Investigating Quality of Urban Life pp 163-183

Part of the Social Indicators Research Series book series (SINS, volume 45) | Cite as

The Quality of Life in Metro Detroit at the Beginning of the Millennium

Chapter

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.

References

  1. Campbell, A., Converse, R., & Rodgers, W. (1976). The quality of American life: Perceptions, evaluations and satisfactions. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Couper, M. P., Clemens, J., & Powers, K. (2002). Detroit Area Study 1952–2001: Celebrating 50 years. Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan.Google Scholar
  3. Farley, R., Danzinger, S., & Holzer, H. J. (2000). Detroit divided. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  4. Freedman, R. (1953). The Detroit Area Study: A training and research laboratory in the community. The American Journal of Sociology, 19, 30–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Inglehart, R., & Welzel, C. (2005). Modernization, cultural change, and democracy: The human development sequence. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  6. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 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.Google Scholar
  8. Marans, R. W., Carter, G., & Grocman, Z. (2005) Detroit Area Study 2001: Neighborhoods and neighboring, Unpublished report (Available from first author).Google Scholar
  9. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Thomas, J. M. (1997). Redevelopment and race: Planning a finer city in Postwar Detroit. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute for Social ResearchUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of Plant Science & Landscape Architecture, College of Agriculture and Natural ResourcesUniversity of MarylandCollege ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations