a r i a b l e s best and 5th best. The regression analysis showed that residence length alone was s i g n i f i c a n t i n p r e d i c t i n g the ranks 4th best and worst, and i n each case i t was demonstrated that newer residents chose less popular answers. . Residence length was also s i g n i f i c a n t i n p r e d i c t i n g the rank assigned to h o s p i t a l s , with newer residents f e e l i n g hospital q u a l i t y was worse, than longterm residents seemed to f e e l . ;  •  And f i n a l l y , percentage comparisons showed what seemed to be many s i g n i f i c a n t differences between answers to the d i f f e r e n t rank categories  between the d i f f e r e n t residence length groups, with newer residents mostly choosing less u n i v e r s a l l y popular responses to each category.  UBC TRIP (Triangular Regression Package), by James H. B j e r r i n g and Paul Seagraves, November, 1970. 2  Nirmala devi Cherukupalle, "Relationship Between A t t r i b u t e s : Simple and M u l t i p l e Regression and C o r r e l a t i o n , " Mimeographed, p. 19. I b i d . , p. 23. ' • 4 Solomon R e t t i g , " M u l t i p l e Discriminant A n a l y s i s , " American Sociol o g i c a l Review, XXIX (June, 1954), p. 399. 3  5  I b i d . , p. 399.  Nirmala devi Cherukupalle, " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Techniques i n Planning A n a l y s i s , " Socio-Economic Planning Science, IV (September, 1970), pp. 395-396. UBC BMD07M, Implemented from the UCLA BMD Package by Paul Seagraves, October, 1970. Using t h i s program, i f any variables are entered by d e f i n i t i o n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i s s i g n i f i c a n t . However, with t h i s program there i s then some problem i n knowing exactly what the c l a s s i f i cation i n d i c a t e s . 7  p  One d i f f i c u l t y with the data of t h i s study should be noted. A l l questions were coded on an ordinal b a s i s , not on an i n t e r v a l s c a l e . Thus the l i n e a r i t y of the r e l a t i o n s h i p i s l i m i t e d . g When 4th best and worst were run i n regression analysis with the factor scores from Chapter I I I and standardized scores for residence l e n g t h , none of the independent variables was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 level. 10 When hospitals was run as the dependent v a r i a b l e i n regression analysis with the three factor scores and with residence length i n standardized (z) scores, none of the factors was s i g n i f i c a n t at the 0.05 ^ l e v e l . Thus only length was entered i n the m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , with r equal to that of the simple regression reported i n the t e x t . 1  RESULTS: HYPOTHESIS II The second hypothesis was that newer r e s i d e n t s '  community p a r t i -  c i p a t i o n varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of longterm r e s i d e n t s . variables were tested i n t h i s s e c t i o n .  Four  They included awareness of the  community's popular name, awareness of neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s , attendance at government meetings, and number of voluntary to which the i n d i v i d u a l  associations  belonged.^  In Section A the discriminant analysis c a r r i e d out to t e s t the hypothesis w i l l be described.  Section B includes the regression analysis  on these p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e s . sons w i l l be set  A.  And i n Section C, percentage compari-  forth.  Tests of the Second Hypothesis by Discriminant Analysis  A discriminant analysis was conducted on these four variables using the same four residence length c a t e g o r i e s , newest = 0-2 y e a r s , newer =  2.5-6  y e a r s , older = 7-21 y e a r s , and oldest = 22-60 years.  The analysis turned out to be s i g n i f i c a n t .  That i s , since one v a r i a b l e  had a high enough F r a t i o to be entered, there was an i n d i c a t i o n that differences w i t h i n the four groups were smaller than between the four groups.  The one v a r i a b l e which was entered, that v a l i d a t e d the c a t i o n , was neighbourhood organizational awareness.  This v a r i a b l e had  an F r a t i o of 8.7241 with 3 and 104 degrees of freedom. of s i g n i f i c a n c e was 0.0000.  classifi-  Thus i t s l e v e l  There was almost no p r o b a b i l i t y that t h i s  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n might have been produced by chance. The members of each group were next compared to the composite . scores for these groups on t h i s v a l i d a t i n g dimension to see which group they f i t i n best.  When t h i s step was accomplished the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  seemed to be less useful than was indicated by i t s l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e . While 92.6 per cent of the newest cases f e l l  on the d i a g o n a l , only 14.8  per cent of the newer, 55.2 per cent of the o l d e r , and none of the oldest did so.  In t h i s c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i t would seem that there i s almost a  dichotomy.  There must be some other underlying c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that  would help to e x p l a i n the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of Table 1. TABLE V . l NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO GROUP: Newest  Newer  Older  Oldest  Newest  25  0  2  0  Newer  12  4  11  0  Older  9  4  16  0  Oldest  10  0  15  .  0  The preliminary conclusion must be that on the basis of the four p a r t i c i p a t i o n variables the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of residence lengths was v a l i d  but not the only c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that explains the d i f f e r e n t responses of different individuals.  B.  Tests of the Second Hypothesis by Regression Analysis  Regression analysis revealed that at the 0.05 l e v e l of s i g n i f i cance residence length was only entered as a s i g n i f i c a n t  independent  v a r i a b l e i n p r e d i c t i n g awareness of neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s , both 2 in simple and m u l t i p l e regression. ing of the m u l t i p l e regression  See Appendix D for a complete  list-  results.  Residence length was the only independent v a r i a b l e of 12 possible variables that was entered as p r e d i c t i n g neighbourhood organization 3 awareness.  Residence length had an F p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.0001 and ex-  plained 14.75 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n i n organization awareness. This 2 4 was the highest r encountered thus f a r i n the data of t h i s study. However, the standard e r r o r of y , an i n d i c a t i o n of the accuracy of.the p r e d i c t i o n , was approximately 47.9 per cent of the value of i t s mean, causing one to question the s a t i s f a c t o r i n e s s  C.  of t h i s regression model.  Tests of the Second Hypothesis by Percentage Comparisons  Organization Awareness Variable Since neighbourhood organization awareness showed up i n both of the p r i o r types of s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , this, v a r i a b l e w i l l be examined f i r s t i n terms of percentage comparisons.  The differences  among  residence length groups were immediately obvious.  In the newest group  only 2 of 27 people interviewed mentioned any o r g a n i z a t i o n , compared to 15 of 27 i n the newer group, 20 of 29 i n the o l d e r , and 16 of 25 i n the oldest.  To phrase t h i s another way, of those people not aware of any  organization at a l l , 45.3 per cent were from the newest residence length group, 22.6 per cent from the newer, 17.0 per cent from the o l d e r , and 15.1 per cent from the o l d e s t .  And the opposite holds true for those-  people aware of the major organizations.  In t h i s aware group only 4.4  per cent have l i v e d i n Vancouver less than 2 y e a r s , 24.4 per cent 2 . 5 6 y e a r s , 35.6 per cent 7-21 y e a r s , and another 35.6 per cent have l i v e d in Vancouver 22-60 y e a r s .  This d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p ( i . e . , the longer  the residence the more aware of organization) holds even when c o n t r o l l i n g for the zoning of the area. Government Meeting Attendance Variable The figures concerning government meeting attendance are also revealing.  Two people from each of the categories newest, newer, and  oldest attended, while s i x people attended from the older residence length category.  Those from the newest and oldest categories  only p o l i t i c a l meetings.  attended  The newer category was evenly divided between  medical meetings and meetings that were planning issue o r i e n t e d .  The  older category, on the other hand, had some of i t s 6 people attending each of the three c l a s s i f i e d types of meetings.  The older group was the  most involved i n meetings about planning oriented issues ( e . g . , board of variance, rapid t r a n s i t d i s c u s s i o n s , e t c . ) .  The r e s u l t s of the regression analysis on government meeting attendance are borne out by examining the frequency comparisons.  Educa-  t i o n and age (Factor 3) were quite determining f a c t o r s , as can be seen from the fact that 9 of 12 people who attended government meetings had some u n i v e r s i t y education, and 10 of the 12 were under the age of 30. Now n o t i c i n g that 13 of 27 people i n the newest and 15 of 27 people i n the newer group f e l l  i n t o the highest education c a t e g o r i e s , while 20 of  27 i n the newest and 18 o f 27 i n the newer group are under 30 years of age, i t would seem that more of these people r e s i d i n g i n Vancouver less than 7 years had the background necessary to give them a propensity to attend.  Since they did not attend government meetings, on the whole, i t  would seem that length of residence has a r e s t r a i n i n g e f f e c t .  Membership Variable The next p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e to be examined i n d e t a i l i s membership i n voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n s . The two residence length categories with least p a r t i c i p a t i o n were the newest (0-2 years) and older (7-21 years) with 33 per cent and 38 per cent belonging r e s p e c t i v e l y .  The other two  c a t e g o r i e s , newer and o l d e s t , each had 56 per cent belonging.  However,  the r e s u l t s are quite d i f f e r e n t when looking at only those i n d i v i d u a l s who belong to more than one o r g a n i z a t i o n .  In t h i s case there was a  d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p , i . e . , increasing residence length went along ,with an increased number of organizations to which members of that residence length category belong.  Eight per cent i n the newest category belonged  to more than 1 o r g a n i z a t i o n , 16 per cent i n the newer, 21 per cent i n  the o l d e r , and 28 per cent i n the o l d e s t .  On the basis of number of  organizations belonged to by the people interviewed i t i s c l e a r that newer residents do not j o i n voluntary associations immediately upon t h e i r a r r i v a l i n a new c i t y , but only after some time. K i t s i l a n o Awareness Variable The f i n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e i s awareness of the area's popul a r name of K i t s i l a n o . ^  Jhose not knowing that t h e i r area had the name  • K i t s i l a n o were 19 per cent of the newest group, 8 per cent of the newer, 7.7 per cent of the o l d e r , and 14.3 per cent of the oldest group.  Thus  the newest a r r i v a l s i n Vancouver were l e a s t l i k e l y to be aware of the name of the area they were l i v i n g i n .  The great surprise was the oldest g  group, which was the next l a r g e s t group unaware of the name K i t s i l a n o .  D.  Summary  To summarize, three s t a t i s t i c a l techniques were used to t e s t the second hypothesis that newer r e s i d e n t s ' community p a r t i c i p a t i o n varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of longterm r e s i d e n t s .  A l l three techniques  found neighbourhood organization awareness to be the v a r i a b l e that showed the most differences between the various residence length groups. I t v a l i d a t e d the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n i n discriminant a n a l y s i s .  That i s , the  differences w i t h i n each residence length group on awareness of neighbourhood organizations were s i g n i f i c a n t l y less than the differences between the groups.  In m u l t i p l e regression analysis residence length alone  explained 15 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n i n awareness of neighbourhood organizations.  The percentage comparisons also reinforced these r e s u l t s  by showing a d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p .  The longer the period of residence  in Vancouver the more aware people were of the existence of neighbourhood organizations. While none of the three other p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e s proved s i g n i f i c a n t i n discriminant or regression a n a l y s i s , there were c l e a r i n d i cations of trends demonstrated by percentage comparisons.  Those people  l i v i n g i n Vancouver between 7 and 21 years attended government meetings, and e s p e c i a l l y planning issue oriented ones, more than any of the other residence length groups.  This was despite the fact that the newest r e s i -  dents had the greatest propensity to attend from t h e i r age and level of education.  A d i r e c t r e l a t i o n s h i p was demonstrated between residence  length and membership i n more than one voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n . did not seem to j o i n immediately upon t h e i r a r r i v a l .  Newcomers  And f i n a l l y ,  awareness of the area's name (and i d e n t i t y as) K i t s i l a n o was l e a s t for newest a r r i v a l s .  FOOTNOTES  Appendix A contains the complete d e t a i l s of the t o t a l sample's rankings on these v a r i a b l e s . In summary, most people were aware of the area's name, but less than h a l f knew of the existence of any neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Only 11 per cent of the sample had attended any government meetings i n the l a s t year. And regarding voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n membership, while 55. per cent of the sample belonged to no organi z a t i o n s , 18 per cent belonged to two or more a s s o c i a t i o n s . The most frequently mentioned types were the hobby/sport type and r e l i g i o u s organizations. i 2  Awareness of the name K i t s i l a n o seemed to be predicted mostly by area of residence, government meeting attendance by l e v e l of education a t t a i n e d , and number of organizations belonged to by income. * 3 This was true for raw scores only. For standardized residence length and f a c t o r scores, Factor 2 (mostly income) was also s i g n i f i c a n t . And together 20.5 per cent of the v a r i a t i o n i n awareness of neighbourhood organizations was explained. 4  i  However, r e l a t i v e to other studies t h i s does not have very;great explanatory power. 5 And the r e l a t i o n s h i p became even more confused when income was c o n t r o l l e d for (income was the one s i g n i f i c a n t v a r i a b l e i n regression . analysis). Slhile the responses of the d i f f e r e n t residence length group members on type of membership are quite i n t e r e s t i n g , they are of l i t t l e use in t e s t i n g the hypothesis. The interested reader can f i n d a table of membership type broken down by length of residence i n Vancouver i n Appendix E. There was an unexpected d i f f i c u l t y that arose i n the course of conducting the i n t e r v i e w s . At that time i t was discovered that 2 of the blocks out of the 17 i n the sample were almost u n i v e r s a l l y considered by t h e i r residents not to be part of K i t s i l a n o . These were the blocks South of Broadway but East of Arbutus. A few of the oldest residents r e c a l l e d when t h e i r area had the name Talten Place and thus f e l t that they had never been part of K i t s i l a n o . For t h i s reason, the 15 people 7  interviewed from t h i s area have been excluded from the analysis of th variable. g There is some p o s s i b i l i t y that people l i v i n g near Sixteenth Avenue and MacDonald Street lack i d e n t i f i c a t i o n with K i t s i l a n o .  RESULTS: HYPOTHESIS III In t h i s chapter the same three s t a t i s t i c a l  techniques w i l l be  applied to the t h i r d hypothesis, which may be stated as f o l l o w s : Newer residents'  views on the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood services and fac-  i l i t i e s and the extent of t h e i r community p a r t i c i p a t i o n vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y according to the s i z e and l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former residence.  While  reading i t may be helpful to keep i n mind that r u r a l indicates  cities  with population less than 100,000.  A.  Tests of the Third Hypothesis by Discriminant Analysis  Size and Location Separately Separate discriminant analyses were run on the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n by s i z e and by l o c a t i o n , each with the same 28 q u a l i t y variables and 4 part i c i p a t i o n variables used i n Chapters IV and V. In both analyses the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were v a l i d a t e d by three s i g nificant variables.  Neighbourhood organization awareness v a l i d a t e d both  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s and was the only p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e included. other two variables i n each case were d i f f e r e n t .  The s i z e analysis  The  included 3rd best (a q u a l i t y rank) and p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n , while the l o c a t i o n analysis included parking and parks (both o r i g i n a l service and faci.lity variables).  Table 1 summarizes the d e t a i l s j u s t i f y i n g the i n -  c l u s i o n of these v a r i a b l e s .  •  .  TABLE VI.1 '  Classification Size  Location  F RATIO FOR INDIVIDUAL VARIABLES  . Variable  - F Ratio  3rd Best  10.0331  1 and 44  0.0029  Orgaware*  6.2345  . 1 and 44  0.0156  Police  4.2560  1 and 44  0.0427  Overall  6.7853  3 and 44  0.0008  Parks  5.0813  2 and 43  0.0104  Parking  3.8236  2 and 43  0.029D  Orgaware  3.6462  2 and 43  0.0337  Overall  4.2246  6 and 86  0.0010  Degrees of Freedom  Significance Level  * Neighbourhood organization awareness From the l e v e l of s i g n i f i c a n c e of the F r a t i o s there seems to be l i t t l e p r o b a b i l i t y that these c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s might have been produced by chance.  However, the goodness of the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s can only be de-  termined by comparing the members of each group to the composite score for  t h e i r group to see which group they f i t best i n .  Table 2 shows most cases f a l l i n g on the diagonals (for the s i z e classification  72.2 per cent of the rural and 76.7 per cent of the  urban; and for the l o c a t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 70.6 per cent of B . C . , 55.0 per cent of Canada, and 81.8 per cent of Other).  This means that the  two c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s on the basis of s i z e and l o c a t i o n of former residence can account for most of the responses of d i f f e r e n t alternative  i n d i v i d u a l s without  c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s , and of the 32 variables these 5 were the  only s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c r i m i n a t i n g ones. TABLE V I . 2 NUMBER OF CASES CLASSIFIED INTO: Rural  Urban  Rural  13  5  Urban  7  23  B.C. B.C.  Canada  Other  12  2  3  Canada  4  11  5  Other  0  2  9  Size and Location Combined Another discriminant analysis was run on a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n that was a combination of former s i z e and former l o c a t i o n .  Since there were  too few cases to work with i n 4 of the 6 c a t e g o r i e s , the groups used were only r u r a l - B . C . and urban-Canada.  The c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was v a l i d a t e d ,  but by only the one p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e awareness of neighbourhood  organizations.  This v a r i a b l e (and the e n t i r e a n a l y s i s ) had an F r a t i o  of 8.702 with 1 and 29 degrees of freedom, which gave an F p r o b a b i l i t y of 0.006.  When the members of each group were compared to the compo-  s i t e score for t h e i r group, the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n turned out to be f a i r l y good.  Ninety-four per cent of the urban-Canada group members were;  placed i n the urban-Canada category, while 53.8 per cent of the r u r a l B.C. group f e l l  i n the r u r a l - B . C . category.  This seems to i n d i c a t e that  a l l urban-Canada group members (but 1) were a l i k e in t h e i r knowledge of neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n s , while r u r a l - B . C . group members were almost evenly s p l i t in t h e i r awareness.  However, there was an underlying;  dimension w i t h i n t h i s group that can account f o r t h i s s p l i t that w i l l show up i n the percentage comparisons.  B.  Tests of the Third Hypothesis by Regression Analysis  A regression analysis was run with the same 28 q u a l i t y and 4 part i c i p a t i o n variables with s i z e and l o c a t i o n of former residence as independent v a r i a b l e s .  1  The analysis showed that former s i z e and former  l o c a t i o n were s i g n i f i c a n t i n p r e d i c t i n g 2 and 3 dependent v a r i a b l e s , respectively.  However, there was no overlap i n the v a r i a b l e s p r e d i c t e d .  Size of former residence was related to the p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e awareness of neighbourhood organizations and the q u a l i t y rank 3rd b e s t , while former l o c a t i o n was only related to the o r i g i n a l s e r v i c e and f a c i l i t y variables p a r k i n g , senior c i t i z e n s programs, and s t r e e t maintenance.  As each of the regression equations had quite high standard  errors f o r the independent v a r i a b l e ,  the a n a l y s i s may be questioned.  Table 3 summarizes f o r each v a r i a b l e predicted the l e v e l s of s i g n i f i c a n c e 2 and r . From t h i s table i t can be seen that on the whole s i z e of former residence predicted more of the v a r i a t i o n i n the v a r i a b l e s f o r which i t 3 was s i g n i f i c a n t than d i d l o c a t i o n of former residence. < TABLE V I . 3 REGRESSION ANALYSIS SUMMARY Coefficient  F Ratio  F Probabi1ity  Orgawareness  -0.5222  5.7814  0.0193  0.1117  3rd Best  -2.3778  7.1657  0.0100  0.1348  Parking  -1.6697  5.7889  0.0193  0.1118  Senior C i t i z e n s Program  -0.8394  4.0009  0.0488  0.0800  Street Maintenance  -1.3578  4.7903  0.0320  0.0943  Former Size  Former Location  To summarize the i m p l i c a t i o n s or i n d i c a t i o n s of these regression equations, new residents from rural areas were more aware of the e x i s tence of neighbourhood organizations and chose the more popular answers 4 for  the t h i r d best rank than newcomers from urban areas.  Newer r e s i -  dents from B r i t i s h Columbia seemed to feel that p a r k i n g , senior c i t i z e n s programs, and s t r e e t maintenance were much bigger problems than was f e l t by newcomers from other provinces of Canada and from outside 5 Canada.  C.  Tests of the Third Hypothesis by Percentage and Average Comparisons  The f i v e d i f f e r e n t v a r i a b l e s entered as s i g n i f i c a n t i n the d i s criminant analysis w i l l be discussed f i r s t , and then other i n t e r e s t i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i l l be explored. Organization Awareness Variable Since awareness of neighbourhood organizations was s i g n i f i c a n t i n the discriminant analyses of both s i z e and l o c a t i o n of former residence, t h i s v a r i a b l e w i l l be examined f i r s t . Size.  Only 57.9 per cent (11 of 19) of the rural newcomers were  unaware of any neighbourhood o r g a n i z a t i o n , compared to 89.6 per cent (26 of 29) urban newcomers who were unaware.  Of those who were aware, 100  per cent of the urban group knew the three major organizations ( i . e . , Ratepayers, Resource C o u n c i l , and Community Centre), while 37.4 per cent of the rural group mentioned other organizations not considered as main ones in the neighbourhood. L o c a t i o n.  When l o c a t i o n of former residence was examined separ-  a t e l y for both newer groups combined, only 53.0 per cent (9 of 17) of the people coming from B r i t i s h Columbia were unaware of any neighbourhood organization.  This figure can be compared to 83.3 per cent (10 of 12)  unaware from places outside Canada and 94.7 per cent (18 of 19) unaware from places i n Canada other than B . C . ! New residents coming from B r i t i s h Columbia were the only ones mentioning organizations other than the three major ones.  C o n t r o l l i n g for Length of Residence.  Since e a r l i e r explanations  showed that awareness increased with increasing length of residence, next s i z e and l o c a t i o n have been combined, but w i t h i n each residence length category.  Those who did not know of any organization were i n  proportion to the trends of former l o c a t i o n f o r the two newest residence length groups that were described i n Section B of Chapter I I I .  What i s  more important to i n v e s t i g a t e i s the background of those 8 people who were aware of the major o r g a n i z a t i o n s . Two who knew of the major organizations were newest residents ( i n Vancouver less than 2 y e a r s ) .  ,  One was from a small town i n B r i t i s h  Columbia, and the other from a large c i t y somewhere i n Canada outside of B . C . The s i x others knowing major organizations have a l l l i v e d i n Vancouver between 2-1/2 and 6 y e a r s .  They were mostly from small towns  i n B . C . o r i g i n a l l y (50 per cent of the 6 ) .  The other three people who  knew were evenly divided among urban areas of B . C . , and places outside of Canada, both rural and urban.  I t i s s i g n i f i c a n t to note that not a  s i n g l e person who knew of the major organizations and who l i v e d i n Vancouver between 2-1/2 and 6 years was from Canada outside of B r i t i s h Columbia! Size Discriminating Variables The next v a r i a b l e s to be examined are those that proved s i g n i f i cant i n d i s c r i m i n a t i n g between former s i z e groups, i . e . , 3rd best rank and p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n .  Third Best Rank.  The difference being looked for i n the 3rd best  rank v a r i a b l e i s a difference i n the frequency of the response mentioned. That i s , one of the groups w i l l have chosen the most popular answers and the other the l e a s t popular.  Looking at the average rank for each group  gives a much c l e a r e r demonstration than looking at the per cent answering i n each category.  The small town group had a mean rank of 7 . 1 ,  while the large c i t y group had a mean rank of 4 . 2 .  When these figures  were compared to the o v e r a l l mean of 5.6, the r u r a l group was 1.5 points above the mean, and the urban group was 1.4 points below the o v e r a l l mean.  People from the bigger c i t i e s almost never mentioned the most  popular answer. Police Protection.  The other v a r i a b l e s i g n i f i c a n t i n d i s c r i m i n a i  t i n g between the c i t y s i z e of former places of residence was p o l i c e protection.  I t was postulated that reactions toward t h i s v a r i a b l e would  be quite d i f f e r e n t f o r d i f f e r e n t zoning areas.  Thus the sample of  newer residents was broken down according to m u l t i p l e family area and the areas other than m u l t i p l e family. A l l rural people l i v i n g i n m u l t i p l e family zones who ranked p o l i c e protection f e l t that i t was r e l a t i v e l y good.  People from urban  areas, on the other hand, placed p o l i c e protection i n the worst problem category 27 per cent of the time. .Average rank can also be used to demonstrate the differences between the groups on t h i s v a r i a b l e .  The  average ranks of p o l i c e protection i n the m u l t i p l e family area were 2.0 for r u r a l people interviewed and 4.6 for former urban r e s i d e n t s .  The r e s u l t s i n the 2-family and s i n g l e family areas were s l i g h t l y different.  Seventy-five per cent of the former rural and 67 per cent of  the former urban residents were neutral about p o l i c e protection (compared to only 36 per cent and 28 per cent i n m u l t i p l e areas, r e s p e c t i v e ly).  Contrary to the r e s u l t s i n the m u l t i p l e area, none of the small:  town people ranked p o l i c e p r o t e c t i o n as good, while only 8 per cent of the big c i t y people ranked t h i s service as bad!  The average ranks, were  7.5 for former rural residents and 4.75 for former urban r e s i d e n t s . Thus i t can be seen that former urban r e s i d e n t s , no matter what zoning area they l i v e i n , i n K i t s i l a n o , rank p o l i c e protection around 4 . 7 . Since there were only 2 ranks making up the average for small town r e s i dents i n nonmultiple areas, the o v e r a l l rank average was construed as being more meaningful.  This o v e r a l l mean turned out to be 3 . 2 , lower  than the urban average, and yet above the e n t i r e sample's mean of 2 . 1 . That i s , rural newcomers found p o l i c e protection to be better than did newcomers from urban areas. Location Discriminating Variables Both of the remaining variables that discriminated among the former l o c a t i o n c l a s s i f i c a t i o n s were of the type that p o l i c e protection was, i . e . , an o r i g i n a l s e r v i c e and f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e .  These two var-  i a b l e s , parking and parks, have been separated by zoning area a l s o , because t h e i r q u a l i t y may vary within K i t s i l a n o . Parking.  In the m u l t i p l e zone 85 per cent of those from B . C .  placed parking i n the bad c a t e g o r i e s , compared to only 54 per cent of  those from the rest of Canada and 50 per cent of those from outside Canada.  The average ranks follow the same order: 8.5 for B . C . , 6.7 f o r  Canada, and 6.0 f o r other p l a c e s , compared to the o v e r a l l sample mean of 5 . 1 . Results were s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t i n the other zoning areas.  Sixty-  seven per cent of B . C i t e s , 11 per cent of those from Canada, and 50 per cent of those from outside Canada d i d not rank t h i s v a r i a b l e (compared to 7 per cent, 18 per cent, and 0 per cent i n m u l t i p l e areas).  The num-  ber of people placing parking i n the bad categories went down i n each case (33 per cent B . C . , 44 per cent Canada, and 26 per cent o t h e r ) .  The  average ranks have, concomitantly, been reduced to 6.0 for B . C . , 5.75 for Canada, and 5.25 for other. the o v e r a l l mean of 5 . 1 .  A l l these figures are s t i l l higher than  They also seem to i n d i c a t e that parking i s  more of a problem i n m u l t i p l e family areas.  This i s probably a true ;  i n d i c a t i o n because of the small percentage of onsite parking and the recently introduced regulation permitting parking only on one side of the street. still  However, people from B . C . who have recently moved to Vancouver  rate parking much worse than newcomers from other areas. Parks.  g  The f i n a l d i s c r i m i n a t i n g v a r i a b l e to discuss i s parks.  There were not enough people ranking t h i s v a r i a b l e i n the nonmultiple areas to use t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n except f o r people coming from other provinces of Canada.  So, o v e r a l l , 35 per cent of the people from B . C . , 15  per cent of those from elsewhere i n Canada, and 50 per cent of those from outside Canada were neutral about the q u a l i t y of parks. age rankings were 1.90 B . C . , 3.83 Canada, and 1.68 other.  The aver-  Breaking down  the Canada group, the rank was 2.8 i n m u l t i p l e areas (close to K i t s i l a n o Beach) and 5.3 i n other areas. ence.  This seems to be a s i g n i f i c a n t d i f f e r -  I t might be i n f e r r e d that other areas of Canada have better  (or  more) parks i n s i n g l e family areas than i s true i n K i t s i l a n o and i n many places outside of Canada.  Thus people moving to Vancouver from other  parts of Canada have shown d i f f e r e n t expectations with regard to the amount of parkland there should be i n the community. P a r t i c i p a t i o n Variables Next a b r i e f examination w i l l be made of s i g n i f i c a n t differences between former c i t y sizes and former l o c a t i o n s on the remaining p a r t i c i pations v a r i a b l e s , K i t s i l a n o awareness, membership, and government meeting attendance. K i t s i l a n o Awareness V a r i a b l e .  In terms of awareness of the  area's name of K i t s i l a n o , those not knowing the name were 11.8 per cent of those from rural areas but 16.7 per cent of those from urban l o c a tions.  I t was mostly the urban group that mentioned a l t e r n a t i v e names  for the area.  Looking at the same question from the standpoint of  former l o c a t i o n , 6.7 per cent of the newcomers from B . C . and 12.5 per cent of the newcomers from elsewhere i n Canada did not know the name K i t s i l a n o , compared to 30.0 per cent of those from outside Canada. Although the numbers i n each case were too small to give s i g n i f i c a n t regression r e s u l t s , these percentages do seem to i n d i c a t e meaningful d i f ferences, e s p e c i a l l y i n terms of l o c a t i o n of former residence.  Membership V a r i a b l e : S i z e .  When examining the number of voluntary  associations belonged to i n terms of former s i z e , of those not belonging to any 67 per cent were from urban areas (33 per cent r u r a l ) .  Of those  belonging to 1 organization 54 per cent were from rural areas and 46 per cent from urban.  And of those belonging to more than 1 a s s o c i a t i o n , 67  per cent were from urban and 33 per cent from r u r a l areas. interesting reversal.  This i s an  Former urban people belong to e i t h e r no organiza-  tions or more than 1, while people from rural backgrounds dominate the category of people belonging to 1 o n l y . Membership V a r i a b l e : L o c a t i o n .  Regarding l o c a t i o n of former r e s i -  dence, of those not belonging to any voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n , 45 per cent were from Canada, 33 per cent from outside Canada, and 22 per cent from B.C.  Of those belonging to only one organization 60 per cent were from  B . C . , 27 per cent from elsewhere i n Canada, and 13 per cent from outside Canada.  And f i n a l l y , of those belonging to more than 1 a s s o c i a t i o n , 50  per cent were from Canada, 33 per cent from B . C . , and 17 per cent from other places.  T h i s , too, shows some r e v e r s a l , with Canadians leading  among those who do not belong at a l l and among those who belong to more than 1 o r g a n i z a t i o n , while former B . C . residents f a r outnumber both g other former locations among those who belong to e x a c t l y 1 o r g a n i z a t i o n . Government Meeting Attendance V a r i a b l e .  The f i n a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n  v a r i a b l e i s attendance at government meetings.  Although the attendance  for newcomers was very low, 3 out of the 4 people who did attend were from rural areas.  Looking at these same four people from the former  l o c a t i o n perspective, h a l f were from B r i t i s h Columbia and h a l f from Canada.  10  Quality Rank Differences There were a few other q u a l i t y rankings which showed seemingly s i g n i f i c a n t differences among the former s i z e and l o c a t i o n groups, although few of these were as d r a m a t i c a l l y d i f f e r e n t as the variables discussed e a r l i e r . Size.  There was a difference of 0.8 between the means of the  rural and urban groups on two ranks, worst and 2nd worst. the o v e r a l l sample mean f e l l  In each case  between the means for rural and urban. And  i n each case the rural group had the higher mean—indicating a tendency to choose more popular answers.  The urban group, on the other hand, for  these two problem c a t e g o r i e s , tended to choose things that were not u n i v e r s a l l y regarded as a big problem. Location.  In terms of the 3 former l o c a t i o n groups' mean rank-  ings there were three v a r i a b l e s , 3rd best, 2nd b e s t , and worst, that exhibited a spread of more than 1.1 between the highest and the lowest. In a l l of these the B . C . group had the highest rank for i t s mean (most popular answers) and the outside of Canada group had the lowest mean. Thus, i t has been shown that there was a trend for r u r a l people and f o r B r i t i s h Columbia people (who were often the same) to pick more popular responses, while t h e i r counterparts picked out things not u n i v e r s a l l y thought of for the p a r t i c u l a r rank.  D.  Summary  In summary, t h i s chapter applied discriminant a n a l y s i s , regression analysis and percentage and average comparisons to the data obtained from the questionnaire i n order to t e s t the hypothesis that newer r e s i dents' views on the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood services and f a c i l i t i e s and the extent of t h e i r community p a r t i c i p a t i o n vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y according to the s i z e and l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former residence. Size Dealing f i r s t with s i z e , the discriminant analysis proved s i g n i f i cant and the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of former residence s i z e used was v a l i d a t e d by three v a r i a b l e s , 3rd best (a q u a l i t y rank), p o l i c e protection (an p r i g i n a l service and f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e ) , and awareness of neighbourhood organizations (a p a r t i c i p a t i o n v a r i a b l e ) .  The p o s t e r i o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n  was e x c e l l e n t , with over 70 per cent of the cases f a l l i n g on the diagonal. Former s i z e was s i g n i f i c a n t i n regression analysis i n p r e d i c t i n g organi z a t i o n awareness and 3rd b e s t , e x p l a i n i n g over 10 per cent of the*vari a t i o n i n each. The d i r e c t i o n of these r e l a t i o n s h i p s was explored by means of percentage and average comparisons.  It was shown that people from big  c i t i e s of over 100,000 knew of the existence of neighbourhood organizations much less often than small town newcomers.  The people from big  c i t i e s also mentioned less popular answers for 3rd best and found p o l i c e protection to be much worse i n q u a l i t y than did newcomers from more rural  areas.  Two other p a r t i c i p a t i o n variables and two other q u a l i t y variables  showed marked differences, between rural and urban newcomers.  Big c i t y  newcomers belonged to e i t h e r no voluntary associations or to more than one, while rural newcomers were most l i k e l y to belong to e x a c t l y 1. A l s o , 3 of the 4 newcomers who attended government meetings were from small towns.  The two q u a l i t y rank variables that showed differences  in  each case had the small town people choosing the more popular answers compared to big c i t y people. Location When differences  between the 3 possible locations were examined,  the discriminant analysis proved s i g n i f i c a n t , with the c l a s s i f i c a t i o n being v a l i d a t e d by neighbourhood organization awareness and 2 of the o r i g i n a l 18 service and f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e s , parks and p a r k i n g .  Except,  for the group of newcomers from Canada both of the other groups had over 70 per cent of t h e i r members c l a s s i f i e d p o s t e r i o r l y i n t o t h e i r o r i g i n a l category. In regression a n a l y s i s , l o c a t i o n predicted only o r i g i n a l service and f a c i l i t y v a r i a b l e s , i . e . , p a r k i n g , senior c i t i z e n s programs, and s t r e e t maintenance.  This indicated that s i z e was more determining than  l o c a t i o n i n regard to neighbourhood organization awareness.  However,  the d i r e c t i o n of the r e l a t i o n s h i p s that were s i g n i f i c a n t were a l l thesame.  In each case people from B r i t i s h Columbia f e l t that the service  or f a c i l i t y was a much bigger problem than was f e l t by newcomers from other provinces of Canada and from outside of Canada.  Percentage and average comparisons i n d i c a t e d some trends concerning the former l o c a t i o n of newcomers.  Regarding awareness of neighbour-  hood o r g a n i z a t i o n s , people from B r i t i s h Columbia were much more aware than people from e i t h e r of the other l o c a t i o n s .  B . C i t e s also knew the  name K i t s i l a n o much more frequently than other newcomers and belonged to a s i n g l e voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n more.  However, newcomers from other  parts of Canada dominated those who did not belong to any associations or belonged to more than one. The two d i s t i n g u i s h i n g s e r v i c e and f a c i l i t y variables were not consistent i n t h e i r d i r e c t i o n .  B . C i t e s found parking to be much worse  than any of the other groups, while people from other parts of Canada ranked parks much worse than the other two groups.  Three of the q u a l i t y  ranks showed marked differences between the means of the groups.  In  each case people from B r i t i s h Columbia chose the most popular responses and those from outside Canada chose the most unusual items f o r each rank.  FOOTNOTES  Using only data from newcomers for whom information on these two variables was a v a i l a b l e . 2 Greater than 50 per cent of the value of i t s mean. 3 2 Even so, the r was always less than 15 per cent, so neither were accounting for a major proportion of the variance in any of the variables. 4 This seems to come about because people have much stronger opinions about the best and 2nd best ranks. Thus only on 3rd best can real perceptive differences a r i s e . 5 This was a conservative estimate because neutral answers were coded as blank and interpreted by the computer as zero. They thus weighted answers toward the p o s i t i v e s i d e . However, t h i s ranking has a s l i g h t l y d i f f e r e n t meaning. A rank of less than 5 meant that the item was considered one of the better features of the area, while a rank c l o s e r to 10 indicates that the feature was considered a big problem. People who d i d not mention the p a r t i c u l a r item at a l l were not included i n the rank computation, but were considered by the computer i n d e r i v i n g the o v e r a l l sample's mean. Again these neutral answers weight toward the p o s i t i v e s i d e , because they should r e a l l y have been given a value of 5, between the best and worst categories . I t i s quite d i f f i c u l t to i n t e r p r e t the i m p l i c a t i o n s of these , rankings because i n d i v i d u a l perceptions of p o l i c e services d i f f e r so considerably between d i f f e r e n t age groups these days. Q Only 1 person ranked parking i n nonmultiple zones. When he i s averaged with'those from m u l t i p l e areas, the average i s s t i l l nearly 8 . 3 . g There was no s i g n i f i c a n t difference between the former c i t y sizes in the types of organizations to which people belonged. But more B . C i t e s belonged to the hobby/sport type than any other group. 7  These were -12 per cent of the B . C . group, and 10 per cent of the Canada group. 10  SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS  A.  Summary  The present i n v e s t i g a t i o n was designed to t e s t hypotheses  relat-  ing to differences between newer residents i n a c i t y and older residents and to differences w i t h i n the newcomer group on the basis of s i z e and l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former places of residence, to see i f t h i s information could be used for community planning.  These hypotheses were tested by  means of a questionnaire o r a l l y administered to a random sample of 108 residents of the K i t s i l a n o area of Vancouver. l i v e d i n Vancouver for varying amounts of time.  The respondents hadThe person interviewed  who l i v e d i n Vancouver for the shortest period was i n the c i t y for less than a y e a r , while the longest resident had l i v e d i n the c i t y for 57 years. On the basis of the answers obtained each of the hypotheses was submitted to s t a t i s t i c a l s c r u t i n y .  In t e s t i n g each hypothesis, f i r s t  discriminant analysis was used to see whether the basic c l a s s i f i c a t i o n was v a l i d a t e d .  Secondly, regression analysis was applied to see what  variables residence length (or s i z e or l o c a t i o n of former residence)  ,  could p r e d i c t .  And f i n a l l y , percentage and average comparisons were  made to i n v e s t i g a t e the actual nature and d i r e c t i o n of d i f f e r e n c e s .  The  r e s u l t s of t e s t i n g each hypothesis w i l l be summarized i n d i v i d u a l l y . Hypothesis I The f i r s t hypothesis was that newer r e s i d e n t s ' opinions regarding the q u a l i t y of t h e i r neighbourhood's services and f a c i l i t i e s vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y from those of longterm r e s i d e n t s .  On the basis of the  results  discussed i n Chapter IV, the conclusion must be that t h i s hypothesis has been supported by the evidence.  On the basis of a s i g n i f i c a n t d i s c r i m -  inant a n a l y s i s , s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i p l e r e g r e s s i o n , and percentage comparisons, newer residents chose less popular answers for 4 of the 10 rank variables (Best, 4th Best, 5th Best, and Worst) and f e l t that hospital q u a l i t y was worse than longterm residents seemed to f e e l . hypothesis i s accurate.  Thus the f i r s t  That i s , i t seems that there are s i g n i f i c a n t  differences between i n d i v i d u a l s ' opinions of neighbourhood services and f a c i l i t i e s depending upon t h e i r length of residence in the c i t y ,  despite  some s t a t i s t i c a l shortcomings l i k e inexact p o s t e r i o r c l a s s i f i c a t i o n and f a i r l y high standard errors and low p r e d i c t a b i l i t y in the regression analysis. This hypothesis was not t e s t i n g for s a t i s f a c t i o n with the community but rather for d i f f e r i n g reactions to the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood services and f a c i l i t i e s .  However* the r e s u l t s can be compared with the  e a r l i e r studies presented i n Chapter I i n one respect.  A proxy for s a t i s -  faction can be derived from people, being interviewed who could not  provide 5 best and 5 worst features from a l i s t of 18.  In t h i s regard,  while there was l i t t l e difference i n the worst c a t e g o r i e s , people who had l i v e d i n Vancouver for less than 2 years could f i n d the most features to praise i n t h e i r area. find the l e a s t things to p r a i s e .  Those i n Vancouver 7-21 years could This substantiates  Crothers' f i n d i n g s ,  in that residents for less than 7 years and more than 21 years  (less  than 5 and more than 17 i n his case) seemed most s a t i s f i e d , i f more good features mentioned are any i n d i c a t i o n .  Concomitantly, t h i s proxy f o r ;  s a t i s f a c t i o n contradicts the work of Caplow,  2  Gulick,  3  4 and Sommer..  However, more relevant to the purpose of t h i s study, the hypothesis of opinion differences has been substantiated. Hypothesis II The second hypothesis was that newer r e s i d e n t s ' community p a r t i c i p a t i o n varies s i g n i f i c a n t l y from that of longterm r e s i d e n t s .  The re-  s u l t s i n Chapter V demonstrate overwhelming support f o r t h i s hypothesis. And the d i r e c t i o n of the difference was extremely c o n s i s t e n t .  On the  basis of a s i g n i f i c a n t discriminant a n a l y s i s , a s i g n i f i c a n t m u l t i p l e , regression, and percentage comparisons, newer residents were much less aware of the existence of neighbourhood organizations than longterm residents.  ,  Percentage comparisons also i n d i c a t e d that newest residents  were l e a s t l i k e l y to be aware of t h e i r area's popular name and l e a s t l i k e l y to belong to any voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n s .  The only residence  length category that attended government meetings, and e s p e c i a l l y planning issue oriented ones, to any noticeable extent was that of people in Vancouver between 7 and 21 years.  Here again there were some d i f f i c u l t i e s with the more s o p h i s t i cated s t a t i s t i c a l techniques, e . g . , high standard errors and inexact posterior c l a s s i f i c a t i o n .  Despite these shortcomings, the i n d i c a t i o n s  were obvious and consistant with e a r l i e r findings i n t h i s regard (Lee, 6 Gulick,  7 and Zimmer ) .  The conclusion must be that newer residents  are  less l i k e l y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n community a c t i v i t i e s than longterm r e s i dents.  The v a r i a t i o n between the residence length groups was s i g n i f i c a n t  enough to support the contention of t h i s second hypothesis. Hypothesis III The t h i r d and l a s t hypothesis was that newer r e s i d e n t s ' views on the q u a l i t y of neighbourhood services and f a c i l i t i e s and the extent of t h e i r community p a r t i c i p a t i o n vary s i g n i f i c a n t l y according to the s i z e and l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former residence.  There seemed to'be enough e v i -  dence from the r e s u l t s presented in Chapter VI to support t h i s contention. Looking f i r s t at former s i z e , the d i s t i n c t i o n between people coming from c i t i e s over and under 100,000 i n population seems j u s t i f i e d . Rural newcomers were much more l i k e l y to p a r t i c i p a t e i n community a c t i v i t i e s than big c i t y newcomers and. were also more l i k e l y to go along with the majority and pick the most popular answers for the q u a l i t y ranks.  Among the newcomers, i t was those from urban areas over 100,000  who saw things d i f f e r e n t l y . In terms of former l o c a t i o n , newcomers from B r i t i s h Columbia f e l t that 3 of the service and f a c i l i t y variables were much bigger problems than was f e l t by other newcomers.  Former B . C . residents were the most  l i k e l y to p a r t i c i p a t e in community a c t i v i t i e s , and they also tended to choose the most popular responses for q u a l i t y ranks.  I t was the group  from outside Canada that saw things d i f f e r e n t l y as evidenced by t h e i r choice of the l e a s t frequently mentioned services and f a c i l i t i e s for , each rank. In summary, t h i s evidence from Chapter VI seems to i n d i c a t e . t h a t there are s i g n i f i c a n t differences w i t h i n the newcomers ranks on the basis of s i z e and l o c a t i o n of t h e i r former place of residence.  People  formerly from B r i t i s h Columbia and those from towns under 100,000 had the greatest degree of community p a r t i c i p a t i o n .  However, i n terms of  q u a l i t y v a r i a b l e s , i t seems that s i z e differences were greater i n d i s t i n g u i s h i n g the p o p u l a r i t y of the response given to f i l l  a particular  rank, while l o c a t i o n differences were greater concerning the ranks to which the o r i g i n a l service and f a c i l i t y variables were assigned. On the basis of t h i s analysis there i s enough evidence to  refute  Q  the Simmons'  b e l i e f in the disappearance of urban-rural 9•  However, the evidence also contradicts Zimmer's  differences.  finding that urban  migrants tend to enter the a c t i v i t i e s of the community more r a p i d l y . But the c o n f l i c t i n g r e s u l t s i n t h i s respect may be because t h i s study; did not separate farm migrants from migrants coming from small towns. Then too, Zimmer seemed to go much below 100,000 in population to cons i d e r a person an urban migrant. While the r e s u l t s are not s t r i c t l y comparable with B l a c k b u r n ' s work e i t h e r , there seems to be evidence of agreement.  10  That i s , the  farther away people had come from the more c r i t i c a l they were concerning  the q u a l i t y of t h e i r new neighbourhood's services and f a c i l i t i e s ,  as  evidenced by t h e i r choice of l e a s t popular answers f o r each rank. Conclusion I t seems from the evidence summarized above that a l l three hypotheses have been substantiated by the r e s u l t s of t h i s study as well as by some e a r l i e r research f i n d i n g s .  The second hypothesis was more  c l e a r l y demonstrated than, the other two, but i n any case i n d i c a t i o n s are that a l l three were correct i n . t h e i r a s s e r t i o n s .  B.  Suggestions f o r Further Research  Having completed the p i l o t t e s t of the three hypotheses propounded i n Chapter I , some suggestions f o r future research can be given.  In the  author's o p i n i o n , i t would be useful to -direct research i n two ways. The f i r s t would be to expand upon the study presented herein using more subjects.  This would allow more i n v e s t i g a t i o n i n t o differences between  s i z e and l o c a t i o n of newcomers' former places of residence.  But more;  importantly, i t would allow the researcher to control f o r the effects of other variables while t e s t i n g residence l e n g t h .  For example, since i n -  come was the main determining v a r i a b l e with regard to membership i n voluntary a s s o c i a t i o n s , the ideal would be to separate respondents  into  the four residence length groups w i t h i n income categories before running the discriminant a n a l y s i s . length might be g r e a t e r .  11  I f that were done, the effect of residence :  The second d i r e c t i o n which further research might take would be to obtain responses, not from a l l people i n one area, but from newer residents only.  With a sample of newcomers one could f i n d out more  about migration trends—where newcomers are coming from, why, and where they s e t t l e i n the c i t y .  Knowing where they l i v e w i t h i n one c i t y would  also help l a t e r on i n applying the r e s u l t s , i . e . , i n obtaining the opinions and advice of newcomers as part of the planning process.  C.  Implications f o r Planning  E s s e n t i a l l y three i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r planning can be derived from t h i s study.  The most important i s that newcomers can indeed be of  assistance to planners i n the planning process.  Because t h i s study re-  vealed that newcomers d i f f e r e d s i g n i f i c a n t l y i n t h e i r views of the c i t y from longterm r e s i d e n t s , i t may be>posited that the newcomer sees problems i n his new c i t y to which the longterm resident has become immune. I f t h i s i s the case, the planner can use the newcomers' previous experience and unencumbered perceptions to gain fresh i n s i g h t i n t o the p l a n ning problems posed by his c i t y . I f newcomers can be used, the question a r i s e s which newcomers would be of greatest assistance to the planner?  The answer to t h i s ques-  t i o n leads to the second i m p l i c a t i o n for planning to be derived from t h i s study.  That i s , the r e s u l t s i n d i c a t e that the most c r i t i c a l new-  comers, and hence perhaps the most useful newcomers for the planner to contact, would be those newcomers who came from c i t i e s of over 100,000,  e s p e c i a l l y those c i t i e s of over 100,000 located outside of Canada.  This  is because i n Hypothesis I I I i t was shown that the people who picked the l e a s t popular services and f a c i l i t i e s f o r each rank were those from c i t i e s over 100,000 and those from outside of Canada. Assuming newcomers w i l l be used i n the planning process, the t h i r d i m p l i c a t i o n f o r planning of t h i s study i s derived from the author's experience i n attempting to e l i c i t the opinions of newcomers.  I t i s be-  l i e v e d that i n order to best obtain the opinions of newcomers an a l t e r nate procedure should be substituted f o r the one used i n t h i s study. Some form of d i r e c t contact must be maintained.  However, a more open-  ended interview s i t u a t i o n should be substituted for the highly structured 12 questionnaire administered i n t h i s study.  The benefits f o r the  planner of an open-ended method would be that the people would respond more f r e e l y .  And i t i s from seemingly extraneous remarks that the plan-  ner may derive his best information.  For example, i n t h i s study the  ;  author observed that newcomers were unable to mention t h e i r greatest concerns because they were p r o h i b i t e d from doing so by the structure of the questionnaire. In summary, three i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r planning have been presented. F i r s t , newcomers can be of assistance i n the planning process.  Second,  of a l l newcomers those of greatest potential assistance would be new a r r i v a l s from c i t i e s l a r g e r than 100,000 i n p o p u l a t i o n , and from outside of Canada.  And f i n a l l y , an a l t e r n a t i v e form of e l i c i t i n g the information  of newcomers should be used.  Ill  FOOTNOTES  R. J . Crothers, "Factors Related to the Community Index of S a t i s f a c t o r i n e s s , " E k i s t i e s , XXX (August, 1970), p. 109. 2 Theodore Caplow, Sheldon S t r y k e r , and Samuel E. Wallace, The Urban Ambiance (Totowa, N. J . : Bedminster, 1964), p. 198. 3 John G u l i c k , C h a r l e s ' E . Bowerman, and Kurt W. B l a c k , "Newcomer Enculturation i n the C i t y : Attitudes and P a r t i c i p a t i o n , " i n Urban Growth Dynamics i n a Regional C l u s t e r of C i t i e s , ed. by F. Stuart Chapin, J n and S h i r l e y F. Weiss (New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962), pp. 324, 327. 4 Robert Sommer, Personal Space:, The Behavioral Basis of Design (Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : P r e n t i c e - H a l l , I n c . , 1969), pp. 89-90. 5 Terence Lee, "Urban Neighborhood as a S o c i o - S p a t i a l Schema," Human R e l a t i o n s , XXI (August, 1968), p. 259. c  "Newcomer E n c u l t u r a t i o n , " pp. 342-347. ^ B a s i l G. Zimmer, " P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Migrants i n Urban S t r u c t u r e s , " in C i t i e s and S o c i e t y , ed. by Paul K. Hatt and A l b e r t J . R e i s s , J r . (Revised e d . ; New York: The Free Press, 1957), pp. 730-738. 8 James and Robert Simmons, Urban Canada (The Copp Clark Publishing Company, 1969), p. 6. Q  " P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Migrants," pp. 733-738. D . W. Blackburn, "Using the Views of Newcomers as an Aid to Community P l a n n i n g , " (paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , New Orleans, L o u i s i a n a , A p r i l 7-9, 1966), p. 132. 1 0  ^ B a s i l G. Zimmer's work i s a good example of t h i s . pation of Migrants," pp. 730-738.  See " P a r t i c i -  12 Of course the highly structured questionnaire t h i s study to e s t a b l i s h that differences e x i s t e d .  was necessary in  BIBLIOGRAPHY  BIBLIOGRAPHY  Axel rod, M o r r i s . "Urban Structure and S o c i a l P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " C i t i e s and S o c i e t y . Edited by Paul K. Hatt and A l b e r t J . R e i s s , J r . Revised ed. New York: The Free Press, 1957. Backstrom, Charles Herbert and Gerald D. Hursh. Survey Research. Chicago: Northwestern U n i v e r s i t y Press, 1963. Blackburn, D. W. "Using the Views of Newcomers as an Aid to Community Planning." Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Southwestern S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , New Orleans, L o u i s i a n a , A p r i l 7-9, 1966, Caplow, Theodore; Sheldon S t r y k e r ; and Samuel E. Wallace. Ambiance. Totowa, N. J . : Bedminster, 1964.  The Urban  Cherukupalle, Nirmala d e v i . " C l a s s i f i c a t i o n Techniques i n Planning A n a l y s i s . " Socio-Economic Planning Science, IV (September, 1970), 395-405. 1 . "Relationship Between A t t r i b u t e s : Simple and M u l t i p l e Regression and C o r r e l a t i o n . " (Mimeographed) Crothers, R. J . "Factors Related to the Community Index of S a t i s f a c t o r i ness." E k i s t i c s , XXX (August, 1970), 107-109. Economic Council of Canada. Fourth Annual Review: The Canadian Economy From the 1960's to the 1970's. Ottawa: Queen's P r i n t e r , 1967. G u l i c k , John; Charles E. Bowerman; and Kurt W. Black. "Newcomer Encult u r a t i o n i n the C i t y : A t t i t u d e s and P a r t i c i p a t i o n . " Urban Growth Dynamics in a Regional C l u s t e r of C i t i e s . Edited by F. Stuart Chapin, J r . and S h i r l e y F. Weiss. New York: Wiley, 1962. K e l l e r , Suzanne.  The Urban Neighborhood.  New York: Random House, 1968.  Lamanna, Richard A. "Value Consensus Among Urban Residents," Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, XXX (November, 1964), 317-323. Lansing, John B. and L e s l i e K i s h . "Family L i f e Cycle as an Independent V a r i a b l e . " American S o c i o l o g i c a l Review, XXII (October, 1957) 512-519.  Lansing, John B. and Robert W. Marans. "Evaluation of Neighborhood Q u a l i t y . " Journal of the American I n s t i t u t e of Planners, XXXV (May, 1969), 195-199. Lee, Terence. "Urban Neighborhood as a S o c i o - S p a t i a l Schema." R e l a t i o n s , XXI (August, 1968), 241-267.  Human  Lowenthal, David. "Geography, Experience, and Imagination; Towards a Geographical Epistemology." Annals of the Association of American Geographers, LI (September, 1961), 241-260. Milgram, Stanley. "The Experience of L i v i n g i n C i t i e s . " (August, 1970), 145-150. R e t t i g , Solomon. " M u l t i p l e Discriminant A n a l y s i s . " i c a l Review, XXIX (June,-1964), 398-402. R o s s i , Peter H. 1955.  Why People Move.  E k i s t i c s , XXX  American S o c i o l o g -  Glencoe, I l l i n o i s : The Free Press,  Sanoff, Henry. "Social Perception of the E c o l o g i c a l Neighborhood." E k i s t i c s , XXX (August, 1970), 130-132. Saroff, Jerome R. and Alberta Z. Levi tan. Survey Manual For Comprehensive Urban Planning; the Use of Opinion Surveys and Sampling Techniques i n the Planning Process. Alaska College I n s t i t u t e of S o c i a l , Economic, and Government Research, SEG Report Number 19, 1969. Simmons, James and Robert Simmons. ing Company, 1969.  Urban Canada.  The Copp Clark P u b l i s h -  Sommer, Robert. Personal Space: The Behavioral Basis of Design. Englewood C l i f f s , N. J . : Prentice-Hal 1, I n c . , 1969. Sonnenfeld, Joseph. "Variable Values i n Space Landscape: An Inquiry into the Nature of Environmental Necessity." Journal of S o c i a l Issues, XXII (October, 1966), 71-82. U n i v e r s i t y of L o u i s v i l l e Urban Studies Center. Report to FalIs of the Ohio Metropolitan Counci1 of Governments on Urban Decisions P r o j e c t , May, 1968. Wilson, Robert L . " L i v a b i l i t y of the C i t y : A t t i t u d e and Urban Development." Urban Growth Dynamics in a Regional C l u s t e r of C i t i e s . Edited by F. Stuart Chapin, J r . and S h i r l e y F. Weiss. New York: John Wiley and Sons, 1962. Zimmer, B a s i l G. " P a r t i c i p a t i o n of Migrants i n Urban S t r u c t u r e s . " and S o c i e t y . Edited by Paul K. Hatt and A l b e r t J . R e i s s , J r . ed. New York: The Free Press, 1957.  Cities Revised  APPENDICES  APPENDIX A  APPENDIX A QUESTIONNAIRE  '  About how long have you l i v e d i n Vancouver? {For those here less than two years:j What was the main reason you had f o r moving here? 63 7 6 32  No answer Push factors Combination of both P u l l factors  108 Could you please t e l l me where you l i v e d i n the two years before you came to Vancouver? 59 19 30  No answer Population under 100,000 Population over 100,000  108 59 17 20 12  No answer B r i t i s h Columbia Other province i n Canada Other country  108 Have you thought s e r i o u s l y of moving out of Vancouver during the l a s t year? No answer 29 Yes 79 No 108 * Not analyzed i n t h i s thesis  What do you l i k e most about l i v i n g i n Vancouver? 5 3 4 5 9 15 26 41  Nothing Familiarity Economics Other Miscellaneous People Activi ties Climate Natural Beauty  108 Now, out of t h i s l i s t of 18 items could you please pick out the 5_ things that are the l e a s t problem i n your area and the 5 things that you see as the biggest problem in your area. In other words, which things are you most s a t i s f i e d with and l e a s t s a t i s f i e d with? Now would you go through your p i l e of the 5 things that present the l e a s t problem and order them, so that the card on top i s the thing you are happiest w i t h . Now would you go through your p i l e of the 5 things that present the b i g gest problem and order them, so that the card on top i s the thing you are most d i s s a t i s f i e d w i t h . 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9  Air Pollution Back Lanes Day Care F i r e Protection Hospitals Housing Conditions Landscaping of Gardens L i b r a r y Services Location of Shopping  A Parking B Parks C P o l i c e Protection D Public Schools E Recreation F a c i l i t i e s F Senior C i t i z e n s Programs G Street L i g h t i n g H Street Maintenance I T r a f f i c Control  What i s the l e a s t problem in your area: that thing that you are happiest with? 2 2 6 4 4 10 30 3  Nothing A i r Pollution F i r e Protection Hospitals Landscaping of P r i v a t e Gardens L i b r a r y Services Location of Major Shopping Parking  28 9 2 5 3  Parks P o l i c e Protection P u b l i c Schools Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Street L i g h t i n g  108 What i s the biggest problem i n your area: that thing that you are most d i s s a t i s f i e d with? 5 34 6 2 4 10 1 1 1 19 1 4 4 2 2 5 7  Nothing Air Pollution Back Lanes F i r e Protection Hospitals Housing Conditions Landscaping of P r i v a t e Gardens L i b r a r y Services Location of Major Shopping Parking P o l i c e Protection Public Schools Recreation F a c i l i t i e s Senior C i t i z e n s Programs Street L i g h t i n g Street Maintenance T r a f f i c Control  108 Now I ' d l i k e to ask you some questions about your neighbourhood and your activities. Would you please give me the boundaries of what you consider your neighbourhood? I t would help i f you would draw an X where your home i s . Does i t have a popular name? — No answer 85 Yes ( K i t s ) 14 No 9 Yes (but i n c o r r e c t name)  2 No Answer 53 No 8 Miscellaneous 45 Major Ones 108 Major Ones Mentioned: Ratepayers * 89 No 19 Yes 108 Resource Counci1 106 No 2 Yes 108 Community Centre 83 No 25 Yes 108 jlf yes:i Have you ever attended one of t h e i r meetings? 65 No answer 8 Yes 35 No 108 Did you attend any o f f i c i a l meetings or open hearings of government bodies t h i s year? No answer 12 Yes 96 No  I f yes: Please t e l l me t h e i r names & the number of times you attended? Type 2 Special-Medical 4 Special-Planning 6 General-Political 12 Number of Times Attended 3 1 5 2 2 3 2 4 12 Did you take part i n the discussion during the meetings or hearings? 96 No answer 4 Yes 8 No 108  *  Do you believe that once you have elected a person to represent you i n l o c a l government that he w i l l represent your i n t e r e s t s and should not be bothered by people t r y i n g to t e l l him how to act? 8 No answer 38 Yes 62 No 108 Do you belong to any organizations—that i s , groups l i k e the PTA or c i v i c groups, c l u b s , lodges, church groups, veterans o r g a n i z a t i o n s , and t'ie l i k e ? Any other? 59 None 8 Fraternal/Social 8 Professional  8 Public Affairs 3 P u b l i c Service 2 Business 12 Church/Religious 2 Veteran/Patriotic 3 Cultural/Aesthetic 20 Hobby/Sports 125 Number Belonged To 59 None 30 1 14 2 3 3 1 4 1 5 108 I have j u s t a few more questions to ask about you and your f a m i l y . What i s your current marital status? No answer Single Widowed Divorced Separated Engaged to be married Married What i s your age?  ( I f no answer, estimate)  No answer 19-24 25-30 31-40 41-50 51-60 61-65 65+ What i s the name of the l a s t school you attended? What was the l a s t grade you completed i n school? No answer 0-7 (Some elementary)  8 9-11 12 13-15 16 16+  (Elementary graduation) (Some high school) (High school graduation) (Some u n i v e r s i t y ) ( U n i v e r s i t y graduation) (Graduate or professional t r a i n i n g )  Could you please t e l l me what the main bread-winner in your family does for a l i v i n g ? Do you have any c h i l d r e n l i v i n g at home? No answer No—0 1 2 etc. I f yes:[ What schools do they attend? No answer Private Public  No answer Elementary High school U n i v e r s i t y or Vocational  Do you own your own home or are you renting i t ? No answer Renting Own Here i s a card showing d i f f e r e n t income groups. Just give me the of the group your family i s i n . (Your average annual s a l a r y ) No A B C D E F  answer Under $3000 $3000 to $4,999 $5000 to $6,999 $7000 to $9,999 $10,000 to $14,999 $15,000 and above  (Not to be asked o r a l l y ) Sex  57 51  Male Female  letter  H i g h - r i s e apartment Low-rise apartment Suite in a house Duplex Single family detached house I ' d l i k e to thank you for your assistance to our survey, and e s p e c i a l l y for sparing me your time during t h i s busy season. Before I leave, do you have any other comments for me about anything? Are there any questions I can answer? Thank you again. COMMENTS  Area type l=Multiple 2=2-Family 3=Single Family Interview Number  Interviewer 1- Myra Gall ins 2- Peter Fisher 3- Elizabeth Darragh  APPENDIX B  APPENDIX C  APPENDIX C CENSUS COMPARISON TO DETERMINE THE REPRESENTATIVENESS OF THIS STUDY'S SAMPLE  This Sample  (Tracts 15,16,22) Kitsilano  28.7%  22.2%  63.9  58.2  7.4  19.5  Age Under 24 25-64 65+  100.0%  99.9%  Single  41.7%  33.2%  Married  51.8  53.5  Widowed  6.5  13.3  100.0%  100.0%  None  73.2%  55.9%  1-2  20.4  35.8  3-4  5.5  6.8  5+  0.9  1 .5  M a r i t a l Status  Number of Children  100.0%  100.0%  Homeownership Owner  26.8%  20.0%  Tenant  73.2  80.0  100.0%  100.0%  8.3%  4.8%  Dwelling Unit Type Single Family, Attached Single Family, Detached  -  m  Apartments & Flats  32.4  16.4  5.9.3  78.8  100.0%  100.0%  In t h i s appendix the sample of 108 respondents was compared with data from Census Tracts 15, 16, and 22 from the 1966 Census of Canada on f i v e population c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s .  Many assumptions were made at the  s t a r t to overcome some of the d i f f i c u l t i e s  in making t h i s comparison.  For example, i t was assumed that the comparison would be f a i r l y  accurate  despite noncoterminous boundaries, and despite the evolution of the K i t s i l a n o area during the four years since the 1966 Census.  Given these  assumptions, most of the differences between t h i s study's sample and the population of K i t s i l a n o can be accounted for by the way that the sample was drawn.  For example, since only private dwellings were i n c l u d e d , by  d e f i n i t i o n rest homes, where many older people l i v e , were excluded.  Hence,  i t can be concluded that there are no e x c e p t i o n a l l y large differences (unaccounted for by sample s e l e c t i o n ) that would make t h i s sample unrepresentative or u n r e l i a b l e .  APPENDIX D  APPENDIX D REGRESSION ANALYSIS RESULTS Dependent Variable  Independent Variable  2  Coeff.  F 1Ratio  F Prob  -1.5222  11 .7793  0.0010  0 .1000  Ownership  1.6392  4 .4681  0.0349  0 .0404'  Ownership  -1.9200  10 .2202  0.0020  0.5364  6 .6030  0.0112  -0.4182  6 .9214  0.0095  -0.6233  4 .6376  0.0317  -0.9979  9 .1385  0.0033  North-South Occupation  -0.2115  4 .2658  0.0391  Dwelling Type  -0.7730  8 .1132  0.0053  -0.4499  8 .1522  0.0052  0.4787  4 .9956  0.0261  -0.9890  7 .9969  0.0056  0 .0701  0.4814  4 .8422  0.0283  0 .0437  r  Quality Variables *  Zoning  Pollution Back Lanes Day Care  Dwelling type  Fire P r o t e c t . Education * Hospitals  Res. Length  Housing Cond.  0 .0613 0 .1321  0 .1131  —  Gardens Library  0 .0977  Age Dwelling Type  0 .0809  —  Shopping  Children  Parking Parks  —  Pol ice  --  Public Schools:  Education  Glossary of Terms page 133.  Dependent Variable  Independent Variable  Coeff.  F Ratio  F Prob  r_  Quality Variables (Cont'd.) Ownership Recreation EastrWest  -1.4235  5 .9609  0.0156  -1.3053  4 .1851  0.0409  Sr. Citizens  -0.7086  5 .5791  0.0190  0 .0500  • -1.8247  6 .0283  0.0150  0 .0538  -0.3189  6 .0163  0.0151  North-South  0.1713  8 .6237  0.0042  Orgawareness  Res. Length  0.3380  18 .3342  0.0001  0 .1475  Govt. Attend  Education  -0.0576  7 .0489  0.0086  0 .0624  Membership  Income  0.1350  6 .2496  0.0134  0 .0557  0 .0549  North-South  Street L i g h t .  --  Street Maint.  —  T r a f f i c Cont. Ownership  0 .0909  P a r t i c i p a t i o n V a r i a b l e s : (Raw Scores) East-West KitsAwareness  0 . 1480  P a r t i c i p a t i o n V a r i a b l e s : (Factor Scores) KitsAwareness Factor 1  0.2346  6 .1628  0.014Q  Factor 2  0.2460  7 .6559  0.0066  Res. Length  0.3836  19 .5145  0.0000  Orgawareness  0..2054  Govt. Attend  Factor 3  -0.2035  4 .5524  0,0333  0 .0412  Membership  Factor 2  0.1853  6 . 1368  0.0142  0 .0547  APPENDIX D GLOSSARY OF TERMS Dependent Variable Pollution  =  A i r Pollution  Back Lanes  =  Back Lanes  Day Care  =  Day Care Centres  Fire P r o t e c t .  =  Fire Protection  Hospitals  =  Hospitals  Housing Cond.  =  Housing  Gardens  =  Landscaping of P r i y a t e Gardeps  Library  =  L i b r a r y Services  Shopping  =  Location of Major Shopping  Parking  =  Parking  Parks  =  Parks  Police  r- P o l i c e Protection  Public Schools  ?  Recreation  s= Recreation  Sr.  =  Senior C i t i z e n s Programs  Street L i g h t .  -  Street L i g h t i n g  Street Maint.  =  Street Maintenance  Traffic  =  Traffic  Citizens  Cont.  Conditions  P u b l i c Schools Facilities  Control  Dependent Variable (Cont'd.) KitsAwareness  K i t s i l a n o Awareness  Orgawareness  Neighbourhood Organization Awareness  Govt. Attend  Government Attendance  Membership  Membership Number  Independent Variable Res. Length  Residence Length  North-South  North-South Axis  East-West  East-West Axis  APPENDIX E  APPENDIX E MEMBERSHIP BREAKDOWN BY RESIDENCE LENGTH Type of Organization  0-2  2.5-6  7-21  22-60  17  12  18  11  Fraternal/Social  2  0  3  3  Professional  1  4  1  2  Public A f f a i r s  1  3  . 3  1  P u b l i c Service  1  1  1  0  Business  0  0  0  2  Church/Religious  1  1  3  7  Veteran/Patri o t i c  0  0  0  2  Cultural/Aesthetic  0  0  2  1  Hobby/Sports  4  8  4  4  None  APPENDIX F  LESSONS LEARNED IN THE PROCESS OF INTERVIEWING Many lessons can be learned from t h i s attempt at cooperation from people i n t h e i r homes.  Some of these problems cannot be overcome, but  having an awareness of the p o s s i b i l i t y of t h e i r occurrence may a l l e v i a t e some f r u s t r a t i o n s  i n others about to attempt something s i m i l a r .  Some of the phobias of p o t e n t i a l respondents probably w i l l be overcome and may be encountered at any time.  never  These refer to people  who demonstrate feelings against the u n i v e r s i t y , young people, evening v i s i t o r s , and c a l l e r s of any k i n d .  People who have the l a s t two types  of phobias would probably p a r t i c i p a t e by mail or over the telephone but w i l l not l e t anyone into t h e i r homes. Another f r u s t r a t i n g experience i s when a p o t e n t i a l  respondent  says that he cannot see you at the moment but w i l l d e f i n i t e l y see you i f you w i l l j u s t come back Friday night or Tuesday at 1 P . M . , and then he is not at home when you make a s p e c i a l t r i p to meet the time he_ set as being convenient for him.  Occasionally a person w i l l make a d e f i n i t e  appointment and seem l i k e l y to cooperate i f you j u s t return at his convenience. all  Then when you do return he absolutely refuses to see you at  and obviously never had any i n t e n t i o n of cooperating.  t h i s type of person does not believe that you r e a l l y w i l l  Apparently return and  feels that t h i s i s a method of refusing without having to say "no."  Something that seemed to be a problem at f i r s t turned out to be an advantage during the course of t h i s study.  The interviewers at f i r s t  had d i f f i c u l t i e s obtaining entry into apartments that had locked doors and a buzzer system.  However, l a t e r i t was found that t h i s allowed the  person i n s i d e to hear who was c a l l i n g and the nature of the i n t e r v i e w ; The usual opening l i n e became " H e l l o , I am here about that l e t t e r you received from the u n i v e r s i t y l a s t Thursday."  I t seemed i n the long run-  that admittance was gained much more r e a d i l y t h i s way than by merely knocking on the person's door.  The only problem came when people claimed  that they never received the l e t t e r (true for about 10 per cent of the units contacted). An a d d i t i o n a l problem encountered i n the course of conducting t h i s study was that the Christmas and New Year's Holiday Season i s not a good time to t r y t o . f i n d people at home or to have them give you t h e i r time. Considering the time of year when most of the interviews were c a r r i e d out, the response rate was higher than would have been expected. Time became one of the biggest d i f f i c u l t i e s study.  i n conducting t h i s  There were four types of people who took much longer than average  in answering the questions.  Some people took extra time because they  were being very d e l i b e r a t e and t h i n k i n g quite c a r e f u l l y about the correctness of each answer.  The second type of slow respondent was the per-  son who was putting on a show to e n t e r t a i n others present during the . interview.  To overcome t h i s problem one should t r y to interview an  i n d i v i d u a l alone i n order to get his undivided a t t e n t i o n .  The t h i r d  type of slow person was one who was lonely and j u s t glad to have someone  present with whom to t a l k .  In t h i s case, without being rude the  inter-  viewer should t r y to be patient but to leave a f t e r a reasonable amount of time.  The f i n a l type of slow respondent encountered was a person who  was j u s t t o t a l l y inconsiderate.  For example, in one s i t u a t i o n the  interviewer was t o l d that the interview would have to wait u n t i l  the  person had t e a , and the interview ended up taking over an hour because the tea had to be completely prepared and eaten before the would answer any questions.  respondent  This occurrence seems quite rare and also  d i f f i c u l t to p r e d i c t , but should be avoided at a l l c o s t s . The f i n a l  lesson to mention, and one that has already been d i s ^  cussed by many researchers before, i s the importance of c a r e f u l l y t r a i n e d and interested i n t e r v i e w e r s .  In t r a i n i n g one cannot assume anything but  must mention everything e x p l i c i t l y and more than once.  One should also  observe the t r a i n i n g interviewer during more than one dry-run administrat i o n of the questions to be asked.  In observing note how he codes pre-  coded questions, whether he probes,when answers are unclear  (e.g.,  occupation--Alberta Wheat P o o l ) , whether his answers are readable  (e.g.,  are his l ' s confusable with his 7 ' s ? ) , whether he uses the same i n f l e c t i o n on a question at each reading, whether he adds any comments between questions that might " d i r e c t " answers, e t c . The main consideration i n h i r i n g an interviewer should be his i n t e r e s t in the project and w i l l i n g n e s s to make the necessary time commitment.  Desire for the salary being paid i s not enough, e s p e c i a l l y when  time i s short and you are counting on your interviewer to be working with his best e f f o r t .  R e l i a b i l i t y of the interviewer becomes c r u c i a l ,  when l e t t e r s of n o t i f i c a t i o n include the name of the i n t e r v i e w e r .  This  i s because potential respondents might not understand the need for a s u b s t i t u t i o n , so be wary of the e n t i r e project and thereby lose c o n f i dence in the sponsoring o r g a n i z a t i o n . In summary, people contemplating a s i m i l a r interview s i t u a t i o n should be aware of (1) phobias and quirks of respondents that may cause refusals  to be interviewed, (2) the best ways pf gaining admittance,  (3) times of the year that are d i f f i c u l t for potential respondents, (4) reasons why respondents may take too long in answering, and (5) the importance of c a r e f u l l y trained and interested  interviewers.  

Cite

Citation Scheme:

        

Citations by CSL (citeproc-js)

Usage Statistics

Share

Embed

Customize your widget with the following options, then copy and paste the code below into the HTML of your page to embed this item in your website.
                        
                            <div id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidgetDisplay">
                            <script id="ubcOpenCollectionsWidget"
                            src="{[{embed.src}]}"
                            data-item="{[{embed.item}]}"
                            data-collection="{[{embed.collection}]}"
                            data-metadata="{[{embed.showMetadata}]}"
                            data-width="{[{embed.width}]}"
                            async >
                            </script>
                            </div>
                        
                    
IIIF logo Our image viewer uses the IIIF 2.0 standard. To load this item in other compatible viewers, use this url:
http://iiif.library.ubc.ca/presentation/dsp.831.1-0102201/manifest

Comment

Related Items