Abstract
The chapter gives an overview of a 2001 quality of urban life (QOUL) study of metropolitan Detroit area residents. Metro Detroit consists of seven contiguous Southeast Michigan counties, one of which contains the state’s largest city, Detroit. A survey of over 4,000 adult residents was the primary source of information while supplemental data about the physical and social environments associated with the respondents were also collected. A major purpose of the study was to inform policy makers and planners on conditions in the region at the beginning of the twenty-first century and establish a benchmark for measuring environmental and social changes that were expected to occur over future decades. Another purpose was to better understand relationships between residents’ perceptions, evaluations, and behaviors and the urban conditions to which they were responding. Following an overview of Metro Detroit, the approach used in carrying out the research is discussed. Selected findings covering quality of life (QOL), QOUL, and other topics (neighborhoods and neighboring, transportation, and prospects for the future) are then presented. The uses of findings for policy and planning are discussed along with key lessons learned from the study.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
For a discussion of the World Values Survey, see Inglehart and Welzel (2005) and http://www.worldvaluessurvey.org/
- 2.
The Detroit Area Study (DAS) was established at the University of Michigan in 1952 as a practicum in survey research. DAS was intended to train graduate students from the social sciences and professional schools in quantitative social science techniques and provide a facility for faculty to engage in empirical investigations. For a discussion of the DAS and its history, see Couper et al. (2002) and Freedman (1953).
- 3.
Initially, comparisons with findings from a 1967 Detroit metro area survey were planned. These plans were abandoned when it was recognized that the 2001 questionnaire would not be replicating items asked in the 1967 survey.
- 4.
The rationale for this objective is discussed in Marans, 2003.
- 5.
According to the 2000 US Census, Michigan’s population was slightly less than ten million people (9,938,444). In 2010, the population was lower at 9,883,640 people, half of whom lived in Southeast Michigan.
- 6.
At the time of this writing, Michigan’s unemployment rate is the highest in the USA.
- 7.
County government is a unit of local government within Michigan and other states. Michigan has 83 counties. The US Census divides Southeast Michigan into 3 metropolitan statistical areas (SMA): one consisting of 5 of the 7 Southeast Michigan counties (Wayne, Oakland, Macomb, Livingston, St. Clair) and one additional county (Lapeer); a second SMA is Washtenaw County; and a third SMA is Monroe County.
- 8.
The 2010 US Census shows the Detroit population fell to 713,777, a 25% drop over the past decade.
- 9.
- 10.
The theme quality of community life was subsequently changed to quality of urban life in large part because of the different meaning of community in other world cities where the research was being replicated.
- 11.
In addition to topics shown in Table 7.1 , several other topics were examined in greater depth in the questionnaire used in the personal interviews but not in the mail questionnaire. These included schools, crime, safety, and community-police relations.
- 12.
For a discussion of the approach to incentives and its impact on selected responses, see Ryu et al. (2006).
- 13.
- 14.
In earlier studies, the region was defined by three counties, whereas in 2001 the region was defined by seven counties. When comparisons were made between the 2001 and earlier years, only data from the three counties were used.
- 15.
Satisfaction scores for the domains tend to be strongly associated with one another. The average inter-item correlation is.46, while the alpha value is.87.
- 16.
To a lesser extent, quality of urban life in the Detroit area considered two additional levels of place: the county in which the respondent lived and the region as a whole. Findings covering these levels are not reported in this chapter.
- 17.
Neighborhood questions were also asked about the perceived size of the neighborhood, neighborhood factors influencing choice of residence, sense of community, and the likelihood of moving.
- 18.
Attributes of neighboring included the number of neighbors known by name, the frequency of visiting and exchanging favors with neighbors, and walking to a neighbor’s house.
- 19.
For a detailed discussion of the predictors of neighborhood satisfaction, see Marans et al. (2005).
- 20.
Other transportation-related questions covered use of public transit, modes of travel to shopping and work, walking, and willingness to pay for various transportation improvements.
- 21.
The remaining third gave a neutral response indicating that public transit was either not available, not used if it were available, or the respondent was unaware of its existence.
- 22.
Another question about people’s expectations about the QOL in their particular county is not considered as part of this chapter.
- 23.
There is a strong association between community satisfaction ratings and the QOL in Metro Detroit among Detroiters (r = .51); for respondents in the rest of the metro area, the association was modest (r = .19).
- 24.
Other sponsors included: Daimler-Chrysler Fund, Macomb and Washtenaw counties, Ann Arbor Transportation Authority, Huron-Clinton Metropolitan Authority, Michigan Economic Development Council. and the USDA-Forest Service.
- 25.
- 26.
The termination of the Detroit Area Study by the University of Michigan in 2004 and deteriorating economic conditions in southeast Michigan were key factors preventing the follow-up survey from occurring.
- 27.
See Marans (2008) for use of data showing the influence of how far respondents live from a transit stop and their use of public transit.
References
Campbell, A., Converse, R., & Rodgers, W. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.
Couper, M. P., Clemens, J., & Powers, K. (2002). Detroit Area Study 1952–2001: Celebrating 50 years. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.
Farley, R., Danzinger, S., & Holzer, H. J. (2000). Detroit divided. New York: Russell Sage.
Freedman, R. (1953). The Detroit Area Study: A training and research laboratory in the community. The American Journal of Sociology, 19, 30–33.
Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Marans, R. W. (2003). Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: The 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape and Urban Planning, 65, 73–83.
Marans, R. W. (2008). Quality of urban life research: Travel findings from the Detroit Area Study. IAPS Bulletin of People-Environment Studies, 33(Spring-Summer), 299–352.
Marans, R. W., Carter, G., & Grocman, Z. (2005) Detroit Area Study 2001: Neighborhoods and neighboring, Unpublished report (Available from first author).
Ryu, E., Couper, M., & Marans, R. W. (2006). Survey incentives: Cash versus in-kind: Face-to-face versus mail; response rate versus non-response bias. International Journal of Public Opinion Research, 18, 89–106.
Thomas, J. M. (1997). Redevelopment and race: Planning a finer city in Postwar Detroit. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 Springer Science+Business Media B.V.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Marans, R.W., Kweon, BS. (2011). The Quality of Life in Metro Detroit at the Beginning of the Millennium. In: Marans, R., Stimson, R. (eds) Investigating Quality of Urban Life. Social Indicators Research Series, vol 45. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-1742-8_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-007-1741-1
Online ISBN: 978-94-007-1742-8
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawSocial Sciences (R0)