SPDF New Urbanism

INFORMATION TO USERS
This manuscript has been reproduced from the microfilm master. UMI
films the text directly from the original or copy submitted. Thus, some
thesis and dissertation copies are in typewriter face, while others may be
from any type of computer printer.
The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the
copy submitted. Broken or indistinct print, colored or poor quality
illustrations and photographs, print bleedthrough, substandard margins,
and improper alignment can adversely affect reproduction.
In the unlikely event that the author did not send UMI a complete
manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if
unauthorized copyright material had to be removed, a note will indicate
the deletion.
Oversize materials (e.g., maps, drawings, charts) are reproduced by
sectioning the original, beginning at the upper left-hand comer and
continuing from left to right in equal sections with small overlaps. Each
original is also photographed in one exposure and is included in reduced
form at the back of the book.
Photographs included in the original manuscript have been reproduced
xerographically in this copy. Higher quality 6 x 9 black and white
photographic prints are available for any photographs or illustrations
appearing in this copy for an additional charge. Contact UMI directly to
order.
UMI
A Bell & Howell Information Company
300 North Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor MI 48106-1346 USA
313/761-4700 800/521-0600
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.
NEW URBANISM AND THE ELDERLY IN URBAN AND SUBURBAN
NEIGHBORHOODS
by
PATRICIA KAY PATTERSON
A dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
in
URBAN STUDIES
Portland State University
1997
UMI Number: 9724466
Copyright 1997 by
Patterson, Patricia Kay
All rights reserved.
UMI Microform 9724466
Copyright 1997, by UMI Company. All rights reserved.
This microform edition is protected against unauthorized
copying under Title 17, United States Code.
UMI
300 North Zeeb Road
Ann Arbor, MI 48103
DISSERTATION APPROVAL
The abstract and dissertation of Patricia Kay Patterson for the Doctor of Philosophy in
Urban Studies were presented March 7, 1997, and accepted by the dissertation
committee and the doctoral program.
APPROVALS:
Nancy J. Cnapman, PhT>., Committee Chair
Qj dUo-
Carl Abbott, Ph.D., Committee Member
7 tfx ?
David Morgan, Ph.IX/Committee Member
\S
Caroline McCoy White, Dr.P.R, RN.,
Committee Member
Lee Haggerty, Ph.D.,
Representative of the Office of Graduate Studies
Sy Adler, Ph.D., CoordiMtor, Ph.D. Program in Urban Studies
Nohad A Toulan, Dean, SchooFofUrban and Public Affiurs
/
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
ACCEPTED FOR PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARY
by on
ABSTRACT
An abstract of the dissertation of Patricia Kay Patterson for the Doctor of Philosophy
in Urban Studies presented March 7, 1997.
Title: New Urbanism and the Elderly in Urban and Suburban Neighborhoods
Most older Americans live in suburban communities and want to age in place,
but there is growing concern about whether suburban settings can sustain frail elders.
This study focused on the influence of neighborhood physical environment features on
suburban seniors.
The approach was to compare suburban and urban older house-dwelling
residents and their neighborhoods by testing the new-urbanism community design
theory. This framework was selected for its potential benefit to aging persons, since
new urbanists claim that traditional communities are more appealing, generate more
pedestrian activity, and yield a higher quality of life than suburban communities do.
Six Portland, Oregon area census tracts were selected with indicators such as
area and aging density. Female single-householder registered voters aged 70 and older
(n = 133) provided survey data and observations were made of their 1/4-mile
neighborhoods with the New Urbanism Index, a reliable 29-item tool developed as part
of the study. The new urbanism groups were those with high ratings (mostly in older,
urban areas) and those with low ratings (mostly in newer, suburban areas).
Three hypotheses were tested and several group comparisons were made.
Urban subjects were more positive than suburban subjects about their local
environment features, although neighborhood satisfaction and moving plans were
similar in both groups. Urban women also use more neighborhood services such as the
grocery store, pharmacy, and beauty shop, they walk for more reasons, and they make
more public transportation trips. However, new urbanism features do not influence
recreational neighborhood walking, which is high among both groups. When personal
and residential area characteristics were controlled, new urbanism did not influence
quality of life, as measured with the Quality of Life Index (QLI) (suburban: M = 25.1,
SD = 3.2; urban: M = 23.2, SD = 4.3, df = 115, t = -.95, p = .004). Evidence suggests
that urban and suburban environments may attract different populations, and
longitudinal research is recommended to further explore suburban aging in place.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Regarding the accomplishment of this study, I wish to acknowledge the
contributions of my team. First, I sincerely appreciate the generous support and
creative guidance of my advisor, Dr. Nancy Chapman. Having come into the Urban
Studies Doctoral Program because of her expertise in environmental psychology, I feel
fortunate to have had her as a mentor and fiiend throughout the process. Thanks to her
ideas for the study and her gentle encouragement, I now have a product I value.
I also very much appreciate the ideas and the time given by the other Portland
State University professors on my committee, Dr. Carl Abbott, Dr. David Morgan, and
Dr. Lee Haggerty. They each influenced my thinking about this study long before the
dissertation stage, and they made essential contributions to the study design and
interpretation. A special thanks goes to my colleague, Dr. Caroline White, of Oregon
Health Sciences University School of Nursing, for sharing her talents on my behalf I
benefited not only from her critical thinking but also from her warmth and enthusiasm.
Others who were instrumentally helpful were Dr. Kenneth Duecker, who lent
advice and resources to create the geographical information system maps, and Dr.
George Hough, who provided me with useful census information.
My dear husband, Tom Satterlee, has been a saint. In addition to cooking meals,
being my computer expert, driving me around to collect some of the early neighborhood
data, taking care of my printing, and endless listening, he has been a constant source of
humor and devotion in helping me reach my goal I am exceedingly grateful to him.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS............................................................................................... ii
LIST OF TABLES.......................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES........................................................................................................ ix
CHAPTER
I. INTRODUCTION............................................................................................... I
The Aging American Population........................................................... 2
Growth of the Elderly Population in Suburban Communities............... 8
Aging and Environment Conceptual Framework............................... 14
The Research Problem........................................................................22
O. BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES................................................................ 23
Neighborhood Environments and Aging Persons.............................23
New Urbanism Theory and Research.................................................. 49
Study Purposes................................................................................... 62
m. METHODS........................................................................................................ 64
Research Design................................................................................... 64
Setting and Sample...............................................................................65
Measurement.........................................................................................88
Research Procedures........................................................................... 119
IV. RESULTS........................................................................................................ 122
CHAPTER PAGE
Overview.............................................................................................. 122
Description of the Sample....................................................................123
New Urbanism Comparison Group Designations................................ 137
Hypotheses Testing.............................................................................. 141
V. DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS..........................................................166
Discussion............................................................................................ 166
Implications for Research and Practice.................................................183
REFERENCES...............................................................................................................188
APPENDIX
A New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics.................................200
B Census Tract Sampling Decision Data............................................................ 204
C Letters to Subjects and Consent Form........................................................... 211
D Instruments Given to Subjects........................................................................215
Neighborhood Resident Survey.............................................................. 216
Letter From Author of Quality of Life Index......................................... 221
Dartmouth COOP Charts and Letter................................................... 223
E Content Validity.............................................................................................227
Literature Review: Content Analysis of New Urbanism Descriptors
(Sections 1and 2)................................................................................... 228
Key New Urbanism Concepts (Summary)............................................ 243
APPENDIX PAGE
Letters and New Urbanism Items Sent to Urban Planners....................246
F New Urbanism Pilot-test Item Ratings............................................................. 252
G Census-tract Sample Demographic Characteristics......................................... 254
H Reasons for Moving to the Neighborhood...................................................... 256
I New Urbanism Index Item-Total Correlations................................................. 258
J Neighborhood Improvement Suggestions....................................................... 263
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE PAGE
I Measures of well-being and neighborhood physical environment in
community studies...............................................................................................38
II Steps in the census-tract selection process.......................................................... 67
i n 1990 Census tract population and housing characteristics...................................70
IV Participation and response by census tract........................................................... 86
V Reasons why potential subjects were ineligible....................................................87
VI Quality of Life Index internal consistency results................................................92
VII Quality of Life Index sub scale internal consistency results................................. 92
VIE Correlates of well-being in the elderly............................................................... 93
IX Well-being correlates mapped to Quality of Life Index dimensions................... 95
X New urbanism pilot-test rating frequencies, 32 items (N = 18 census-tract
core areas)..........................................................................................................103
XI Census-tract sample sizes.................................................................................. 124
XII Analysis of variance for demographic characteristics in the six census-tract
samples............................................................................................................... 125
XDI Analysis of variance for health indicators in the six census-tract samples. . . . 129
XIV Analysis of variance for housing indicators in the six census-tract samples. . . 131
vii
TABLE PAGE
XV Census-tract sample means and standard deviations for New Urbanism
Index.................................................................................................................. 136
XVI Analysis of variance for New TJrhanism Index by census-tract sample............ 136
XVH Priority importance of neighborhood environment conditions......................... 144
XVm Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
neighborhood quality attitudes (N = 106)......................................................... 145
XIX Inter-item correlations for indicators of neighborhood quality and
neighborhood satisfaction................................................................................ 147
XX Neighborhood improvements recommended by TRADITIONAL and
MODERN neighborhood respondents............................................................. 149
XXI Use of neighborhood services by TRADITIONAL and MODERN
groups...............................................................................................................152
XXE Mean distance traveled to services among all respondents (N = 117)............. 153
XXm Percent of sample who use each travel mode to access services....................154
XXIV Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
driving activity (N = 112)................................................................................ 155
XXV Neighborhood walking activities among able women in urban and
suburban new urbanism groups, (N= 122)..................................................... 156
viii
TABLE PAGE
XXVI Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
total number of walking activities in the neighborhood (N= 111).................15S
XXVH r-Test new-urbanism group comparisons for Quality of Life Index
missing responses........................................................................................... 161
XXVm /-Test new-urbanism group comparisons for Quality of Life Index
subscales....................................................................................................... 162
XXIX Summary of hierarchical regression analysis for variables predicting
quality of life (N= 106)..................................................................................164
LIST OF FIGURES
FIGURE PAGE
1. Census Tracts Sampled in the Portland Metropolitan Area..................................69
2. Census Tract 1: Selhvood.....................................................................................72
3. Census Tract 12.02: Ladds Addition, Colonial Heights...................................... 74
4. Census Tract 17.01: East ofMontavilla............................................................... 76
5. Census Tract 93: South CHendoveer................................................................... 78
6. Census Tract 94: North Glendoveer......................................................................80
7. Census Tract 314.01: Cedar Hills, Beaverton.................................................... 82
8. Predictive model of neighborhood new urbanism characteristics on
neighborhood environment attitudes, neighborhood activity, and
quality of life.......................................................................................................106
9. New urbanism score distribution (N = 133)........................................................139
10. New urbanism subjects per census-tract sample (N = 133)................................ 142
11. Revised model of neighborhood new urbanism characteristics on
neighborhood environment attitudes, neighborhood activity, and
quality of life...................................................................................................... 179
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION
One challenge posed by our aging society is the provision of built and natural
environments that enhance the opportunity for seniors to live in their communities as
long as possible. Most older people are independent homeowners, want to age in place,
and live in suburban neighborhoods (Golant, 1992; Howe & Chapman, 1989; Tilson &
Fahey, 1990), but there is growing concern that the suburbs may be unsuitable for frail
elders (Chapman, 1994; Committee on an Aging Society, 1988; Logan, 1984; Ward,
La Gory & Sherman, 1988). This study of suburban appropriateness for aging persons
focused on how neighborhood design affects older residents.
The approach was to test the community design theory of new urbanism,
selected for its potential to meet the needs of aging persons. Since new urbanism
communities are scarce in the Northwest, six Portland, Oregon metropolitan area
census tractsthree urban and three suburbanwere systematically selected by
demographic characteristics such as aging density and home ownership. Names of older
female single householders living in single-family dwellings in these census tracts were
obtained from voter precinct records. Data obtained from the 133 subjects who agreed
to participate included personal responses to a written, self-report survey and
observations of their neighborhood. The observations were rated with the New
Urbanism Index, developed as part of the study. Based on the new urbanism scores,
two groups of subjects were compared: those whose neighborhoods had high new
urbanism ratings (mostly in older, urban areas) and those whose neighborhoods had
low new-urbanism ratings (mostly in newer, suburban areas). Census-tract samples
were compared for demographic characteristics, and the new urbanism groups were
compared for attitudes about the neighborhood, including new urbanism features,
general satisfaction, and moving plans; community service use, walking, and driving
behavior, and quality of life.
The next sections describe demographic trends in aging, health risks of aging,
aging in suburban areas, and person-environment theories that influenced this research.
The chapter concludes with a statement of the research problem.
The Aging American Population
By now nearly everyone is aware that there are more older Americans than ever
before and that this population is growing. In 1991 there were 31.8 million persons 65
years or older, representing 12.6 percent of the U.S. population (American Association
of Retired Persons [AARP], 1992). By 2020, in just 24 years, the senior population will
have grown to 51 million, representing over 18 percent of the U.S. population (Serow
& Sty, 1988). Anticipated reductions in mortality will also ensure the continued growth
of the old old. This population, aged 85 and older, will increase from the 1991 level of
3.2 million to nearly 7.1 million by the year 2020.
While the elderly population has been increasing and undergoing a substantial
shift in age composition, its sex composition has also changed dramatically. This will
3
continue because of the relative improvements in survival rates among women (Serow
& Sly, 1988). hi 1940, women represented about half of the older population. By 1991,
women made up 60 percent of the population age 65 and older and 70 percent of the
population 85 and older.
Several other trends that have already affected the growing elderly population
will surely influence the quality of life and opportunities for future cohorts. A majority
of the aged increasingly will be better educated, and probably better ofif financially, and
more people, particularly men, will retire early (Serow & Sly, 1988). However, there
will continue to be a substantial group of poor older persons, and most of these will be
women. In 1991, for instance, nearly half of all elderly persons living alone or with
nonrelatives had incomes of $10,000 or below, and 12.4 percent of those 65 and older
lived below the poverty level (AARP, 1992). To put these rates in perspective, in 1980,
about a third of those 65 and older lived alone, and about half of those 85 and older
lived alone. More than twice as many elderly women as elderly men were single
householders (Scannell & Baggett, 1989).
Family trends will also affect quality of life for older people. Age at childbearing
influences how old people are when their parents reach old age, and this influences the
ability of employed children to care for their aging parents. Smaller families and more
family disruptions through divorce also portend fewer informal resources to care for
future elders. In addition to these trends, older persons are at risk for personal health
changes that can progressively dimmish quality of life.
Health Status Factors Among Older Persons
Effective planning for an aging society requires attention not only to
quantitative trends, but also to qualitative aspects such as health changes in individuals.
Common indicators of health status are the presence or absence of disease and the
degree of disability in an individuals level of functioning (Kane & Kane, 1981; Soldo
& Longino, 1988). Aging and disease are often linked, because normal declines in
organ capacity and protective mechanisms progress more rapidly after age 80, or even
70, and make elders more prone to sickness. The following synopsis of normal aging
processes and disease and accident risks illustrates the multiple ways in which
independent older persons become vulnerable.
Biological aging. Based on longitudinal studies reviewed by Hooyman and
Kiyak (1993), we know that the greatest deterioration occurs in functions that require
coordination among multiple systems, muscles, and nerves. For example,
cardiovascular changes affect an individuals ability to maintain physical activity for
long periods, there is increasing tendency to fatigue easily, and maximum breathing
capacity is decreased. Nervous system changes affect cognitive and motor function
resulting in poorer eye-hand coordination, balance problems, slower reaction times, and
lagging reflexes. These changes may be compounded by sensory deprivations such as
diminished vision, hearing, taste, smell, and touch. Common visual impairments in the
elderly include reduced acuity, faulty depth perception, and reduced sensitivity to
contrasts in color or light.
Other changes include gastrointestinal system slowing and enzyme reduction;
loss of hair, bone mineral, muscle mass, weight, height, and overall strength; and
shorter sleep cycles. Muscles lose elasticity and flexibility, and the spine becomes more
curved. Skin changes delay wound healing and affect temperature regulation. Declines
in kidney function, bladder capacity, and bladder muscle sensation commonly result in
medication intolerance, elimination frequency, or urinary incontinence.
Fortunately, the aging process is gradual, allowing most individuals to learn
how to compensate for age-related changes. Also, there are significant differences in
the rate and severity of decline in various organ systems. Similarly, there are wide
variations across individuals in the aging process, due to differences in heredity, diet,
living conditions, and medications. Nevertheless, the risk of disease and impairment
increases along with normal biological aging.
Acute and chronic disease. While acute conditions such as infections decrease
with age, they are more debilitating when they do occur. The elderly have recuperative
periods that are three to four times longer (31-33 days per year of restricted activity,
with 14 spent in bed) than younger people (AARP, 1992; Hooyman & Kiyak, 1993),
and, in 1990, older people accounted for nearly half of all hospital days. They are much
more likely than the young to suffer from chronic conditions, which affect four out of
every five aging persons in the community. That is, most older persons have at least
one chronic condition and many have multiple conditions. Chronic conditions are
defined as lasting three months or longer, leaving residual (ofien painful) disability, and
requiring ongoing care or monitoring (Hooyman & Kiyak). In 1990, the most
frequently reported chronic conditions for the elderly were: arthritis (47%);
hypertension (37%); hearing impairment (32%); heart disease (29%); and orthopedic
impairments (17%; AARP).
Mental health problems Older people are also at risk for emotional or cognitive
disorders, primarily depression or dementia. For some people, the stress of old age
aggravated by losses of role identity, spouses, children, or friends predisposes them to
depression. Estimates of its prevalence vary widely, from 3 to 22 percent of community
elderly, depending on the criteria used to diagnose depression (Hooyman & Kiyak,
1993). Recent studies also suggest that depression may be a risk factor of the type of
dementia known as Alzheimers Disease (Devanand et aL, 1996; Kokmen, Beard,
O/Brien & Kurland, 1996).
One of the most devastating conditions associated with aging, dementia
includes a variety of conditions that are caused by or associated with brain tissue
damage. It is progressive and results in impaired cognitive function and, in more
advanced stages, impaired behavior and personality. Some degree of cognitive loss is
experienced by approximately 10 percent of the population over age 64 .(Ringler,
1981), and about 14 percent of the population aged 75 to 85 (Crystal, Ortof Frishman,
Gruber, Hershman & Aronson, 1995).
Accidents. Because people over age 65 are at greater risk for infirmities
associated with the aging process and/or with chronic diseases, they are also more
likely to have accidents. Older drivers incur more injury-related hospitalization and
death than any age group except teenagers (DeKeyser, Carolan & Trask, 1995; Meier,
1992), and older walkers are most likely to have pedestrian accidents that result in
death (Hooyman & Kiyak, 1993). Although older people drive fewer miles per year
than younger drivers, they have more accidents per miles driven. The elderly are also
more likely to be victims of falls (DeKeyser et aL).
Functional limits. In contrast to an epidemiological approach of looking at the
causes and patterns of morbidity which might limit an elderly person, a functional
limitation assessment focuses on the consequences of morbidity and is a practical way
of estimating individual and population needs for assistance. Individuals with
instrumental activity of daily living (IADL) dependencies need assistance with
managing money, shopping, light housework, meal preparation, making phone calls, or
taking medications. Those with activity of daily living (ADL) dependencies need help
with basic functions such as eating, dressing, toileting, or bathing (Becker & Cohen,
1984; Katz, 1983). hi two large national surveys conducted in the 1980s, about 20
percent of those 65 years and older living in the community had difficulty in at least one
IADL or ADL. Among those age 85 and older, the reported IADL and ADL
dependency rates ranged from 33 to 57 percent (Leon & Lair, 1990; Scannell &
Baggett, 1989; Soldo & Longino, 1988).
Among the 1982 National Long-Term Care Survey respondents with IADL or
ADL dependencies, over half expressed global dissatisfaction with their neighborhood,
citing problems with local crime or inconvenient food or drug stores; one half had less
than desired contact with family or friends; one quarter had income less than the 25th
percentile of the income distribution; and one third had unmet needs for special housing
modifications. When Soldo and Longino (1988) defined vulnerability in this
multidimensional way, they concluded that nearly 90 percent of the frail elderly were
not simply disabled, but were socially, economically, or environmentally impoverished
as well This pattern was true even for those who were able to sustain their community
residences in spite of extreme disability.
Another trend is the expanding senior population in suburban communities. The
following sections describe this growth, beginning with a definition of suburban.
Growth of the Elderly Population in Suburban Communities
Defining suburban. To understand the distinctions made about suburban
locations and populations, a definition is necessary. The term suburb evolved from
early urban sociology theories which posited that communities were developed by the
outward movement and deconcentration of metropolitan population and activities
(Ebner, 1985). Whereas the limits of central cities are defined by their political
boundaries, or city limits, suburban perimeters are usually agricultural or natural
green edges. Suburbs are either incorporated or unincorporated communities that are
socially and economically dependent on the nearby city, and they are nonagricuhural
places (Schwab, 1982). hi other words, suburban areas are located between urban and
9
rural areas, and they also reflect a blend of urban and rural life. Typically, in contrast to
urban areas, suburbs are characterized as having relatively higher socioeconomic status,
lower density, more owner-occupied homes, more single-family dwellings, and greater
separation between workplace and residence (Abbott, 1987; Chapman, 1994; Ellin,
1996). As suburban populations age, however, this profile is expected to become more
diverse.
For consistency, most researchers rely on definitions used by the U.S. Census
Bureau for population measurement. Although the bureau does not define suburb per
se, each census report defines areal sections that are compatible with the concept
described above. Currently, a metropolitan area (MA) is a large population nucleus,
together with adjacent communities that have a high degree of economic and social
integration with that nucleus, and each MA contains either a place with a minimum
population of 50,000 or a Census Bureau-defined urbanized area (UA) with a total
population of at least 100,000 (U.S. Bureau of Census, 1993, p. A-12). Although some
variations apply when there is either no central city or more than one city, suburbs are
usually represented by the part of the UA that is outside the central city.
Suburban Elderly Population
Growth in suburban elderly. As recently as 1960, only 26 percent of the
nations noninstitutionalized elderly lived in suburban areas, and by 1991, this had
surged to 44 percent (AARP, 1992; Fitzpatrick & Logan, 1985; Golant, 1992). By
10
1977, the majority of U.S. metropolitan seniors (50.6%) lived in suburban areas, and by
1988, the rate had increased to 57 percent (Fitzpatrick & Logan; Golant, 1990).
Between 1970 and 1988, the number of suburban elders grew by 90 percent, while the
number of urban elders expanded by only 42 percent.
Another perspective on the growth of suburban elderly is gained by looking at
the age distribution patterns of older populations. In a cohort study using U.S. census
data, Golant (1990) found that between 1975 and 1984 the young-old population (ages
65 to 74) had a faster rate of suburbanization than the old-old population (which he
defined as ages 75 and over). Subsequently, from 1984 to 1986, the suburbanization
rate for the old-old slightly exceeded that of the young-old. These rate shifts resulted in
net migration gains of the aged in suburban areas.
Reasons for Growth
Multiple causes. Net gain in the suburban elderly population is usually explained
by three demographic processes: (1) younger cohorts moving to the suburbs during
periods of metropolitan expansion; (2) selective migration by the older population to
suburban areas; and (3) residential inertia or aging in place of younger cohorts during
later stages of their lives (Golant, 1990; Longino et aL, 1984; Rogers, 1989). Following
are brief discussions of two of these processeselderly relocation and aging in place.
Relocation. In Cincinnati, Varady (1990) found that empty nesters (home
buyers over age 50) were more likely to choose the suburbs, although they also were
more likely to stress urban characteristics in their preferences. He suggested that
perhaps they were able to find more moderately priced housing in the suburbs than
expected. In Golants (1987) study of change-of-address rates between 1975 and 1980,
relocation was relatively low for all persons age 65 and older: urban (26%); suburban
(21%); and rural (20%). Of those who did move, however, suburban settings were the
choice of suburban movers from other metropolitan areas (74%); of urban movers from
other metropolitan areas (67%); and of nonmetropolitan, or rural, movers (66%).
These people may have been seeking newer housing, moderately dense areas, and/or a
location near their children.
Intrametropolitan movers also show a strong suburban preference. Between
1975 and 1980, the number of elderly relocating from central cities to outer suburbs
was three times higher than the flow of elderly going from surrounding suburbs into
cities. The extent of migration was parallel to the urban exodus of the middle-age
population (Golant, 1987).
Aging in place. Once people settle, either by birth or relocation, they integrate
socially and psychologically within their communities, so tend to remain in those
familiar settings. In one study, among heads of households over age 65 and living
within communities with populations under 50,000, close to 40 percent had lived in the
same residence for over 20 years (Golant, 1975). In a subsequent study, Golant (1987)
found that 79 percent of suburban dwellers had not changed their address between
1975 and 1980. Other evidence that the preference to age in place may be growing is
12
that in 1989, 86 percent of the elderly (compared with 78 percent in 1986) agreed with
the statement, What Id really like to do is stay in my own house and never move
(AARP, 1990).
Aging in place has also been identified with housing age. Gutowski and Feild
(1979) found that 40 percent of the variance between census tracts in the proportion of
the population that was elderly could be explained by the age of housing in that tract,
hi a 1960-1980 study of 810 small incorporated suburban communities, the more
central suburbs had been settled decades before, so the houses were older, and these
communities had the highest rates of aging residents (Fitzpatrick & Logan, 198S).
Aging in place bv default. As suburban neighborhoods age, some evidence
suggests that lower-income elderly may be left behind, while other evidence suggests
that poorer elderly move to central cities. Among elderly homeowners in three major
Texas cities, older people who had moved in before age 45 were less educated, had less
income, and had lower lifetime mobility than those who had moved in after age 45. The
residential satisfaction of early movers stemmed from good memories, while their
neighborhoods showed the strongest signs of deterioration; later movers lived in better
areas and gained satisfaction from neighborhood attractiveness (Pandey, 1988). In an
earlier Los Angeles study, those who settled in the 1940s and 1950s were likely to
own homes of moderate value, while recent movers were likely to own homes of higher
value. However, the group with lowest incomes were recent movers to the central city
(Wachs, 1979). Thus, conditions that influence aging in place may be fairly complex.
13
Declmin|g socioeconomic status of aging suburbs. Aging in place is not only
associated with psychological attachment to community (Rowles, 1978), but is also
thought to result from limited financial means and perceived high moving costs
(Golant, 1992). Collectively, as suburban elders remain in place, and incomes dwindle,
their communities also tend to decline in socioeconomic status, hi both 1960 and 1980,
suburbs with elderly rates of 10 to 20 percent had lower socioeconomic status (as
measured by median family income, rent, and home value) than suburbs with elderly
rates below 10 percent. This downward economic effect is compounded, according to
Fitzpatrick and Logan (1985), by the increasing aging density in multiple communities,
making it more difficult for the elderly to compete for scarce social services.
Socioeconomic status and home ownership of suburban elderly. On the whole,
however, suburban elderly tend to have higher incomes, are less likely to live alone, and
report themselves in better functional health than central city elderly (Logan & Spitze,
1988; Reitzes, Mutran & Pope, 1991). Suburban senior home ownership (80%) is also
higher than urban senior home ownership (64%; Golant, 1992, citing the U.S. Bureau
of the Census, 1990). However, the suburbs where older people live tend to have more
rental housing, lower home values, and higher population densities than the suburbs
that are populated with younger families (Fitzpatrick & Logan, 1985). With mixed
socioeconomic conditions such as these reports suggest, there is a need to build
knowledge about suburban community variation and resulting effects.
14
Aging and Environment Conceptual Framework
Theoretical Framework
Effective societal planning also requires attention to another qualitative aspect
of agingthe living environment. Along with biologic disposition, home and
neighborhood may be the most influential determinants of wellness and health
maintenance for individuals of all ages. A salient rationale for addressing the living
environment is contained within the framework of p erson- environment theory. The
next sections define environment, then describe the conceptual relationships of person
and environment, as well as research related to aging persons and neighborhood or
community environments.
Defining environment Interpretations of environment incorporate multi
dimensional aspects that vary in scale and levels of abstraction, and they represent both
the influence of persons on environments and the influence of environments on persons.
Environment has been defined as: (1) surroundings (Webster, 1969); (2) a setting for
behavior (Krupat, 1985); (3) all phenomena external to a population which influences
itincluding raw materials and other social systems (Schwab, 1982); (4) not only a
physical container, but a social and cultural product as well (Ward, La Gory &
Sherman, 1988); (5) the context for activities as well as the stimulus with which an
individual interacts (Hooyman & Kiyak, 1993); and (6) a complex phenomenon,
bounded in space and time and possessing a structure that interrelates cultural, physical,
15
and social properties to elicit patterns of behavior (Barker (1968, cited in Lawton,
1986).
Classifying the environment According to Lawton (1986), if we knew the most
meaningful dimensions of the environment and their interrelationships, a taxonomy
could be developed with multiple classifications that ranged in scale from
microenvironment to macroenvironment for research purposes. Lacking a model, he
proposed this typology of environments:
(1) personal (significant persons in the life of a subject);
(2) group (the set of presses attributable to the behaviors of individuals acting
as a group in some structural relationship to the subject, Le. social norms or
group pressure);
(3) suprapersonal (characteristics of the aggregate of individuals in physical
proximity to the subject, Le. average age and average income of
neighbors);
(4) social (the stimulus configuration represented by phenomena such as social
movements, economic cycles, and cultural values);
(3) physical (the natural or built environment, reducible to grams, centimeters,
and seconds). A suggested scale of physical environments is home,
neighborhood, city, and region.
The micro and macro, as well as the social and physical, environments are
interrelated. For instance, a residential area includes a large neighborhood space
16
consisting of streets, dwellings, and services, as well as the interpersonal environment
of neighbors and, sometimes, family, in which the individual is embedded. Those social
networks, which may be local or wide ranging, make up the basic affective and daily
living ties between person and society. The following philosophies provide an
orientation to aging and environment theory, which has guided p erson- environment
research in gerontology, and offers a conceptual foundation for the present study.
Person-envirnnment interaction philosophies. Philosophical views of people-
environment relations point in three directions (Stokols, 1990). The minimalist view
assumes that physical environments exert negligible influence on behavior, health, and
the well-being of users. In this view, designers indulge their own aesthetic whims,
considering only the basic needs for shelter and safety. The emergence of people-
environment studies during the late 1960s fostered the instrumental view, in which
knowledge about the physical environment is a means for promoting individual well
being and economic efficiency. Accordingly, research is an objective process that
emphasizes refinement of instruments for gathering reliable and valid data. Recently,
the spiritual view considers the sociophysical environment an end, in that settings are
designed to facilitate smooth performance of everyday activities as well as to give
expression to psychological and sociocultural meanings. This view emphasizes
qualitative research methods and customized design strategies.
Person-envirnnment theory development. Person- environment theory
development had roots in both sociology and psychology. An environmental emphasis
came from the study of societal changes from rural to urban life, which led to
assumptions that city environments (identified by density, diversity, and size) predict
stressed behavior in individuals (Wirth, 1938). Based on locational studies over time,
this environmental determinism has been rejected in favor of one in which
environment influences but does not shape behavior (Krupat, 1985; Reitzes et al.,
1991). A Wirth contemporary, Murray (1938, cited in Hooyman & Kiyak, 1993),
coined the term environmental press and developed a theory of personality which states
that individuals attempt to maintain equilibrium as their environments change.
Building on the notion of persons as responders to environmental stimuli,
Lawton and Nehemow (1973) classified environments on the basis of environmental
press, or hypothetical demand on an individual. They also viewed environment as the
context in which the person behavesthus, treating persons more like actors than
reactors. They depicted an individual as a set of observable and perceived
competencies, defined as the theoretical upper limit of ones functional capacity in the
areas of biological health, sensation-perception, motives, behavior, and cognition.
Lawton (1986) explained that human perceptions are necessary to bring order and
comprehension to the immensity and complexity of all that is outside oneself
More specific understanding of the psychological aspects that shape human
perceptions can be credited to Kahana (1975). Based on her research in institutional
settings, the congruence model of person-environment interaction recognizes that
people vary in their types and relative strengths of perceived needs and preferences, and
18
that congregate environments vary in the extent to which they are capable of satisfying
these needs. Thus, congruence between preferences and environmental conditions
results in psychological comfort and represents person-environment fit based on a
variety of combinations of individual preferences/needs and environmental conditions.
Incongruence produces stress and results from individual attempts to modify the
environment without situational improvement. This theory supports matching personal
needs with environmental situations.
Environmental probabilism, another p er son- environment interpretation,
suggests that the environment makes certain behavioral choices more likely than others,
because the environment can reinforce modes of behavior and can create a range of
new awareness by making opportunities explicit; it can also limit behavior (Krupat,
1985; Rapoport, 1977; Reitzes et al, 1991). For example, local spatial arrangements
and land use patterns offer opportunities such as medical, shopping, religious, or
recreational services which may encourage well-being, but also offer potential liabilities
in terms of cost and inaccessibility which may hamper well-being.
Finally, Lawton and Nehemow (1973) conceived a dynamic person-
environment interaction with the Ecological Model of Environment and Aging. In
contrast with person-environment fit based on matching environment to person, and
probable fit based on matching persons and environmental opportunities, the
ecological, or competence, model assumes that the impact of environment is mediated
by personal ability, and vice versa (Lawton, 1990). The implication here is that
19
modification of either the environment or personal aspects (through strengthening,
treatment, teaching, etc.), or modification of both environment and person, will achieve
an adaptive fit. For example, grocery shopping in a large supermarket on a busy day
may become an overwhelming task for an older person who has impaired hearing and
difficulty walking. To the extent that this person can adapt, perhaps by shopping at
nonpeak hours and locating a bench for periodic rests, independence can be retained. A
limitation of the ecological model is that it focuses heavily on physical or functional
capacity. In this sense, Kahanas congruence model is complementary. Because the
elderly represent a heterogeneous population despite common needs and risks, the
interactive competence model of p er son- environment transactions is most appropriate.
It recognizes that improvements can be tailored or pre-planned to enhance individual
and aggregate well-being. The goal of both environmental and personal modifications
should be to maximize older persons opportunities to negotiate and control their
situations.
Principles re|gardin|g aging persons and their environments. Several principles
regarding the elderly and their environments are useful for gaining an understanding of
their needs. First people adept over time to sensory stimulation of mild to moderate
intensity so they eventually ignore the stimulus (Lawton, 1986). This axiom may
explain why so many older people express satisfaction with their neighborhood, despite
obvious deterioration. A second principle is that as environmental press increases to
surpass a persons competence limits, stress ensues and awareness of the environment
20
increases. For instance, as roadway traffic increases or as shrubs limit vision for safe
turning, an older driver may respond with increased anxiety. A third principle is that the
less competent the individual is, the greater the impact of environment on that person.
Thus, older persons appear to be more sensitive to environmental variations than
younger people (Lawton & Nehemow, 1973; Golant, 1979). For instance, seniors are
more apt than younger people to be bothered by sidewalk cracks and traffic changes.
A fourth principle is that the environment needs to be challenging, but not too
challenging. When environmental stimulation is lower than a persons competence
requires, this situation can create anxiety or fail to appropriately stimulate the
physiological processes (Lawton, 1986). Slight increases in environmental challenge
motivate individuals to use higher levels of competence and to use environmental
resources for enjoyment. A fifth principle is that persons with weak competence are
most capable of functioning in environments with low environmental press. This
explains why ones local environment constricts with age (Rowles, 1978). The
accompaniments of aging, such as role loss, reduced income, and decreased physical
and cognitive competence narrows the spatial experience. This can place people at a
disadvantage, since the range of modem support networks in many areas lies beyond
localized neighborhoods (Carp, 1976; Fischer & Jackson, 1976; Ward et al, 1988). A
sixth principle is that reduced competence in the individual is associated with
operating in a more limited scope of environmental press and with greater
disengagement from the environmental range. As functional limits compound,
21
behavior becomes more dependent on environmental conditions and the individual
takes a less active role in attempting to modify the environment to satisfy needs
(Lawton & Nahemow, 1973). Thus, frail elderly have more limited mobility choices
than younger healthy persons when there are architectural barriers. Finally, a seventh
principle is that as the spatial experience constricts, there is greater reliance on
fantasy modes of environmental experience (Rowles, 1978). The remembered
neighborhood becomes the neighborhood of reference for home-bound elderly, and this
allows continuation of an orientation of self to community.
Theoretical implications. These theories and principles explain that an individual
is more likely to experience life satisfaction in an environment that is congruent with his
or her physical, cognitive, and emotional needs and abilities. Progressive vulnerability in
the elderly and their potentially delicate interaction with the urbanized environment are
compelling reasons to study suburban living areas. Although many older people
function as well as younger persons in a wide range of physical surroundings, it is
important to plan environments that provide preventive, practical support at reasonable
cost for most older people most of the time. Based on this imperative, environmental
psychologists and others believe we must search for ways of enhancing wellness and
quality of life through the physical environment. Lawton (1986), for example, suggests
that if we could design neighborhoods with more enriching resources, the benefit would
far exceed the cost with improved functional capabilities and lower institutional rates
among older people. Chapman (1994) elaborates, noting that the physical layout of
22
cities and suburbs, our housing alternatives, and our transportation systems are often
less than ideal for those with physical, mental, or financial limitations, particularly for
those who cannot drive.
The Research Problem
Most elderly Americans now live in suburban communities and want to
continue aging in place. To make this possible, social scientists and health experts agree
that our social and built environments must be structured to enhance quality of life and
foster ties with informal and formal support systems (Committee on an Aging Society,
1988). This research addressed the problem of uncertainty about the suitability of
suburban neighborhood physical environments for aging persons.
CHAPTER 2: BACKGROUND AND PURPOSES
This chapter contains a review of literature that was guided by these questions:
How is neighborhood defined? What do we know about suburban neighborhood
satisfaction among the elderly? What are the sociospatial neighborhood environment
needs of the elderly? What is known about the relationship of the neighborhood
sociospatial environment and well-being, or quality of life, for the elderly? After
exploring these issues, the new urbanism community design framework is described,
along with a synopsis of suburban problems described in the architectural and urban
planning literature. Included is a section that reviews research designed to explore the
effects of new urbanism. The chapter concludes with statements of the study purposes.
Neighborhood Environments and Aging Persons
Definition of Neighborhood
Neighborhood is difficult to define, because its meaning is personal and derived
from social, political, business, or cultural experience. Abbott et al. (n. d.) reviewed
over 100 reports of neighborhood-oriented research and concluded that neighborhood
is so central and ubiquitous to the field of urban studies that its usage and definition has
been ambiguous and vague. Neighborhood is typically defined as a community in which
residents share space and, as a result, engage in interactions, norm-shaping, and
24
location-protection in ways that are unique to that neighborhood (Taylor, 1988; Ward,
et al., 1988).
Objective indicators of neighborhood can be aggregate characteristics, such as
population density, age and condition of dwellings, and ethnic, religious, and
occupational composition. Another measurement approach is to obtain behavioral
information about places to shop, work, and play; and some use collective mental maps
or boundary definitions to define neighborhoods (Regnier, 1976). Each approach
provides slightly different areal units and a different understanding of the local
neighborhood. The following definitions describe prevailing concepts of neighborhood.
Street-block or face-block. For most of this century, urban sociologists have
named the streetblockdefined as the area bounded by the houses on both sides of the
street, and the cross streetsas an important sociospatial arena (Taylor, 1988). Suttles
(1972) found that individuals construct cognitive maps at three levels of community
the face-block, the defended neighborhood, and community of limited liability. He
defined the face-block as a network of acquaintances who are recognized from face-to-
face encounters because they live on the same block, use the same bus stop, or
otherwise develop familiarity based on frequent encounters within a small area. Taylor
suggests that such local encounters are also a function of siting arrangements such as
entranceway layouts and sidewalks. His review led him to conclude that the streetblock
is more likely than a larger community arrangement to be the locus of neighborly ties,
interhousehold communication, and local improvement activities.
Defended neighborhood. The defended neighborhood is composed of numerous
face-blocks, and is commonly the smallest area within the metropolis that has an
identity known to both its residents and outsiders (Schwab, 1982). There may be urban
and suburban differences in the scope of the defended neighborhood, with suburban
residents having larger spheres of territorial control that extends to public spaces near
the home (Taylor & Stough, 1978). The defended neighborhood is the area outside the
face-block in which residents have greater familiarity and relative security on the
streets, when compared with adjacent areas (Suttles, 1972). A threat to this area will
lead to a defensive response that promotes cohesion among residents. Defended
neighborhoods normally include the schools, churches, and stores that area residents
use on a day-to-day basis.
Walkable neighborhood. According to Regnier (1976), the most powerful
incentive and the variable that is of greatest consequence in determining the shape and
direction of the perceived neighborhood is convenient access to goods and services.
Older persons in a northern New York metropolitan area defined their service area as 7
blocks in radial distance, compared with 3.7 blocks for the social area neighborhood
(Ward et al., 1988). The average estimated walking time to reach the edge of the social
neighborhood was 13 minutes for suburbanites and 11.6 minutes for urbanites. Because
only 18 percent of respondents walked within the service area, these researchers did
not consider it a walkable neighborhood.
26
In sum, levels of community in the residential area are based on degree of social
relationships, distance from home, and access to services. One level is the street-block
neighborhood, another is the social area, akin to the defended or walkable
neighborhood, and yet another is the service area. Within this framework, studies of
neighborhood satisfaction, residential area needs, and well-being among older persons
are reviewed next.
Neighborhood Satisfaction
Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction Neighborhood satisfaction is the
result of a process linking three components: (1) the objective qualities of the
neighborhood; (2) the person's own subjective definitions of neighborhood; and (3) the
psychological and physical state of the person making the evaluation (Campbell,
Converse & Rodgers, 1976; La Gory, Ward & Sherman, 1985; Lee & Guest, 1983).
However, a limitation of neighborhood satisfaction research is that most studies have
tested the effects of only one or two of these components.
Objective neighborhood qualities and neighborhood satisfaction. Another
limitation of these studies is the narrow range of objective environmental variables that
have been entered into predictive models of neighborhood satisfaction. Most include
community location, size, or density, but few have looked at the effects of observable
design features. Exceptions include measures of distance from home to downtown,
grocery store, other stores, or public transportation (Burby & Rohe, 1990; Carp &
27
Carp, 1982a; Chapman & Beaudet, 1983; Regnier, 1976; Ward et al., 1988); land use
(Carp & Carp; Chapman & Beaudet); vacancies (Chapman & Beaudet; La Gory et al.,
1985); and recreational, open vegetation within 1/4 mile of home (Carp & Carp; Fried,
1982). Chapman and Beaudet also assessed type of housing, and found that apartment
dwellers had higher satisfaction and greater likelihood of neighbor interaction, after
controlling for distance to the city center. Other studies show that home owners are
more satisfied (O'Bryant, 1982; O'Bryant & Wolf 1983).
The least satisfied seniors are in urban, age-dense, and minority neighborhoods,
and they report greater fear of crime and more unhappiness with neighbors (Ward et
aL, 1988). Safety, or fear of crime, is sometimes the strongest subjective predictor of
neighborhood satisfaction (Carp & Carp, 1982a; Jirovac, Jirovac & Bosse, 1984,
1985). When environmental conditions are extreme, such as distressed inner city
conditions of run-down houses, street noise, and trash and litter, these objective
conditions significantly influence neighborhood dissatisfaction (Lawton, 1980).
These studies point out several key factors that influence residential satisfaction.
However, there is a paucity of evidence about the effect of a comprehensive set of
environmental features on neighborhood satisfaction. Such features might include the
availability of convenient services, nearby public transportation access, building design,
parking arrangements, park locations, street patterns, and so on.
Subjective predictors of neighborhood satisfaction. In some studies, subjective
perceptions have explained more variance in satisfaction than objective neighborhood
28
conditions or individual attributes (Herting & Guest, 1985; Lee & Guest, 1983; La
Gory et aL, 1985). The strongest predictors have been perceptions of local safety,
public service and transportation adequacy, relationships with neighbors, and housing,
street, or neighborhood upkeep (Hummon, 1992; Lawton, 1980; Lee & Guest; Ward et
aL, 1988). Others have found that area beauty and antiquity (Jirovac, Jirovac & Bosse,
1984, 1985; Miller, Tsemberis, Mafia & Grega, 1980), recreational facilities (Fried,
1982), privacy (Fried), quietness (Jirovac et aL; Ward et aL), noise (Lawton) or air
quality (Jirovac et aL) correlate with neighborhood satisfaction. Among seniors,
without controlling for functional capacity, neighborhood assets tend to be neighbors,
peace and quiet, and convenience to shopping. Negative aspects are typically noise
level, traffic and neighborhood maintenance (Carp & Carp, 1982b; La Gory et al,
1985).
Residential preferences are also mediated by peoples evaluations of residential
attributes such as location, cost, and size. Lindberg, Hartig, Garvifi, and Garfing (1992)
found that when older people were given a choice of six ideal distances from city
center, they selected the three nearest the center. The variety of perceptions that have
been linked with community satisfaction indicates that satisfaction is a function of ones
values regarding the residential environment. As La Gory et aL (1985) suggest,
everyone has slightly different environmental needs, so individuals should be the unit of
analysis. Each persons judgments of satisfaction should be weighted by his own
judgments of importance about community dimensions.
29
Personal attributes associated with neighborhood satisfaction. Individual
attributes known to predict residential satisfaction include higher socioeconomic status
and the presence of children in the household (Fried, 1982; Lee & Guest, 1983). Age
also consistently affects community satisfaction. Older people express greater
residential environment satisfaction than younger people, and they are more positive
about their settings than objective conditions of income and housing would suggest
(Rubinstein, Kilbride & Nagy, 1992; Lawton, 1980; Miller et aL, 1980). Some suggest
that positive ratings may reduce cognitive dissonance between actual and preferred
neighborhood conditions.
Although most residential area satisfaction studies control for individual
characteristics such as age, socioeconomic status, or length of residency, few have
included variables representing the psychological and/or physical status of individuals
who are rating community satisfaction. An exception is the La Gory et aL (1985) study,
which controlled for vulnerability by asking respondents to indicate whether they had
difficulty in going outdoors, walking up and down stairs, getting about the house, and
doing household chores. The least able persons based their satisfaction on subjective
environmental perceptions, consistent with the principle of vicarious or remembered
environmental experience, while competent individuals were influenced by median
income, community size and density.
Both demographic and functional personal characteristics, in addition to
objective neighborhood features and perceptions about those features, need to be
30
included in neighborhood satisfaction analyses in order to understand levels of
community fit for elders. Although some objective neighborhood physical environment
preferences and negative conditions have been identified in the residential satisfaction
literature, a comprehensive approach is lacking.
Studies of Neighborhood Physical Environment Needs Among the Elderly
Service and facility preferences. Evaluation of community environments should
be based on what older people have deemed important or valuable in their residential
areas. An interview study of older women living alone in Oakland, California, provides
some evidence of the ideal distance to various services and facilities (Carp & Carp,
1982a). As items were read to them, the women indicated whether the services should
be within walking distance, or farther, or whether they had no opinion. At least 60
percent of the respondents decided that these features should be within walking
distance: a stop for a bus that takes you anywhere you want to go (91%), favorite
grocery store (79%), own bank (68%), favorite library (67%), senior center (65%),
own place of worship (65%), and favorite pharmacy (62%). Items that should not be
within walking distance, based on less than 15 percent response were: lawyer (except
own), movie theater (except favorite), bars, beauty shop (except own), pre-school,
elementary school, or high school
Facility access. Sometimes, the proximity of service facilities is not always
positive. Subsequent analyses of data from the same sample of older women in Oakland
31
showed that most food-related facilities were considered convenience items, except
fast-food stores, which correlated highly with robbery rates, liquor stores, cocktail
lounges, and adult entertainment in the area (Carp & Christensen, 1986a). Most older
residents want handy food stores, but convenience and quality can be outweighed by
fear, if crime is prevalent in the area (Burby & Rohe, 1990), by sharp topographic
changes between home and destination, by heavy traffic patterns that become crossing
barriers, and by industrial land use patterns (Regnier, 1976).
Feasibility for walking to commercial and service resources is especially
important when transportation options become limited for older persons (Lindberg et
al, 1992; Smith, 1991). However, pedestrian access is not always an issue, since social
networks often include persons who can drive older residents to preferred shopping
places (Chapman & Beaudet, 1983). Smith discovered that grocery shopping for the
elderly in central as well as outer suburban communities was mainly confined to the
home area regardless of whether large chain-store outlets were available locally. Other
evidence suggests that among persons who drive themselves, there is a tendency to
travel as far as necessary for goods and services, and those with higher incomes seek
services in a wider territory (Ward et aL, 1988). Whether walking, riding, or driving,
access to goods and services is essential, since delivery services are costly.
Transportation needs among the elderly. Individual travels needs are associated
with freedom of choice and control, although travel needs change during a persons life
cycle. Although driving among the elderly varies by gender, age, income, ethnicity, and
location, they rely largely on automobiles for travel and this has become more intense in
recent years (Cutler & Coward, 1992; Wachs, 1988). According to Rosenblooms
(1994) report of national travel study results, for example, urban elderly aged 70 to 74
took 90 percent of their trips in a private vehicle, compared with 83 percent in 1983.
The only urban elderly cohort which did not increase their travel by private vehicle
from 1983 to 1990 were those aged 85 and older; about 75 percent of this group use an
automobile for all trips. Couples in their eighties average about one trip per day for
about 3 miles of travel, in contrast with the heavy commuting patterns of younger
persons (Wachs, 1988). Men drive more than women, and suburban residents drive
more than urban residents, hi 1990, among all elderly age 65 and older, suburban
women drove more miles per year (4,054) than central city women (4,630 miles per
year). Like the rest of the population, older people who drive are most satisfied with
their mode of transportation (Carp, 1988) and with their life situation (Cutler, 1972).
Driving may not be an option for those with financial limitations. The costs of
owning, maintaining, and operating a car may become prohibitive for those living on
fixed incomes. Analysis of 1980 census data for personal transportation access showed
that 52 percent of urban women ages 75 to 84 had no vehicle in the household,
compared with 36 percent of suburban women in the same age group (Cutler &
Coward, 1992). Within a suburban population, Gutowski and Feild (1979) found that
over half of the older renters, but less than 20 percent of older homeowners, lacked an
automobile.
33
As driving has increased among the elderly, walking has decreased in the last
decade. In 1990, about 7 percent of the young old and about IS percent of the old old
reported taking all trips by walking, compared with about 10 percent of the young old
and 20 percent of the old old who walked for all trips in 1983 (Rosenbloom, 1994).
Similarly, the use of public transit for all trips declined from 1983 to 1990, when only
about 2 percent of urban elderly reported using this mode (Rosenbloom).
Safety considerations for various travel modes are especially important for the
elderly. Although elderly drivers experience fewer accidents per miles driven, they are
more apt to drive slower and to have difficulty reading road signs and making left
turns. Along with age comes slower reaction times and changing vision, which
increases the risk of accidents. Those who walk may have trouble crossing busy, wide
intersections in the time allotted by lighting signals. Hoxie and Ruben stein (1994) found
that about 27 percent of nearly 600 older persons were unable to reach the opposite
curb when the light turned green for oncoming traffic, and of these, nearly one fourth
were stranded at least a full traffic lane away from the curb. Among those who did not
cross in time, 74 percent considered themselves in danger, 63 percent crossed the street
at least daily, and 25 percent had Men in the past year. City records showed that four
elderly pedestrians had been hit by an automobile at the same intersection in the prior
five years. Seniors experience these risks in busy cities as well as in suburban areas with
especially wide streets that often serve as quasi-highways. Narrow streets and
adaptations such as central islands and signals that are timed to accommodate the
34
slower walking speeds of the average older person are advantageous for seniors
(Chapman, 1989; Wachs, 1988).
hi addition to safety considerations, there are convenience factors that may also
affect the feasibility of use among seniors with disabilities. For instance, those who
depend on public transportation may have to deal with remote stop sites, limited trip
schedules and destination points, and/or physical barriers in boarding or riding buses
and trains. They may also experience problems associated with weather and crime while
approaching and waiting at boarding points. To counteract these stressful situations,
environmental recommendations such as curb cuts and sheltered bus stops have been
made to facilitate public transportation access.
Considering the continued growth of the suburban elderly population and then-
extensive use of automobile transit, their increasing pedestrian activities, their risk of
accidents, and their limited use of public transportation systems, research regarding
relevant community environment conditions is overdue. Evaluations should include
assessment of recommendations such as grid street patterns that disperse traffic,
flexible timed crossing signals, advance-warning signage, bus stop shelters, frequent
street lighting, and continuous sidewalks (Chapman, 1989).
Housing needs and availability Housing, another basic need of older persons,
varies in quality and availability across types of communities- For instance, Wachs
(1979) described housing diversity among metropolitan elderly in Los Angeles census
tracts by lifestyle variation. Early suburbanites lived in post World War II urban fringe
35
tracts and owned homes of moderate value. Central city dwellers either resided in older
rental units into which they had recently moved, or they had lived for many years in
expensive homes which they owned. Newer development suburban residents lived in
their own homes or in large apartment complexes.
Home ownership is the most common way that seniors finance their housing,
but there is a disparity in ownership between urban and suburban elders. Eighty percent
of older suburbanites and only 64 percent of older city dwellers own their homes.
Regardless of type of financing or location, the majority of elderly live in single family
detached houses (Golant, 1992). Urban homeowners are more apt to live in attached or
duplex housing, and mobile homes are more common in suburban areas (Gutowski &
Feild, 1979). Elderly renters are more likely to occupy one of five or more dwelling
units in the same building, and about one in five senior renters live in buildings with
four or more stories (Lawton, 1986). Older suburban renters tend to rent single-family
detached houses (Golant), which may be due to either preference or lack of options.
Other housing modes advocated for the elderly include single-room occupancy
hotels, group homes, cottage or modular housing on the property of others, accessory
apartments within a single-family building, and small apartments over garages known as
granny flats (Howe & Chapman, 1989; Golant, 1992; Lawton, 1986). Compared to
well elders, socially isolated suburban elders express more interest in moving to a
residential hotel, creating an accessory apartment or separate dwelling on their own
36
property, or moving into someones home as a housemate (Gonyea, Hudson & Seltzer.
1993).
Since the older population is heterogeneous, experts suggest that communities
need housing choices to satisfy various needs (Chapman, 1994; Golant, 1992; Soldo &
Longino, 1988). Some evidence suggests that mixed use is unattractive to the suburban
elderly (Ward et aL, 1988) and that retail operations on the same block may be
associated with stress and perceived crowding (Fleming, Baum & Weiss. 1987).
Overall, research regarding neighborhood housing for seniors is weak. Most studies are
national and fail to assess local variations in cost and supply of subsidized rental
housing, nor do they consider both population demand and housing supply (Golant.
1992; Howe & Chapman, 1989). Housing is treated as a homogeneous commodity
without distinguishing associated service packages and age-segregation status, and
there is almost no information regarding the adequacy middle- or high-rent
accommodations for the elderly population demand. Location differences, including
differences within the same category such as older and newer suburbs, may also vary in
housing adequacy and availability. Research regarding housing for the elderly has
focused largely on publicly subsidized multiple-family housing, retirement communities,
congregate care, and life-care communities, generally omitting community housing
analyses.
In sum, residential area needs, according to seniors, include an array of
convenient facilities, such as major grocery stores, and access that supports pedestrian
37
safety, driving safety, and public transportation convenience and safety. Although most
seniors live in detached homes, experts wonder whether mixed housing options should
be available.
Neighborhood Sociospatial Environment Effects on Well-Being
Conceptualization of well-being. The impact of community and urbanism on
well-being has had a long tradition in both sociology and gerontology. The consistent
use of well-being as a dependent variable in this research has been important for
progressive understanding about the meaning of environment to older residents. The
various operational definitions of well-being that have been reported in the literature
are displayed in Table I. Morale was a popular interpretation of well-being in earlier
studies (Buhena & Wood 1969; Felton, Hinrichsen & Tsemberis, 1981; Schooler,
1969, 1970). In other studies, morale has been one of several outcome indicators
(Lawton & Kleban, 1971; Lawton et aL, 1980; Liang & Warfel, 1983; Ward et aL,
1988; Windley & Scheidt, 1982). Well-being has also been operationally defined as
social psychological adjustment, or affect (Reitzes et aL, 1991; Windley & Scheidt),
and negatively as loneliness or remoteness from others (Fengler & Danigelis, 1982) or
as social isolation (Krause, 1993).
Life satisfaction has been the outcome variable in several residential
environment studies (Chapman & Beaudet, 1983; Cutler, 1972; Fengler & Danigelis,
1982; Golant, 1985; Liang & Warfel, 1983). Most investigators used the 20-item Life
38
Table I
Measures of Well-being and Neighborhood Physical Environment in Prior Studies
Investigator Measures of Well-being Measures of Neighborhood
Physical Environment
Bultena &
Wood 1969
morale =
Life Satisfaction Index, A
type/location of community =
in WI, age-integrated;
in AZ, age-segregated or age-
integrated
Schooler
1969, 1970
morale =
fears and worries
self-image and alertness
life-long accomplishments
sustained unhappiness
financial situation as
compared with others
neighborhood tenure
dwelling age
age density
distance from services
availability of common residential
indoor areas
availability of common residential
outdoor areas
Lawton &
Kleban 1971
PGC Morale Scale
leisure-time activity
motility in neighborhood
housing satisfaction
interaction with Mends
interaction with family
interviewer ratings of
subject:
vigor
interaction
response
location near:
transportation
park
amenities
distance to shopping
independent household (own TV,
stove, toilet, reMgerator)
busy block (traffic and people)
maintenance of block and building
nonresidential block (commercial,
vacant houses, or lots)
Cutler
1972
life Satisfaction Index, A distance from city center in 1/4
mile increments
39
Table I
Measures of Well-being and Neighboihood Physical Environment in Prior Studies
Lawton, housing satisfaction community size
Nahemow & friendship behavior community age composition
Yeh activity participation housing administrators
1980 motility (mobility in the perceptions o f :
community) crime risk
morale (2 items) distance to 24 types of medical,
contact with relatives shopping and enriching
facilities
neighborhood:
noise and traffic
activity
overall quality (location and
attractiveness)
Fengler & life satisfaction = urban or rural =
Danigelis feeling bored census data re community size +
1982 feeling depressed or very
unhappy
feeling lonely or remote
from other people
(other subjective and
objective person factors
were tested as predictors of
life satisfaction)
population density
Table I
Windley & housing satisfaction subject perceptions of
Scheidt activity participation sensory stimulation in
1982 feelings of security neighborhood
contact with friends and cognitive legibility of
relatives neighborhood
mobility sociality of settings
functional health community accessibility
availability of a confidant population density
PGC Morale Scale attachment to setting
Bradbum Affect Balance community aesthetic appeal
Scale
these and several dwelling
Langner Assessment of
variables yielded 2 factors:
p sycho-phy siologic
satisfaction with dwelling features
symptoms
(includes satisfaction with
these yielded 5 factors: neighborhood quality)
mental health
activity
security
contact with friends
contact with relatives
environmental constriction
Liang & Warfel life satisfaction = size of community in 5 categories
1983 modified PGC Morale
Scale (1 data set)
an undefined 8-item life
satisfaction scale (3 data
sets)
Table I
Chapman & Life Satisfaction Index, A distances to:
Beaudet activity level market
1983 social contact frequency pharmacy
neighbor interaction hank
neighborhood satisfaction bus line
city center
type of house
neighborhood quality:
noise
traffic
house vacancies
land use
neighborhood upkeep
crime rate
census block and area ages
area social status
Table I
Measures of Well-being and Neighborhood Physical Environment in Community Studies
Investigator Measures of well-being Measures of Neighborhood
Ward, La Gory
& Sherman
1988
access to services =
someone who phones or
visits older persons
facilities for group meals
or meal delivery
legal services and advice
visiting nurses or aides
special transportation
use of these services
service information source
lives in neighborhood
subjective well-being =
satisfaction with:
health
income
housing
neighborhood
social contacts and
supports
PGC Morale Scale
urban, suburban, rural =
census tract definitions
racial composition
income
housing age
housing value
interviewer rating of housing
use frequency, proximity and
mode of transportation, and
within-neighborhood rating for:
grocery store
drugstore
church
doctor or clinic
bank
bus stop
proximity of a club/organization
for seniors
distance and time to edge of
neighborhood
perceptions of neighborhood as a
place to live (convenience,
housing conditions, kinds of
people, feelings of safety)
best and worst things re
neighborhood
whether and how neighborhood
has been changing
extent of local attachment
(feelings and plans re moving,
how easy it would be)
Reitzes, positive and negative affect central city, suburban, or
Mutran & = Bradbums Affect nonmetropolitan =
Pope Balance Scale census definitions
1991
43
Table I
Krause social isolation (low)= interviewer ratings:
1993 number of neighbors dwelling exterior condition
known overall dwelling condition
number of close friends, condition of other houses and
family
buildings
respondent ratings:
condition of other houses and
buildings
street and road condition
noise level
air quality
safety from crime
44
Satisfaction Index or the Form A modification (Neugarten, Havighurst & Tobin, 1961),
valued because they are not contaminated with personal opinion about the
environment.
A multi-factor construct of well-being has also been used by several
researchers. Correlation and regression analyses that integrate subjective variables have
been used to identify antecedents that explained well-being in an environmental context
(Chapman & Beaudet, 1983; Lawton et aL, 1980; Lawton & Kleban, 1971; Windley &
Scheidt, 1982; Ward et aL, 1988). Collectively, these studies illustrate that well-being is
probably multi-faceted. Ward et aL expanded well-being by incorporating measures of
satisfaction for several domains including health, income, housing, neighborhood, and
social contacts and
supports, in addition to morale. Many researchers agree that broader and more
consistent measures of well-being are essential for meta-analysis in the field of aging.
Validation of well-being. At least two studies have validated the construct of
well-being. After comprehensive analyses with an extensive battery of instruments and
items, Lawton, Kleban, and diCarlo (1984) derived two multi-item well-being factors
defined as:
(I) negative affect, psychophysiological symptoms, expression-denial
of negative affect, self-esteem, self-rated health, satisfaction with
family, congruence of expectation with attainment, social anxiety,
and happiness; and
45
(II) happiness, residential satisfaction, positive affect, time use,
wish to move, and satisfaction with friends (p. 92).
Using a similarly large item pool and analytic approach, Carp and Christensen (1986b)
also found that well-being represented two factors measured as:
(I) adjective checklist self-description (reversed), depression,
uselessness, number of neurotic ailments, and Bradbum Positive
Affect reversed; and
(II) Campbell, Converse and Rogers Well-Being Index, Caven, Burgess,
Havighurst, and Goldhamer Happiness, Bradbum Negative Affect
(reversed), and Attitude Toward Aging (p. 417).
In both studies, the two factors represented positive affect/contentment and negative
affect/depression. However, the measures differed, demonstrating that well-being is a
construct that needs farther development. Linkage between well-being and quality of
life is also needed, because the terms are often used interchangeably. Although
reference to quality of life has escalated lately in the aging and environment literature
(Ward et aL, 1988), community environment studies of quality of life are not
prominent.
Operational measurement of environment- The scope of residential area physical
environment indicators used in aging and community environment studies is limited
(see Table I). Schoolers (1969, 1970) innovative work expanded the conception of
environment. Although only three of his environmental indicators represented physical
46
aspects, and only two pertained to residential area rather than dwelling, they partially
predicted morale when personal attributes were entered into the model first. Predating
the demand for heterogeneity and variety in neighborhoods, he concluded that
community planning and design should account for individual perceptions and
preferences, hi Krauses (1993) study, dilapidated neighborhoods predicted social
isolation, but there were also measurement limitations. These included a lack of
distinction between behavioral maintenance and structural conditions, no measures of
places for social interaction or service use, and merged objective and subjective
environment perspectives. In addition, the study did not control for neighborhood
condition, nor for personality factors that might influence the choice of poorer
neighborhoods. Several other studies utilized a limited array of objective physical
environment measures (Chapman & Beaudet, 1983; Lawton et aL, 1980; Lawton &
Kleban, 1971; Windley & Scheidt, 1982; Ward et aL, 1988).
Windley and Scheidt (1982) measured the well-being effects of small town
ecological/architectural and psychosocial attributes on nearly 1,000 Midwestern elderly
living primarily in single-family houses. Although this study incorporated more design
features, the resulting factors (satisfaction with dwelling features and perceived
environmental constriction) represented p erson- environment interaction effects rather
than environmental effects on well-being, hi studies without objective environment
measures (e.g. Golant, 1985), the findings represented a relationship between two types
47
of subjective judgments: attitudes about the environment and feelings of life
satisfaction.
Important theoretical progress was made when investigators began to use more
comprehensive neighborhood environment measures. Among older minorities,
Philadelphia slum conditions partially explained two aspects of well-beingmobility
within the neighborhood and subject responsiveness (Lawton & Kleban, 1971). In the
latter study, all environmental indicators represented physical aspects, except household
status (a social environment characteristic), and maintenance could be construed as a
behavioral factor. Another strength of this study was that the environment and person
constructs were separate, thus validating the ecological person-environment theory idea
that residential environment has an independent effect on personal well-being. In
another study, Lawton et al (1980) found that a cluster of social and ambient physical
neighborhood factors had small but significant effects on well-being.
Other evidence of cnmmnnitv environment effect in well-being. A uniform
strength of the studies which have measured well-being as life satisfaction is that they
have controlled for individual characteristics such as personality, health, and activities,
thus separating dependent and independent variables. Results have shown that
residential area environment does influence older persons, and there is considerable
evidence that suburban elders are happier. For instance, Fengler and Danigelis (1982)
determined that more urban widows than rural widows perceived themselves to be
disadvantaged, although income, functional capacity, and social participation were
48
similar in both groups. Liang and Warfel (1983) found that older residents of large
cities had lower psychological well-being, and Reitzes et al. (1991) found that retired
suburban men had more positive affect than urban men. These investigators suggested
that location may influence well-being by mediating social composition and
opportunities for interaction. Afler finding that both neighborhood quality and distance
to the city predicted well-being, Chapman and Beaudet (1983) suggested that the quiet,
well-maintained nature of suburban environments may be more important than
convenient services, and that residents of different locales may have different values
and residential preferences.
Other residential factors can also mediate the effect of urban or suburban
location on well-being. For instance, both urban and rural widows residing with
children had higher life satisfaction than urban widows living alone (Fengler &
Danigelis, 1982). Health also has a strong impact on life satisfaction, and some have
found that urban residents are more affected by poor health (Liang & Warfel, 1983).
Others have found that suburbanites are affected to a greater extent (Reitzes et al.,
1991). Another factor that influences well-being is availability of personal
transportation, especially for those farthest from shopping and services (Cutler, 1972).
In summary, although several studies have explored the effect of community
environment on the well-being of elderly residents by using an array of well-being
measures, the impact of neighborhood on quality of life has not been systematically
tested. Few studies used objective measures of neighborhood environment and they
49
were rarely physical characteristics. Tangible environment observations are needed in
addition to person factors in order to advance person-environment theory. Also, some
studies have not included controls for personal variables, nor for neighborhood
conditions. To explore the dimensions of overall neighborhood environment further,
the next section describes the community design framework known as new urbanism. It
offers an interesting perspective of livability that deserves consideration..
New Urbanism Theory and Research
New IJrhanism Cnmmunitv Theory
History of new urbanism. Urban designers have dreamed for nearly a century of
ideal neighborhoods that would foster quality of life for people of all ages, but there has
not been an enduring formula (Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1994). Ellins (1996) review of
postmodern urbanism from 1945 to 1995, includes numerous contributions of writings,
conferences, and exhibitions to urban design theory, and illustrates successive efforts to
understand community form both architecturally and in terms of rational livability. A
few examples of early predecessors to the recent new urbanism trend are described
here.
Considered most influential, Ebenezer Howard designed an imaginative planned
city in 1898. It featured central gardens and central commercial, chib, and cultural
places. There were residential lots 20 feet by 130 feet that would enable enough
farming to feed a family of five and a half people, industrial worksites, and a
50
surrounding greenbelt (Jacobs, 1961; Nicholson-Lord, 1987). These self-sufficient
towns, or garden cities, for 30,000 people were envisioned to repopulate the
declining outer villages of London and to allow the citys poor to live close to nature.
In a sort of a regional plan, each town was separated from the next by two miles of
open country. A cluster of six garden cities and one central city made up the social city
with a population of 250,000. Howard, who actually had two towns built, projected a
blend of society and nature that would create a new civilizationone controlled by
public authority to prevent speculation and land use changes. Except for the civic
ownership and an agricultural base, this framework is strikingly similar to new
urbanism.
Lewis Mumford, Clarence Stein, Henry Wright, and others later concentrated
on decentralized regional planning to reduce urban density (Jacobs, 1961). Some of
their ideas were that houses should be turned away from the streets to free sheltered
greens, that frequent streets were wasteful, that commerce should be separated from
houses and greens, and that commercial space should be allotted based on calculated
neighborhood demand for goods. Radbum, New Jersey, conceived on these principles,
was designed to house industry and workers and to serve the safety needs of the motor
age with separated roads and walks and a core communal area. It launched the
American New Town movement (Audirac & Shermyen, 1994).
Another community design pioneer, Clarence Perry, is credited with
formulating one of the first attempts to orient suburban development toward family life
51
with his 1929 neighborhood unit (Audirac & Shermyen, 1994). It was based on the
proximity of homes to schools, public institutions, parks, and local shops, and the size
was determined by a population required to support an elementary school.
Neighborhood entrances were marked by impressive gateways and through traffic was
discouraged. As with new urbanism, benefits anticipated from this scheme were better
pedestrian safety, neighborhood identity, and community pride.
Still another prominent line in the history of new urbanism was the City
Beautiful movement. In 1893, the Chicago Fair ignored popular modem architecture of
the day and dramatized an imitation Renaissance style with heavy, grandiose buildings
(Jacobs, 1961). After that, cities throughout the country built monumental civic centers
that were arranged along a boulevard, a mall, or were interspersed with a park.
Although architecture styles have changed, the idea behind these centers has not been
questioned. New urbanists Duany and Plater-Zyberk (1994) are especially known for
integrating classic, traditional-style buildings into their planned communities.
Although the new urbanism framework is based on principles of the Garden
City, New Town, Neighborhood, and City Beautiful movements, it evolved in reaction
to later iterations of the New Town, or post-World War II suburban development. The
next sections describe perceived problems with suburbs from several perspectives.
Problems with Suburbs
Problems from a gerontology perspective. There are a few, somewhat
conflicting references to three types of suburban problems in the aging literature. One is
52
access to services. Golant (1992) reports that shopping and services are typically
spread out along arterials and separated by large parking lots, so they are difficult to
reach either on foot or by bus. Sometimes communities lack shopping, medical, or
financial facilities altogether. On the other hand, Smith (1991) found that inner city
suburbs had easier walking access to grocery stores than downtown Winnipeg.
Related to service distribution, public transportation is also generally faulted as
inadequate in suburban areas. Gutowski and Feild (1979) found that 34 percent of
suburban elderly, compared with 10 percent of urban elderly, cited transportation as a
problem. Area features that could cause problems for suburban seniors include the
potential lack of sidewalks, inadequate street lighting, and wide streets that make
crossing difficult in heavy traffic areas.
A third problem of non-retirement suburbs that affects the elderly is the lack of
housing alternatives to family dwellings. Urban housing typically consists of an array of
multi-unit, smaller dwelling units, which enables downsizing while remaining in the
community, but this option is not generally associated with suburban environments.
However, evidence regarding the adequacy of suburban housing and preference among
elders who encounter difficulty living independently is limited, primarily to national
annual housing survey reports and these do not provide specific information. For
instance, the 1979 incidence of housing deficiencies and excess expenditures were
available for elderly by poverty and home ownership status, but not metropolitan
location (Struyk, 1988). However, among all ages of suburban respondents, about 22
53
percent reported physically deficient housing and about 55 percent reported excessive
housing expenditures. These deficiencies do not necessarily equate to senior demand
for alternatives, but they provide an indirect estimate.
Problems from a design perspective. Suburbs are often characterized in the
architectural literature as sanitized, banal, amorphous, monotonous, isolated and filled
with endless houses, lawns, cars, highways, and commercial strips (Ellin, 1996; Katz,
1994). Except for streets and malls, they tend to lack public spaces. These communities
also lack connectivity, legibility, identity, and human-scale perspectives, according to
Ellin. She points out that most modem developments have an excessive separation of
functions, and this lack of diversity is not only contrary to the essence of urbanism, but
it also stresses environmental resources due to excessive transportation demands.
Problems from a socio-political perspective. Some architects believe that
suburbs have also caused serious social problems of constantly rising crime rates,
creeping neighborhood deterioration, increasing alienation of large segments of society,
and widespread environmental degradation (Bressi, 1994; Calthorpe, 1993, 1994; Katz,
1994). Another criticism of suburbs is their low density zoning, which has forced
encroachment onto agricultural lands in order to accommodate growing populations in
many metropolitan areas. Others observe that suburbanites have excessive privacy
demands which point to individualism, rather than a sense of communalism which
emphasizes proximity, walkability, sociability, and sharing (Ellin, 1996; Southworth,
1995). This view is based on market analyses which show that the auto-oriented, home-
54
oriented, and gated-commimity models are growing in popularity. All this despite the
fact that living in suburban areas can be costly for families. Maintaining a fleet of cars
and travel costs now takes about 18 percent of the average household budget (Adler,
1995).
New Urbanism Movement
Recently, the assumed problems with suburbia have motivated developers,
architects, and urban planners to react fervently with a revised paradigm for community
form known as new urbanism (Adler, 1995; Cahhorpe, 1993; Kreiger & Lennertz,
1991; Katz, 1994). In the last decade, more than a hundred developments designed by
architects affiliated with the Congress for New Urbanism have been completed or are in
progress nationwide (Muschamp, 1996). Clearly, the concept is attracting attention, in
both the press and the real estate market. Peihaps one reason is that new urbanism
benefits have been consistently articulated, and Americans find the claims meaningful.
These have been described as follows.
New nrhanism claims. New urbanism offers a theoretically constructive and
potentially humanistic means to meet the needs of both society and individuals
throughout the lifespan. Proponents believe that their ideas, actualized in community
design, will offer convenient commuting, a superior quality of life, naturally occurring
community interaction, and sustained natural environments (Audirac & Shermyen,
1994; Cahhorpe, 1993; Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1994). The fundamental assumption
55
appears to be that buih and natural environment design will influence public attitudes
and behavior toward acceptance of more compact, interactive, and pedestrian-focused
living (Adler, 1995; Church, 1996; EUin, 1996; Muschamp, 1996). However, as
Cahhorpe warns, it is just as simplistic to claim that the form of communities has no
impact on human behavior as it is to claim that we can prescribe behavior by physical
design (p. 9). Ellin advises that the search for urbanity which falls into the trap of
environmental determinism is misguided. She cites Belmont (1987), who believes that
the use of existing urban forms without rationale is a process of engaging in urban art
rather than in urban development, an essentially political process. In view of these
challenges, consider now the themes of new urbanism
Neotraditionalism Evoking a return to the compact, close-knit pedestrian life of
small-town America, new urbanism attempts to incorporate qualities of traditional
communities into modem developments. This aspect of the construct is known as
neotraditionalism (Church, 1996; Duany & Plater-Zyberk, 1994; Krieger & Lennertz,
1991; Muschamp, 1996). Cahhorpe (1993) intones that, certain traditional values
diversity, community, frugality, and human scaleshould be the foundation of a new
direction for both the American Dream and the American Metropolis. He claims that
the ideas are not a retreat to nostalgia, but a recognition that certain classic urbanism
qualities are timeless and should be incorporated regardless of location or density (p.
16). Symbolic traditional characteristics are thought to integrate an historic context and
contribute to the essential identity of a place. Features include traditional building
56
styles, variation in building facades, front porches, narrow streets, detached garages at
the side or rear of the house, small lots, small front yards, and above-shop apartments.
Emphasis on the public aspects of the environment New urbanism also posits
that truly successful communities have strong public identities. Thus, there should be
considerable shared spaceplazas and green parks; core centers with retail, business,
and civic facilities; streets and walkways; and public transportation access nodes.
Descriptions specify lot sizes, densities, grid-street patterns, tree intervals along the
streets, off-street-parking modes, public plaza sitings, walkway sizes, and spatial
relationships between streets, houses, and greenery. There is an attempt to balance
community spaces that are allocated to housing, commerce, travel, and nature in order
to create a harmony of maximum social interaction and minimal demand on the natural
ecosystem. As the American family has grown more complex and diverse, the suburban
form has grown less accessible and, thus, more demanding on populations and the
environment, according to Cahhorpe (1993). He believes we must combine the utopian
ideal of an integrated and heterogeneous community with the imperatives of ecology,
affordability, equity, and technology for the public good. These goals warrant
systematic evaluation, which so far is limited to a few studies that are described next.
Research Based on New Urbanism Theory
Descriptive studies. One descriptive new urbanism study assessed how
neotraditional communities differ from conventional communities by making
57
observations about community form and circulation patterns (Southworth, 1995). The
sample included two new-urbanism communities which were 3000 miles apart. They
were compared with one older traditional streetcar suburb (in yet a different region)
and with generic conventional suburbs of the late twentieth century. While providing
technical design detail (Le. street-pattem analyses) from three settings, this study had
several limitations. There were unequal comparison group sizes, there were no
sampling criteria and no behavioral measures, and there were no controls for regional
and socioeconomic differences. Southworth concluded that the new urbanism
communities were anti-urban sanitized versions of the small town...rather rigid
architectonic visions that offer instant identity and....lack basic environmental qualities
such as scale, grain, transparency, the relation between buildings and streets, a
connectedness, and access to daily needs (p. 36). For future research, he
recommended studying older traditional communities as proxies for neotraditional
communities, since most incorporate transit and mixed uses, contain walkable and
livable neighborhoods, and have been successful for nearly a century.
Visual preference studies. Another type of descriptive study that incorporates
new urbanism ideas are the visual preference studies. These have helped to gather
public input about community development while informing the public about trends.
After talking with Anton Nelesson of Rutgers University, who has surveyed
populations for local governments across the country to identify community
preferences using photographs, models, and questionnaires, Adler (1995) defined new
58
urbanism in a Newsweek cover story by describing IS ways to fix the suburbs. These
were: (1) give up big lawns; (2) bring back the comer store; (3) make the streets
skinny; (4) drop the cul-de-sac; (5) draw boundaries; (6) hide the garage; (7) mix
housing types; (8) plant trees curbside; (9) put new life into old malls; (10) plan for
mass transit; (11) link world to home; (12) make a town center; (13) shrink parking
lots; (14) turn down the lights; and (15) think green.
Another example of Nelessens work is the Portland, Oregon Visual Preference
Survey (1993). Photos that represented a range of development forms were shown 34
times to over 3,000 adults over a two-month period in 29 metropolitan locations.
Images evoked neighborhoods, main streets, and transit station core areas. Potential
bias was controlled by image-selection criteria such as scale, a typical public view, and
similar weather conditions. The highest-rated neighborhood images featured
streetscapes consisting of Northwest Craftsman homes with short front yard setbacks,
covered porches, rows of shade trees separating the sidewalk and street, and attention
to property care and maintenance. Also prominent were back-yard garages that were
accessed by alleys and allowed the sidewalks to be uninterrupted by driveway openings.
In contrast, the lowest-rated images contained front-yard vehicle access, wide
driveways and streets, highway-style light poles, no sidewalk trees or parkways, and
plain housing without architectural details.
The visual preference surveys have contributed specificity for new urbanism
community planning. They also reflect public interests, thereby lending different
59
perspectives from those of architects, urban planners, and gerontologists. However,
this marketing approach is limited because the samples are voluntary, so the results
only approximate the relative opinion of those willing to participate (A. Nelessen,
1993). Also, it is not possible to interpret the findings based on sample characteristics
other than zip code. Another problem in the Portland study was the large number of
images (240) rated by each individual, which could result in low respondent
discrimination. In addition, the wide photo-rating scale, from -10 to +10, may have
affected reliability.
Observations of market behavior. One way to look at the reaction to new
urbanism is to observe consumer behavior. For instance, Dueker and Bianco (1996)
described two examples of poor market response to such developments. One was a
Portland area new urbanism development, Fairview Village. It consists of high-density
housing plans with a post office, a school, shops, and offices. After several months of
heavy local marketing, only a few houses had sold, and retail response was nil. At
Laguna West, designed by Peter Cahhorpe in the Sacramento area, the original
developer went bankrupt, planned high-density housing was replaced with low density
housing, and when people objected to the centralized transit center, it was moved
outside the development. The only commercial facility was an auto lubrication service
and people resorted to shopping at a nearby strip mall. Although these examples do not
incorporate occupant population perspectives nor behavior, they allow a glimpse of
societal reaction to new urbanism
60
Controlled comparison studies. A few systematic studies based on new
urbanism have explored travel behavior. Handy (1996) compared four older
neighborhoods, two traditional and two modem, in one metropolitan area. She found
that travel patterns were at least partially dependent on the range of mode and
destination choices (Le. number of stores, banks, etc.) that were available to residents.
This led to a conclusion that urban form has greater direct, day-to-day influence on
nonwork trip choices than on work-trip choices. Higher accessibility, in terms of both
short distances and greater variety of potential destinations, was associated with higher
trip frequencies to convenience stores and regional shopping centers and a with greater
number of walking trips to destinations.
Two neighborhood environment studies in Portland, Oregon have also been
influenced by new urbanists claims. One project defined pedestrian access with an
index comprised of street-crossing ease, sidewalk continuity, topography, and cul-de-
sac or gridded street pattern (1,000 Friends of Oregon, 1993). Results showed that
greater pedestrian accessibility decreased the daily household vehicle miles traveled and
the number of car trips. Dueker and Bianco (1996) hypothesize that community
development appears to be moving toward more decentralizationnot concentration,
and that intra-metropolitan trains have changed neither public transit behavior nor land-
use development patterns. The Portland metropolitan light-rail service was used by only
10 percent of suburban commuters in 1980, and in 1990. Buses were used even less,
and this use declined in 1990. Within areas zoned for multifamily housing, development
61
was faster along bus stop routes and arterials than along the light-rail tracks. These
urban planning researchers believe there may be different market segmentsthose who
prefer dense housing, multi-use development, and transit travel, and those who prefer
more spacious housing and single-use communities.
Finally, recent studies in California have looked at two core aspects of new
urbanismpublic transportation access and street design. In one, community
comparisons in two California metropolitan regions explored differences in commuter
behavior between automobile-oriented communities and public-transit-oriented
communities (Cervero & Gorham, 1995). Trip generation, walking, and bicycling
traffic shares were greater in transit neighborhoods in only one metropolitan area. A
surrounding regional circulation pattern may have affected this difference, as well as the
aggregated data and missing variables such as number of workers per household,
according to Crane and Crepeau (1996). In their own study, Crane and Crepeau
surveyed householders who kept travel diaries of non-work trips under 5 miles, and
households were sorted into grid, cul-de-sac, or mixed neighborhoods for comparison.
Except for higher trip speed in cul-de-sac areas, street pattern did not affect car or
pedestrian travel
Limitations of controlled comparison studies of new urbanism These controlled
comparison studies were limited to only one or two aspects of community life: non
work travel work travel pedestrian access, or housing density. There were also
limitations in the measures of urban form, and none measured new urbanism
62
specifically. Crane and Crepeau (1996) referenced five neotradhionar studies that
defined neighborhood in terms of census geography, but not in comprehensive new
urbanism design facets. Using geographic information system techniques, they
improved upon the use of aggregated census tract data by observing the neighborhood
street design within a specified 1/2-mile zone around each household. However, new
urbanism was defined using only one characteristic (street design). Handy (1996)
utilized a more comprehensive measurement of new urbanism by using qualitative new
urbanism descriptions to distinguish traditional and modem neighborhoods. However,
those measures could not be replicated. For greater understanding of the validity and
effects of new urbanism, more reliable and complex measures of new urbanism are
needed.
Study Purposes
This study was influenced by the need to plan for long-term aging in place in
suburban neighborhoods. It was also influenced by the new urbanism community design
framework, which has the potential to significantly and positively influence quality of
life for older residents by meeting their residential area needs as described in the
literature review. These needs include nearby access to grocery and other frequently
utilized facilities, availability of housing options, handy public transit access, nearby
parks, grid-pattem streets, and a system of continuous sidewalks for safe walking.
Environmental planning theorists have called for empirical studies to test the new
63
urbanists claims that village-style communities can yield higher quality lifestyle than
single-function suburban communities can (Audirac & Shermyen, 1994; Hubbard,
1992; Sime, 1986). Also, the review of new urbanism literature revealed that there is a
need for more reliable measurement of new urbanism in future studies to test for the
effect of this framework. After calling several environmental research and new
urbanism experts (R. Bechtel, personal communication, December 12, 1994; P.
Cahhorpe, personal communication, April 14, 1995; and R. Moos, personal
communication, December 16, 1994), h was determined that no instruments had been
developed that would measure new urbanism objectively. The purposes of this study
were (1) to develop and test a new-urbanism rating instrument for use in established
neighborhoods, using standards taken from new urbanism conceptual framework, and
(2) to evaluate the suitability of suburban neighborhoods for older residents.
CHAPTER 3: METHODS
Research Design
Study overview. A comparison-group design with stratified sampling was used
to test the new urbanism framework for relevance to older persons. Senior residents
were surveyed in six census tracts that had been systematically selected from all the
census tracts in two counties. Census-tract selection was based on criteria (described
below) that were chosen to achieve adequate sample size and similarity, as well as a
range of urbanism that typified urban and suburban settings. This part of the process
also served as an initial test for the New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood
Characteristics (Appendix A), an instrument that was used to rate subjects
neighborhoods for objective environmental features based on new urbanism design
descriptions from the literature. Comparison groups were formed based on the ratings.
These consisted of subjects whose neighborhoods were rated as either high (urban-like)
or low (suburban-like) in new urbanism characteristics. Subjective perspectives
including neighborhood environment attitudes, activity, and quality of life were also
incorporated into the design- Analytic methods included correlation, analysis of
variance, factor analysis, and regression analysis.
Hypotheses. The following hypotheses, based on the new urbanism claims, were
tested.
65
1. Women with high new urbanism neighborhoods will have more positive
attitudes about the physical environments of their residential areas than
women with low new urbanism neighborhoods will.
2. Women with high new urbanism neighborhoods will report more
intensive neighborhood activity than women with low new urbanism
neighborhoods wilL
3. When personal characteristics are controlled, new urbanism
neighborhood features will partially explain quality of life variance
among older women.
The remaining sections in this chapter describe selection of the geographic
sample and study setting, the subject sample selection, the measurements (including
instruments and variables), the process for developing the New Urbanism Index of
Neighborhood Characteristics for rating neighborhood environments, and the research
procedures.
Setting and Sample
Setting. The study was conducted in residential areas of Multnomah and
Washington Counties of Oregon, and data collection took place in respondents'
neighborhoods and homes. A description of the area-selection process follows.
Census-tract area selection: Stage I. In order to obtain sampling areas with
neighborhoods that were likely to represent either high or low new-urbanism, and were
66
also similar in socioeconomic characteristics, it was determined that census tracts
would enable comparison. This was possible because there are consistent aggregate
socioeconomic data for each census tract. In addition, census tracts have clear
geographic
borders that enable identification of discrete areas which can be transposed to other
data or mapping systems such as voter records that can be used for resident sampling.
A stratified sample was used in order to assure an adequate sample of both high
and low new urbanism neighborhoods. Also, three high new-urbanism tracts and three
low new-urbanism tracts were selected so that the multiple tracts would serve as
controls within the urban and suburban sets.
The stage I sampling pool consisted of all 224 census tracts in Multnomah and
Washington Counties, located within the Portland Metropolitan Statistical Area
(MSA). These two counties were selected because they contained primarily urban and
suburban, rather than rural, areas.
Census-tract area selection: Stage H The 224 census tracts were rated using
data from the 1990 Census of Population and Housing Characteristics for Census
Tracts and Block Numbering Areas in the Portland, Oregon MSA (U.S. Bureau of the
Census, 1993). The census tract sampling decision data are shown by steps of
elimination in Appendix B. Six criteria were used to rate each tract. All tracts that met
the first criterion were retained, then, of those, all tracts that met the second criterion
67
were retained, and so on. This resulted in the selection of 15 census tracts. Table II
displays the tract-selection criteria and the number of tracts retained in each step.
Census-tract area selection: Stage HI. The 15 census tracts were then assessed
for community form and environmental characteristics in order to select the six
geographic sampling areas. The process consisted of marking a center point on each
targeted census-tract map in The Thomas Guide (1993). These center-point blocks and
their 1/4-mile radial areas were rated with the New Urbanism Index, which is described
Table H
Steps in the Census-tract Selection Process
Step Criteria Number of Tracts
Retained, N = 224
1 1989 per capita income within $12,000 to $17,999 104
2 At least 150 females over age 75+ 45
3 At least 70% owner-occupied housing units among
householders age 65+, n > 200
19
4 Density = all persons/(square miles x 640 acres) <
1.0/acre
18
5 At least 150 householders age 65+ living alone 15
later in this chapter. Index rating scores, which are a sum of the items, ranged from 79
to 44 for this sampling stage.
From this set of scores, three high-scoring tracts, representing urban or
traditional neighborhoods, and three low-scoring tracts, representing suburban or
68
modem neighborhoods were chosen as the sampling areas. The selection decision was
based on highest and lowest total scores plus observation of the area to determine if it
fit with the concept of urban or suburban community. One of the lowest tracts (92.01)
was not selected after observing the area, because it was somewhat rural in character
and most older female voters listed for this tract lived at the same multi-unit address.
Distribution of the selected tracts across the Portland metropolitan area are displayed in
Figure 1. Five tracts were in Multnomah County and one (314.01) was in Washington
County. The urban tracts were 1, 12.02, and 17.01; the suburban tracts were 93. 94.
and 314.01.
Description of Sampling Census Tracts
Table III displays sampling-tract population and housing indicators derived
from census data and county assessment data. All the tracts have high senior-
population rates, and census tract (CT) 94 has the highest rate due to a planned
retirement community in the area. Recent growth in the aging female population is
apparent in suburban CTs 93 and 94, while some loss has occurred in two of the urban
tracts. The urban tracts have smaller lot sizes, higher net population, higher net housing
density for both single-family and multi-family types of dwellings, and older housing,
and they are nearer to the city center. Historically, the urban tracts were early streetcar
communities, while the suburban tracts were post-World War II automobile
communities.
H
y
i
u
e

I
.

C
e
n
s
u
s

T
r
a
c
i
s

S
a
n
i
|
i
l
c
d

in

t
h
e

P
o
r
t
l
a
n
d

M
e
t
r
o
p
o
l
i
t
a
n

A
r
e
a
o
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Table ffl
1990 Census-tract Population and Housing Characteristics
Census Tracts
Urban Suburban
1 12.02 17.01 93 94 314.01
Population 5,563 3,245 6,434 6,926 6,186 9,895
Net population density (N/acre allocated to lots) 19.7 25.8 24.4 12.2 12.0 13.7
Aging density: 1990 all 65+ in total population (%) 13.1% 16.1% 16.5% 14.6% 22.0% 11.2%
Female population age 75+ 234 164 426 249 218 225
Aging density: 1990 females 75+ in total population (%) 4.2% 5.0% 6.6% 3.6% 3.5% 2.3%
Difference in females 75+/total population, 1990-1980 (%) 10% -30% -20% 180% 210% 100%
Per capita income (K) $17.9 $15.0 $12.0 $12.2 $17.4 $14.7
Average lot size (square feet) 4,648 4,929 4,906 11,454 7,687 8,925
Net single-family housing density (units/acre) 6.6 7.7 6.9 3.2 4.7 4.6
Net multi-family housing density (units/acre) 1.3 0.7 0.8 0.2 0.2 0.0
Modal dwelling age (years) >57 >57 >57 37-46 37-46 27-36
Distance to city center (miles) 3.2 1.6 4.0 8.4 8.4 6.2
71
Following are the sample census-tract descriptions and color maps. These
display street patterns, lots, single- and multi-family dwellings, commercial/industrial
land use, schools, parks, and supermarkets and are in the same scale for comparison.
Census Tract 1. Sellwood and the western section of Westmoreland, between
the Willamette River and a north-south arterial street, contains two busy junctions that
have become nodes of retail, civic, and service activity for residents as well as tourists.
Housing is mixed with large traditional homes as well as bungalows, duplexes and
apartments, and there are sidewalks and some older street trees throughout the area.
Green spaces line the river edge. These include a large mature park and recreational
area adjacent to homes and, below a bluf a wildlife preservation area and historic park
and entertainment center. This community has a strong identity because of the well
known commercial section of antique shops. It is fairly self-contained with the river as
a natural boundary, and a major arterial street as another boundary.
Figure 2.
Census Tract 1: Sellwood and Westmoreland
i
I I I H H I I f T I f f E
mmmtms
MmMBnF,Hutli|>|"|gTnTTnrnmwcg
m r o i m r n w B w i i g i f f i r n f rtlltfil m=
Grocery Stores
I 1Multi-Family Residential
Schools
Parks
Commercial/Industrial
I I Single Family Residential & Others
Census Tract: Sellwood
u m m m
i o s i h
D i i n n m m i i i i n r w m t i
mEBrntmmBBgng
^9DBE95QSBBnni! SHED
m i n i _
r a i n
0.91 Miles
^ v g i a n w i g i g
f * 0.91 Miles
73
Census Tract 12.02. The least populated tract includes the section consisting of
East Ladds Addition and Colonial Heights. Also fairly close to the river, Ladds
Addition was an early planned community with an unusual diagonal and circular street
pattern that directs traffic flow toward center gardens. This creates a feeling of
enclosure which is augmented by streets lined with huge trees and densely built large
and medium-size traditional homes with small front yards. The section to the east of
Ladds Addition has a grid-street pattern and is bounded on the north and south by
east-west commercial streets allocated primarily to commercial land use with small
businesses. This section also has interesting older homes, sidewalks, and some street
trees.
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
I
1 Figure 3.
' Census Tract 12.02: Ladd's Addition and Colonial Heights
Grocery Stores
Multi-Family Residential
Schools
Parks
Single-Family Residential &. Others
Census Tract: Colmial Heights
4
1" = 0.91 Miles
Census Tract 17.01. The third urban census tract has no particular identity,
although one respondent provided early documents showing the plat map and 1908
deed for Jonesmore in the center. Its unique street pattern allows north-south
continuous traffic flow, but east-west traffic flow in the residential blocks requires
frequent turns. This street plan was apparently intended for noise and safety control.
The census tract is almost entirely residential, bounded by a highway barrier on the
north and a major commercial street to the east. One east-west commercial street does
have continuous, and heavy, traffic flow across the tract center. There are scattered
businesses such as a bank, small grocery stores, and a few churches. The area has small
single-family homes and a few apartment complexes. There are no parks or green
spaces, and some streets are unpaved and have no sidewalks.
Figure 4.
Census Tract 17.01: East of Montavilla
a
s
I
I
m
m
s i
BBIBS
[Grocery Stores
| Multi-Family Residential
S B Schools
Parks
I Commercial/Industrial
I 1Single-Family Residential & Others
Census Tract: West Montavilla
092 0 8 2 M i l a
r = 0.91 Miles
Census Tract 93. South Glendoveer is an East Portland tract that is dominated
by the large Glendoveer Golf Course. This feature provides public recreation, and its
facilities, including the restaurant and coffee shop, function as a center of social
activity. Except for the Menlo Park Shopping Center, which includes a large grocery
store and a restaurant, there are few other commercial and service sites along the
arterial streets and boundaries. The southern border street includes the light-rail public
train and a few access stations. Pedestrian sidewalks are almost non-existent
throughout the area.
Census Tract 94. Tract 94, directly north of CT 93, is almost exclusively
residential This tract has an older population, with a median age of 54, and most
homes are owner-occupied. It is bounded by a highway and three arterial streets, none
of which have much commercial enterprise. In one comer of this large area, there is a
shopping center with a house-repair supply store and a fast-food restaurant, but there
is no grocery store. However, there are nearby supermarkets outside the tract
boundaries. Within the tract, there are three schools, two small parks, and a few
churches. There is only one east-west non-commercial through street and the north-
south streets are widely spaced. At the east end of the tract is Summerfield, a relatively
new semi-walled community for senior citizens. This area has closely built single-family
houses, a few condominiums, a clubhouse, and the only sidewalks in the tract. Access
to the area is open.
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Figure 6.
Census Tract 94: North Glendoveer
111 i i a i i t m i n i ------- -
:: miiimimirr<lu>>|>|j)rM
- - i i i t i i 1 1 i i 111 j f f f j
I I I l l l l l l l f l l l l l nl'mm
m Grocery Stores
| | Multi-Family Residential
m Schools
m H Parks
I | Single Family Residential & Others
I I Census Tract: North Glendoveer
Census Tract 314.01. Cedar Hills, the third suburban area, is characterized by
curving street patterns, widely spaced streets, and medium density housing. It is the
most populated tract, with nearly 10,000 residents. Most homes are single-family
dwellings and about two thirds are owner-occupied. A large park with a small lake and
water fowl occupies the center of the tract, and there are three other small parks at the
edges. Most streets have sidewalks, and some have parkways lined with trees. There
are no grocery stores within the area and there is a limited commercial space in one
comer. An important integrating factor in this community is the Home Owners
Association, which ensures that zoning codes are enforced.
Figure 7.
Census Tract 314.01: Cedar Hills
m Grocery Stores
I | Multi-Family Residential
m Schools
m Parks
m Commercial/Industrial
I | Single-Family Residential & Others
Census T r a c t: Cedar Hills
83
Subjects and Sampling
Subjects. From each census tract, women age 70 and older who lived alone in
houses and had available telephone numbers were selected as subjects for this study.
Female subjects were selected because they are more prevalent than men in the oldest
age groups of the population. The age range was purposive, because this is the
population of interest for the research problem. Although persons over 80 were
considered more vulnerable in terms of ability to remain in the community, it was
necessary to sample younger old persons (ages 70 to 79) to ensure adequate sample
sizes. House dwellers, rather than a mix of house and apartment or duplex dwellers,
were selected to improve statistical power and minimize the number of regression
model items. Houses were the dwelling choice because they are thought to cause
property-management challenges that may influence ability to age in place. Residents
who lived alone were chosen because of the possibility that they may be more
dependent on the community than residents with domestic partners. Home telephones
were necessary for contacting potential respondents.
Sampling sources and process. The subject sampling sources included voter
precinct lists, reverse telephone lists, and commercial telephone-survey lists. The first
step was to match census-tract boundaries with purchased precinct voter lists from the
Elections Board offices in Multnomah and Washington Counties. The sampling process
began by screening the electronic precinct lists, which contained anywhere from 2,500
to 7,500 registered voter names per census tract. All addresses with two or more voters
84
were deleted, as were addresses that appeared to be apartments and male names. When
a name could not be identified by gender, it was eliminated. Telephone numbers were
then identified from primary or secondary sources. The resulting lists were the primary
sampling source. Three secondary sources were used to validate names or search for
missing telephone numbers. They were the Portland White Papes (US West Direct,
1995), Coles 1995 Cross Reference Directory (available in the public library), which
lists telephone numbers by address and census tract, and five census-tract lists of senior
citizen names, addresses, and telephone numbers purchased from Survey Sampling,
Inc. This Fairfield, Connecticut company sells telephone survey sampling lists (K. Price,
personal communication, December 21, 1995) that derive from a randomly generated
database that is updated twice a year from telephone, motor vehicle, and voter
databases.
Sample recruitment. Over a period of six months, in the spring and summer of
1996, an introductory letter (Appendix C) was sent to all women who met the sampling
criteria. Within a week, those women were telephoned to invite participation in the
study. Nearly all calls were made during the day. For most of the recruitment period,
the telephone approach was to briefly describe the study, answer questions, and
attempt to establish trust before asking if the resident would be willing to participate by
agreeing to a brief home visit for the purpose of delivering and explaining the
questionnaires. This solicitation method was later modified to screen by asking if they
met all the criteria of living alone, being at least 70 years old, and living in a house.
85
Thus, the person could answer "no without divulging which criteria she did not meet.
Since so many women expressed anxiety about security, this strategy was more
expedient and comfortable for both the investigator and the residents. If a resident were
willing to participate, but did not want to have a home visit, the survey instruments
were mailed with a cover letter (Appendix C) and stamped return envelope.
Eligibility screening and participation rates. Among those eligible, 147 (40%)
agreed to participate: 118 by visit and 29 by mail. Table IV displays, for each census
tract, the population size, the number and percent eligible for the study and the number
and percent willing to participate. There were 529 women voters age 70 and older, and
152 with unknown birth dates who lived alone, for a total of 681 potential subjects in
the six tracts. Letters were mailed to 488 potential subjects, and 451 (92%) were
reached by telephone. Of these, 372 (82%) were eligible because they met the study
criteria. Table V shows the reasons why potential subjects were ineligible.
Among those eligible, younger women were more willing to participate than
older women. From those with birth dates listed on the voter records the participation
willingness rate for the eligible old old (aged 85 and older) was 28 percent, and for the
young old (aged 84 and younger) it was 42 percent. Suburban women were slightly
more willing to participate (43%) than urban women (36%).
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Table IV
Participation and Response By Census Tract
Census Tract Total
1 12.02 17.01 93 94 314.01
Sample n % n % n % n % n % n % n %
Female, one voter/address with
phone number, precinct birthdate:
Age 70+ 60 32 88 75 163 111 529 78
No birthdate listed 32 20 35 15 50 0 152 22
Total 92 100 52 100 123 100 90 100 213 100 111 100 681 100
Participation
Received letter, met criteria 63 68 42 81 88 72 66 73 46 22 67 60 372 55
Of these: Willing 25 40 20 48 24 32 29 44 22 48 26 39 147 40
Declined 38 60 22 52 64 68 37 56 24 52 41 61 225 60
Mail Response
Total surveyed by mail 4 16 1 5 6 25 10 34 5 22 3 12 29 20
Returned complete 2 50 0 0 5 83 5 50 4 80 3 100 19 66
Did not return or incomplete 2 50 1 100 1 17 5 50 1 20 0 0 10 34
Home Visit Response
Total surveyed by home visit 21 84 19 95 18 75 19 66 18 78 23 88 118 80
Returned complete 18 86 19 100 18 100 19 100 18 100 22 96 114 97
Did not return or incomplete 3 14 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 4 4 3
Total completed returns 20 80 19 95 23 96 24 83 22 96 25 96 133 90
Table V
Reasons Why Potential Subjects Were Ineligible
Census Tract Total
1 12.02 17.01 93 94 314.01
Lives with others 6 2 10 5 2 2 27
Lives in attached housing 7 2 10 7 0 0 26
Did not answer telephone 8 1 3 2 4 5 23
Telephone disconnected 3 2 4 0 1 2 12
< Age 70 1 1 1 3 1 0 7
Incoherent,unable to concentrate 3 0 0 2 0 1 6
In a care center or foster home 0 0 2 3 1 0 6
Died 0 0 1 1 1 0 3
Moved 0 1 2 0 0 0 3
Wrong telephone number 1 0 1 0 0 0
2
Non-English speaking 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Total Ineligible 29 10 34 23 10 10 116
88
Measurement
Instruments
This section describes the study measurement tools. Subjects were given a
respondent packet which contained three instruments: the Neighborhood Resident
Survey; the Quality of Life Index (QLI); and the Dartmouth COOP Functional Health
Charts. The survey and chart instruments are in Appendix D, along with a letter from
the QLI author, Carol Ferrans. These tools are described by their order in the packet
given to subjects.
Development of the New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics
(Appendix A), which was used by the investigator to rate each subjects neighborhood,
is also described in this chapter. The process occurred in several steps and was
integrated with the sampling process, hi this chapter, instrument-testing results are
described for each stage of the process prior to final testing with the study sample (n =
133). The final testing results are reported in Chapter 4.
Neighborhood Resident Survey
Description. The first instrument in the packet was a four-page questionnaire
developed for this study to assess subjects behavior and attitudes about their
neighborhood. The tool also contained questions about personal and socioeconomic
characteristics. Items were developed from the literature review and from collaboration
with colleagues. Each section of the tool includes directions. The introduction explains
89
that the survey purpose was to learn about the Irving arrangements and needs of older
people. The instrument was tested on three older women outside the study areas, and
no changes were required after this pre-test.
The first two pages contain questions about the subjects housing and purpose
for moving to the neighborhood, as well as sections for rating first the importance and
then the quality of 12 neighborhood characteristics associated with new urbanism. The
ratings use Likert-type response scales that range from (5) very important to (1) not at
all important, and from (5) very good to (1) very poor. Other items are a general
neighborhood livability rating, an opportunity to recommend neighborhood
improvements, and a short section on the importance of some neighborhood features
for a future home. Page three contains questions about moving plans; about the use.
distance, and method of accessing nine types of services typically used by older women;
and about various recreational reasons for walking within the neighborhood. The last
page addresses walking frequency and endurance, driving pattern, and demographic
characteristics.
Quality of Life Index
Conceptual basis. The second instrument in the packet was the Quality of Life
Index, developed by Ferrans and Powers (1985). They defined quality of life as. a
person's sense of well-being that stems from satisfaction or dissatisfaction with the
areas of life that are important to him or her (Ferrans & Powers, 1992, p. 29). This
90
meaning reflects a cognitive, judgmental experience regarding personal values, which
vary in their impact on quality of life. The instrument was developed because quality of
life has become a major planning concern for implementing therapeutic health
programs, and existing global measures did not provide information about specific
aspects that could be improved among healthy persons, as well as those who have
various illnesses. The QLI measures subjective satisfaction with multiple life domains
and the importance of those domains to the subject.
Validity. The instrument has had considerable validity testing. Content validity
was derived from literature review (dimensions and sources cited in Ferrans & Powers.
1985) and from reports of patients regarding the effects of the hemodialysis procedure
on quality of life. Criterion validity was tested by correlating QLI scores and overall life
satisfaction scores in three samples (Ferrans & Powers, 1985, 1992): graduate nursing
students (n = 88), r = 0.75; dialysis patients (n = 69), r = 0.65, and breast cancer
patients (n = 111), r = 0.80. These scores demonstrated a high amount of overlap and
supported the QLI validity.
Construct validity was established by factor analysis of responses from 349
hemodialysis subjects (Ferrans & Powers, 1992). This yielded four primary factors: (I)
health and functioning, 12 items; (II) socioeconomic, 9 items; (III)
psychological/spiritual, 7 items; and (IV) family, 4 items; and one higher order factor.
The QLI items which correlated most strongly with the higher order factor were
satisfaction with life (r = 0.78) and happiness in general (r = 0.78). Correlations
91
between QLI weighted items and the life satisfaction hem were similar to correlations
between QLI weighted hems and the higher order factor, which represented quality of
life. This finding corroborated earlier evidence (Campbell et aL, 1976) that quality of
life and life satisfaction were similar constructs.
Construct validity was also tested by contrasting known groups. When low-
income subjects were compared with higher income subjects, a significant difference in
mean subscale and overall scores was found only for the social and economic subscale
(Ferrans & Powers, 1992). In another sample, breast cancer patients (// = III) who
had less pain, less depression, or who were coping better with stress had significantly
higher mean QLI scores and psychological/spiritual subscale scores (Ferrans, 1990).
Reliability. Test-retest reliability was tested with a two-week interval (graduate
students, n = 69, r = 0.87) and a one-month interval (dialysis patients, // = 20, r = 0.81)
(Ferrans & Powers, 1985). Internal consistency of the overall QLI has been reported
(Ferrans, 1990; Ferrans & Powers, 1985, 1992; Zacharias, Gilg & Foxall, 1994) as
shown in Table VI. These Cronbachs alphas were sufficiently high to demonstrate that
the inter-item correlation among weighted items had little attenuation due to random
measurement error. Sufficiently high Cronbachs alphas were also reported for the QLI
subscales in three samples, as shown in Table VII (Ferrans & Powers, 1992; Zacharias
et aL, 1994).
To determine whether the QLI was suitable for the present study, the correlates
of well-being and life satisfaction in previous residential area research (Table VIII)
92
Table VI
Quality of Life Index Internal Consistency Results
Sample n Alpha
Graduate students 88 0.93
Dialysis patients 37 0.90
Dialysis patients 349 0.93
Gynecology cancer patients 44 0.94
Gynecology cancer patients 44 0.93
Breast cancer patients 111 0.95
Table VH
Quality of Life Index Subscale Internal Consistency Results
Subscale Range of Alpha Scores
Health and functioning 0.93 - 0.87
Socioeconomic 0.83 - 0.80
Psychological/spiritual 0.92 - 0.87
Family 0.80 - 0.65
were mapped to underlying dimensions (subscales) of the QLI (Table EX). It was
possible to cluster the well-being indicators into the same groupings as the QLI
subscales. For this and other reasons, the Quality of Life Index was selected for the
study. Its roots were life satisfaction and well-being research (Campbell et aL, 1976, for
93
Table VIII
Correlates of Well-Being in the Elderly
Investigator Indicators
Carp & Christensen (1986b) contentment
no depression
Chapman & Beaudet (1983) apartment living
area age concentration
area social status
block age concentration
distance to city center
distance to services
life satisfaction
low crime rate
neighborhood interaction
neighborhood quality
neighborhood satisfaction
social contact
Fengler & Danigelis (1982) availability of someone for care
community participation
financial satisfaction
home ownership
living with others
perceived health
physical capacity
short time lived in community
transportation adequacy
urban residence (>6,000 population density)
Golant (1985) control over own life
dominant personality
enough money for wanted things
favorable health rating, especially vision
housing expenses not a burden
interest in historical aspects of the environment
low concern for having enough money
married
not annoyed with appliance breakdowns
not bored in dwelling
not lonely
often think about memories of personal things
often had good times in the community
satisfied with community stores & shopping facilities
Krause ( 1993) no social isolation
no neighborhood deterioration
female
94
Table Vm
Correlates of Well-Being in the Elderly
Investigator Indicators
Lawton & Nahemow(1979) activity participation
Lawton, Nahemow& Yeh (1980) activity participation
contact with relatives
friendship behavior
morale
motility
resources (shopping, medical, enrichment)
Lindberg (1992) living in central location
Reitzes, Mutran & Pope (1991) suburban living area
Scarbrough (1991) health
income
social network
Windley & Scheldt (1982) age
community involvement
community satisfaction
95
Table IX
Well-being Correlates Mapped to Quality of Life Index Dimensions
Well-Being Factors Quality of Life Index Factors
age
Factor I Health and Functioning
ability to meet family responsibilities
activity participation ability to travel on vacations
favorable health rating, esp vision health care
health leisure time activities
physical capacity own health
perceived health physical independence
apartment living
potential for happy old age/retirement
potential for long life
sex life
stress of worries
usefulness to others
Factor II Socioeconomic
education
appliance satisfaction emotional support from others
area/block age concentration financial independence
area social status friends
availability of someone for care home (furniture, house/apartment)
community involvement/participation/good times job/unemployment
contact with relatives neighborhood
crime rate overall conditions in USA
distance to city center standard of living
distance to services time lived in community
few transportation problems
friendship behavior
financial satisfaction
having enough time for wanted things
having enough money
home ownership
income
living in central location
motility
neighborhood/community satisfaction
neighborhood deterioration
neighborhood interaction
resources (shopping, medical, enrichment)
social contact/isolation
social network
stores/shopping facilities
urban/suburban residence
96
Table IX
Well-being Correlates Mapped to Quality of Life Index Dimensions
Well-Being Factors Quality of Life Index Factors
Factor III Psvcholoeical/Soiritual
contentment achievement of personal goals
control over own life happiness in general
depression peace of mind
dominant personality personal appearance
interest in historical aspects of environment personal faith in God
life satisfaction satisfaction with life
morale satisfaction with self in general
not bored in dwelling
not lonely
often think about memories of personal things
Factor IV Family
living with others children
married
family's happiness
familys health
relationship w/ spouse/significant other
97
example); it is a comprehensive and practical extension of well-being, a major focus in
aging and environment research; and it measures satisfaction with specific life domains
according to how the individual values that aspect of his or her life.
To determine whether the QLI was appropriate for use with older subjects, the
issue was discussed with Carol Ferrans (personal communication, November 9, 1994).
She described two unpublished studies which incorporated older subjects. One was a
mail survey she had conducted among older persons in the community, and she stated
that both return- and item-response rates were similar to rates achieved with younger
populations. Kleinpell (1991) included a population of patients admitted to intensive
care units in three age groups: 45 to 64 years, 65 to 79 years, and 80 years and older.
Sixty-four percent agreed to participate, and of these, 52 percent returned completed
questionnaires.
Instrument description and directions. The QLI, which takes about 15 minutes
to complete, asks respondents to first rate their satisfaction with 34 domains of life
(listed on Table IX) and then to rate the importance of those same domains Subjects
respond to the items on Likert-type scales that range in Part I from (6) very satisfied to
(1) very dissatisfied, and in Part II from (6) very important (1) to very unimportant.
During the study orientation, in person or by telephone and letter, subjects were
coached to complete all four pages, and the difference between the sections on
satisfaction and importance was emphasized. They were also advised that there were no
right or wrong answers, and that they should answer all items that applied to them
98
Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Charts
The third instrument was the set of nine Dartmouth COOP Functional Health
Charts (Nelson et aL, 1987; Wasson et aL, 1992), developed by the Dartmouth COOP
Project for use in medical offices to assess patients health status. Extensive reliability
and validity testing have been conducted in several settings on a combined total of
more than 2,000 medical-office patients (Nelson et aL, 1987; Nelson, Landgra Hays,
Wasson, & Kirk, 1990). The highlights are as follows.
Reliability. Reliability of the charts when administered in different practices by
different clinical staff to the same patients resulted in an average correlation of r = 0.77
with a range from 0.50 to 0.98 (Nelson et aL, 1990). Test-retest reliability at one hour
among elderly patients ranged from r = 0.78 to 0.98, and from 0.73 to 0.98 with low-
income patients. After two weeks, correlations ranged from r = 0.50 to 0.98. In
another study with a split-half design among primarily middle-aged females,
illustrations did not affect responses to the charts (Larson, Hays & Nelson, 1992).
When the internal consistency of eight COOP Charts (excluding Change in Health) was
tested among 153 elderly subjects, Cronbachs alpha = 0.78 (Siu et aL, 1993).
Validity. Comparative measures used to test validity were relevant Rand scales,
which are standard measures of health status for adults (Ware et aL, 1985, cited in
Nelson et aL, 1990). The average convergent validity correlation in chronic disease
patients (n = 1,007) was r = 0.62, and in elderly males (n = 231) r = 0.64, indicating
reasonably good agreement between different measures of the same dimension. The
99
average off-diagonal correlations were r = 0.39 and 0.32, supporting the discriminant
validity of the measures. Construct validity was tested by comparing the amount of
explained variance attributed to 16 chronic diseases (independent variables) in paired
regression analyses that utilized COOP and Rand measures. Except for emotional
status, the R2 values were similar for each dimension. For example, in physical function,
the COOP hf - 0.30 and the Rand R2= 0.27; in role function, the COOP R1= 0.23 and
the Rand i?2= 0.26. However, there was a wide difference in emotional status (COOP
R2= 0.29, Rand R2 = 0.52). In another study, when compared with the Rand Mental
Health Inventory, the single-item COOP Chart of Feelings could correctly predict
depression in two-thirds or more of the patients (McHomey, Ware, Rogers, Raczek &
Lu, 1992; Wasson et aL, 1992). Finally, among older persons (M = 84 years),
responses from seven COOP Charts were similar to other self-report measures and to
performance measures in persons with normal to mildly impaired cognitive function
(Shx et aL, 1993).
Description and directions. The set of charts, which takes 2 to 5 minutes to
complete, includes ratings for physical fitness, feelings, daily activities, social activities,
pain, change in health, overall health, social support, and quality of life. Each one-page
chart consists of a nontechnical title, a question referring to the past four weeks, and
five response choices. Response choices are illustrated with drawings that graphically
represent equivalent levels of a five-point ordinal scale. Score values were reversed for
analyses.
100
During the orientation, subjects were shown each chart, they were told to circle
one answer (number) that represented themselves, and their questions were answered.
The first chart, Physical Fitness, seemed most confusing, since it contained cues for
both mobility and strength. Questionnaires that were mailed had hand-written
directions to circle one answer over the column of numbers on the first chart.
New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics
Development of the New IJrhanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics for
rating observed environmental characteristics within existing neighborhoods occurred
in steps as follows.
Step one: Content validation: literature review. Content analysis of the new
urbanism literature (Appendix E) was accomplished by quoting descriptors directly
from architectural and urban planning authors (A. Nelessen Associates, 1993; Bressi,
1994; Audirac & Shermyen, 1994; Cahhorpe, 1994; 1993; Duany & Plater-Zyberk,
1994, 1993; Moule & Polyzoides, 1994; Scully, 1994; Southworth, 1995). Another
valuable content source was the May 15, 1995, Newsweek cover story on the subject.
The various quotations were sorted into three sections: streets and circulation;
dwelling units and lots; and neighborhood core. These were then synthesized into
themes that were sorted into items which could be observed and rated.
Step two: Content validation: professional opinion. Validation was also
accomplished by expert review. Two City of Portland urban planners were asked to
101
rate each proposed item for measurement suitability and construct salience (see item
lists and letters in Appendix E). In individual follow-up meetings, they provided their
perspectives. Their chief concerns pertained to the difficulty of measuring existing
communities for a concept that was originally applied to the generation of new
communities. After these meetings, some items were revised.
Step three: Item formatting Neighborhood observation tools developed for
territoriality research (Douglas Perkins, personal communication, December 19, 1994)
served as structural examples for the instrument. The items were formatted with
descriptive rating scales of 3 (high), 2 (medium), and 1 (low). Half the items measured
the face-block, or set of buildings across from each other on one city block (Taylor,
1988; Perkins, Wandersman, Rich, & Taylor, 1993). The rest of the items measured the
neighborhood within an approximate quarter-mile (1,320 feet) radius from the home.
This represented a smaller pedestrian walking community than the 2,000 feet radial
distance recommended by Calthorpe (1993, p. 59). However, the quarter-mile size was
considered feasible for measurement purposes.
Step four: Pre-testing. Next, the preliminary instrument was pre-tested and
evaluated for inter-rater reliability. The method for sampling the neighborhoods at this
stage, as described earlier (Census Tract Area Selection: Stage m), was to select a
center address in each of the census tracts.
On the first day, the investigator and one partner, a doctoral student and a nurse
with community network leadership experience, independently rated three addresses,
102
using the preliminary instrument. Scoring ranged from 3 to 1, as above, except when
the item was considered not applicable, and then it was scored as 0. Thus, a 4-point
scale was used for some items. At this stage, the instrument had 33 items. Of a possible
99 paired ratings, 91 were completed. The agreement rate was 80 percent. After this,
28 item descriptors were slightly modified, one descriptor was split into two items, two
items were dropped, and two items were not changed. This resulted in 32 items in
Version 2.
On the second day, the investigator and another partner, an environmental
psychologist and advisor to the investigator, rated another three addresses. By this
time, a calibrated wheel to measure street width and length had been acquired.
Therefore, all items were measured in this round, resulting in 96 paired ratings. The
agreement was 93 percent. Afterward, the house-facade and house-style descriptors
were revised.
Step five: Pilot testing. In the pilot-test phase, the revised instrument was re
applied to two census tracts from the Day 1 pre-test, two census tracts from the Day 2
pre-test, and an additional 14 census tracts, for a total of 18 areas. Fifteen tracts were
in the 1989 per capita income range of $12,000 - $17,999 and the other three tracts
had slightly lower per capita income. The New Urbanism pilot-test item ratings are in
Appendix F and the item-rating frequencies are shown in Table X.
After this analysis, four items were eliminated for the following reasons. Two
items (street-light poles were pedestrian scale, and arterial streets have landscaped
103
Table X
New Urbanism Pilot-test Rating Frequencies (Ar= 18 Census-tract Core Areas)
Item 0 1
Rating
2 3 Deleted
I Block is small (street length) 0 14 2
2
2 Street interconnects with other streets 0 1 3 13
3 Intersections have right-angle comers 0 2 1 15
4 Street width is narrow 0 0 6 12
5 Street-light poles are pedestrian scale 0
2
16 0 X
6 Street has sidewalks 0 J 3 12
7 Street has planted strips along walkways 0 5 3 10
8 Streets have trees at regular intervals 0 15 3 0
9 Front yards are small 0 16 1 1
10 Residences have front porches 0 12 3 3
11 Residential garages are not in front 0 6 6 6
12 There are garage apartments 0 17 1 0
13 Residential facades vary 0 3 4 11
14 Residential designs are traditional 0 10 1 7
15 Street is interesting' visibility 0 0 1 16
16 Street is interesting landscaping 0 7 9
2
X
17 There is a centralized area of retail/civic buildings 0 10 7 1
18 There are convenient stores 0 6 9 3
19 Neighborhood has mixed uses 0 1 13 4
20 Buildings have architectural distinction & cohesion 8 6
2 2
21 Buildings have minimal setback from street 9 2 5 2
22 Commercial streets have curbside parking 9
2
0 7
23 Off-street parking is away from sidewalks 10 4 4 0
24 A green open space provides neighborhood focus 0 3 9 6
25 There are greenbelt areas at neighborhood edges 0 12 1 5 X
26 Housing types vary across the neighborhood 0 4 3 11
27 Streets form a rectilinear grid pattern 0 1 8 9
28 Arterial streets have landscaped medians 0 18 0 0 X
104
Table X
New Urbanism Mot-test Rating Frequencies (N= 18 Census-tract Core Areas)
Item 0 1
Rating
2 3 Deleted
29 There are mid-block alleys 0 15 3 0
30 Transit stops are convenient 0 4 5 9
31 Neighborhood streets have sidewalks 0 2 4 12
32 Street trees provide overhead shade 0 8 9 1
medians) had poor frequency distribution, largely because the light poles are standard
heights throughout metropolitan Portland, and the area has virtually no landscaped
street medians. Two items (street landscaping is interesting to pedestrians and greenbeh
areas at neighborhood edges) were dropped because agreement was not reached in
either reliability test. One item was added to address residential-style consistency,
which had been inadvertently omitted earlier. This left 29 items. Of these, three had
poor distribution in the pilot test, but they were retained because conceptually they are
important features of new urbanism Those items were: small front yards, garage
apartments, interesting streets with visible lots. Thus, the final instrument contained 29
items, and Cronbachs alpha with those items (n = 18) was a = 0.88.
Step six: Final revisions. For the final instrument, modifications were made in
scoring, in the descriptors, and in the formatting. The rating scale was changed from 4
105
points to 3 points, e.g. if the hem was not applicable, h was scored as 1 (instead of
0). This change was made to assure better reliability by using the same scale for all
hems, rather than using 3 points for some and 4 points for others. The hem order was
changed and descriptors were refined on three face-block hems and seven
neighborhood hems. The rating section was formatted into one page, and the
descriptors were formatted into two separate pages and encased in plastic for
portability.
Step seven: Testing the study sample. Finally, the instrument was used to rate
the neighborhoods of 133 subjects selected purposively from urban and suburban
census tracts. The results of this phase will be described along with other findings in
Chapter 4.
Variables and Their Measures
Independent and dependent variables. Figure 8. displays the independent and
dependent variables utilized in this study. The independent variables were personal
characteristics, residential area socio-economic characteristics, and residential area new
urbanism characteristics. The dependent variables were attitudes about aspects of new
urbanism, activity within the neighborhood, and perceived quality of life. The variables
and their measures are described next.
Figure 8.
Predictive Model of Neighborhood New Urbanism Characteristics on Neighborhood
Environment Attitudes, Neighborhood Activity, and Quality of Life
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Personal Characteristics (Controls)
Age
Education
Income
Occupational Status
Functional Health
Social Support
Walking and Driving Abilities
Dwelling Age
Dwelling Tenure
Home Ownership
Residential Area Socioeconomic Characteristics
1990 Population Density
1990 Aging Density
1989 Per Capita Income
1990 Housing Density
Distance to City Center
Residential Area New Urbanism Characteristics
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Attitudes About Neighborhood Environment
New Urbanism Features Importance x Quality
Neighborhood Livability
Neighborhood Importance x Satisfaction
Recommended Improvements
Future Neighborhood Needs & Moving Plans
Activity Within the Neighborhood
Services Used
Walking Activities and Frequency
Driving Activity
Oualitv of Life
107
Independent Variables
Personal Characteristics
Age. Age was defined in this study as the subjects age in years at the time of
data collection, based on month and year of birth.
Sex. Sex was limited to female gender for this study, and was controlled by
sampling to minimize the number of variables entered into the predictive models.
Education. Amount of education was the number of years of school completed.
In a couple of cases, the subject described the type of education such as beauty
school, or the number of masters degrees, rather than providing the number of years.
Education years were estimated in these situations.
Marital status. Marital status was coded as either married, widowed, never
married, or separated/divorced.
Income. Income was defined as 1994 household income range. Subjects
indicated their income on a scale from 1 (under $10,000 per year) to 4 (over $30,000
per year).
Occupational status. In a limited-space open-ended question, respondents
described the type of work they had done during pre-retirement, or were doing
currently. The statements were sorted into Hollingsheads (1967) occupational status
scale, which was part of his Two Factor Index of Social Position. The scale ranks
professions into different groups and business by their size and value. The categories
108
range from 7 (higher executives of large concerns, proprietors, and major
professionals) to 1(unskilled employees).
Functional health. Because the environment is a critical factor to those with
declining health and increasing dependence on others (Gonyea et aL, 1993, Scarbrough,
1991; Golant, 1985; Fengler & Danigelis, 1982; Lawton & Nahemow, 1979; Rowles,
1978), health status, defined as functional health, was an independent variable in this
study. It was measured by the Dartmouth COOP Functional Health Charts, 1through 7
(Nelson et aL, 1987; Appendix D) described earlier. The questions were about the
hardest physical activity the subject could do for at least 2 minutes, about how much
had she been bothered by emotional problems (examples were stated), about how much
difficulty she had doing usual activities inside and outside the house because of physical
and emotional health, about whether physical and emotional health had limited social
activities with friends, family, neighbors or groups, about how much bodily pain she
had had; and about how would she rate her health in generaL The seven functional
health responses were treated as a scale, with a possible range 5 to 40. Cronbachs
alpha in the study sample (n = 131) was a = 0.82.
Social support. The eighth Dartmouth COOP Chart measured social support.
Respondents were asked whether, during the past 4 weeks, someone was available to
help if they needed and wanted help (five examples of help were given). Response
choices ranged from 1 (yes, as much as I wanted) to 5 (no, not at all). Social support
was treated as a separate variable from the functional health scale for conceptual
109
reasons, in order to restrict the domain of functional health to factors within the
individual (Guralnik, Branch, Cummings & Curb, 1989; Siu et aL, 1993).
Walking ahilitv Two other functional health variables were the subjects ability
to walk outside (yes or no) and the walking distance ability. A single question asked
approximately how far she could walk without getting tired. The response scale was 0
(not able to walk outside), 1(1 to 3 blocks) and so on to 4 (more than 9 blocks).
Driving ability. Driving ability was measured with a scale of 0 (does not drive).
1(driving time and/or place are limited), and 2 (driving is unlimited).
Type of dwelling. Although subjects were given a choice of five types of
dwellings, only those living in single-family dwellings were entered into the study. This
was done to control the number of variables in the predictive models.
Dwelling age Dwelling age was the age of the house, based on the year the
respondent thought the house was constructed.
Dwelling tenure Years in the same dwelling was defined as the number of years
between 1996 and the year the subject had moved into the home.
Home ownership. Subjects rated themselves as a home owner or not (yes or
no).
Number of people in the household. Although subjects were asked how many
other persons lived with them in the house, only those living alone (i.e. without
roomers, night companions, or temporarily housed children) were entered into the
study.
110
Reason for moving to the neighborhood. This variable was an open-ended
question about why the subject had moved to the neighborhood. The statements were
broken into separate ideas and grouped into themes for comparison by samples.
Residential Area Socio-economic Characteristics
Measures used to gather data from the subjects census tracts defined the
descriptive residential area socio-economic characteristics. These items were used as
descriptors, because neighborhood social status, age mix, and service distance are
thought to influence older persons' quality of life and mobility within the area.
Population. Population was defined as the number of persons in the census tract
in 1990.
Net population density. Population density is often used as an indicator to
distinguish urban from suburban communities The net population density was
determined by dividing the total 1990 population per census tract by the total tract land
area in acres that is assessed for taxes.
Female population age 75+. The older female population was defined as the
number of females aged 75 and older listed for the census tract in 1990.
Aging density. The extent of aging integration was of interest because
neighborhoods with fewer elderly are likely to have fewer senior services and
neighborhoods with more elderly tend to decline in socioeconomic status (Fitzpatrick
& Logan, 1985). For this study, aging density was defined for descriptive purposes as
Ill
the percent of persons age 65 and older in the census tract. For analysis purposes,
aging density was also defined as the percent of females aged 75 and over in the
census-tract population.
Percent difference m females aee 75 and older in the population. 1980 to 1990.
This descriptive variable was calculated from census tract data in 1980 and 1990 for
each sample tract. The rates were first calculated as the difference in the number of
females age 75 and older, divided by the total number of females in each decade; then
the numbers were converted to a percentage.
Per capita income. Another residential context variable was the 1989 per capita
income in dollars (U. S. Bureau of Census, 1993, Table 19). Eight types of income are
reported in the census for persons age 15 and over, and there are some data limitations
such as a tendency toward underreporting of income (U. S. Bureau of Census, page B-
16). This indicator of neighborhood socio-economic status was selected over median
household income because the population of interest was single householders, and per
capita income allows person-by-person and person-by-area comparisons.
Net housing density. Net housing density was derived from county tax
assessment data in two ways: as the 1990 number of single-family dwellings per total
assessed land area in the census tract, and as the 1990 number of multi-family dwellings
per total assessed land area in the census tract.
Average lot size. The average lot size per census tract was defined as the
number of assessed lots per total assessed area in square feet converted to acres.
112
Modal dwelling age. The modal dwelling age was determined from U. S.
Census data (1993), Table 32, in which the year of construction is displayed in eight
categoriesbefore 1939, in 10-year periods from 1940 to 1979, and from 1980 to
1984, 1985 to 1988, and 1989 to 1990. This hem was asked of the census population
on a sample basis and is more susceptible to errors of response and nonreporting than
data on other census hems, because respondents must rely on memory. Modal dwelling
age is another indicator that can be used to distinguish older urban communities from
newer suburban communities.
Distance to citv center. This variable was measured on census-tract maps from
the center of the subjects census tract to the downtown core section of Portland at
Pioneer Square. The method was to use the map scale and a ruler. The distance to city
center is thought by some to affect livabilhy and service access for older persons.
Residential Area Physical Environment Indicators
New urbanism characteristics. As described above in the section on
development of the New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics, the
objective environment measures were 29 aspects of the subjects residential area that
could be observed and rated. This was accomplished by walking the face-block length
and driving in the quarter-mile section surrounding the subjects house. The quarter-
mile section was identified with a template circle that was scaled to the map. For
consistency, the investigator was the only data collector.
113
The item scoring range was 3 (high), 2 (medium), and 1 (low). Nearly all items
were based on quantifiable observations. Exceptions where judgment was required
were the items regarding the style, facade, architectural quality, and traditional design
of residential houses and buildings. The 29 items were summed and treated as a scale
for testing the study hypotheses, and the scaling process is described in Chapter 4.
Dependent Variables
Attitudes About the Neighborhood Physical Environment
New urbanism features importance and new urbanism features quality. Attitudes
about the neighborhood physical environment were measured first as importance
ratings of 12 items taken from the New Urbanism Index, and then as quality ratings of
those same items in the subjects own neighborhood. The items were: beautiful trees
and greenery; design of houses and buildings; little traffic in the area; walking-distance
grocery store; safe walking conditions; quietness in the area; variety of housing options;
a major park or open space; interesting places to shop; sidewalks throughout the area; a
bus stop within 3 blocks; and a center of activity in the area. Scores on the first set
ranged from 5 (very important) to 1(not at all important), and scores on the second set
ranged from 5 (very good) to 1(very poor).
Neighborhood features importance mean. The importance items were summed
and divided by the number of completed importance items to create an importance
114
mean variable (scored 5 to 1). This was used as one mechanism to explore the
relationship between new urbanism and quality of life.
Neighborhood features importance x quality. Another new variable created
from this set were the weighted items formed by multiplying the importance and quality
ratings of each new urbanism opinion item, if both the importance and the quality rating
had been answered. The 12 weighted items were scaled and were found to be reliable
with Cronbachs alpha (N = 132, a = 0.83). The weighted item values were summed
and divided by the number of weighted items completed to obtain the Neighborhood
Quality Index score.
Neighborhood livability. neighborhood satisfaction, and neighborhood
importance x satisfaction. Three other subjective neighborhood variables represented
neighborhood in a general sense. Those items were neighborhood livability, scored 5
(very good) to 1 (very poor), satisfaction with the neighborhood from the Quality of
Life Index, scored 6 (very satisfied) to 1 (very dissatisfied), and importance x
satisfaction with the neighborhood from the Quality of Life Index, scored 36 to 1. If
either the neighborhood importance or satisfaction items were missing, then the
weighted score was also missing.
Recommended improvements. Subjects were asked in an open-ended question
to make suggestions for improvements that could be made in their neighborhoods.
These ideas were clustered into themes and compared.
115
Future neighborhood needs. Six additional items asked subjects to forecast how
important certain environmental features would be if they were to select another home
now. These were rated as 3 (very important), 2 (somewhat important), or 1(not
important).
Moving plans. Projected moving plan was also a measure of neighborhood
attitudes. Two variables were derived from three items on the Neighborhood Resident
Survey regarding a potential household move in the future. One variable was intention
to move within 5 years, scored as yes or no. The second variable was the time frame
for moving, which was scored as 0 (none), 1 (3 to 5 years), 2 (2 to 3 years), or 3
(within the year). Additional qualitative questions asked if a new place had been
selected and why the subject had chosen to move there.
Activity Within the Neighborhood
Indicators of the subjects activity within the neighborhood were as follows.
Neighborhood service use. Neighborhood service use was assessed by asking
subjects whether they used grocery stores, banks, post offices, pharmacies, churches,
beauty shops, libraries, restaurants, and bus stops. They were also asked, in a grid of
fixed response choices, how they got to these services and how far away those services
were. Data obtained regarding each service item were the use or non-use of each
service, the distance in miles (gauged at 12 blocks per mile), and the method of
accessing the service. One indicator of neighborhood activity was the number of
116
services within 1 mile of home that a subject used and accessed by any mode of travel,
including: walking, driving, riding with someone, using a bus, taking a taxi, or using
special senior transportation (scores = 0 to 9 to equal the number of services checked
and reported as being within 1 mile). Another indicator was the number of
neighborhood services, including bus transportation, that a subject accesses by walking
(scores = 0 to 9).
Walking activities and frequency. Recreational walking was measured as 1 (yes)
or 0 (no) for each of these items: to exercise; to catch a bus; to visit neighbors; to
attend meetings; to walk the dog or cat; to get out of the house; to see what is going
on in the area; to enjoy a park or favorite outdoor area; and other. A third indicator of
neighborhood activity was the number of recreation activities that the subject checked
when asked if she walked in the neighborhood for any of the listed activities (scores = 0
to 9 to equal the number of items checked). The fourth indicator was the total number
of neighborhood walking activities for both service access and recreational purposes
(scale = 0 to 18 to equal the number of items checked.). Subjects were also asked how
often they walk in their neighborhoods [scored 0 (never) to 6 (2 to 3 times a day)], and
whether they usually walk with someone else [scored 2 (yes), 1 (sometimes), or 0
(no)].
Driving activity. Driving activity represented the total number of neighborhood
services (Le. doctor, grocery store, bank, post office, pharmacy, church, beauty shop,
library, and restaurants) which a subject accessed by driving.
117
Quality of Life
Two measures of the quality of life variable were used in the study. One
measure was the multi-item Quality of Life Index (Feirans & Powers, 1985) described
in the instrument section. The other measure was the single-item quality-of-life rating
from the Dartmouth COOP Functional Charts (Nelson et aL, 1987), also described in
the instrument section. The use of two measures as the outcome variable strengthens
the argument supported by the findings when results are in the same direction, even
though the magnitude may differ. Another reason for using two measures of quality of
life is that the concept is often cited as an outcome of both aging and health research,
and continued validation testing of the construct is needed.
In the Quality of Life Index, one item was modified for this study: Your
potential for a happy old age and retirement was changed to Your potential to live a
long time, as recommended by Carol Ferrans (personal communication, June 28,
1995). When subjects pointed out that items on the Quality of Life Index did not apply
to them, they were advised that scores were not influenced by missing responses.
OLI scoring. The scoring formula (C. Ferrans, personal communication, June
28, 1995), is based on the reasoning that great dissatisfaction with an important area
has a more negative impact on quality of life than great satisfaction with a very
unimportant area. Overall scores are calculated by weighting each satisfaction response
by its paired importance response. The highest scores are produced by combinations of
high satisfaction/high importance responses, and the lowest scores are produced by
118
high dissatisfaction/high importance responses. Weighting with low importance
responses produces middle-range scores. Raw satisfaction scores are recoded to make
zero the midpoint, so that a person who was very dissatisfied with an area of high
importance would not receive the same item score as a person who was very satisfied
with an area of low importance. Final scores are achieved by dividing the stun of the
weighted interaction items by the number of items, hi this study, items with a missing
importance or satisfaction rating resulted in a missing interaction item. The same
method was used to derive the subscale scores of Health and Functioning,
Socioeconomic, Psychological/spiritual, and Family. The score range is 30 to 0 for each
subscale and for the total scale, and 18 is the borderline between a good and not good
quality of life (Oleson, 1992).
Although missing items do not influence the final score, one study to establish
QLI psychometrics eliminated subjects who had 15 percent or more missing data (5 or
more missing hems) on either of the QLI sections, thereby reducing the number of
respondents by 20 percent (Ferrans & Powers, 1992). However, Ferrans advised
retaining all eligible subjects for the present study (personal communication, October
15, 1996), since missing scores do not jeopardize the results. The hem-response rates
are reported in Chapter 4.
119
Research Procedures
Data Collection
Data collection from subjects. After a pretest of the data collection procedures
with three older women in a non-study census tract, data collection occurred over a
six-month period. Generally, data were collected one tract at a time. All subjects signed
a consent form (Appendix C) and confidentiality and anonymity were assured. This was
usually done during visits to the home (n = 118), but some women who were reluctant
or unable to meet with the investigator preferred to receive the survey by mail (n = 29).
Subjects who were visited received an orientation to the instruments that included
leafing through each page, highlighting the content, and answering questions. Subjects
who received the response packet by mail were given a brief orientation by telephone,
as well as a letter with the packet that urged them to complete all sections. Everyone
was encouraged to telephone the investigator for questions, and a few subjects did.
Reminder cards were mailed to those who did not respond within a week.
Nearly everyone returned the questionnaire by mail, and a few were picked by the
investigator. One questionnaire had several missing pages, so the subject was
considered an unwilling participant. When subjects returned the questionnaire, but
omitted an entire page of the QLI or the COOP Charts, or missed questions (except the
income or education questions) on the Neighborhood Resident Survey, they were
telephoned to request permission to re-send them the incomplete page(s), along with a
120
stamped return envelope. Thank you cards were sent to all respondents at the
completion of the process.
In an effort to accommodate the older subjects and still obtain a maximum
number of respondents, some flexibility was allowed. For instance, the investigator read
the entire questionnaire packet for four subjects, including one nearly blind woman.
The other three wanted this type of interactive response method. In this role, every
effort was made to simulate self-completion by the subject. In four cases the survey
was partially read to the subject. That is, the Neighborhood Resident Survey section
and the COOP Charts were read aloud; then the subject was asked to complete the QLI
independently and return the whole packet by mail.
Return rates. The overall return rate was 90 percent. For the home-visit set it
was 97 percent, while the mail-set return rate was only 66 percent (Table IV).
Data collection from subjects neighborhoods. Neighborhood data were usually
obtained on the same day as the home visit. The investigator walked the face-block, or
both sides of the street along the front of the house, in the section between the comers
on the house-side of the street. The street-width and face-block distances were
measured with a ground-distance wheel. Other neighborhood observations were made
while driving around the quarter-mile focus area. Observation ratings were recorded
immediately, and several follow-up observations were made to re-check rating
consistency.
121
Data Analysis
Data were entered into statistical and spreadsheet databases, and new variables
were created as described above. Quantitative analyses consisted of descriptive
procedures such as frequencies, measures of distribution, and chi-square statistics;
comparative procedures such as t tests and analysis of variance; and correlational
procedures including scaling, factor analyses, and regression analyses. Simple
qualitative analyses were also done by sorting open-ended responses to three questions
into themes. One set of responses was the occupational statements, another was
reasons for moving to the neighborhood, and a third was suggestions for neighborhood
improvements. Chapter 4 reports results of the analyses to describe the samples and
test the study hypotheses.
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS
Overview
Overall, the findings revealed that residency in a new-urbanism-style (i.e. urban)
neighborhood does influence a positive attitude about the neighborhood physical
environment quality, greater use of neighborhood services, higher frequency of walking
to services, and less driving. New urbanism did not influence the frequency of
neighborhood recreational walking activities nor perceived quality of life among the
sample of older, single, house-dwelling women. As a context for understanding these and
other associated findings, comparisons between the census-tract samples and the urban
and suburban samples are presented first. Sample differences were considered significant
if p < .05. The comparisons were based on the independent variables listed in Figure 8.
These include the personal characteristics of demographic aspects, occupational status,
perceived health, and housing circumstances, the residential-area characteristics based on
population data for the census tracts, and the new-urbanism observation results. The
descriptive comparisons show that there were similarities in most indicators. Exceptions
were urban and suburban sample differences in health status and income level.
Analyses and conclusions drawn from testing the four study hypotheses are
presented in the last section of the chapter. The predictive model of independent and
dependent variables (Figure 8) was used to test these hypotheses. Where multiple linear
regression was used, tests for muMcollinearity were conducted first. This was done by
123
generating models in which each independent variable was put into the dependent
position, with the other independent variables and the outcome variable as predictors
(Berry & Feldman, 1985; Lewis-Beck, 1980). Variables were removed from the model if
F? exceeded .80 when they were in the dependent position. Variables used in the final
models are reported in table format.
Description of the Sample
A total of 133 women completed the survey. The census-tract (CT) sample sizes
and representations are shown in Table XI. The suburban subjects represented 53
percent of the sample and the urban subjects were 46 percent of the sample. The three
urban tracts and suburban CT 93 had fewer elderly women living alone, so it was
necessary to contact all potential subjects in those tracts to obtain the maximum possible
sample sizes, hi the more populated suburban CT 94, all but 22 names of those who
lived outside the retirement community of Summerfield were contacted. The within-
Summerfield sample was limited to 8 individuals, so that at least two-thirds of the tract
sample would represent individuals in the general community environment. In CT
314.01, all but 35 potentially eligible individuals were contacted, and this was done by
picking approximately every other name in each precinct.
124
Table XI
Census-tract Sample Sizes
Census-tract Sample n %
Suburban
93 24 18
94 22 16
314.01 25 19
Subtotal
71 53
Urban
1
20 15
12.01
19 14
17.01
23 17
Subtotal
62 46
Sample Description
To determine homogeneity, the six census-tract samples were compared for the
personal characteristics and new urbanism independent variables in the predictive model.
The personal characteristic comparisons included demographic characteristics,
occupational status, health status, and housing characteristics. See Appendix G for
individual census-tract sample means or percentage-response distributions for the
personal characteristics. The results of these comparisons are described, along with
pertinent observations about suburban-urban sample comparisons or about the sample as
a whole.
125
Comparison of Census-tract Samples for Personal Characteristics
Demographic and Occupational Descriptors
Age. The samples were similar in age (Table XII) with an overall mean age of 78
years. In fact, the tract mean ages only ranged between 77.2 and 79 years. The youngest
respondents were age 70 and the oldest was 92. Ten percent (n = 13) of the sample were
old old (aged 85 and older). Response rates by age group are discussed in Chapter 5.
Table XII
Analysis of Variance for Demographic Characteristics in the Six Census-tract Samples
Source
df
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
Age
Between groups 5 49.02 9.80 .36
Within groups 127 485.38 7.44
Education
Between groups 5 53.12 10.62 2.20
Income Level
Between groups 5 11.22 2.24 2.78*
Within groups 114 92.10 .81
Occupational Status
Between groups 5 24.69 4.94 2.70
*p<. 05
126
Marital status. There were also no sample differences in marital status (df= IS,
X2= 21.35, p > .05). Most subjects were widows (80%) and the proportion of widows
within each tract sample ranged from 90 percent in dendoveer North (CT 94) to 65
percent in Sellwood (CT 1).
Education. Educational level was also similar among the samples (Table XII),
with tract means ranging from 12.2 years in Glendoveer South (CT 93) to 14.1 years in
Cedar Hills (CT 314.01). Compared with the general population in the same census
tracts, the subjects were better educated. Nearly all had completed high school,
compared with 75 to 90 percent of the 1990 population in the six tracts. Fifty-five
percent of the sample reported having from 1to 6 years of college education, and there
were no tract-sample differences in graduate education ( df = 25, x2 ~ 34.15,/? > .05).
Income leveL The six tract samples were different, however, with respect to
income (Table XU). The suburban subjects had higher mean income levels than the urban
respondents did {df= 116, t = -3.52, p = .001). Approximately one third of the women
in each urban tract and one suburban tract (CT 93) had annual incomes under $10,000,
and in two of the urban tracts there were no subjects with incomes over $30,000 per
year. It is doubtful that the missing-response rate of 10 percent (urban = 8%, suburban =
11%) affected the difference. The modal income range of $10,000 to $20,000 in all six
samples approximated the population per capita income levels of $12,000 to $ 18, 000.
Occupational identities. The respondents provided 49 different statements about
their types of lifetime occupations. On the occupational scale of 7 to 1, the mean
127
rankings ranged from 4.8 in North Glendoveer (CT 94) to 3.6 in South Glendoveer (CT
93). Analysis of variance showed there were significant tract-sample differences (Table
XII), although these were not considered significant when tested with the Tukey-2? post-
hoc test.
The work experience of these older women was interesting. Nearly all (96%) had
worked at some time during their lives, and they had achieved fairly high occupational
positions. The overall mean occupational level was 4.6, though the majority (38%) had
worked in clerical, sales, or technical positions. The few women who had never worked
for income were classified, by default, as unskilled employees. Some women were still
employedtwo in a clerical positions, one in sales, one in journalism, one as a portrait
artist, and one as the owner of a sizable company.
In sum, there were no age, marital status, education, or occupational level
differences in census-tract samples, but there were income differences. Most respondents
were in their late 70s, they had been married, they had some advanced education.
Overall, they had moderately low incomes, although more suburban subjects reported
higher income levels than did urban subjects. Also, most subjects had worked in mid
level occupational status positions.
Health Status
Functional health. The next personal characteristic to be considered was health
status. To determine whether more than one construct existed within the Dartmouth
128
COOP Functional Health Charts (Nelson et aL, 1987), the scores for self-reported
fitness, feelings, activity limitations, social limitations, pain, change in health, and overall
health were submitted to principle-components factor analysis along with the social
support scores. Although two factors were identified with Eigenvalues >1, the second
factor hovered near 1 and it did not have a distinctive placement in the scree plot-line.
Thus, it was determined that the COOP items could be treated as a whole. However, for
conceptual reasons, as explained in Chapter 3, social support was treated as a separate
variable. Since the inter-item reliability analysis of the functional health indicators
resulted in a Cronbachs alpha of a = 0.82, the health items were equally weighted and
summed to form a functional health scale.
The results of the analysis of variance for functional health in the census-tract
samples (Table XH1) showed that the suburban respondents rated their health
significantly higher. From a possible range of 35 to 5, suburban sample means were 26.6
to 25.6, while the urban sample means were 24.0 to 22.7.
Social support. Although the six samples had similar perceived social support, as
determined by analysis of variance (Table XHI), the t test showed there were urban-
suburban differences. On a scale of 5 to 1, suburban residents rated their social support
higher (M = 4.3, SD = 1.0) than did urban subjects (.M = 3.8, SD = 1.3), df = 113, t =
-2.58, p = .011.
Walking ability. Remarkably, there were 11 respondents (8% of the total) living
independently who could not walk outside their homes, except to get in and out of a car.
129
Table Xm
Analysis of Variance for Health Indicators in the Six Census-tract Samples
Source
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
Functional health
Between groups 5 282.21 56.44 2.44*
Within groups 126 2912.42 23.12
Social support
Between groups 5 13.25 2.65 2.14
Ability to walk outside
Between groups 5 .28 .06 .74
Walking distance ability
Between groups 5 1.94 .39 .28
Driving ability
Between groups 5 8.45 1.69 2.67*
* p < . 05, **/><.01
One had an above-knee amputation, two had multiple sclerosis (one of these used a
motorized cart in her neighborhood and elsewhere), and the others had various aging
problems such as blindness, orthopedic conditions, or cardio-respiratory limitations.
Each census tract had from 1to 3 people who only walked indoors.
130
Among those who could walk outside, there were no census-tract sample
differences and no urban-suburban sample differences in walking distance ability. The
mean walking distance before tiring was 7 to 9 blocks, and the majority (44%) said they
could walk over 9 blocks.
Driving ability. In the whole sample, only 45 percent drive whenever and
wherever they want; 30 percent limit their driving to days and nearby areas; and 25
percent do not drive. The driving-ability differences among the census-tract samples
were significant (Table XDI) and the difference in urban mean (2.0, SD = .84) and
suburban mean (2.4, SD = .75) was significant {df = 130, t = -3.24, p = .001)
In sum, health status was higher for suburban subjects as measured by functional
health, social support, and driving ability. However, there were no sample differences
regarding subjects ability to walk outside nor for their endurance.
Housing and Residential Area Characteristics
Housing
Since this study focused on person-neighborhood relationships, comparisons
were made for personal housing indicators. These included descriptive urban and
suburban comparisons of reasons for moving to the neighborhood; analysis of variance
for dwelling age, dwelling tenure, and home ownership in the tract samples (Table XIV);
and /-test comparisons of urban and suburban means where pertinent.
131
Table XIV
Analysis of Variance for Housing Indicators in the Six Census-tract Samples
Source
df
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
Dwelling age
Between groups 5 35726.68 7145.34 33.91**
Within groups 119 25075.04 210.72
Dwelling tenure
Between groups 5 5834.88 1166.98 5.08**
Within groups 126 28967.66 229.90
Home ownership
Between groups 5 .17 .03 1.14
* p< .05, **p<. 01
Reasons for moving to the neighborhood: similarities. All except one urban
subject provided a reason for moving to the neighborhood, and half of the reasons they
shared were similar in both samples (see Appendix H). There were 34 grouped reasons
given and urban subjects mentioned a total of 108 ideas, while suburban subjects
mentioned a total of 131 ideas. The top ideas held in common were: liked the area,
(12 to 13% of ideas in both samples); price and affordability (8% of ideas in both
samples); had family nearby3 and liked the house (5 to 6% of ideas in both samples).
Reasons for moving to the neighborhood: differences There were also
differences between the samples. Schools were more important to suburbanites (9%
of their ideas compared with 5% of the urban ideas). Easy transportation was more
important to the urban women (7% of their ideas, compared with only 3% of the
suburban ideas). Ideas mentioned exclusively by a few urban subjects were: inherited
the house (n = 9); liked the parks; church nearby; used to live in the
neighborhood; bom near here; to refurbish an old house; to keep my kids in the
same school; liked the diversity of houses; and appreciated the lack of nearby rentals
with too many children and the lack of a nearby freeway, railway, or factory emanating
pollution. The ideas mentioned exclusively by a few suburban subjects were: liked the
country-like, open, uncrowded, quiet setting (n = 12); convenience; safe area; the
amenities or the homes association; had to leave former house because of a problem,
(e.g. development or lightrail made me move, or needed more room for the dog); liked
the idea of a controlled, adult community; and liked being in an area of single-family
homes. These comments suggest that some residents seek different types of living
environments based on preferences for suburban or urban conditions, or based on prior
residential experiences.
Dwelling age. As expected, urban subjects houses were much older (M = 65.4
years, SD = 18.4 years) than suburban subjects houses (M = 34.8 years, SD = 13.7
years), df= 102, t = 10.36, p = .000. There were also differences within the urban and
suburban census-tract sets. For example, the mean age of urban Sellwood-Moreland (CT
1) homes was 75 years, and in CT 17.01, the mean house age was 53 years. In suburban
CT 93 the houses were nearly twice the age of houses in CT 94. Perhaps one reason for
133
the lower age in tract 94 is that 8 of those respondents live in the relatively new
retirement community of Summerfield.
Dwelling tenure The mean length of dwelling occupancy, or tenure, ranged from
39 years in the Ladds Addition-Colonial Heights sample (CT 12.02) to 18 years in the
North Glendoveer-Summerfield sample (CT 94). Urban women had lived about 10 years
longer in their homes (A/ = 35.7 years, SD = 17.8 years) than had suburban women (M =
25.8 years, SD = 13.4 years), df= 110.11, t = 3.56, p = .001. Dwelling tenure was only
moderately associated with the dwelling age (r = 0.48) and was only marginally
associated with the residents age (r = 0.32).
Home ownership. In all of the sample areas nearly everyone owned their house.
Only three urban subjects and one suburban subject were renters.
In sum, the samples differed somewhat in terms of rationale for moving to their
neighborhoods. They also differed significantly in the age of their dwellings, and in the
number of years they had lived at their present address. Home ownership was essentially
the same across the samples.
Residential Area Characteristics
Table ID in Chapter 3 provides a reference for the following residential area
descriptions.
Net population density. The net population densities in the urban tracts are higher
than the net population densities in the suburban tracts, hi two urban tracts the densities
134
are nearly twice as high and in the third urban tract the density is about one and a half
times the suburban densities.
Aging density. The sample tracts were similarly high in aging density based on
the percentage of the population who were 65 years old and older, except for CT 94. As
explained earlier, the rate of 22 percent reflects the Summerfield community planned
exclusively for older persons. When aging density is defined by the rate of females age 75
and older in the population, the urban tracts have higher rates. Thus, the senior
population is older in the urban areas.
Per capita income. The census-tract samples were similar in per capita income.
That is, in both the urban and suburban tract sets, there was one low tract, one mid-level
tract, and one higher level tract, within the selected range of $12,000 to $18,000.
Average lot size. The average urban lot sizes range from 4,648 to 4,906 square
feet, in contrast to the average suburban lot sizes that range from 7,687 to 11,454 square
feet.
Net single-family housing density. As expected, the urban census tracts have the
highest net single-family housing densities. The mean number of houses per acre in the
urban tracts range from 6.6 to 7.7, in contrast to the suburban tracts that range from 3.2
to 4.7 houses per acre.
Net multi-familv housing density. Overall, the availability of duplexes, triplexes,
and apartment houses is low in both urban and suburban tracts of this sample. However,
the urban tracts have higher net multi-family housing densities. The mean number of
135
dwelling units per acre in the urban tracts range from 0.7 to 1.3, in contrast to the
suburban tracts with very low densities that range from 0.04 to 0.2 dwelling units per
acre.
Modal age of homes. Census information about the average construction dates of
census-tract homes was used to estimate whether seniors were living in typical-age
housing for their areas. The urban-tract homes were predominantly built during or before
1939, compared with peak suburban construction that occurred between 19S0 and 1969.
In suburban CT 94, subjects homes were slightly newer than most homes around them,
and in CT 314, subjects homes were older than most homes in their area.
Distance to citv center. Distance to the city center was another means of
differentiating the sample groups. The urban tracts are within 2 to 4 miles, while the
suburban areas are 6 to 8 miles away. These differences were expected due to the
sampling design.
New urbanism ratings. New urbanism observation ratings also differentiated the
tract samples, as intended by the research design. The mean and standard deviation New
Urbanism Index scores for each sampled census tract are shown in Table XV, and the
analysis of variance for new urbanism by census-tract sample is shown in Table XVI. The
three urban-tract samples were significantly different (M = 69.0, SD = 5.6) from the
three suburban-tract samples (M = 48.7, SD = 4.1; df = 131, t = 23.93, p = .000).
Among the urban-tract samples, there were also significant differences in new urbanism.,
but the suburban samples were similar.
136
Table XV
Census-tract Sample Means and Standard Deviations for New Urbanism Index
Census-tract Samples
1 12.02 17.01 93 94 314.01
Mean 72.3 70.2 64.8 49.7 48.7 47.9
SD 2.3 4.1 6.1 5.0 3.2 3.8
Table XVI
Analysis of Variance for New TJrhanism Index by Census-tract Sample
Source
df
Sum of
Squares
Mean
Squares
F
Ratio
Six tracts
Between groups 5 14302.69 2860.54 154.40**
Within groups 127 2352.98 18.53
Urban tracts
Between groups 2 708.34 354.17 17.17**
Suburban tracts
Between groups 2 39.10 19.55 1.17
* p < .05, * * p < . 0 1
In sum, the urban women had lived longer in their homes, their homes were
older, and they lived nearer to the city center. As planned, the census-tract selections
137
appropriately represented the two populations of interest: urban neighborhoods that
rated high in new urbanism features, and suburban neighborhoods that rated low in new
urbanism features. Although the urban tracts varied in new urbanism, this created a range
that was useful for testing the study questions.
The next section describes analyses conducted to determine the structural
underpinnings of the New Urbanism Index, and the designation of comparison groups for
testing the study hypotheses. This is followed by a report of the hypothesis-testing
results.
New Urbanism Comparison Group Designations
New Urbanism Index factor analysis. Before proceeding with designation of the
comparison groups, the New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics
instrument structure was examined with factor analysis of subject responses. The
purpose was to identify whether the 29 items represented a multi-factor construct or
whether they were interacting and contributing equally to a dominant theme. Principal
components factor analysis produced seven factors with Eigenvalues > 1. However, the
scree plot only displayed one factor that was separate from the rest. Therefore, it was
concluded that the new urbanism environmental observations could be treated as a
whole.
New Urhanism Index item-total correlations. To verify in another way that the
structure of the instrument was one factor, item-total correlations were produced
138
(Appendix I). Of the 29 items, four were highly associated with new urbanism (r > 0.80):
garages not at the front, traditional-style houses, buildings set 20 feet or less from the
street, and streets in a grid pattern. Three correlations were negative (residential styles
are consistent, commercial off-street parking is away from sidewalks, and a green open
space provides neighboihood focus). These three items were retained, however, because
they are conceptually consistent with new urbanism, based on content analysis of the
literature. Another reason to retain them was related to sampling issues. Because new
urbanism was measured in existing old urban areas, and because the sampled
residential areas were political sections (i.e. census tracts) of a large city rather than the
idealized small town model characterized by new urbanists, these new-urbanism features
were scarce in the sampled settings. Therefore, they were retained despite the lack of
evidence in the samples.
New Urbanism internal consistency. Inter-item reliability analysis helped
determine that the items could be used as a scale. Inter-item correlations ranged from r
= -0.41 to 0.78, with only 27 (6.6%) of the correlations >.60. The New Urbanism
Index was found to be highly reliable with Cronbachs alpha = 0.90 and a standardized
item alpha = 0.88.
New Urhanism Index scores in whole sample. For the entire sample of 133
addresses, out of a possible range of 29 to 87, the New Urbanism Index scores were
distributed from 41 to 77 (M = 58.2, SD = 11.2), as shown in Figure 9.
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Figure 9.
10
9
New Urbanism Score Distribution (N = 133)
7
S'
(1) 6
3
cr
25
u_
0)
o<
o
to
II
SUBURBAN
i n S t R t n f S E S S B i o
New Urbanism Scores
? : f 2 f e f c > 5 8 i 8 S 5
^ URBAN
140
New urbanism cnmparison-group labels, scores, and sample representations.
Because the new urbanism scores not only had a broad range, but were also distributed
in bimodal peaks with a midpoint split, the scores were easily used to form two
comparison groups those with high new urbanism and those with low new urbanism
Ironically, new urbanism represents old, or traditional, rather than modem post-World
War II neighborhood design. Although modem-style developments have pervaded for
some 40 years, societal forces (Le. environmental protection and historic preservation
trends) are only now catching up with the economic and technical forces that fostered
those developmental designs. Thus, while modem is no longer new, it is newer in a
conceptual sense than traditional. Therefore, high ratings of new urbanism,
representing traditional urban residential areas, defined the TRADITIONAL group, and
low ratings of new urbanism, representing suburban residential areas, defined the
MODERN group. Hereafter, the comparison groups will be referred to as
TRADITIONAL and MODERN, based on the operational definitions of new urbanism,
rather than the conventional definitions of urban and suburban.
The comparison groups were nearly equal in size and had distinctive scores.
TRADITIONAL scores ranged from 59 to 77 (M = 69.2, SD = 4.6), with a modal score
of 69 and a median score of 70, and this group represented 47 percent (n = 63) of the
whole sample. MODERN scores ranged from 41 to 55 (M = 48.3, SD = 3.6), with a
modal score of 50 and a median score of 48. The MODERN group represented 53
percent ( = 70) of the entire sample.
141
The instrument exhibited sensitivity with this sample, as shown on the stacked-
bar graph in Figure 10, since the comparison groups were comprised of nearly the same
individuals as the aggregated urban and suburban sample groups. Except for 5 cases,
urban tract subjects sorted into the high new-urbanism group, and suburban census tract
subjects fell into the low new-urbanism group, (df = 5, x2 = 152.33, p = .000). The five
cases which crossed over were three subjects from suburban tract 93 and two subjects
from urban tract 17.01. The neighborhood ratings of these five individuals did not match
the majority of those in their areas. For instance, one of the urban subjects lived on a
large, curving arterial, with no other houses on her face-block, and there was no adjacent
commercial activity in her vicinity. The other urban subject lived on a street without
paving or street trees, her house was one of only three on the face-block, and there was
no nearby commercial activity. The three suburban respondents in the high new-urbanism
group lived in more urban-like areas. Two were situated in areas with small houses that
were close to the street and another was near the Menlo Park Shopping Center.
Hypotheses Testing
Three hypotheses were tested to explore the impact of new urbanism
characteristics in the physical environment on attitudes about the neighborhood physical
environment, on function within the neighborhood, and on perceived quality of life. All
analyses conducted to test these questions were based on TRADITIONAL and
MODERN group comparisons. Hypotheses statements and findings follow.
N
e
w

U
r
b
a
n
i
s
m

S
u
b
j
e
c
t
s

P
e
r

C
e
n
s
u
s
-
t
r
a
c
t

S
a
m
p
l
e

(
N

=
1
3
3
)
o
t'
5?
co
O)
o
o
cm'
8 8
in
spefqns
10
C
e
n
s
u
s
-
t
r
a
c
t

S
a
m
p
l
e
s
143
Hypothesis 1: TRADITIONAL neighborhood women will have more positive attitudes
about the physical environments of their residential areas than MODERN neighborhood
women will.
Importance of neighborhood features. The first indicator of attitude about the
neighborhood was the importance of 12 neighborhood physical environment indicators
of new urbanism. The whole sample agreed that the most important features were safe
walking conditions, beautiful trees and greenery, and quietness in the area (Table XVII).
There were also group differences. TRADITIONAL subjects rated three features as
more important: a nearby store (df= 116, t = 5.61,/? = .000); interesting places to shop
(df= 125, t = 2.32, p = .02); and a bus stop (df = 120, t = 3.54, p = .001). Sidewalks
were more important to the MODERN subjects (df = 79, t = 5.66, p = .000). The mean
of all 12 mean importance scores was also higher for TRADITIONAL subjects (M = 4.2,
SD = 0.4) than for MODERN subjects (M= 3.9, SD = 0.6), df= 121, t = 2.91, p = .004.
Neighborhood Quality Index. The second indicator used to test this hypothesis
was the Neighborhood Quality Index score. As described in Chapter 3, it was the sum of
combined importance x within-neighborhood quality ratings of the physical environment
items divided by the number of completed items (n = 12). On the scale of 25 to 1
TRADITIONAL neighborhood subjects rated their neighborhood environment quality
higher (M= 17.2, SD = 3.1) than MODERN subjects (M= 15.0, SD = 4.0) did, df =
127, t = 2.59, p = .000.
144
Table XVII
Priority Importance of Neighborhood Environment Conditions (n = 133)
Neighborhood Condition n M* SD
Safe walking conditions 131 4.7 0.71
Beautiful trees and greenery 133 4.6 0.63
Quietness in the area 132 4.5 0.72
Sidewalks throughout area 130 4.4 1.02
Little traffic in the area 128 4.3 0.99
Bus stop within 3 blocks Design 130 4.1 1.14
of houses, buildings Walking 130 4.0 0.96
distance grocery 130 3.8 1.42
A major park or open space 129 3.8 1.13
Interesting places to shop 127 3.6 1.16
Variety of housing options 125 3.4 1.13
A center of activity in area 130 3.1 1.22
* Scale = 5 to 1
The influence of observed new urbanism features was tested with a multiple
linear regression model (Table XVIII). Personal characteristics were controlled and the
New Urbanism Index score was entered in block 2. New Urbanism and education were
significant predictors in the model, and new urbanism explained 10 percent of the
Neighborhood Quality Index variance (adjusted Z?2= . 19). However, the correlation of
the respondents new urbanism opinions (Neighborhood Quality Index) and the
investigators new urbanism observations (New Urbanism Index) was moderately weak
(r = 0.40).
145
Table XVDI
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Neighborhood
Quality Attitudes (N = 106)
Variable B SEB
f i
Block 1
Age -0.05 0.08 -.06
Income 0.34 0.44 .08
Home ownership -0.96 2.19
Education 0.37 0.18 .22*

Occupational status -0.34 0.30 -.12
Functional health 0.05 0.09 .06
Social support 0.28 0.33 .09
Walking distance ability 0.37 0.34 .13
Driving ability -0.55 0.48 -.12
Tenure in dwelling -0.02 0.03 -.10
Dwelling age -0.01 0.03 -.03
Block 2
New urbanism
0.16 0.05 .46**
Note: Adjusted Z?2= .09 for Block 1; A Z?2 = .19 for Block 2 (df = 105, F = 2.99, p =
.001)
* p < .05 ** p < .01
Another approach taken to explore whether subjects values were associated with
their residential choices was to match the 12 Neighborhood Quality Index items with
similar items from the New Urbanism Index, then correlate these sums. The subset of
146
New Urbanism Index items (from the final rating sheet, Appendix A) were items 1, 7-9,
IS-18, 23, 25, 26, and 29. The correlation of all 12 Neighborhood Quality Index items
with all 12 items from the New Urbanism Index (r = 0.29) was less robust than when
correlating the Neighborhood Quality Index with the New Urbanism Index as a whole.
Neighborhood satisfaction. To further explore attitudes about neighborhood,
other items reflecting opinion about the neighborhood were considered along with the
Neighborhood Quality Index. Analyses with the f-test showed that there were no group
differences in neighborhood livability, QLI neighborhood satisfaction, or QLI
neighborhood satisfaction x importance, as these variables were rated high by both
groups. On a scale of 5 (high) to 1, mean livability scores were 4.4 and 4.5. On a scale of
6 (high) to 1, mean satisfaction scores were 5.1 and 5.4. Mean satisfaction x importance
scores were 4.8 and 4.9. The inter-correlations of these indicators (Table XIX)
demonstrated weak construct validity for attitude about the neighborhood, which may
reflect that the satisfaction items represented two different constructsneighborhood
physical environment and neighborhood social environment.
Neighborhood satisfaction did not distinguish the groups statistically and there
was also empirical evidence that satisfaction was high for both TRADITIONAL AND
MODERN residents. In conversations with most of the subjects, satisfaction was
expressed for various reasons. For example, several urban women expressed delight in
being able to quickly go downtown by bus, in contrast with suburban subjects who
rarely mentioned any connection with downtown Portland. A number of women in
147
Table XIX
Inter-item Correlations for Indicators of Neighborhood Quality and Neighborhood
Satisfaction
Variables n r
Neighborhood Quality Index x
Neighborhood livability
129 0.34**
QLI neighborhood satisfaction
132 0.18*
QLI neighborhood satisfaction x importance
131 0.21*
Neighborhood livability x
QLI neighborhood satisfaction
130 0.59**
Neighborhood livability x
129 0.32**
QLI neighborhood satisfaction x
132 0.46**
* p < .01 ** p< .05
Selhvood/Westmoreland (CT 1) also talked positively about the excellent resources
within their neighborhood. One especially frail lady, who uses a walker when outside,
lives within a block of the mam intersection and finds much pleasure in walking to the
148
grocery store, the post office, or to have a hot chocolate at the local coffee shop. She felt
strongly that if these things were not so convenient, she would not be able to live alone.
This story can be contrasted by one from a similarly frail woman in Cedar Hills
(CT 314) who suffers from severe Parkinsons Syndrome. As she put it, I love to see
the sun and the open spaces between housesit makes me feel like I am living in the
country. Other residents in this area said they like the curving streets, because they
provide a kind of natural free flow to the community. They also spoke highly of the
beautiful park with a lake, and extolled the virtues of the Homeowners Association as a
good way to protect the areas nice appearance.
Neighborhood improvement ideas. TRADITIONAL subjects recommended
slightly fewer neighborhood improvements, which was interpreted as a more positive
viewpoint. However, except for the strong plea for sidewalks by suburban residents,
most ideas were mentioned by subjects in both TRADITIONAL and MODERN areas.
The groups were equally concerned about crime control/police protection and traffic
control The suggestions were clustered into themes (see Appendix J) that are
summarized for both groups in Table XX. Neighborhood improvement suggestions were
made by 40 (64%) TRADITIONAL subjects and 47 (67%) MODERN subjects. There
were more MODERN suggestions i f = 56) than TRADITIONAL suggestions (f= 48).
Generally consistent with the priority neighborhood environmental features of
beauty, safety and quietness, it was clear that property maintenance is important to
women in both types of areas. Nearly one fifth of the sample made written comments on
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Table XX
Neighborhood Improvements Recommended by TRADITIONAL and MODERN Neighborhood Respondents
Recommendations TRADITIONAL MODERN Total
Better property maintenance 16
/
9 25
Better crime control, police protection, street lights 8 8 16
More sidewalks 0 14 14
Control traffic 9 8 17
More nearby services (library, grocery, shops, bank) 3 4 7
A senior citizen meeting place 3 0 3
Better parking 3 0 3
More neighborhood involvement 0 3 3
Control noise 1 2 3
Trim high trees 1 1 2
Offer mail delivery to the house 0 2 2
Better utilities (underground wiring, drains, street paving) 1 2 3
Control growth & sustain single-family dwellings 0 1 1
Enforce leash laws 1 0 1
Better public transportation 1 0 1
A park 1 0 1
Control car-selling on streets 0 1 1
More young families 0 1 1
Total Number of Suggestions 48 56 104
150
this topic and some were also vocal about it during data-gathering conversations. One
CT 94 subject, for example, took pride in her yard and home and was highly stressed by
her younger neighbors landscaping ideas, which included placing large boulders in the
front yard. Another in CT 12.02 talked about how annoying it was for her that the
owners of an apartment building on her block did not arrange to have the litter picked up
and paid little attention to the grounds.
Desirable future neighborhood features. There were also group differences in
projecting future neighborhood needs. The TRADITIONAL women placed greater value
on a nearby grocery store (df= 115, t = 3.71, p = .000), on sidewalks (df = 102, t =
3.61, p = .000), and on the importance of living in a non-hilly area (df= 125, t = 2.08, p
= .04) than did their MODERN group counterparts. There were no group differences for
the future importance of a beautiful area, an interesting area, home prices, or other
aspects.
Moving. Both groups had 12 individuals (19% of the TRADITIONAL group and
17% of the MODERN group) who had plans to move in the future. Although not a
significant' difference, most MODERN potential movers (n = 7) projected that this would
be in 3 to 5 years, while most TRADITIONAL potential movers (n = 6) thought they
would move in 2 to 3 years. Age had no bearing on these plans, as the 12 women
ranged in age from 70 to 83. The findings of this indicator, future moving plans, do not
support the hypothesis of a more positive attitude among the TRADITIONAL group.
151
Conclusion. Hypothesis 1 is partially supported on the basis of the quantitative
analysis evidence presented above. More positive attitudes among TRADITIONAL
subjects were apparent from four indicators: importance ratings of the neighborhood
environment, quality ratings of the neighborhood environment, future neighborhood
environment ratings, and improvements. However, similar attitudes were determined
from two indicators: neighborhood satisfaction and moving plans.
Hypothesis 2: TRADITIONAL neighborhood subjects will report more intensive
neighborhood activity than MODERN neighborhood subjects will
One test of this assumption was that the use of neighborhood services that were
within 1 mile of home and accessed by any mode travel, including by walking, would be
higher for TRADITIONAL subjects. Another test was that those TRADITIONAL
subjects who were able would walk more to access services and also to enjoy recreation
within their neighborhoods. The procedures used to compare the new urbanism groups
were the t test, the Levene test for equality of variances, and chi-square analysis.
Use of neighborhood services accessed bv all modes of travel nr hv walking. The
comparative use of neighborhood services within 1 mile of home accessed by all modes
of travel or by walking showed that most TRADITIONAL residents (82%), in contrast
to only 54 percent of MODERN residents, used at least one service close to home ( df =
127, t = 3.67, p = .000). Also, the number of close services used by each person was
also significantly higher for TRADITIONAL (M = 3.2 services, SD = 2.3) than
152
MODERN subjects (M = 1.9 services, SD = 2.4), {df =131, t = 3.19, p = .002). There
were significant differences in the use of five neighborhood services as shown on Table
XXI.
Table XXI
Use of Neighborhood Services by TRADITIONAL and MODERN Groups
Service Use
TRADITIONAL MODERN 1-Tail Differences
% %
df
t
Grocery store 77 36 110 4.88**
Bank
73 38 106 3.91**
Post office 61 38 100 2.39*
Church 62 36 74 2.35*
Pharmacy 59 30 89 3.01**
Library 45 28 61 1.53
Beauty shop 42 30 87 1.18
Restaurant 37 27 81 .97
Doctor 7 5 113 .51
* p < . 05 **p<. 01
Distances to neighborhood services accessed by all modes of travel or bv
walking When mean travel distances to the services were compared by group, there
were differences for two services. The mean grocery-store distance for TRADITIONAL
women is 1.0 mile {SD = 1.1 miles) and for MODERN women it is 1.8 miles {SD =1.1
miles), df= 113, t = -4.17, p = .000. The mean post-office distance for TRADITIONAL
153
women is 1.3 miles (SD = 1.2 miles), and for MODERN women it is 1.8 miles (SD =
1.2 miles), df = 105, t = -2.40, p = .02. The sample mean distances to other services are
listed below.
Table XXII
Mean Distance Traveled to Services Among All Respondents
Service M Miles
Distance
SD Miles n
Doctor 5.4 4.2 117
Church 3.0 4.5 82
Hair salon 2.9 2.7 88
Restaurant 2.6 2.7 88
Pharmacy 2.5 3.0 101
Library 2.3 2.1 73
Bank 1.7 1.5 111
Method of traveling to services. Respondents were given six choices of methods
for getting to the neighboihood services. For any one service, the percentages of the
whole sample who use each travel mode are displayed in Table XXm. Chi-square
analyses of all methods used to travel by service showed there were significant
differences between the TRADITIONAL and MODERN groups for each service except
one (church).
154
Table XXHI
Percent of Sample Who Use Each Travel Mode to Access Services
Service
Percent of Sample
n Drive Car
Ride
Walk Bus Taxi Senior
Transit
Doctor 72 16 1 7 2 2 129
Church 68 12 20 0 0 0 90
Hair salon 67 11 12 8 1 2 111
Restaurant 68 24 4 4 0 0 111
Pharmacy 69 12 14 4 1 0 114
Library 73 9 11 7 0 0 88
Bank 65 13 15 5 1 0 130
Grocery store 63 15 20 1 0 1 130
Post office 69 13 13 5 0 0 121
Driving activity. The group difference in total number of services accessed by
driving was significant {df = 118, t = -4.24, p = .000). Of 9 total services,
TRADITIONAL subjects drive to a mean of 4 services (SD = 3.5), and MODERN
subjects drive to a mean of 6.4 services (SD = 2.9). A multiple linear regression model
(Table XXIV) that controlled for personal characteristics, including driving ability, was
used to test the effect of new urbanism type of neighborhood on driving activity. New
urbanism explained 3 percent of the variance in driving activity (adjusted R2 = .63).
Neighborhood walking activities. Neighborhood walking to access services and
for recreation is displayed in Table XXV. Among those subjects who were able to walk
155
Table XXTV
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Driving Activity
(N= 112)
Variable B SEB
P
Block 1
Age -0.10 0.04 -.14*
Income 0.24 0.25 .06
Education -0.00 0.11 -.00
Functional health -0.07 0.05 -.10
Social support 0.05 0.19 .02
Driving ability 3.03 0.27 .70**
Block 2
New urbanism
-0.06 0.02 -.21**
Note: Adjusted R2 = .60 for Block 1; Adjusted R1= .63 for Block 2 (df = 114, F =
25.52, p = .000)
* p < .05 **p<.01
outside, the number of total walking purposes was higher for TRADITIONAL women
(M = 5.3 reasons, SD = 2.9) than for MODERN women (M = 3.7 reasons, SD = 1.8), df
= 92, t = 3.49, p < .001. The range of walking purposes was also greater for
TRADITIONAL subjects, who reported from 1 to 13 purposes per person, compared
with 1to 9 purposes claimed by MODERN subjects. Of those able to walk outside, more
than 97 percent (n= 119) walk in their neighborhoods for one or more reasons. The
Table XXV
Neighboihood Walking Activities Among Able Women in Urban and Surburban New
Urbanism Groups, (N = 122)
Neighborhood TRADITIONAL MODERN 1-Tail / -Test
Walking Purposes % %
df
t
To Access Services
Shop for groceries 37 8 85 4.02**
Visit bank 30 5 76 3.79**
Visit post office 25 3 72 3.50**
Shop at pharmacy 21 6 88 2.39*
Attend church 21 9 99 1.81*
Visit beauty shop 18 5 85 2.26*
Visit library 14 3 80 2.14*
Go to favorite restaurant 9 0 56 2.32*
Visit doctor's office 2 0 56 1.00
For Recreation
Exercise 79 78 120 0.06
Get out of house 61 64 120 0.84
Visit neighbors 58 60 120 0.23
Catch a bus 39 23 112 1.85*
See area happenings 39 31 120 0.90
Enjoy a park or open area 25 39 120 (1.66)*
Attend meetings 21 18 120 0.36
Walk dog or cat 21 25 120 (0.46)*
Other 12 6 120 1.18
* p < .05 **p<01
157
physical environment element of sidewalks was not associated with walking, however.
Among those able to walk outside (n = 122), total number of walking purposes had a
low but significant correlation with sidewalks on the face-block (r = 0.30, p = .001) or
with sidewalks in the 1/4-mile neighborhood (r = 0.32, p = .000). The correlations of
face-block and neighborhood sidewalks with exercise were only r = 0.10 (p > .05).
A multiple linear regression model that controlled for personal characteristics was
used to test the effect of new urbanism type of setting on the total number of walking
activities per person (Table XXVI). New urbanism explained 5 percent of the variance in
the number of walking activities, and the only other significant independent variable in
the model was walking distance ability, or endurance (adjusted R2 = .33).
Walking to neighborhood services. A further look at the group differences for
walking to services revealed that, of those who are able, TRADITIONAL women are
more apt to walk to nearby services. They regularly walk to about 2 services (M = 1.9,
SD = 2.0), compared with MODERN women, who walk occasionally to a service (M =
0.57, SD 1.0), df= 92, t = 4.92, p < .001. Walking to any service at all was higher in the
TRADITIONAL group (72%) compared with the MODERN group (40 %), df= 120, t
=3.72, p < .000. Also, TRADITIONAL subjects had higher walking rates to each
service than MODERN subjects did.
Recreational walking Recreational walking in the neighborhood, on the other
hand, was about the same for everyone. However, more MODERN women walk to
enjoy an outdoor park or open area and to walk an animal, and more TRADITIONAL
158
Table XXVI
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Total Number of
Walking Activities in the Neighborhood ( N= 111)
Variable B SEB
f i
Block 1
Age 0.03 0.05 .06
Income -0.34 0.27
-.11
Education 0.18 0.12 .15
Occupational status 0.12 0.18 .06
Functional health 0.10 0.06 .19
Social support -0.24 0.20
-.11
Walking distance ability 0.98 0.21
Tenure in dwelling -0.01 0.02 -.04
Block 2
New urbanism 0.06 0.02 .26**
Note: Adjusted Z?2= .28 for Block 1; Adjusted R2 = .33 for Block 2 (df= 110, F = 6.37,
p = .000)
*p< .05 **p<. 0l
women walk to catch a bus. The women in both groups reported equal rates of walking
to exercise, to get out of the house, to visit neighbors, to see what is going on in the
area, to attend meetings, or for other reasons.
159
In addition to the ideas listed on the survey, TRADITIONAL women also walk
for quiet contemplation, to attend garage sales, to use a postal dropbox, to visit a parent
in a nursing home, to enjoy neighborhood landscaping or flowers, to have coffee with
friends, to see interesting houses, and to check out types of security doors to buy. Other
reasons given by MODERN subjects were walking for fresh air, to view landscaping, and
to go to the clubhouse and swimming pooL
Walkinp frequency. Walking frequency patterns were similar in both groups (df=
I, 117,/*= 1.46, p > .05). The mean frequency was weekly and the mode was every two
weeks, but on this item, nearly 30 percent said they rarefy or never walk in their
residential areas. Most people reported walking alone (63%) or sometimes with another
person (37%), and there were no group differences in these rates (df = 1, x2 = 1-52, p >
.05).
Conclusion. Hypothesis 2 is supported because TRADITIONAL women report
higher use of services within a mile of home, and they walk in their neighborhoods for a
greater variety of reasons. Moreover, TRADITIONAL women make greater use of
public transportation, and accessing the bus occurs within the neighborhood. Also, when
driving ability is controlled, MODERN subjects drive to more services. However, there
are reasons to reject the hypothesis: driving distances to most services were similar for
both groups; walking frequency and walking endurance were similar in the two groups;
and new urbanism did not influence recreational neighborhood walking. Nevertheless,
because greater use and pedestrian access to neighborhood services is associated with
160
the presence of those services in the environment, there is an apparent relationship
between physical environment features and resident behavior. Therefore, the hypothesis
is supported.
Hypothesis 3: When personal characteristics are controlled, new urbanism neighborhood
features will partially explain quality of life variance among older women.
Quality of life was measured as both a Quality of Life Index score and as a
single-hem COOP Chart score. Group differences for these were determined with the 2-
tailed /-test procedure. First, the QLI results: the MODERN subjects rated themselves
higher (M = 25.1, SD = 3.2) than the TRADITIONAL subjects (M = 23.2, SD = 4.3), df
= 115, / = -.95, p=.004. Although the scores ranged widely from 11.3 to 30.0, the
rating distribution was skewed toward the positive end: very good (25 to 30) = 47
percent; good (20 to 25) = 40 percent; not good (15 to 20) = 10 percent; and poor (10
to 15) = 3 percent.
The COOP quality of life ratings were also higher for the MODERN subjects (M
= 4.2, SD = .80) than the TRADITIONAL subjects (M = 3.9, SD = .85), though the
differences were not significant (df = 131, r = -1.81,/? = .073).
Concurrent validity between the two quality-of-life measures (Le. QLI and COOP
Quality of Life Chart) was (N = 133) r = 0.43, p = .000. The use of two separate
dependent variable measures strengthens any argument supported by the findings when
results are in the same direction, even though the magnitude may differ. Another reason
161
for using two measures is that quality of life is often cited as a research outcome, but
there are few well-tested measures. Thus, these comparative findings contribute toward
refining the construct. However, since the correlation between the two measures did not
exceed 0.70, only the Quality of Life Index, because of its psychometric strength, was
used to test the hypothesis.
Quality of Life Index missing rates One concern about the QLI was the possible
effect of high missing rates experienced with this older sample. However, the missing
response rates (Table XXVII) were essentially the same in both groups, except for a
a
higher rate on the Family subscale in the TRADITIONAL group. Since the Family
subscale had only four items pertaining to children or a spouse, none of the subjects had
a spouse, and several TRADITIONAL women considered the family items non-
applicable, one can conclude that they were more apt to be childless. However, to
further rule out this effect, the groups were also compared for performance on the QLI
subscales.
Table XXVII
/-Test New-Urbanism Group Comparisons for Quality of Life Index Missing Responses
TRADITIONAL MODERN
Items, N= 34
n % n % df
t
15 % or more (n = 5 +) 27 43 32 46 131 -.33
20 % or more (n = 7 +) 14 22 11 16 131 .96
25 % or more (n = 9 +) 4 6 5 7 131 -.48
*p< .05 **p<. 01
162
Quality of Life Index subscale comparisons. New urbanism group comparisons
made with t test analyses (Table XXVIQ), showed greater variance and lower mean
scores among the TRADITIONAL subjects in each subscale. However, the only
significant difference between the new-urbanism groups was in the Health and
Functioning subscale, which reflects the sample differences discussed earlier.
Table XXVm
t-Test New-Urbanism Group Comparisons for Quality of Life Index Subscales
TRADITIONAL MODERN
Source M SD M SD
df
t
Health & Functioning 23.2 4.4 24.5 3.2 131 -1.99*
Socioeconomic 23.8 4.1 24.7 3.5 131 -1.34
Psychological/spiritual 24.7 2.6 25.2 1.6 101 -1.50
Family 25.3 5.8 26.8 3.8 86 -1.70
* p <. 05 * * p <. 01
Hvpothesis-testing analyses. Multiple linear regression was used to test this
hypothesis. All independent personal variables in the study model (Figure 8) were
entered into block 1 as control variables because they had the potential for influencing
quality of hfe. The variables that showed census-tract sample differences described
earlier were particularly important to retain: income, dwelling age, dwelling tenure,
functional health, and social support. Block 2 contained the New Urbanism Index
163
variable because it differentiated the groups and the item was central to the research
purpose, hi order to gauge the effect of new urbanism on quality of life, it was the last
independent variable entered in the modeL
The baseline correlation between Quality of Life Index scores and New Urbanism
Index scores was significant, but moderately weak and in a negative direction ( = 133),
r = -0.26, p = .001. In the final regression model (Table XXIX), however, new urbanism
had no effect on quality of life, in that the adjusted R2 (.60) did not change between
steps 1 and 2. This model changed the new urbanism beta coefficient to -0.11 (p> .03).
The factors that partially explained quality of life were personal income, functional
health, perceived social support, housing tenure, and home ownership. These results
indicate that the individual characteristics which partially explain the variance in quality
of life are associated with residential suburban location (as discussed earlier in the
comparison of urban and suburban census-tract samples).
To rule out the effect of attitudes about neighborhood physical environments, a
revised regression model included another control variable in block 1. The new variable
was importance mean of new urbanism neighborhood characteristics, a score derived
from 12 new urbanism opinion items rated S (very important) to 1 (not at all important).
The addition of opinion about new urbanism features did not change the effect of new
urbanism from the original model (.B = -.06, SE B = 04, f5 = -.17, p > .05), and there
were no changes in the predictor variables.
164
Table XXIX
Summary of Hierarchical Regression Analysis for Variables Predicting Quality of Life (N
= 106)
Variable B SEB
P
Block 1
Age 0.01 0.06 .01
Income 0.79 0.32 .18*
Education -0.17 0.14 -.10
Functional health 0.39 0.07 .51**
Social support 0.85 0.24 .25**
Walking distance ability 0.40 0.25 .14
Dwelling age -0.00 0.02 -.01
Tenure in dwelling 0.06 0.02 .25**
Home ownership -3.44 1.60 -.14*
Block 2
New urbanism
-0.05 0.03 -.15
Note: Adjusted R1= .60 for Block 1; Adjusted R? = .60 for Block 2 (df = 105, F =
14.22, p = .000)
* p <. 05 **p<. 01
Conclusions. Hypothesis 3 was not supported. The MODERN group reported a
higher quality of life than the TRADITIONAL group did for both quality of life
measures, and there were no missing-response rate differences that would influence this
165
finding. However, for the QLI measure there was greater variance among the
TRADITIONAL women in every subscale. A higher missing response rate among the
TRADITIONAL group for the Family subscale indicates a higher rate of childlessness
within the group, but this did not create any group differences in Family subscale scores.
When personal and residential area characteristics were controlled in a regression model,
new urbanism neighborhood environment features did not partially explain quality of life
in this elderly population. However, as anticipated, several personal characteristics did
partially explain quality-of-life variance.
CHAPTER 5: DISCUSSION AND IMPLICATIONS
Discussion
This study was undertaken to explore whether suburban neighborhood physical
environment conditions are adequate for elderly persons. Despite the expanding senior
population in suburban areas, there is limited knowledge about the suitability of these
settings for long-term aging in place. Post-World War II communities were typically
designed for automobile commuting and a single use (residential), and many suburban
elderly purchased their houses when those communities were new. As they grow older,
these seniors have greater risks for driving and walking limitations that can seriously
inhibit their ability to obtain groceries, medications, medical care, and recreational or
social stimulation. Thus, there is increasing interest in whether older persons can thrive in
these settings and whether they are inclined to stay and age in place. The broader
question is, what makes a good fit between the older person and the residential
environment?
In the following section the study results are discussed in order of the hypotheses
tests, followed by a conclusion that pertains to the theoretical question of person-
environment fit for the elderly. The chapter also includes an overview of the study
strengths and limitations, and a discussion of the research and practice implications.
In this chapter, the group label TRADITIONAL will equate to the
conventional term urban and the group label MODERN will equate to the term
167
suburban, in order to focus on the findings in relation to other studies. This is
necessary because the conceptual terms (urban and suburban) do not apply to all subjects
(Le. 5 cases were rated differently from their census tract neighbors). Also, it should be
noted that urban represents central Portland, Oregon, and does not in any way typify
older urban core neighborhoods that exist, for example, in major US cities. Similarly,
suburban represents neighborhoods outside the center of Portland that are well
integrated into the fabric of the regional metropolitan complex That is, they do not
represent disenfranchised urban sprawl areas that indefinitely extend the edges of
several large cities in this country.
The study findings were that TRADITIONAL older women have more positive
attitudes about their neighborhood physical environments than MODERN (primarily
suburban) older women, that TRADITIONAL subjects engage in more intensive
neighborhood activity than MODERN subjects do, and that new urbanism environmental
features do not partially predict quality of life.
Discussion of Hypotheses Test Results
Hypothesis 1: Attitudes about the neighborhood. There is promising evidence
from the study that people tend to like one type of setting over another, as suggested by
others (Chapman & Beaudet, 1983; Dueker & Bianco, 1996). Based on statistical
findings from the Neighborhood Quality Index, TRADITIONAL subjects are more
positive about their neighborhood physical environments than MODERN women, when
168
environment is defined as a set of new-urbanism features and personal and residential-
area characteristics are controlled. These findings expand upon evidence provided by
Carp and Carps (1982a) purely urban sample, which also found it valuable to have
nearby stores, quiet conditions, and a handy bus stop. In the present study, however,
TRADITIONAL subjects valued these features more than MODERN subjects did. This
suggests that suburban and urban residents may have different residential area
preferences, as proposed in Kahanas (1975) congruence model of person-environment
interaction. Presumably, if MODERN subjects liked urban neighborhood conditions, they
would have rated them as high as the TRADITIONAL subjects did.
Subjects in the MODERN group may be happier with their residential
arrangements because they are living where they want to live. Several gave reasons for
moving to their neighborhoods which implied that they had purposely chosen less dense,
less commercial areas for establishing their homes. The only unique environmental
dissatisfaction they had was the lack of sidewalks. Moreover, only 20 percent of the
MODERN subjects expressed that need, which corresponds to the objective data that 60
percent of the suburban samples in CT 314.01 and CT 94, and 46 percent in CT 93,
already have sidewalks. Others may not want sidewalksas one person put it, sidewalks
would ruin the character out here. Other than this, there was no overt evidence that
MODERN seniors are any less happy with their neighborhoods than TRADITIONAL
seniors are.
169
Surprisingly, TRADITIONAL subjects did not value sidewalks in their present
neighborhoods. However, sidewalks were important to them for their future homes, in
contrast to MODERN women. This may be a measurement discrepancy because of the
different ways that the questions were structured. Since paved walkways are ubiquitous
in the urban environment (only 13% of CT 17.01 subjects did not have them),
respondents may not have thought about what the absence of sidewalks would mean for
them
General neighborhood satisfaction, measured in several ways statistically, was
high among TRADITIONAL as well as MODERN women. This finding was consistent
with that of others reported in the literature. Older persons tend to express higher
satisfaction with their residential areas than younger people (Ward et aL, 1988), and
home owners are more satisfied than renters (OBryant & Wolf 1983). Since 97 percent
of this sample were home owners, neighborhood satisfaction was expected. However,
since there were so few renters, it was not possible to determine whether home
ownership made an actual difference in attitude. The neighborhood satisfaction ratings,
though weaker measures than the Neighborhood Quality Index, did show that
MODERN subjects are slightly more content with their residential areas than older urban
women are. Ward et al. also found that older residents in age-dense urban neighborhoods
were less satisfied than suburban residents with their neighborhoods. While group
formations in that study were based only on area density, the use of detailed objective
170
neighborhood observations to form groups in this study serves to validate that older
suburbanites express greater satisfaction with their living areas than older urbanites do.
The influence of residential environment on future moving behavior was
negligible, and about 80 percent of the sample plans to age in place. Although this rate is
slightly lower than the recent AARP report that 86 percent of the older population never
wants to move, it is consistent with the trend that most people plan to stay where they
are and see no reason for changing to another home. The TRADITIONAL-MODERN
finding adds validity to the belief expressed by social scientists and policy planners that
most older peoples ideal is aging in place.
In sum, both TRADITIONAL and MODERN subjects were positive about then-
residential areas. However, women in TRADITIONAL neighborhoods expressed highly
positive attitudes about their areas, which had physical features known to appeal to older
urban residents based on previous research. Subjects in MODERN neighborhoods
expressed only moderately positive attitudes about those same features.
Hypothesis 2: Neighborhood activity. As predicted, the use of neighborhood
services (that is, services located within 1 mile) was higher among TRADITIONAL
women. However, the highest use of any one neighborhood service (grocery shopping)
was reported by only one third of them. This lower-than-expected rate may be associated
either with having neighborhood grocery stores that are too small and possibly
associated with poor safety (Burby & Rohe, 1990), with the phenomena of busy streets
or industrial areas that serve as barriers (Regnier, 1976), or with the lack of any nearby
171
store. The fact that four out of five TRADITIONAL women shop or use at least one
service within I mile of home may be associated with the premise that people who drive
use a larger community environment than those who are dependent on other forms of
transportation. Thus, the relatively high driving rates in both groups probably reduces the
within-neighborhood service use in both urban and suburban areas.
Since suburban areas are usually portrayed as having no convenient services or
commercial areas, an unanticipated finding was that more MODERN women than
expected use neighborhood services. This result is consistent with Smiths (1991) report
that both urban and suburban women tend to shop for groceries near home. Other
reasons for the higher-than-expected use of nearby services in MODERN neighborhoods
may be related to measurement and sampling. If the new-urbanism characteristics for
neighborhoods of subjects had been measured within a 1-mile radius rather than a 1/4-
mile radius, the areas may have been more alike than different. Although the New
Urbanism Index effectively differentiated traditional (urban) and modem (suburban)
neighborhoods, the use of census tracts that had high aging densities within one
convenient region forced selection of areas that were fairly similar with regard to
services and environmental structure. As the urban population grows, formerly suburban
areas begin to have increased density. Along with this, more services and retail outlets
are attracted to those sections of the metropolitan area, and after awhile, the suburban
areas take on an urban character.
The influence of the neighborhood physical environment on walking activity
appears positive on one hand. Specifically, walking was more prevalent in
TRADITIONAL areas, where there are more pedestrian walkways and destination
services. This illustrates a situation of environmental probabilism (Krupat, 1985), in
which environmental conditions make certain behavioral choices more likely. When
facilities that are necessary for normal household and personal maintenance are handy,
they are apt to be accessed by walking. Perhaps if services were more available in all
types of residential areas, seniors would increase their walking. When essential services
are not convenient, however, those who are capable find ways to access them other than
by walking (Chapman & Beaudet, 1983)--illustrating the concept of environmental
adaptation (Lawton, 1986).
On the other hand, the lack of physical environment conditions such as sidewalks
in MODERN neighborhoods, did not create a negative effect. Those residents were
equally as active in recreational walking as were the TRADITIONAL women. This
suggests that recreational pursuit is driven more by motives for maintaining good health
and social relationships than by environmental conditions. In this sample, walking had a
low correlation with the presence of neighborhood sidewalks. However, the presence of
sidewalks is desired by many MODERN subjects, and their presence may lend a sense of
security and risk reduction.
In the whole sample the walking rate was somewhat higher (20%) than those
reported by others. For instance, Golant (1992) noted that about 10 percent of the
173
elderly travel by walking and Rosenbloom (1994) reported rates of walking for all trips
that ranged from 7 to IS percent among the elderly. The differences may not only stem
from environmental conditions, but from measurement approaches, health status levels,
and local culture.
Driving rates among respondents were lower than reported in the literature.
Possible reasons are that older women traditionally have been less likely to drive, the
costs of maintaining a car can be prohibitive (Cutler & Coward, 1992), and travel needs
decline in the later years of life (Wachs, 1988). One unanticipated finding was that 11
(16%) MODERN women do not drive at all. While this is only half the number of
TRADITIONAL non-drivers, the MODERN women have fewer opportunities to access
nearby services by walking or by riding the bus (because of infrequent service and
inconvenient stops). They have apparently adapted by relying on family or neighbors. A
few women in both groups hire attendants who serve as drivers, and some keep cars for
this purpose. Personal economics may affect the choice between urban or suburban
living, however, as those with lower incomes are less likely to hire drivers.
In sum, neighborhood activity is greater in traditional urban areas because of
nearby services. Since recreational walking was equivalent in the groups, the difference
in total number of neighborhood walking activities was due to service use. The urban
census-tract samples had lower driving rates, lower incomes, and lower rates of
perceived social support. Thus, the urban environment appears to be advantageous for
174
those with limited or no driving ability, limited budgets for hiring drivers or taxis, and
limited social networks available for informal instrumental support with errands.
Hypothesis 3: Quality of life and new uthanism When personal and residential
area characteristics were controlled in a regression model, new urbanism neighborhood
environment features did not partially explain quality of life in this elderly population.
This finding does not support the claims of new urbanists that traditional-style
communities with grid streets, sidewalks, centralized services, and public green spaces
yield a higher quality of life than communities without those characteristics. One
explanation is the weakness of the environmental determinism argument (Wirth, 1938).
That is, environmental structure and characteristics do not shape behavior or perceptions
about self Rather, people interact dynamically with their environments, based on
individual needs, abilities, resources, and preferences.
Residential area fit is closely associated with neighborhood satisfaction, defined
as a linkage between objective environmental qualities, personal characteristics, and the
persons own subjective definitions of ideal neighborhood (La Gory et al, 1985; Lee &
Guest, 1983). hi this study, when personal characteristics such as health status, income,
and driving ability were controlled, older women in modem suburban environments
reported higher quality of life than women in traditional urban neighborhoods. The
adequate sample size of 133 subjects and the substantial variance in all independent
variables except home ownership strongly support the conclusion that new urbanism
environmental features per se have no influence on quality of life. However, there are
175
apparent associations between suburban locations and higher income, home ownership,
better health, stronger social support, and length of tenure in the house that do influence
quality of life. That is, older suburban enjoy better health, income, and social support
than urban older women do, and these clearly affect quality of life.
Explanations for the higher quality of life enjoyed by the suburban elderly pertain
to personal assets and setting preferences. Although the personal factors were controlled
in the regression model, MODERN neighborhood subjects may benefit from a
combination of greater family, health, and financial resources that enable them to adapt
better and fit well in the type of area which they prefer. (Unanswered questions include
whether suburban women actually have more nearby family and whether the apparent
suburban person-environment fit will be sustained with the onset of frailty.) Also, urban
and suburban environments may attract different populations. Although there was no
TRADITIONAL-MODERN difference in neighborhood satisfaction, some study
findings supported traditional urban environments as preferred and other findings
supported modem suburban environments as preferred.
One reason for the minor difference in quality of life by type of neighborhood
may pertain to a weak overall relationship between residential physical environment and
quality of life. Because new urbanists as well as aging and environment researchers have
implied that residential physical environment influences quality of life, this assumption
was measured directly. The QLI was selected to measure quality of life because of its
potential as a theoretical proxy for well-being, long felt to be an effect of residential
176
environment on persons. As discussed in Chapter 3, the QLI contains a broad set of
individual factors similar to well-being indicators used in prior studies.
In addition to the conceptual reasons for considering quality of life as a
dependent variable, there are also practical considerations. One issue in the choice of
QLI as a quality of life measure is whether the indicators can realistically be influenced
by neighborhood physical environment. Specifically, of the 34 QLI items, only one
(your neighborhood) might be directly influenced by the neighborhood physical
environment, although the correlation of new urbanism with importance of your
neighborhood x satisfaction with your neighborhood was nil (r = 0.01). Other items that
could be influenced by neighborhood design in a way that reflects a persons sense of self
are your home or your standard of living Conceivably, neighborhood environment
could also influence some factors indirectly. Those items and reasons are: the amount of
"'physical independence that one feels because of safety or mobility features in the
setting; the amount of control the person feels in terms of ability to get around the
neighborhood on walkways to nearby services; ones leisure time activities, which may
be linked to a local community center or park; the ability to travel on vacations or
your peace of mind that may be affected by neighborhood safety and security
conditions; or emotional support received from others and usefulness to others, if
neighborhood houses and walkways are designed in ways that truly foster pedestrian
interaction and meaningful neighbor relationships. Although health might be helped by
environmental conditions, such as sidewalks that encourage safe exercise and nearby
177
stores with nutritious food, it is a complex relationship influenced by many other factors.
Finally, financial independence may be affected by the availability of affordable housing
in the neighborhood that would foster opportunities to age in place. Thus, only 12 of the
34 QLI items seem appropriately dependent on the neighborhood environment, even
though the other 22 items are part of the quality of life construct.
Another facet of the QLI measure is that the scores were similar to those
reported for other older, but greatly different populations. In Olesons (1992) study of
older nursing home residents (n = 60), quality of life was perceived as relatively good (M
= 21), and it correlated significantly and positively with age (r = 0.33). The quality-of-
life predictors were better perceived health, higher quality of nursing care, having a
confidant, having lived alone previously, fewer functional dependencies, having lived
longer in the nursing home, and having a roommate Kleinpell (1991), who studied
intensive care patients (n = 164) in three middle and older adult age groups four to six
months after hospitalization, reported a mean QLI score of 21.4 (SD = 6.3). There were
no significant differences among the age groups. In that study, as in this one, the Family
subscale mean was higher than the Psychological/spiritual, Socioeconomic, and Health
and Functioning subscale means. Also similar to the earlier study, for both
TRADITIONAL and MODERN groups the Health and Functioning subscale means
were the lowest rated subscales. The overall QLI scores for both TRADITIONAL (M =
23.2) and MODERN ( M = 25.1) groups were higher than these two earlier studies, as
would be expected for a community-drawn sample living independently. Although these
178
comparisons are limited to two studies, they lend credibility that the quality of life scores
reflect responses of a broader population of older people.
In conclusion, results of the hypotheses tests confirmed some beliefs of new
urbanists. That is, pedestrian-focused neighborhoods are preferred by those who live
there and residents of those types of areas engage in more neighborhood walking and
service-use activities than residents of modem, or suburban, areas. However, the results
did not support other new urbanism beliefsthat those who live outside of pedestrian-
focused neighborhoods will be attracted to new-urbanism types of settings and that those
who live in such settings benefit from that milieu, hi fret, there was conclusive evidence
that elderly in traditional urban-type settings perceive lower quality of life than elderly in
modem suburban-type settings, when individual factors such as health and illness are
controlled.
Overall, the findings support the theories that environmental fit is linked to
personal competence (Lawton & Nahemow, 1973), and this is augmented by personal
preference for type of residential area (Kahana, 1975). Residential area fit for aging
persons is dependent on personal resources, particularly physical and mental abilities,
income, and social support. Although evidence in this study is marginal., environmental
fit seems to be better when people live in areas where they have personal or family
attachment and where they feel comfortable. Some like the convenience of urban
services and ready access to help, and others seem to like open spaces and less
commercialism In view of the findings and the practicality that residential physical
179
environment has only m a r g in al conceptual association with quality of life, the study
model was revised as shown in Figure 11.
Strengths and Limits
Strengths of the study. Among the study strengths are the systematic sampling of
residential areas, the solicitation of nearly 100 percent of all possible urban subjects and a
similar size set of suburban subjects, and the excellent return rates among those who
agreed to consider participating. Another strength was the extent of the investigators
engagement with the study communities, which included numerous observation trips and
an invaluable opportunity to visit with the seniors who agreed to be respondents. This
afforded a rich exposure to their wide range of opinions, life-experience stories,
community perspectives, personalities, and health conditions that helped shape the
interpretation of the quantitative findings. These home-visit interactions were an effective
method for establishing enough trust and commitment to result in a nearly complete
return rate among those who agreed to this way of gaining information about the study
and eliciting participation. Also, the survey instruments were purposely limited so as not
to overwhelm the elderly subjects. Based on the return rates, they met that objective.
A unique contribution of the study to future aging and environment research is
the New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics, a reliable environmental
observation tool It provided a practical means of defining and measuring urbanism at the
neighborhood level It also expands the limited collection of community observation
Figure 11
Revised Model of Aging Person-Neighboihood Environment Fit
180
INDEPENDENT VARIABLES
Personal Characteristics
Income
Functional Health
Social Support
Home Ownership
Family Proximity
Neighborhood Network
Walking and Driving Abilities
Residential Area Preferences
Residential Area Urbanism Characteristics
DEPENDENT VARIABLES
Neighborhood Activity and Socialization
Services Used
Walking Activities and Frequency
Driving Activity
Socialization and Recreation
Mental Health
Selected Quality of Life Indicators
Victimization Rates
Longevity in Place
181
instruments available for research (Perkins et al., 1993), because it conceptualizes
residential area environment as a separate entity. Therefore, it should be useful to others
conducting research in the areas of community planning, public-area landscaping,
transportation, and neighborhood commercial economics.
The study also generated knowledge about several demographic, health, and
activity characteristics of older urban and suburban single-women householders. Prior to
this, most community-focused investigations of the elderly have utilized urban-rural
and/or congregate-dwelling samples. Another contribution to the literature is the
expanded knowledge about quality of life in a relatively well older female population.
The quality of life data should add to the ongoing validation of this construct, upon
which so many health-care conclusions are drawn.
Finally, the quasi-experimental group-comparison research design allowed
statistical controls through regression and other analytic methods that contribute to
reliable and valid findings. This, together with satisfactory psychometric properties of the
study instruments, makes possible the generalization of conclusions to other single
house-dwelling populations of similar-age women.
Study limitations There were also limitations that need to be mentioned. One
was that among those solicited for the study, the participation rates were low (urban
sample 36%, suburban sample 43%, and older subjects 28%). Although the population
of interest was older frail residents, it was difficult to incorporate them into the sample.
The solicitation methods of a letter and telephone call were not highly effective for
182
recruiting a group willing to consider participation. Although the sample age
distributions were excellent, the age ranges were similar in the comparison groups, and
about 40 percent of both groups were age 80 and over, only 13 subjects (10%) were old
old (85 and older). Various refusal reasons were: Im too old for this; 1 dont have to
do this any more; I dont let anyone into my home that I dont know; I dont feel
well; I just got out of the hospital; or Im too busy. The under-representation of
frail older people in the sample limits the generalizability of the findings to the younger
and mid-level old populations, as well as those of relatively good health.
Also, some measurement bias was possible in three of the variables. One item in
the Neighborhood Quality Index that seemed puzzling to respondents was variety of
housing options. During orientation it was interpreted as choices such as apartments.
If the respondent did not question the meaning, it was not mentioned, and it was not
discussed with the mail respondents. A few MODERN subjects wanted to express that
not having a variety of housing options was very important to them, and the instrument
did not allow that option. They were advised to rate the item as not at all important.
Another item that seemed to be interpreted variously was a center of activity in the
area. Usually it was not explained for the subject. However, their comments indicated
that some saw this as a senior center, while others saw it as an area of commercial focus.
The third problematic item was the COOP chart of physical fitness, because it measured
both mobility and strength. Subjects were told to consider both aspects and pick one
level that best represented them. Hopefully, consistent directions prevented serious bias.
183
Although data collection for the neighborhood environments was conducted the
same way for all respondents, the lack of uniform data-collection methods (visit versus
mail, and written response versus verbal response) used with subjects is another potential
source of bias. These various approaches were considered necessary to reach the sample-
size goal. Every effort was made to accommodate the older subjects without
compromising the research integrity, but there may be systematic differences in the mail
group or verbal-response sets. None were detected.
Finally, this study was limited by a cross-sectional design, which provides subject
opinion at only one point in time even though viewpoints may later change as subjects
have new experiences such as sickness. To gain as broad a perspective as possible, and
offset this shortcoming, several geographical areas and a 20-year age range were
deliberately included in the sampling design.
Implications for Research and Practice
A recommendation for future research of suburban aging in place is to utilize a
longitudinal approach to complement this cross-sectional design. It would be valuable to
learn how seniors ideal plans for staying in the house took shape over time. A more in-
depth understanding is needed of the aging persons decision-making process, of the
dilemmas that are faced, and of the environmental, financial, and social support
mechanisms that are available or missing over time. Because everyone faces the issue of
a possible move at different ages in later life, and perhaps at several points, it would be
184
necessary to study these perspectives over a period of time in order to capture the
common experience from an individual perspective. Due to the reluctance of the old old
to participate in surveys such as this (Herzog & Rodgers, 1988; Neal, Carder & Morgan,
1996), it is recommended that subjects be recruited while in their late 70s and early
80s, when they are more apt to be agreeable.
A qualitative approach such as that used by Rowles (1978) would allow better
understanding of the reasons people want to stay in place, and the nuances and patterns
involved in decision-making about home during the last years of life. From a planning
and service delivery standpoint, it would be useful to know whether suburban elders who
wished to stay at home as 75-year-olds actually did remain there by age 85 or 90, or
whether they moved elsewherein or out of their neighborhoods, with family or not, to
multi-family dwellings, or to congregate-care residential places.
Another approach that should be undertaken to study suburban aging in place is a
broad community assessment and evaluation. This study made no attempt to account for
particular types or dimensions of neighborhood services and multi-family housing, nor of
utilization patterns among the elderly. Assessment and evaluation of the present housing,
future housing needs, and demand among seniors are critical for supporting quality of life
for this vulnerable population. The same can be said for service and transportation supply
and demand. This study could also be replicated among apartment dwellers, and among
men, to see if there were similar conclusions about urban and suburban subjects.
185
A third type of follow-up from this study pertains to walking behavior because
knowledge of self-directed walking among community-dwelling elderly is limited.
Although considerable work has been done to demonstrate the benefits of walking
among seniors, there is little information about the relationship of community physical
and social environment effects on neighborhood walking. The finding that most older
women in both MODERN and TRADITIONAL neighborhood settings were exercising
and walking for other types of recreation was very encouraging. However, the modal
frequency for both groups was only bi-weekly. Since walking is such an effective,
convenient, and low-cost form of exercise, there is a need for better understanding of the
combination of environmental, personal, and social conditions that promote walking in
the neighborhood. Environmental and social conditions that could be explored include
walkway quality, lighting, crime rates, evidence of property crime prevention [based on
Perkins (1993) work], and destination opportunities, as well as personal conditions such
as exercise history, walking- comp anion availability, and walking motives. From a
planning and policy perspective, the present study showed that senior residents in
MODERN neighborhood areas are asking for safe walking conditions. Sidewalk
retrofitting should be done in communities that were developed before sidewalks became
part of the zoning codes. Along with this goes good lighting and safe crossing signals
timed for older pedestrians.
Although the study did not measure neighbor relations, a general observation was
that many older persons (in both TRADITIONAL and MODERN areas) do not know
186
their newer neighbors, other than that they tend to be employed and away from home
during the day or that they are absentee landlords. Several women seemed distressed by
this, or at least wistful of former days when everyone knew each other. Since neighbor
relationships may influence property maintenance, and this was the top recommendation
for neighborhood improvement in both groups, it bears further investigation. In addition,
considering that several residents of Cedar Hills and Summerfield attributed the lack of
problems in their areas to ownership associations, this may be an asset to aging
populations that could be implemented and evaluated in other communities.
Finally, the New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics requires
additional work. One focus could be to enlarge the community scope to a one-mile
radius, in order to capture more services and public transportation conditions within the
neighborhood sphere. However, the issues of incorporating a larger measurement area
include more costly data gathering, more complex data-gathering that may afreet
reliability, fewer degrees of freedom associated with more aggregate-level data, and
possibly lower sensitivity between traditional and modem communities (as these were
defined in this study). A recommended method for further reliability and discrimination
testing is the use of photographs along with observation. Improvements should focus on
these items: front porches, garage placement, residential styles, residential traditional
design, residential facades, and building architecture. Greater enumerative detail could
also be developed for the commercial and civic space items. As the new urbanism
framework increasingly influences the work of planners in new developments and older
187
townsGragg (1996) calls it the most pervasive American planning movement in 30
yearsthe instrument should be developed so that it is flexible enough for application in
civic evaluation as well as social science research.
REFERENCES
A. Nelessen Associates, Inc. (June, 1993). Picture This... The Results of a Visual
Preference Survey. Princeton, NJ: Author.
Abbott, C., Ewing, T., Gillespie, K., Herwick, M., Sutherland, D., White, R., &
Winzurk, H. (n. d.). News from the hood: A research note on neighborhood as
a category of analysis in recent urban scholarship. Portland, OR: Portland State
University, Urban Studies and Planning.
Adler, J. (May 15, 1995). Lifestyle: Bye-bye, suburban dream. Newsweek, pp. 40-53.
American Association of Retired Persons (1990). Understanding senior housing for
the 1990s. Washington, D.C.: Author.
American Association of Retired Persons (1992). A profile of older Americans.
Washington, D.C.: Author.
Audirac, I. & Shermyen, A (1994). An evaluation of neotraditional design's social
prescription: postmodern placebo or remedy for suburban malaise? Journal of
Planning Education and Research 13. 161-173.
Becker, P. & Cohen, H. (1984). The functional approach to the care of the elderly:
A conceptual framework. Journal of the American Geriatric Society 32. 923-
929.
Berry, W. & Feldman, S. (1985). Multiple Regression in Practice. Newbury Park. CA:
Sage Publications.
Bressi, T. (1994). Planning the American Dream. In P. Katz (Ed.), The new urbanism:
Toward an architecture o f community, (pp. xxv-xlii). NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Bultena, G. & Wood, V. (1969). The American retirement community: Bane or
blessing? Journal of Gerontology 24. 209-217.
Burby, R. & Rohe, W. (1990). Providing for the housing needs of the elderly. Journal
of the American Planning Association 56, 324-40.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community, and the
American dream NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
Calthorpe, P. (1994). The region. In P. Katz (Ed.), The new urbanism: Toward an
architecture of community, (pp. xi-xvi). NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
189
Campbell, A., Converse, P. & Rodgers, W. (1976). The Quality of American Life:
Perceptions. Evaluation and Satisfactions. NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Carp, F. (1976). Housing and living environments of older people. In R. Binstock & E.
Shanas (Eds.), Handhnnk of aging and the social sciences (pp. 244-263). New
York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Co.
Carp, F. (1988). Significance of mobility for the well-being of the elderly. In
Transportation Research Board (Ed.), Transportation in an aging society:
Improving mobility and safety for older persons. (Volume 2; Special Report
218, pp. 1-20). Washington, D.C.: National Research Council
Carp, F. & Carp, A. (1982a). The ideal residential area. Research on Aging 4 (4), 411-
439.
Carp, F. & Carp, A. (1982b). A role for technical assessment in perceptions of
environmental quality and well-being. Journal of Environmental Psychology 2,
171-91.
Carp, F. & Christensen, D. (1986a). Technical environmental assessment predictors of
residential satisfaction: a study of elderly women living alone. Research on
Aging 8,269-87.
Carp, F. & Christensen, D. (1986b). Older women living alone: technical environmental
assessment of psychological well-being. Research on Aging 8, 407-25.
Cervero, R. & Gorham, R. (1995). Commuting in transit versus automobile
neighborhoods. Journal of the American Planning Association 61. 210-225.
Chapman, N. (1989). Improving mobility for older people: Walking, driving, and public
transit. Livable Environments for Older People: Resource Papers for Planners.
Portland, OR: Portland State University.
Chapman, N. (1994). Community and neighborhood issues. In A Monk (Ed.), The
Columbia Retirement Handbook New York: Columbia University Press.
Chapman, N. & Beaudet, M. (1983). Environmental predictors of well-being for at-risk
older adults in a mid-sized city. Journal of Gerontology 38. 237-244.
Church, F. (May 12, 1996). In search of the suburban dream: What is neotraditional?
The Sunday Oregonian (Forum), pp. E1,E4.
190
Cole Publications (1995). Coles cross reference directory: Greater Portland 1995 issue.
Portland, OR: Author.
Committee on an Aging Society, Institute of Medicine & National Research Council
(1988). America's aging: The social and built environment in an older society.
Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Crane, R & Crepeau, R (1996). Does neighborhood design influence travel?: A
behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Paper presented at Portland
State University, School of Urban and Public Affairs, October, 1996.
Crystal, H., Ortof E., Frishman, W., Gruber, A., Hershman, D. & Aronson, M. (1994).
Serum vitamin B12 levels and incidence of dementia in a healthy elderly
population: a report from the Bronx Longitudinal Aging Study. Journal of the
American Geriatric Society 42 (9), 933-936.
Cutler, S. (1972). The availability of personal transportation, residential location, and life
satisfaction among the aged. Journal of Gerontology 27, 383-389.
Cutler, S. & Coward, R (1992). Availability of personal transportation in households of
elders: Age, gender, and residence differences. The Gerontologist 32(1), 77-81.
DeKeyser, F., Carolan, D. & Trask, A (1995). Suburban geriatric trauma: The
experiences of a level I trauma center. American Journal of Critical Care 4 (5),
379-382.
Devanand, D., Sano, M., Tang, M., Taylor, S., Gurland, B., Wilder, D., Stem, Y. &
Mayeux, R (1996). Depressed mood and the incidence of Alzheimers disease
in the elderly living in the community. Archives of General Psychiatry 53 (2),
175-182.
Duany, A. & Plater-Zyberk, E. (1994). The neighborhood, the district and the corridor.
In P. Katz (Ed.), The new urbanism- Toward an architecture of community, (pp.
xvii-xx). New York: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Dueker, K. & Bianco, M. (1996). Neotraditional design: Resisting the decentralizing
forces of new spatial technologies. Discussion Paper 96-6. Portland, OR:
Portland State University, Center for Urban Studies.
Ebner, M. (1985). Re-reading suburban America: Urban population deconcentration,
1910 to 1980. American Quarterly 37. 368-381.
Ellin, N. (1996). Postmodern urbanism Cambridge, MA: Blackwell Publishers.
191
Felton, B., Hinrichsen, G. & Tsembetis, S. (1981). Urban-suburban differences in the
predictors of moral among the aged. Journal of Gerontology 36. 214-233.
Fengler & Danigelis (1982). Residence, the elderly widow, and life satisfaction. Research
on Aging 4 UV 113-135.
Ferrans, C. (1990). Development of a quality of life index for patients with cancer.
Oncology Nursing Forum 17 (3. Suppl), 15-19.
Ferrans, C. & Powers, M. (1985). Quality of Life Index: Development and psychometric
properties. Advances in Nursing Science 8. 15-24.
Ferrans, C. & Powers, M. (1992). Psychometric assessment of the Quality of Life Index.
Research in Nursing and Health 15. 29-38.
Fischer, C. & Jackson, R. (1976). Suburbs, networks and attitudes. In B. Schwartz
(Ed.), The changing face o f the suburbs. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Fitzpatrick, K. & Logan, J. (1985). The aging of the suburbs, 1960-1980. American
Sociological Review. 50. 106-117.
Fleming, I., Baum, A. & Weiss, L. (1987). Social density and perceived control as
mediators of crowding stress in high-density residential neighborhoods.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 52. 899-906.
Fried, M. (1982). Residential attachment: Sources of residential and community
satisfaction. Journal of Social Issues 38 (3), 107-119.
Golant, S. (1975). Residential concentrations of the future elderly. The Gerontologist 15.
16-23.
Golant, S. (1976). Intraurban transportation needs and problems of the elderly. In M. P.
Lawton, R. Newcomer & T. ByertS (Eds.), Community planning for an aping
society (pp. 282-308). Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.
Golant, S. (1985). The influence of the experienced residential environment on old
peoples life satisfaction. Journal of Housing for the Elderly 3 (3/4), 23-49.
Golant, S. (1987). Residential moves by elderly persons to U.S. central cities, suburbs,
and rural areas. Journal of Gerontology 42 (5), 534-539.
Golant, S. (1990). The metropolitization and suburbanization of the U.S. elderly
population: 1970-1988. The Gerontologist 30 (11.80-85.
192
Golant, S. (1992). Housing Americas elderly: Many possibilities/few choices. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage Publications.
Gonyea, J., Hudson, R., Seltzer, G. (1990). Housing preferences of vulnerable
elders in suburbia. Journal of Housing for the Elderly 7 (1), 79-95.
Gragg, R. (November 17,1996). Shopping for a future. The Sunday Oregonian, pp.
LI, L4-5.
Guralnik, J., Branch, L., Cummings, S. & Curb, J. (1989). Physical performance
measures in aging research. Journal of Gerontological Medicine 44. M141-
M146.
Gutowski M. & Feild, T. (1979). The graving of suburbia. Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute.
Handy, S. (1996). Understanding the link between urban form and nonwork travel
behavior. Journal of Planning Education and Research 15. 183-198.
Herting, J. & Guest, A. (1985). Components of satisfaction with local areas in the
metropolis. The Sociological Quarterly 26. 99-115.
Herzog, A. & Rodgers, W. (1988). Age and response rates to interview sample surveys.
Journal of Gerontology 40. S200-5.
Hollingshead, A (1967). Two Factor Index of Social Position, in C. Bonjean, R. Hill, &
S. McLemore (Eds.), Sociological measurement: An inventory of scales and
indices (pp. 441-448). San Francisco: Chandler Publishing Co.
Hooyman, N. & Kiyak, H. A. (1993). Social Gerontology. (3rd ed.). Boston: Allyn
and Bacon.
Howe, D. & Chapman, N. (February, 1989). Aging in place: Maintaining independence
in the single family residence. Livable Environments for Older People: Resource
Papers for Planners. Portland, OR: Portland State University.
Hoxie, R. & Rubenstein, L. (1994). Are older pedestrians allowed enough time to cross
intersections safely? Journal of American Geriatrics Society 42 (3), 241-244.
Hubbard, P. (1992). Environment-behaviour studies and city design: a new agenda for
research? Journal of Environmental Psychology 12. 269-79.
193
Hummon, D. (1992). Community attachment: Local sentiment and sense of place. In I.
Altman and S. Low (Eds.), Place attachment New York: Plenum Press.
Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York: Vintage
Books, Division of Random House, Inc.
Jirovac, R., Jirovac, M. & Bosse, R. (1984). Environmental determinants of
neighborhood satisfaction among urban elderly men. The Gerontologist 24 (3).
261-265.
Jirovac, R., Jirovac, M. & Bosse, R_ (1985). Residential satisfaction as a function of
micro and macro environmental conditions among urban elderly men. Research
on Aging 7 (4), 601-616.
Kahana, E. (1975). A congruence model of person-environment interaction. In M. P.
Lawton (Ed.), Theory development m environments and aging. New York:
Wiley.
Kane, R. & Kane, R. (1981). Assessing the elderly: A practical guide for measurement.
Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Katz, P. (1994). The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. New York:
McGraw-Hill, Inc.
Katz, S. (1983). Assessing self-maintenance activities of daily living, mobility, and
instrumental activities of daily living. Journal of the American Geriatric Society
31, 721-727.
KleinpelL, R. (1991). Quality of life of critically ill elderly patients. Dissertation Abstracts
International. 52 (9), p. 4668B. Electronic abstract from: Oregon Health
Sciences University, File: Portals Databases, DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS,
Item AA19203412
Kokmen, E., Beard, C., OBrien, P. & Kurland, L. (1996). Epidemiology of
dementia in Rochester, Minnesota. Mavo Clinic Proceedings 7J_ (3), 275-282.
Krause, N. (1993). Neighborhood deterioration and social isolation in later life.
International Journal of Aging and Human Development 36 (11. 9-38.
Kreiger, A. & Lennertz, W. (Eds.) (1991). Andres Duanv and Elizabeth Plater-Zvberk:
Towns and town-making principles. New York: Rizzoli International
Publications.
194
Knipat, E. (1985). People in cities: The urban environment and its effects. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
La Gory, M., Ward, R. & Sherman, S. (1985). The ecology of aging: neighborhood
satisfaction in an older population. The Sociological Quarterly 26 (3), 405-418.
Larson, C., Hays, R. & Nelson, E. (1992). Do the pictures influence scores on the
Dartmouth COOP Charts? Quality of Life Research I , 247-249.
Lawton, M. P. (1980). Environment and aging. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Lawton, M. P. (1982). Competence, environmental press, and the adaptation of older
people. In M. P. Lawton, P. Windley, and T. O. Byerts (Eds.), Aging and the
environment. New York: Springer.
Lawton, M. P. (1986). Environment and aging Albany, NY: Center for the Study of
Aging.
Lawton, M. P. (1990). Residential environment and self-directedness among older
people. American Psychologist 45. 638-640.
Lawton, M. P. & Kleban, M. (1971). The aged resident of the inner city. The
Gerontologist 26, 277-283.
Lawton, M. P., Kleban, M. & diCarlo, E. (1984). Psychological well-being in the aged:
Factorial and conceptual dimensions. Research on Aging 6(1), 67-97.
Lawton, M. P. & Nahemow, L. (1973). Ecology and the aging process. In C. Eisdorfer
and M. P. Lawton (Eds.), Psychology of adult development and aging.
Washington, D. C.: American Psychological Association.
Lawton, M. P. & Nahemow, L., & Yeh, T. (1980). Neighborhood environment and the
well-being of older tenants in planned housing. International Journal of Aging
and Human Development 11 (3), 211-227.
Lee, B. & Guest, A. (1983). Determinants of neighborhood satisfaction: A
metropolitan-level analysis. The Sociological Quarterly 24, 287-303.
Leon, J. & Lair, T. (1990). Functional status of the noninstitutionalized elderly:
Estimates of ADL and IADL difficulties (National Medical Expenditure Survey
Research Findings 4., DHHS Publication No. [PHS] 90-3462). Rockville, MD:
Public Health Service, Agency for Health Care Policy and Research.
195
Lewis-Beck, M (1980). Applied Repression: An Introduction. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage Publications.
Liang, J. & WarfeL, B. (1983). Urbanism and life satisfaction among the aged. Journal of
Gerontology 38.97-106.
Lindberg, E., Haitig, T., Garville, J. & Garling, T. (1992). Residendal-location
preferences across the life span. Journal of Environmental Psychology 12, 187-
98.
Logan, J. (1984). The graying of the suburbs. Aging (345), 4-8.
Logan, J. & Spitze, G. (1988). Suburbanization and public services for the aging. The
Gerontologist 28 (5), 645-647.
Longino, C., Wiseman, R., Biggar, J. & Flynn, C. (1984). Aged metropolitan-
nonmetropolitan migration streams over three census decades. Journal of
Gerontology 39. 721-9.
McHomey, C., Ware, J., Rogers, W., Raczek, A. & Lu, J. (1992). The validity and
relative precision of MOS short- and long-form health status scales and
Dartmouth COOP charts: Results from the Medical Outcomes Study. Medical
Care 30 (5 Suppl), MS253-65.
Meier, Barry (May 7, 1992). America begins to worry about graying drivers. The
Oregonian, p. A3.
Miller, F., Tsemberis, S., Malia, G. & Grega, D. (1980). Neighborhood satisfaction
among urban dwellers. Journal of Social Issues 36, 101-17.
Muschamp, H. (June 2, 1996). Architecture view: Can new urbanism find room for the
old? The New York Times, p. H27.
Neal, M., Carder, P. & Morgan, D. (1996). Use of public records to compare
respondents and nonrespondents in a study of recent widows. Research on Aging
18 (2), 219-242.
Nelson, E., Landgra M., Hays, R_, Wasson, J. & Kirk, J. (1990). The functional status
of patients: How can it be measured in physicians offices? Medical Care 28
(12), 1111-1126.
196
Nelson, E., Wasson, J., Kirk, J., Keller, A., Clark, D., Dietrich, A., Stewart, A. &
Zubkoff M. (1987). Assessment of function in routine clinical practice:
Description of the COOP Chart method and preliminaiy findings. Journal of
Chronic Disease 40 (SuppL I), 555-635.
Neugarten, B., Havighurst, R. & Tobin, S. (1961). The measurement of life satisfaction.
Journal of Gerontology 16. 134-143.
Newcomer, R. (1976). An evaluation of neighborhood service convenience for elderly
housing project residents. In P. Suefeld and L. Russell (Eds.), The Behavioral
Basis of Design. Book 1. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson, and Ross.
Nicholson-Lord, D. (1987). The greening of the cities. London: Routledge & Kegan
Paul
O'Bryant, S. (1982). The value of home to older persons: relationship to housing
satisfaction. Research on Aging 4. 349-63.
O'Bryant, S. & Wolf F. (1983). Explanations of housing satisfaction of older
homeowners and renters. Research on Airing 5 217-33.
Oleson, M. (1992). Nursing home residents quality of life. Rush University, College of
Nursing, D.N. SC. Electronic abstract from: Oregon Health Sciences University,
File: Cinahl Database, subject search: quality of life. Accession Number:
1994189732.
1,000 Friends of Oregon (1993). The pedestrian environment: Volume 4A. Portland,
OR: Parson, Brinckerhoff Quade, and Douglas, Inc. with Cambridge
Systematics, Inc. and Calthorpe Associates.
Pandey, C. (1988). Aging in place by urban elderly homeowners: desire or lack of
choice? Dissertation Abstracts International 49 (11), 3528A. Electronic abstract
from: Oregon Health Sciences University, File: Portals Databases,
DISSERTATION ABSTRACTS, Item: AA18903387
Perkins, D., Wandersman, A., Rich, R_ & Taylor, R. (1993). The physical environment
of street crime: defensible space, territoriality and incivilities. Journal of
Environmental Psychology 13. 29-49.
Rapoport, A. (1977). Human aspects of urban form: Towards a man-environment
approach to urban form and design. Elmsford, NY: Pergamon.
197
Regnier, V. (1976). Neighborhoods as service systems. In M. Lawton, R. Newcomer,
& T. Byerts (Eds.), Cnmrnimitv planning for an aging society. Stroudsberg,
PA: Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross.
Regnier, V. (1981). Neighborhood images and use: A case study. In M. P. Lawton
and S. Hoover (Eds.), Community housing choices for older Americans. New
York: Springer.
Reitzes, D., Mutran, E. & Pope, H (1991). Location and well-being among retired men.
Journal of Gerontology 46. S195-203.
Ringler, R. (1981). Aging perspectives, hi N. Miller and G. Cohen (Eds.), Clinical
aspects of Alzheimers disease and senile dementia. New York: Raven Press,
1981).
Rogers, A. (1989). The elderly mobility transition: Growth, concentration, and tempo.
Research on Aging. 11, 3-32.
Rosenbloom, S. (June, 1994). Final report: 1990 NPTS subject area report: Travel
bv the elderly. Unpublished manuscript. University of Arizona at Tucson.
Rowles, G. (1978). Prisoners of space?: Exploring the geographical experience of
older people. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
Rubinstein, R., Kilbride, J., & Nagy, S. (1992). Elders living alone: Frailty and the
perception of choice. New York: Aldine de Gruyter.
Scannell, A. & Baggett, S. (February, 1989). The demographics of aging. Livable
Environments for Older People: Resource Papers for Planners. Portland, OR:
Portland State University.
Schooler, K. (1969). The relationship between social interaction and morale of the
elderly as a function of environmental characteristics. The Gerontologist 9, 25-
29.
Schooler, K. (1970). Effect of environment on morale. The Gerontologist 10. 194-197.
Schwab, W. (1982). Urban sociology: A human ecological perspective. Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
Scully, V. (1994). The architecture of community. In P. Katz (Ed.), The new urbanism:
Toward an architecture of community, (pp. 221-230). NY: McGraw-Hill, Inc.
198
Serow, W. & Sly, D. (1988). The demography of current and future cohorts. In
Committee on an Aging Society, Institute of Medicine & National Research
Council (Ed.). America's aging: The social and built environment in an older
society (pp. 42-102). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Sime, J. (1986). Creating places or designing spaces. Journal of Environmental
Psychology 6 (1), 49-63.
Shi, A., Hays, R_, Ouslander, J., Osterwell, D., Valdez, R., Krynski, M. & Gross, A.
(1993). Measuring functioning and health in the very old. Journal of Gerontology
48(1), M10-M-14.
Smith, G. (1991). Grocery shopping patterns of the ambulatory urban elderly.
Environment and Behavior. 23 86-114.
Soldo, B. & Longino, C. (1988). Social and physical environments for the vulnerable
aged. In Committee on an Aging Society, Institute of Medicine & National
Research Council, America's aging: The social and built environment in an older
society, (pp. 103-133). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Southworth, M. (March, 1995). Walkable suburbs? An evaluation of neotraditional
communities at the urban edge. (Working Paper 639). Berkeley, CA: University
of California at Berkeley.
Stokols, D. (1990). Instrumental and spiritual views of people-environment relations.
American Psychologist 45 (5), 641-646.
Suttles, G. (1972). The social construction of communities. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Taylor, R. (1988). Human territorial functioning: An empirical, evolutionary perspective
on individual and small group territorial cognitions, behaviors, and consequences.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
Taylor, R. & Stough, R. (1978). Territorial cognitions: Assessing Altmans
typology. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 36. 418-423.
The Dartmouth Primary Care Cooperative (COOP) Information Project, (n.d.),
InterStudv Quality Edge 1(1), 33-39.
The Thomas Guide. Census Tract Edition: Portland Metropolitan Area (19931. Irvine,
CA: Thomas Bros. Maps.
199
Tilson, D. & Fahey, C. (1990). Introduction. In D. TUson (Ed.), Aging in place:
Supporting the frail elderly in residential environments, (pp. xv-xxxiii). Glenview,
IL: Scott, Foresman and Co.
U. S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Census (July, 1993). 1990 Census of
population and housing: Population and housing characteristics for census tracts
and block numhermg areas. Portland-Vancouver OR-WA CMS A. (Part,
Portland, ORPMSA, 1990 CPH-3-266A). Washington, DC.: Author.
U. S. West Direct (1995). Portland White Pages. Portland, OR: Author.
Varady, D. (1990). Influences on the city-suburban choice. American Planning
Association Journal 56. 22-40.
Wachs, M. (1979). Transportation for the elderly: Changing lifestyles- changing needs.
Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Wachs, M. (1988). The role of transportation in the social integration of the aged. In
Committee on an Aging Society, Institute of Medicine & National Research
Council (1988). America's aging: The social and built environment in an older
society (pp. 169-189). Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Ward, R., La Gory, M. & Sherman, S. (1988). The neighborhood as a place for aging.
In R Ward, M. La Gory & S. Sherman (Eds.), The environment for aging:
Interpersonal, social, and spatial contexts (pp. 38-74). Tuscaloosa, AL: The
University of Alabama Press.
Wasson, J., Keller, A, Rubenstein, L., Hays, R, Nelson, E., Johnson, D. & The
Dartmouth Primary Care COOP Project (1992). Benefits and obstacles of health
status assessment in ambulatory settings: The clinicians point of view. Medical
Care 30 (5, Suppl), MS42-MS49.
Websters Collegiate Dictionary (7th ed.). (1969). Springfield, MA: G. & C. Merriam
Co.
Windley, P. & Scheidt, R. (1982). An ecological model of mental health among
small-town rural elderly. Journal of Gerontology 37. 235-42.
Wirth, L. (1938). Urbanism as a way of life. American Journal of Sociology 44. 1-24.
Zacharias, D., Gilg, C. & Foxall, M. (1994). Quality of life and coping in patients with
gynecologic cancer and their spouses. Oncology Nursing Forum 21 (10), 1699-
1706.
APPENDIX A
New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics
New Urbanism Index of Neighborhood Characteristics: RATING SHEET
Census Tract ID Address
I.Streetinterconnactewithotheratrests
2. Intersections have right-angle corners
3. Street: has sidewalk*
4. Street has planted strips along walkways
5. Residences have front porches
6. Residential garages are not at the front
7. Residential; styles are consistent
8. Residential facades vary
i.Residential designs are traditional
10. Street is interesting to pedestrians: visibility
1
j 11. Street is narrow
:
1
i
12. Block is small
i
1 13. Front yaiRis are small
:
14. There are garage apartments
:
i 15. Treea are sriong the street at regular intervals
| l l l l l
i
18. There: is a centralized areawith eMe buildings, office &retail space
17. There are convenient stores
18. The neighborhood has facilities for a mix of uses
19. Buildings have architectural variety and distinction, yet are cohesive
20. Commercial and civic buildings have minimal setback from street
21. Commercial streets have curbside parking
22. Commercial area off-etreet parking is away from sidewalks
23. Housing types vary across the community
24. Streets form a rectilinear grid pattern
25. Transit stops are convenient
26. Neighborhood afreets have sidewalks
27. Street trees provide overhead shade
28. There are midblock alleys
29. A green open space provides neighborhood focus
| NEW URBANISM TOTAL |
I
I
a , a
s g
10
I
I f - *
1 1
aiELit:
I
'
m
o
s
t
"

r
a
f
e
r
t

to

m
o
r
e

t
h
a
n

2
/
3
,

"
s
o
m
e
*

r
e
f
e
r
s

to

l
a
s
s

t
h
a
n

2
/
3

a
n
d

m
o
i
e

t
h
a
n

1
/
3
,

W
t
e
f
e
t
s

to

l
e
a
s

t
h
a
n

1
/
3
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
H i
i * .
There la a centraHzad araa wMi ofvks
BuNdkigs, office $>reUB space
within 1/4 mile zone at respondent's
Mock there Is a focal area with civic
md commercial buildings
within 1/4 mile zone of respondent's
Block there is one or more minor
Bommerclal streets
ha neighborhood is entirely
esidentiai; there (spo
:ommercial/civic street or area
17. Thera are convenient atorea
within 1/4 mile of respondent's home
here is 1+ supermarket for groceries
and/or variety items
here is a small convenience grocery,
nd no supermarket for groceries
nd/or variety items
here Is no grocery or variety store
19.
The neighborhood haa faoWHea for a ndx of
aaa
wkhtri 1/4 mHe of respondent's block
here are facilities for 3+ uses
shopping, education, postal service,
ibrary, Work, recreation, fire ;
protection. atc.i residential use
withiri 1/4 mile of respondent's block
here are facilities for 1-2 uses
shopping, education, postal service,
ibrary, work, recreation, fire ,:"V
protection, etc.) + residential use
within 1/4 mile of respondent's block
he only use is residential; there are he
creational, shopping orcMo
eciWes
19.
lultdlnga h a ve architectura l variety a nd
distinction, yet a r e cohealve
at least one public/commercial
building within the 1/4 mile area has a
iistinctive, interesting architectural
design
public/commercial buildings lack
irchKectural distinction, but are
consistent with other building styles in
he area
public/commercial buildings in the
area lack design distinction and style
consistency
-
Sommer dal and civic buHdlnga have
ninlmalsetbaek from street
nost public buBdings have narrow
setbacks (w/i 20 ft) from street edge
rome pubtks buildings have narrbw
setbacks (wfi 2 0 ft) from street edge
w pubUe buildings have setbacks
within 20 ft from street ados
21. Sommerolal atraeta have ourhalda parking
nost commercial streets have parallel
mrklng
some commercial streets have parallel
Barking
ew commercial streets have parallel
Barking
22.
Bommeretal area off-street parking la away
Tom aldewa&a
nost aftetreet parking is behind
Buildings or underground & away from
ridewalks
tome off-street parking is behind
Buildings or underground A away from
ifdeWalks
ill o f f ^ r e e t parking Is between
Building front and street
23. Mousing type a vary aoroaa the community
3+ types of housing (multi-unit bldgs,
3F dwellings, row houses, garage
w t s or duplexes)
2types of housing ( multi-unit bldgs,
5F dwellings, row houses, garage
pts or duplexes)
single-family dwellings only
24. Streets form a rectilinear grid pattern
nost neighborhood streets are In a
strslght-lfne grid pattern
rome neighborhood streets curve or
here are soma cul-de-sacs or dead-
nds In the area
nost streets curve and/or there is
dearly no grid pattern of
nterconrwctlno streets
26. Tranaft atopa a r e aonvenlant
here is a bus/lite rail stop within 2
Blocks of respondent's home
here is a bus/lite rail stop 1/8-114 mile
rom respondent's home
he nearest bus/lite rail stop is over
1/4 mile from respondent's home
26. Neighborhood atraeta have sidewalks
nost neighborhood streets have
saved sidewalks on both sides
rome neighborhood streets have
Baved sidewalks
aw neighborhood streets have paved
sidewalks
27. Street t r e e a provide overhead a ha de
nost streets have an overhead canopy
Brovided by mature trees
rome streets are shaded by street-
ride trees
ew streets are shaded by street-side
rees
29. Thera era midbtook alleya
nost blocks have mid-block alleys
hat provide car thoroughfare
tome blocks have mid-block alleys
hat provide car thoroughfare
io blocks have mkl-block alleys that
provide car thoroughfare
29.
k g r e e n o pe n a p a c e providea neighborhood
loous
within 1/4 mi of respondent's house
here is a 1-3 acre open park or plaza
or a centralized focus, or off-center
ocus. if a special view
within 1/4 mi of respondent's house
here is a park or school yard, not a
lelghborhood focus and not adjacent
o civic/commercial area
within 1/4 mile of respondent's house
here is no park, plaza or square
KEY: *most* rtf a rt to more than 2/3, oma* refart to l e t t thn 2/3 and more f ta n 1/3. *few refers to l e t t than 1/3
APPENDIX B
Census Tract Sampling Decision Data
Census Tract Selection Criteria and Decisions to Retain
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
Census Tract 1969 Per Capita
Income =
$12,000-
$17,999
At Least 150
Females Age 75+
> 70% Owner-
Occupied
Housing Units
Among
Householders
Age 65+, n > 200
Density = All
Persons/
(Square Miles x
640 Acres)
> 1.Q/Acre
At Least 150
Householders
Age 66+ Living
Alone
R e f e r e n c e : 1 9 9 0
C e n s u s o f P o p u l a t i o n
a n d H o u s i n g
C h a r a c t e r i s t i c s
Table 19 Table 1 Table 32 Table 1 Table 1
Multnomah County (N = 162)
1
$17,928 234 80% 6.2 248
2 $13,238 473
3.01 $14,579 309
3.02 !
i !
4.01 $12,695 208 90% 10.6 212
4.02 j j
i ;
5.01 i i ;
5.02 i :
6.01 | !
6.02 ! j
7.01 i
7.02
8.01
8.02
9.01 : , ! I
9.02
10 . ,
11.01 ; j ; .
11.02 $13,582
12.01 $12,202 i 188:
,
12.02 i $15,031 ! 164! 79% | 12.07' 154
13.01 ! | j ; ;
13.02 ! $12,773
|
i
14 ! ; I ! !
15 $15,367 j 1581 94% i 13.5 i
-
^
i
Poa$14,576 ! 4271 95%! 8.5! 198
16.02 ! | 1 1
17.01 | $12,017 | 426 82%! 12.6! 321
17.02 ; ! i i
18.01 $12,024 . 203! i
i
18.02 $16,038 i 220|
|
i
20 |
$12,682 i 238 i
i
21 i i
-------------------------------------------!----------------------------------- .
22.01 j $13,591 ! l
22.02 | i j !
23.01 ! | I | i
23.02 i : j | i
Census Tract Selection Criteria and Decisions to Retain, Page 2
Census Tract 1969 Per Capia
Income =
$12,000-
$17,966
At Least 150
Females Age 75+
> 70% Owner-
Occupied
Housing Units
Among
Householders
Age 05+, n > 200
Density = All
Persons/
(Square Miles x
640 Acres)
> 1,0/Acre
At Least 150
Householders
Age 65+ Living
Alone
R e f e r e n c e : 1 9 9 0
a n d H o u s i n g
24.01 $15,454
i
24.02 $16,161 358
25.01
25.02 $15,188 225
26 i |
27.01 $16,479
27.02 $14,492 236
28.01 $15,006
28.02 $14,026 154 91% 11.7 167
29.01 i $12,261 | 240 89% 11.9 256
29.02 ! $13,015 263
29.03 i
$13,254 !
30 $15,244 ! 265 95% 11.6 264
31 $12,897
C
M
t
o
33.01
33.02
34.01 |
34.02
35.01 $13,624 ;
35.02 i i
I
36.01 I 1 ! !
36.02 j
36.03 | $13,569 | 197
l '
37.01 ! ! ! '
37.02 j ;
38.01 ;
i !
38.02 | $12,536 | 177 87% I 11.2| 197
38.03 | | I '
39.01 ! . :
39.02 ; $13,605 : 1781 92% i 11.5: 189
40.01 | ;
40.02 | |
i i
41.01 | j
i
41.02 i |
------------------- 1
I
t
o
! ;
43 i ! !
44 ; i I i
Income =
$12,000-
$17,966
At Least 150
Females Age 75+
> 70% Owner-
Occupied
Housing Units
Among
Householders
Age 65+, n > 200
Density = All
Persons/
(Square Miles x
640 Acres)
> 1.0/Acre
At Least 150
Householders
Age 65+ Living
Alone
R e f e r e n c e 1 9 9 0
C t n s u s o f P o f s r i a t f o n
a n d H o u s i n g
44.99
! i i :
46
' i !
46.01
i ; i
46.02
I I !
47
: i
i I !
48 $16,052 235 | |
49 | I |
50 $14,831
51 $13,234
52 $17,872 325 i
53 i | | !
54 !
55
56 $12,951 308
57
58 J
59 ; ;
60.01 I !
60.02 : i
l
61
62 i |
63 | | !
64.01 |
:
64.02 j |
i
65.01 !
I
65.02 i i !
;
66.01 i i i ;
66.02 $14,171
i i :
67.01 $16,584 244I | i
67.02 j | 1 :
68.01
i l l !
68.02
1 i :
i I :
69 j 1 1 !
70
! !
:
71 $17,015 I !
72.01
i I
' T
72.02 i $15,042 j !
73 ! ;
Income =
$12,000-
$17,966
At Least 150
Females Age 75+
> 70% Owner-
Occupied
Housing Units
Among
Householders
Age 66+, n > 200
Density = All
Persons/
(Square Miles x
640 Acres)
> 1.0/Acre
At Least 150
Householders
Age 65+ Living
Alone
R e f e r e n c e : 1 9 9 0
C e n s u s o f P o p d a t o n
a n d H o u s i n g
74 i i | i
75 ! i | !
76
77
I I l
o
o
N
.
79 $12,773 | j
80.01 $13,334 2201 j
80.02 | $12,732 166 81% 8.8:
81 i $14,699 | 428
82.01 $13,636 ! ,
82.02 j j | ! i
83.01 i I j i i
83.02 I i ; i
84
: I
85
86
I |
c
o
! I :
88 i
! j |
89 | $14,219 155| 97% | 2.1!
90 j
I
91
92.01 $12,535 2761 80% 8.9' 242
92.02 i $12,227
I
93 $12,192 | 249 81% 6.4 213
94 $17,436 218 96% 6.9 242
95 i ! ! I
I ! I
96.01 $14,185
J i
96.02 $12,005 1611 i
97.01
I
i I
97.02 | 1
i
*
o o
o
o
>
i
98.02 ! $12,680 j 383!
99.01 j $14,116 |
!
99.02 $15,331 | ! |
99.03
I i I
100 $13,358 j 2881 I
101 ! | I l
102 I $16,535 1 i
Income =
$12,000-
$17,989
At Least 150
Females Age 754-
>70% Owner-
Occupied
Housing Units
Among
Householders
Age 65+, n > 200
Density = All
Persons/
(Square Miles x
640 Acres)
> 1.0/Acre
At Least 150
Householders
Age 65+ Living
Alone
R e f e r e n c e : 1 9 9 0
a n d H o u s i n g
103.01 $13,331
103.02 $13,020
I i
104.02 $16,224 | !
104.04 $14,611! I :
104.05 $13,725
104.06 $13,969 300
r _ _ . . .
104.07 $12,638 204
105 $14,114 I
106.98 j I
i
107.98 ! i I
Washington County (N = 62)
301 ' : !
302 j | ,
303 i
304.01 : I
304.02
305.01 $16,638 2131
305.02 j $16,440 I
306 { $15,410 i 161|
307 | $12,748
!
308.01 $16,852 !
1
f
308.02 S
309 $13,353 :
!
310.03 $17,676 |
310.04 I
310.05 $15,045 I 199 79% 8.7 168
310.06 $16,232 |
311 | $12,537
i
i
312 $13,557 517|
1
313 i $14,501
!
314.01 $14,736 225 87%i 8 . 1 : 292
314.02 1
i I
315.01 |
315.04 i i |
315.05 j ! |
315.06 j j |
315.07 j \ | i
Step 1_______Step 2______ Step 3______ Step 4_______Step 5
Income =
$12,000-
$17,996
At Least 150
Females Age 75+
>70% Owner-
Occupied
Housing Units
Among
Householders
Age 65+, n > 200
Density = All
Persons/
(Square Miles x
640 Acres)
> 1.0/Acre
At Least 150
Householders
Age 65+ Living
Alone
R e f e r e n c e : 1 9 9 0
a n d H o u s i n g
Washington County (N = 62)
315.08 ! ;
316.03 ! | j '
316.04 , $17,948 | I ;
316.05 j $13,265 |
I .
316.06 ! $13,960 j
i
316.07 $16,332 |
317.02 | $12,471 i i
317.03 i $13,807 j ,
317.04 $14,494 I
318.01 j $16,394 i ! '
318.02
318.03
319.01
319.03 I $17,416 i
319.04 i $17,240 j i
320 $15,965 |
321.01 $12,645 ! i
321.02 | $17,069 i j i
322 $17,526 j
323 ; $17,243 i j ,
324.02 | $14,591 I !
324.03
324.04 $14,958 i
325 j i
326.01 $13,050 | 265
i
I
326.02 $13,799 | 249
I I
I
327 $16,552 |
i I
328 $14,125 I
i i
i I
329
; i 1 !
330 $15,764 ! ! i
331 I I ! , I
332 |
I I
l
i
333 $14,867 | 157 84%
!
334 $14,658 ! I I i
335
$12,289 ! | j
336
$13,615 I I I
Retained j j i
Tracts I 104 I 4 5 i 19
18 j 15
APPENDIX C
Letters to Subjects and Consent Form
July 27, 1996
Ms.
NE Oregon Street
Portland, OR 97213
Dear Ms. ,
Do neighborhood conditions influence the quality of our lives, our health and our
decisions about where to live during retirement years? Since your community is included
in a study to explore these issues, your viewpoints are especially important to me.
Portland State University Office of Research has approved this project for my doctoral
degree in Urban Studies. My advisor is Dr. Nancy Chapman, School of Urban and
Public Affairs (725-4045). You can reach me at 244-3498.
I am writing to ask if you would be willing to answer a few questions about your
neighborhood and your general health and wellbeing. If so, I will bring you an Informed
Consent to sign and a questionnaire which takes about 20 to 30 minutes. You can either
return it by mail or I will pick it up later.
Thank you for considering this opportunity to contribute ideas toward planning
high quality neighborhoods in the future. I look forward to talking with you when I call
later this week.
Sincerely,
Patty Patterson, RN, MA
March 19, 1997
Ms.
NE 79th Avenue
Portland, OR 97213
Dear Ms. ,
Thank you for your willingness to complete my Neighborhood Environment
Survey. As I may have told you on the phone last week, this research will compare
urban and suburban neighborhood livability for older residents. I certainly value your
contribution and unique perspective. The results wQl be reported in my doctoral
dissertation, which wQl add to our knowledge of community planning.
Enclosed are the questionnaire, a self-addressed stamped envelope and two
copies of the Informed Consent. Please sign and return one copy of the Consent with
the completed questionnaire. It is important to answer every page of the questionnaire.
Quality of Life items that are not applicable may be left blank. Feel free to call me at my
office or at home for clarification.
Thank you very much for your time and your goodwill. I look forward to
receiving your response in the next couple of days, if possible.
Sincerely,
Patty Patterson, RN, MA
PORTLAND STATE UNIVERSITY
NEIGHBORHOOD ENVIRONMENT STUDY
INFORMED CONSENT
I agree to take part in this research project on neighborhood environments for older
persons. The researcher, Patty Patterson, has told me that the purpose of die study is to leam
more about community planning needs for people wishing to live in their neighborhoods as
long as possible.
I understand that this study involves completing three survey documents that will take
me about 20 to 30 minutes total time. I also understand that this study creates no apparent
risks for me, and that I may not receive any direct benefit from taking part in the study.
However, the study may help to increase knowledge that can be useful to others in the future.
I know that I can request a report of the study findings from Ms. Patterson.
She has promised that all information I give will be kept confidential and that she is
the only person who will know the names of all people in the study. 1understand that I do not
have to take part in this study, and that this will not affect my relationship with any service or
agency in my community
Ms. Patterson has offered to answer any questions I have about the study and tell me
what I am expected to do. I can call her during business hours at 503-220-8262, extension
7741, or at home (503-244-3498). I can also contact her advisor, Dr. Nancy Chapman at
Portland State University (725-4045) regarding this study.
I have read and understand the above information and agree to take part in this study.
Signature:_____________________________________Date:_________________
Ifyou have concerns or questions about this sntdy, please contact the chair of the Human
subjects Research Review Committee, Office of Research and Sponsored Projects, 105
Neuberger Hall, Portland State University, 503/725-3417.
APPENDIX D
Instruments Given to Subjects
Neighborhood Resident Survey
NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENT SURVEY
The purpose of this survey is to leam more about the living arrangements and needs o f people in your age group
Please fill in the blanks or write a brief answer to describe your opinion or situation.
Thank you for COMPLETING EVERY ITEM.
1 What type of home do you live in now?
Row house Single-family detached house
Apartment Duplex, triplex or fourplex
Condominium ____ O t h e r ___________________________________________________
2. Approximately what year was your house or building constructed? 19_________
3. What year did you move into your home? 19__________
4. Why did you move to this neighborhood?_____________________________________________________
5 How important to you are these neighborhood characteristics? (Check one answer per line)
Very
Important
Somewhat
Important
1Am Neutral Not Too
Important
Not At All
Important
Beautiful trees and greenery
Design of houses and buildings
Little traffic in the area
Walking distance grocery store
Safe walking conditions
Quietness in the area
Variety of housing options
A major park or open space
Interesting places to shop
Sidewalks throughout the area
Bus stop within 3 blocks
A center of activity in the area
l
6. Please rate these characteristics in your own neighborhood: (Check one answer per line)
VERY
GOOD
GOOD FAIR P OO R V E R Y
P O O R
Beautiful trees and greenery
Design of houses and buildings
Little traffic in the area
Walking distance grocery store
Safe walking conditions
Quietness in the area
Variety of housing options
A major park or open space
j
Interesting places to shop
Sidewalks throughout the area
Bus service
A focal civic &commercial area
7. Overall, how would you rate your neighborhood as a place to live?
Very good________ Good_______ Fair_______ Poor_______ Very Poor
8. What is the most important improvement that could be made in your neighborhood?
9. How important would these neighborhood features be if you were to select another home now?
Very Important Somewhat Important Not Important
a. grocery store within walking distance _____________ _____________ ___________
b. sidewalks on the streets _____________ _____________ ___________
c. flat, non-hilly area _____________ _____________ ___________
d. beautiful area______________________ _____________ _____________ ___________
e. interesting areas to walk through ____________ _____________ ___________
f pnce of homes or apartments _____________ _____________ ___________
g. other: ______________________ ____________ _____________ ___________
10. Are you planning on moving in the future? No
Yes, within the next year
Yes, within the next 2 to 3 years
Yes, within the next 3 to 5 years
11. I f yes, have you chosen a place to move to yet? Yes_____ No_____
12. Why have you chosen to move there?_______________________________________________________
13 How do you usually get to the following places? Please write in the approximate miles (Distance)
from your home in column 1. Then select your usual way o f getting there and mark an X in one
column.
DISTANCE P
FROM | |
home r
(miles) I
WALK DRIVE RIDE WITH
SOMEONE
(KNOW
TAKE THE
BUS
TAKE A TAXI USE
SPECIAL
SENIOR
TRANSPOR
Doctor you see most
F
Grocery store you use most
8
Pharmacy you use most
I
Your church or synagogue
1
Beauty shop you use most
Your bank
j.
A restaurant you enjoy
1
Post office
i
Library
14. In addition to walking to any o f the above places, for what other reasons do you walk in your
neighborhood? (Check all that apply)
to exercise _____ to get out of the house
to catch a bus _____ to see what is going on in the area
to visit neighbors _____ to enjoy a park or favorite outdoor area
to attend meetings _____ unable to leave home
to walk the dog or cat
other ( d e s c r i b e ) ________________________________________________
3
15. How often do you go for a walk in your neighborhood? (Select one best answer)
2 to 3 times a day ______ 1 time a day 2 to 3 times a week weekly
every 2 weeks _____ rarely never
16. Do you usually walk with someone else? Yes _____ Sometimes No
17. Approximately how far can you walk without getting tired?
1 to 3 blocks
4 to 6 blocks
7 to 9 blocks
more than 9 blocks
unable to leave home
18. Which of these statements best describes how much you drive now?
I dont drive at all
I can drive, but I have to be careful about where I drive or what time of day I drive
I can drive wherever and whenever I want
19. What month and year were you bora? Month________________Year_______________
20. What is your marital status?
Married
Widowed
Never married
Separated or divorced
21. How many other people live with you? _________________
22. Do you own your residence? Yes No
23. What was your 1994 household income range?
under $ 10,000
510.001 -520,000
520.001 - 530,000
over 530,000
24. How many years o f school did you complete?____
25. What type of work did you do during your pre-retirement years?
THANK YOU VERY MUCH
Patricia K. Patterson, Portland State University, 1/2/96
Letter From Author of Quality of Life Index
I l l The University of Illinois
a t Chicago
Department of Medical-Surgical Nursing (M/C 802)
College of Nursing
845 South Damen Avenue. 7lh Poor
Chicago. Illinois 60612-7350
(312)996-7900
October 15, 1996
Ms. Patricia Patterson
4155 S.W. Dosch Road
Portland, Oregon 97201
Dear Ms. Patterson:
I am pleased that you chose to use the Ferrans and Powers Quality of Life Index (QLI) for your
dissertation study. The.QLI is copyrighted, and as a general policy we do not grant permission to
include/publish the QLI in its entirety in dissertations. Thus, we cannot grant you permission to
publish the QLI in your dissertation. Of course, you may provide copies o f the QLI to all o f your
committee members to facilitate their evaluation o f your study
Congratulations on the completion of your dissertation study. I wish you much success in your
future career.
Sincerely,
Carol Estwing Ferrans, PhD, RN, FAAN
Associate Professor
Chicago Peona Quad-Cities Urbana-Champaign
iJOfcwq wo
Dartmouth COOP Charts and Letter
ImerStudy Quality Edge Volume l. no.
Dartmouth COOP Charts
Note: This is a conceptual outline only. It is not a usable form of the instrument.
PHYSICAL FITNESS FEELINGS DAILY ACTIVITIES
Dunng tna o u t 4 * > i u . . .
Wh j t u tn n a r s a s : anyticw ocstvoy
you c o u t t s o tor at i u t 2 mmutos 7
IVary navvy. w w w
| *Awa. t u i e a c a
< a n y a *aa*y oas
i i u n or uon*
Wa*. tost oaco
Carry a naa*y load
anwnigrwxid
UQni mmn
Waft. m a a t a n pa c t
< a r r y t p w i o a o
Varyt^m. rnmm
i _ y
L P
A I t
I k .
O u n n g n e p u M a t i u . . .
Her* muot MVOyou Ottn DOtTarfC s y
amooonat orobftms t uch a s taafcng a nuous.
Ooor ouoe. maot ar oowrwtantd a n a otuo 7
Sfcjno,
Mooarattty
Extrfnty
Ounng era oast 4 w a a u . . .

ho w muen Orftcufly n a v t you n a d o o ^ g your u s u a
a a v M i v u K f i e t n n M i a n a m j o c tne n o - m
Docaust ot your p h y s o f a n d amovonai naaitn
I
No at*leary a t au
o
t
u a t * - u r
a a mt o* ot sR<iy j
SOCIAL ACTIVITIES
OunriQ* a o a st 4 w m u . . .
h u your pnys<at and amoeonal naa/tn amnad
your t ooa f aewiMS tarwty. tnanos.
n*gnocrs or groups 7
1
2
3
4
5
Not at at'
I f f I f
Sagney
f i
Uooarvaty
i f
Ouoaaoo
f O T
ti r a m a r y
f u r n
PAIN
Dunng n a past a m u . .
how mutft oodty oam nava you
ganarafyftad7
-33-
interStudy Quality Ed g e Volume 1. no 1
CHANGE IN HEALTH OVERALL HEALTH
HOW0t*0 you rat# your a*S*
now eomoarao t o a age
OunpQMpati<MU.. .
How woute you rw your M i m ** g anartf
Mud*Dollar
!
++
AhOttMfttr a +
Aeoutototana
aw
Afetaawerto
i
Mucnwgrta
t --- !
Cooo
SOCIAL S U P P O R T
Dunng m* o a s t * H > i . . .
w t t o n a o n a a v a u a o t a to n a >0 you it you
n a t d a d a n d w a n t a d n o t o ? Fo r t u m p * it you
Tt. a t muon a t I
QUALITY OF LIFE
How naa rn.no* aa 9O"*0,or t o v Ouflno
tn MSI WOOM?
39-
The COOP Project
A Primary Care Research Ner.vork
October 18, 1996
Patricia Kay Patterson
4155 Southwest Dosch Road
Portland, OR 97201
Dear Patty:
We understand that you are requesting permission to reprint two pages from
InterStudy Quality Edge. 1(1),38-39 which displays the nine Dartmouth COOP Charts
to be included in the appendix of your doctoral dissertation "New Urbanism and Aging
in Urban and Suburban Communities."
We grant permission for the use and reproduction of the above mentioned work. This
permission does exclude the right to distribute, reproduce or share the Charts in any
form for commercial purposes or sale. Please acknowledge the Dartmouth COOP
Project and copyright holder (Copyright Trustees of Dartmouth College/COOP
Project, 1996) and send us a copy of the publication.
Thank you very much.
Date: / P L/tzL. /77C
Owner of Copyright: Trustees of Dartmouth College
:r Affiliation The Ceoartment pt Community ang Fsrmiy Medicine
Dartmouth Medical Scr-ooi. r 265 Butler Suuamg. Harover NH 03755*3962
C*f:ce '602; 550-*220 =ax (603)650*133:
Signature:
DEBOR/
Network
JOHNSON
dinator
APPENDIX E
Content Validity:
Literature Review: Content Analysis of New Urbanism Descriptors (Sections 1 and 2)
Key New Urbanism Concepts (Summary)
Letters and New Urbanism Items Sent to Urban Planners
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
LITERATURE REVIEW: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NEW URBANISM DESCRIPTORS Section 1
TOOL ITEMS
A. Nelessen Assoc P. Calthorpe 1. Audirac ft H. Shermyen Moule ft Polyzoides V. Scully
Fan NUrfi STREETS ANDCIRCULATION
2 s tr e e t design reflects level of locel traffic residential s t r e e t s empty to connector
s treets, t h e n to collector s treets
d e n s e network of conn e cted s h e e t s in a
grid pattern; no s h e e t hierarchy
grid pattern s h e e t design; block s h a p e s
are s quar e, rectangular or Irregular; ea ch
s h e e t Is part of a hierarchical network,
with variety of alternate p at h s b a s e d on
pedestrian & vehicular loads
s tr e e ts a r e defined a s a
whole contained s h a p e
s tr e e ts radiate from ce n ter of public
buildings & s p a c e s
s h e e t s radiate from a
cen ter of public buildings &
s p a c e s (per Calthorpe)
there a r e f ew external a c c e s s points;
t h e s e ar e to major roads
4 narrow str ee ts travel l a n es B-10 f t wide; no right & left
turn lanes, un le ss unsafe
total s h e e t width t s 40 f t (2 l a n es +
parking)
s h e e t s are 2-way s h e e t s ar e narrow, for ca rs
& people
3 minimal Intersect dimensions curb radii ar e 10 ft or le ss minimal block radii to slow c a rs a t
Intersections for e a s y pedestrian crossing
1 blocks ar e small (<2000 ft perimeter) blocks are 800-2400 ft perimeter;
dis ta n ces to Intersections ar e walkable
s h e e t s f rame vis ta s of core area: public
buddings, parka a natural features;
str ee ts terminate a t Important buddings &
places; in s t e e p slope ar e a s , th e str ee t
s yst em a c c e n t s landmarks
civic building views terminate down s h e e t
axe s; s h e e t s frame vistas
a x e s ar e not climaxed by
g a s stations
building heights ar e proportional to s h e e t
widths
t h e transit a r e a do es not slow traffic In
arterial streets;arterial s h e e t s do not p a s s
through tr a nsi t a r e a ce n te r s
traffic signal cycles ar e short
primary road syst em provides shong,
direct connection to th e commercial ar ea
primaiy road syst em provides shong,
direct connection to th e transd stop
-----
12
str ee ts contain traffic m a n a g e m e n t
devi ces (dtctos. dvwlar*. Mtodlvs don**, Wda
bunps. n ami ng)
----- -----------------------
----------------------------------- -------------- --- - - -
collector s tr e e ts have boulevards wtth
s ep ar at ed lanes
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
connector str ee ts ar e along ed g e s of
parks & open s p a c e s
------------------------ ------------------
curbs & sidewalks ar e designed for
handicapped uae
-----------------._------
all a b e e t s h a v e handicapped ac c e s s
commercial s tr ee ts h a v e 2 travel lanes commercial s h e e t s h a v e 2 travel lanea number of lanes bal ance halTIc flow &
pedestrian crossing flow
7
15
16
6
7
5 ~
12 ~
15
commercial s tr ee ts h a v e on-street parking commercial s h e e t s ha v e o n- s h e e t a nd off
s h e e t parking
on- s heet parking for pedestrian safety; off
s h e e t parking Is a w ay from sidewalks
(underground, alleys)
on- s h e e t parking (per D &
P-Z)
commercial s h e e t s a n d connector s treets
have limited curb cut s (driveways)
commercial s h e e t s h av e limited curb cuts
(driveways)
t h e r e ar e planted parkwaya along arterial
atreeta; s tr e e ts (public s p a c e s ) ar e high
quality
a h e e t s c a p e s ar e planned & defined with
lots & buildings along s h e e t s , s h e e t walls
&f ence s; commercial s h e e t s have
awnings & arca des ; building setbacks
provide sight distance
s tr ee t e d g e s are la ndsc aped s h i t s In scale within th e s h e e t are
accomplished with la nd sc ap e d es ig n &
building e d ge s- v er t ica l a he etac ape
elements; s h e e t design favors pedestrian
u s e
s h e e t s ar e defined by
picket f e n c e s & front
po rches & building m a s s e s
close to t h e e d g e (per 0 &
P-Z)
collector s tr ee t medians are lan dsc aped there are la ndsc aped me dian s to reduce
appa re n t s h e e t widths
6 there a r e defined sidewalks all a b e e t s h a v e sidewalks, commercial
s h e e t s and connector s h e e t s have wider
sidewalks
block e d g e s hav e sldewatka there ar e sidewalks ( pel D
& P-Z)
7 9 sidewalks ar e s e par at ed from str ee ts with
narrow planting strips
public walking s p a c e s ar e defined with
landscaping a t s h e e t e d g e s
block e d g e s are divided Into parkway,
sidewalk & lot setback
--------------- .....-...............-
____
13 mid-block alleys provide a c c e s s to rear
yar d s & parking ar ea s
alleys exist for lots facing parks &
connector s h e e t s
t he r e ar e alleys bet we en s h e e t s the r e are alleys
alleys provide a d e q u a te lighting
10 b e e s along th e s h e e t s b e e s are along all a b e e t s , in planter strips
of b e e wells bet ween curb & sidewalk
h e e s are planted In right of ways there are s h e e t h e e s s h e e t s h a v e rows of tr e e s
(per D a P-Z)
h e e s ar e trimmed to ac comodat e vehicles
8 11 s h e e t tr e e s ar e at regular, uninterrupted
Intervals
b e e s ar e s p a c e d no further than 30 ft on
center
---- . . . . . . . . .
s h e e t h e e s ar e regularly planted
both vehicles & people u s e s treets
b e e s p e c i e s provide a uniform image
16 h e e s along th e s h e e t s provide s h a d e tr e es provide s h a d e & h e a t control a n d a
c anopy over th e s h e e t
pedestrian routes (a 5' wide unobstructed
path, wider In commercial a r ea s) are
along str ee ts or vfsable from all s h e e t s
s e p a r a t e pedestrian & vehicle a r e a s
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
th e r e la pedestrian or bike a c c e s s
bet we en commercial, transit & residential
a r e a s
-----------------------
sidewalk crossings ar e limited &
controlled
pedestrian a n d bike crosswalks are at
signalized arterial Intersections;
pedestrian crossings h a v e on-demand
signals
direct pedestrian path to transit stop la
lined with activities
direct pedestrian path to transit stop Is
s h a d e d
---------- -----------------------. . . .
--------------------- -------------
the r e Is a coordinated blkeway s ystem
neighborhood str ee ts provide non-
a e gre gate d bikewaya
s p a c e for biking along th e street connector (arterial) str ee ts , greenways &
o p en - s p ace corridors ha v e marked bike
lanes
bikewaya ha v e s igns th a t Indicated the
beginning, e n d & route
----------- -------------------
bike parking facilities (mck>. c m d ,
In commercial ar ea a n d throughout
office developments
-------------------- . . .
th e r e ar e bike parking facilities a t transit

s to p s , schools, parks
s i g n s indicate bike parking facility location
---------- -------------------------------
bike parking facilities do not block
pedestrian routes
---------- ------------------------------- - - -
s s tr e e t light poles are pedestrlan-scale, not
highway style
| 1 DWELLINGUNITS ANDLOTS
11
11
vehicles a c c e s s the dwelling from s ide or
back; th e r e ar e few 1 an y front yard
driveways
g a r a g e Is a t rear or side of dwelling &
s tr ee t vision
lots & buildings front th e s treets
----- ------------------------------- ---
there are no carports & few
g a r a g e s
1
parking Is In rear or aide yard
front entry Is moie visually dominant than
g a r age entry
g ar ag e Is s e t behind t h e front f aca de at
le as t 5 ft
porches & entry bays f ace street, not
Interior blocks or parking lots; doors to
single-family homes, duplexes,
townhous es and multi-family buildings
a r e visable from street/orient to the street
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
10
10
9
16
12
13 ~
------
dwelling unite have prominent a nd
lightly raised entries
front e n t r a n c e s have articulated and
covered porches
front porches, bays, baiconles are pr es ent
------------------------
building threshold element s Include
ar ca des , stairs, balconies, ea ves,
cornices, loggias, chimneys, porches
there Is zero-lot line housing
there are porches & stoops
dwelling unit ground floor levels are
raised above grade
first floor Is n o t moie t h a n 4 f t above
grade
front yards ar e small building s etb a ck s ar e bet ween 10-15 ft
from property line a t sidewalk
front yar ds a r e landscaped t he r e are high quality private open
s p a c e s , yards
there are aeml-prlvate open s p a c e s
betwn buildings ( quads , courtyards,
patios)
------------------------
infill housing units blend In, are barely
vtsable (efctef honwt m mullrfexM. iMa c h e d
g n g a wth tftic Mudo)
community buildings dlf erentiate one
neighborhood from th e next; f a c a d e s vary
from one building to th e next a n d provide
high visual Interest without chaotic Image
the r e are gar age & ac ces so r y apartments
& apa rt ment s over s hops
t h e r e Is a rhythm of building form on a
given block
4 individual housing units have varied
f aca d e details, design & roof form
building types ar e a s our ce of regional
design continuity; the y conform to s h e e t
& block rules, ar e consistent In form,
exc ept monumental buildings, which are
one of a kind; budding t ype s ar e similar to
a d j acen t buildings, b u t architecture varies
buildings h a v e a s h a r e d
architectural vernacular that
s h a p e a place a nd give the
neighborhood a unique
Identity
14
----------------- --------
vernacular/traditional des ign & detail are
common
---
building preservation Is apparent buildings ar e designed for adaptations
over time
the r e are a variety of lot de p t h s & widths lots ar e smafl (< than
ubur bs )
h o u s e s ar e compact, more
than 1 story, groupable
i c T
there ar e a variety of dwelling unit lot
size s
th e proportion of single-family to multi-
family housing approximates demand
b a s e d on local Income & demographic
t r e nds (Portland region goal 50-50 split)
the r e la a full range of housing types
(Includes condos, 2-story townhouses, 3-
story walk-ups)
------ ------------------ ---------
there ar e a variety of dwelling unit types a variety of housing types exist In the
a r ea
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
overall neighborhood density la medium,
6-8 units/acre
residential a r e a density Is a t le ast 7 units/
a n d a minimum of 10 units/acre; h o us es
a t 3 units per acre ar e bal anced with
granny flats or smsll-tot ancillary units;
residential density In s econdary a r e a s Is
a t le ast 6 units/acre
housing density Is a d e q u a t e to support
public transportation; densities range
from 10-40 units/acre (high density),
resulting In small dwelling units (450 s q ft
+)
density is high (> than
suburbs)
town s iz e r a n g e s 40-200 a c re s
NEIGHBORHOOD CORE
8 a common open apace, a neighborhood
park, provides a centralized focus
a park a n d plaza provides a centralized
neighborhood focus (not a t residual area
e d g e or In private complexes); plsza Is
bet ween 1-3 a c re s (smaller for transit
plaza)
there is a center area with public s p a c e a
1 th e r e ar e civic buildings public (cMc) buildings ar e in th e core
ar ea , & commercial, daycare, schools
provide focu s & identity for th e resdlential
area
office & retail s p a c e form a town center,
along w 1civic buildings; commercial
a r e a s a r e also a t nelghbhorhood
perimeters, buffered from high value
det ach ed ho me s by higher density
housing
t h e center a r e a h a s public buildings
there ar e public open s p a c e s & public
s q u a r e s
th e r e are public open s p a c e s an d
gar dens ; parking lots double a s public
gar d en s
there is a public green
plaza plant typ e s reflect local climate and
hlstoiy; landscaping allows comfortable
u s e In all a e a s o n s
park a nd pla za ar e located next to public
s treets, residential a r e a s a nd retail ar ea
all block s i d e s define public s p a c e ;
building fr onta ges incorporate t h e public
character of t h e s h e e t
plaza reflects cha ra cte r of surrounding
area
plaza Is bet we en commercial/office an d
residential a r e a s
plaza form Is coherent a n d memorable;
plaza d es ign r es pect s vis ta s crest ed by
s h e e t s (pdli* vtaftpoirt*. Uado nd
block vtvva at monunwrtttaikftnp, pwtmst*
taftftoeapingwkr* park vlov*)
ho me s are close to schools, stores,
services, public Institutions & parks
2 there ar e convenient s to r es a n d services convenient retail s h o p s crea te a
neighborhood sub-center, with parks and
daycare facilities
----------------------------------- ----------------------
commercial ar ea a c c e s s Is available by
non-arterlal routes
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
3
commercial ar e a Is part of th e bike
linkage syst em
neighborhood core er ea Include! a mix of
u s e e
convenient retail s h o p s cr ea te a
neighborhood sub-center, with parks and
daycare facilities
there are mixed land u s e s ; public, civic,
residential, shopfront, workplace (no
industrial/manufacturing, except
artistic/crafts)
residential a r e a s hav e mixed use:
dwellings, employment sites, institutions
t h e r e Is opportunity for m o s t r esidents to
walk to local services
commercial ar e a Is part of th e pedestrian
linkage syst em a nd within a 10-mlnute
walk ( 2,000 ft radius; residential to transit
s t o p ar ea s)
walking distance within th e neighborhood
Is 5-10 minutes
----
schools ar e par t of th e pedestrian linkage
syst em
--------------------------------
---------------------- -
parks ar e part of th e pedest rian linkage
syst em
2 2 14
4 ~
5
transit s to p s ar e located In the
neighborhood. I.e. a t th e park
transit s tops ar e located In secondary
a r e a s suited for large-scale employment,
a n d near th e neighborhood c e n t e r - n e a r
commercial buildings
------------------------
commercial st r e e t buildings ha v e minimal
s etb a ck s
single buildings on a block reach th e
e d g e of th e block
s to r es ar e oriented to p edest rian street,
n ot to highway strip; civic an d
commercial building s cal e a n d d es ig n s
a r e characteristic of t h e neighborhood
- - -------------------- ---------------------------------------
------------- ---------
commercial buildings have formal
g ar den s
school a nd community park ar e linked by
pedestrian a n d bike s y s t e m s to
commercial a n d transit a r e a s
--------- ---------- .
------
a park Is within 2 blocks cf all residences
--------------------------- --------
daycare facilities are available In
s eco ndar y a n d transit a r e a s , within th e
commercial core or emo ute to transit
a r e a s
t h e park contains community facilities or
local s en d ees
neighborhood park size minimum Is one
acre; a 5-10 ac re park with large play
fields is adj acent to school or a t e d g e of
transit area
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
b u s and llghtrall s to p s a r e des igne d with
architectural Integrity
a 10-30 acre park exists along a regional
open s p a c e or bicycle network
total park ar ea to numbe r of residents Is
3.5 acres/ 1000; total a c r e a g e Is
equivalent to 5-10%of residential area
transit stop provides s helt er for year-
round weather
transit stop h a s a telephone
transit s top h a s a d e q u a t e lighting
transit s top h a s s ec u r e bike s torage
a p a s s e n g e r drop-off z o n e Is near the
n e a r e s t b u s or llghtrall stop
t he p e s s e n g e r drop-off zo n e d o e s not
Interfere with pedest rian a c c e s s
there are greenbelt a r e a s - a mix of
waterway & parks around t he perimeter
banslt stop Is recognizable a s a stop and
blends with surrounding architecture
p a s s e n g e r loading provides handicapped
a c c e s s
park and ride lots complement b ans lt and
commercial centers, a r e near but not In
the b a ns lt ar ea
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
I
I
LITERATURE REVIEW: CONTENT ANALYSIS OF NEW URBANISM DESCRIPTORS Section 2
T. Bressl Duany a Plater-Zyberk Newsweek Staff Southworth
STREETS AND CIRCULATION
str e e ts er e In a grid pattern (per 0 & P-Z),
which contributes to ar ea Image
str ee ts cr ea te blocks In a grid pattern;
Interconnecting s t r e e t s offer multiple routes
the r e ar e no cul-de-sacs; s h e e t s have
predictable, Interconnecting routes th a t offer
multiple routes
th e r e Is a coherent pattern (rectilinear grid) of
Interconnecting s h e e t s In residential a r e a s ; few
cul-de-sacs; nu merous parallel s h e e t s offer a n
explorable network a nd multiple route options
radial s tr e e ts e m a n s t e from th e core (per
Calthorpe)
formal, structured d es ign (e.g. divided
boulevard, axial la y o u t lagoons)
neighborhood a r e a s (vMages) ar e connected
b y major str e e ts
high number of a c c e s s points (22-14) Into th e
a r e a th a n other su bur bs
residential s t r e e t s s r e nsrrow h o u s e s ar e gr ouped on narrow str e e ts (2
lanes), p e r Nelesson; s h e e t s ar e 2 6 ' + wide
narrow str ee ts ; 1 0 ' driving l a nes (2), 8 ' parking
la n es (2), 4-5' sidewalks & planting s h i p s
Intersections ar e t i g h t rlght-angle comers
(easier, safer for walkers)
rlght-angle Intersections
higher Hnealfeet of s h e e t s ( 1 9,000-24,000),
n um be r of blocks(24-16) a n d numb e r of
Intersections (20-40) tha n other s u b u r b s
public buildings terminate a s tr e e t vista or
overtook a s q u a r e (occupy Important sites)
landmark structures terminate vis ta s; major
boulevard conne cts th e school a n d recreation
center
building heights are proportional to s t r e e t way
widths (per & P-Z)
building heights s r e proportions! to str ee t
widths
llghtrall or trolleys ar e situated within a
boulevard a t e d g e of neighborhood
transi t s t o p s ar e within relatively d e n s e
communities (1/4 mile area)
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
- --------- ------------ ------- - -------------------- ----------- - - ........... - --------------------------- ----------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
----- ---------------------- --------------
commercial atreeta have curbslde parking;
former mall parking lota have streeta & ahops;
there ar e few parking lota, exc ept underground
or behind buildings; lots ar e no more than 3
a c re s
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
s tr e e ts er e s af e, Interesting, comfortable for
p edest rians; walkways ar e wide
s t r e e t s ar e pedestrian friendly pedestrian routes offer good s t r ee ts capes ,
ea ch afreet Is unique, visually Interesting and
cohesi ve with small s c a l e detail an d variety,
changing vis ta s and focal points
......... ..............------------- --------- --------------- ----------------------------------------
there ar e sidewalks
corridors are landsc aped for continuity sidewalks h a v e planting strips
service deliveries ar e in th e back of stores there ar e alleys mid-block, 2 6 ' wider (12*
paved, T g r a s s strips (2)
t r e es ar e planted In parking lanes tr e es ar e planted In rows along sidewalks str ee t tr e e s ar e along 2 s i d e s of wider s treets
a nd 1 side c( narrow s treets
--------------------- ----------------------------------------------- ----------------------
str ee ts have equitable people & car movement
broadleaf s h a d e tr e e s (I.e. sycamore or
chestnut) are planted near curb to form a
canopy over the street
t r e es and topographical features ar e mature
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
the r e Is pedestrian or bike a c c e s s
bet we en commercial, transi t & residential
a r e a s
sidewalk crossings ar e limited &

controlled
pedestrian a n d bike croaawalks are a t
algnallzed arterial Intersections;
pedestrian crossings h a v e on-demand
signals
direct pedestrian path to transit stop Is
lined with activities
direct pedestrian path t o transit stop Is
s h a d e d
t h e r e Is a coordinated blkeway ay i tem
neighborhood s tr ee ts provide non-
s e g regated bikeways
ap a ce for biking along t h e str ee t connector (arterial) str ee ts , greenwaya &
o p en - s p ace corridors h a v e marked bike
lanes
bikeways h a v e s i g n s t h a t Indicated th e
beginning, e n d & route
bike parking facHWes (*>, <*>*, i x u n i
a n In commercial a r e a a n d throughout
office developments
t h e r e ar e bfce parking facilities a t transit
stops , schools, parks
s i g n s Indicate bike parking faculty location
bike parking facilities d o not block
pedestrian routes
5 s tr e e t light poles ar e pedeatrtan-scale, not
highway atyle
I | DWELLING UNITS AND LOTS
11 vehicles a c c e s s the dwelling from aide or
back; th e r e ar e few Va n y front yard
driveways
g a r a g e Is a t rear or side of dwelling &
s tr ee t vision
parking Is In r ear or side yard
11 front entry Is more visually dominant than
g ar ag e entry
g a r a g e Is s e t behind t h e front f aca de at
le a s t S ft
the r e ar e no carports & few
ga r age s
porches & entry bays f ace street, not
Interior blocks or parking lots; doors to
slngle-famlly homes, duplexes,
tow nhous es a nd multi-family buildings
ar e vlsable from street/orient to the str ee t
lots & buildings front th e s tr ee ts
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
ho mi n g I t clustered s r o u n d courtyerds or
parks tha t link with larger public s p a c e s
there ar e a p a rt men t s over s h o p s & offices
architectural resp o n d s to surrounding
buildings, s p a c e s , local traditions; building
architecture contributes to neighborhood
Image
th e r e are g a r ag e & a c ces sor y apart ment s &
a pa rt men t s over s h o p s
architectural design Is traditional (with control
In local codea)
buildings ar e flexible for e a s y adaptability
there are varied housing type s (sldeyard
h ous es , row h ous es , s emi - detac hed houses,
cot tages, s econdary units, courtyard apts,
mkfrlse ap t s ; near th e core ar ea ar e a mbr of
amall-k>t-alngle family h o u s e s , duplexes, town
h o u s e s , ap t s)
t he r e is a range of housing types
h o u s e s eibacks are narrow (small front yards)
th e r e are g a r ag e & ac ces so r y apart ment s &
apa rt men t s over s h o p s
ho us ea have front porches
there ar e Interesting carriage h o u s e courts
there ar e g ar age a pa rt ment s granny flats
h o u s e s hav e a similar underlying unity (I.e.
materials, colors, porches, etc.)
buildings have architectural variety
neighborhood design Is traditional (per
Nelessen)
iots ar e small
buildings reference th e pas t, u s e traditional
detailing, wrought Iron, brick & ston e; th e r e Is a
feeling of older, Intimately scal ed towns In
vernacular architecture, with white picket
f ence s
lot s iz e s vary from small to 1n acre
the r e Is a mbr of housing type s (detached
h o u s es , row h ous es , apt s, granny flats), and a
mix at h ou s e val ues
there Is e mix of housing ty p e s- v a rl e ty of
styles Includes granny flats, SF dwellings,
r owhouses, condos, apts,
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
housing densit y Is a d e q u s t e to support public
trensporation; h ome a v 7 2 0 s q ft; density Is 10
I S units/acre (per Calthorpe)
housing density Is a d e q u a t e to support public
transporatton
5-6 units/acre; a variety of densities (per
Callhorpe)
dwelling unit density ra n g e s 1/3-17/acre,
depending on type of housing, b u t is generally
lower tha n traditional community a n d higher
t ha n ' suburbs*
town s ize r a n g e s 40-200 ac re s 'neighborhood* is a com pact village In a
limited ar ea
nei ghborhoods are small (per Nelesson)
NEIGHBORHOOD CORE
the r e ar e prominent centralized public s p a c e s
(courthouse square, common, plaza)
t he r e are centralized public s p a c e s or
Important s tr ee t Intersect, or off-center public
s p a c e , r there Is a g r e a t view, shoreline or
transportation corridor
the r e Is a gr een open s p a c e - a plaza, s quar e
or gr een u s e d a s a geographic reference point
an d focus of civic Nfe
a neighborhood center Is defined by cMc &
commercial faclMles (courthouse, train station,
main street)
the r e a r e open public s p a c e s (parka, playing
fields, wate r bodies), a n d s mall village gr eens
total park ac re age Is 5 - 1 0 % of residential ar ea 2 0 - 2 B S of community Is open s p a c e
buildings surrounding o pen s p a c e s contribute
to th e spatial definition of t h e s p a c e ; public
buildings f a c e public a p a c e s
convenience s tor es are within walking distance retail Is limited to a shopping center
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
a neighborhood h a s a balanced mix of human
activity (not s e p a r a t e land u s e a r ea s) with
dwellings, workplaces, s hops, civic buildings,
recreation, parks, daycare, post office, police,
bank, school, transit stop
th e neighborhood h a s diversity (cafes,
recreation, c a su a l social spots ) (per Calthorpe)
there ar e diverse activities a nd land u s e s In the
core a r e a (work, groceiy stopping, daycare)
neighborhood Includes churches, school,
daycare, oflce space, library, transit stops;
retail a n d office s p a c e a r e integrated via a
pedestrian-oriented shopping and office center
walking from center to e d g e Is 5 minutes (1/4
mile)
th e community Is walkable, extending 1/4 mile
from ce nter to e d g e
most h o m e s are 5-10 mln walk from t h e
shopping center
--------------- ---------------
------------ ----- -----------------------
neighborhood h a s transit stops
the r e ar e gravel Jogging trails
regional a c c e s s by public transit Is es ta blished
(shuttle bus , light rail, local/express b u s e s )
---------------- ---------- ----------- ------------- -----------------
------------- ----
--------- - - -------
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
a continuous natural habitat forms a green
ed g e bet ween neighborhoods for walking,
biking (per D & P-Z)
there Is a continuous natural habitat (green
edge ) bet ween neighborhoods, for walking
a nd biking; th e gr een ed g e Is beynd th e 1/4
mile n e i g h b o r h o o d ar ea
there ar e open s p a c e s a t th e village e d g e s (per
Nelesson)
the r e ar e nearby companies for employment
n e a r homea
light Industry Is near th e community center; the
a r ea Is part of a larger metropolitan region for
jobs a n d services_____________________________
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Key New Urbanism Concepts
P. Calthorpe 1. Audirac & H. Shermyen Duany & Plater-Zyberk Newsweek Staff
Southworth
area is a compact part of a
region with transit support
mixed land use geometrically defined center
radiating an interconnected
street network; commercial
activity (shopping, working)
concentrated in town centers
give up big houses mix of housing types
there are commercial,
housing, jobs, parks, civic
uses within walking distance
of transit stops
higher residential densities
than detached single-family
home suburbs
civic spaces and buildings
distributed throughout
neighborhoods
bring back the corner store mixed uses
streets networks are
pedestrian- friendly and
directly connect local
destinations
public spaces and town
center
1/4 mile radius
neighborhoods
make the streets skinny higher densities
gridded street network interconnected, memorable
street network; streets and
squares are the primary
public spaces
plan for mass transit public transit infrastructure
mix of housing types,
densities, costs
streetscapes and street vistas pedestrian network of paths
and mid-block alleys
draw boundaries pedestrian and biker friendly
sensitive habitat, riparian
zones are preserved and
there is high quality open
space
vernacular or traditional
architecture
pedestrian friendly and
interesting streets
drop the cul-de-sac more interconnected street
patterns
public spaces are the focus of limit on neighborhood and
building orientation and town geographic size
neighborhood activity
mix use (dwellings, shops,
workplaces)
mix housing types architecturally interesting
buildings and homes
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Key New Urbanism Concepts, Page 2
P. Calthorpe 1. Audirac & H. Shermyen Duany & Plater-Zyberk Newsweek Staff
Southworth
infill and redevelopment along
transit corridors within
existing neighborhoods
public buildings and squares put new life into old malls pedestrian access to meet
daily needs
building codes for public
apects of private buildings;
diversity and harmony to
provide character
plant trees curbside several distinct
neighborhoods with their own
characteristics make the
community interesting
affordable housing dispersed
in small quantities not large
tracts (via different size
houses with similar
appearance; apts over stores;
garage apts, small cottages)
hide the garage
link work to home
make a town center
turn down the lights
think green
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Content Analysis Items Mentioned by 2+ Authors That Are Not in the Face Block or Neighborhood Level Instruments
street design is formal, in an axial layout
streets frame vistas of important buildings or places
building heights are proportional to street widths
streets & sidewalks have handicapped access
commercial streets have limited curb cuts (driveways)
streets have equitable people and car movement
sidewalk crossings are controlled by signals
streetlights are smaller scale than highway lighting
there is a bicycle path network
there are semi-private open spaces between buildings (i.e. quads, courtyards, patios)
buildings are designed for adaptability
commercial street buildings have minimal street setback
October 4, 1995
Mark Bello
Portland Planning Bureau
Dear Mark,
Thank you for your willingness to review the enclosed New Urbanism
measurement tools for content validity, so that they can be used to make observations in
several Portland area census tracts. Your expertise will be invaluable for assuring
practicality and feasibility in carrying out the environmental measures for my study,
New Urbanism Environmental Design and Quality of Life for Older Women.
Enclosed in the packet are: the New Urbanism Instruments: FACE BLOCK
CHARACTERISTICS and NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS; the Literature
Review Content Analysis; a Reference list; and a list of content items that I did not
include in either instrument. Content Analysis Sections 1 and 2 should be read side by
side (i.e. page 9 is a continuation of page 1, etc.). Face Block is defined as an area
between intersections along a street, including both sides of the street. Neighborhood is
defined as roughly a 6-block area surrounding the face block.
Please critique both instruments for:
appropriateness of the items (characteristics)
appropriateness and measurability of the descriptive scales.
Also, would you please advise me about how to access large-scale maps that might be
available in the Planning Bureau, at Metro or the Library.
Give me a call for any questions, to arrange a meeting and/or to pick up the
materials at your office. I am available during the day at 503-220-8262, ext 7741, and in
the evening at 503-244-3498. Again, thank you very much for your time. I look
forward to your recommendations and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Patty Patterson
c: Nancy Chapman, PhD, Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University
Carl Abbott, PhD, Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University
October 4, 1995
Carrie Pennard
Portland Planning Bureau
Dear Carrie,
Thank you for your 'willingness to review the enclosed New Urbanism
measurement tools for content validity, so that they can be used to make observations in
several Portland area census tracts. Your expertise will be invaluable for assuring
practicality and feasibility in carrying out the environmental measures for my study,
New Urbanism Environmental Design and Quality of Life for Older Women.
Enclosed in the packet are: the New Urbanism Instruments: FACE BLOCK
CHARACTERISTICS and NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS; the Literature
Review Content Analysis; a Reference list; and a list of content items that I did not
include in either instrument. Content Analysis Sections 1and 2 should be read side by
side (Le. page 9 is a continuation of page 1, etc.). Face Block is defined as an area
between intersections along a street, including both sides of the street. Neighborhood is
defined as roughly a 6-block area surrounding the face block.
Please critique both instruments for:
appropriateness of the items (characteristics)
appropriateness and measurability of the descriptive scales.
Also, would you please advise me about how to access large-scale maps that might be
available in the Planning Bureau, at Metro or the Library.
Give me a call for any questions, to arrange a meeting and/or to pick up the
materials at your office. I am available during the day at 503-220-8262, ext 7741, and in
the evening at 503-244-3498. Again, thank you very much for your time. I look
forward to your recommendations and suggestions.
Sincerely,
Patty Patterson
c: Nancy Chapman, PhD, Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University
Carl Abbott, PhD, Urban Studies and Planning, Portland State University
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
FACE BLOCK CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW URBANISM
Respondent No_____ Address _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Census Tract.
bam :
k.
CHARAOTERIST10
............H M m .............
KANO*
M e d i u m <2> L o w f t )
OWMEHTS
1. S tr e e t I n t e r c o n n e c t s w i t h o t h e r s t r e e t s
tree! connects with 2 other
treats
treat Is a through s heet but
:ormects to a cul-de-sac
iheet Is a cul-de-sac and
tormects with 1 oftter sheet
M M
S tr ee t I s p a r t o t a r e c t i l i n e a r g r i d p a t t e r n
tils street t ell edjolnlng streets
ire llneer
Ills sheet or an adjoining sheat
:urves
his sheet curves ft adjoining
iheets curve
M M
n t e r s e c t l o n s h a v e r l g h t - a n g l e c o r n e r s
II (usuelly 4) comers of the block
ifatlBlM*angla
io comers of the Mock are right-
tngla
tome (1-3 of 4) comers of frte
dock are rlght-angle
M M
S tr ee t I s n a r r o w
; 13-16 ft per lane 17-20 ft per lane 21-24 ft + per lane
w m
D o c k | s s m a l l
alock length baWepofi
ntersecDons 17S-2S0 ft
dbCk lengfrl betweeri
h f e f et lom261*4 W f t
itock lemjlt betkikten:::;::;:v^:';::,:;;/:
nterspcfron*
JSE MAP TO RATE
M M
S tr ee t I s v i s u a l l y I n t e r e s t i n g t o r p e d e s t r i a n s
>oth sides are athacDvely planted
1residential buildings have varied
designs
me side Is athactlvely planted ft
talf the residential buildings have
he same design
either side Is athactlvely planted
1all residential buildings have
erne design
m .
S treet h a s s i d e w a l k s
rath sides have paved sidewalks
ilong f t e vfriole block langth
me side has sidewalks along
dtole Mock, or li e r e are paths on
1-2 sides
tart of one side has a paved
tidewalk, or neither side has
tidewalks nor paths
i ! :
r h e r e a r e p l a n t e d s t r i p s a l o n g t h e s t r e e t
! planted strips for whole block
ength; some bushes or llowers;
to weeds evident
me side has a planted ship of
tushes, Dowers or grass along Die
dtole Mock; some weeds
to planted ships along the
tidewalk
M r h e r e a r e m i d b l o c k a l l e y s
illeys exist In both facing blocks 1Mock has an alley tehher hieing Mock has an alley
1 0 , t h e r e a r e t r e e s p l a n t e d a l o n g t h e s t r e e t
reos are planted on both sides of
he sheet
rees are planted along one side
>fthe sheet
here are no hee s along the s heet
1 1 . T r e es a l o n g t h e s t r e e t a r e a t r e g u l a r I n t e r v a l s
rees ere planted at regular,
r intemipted Interval for ent r e
.treat length
here are a few h e e s (3 ) planted
it regular Intervals
to h ee s are planted at regular
ntorvals
r 1O*Low(l),Oisitemlsn0tapficatJ6
l a . Tr e es a l o n g t h e s t r e e t p r o v i d e o v e r h e a d s h a d e
he tMtole s heet has a definite
iverhead canopy provided by
nature hee s
tome parts of the s heet ere
.haded by sheet-side hee s
he sheet Is not at all shaded by
ifreet-slde hee s
r 10Low(1)tftsitemisnotapfftcaUa
1 3 , R e s i d e n t i a l g a r a g e s a r e n o t a t t h e f r o n t
ill houses have garages set back
i ft or more from the front (the
Ida with main enhance)
tome houses have garages set
tack 5 ft or more from the front
side with main enhance)
to houses have garages sat back
i ft or more from the front (side
with main enhance)
Amber of houses on Vie Hoc*
Jtmber ofhousejvMlhadeorback Qarages______
?ate
1 4 . R e s i d e n c e s h a v e f r o n t p o r c h e s
nost residential buildings have
:overed front porches elevated 3-
1* steps w/ space for I t chairs
iome residential Mdgs have
tovered elevated or non-elevated
torches w1space for 1 chairs
to residential Mdgs hava covered
Kevated or non-elevated porches
v/space for 1* chairs
1 0 / 4 / 9 5
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Respondent No.___________ Page 2 Census Tract
CHARACTERISTIC
Hlflh (3)
RANGE
Medium (2) Low(1)
COMMENTS
1S.
50%* of residential dwellings are
letback IS ft or l e s s
l!L79% of residential dwellings
ire setback 15 ft or le ss
39K of residential dwellings ar e
setback 15 ft or l e s s
lumber of h o u s e s on th e Hock
lumber of h o u s e s *4th side or back
p r a p e s _ Rate:
ia. rhere are garage apartments
here ar e 2+ gar age ap t s or
iccessory ap t s over s h o p s in the
Sock
here Is 1 gar age or ac ces sor y
ipt In th e block
here are no garage ap t s or
iccessory a p t s over s h o p s In th e
block
17. Facades vary from one residence to the next
here ar e no duplicate residential
uildlng facades
to 3 building f aca des ar e similar
n detail
learly all building faca des look
Hike
18 Architectural designs are traditional
ill dwellings In the block have
radtlonal detail, root pitches >
ISo or Iron, stone or brick work
ind similar er a design
lome dwellings have cornices,
butt er s , or columns, or some
ron, s tone or brick work, or roof
ktch >45o a n d similar era design
nost dwellings lack trim, have
netal windows ft/or low-pitched
oofs ft no Iron, s tone or brick
wxk and a variety of e r a s are
epr esented
18. Lot sties vary
Sesify aHlots are not the s a m e :
^ - V ;
luahi tendsoaNna biddbtg::
ilzes, setbacks not sue |fa| (ot*
essamesbte
dearlyaUtotsar* samesbe USE MAP TO RATE
28. Residential density Is i to 40 units/acre
) residential units on both sides
if the block
i 7 residential units on both
rides of th e block
1-4 residential units on both
rides of the block
JSE MAP IF POSSIBLE
slumber of SF d well inos
slumber of MF dwell inos
21. Residential dwellings are close to shops
stall grocery and/or variety store
dthln 3 blocks
etall grocery and/or variety store
dthln 4-6 blocks
etall grocery and/or variety store
eyond 6 blocks or 1/2 mNe
22. Residential dwellings are close to transit stops
her e Is a bus/llte rail stop wllhln
! blocks
here Is a bus/llte rail s top within
1-5 blocks
h e nea re st bus/llte rail stop Is
teyond 6 blocks or 1/2 mile
TOP HOTMENTIONEDINNEWURBW##MUTBRATURE, BUTPERTINENTTOANAO)NOPOPULATION
23. Terrain Is flat
to Incline on the block slight to moderate Incline on the
dock
ronslderabie Incline on the Hock
24. There Is public streetllghting
Jock h a s street-lights a t both
:omers
Jock h a s street-ilghts a t one
:omer
Jock h a s no stree tli gh ts
25. Transit stops have seating and covered shelter
lover and s eating a t transit stop
xi the block
:over or s eat ing a t transit stop
xi th e block
io cover and no seat ing a t transit
itop on the Hock
28. Dwellings are face to face on the block
io dwellings ar e situated on
lomers, all face other dwellings
1 dwelling Is situated on a comer
1 d oes not face other dwellings
I* dwellings ar e situated on
:omers, do not face other
fwelllngs
[ 10/4/95
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
NEIGHBORHOOD CHARACTERISTICS OF NEW URBANISM
Respondent No.______________Address________________________________________________________________________ Ce nsus Tract.
ke1
ONAWQ1WW9HO
........... m r e ............
RAHOE
MM him (2) L0W(1)
cc**m*r&
1.
Th e r e i s a c o r e a r e a w i t h p u b l i c b u i l d i n g s , o f f ic e
&r e t a i l s p a c e
h e neighborhood h a t e
ecognlzable core area urtVi 4*
public/commercial buHdfnge
he neighborhood has 1-3
Miblic/commerclal buildings In a
tantalized area or main sheet, or
here Is moreVtanl
pommerdal/publlc focus area
he neighborhood Is resldenVal;
here Is no centralized area wHh
public or commercial buildings
A.
A
Ag r e e n o p e n s p a c e p r o v i d e s n e i g h b o r h o o d
o c u s
C o m m e r c i a l s t r e e t s h a v e c u r b s l d e p a r k i n g
he neighborhood has a
rubstanVal, recognizable open
park, plaza or tquarewMch
irovides a neighborhood focus
here la parallel parking on all
sommerdal i t e r h
he neighborhood has a small
>ark or large school yard or an
m portent intersection which
provides a neighborhood focus
hare Is parallel parking on some
lommerdal skeet s
he neighborhood has no park or
Vtar open space nor any oVter
ecognlzabta site that provides a
nlghborhood focus
to commercial skeets have
parallel parking
: *
C o m m e r c i a l a r e a o f f - s t r e e t p a r k i n g I s a w a y h o r n
S id e w a l k s
iny off-sheet parking Is behind
xdldings or underground &away
rom sidewalks
lome off-skeet parking Is behind
addings or underground &away
tom sidewalks
ill off-sheet parking Is between
pulldlng front and sheet
ill
t r t e r l a l s t r e e t e d g e s a r e l a n d s c a p e d
nost arterial s keet edges In Vie
nlghborhood ar e landscaped
ibout half Via arterial s heet edges
n Vie neighborhood are
andscaped
nost arterial s keet edges In the
nlghborhood are not landscaped
*
Some s t r e e t s h a v e l a n d s c a p e d m e d i a n s
ill vride skeets have landscaped
nedlans for t i e ant r a longti
>ome sact ons of wide streets
lave landscaped medians
hare are no landscaped s keet
nedlans
7 .
S t r e e t s c a p e s a r e v i s u a l l y i n t e r e s t i n g f o r
p e d e s t r i a n s
he core area skeetscapes are
rthacttvety planted, buildings
lave varied designs and visable
letalls
n me aspects of the core area
rfreetscape Is attractive, I.e. some
xddlngs have varied designs,
letalls, arindows; soma planVngs
he core area skaetscapa Is
aiatkactlve, buildings are w/o
rireet-level windows, Vtere are
ew Interesting details
A S t r e e t s h a v e s i d e w a l k s
he core area skeets have paved
ildewalks on boti sides
lome core area s keet s do not
rave paved sidewalks; those
itreets may have pedeskian paths
to core area sbaots have paved
ridowalks
9 . There a r e p l a n t e d s t r i p s a l o n g t h e s t r e e t s
here are planted skips along both
tides of Via core area skeets
n m e core area s keets lack
>1anting skips or the strips contain
nosVyweeds
w core area s kaets have planted
drips along Vte sides
1 0 . Tr e es a r e a l o n g s t r e e t s a t r e g u l a r I n t e r v a l s
rees are planted at regular,
atlntarrupted Intervals tiroughout
he neighborhood/community
i few sections of the
telghbothood have k ee s planted
it regular Intervals
to k ee s are planted at regular
ntervalslnthe
telghborhood/communlty
1 1 , Tr e es a l o n g s t r e e t s p r o v i d e o v e r h e a d s h a d e
nost skeets have a definite
iverhsad canopy provided by
nature kees
lome skeets are shaded by sheet
ride kees
w sheets are shaded by sheet-
ride kees
1 0 / 4 / 9 5
R
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
d

w
i
t
h

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n

o
f

t
h
e

c
o
p
y
r
i
g
h
t

o
w
n
e
r
.

F
u
r
t
h
e
r

r
e
p
r
o
d
u
c
t
i
o
n

p
r
o
h
i
b
i
t
e
d

w
i
t
h
o
u
t

p
e
r
m
i
s
s
i
o
n
.
Respondent No.___________ Page 2 Census Tract
mN. CHARACTERISTIC
RANGE
Medium (2) Luwll)
COMMENTS
12,
Building* have architectural variety and
llitinctlon, yet are cohesive
most public/commercial buildings
lave unique design elements and
ire consistent with the area style
only 1-2 public/commercial bldgs
Handout a s dstfnctfve, or 1-2
Mg designs Ignore the a r e a style
difficult to dsbngulsh 1
tubllc/commerclal Udg from
mother and/or bldgs are part of a
strip group s e t
M Lowflj, N s H m r a y t S b e s ^ c a b l a
1$. Housing types vary across the community
here ar e 3* types of housing
multi-unit bldgs, SF dwellings,
ow hous es , gar ag e ap t s or
luplexea)
here ar e only 2 types of housing
multi-unit bldgs, SF dwellings,
ow h ous es , garage ap t s or
luplexes)
here ar e only slngle-ftmlly
dwellings In th e community
14, Architectural designs are traditional
ill bulldngs In th e core area have
radtional detail, roof pitches >
l5o or iron, s tone or brick work
tome core ar ea bulldngs have
tomices, shutters, or columns, or
tome Iron, stone or brick work, or
oof pitch >45o
most core ar ea bulldngs lack
rim, have metal wfrndows &/or
ow-pltched roofs &no Iron, s tone
ir brick work
1 Urn (1), tfiiKot may'not be apjsciiue
15. the neighborhood has facilities for a mix of uses
here ar e facilities for education,
vork, dvic activities, shopping
h ere are facilities tor 1-2 u s e s
tuch a s education an d I r e
votecbon, In addition to
esldentfal dwellings
h e only u s e Is residential
16, There are transit stops Inthe core area
here are bus/llte rail s tops at
nftequent Intervals within the
;ore area
h ere ar e bus/llte rail s top s a t
tequent Intervals nrithln th e core
irea
te a r e s t bus/llte rail beyond 6
docks or 1/2 mile from the core
irea
17,
There are greenbelt, natural habitat areas along
the neighborhood edges
here is a n easily Identified swath
it greenbelt/natural habitat a t the
lelghborhood edge(s) approx 1/2
nile from the core
h ere Is a small a r e a of greenbelt
ir natural habitat a t one ed ge of
h e neighborhood, which may be
hither than 1/2 mile from the
tore
here Is no greenbelt or natural
labitat a t an y edge of the
lelghborhood (1/2 mile from the
tore)
JSE MAP TO RATE
TEW NOTht-NTIONEDIff NEWURBANISMLITERATURE, BUTPERTINENTTOANAOtNOPOPULATION
10, Terrain Is flat
iome of the core a r e a h a s flat
erraln
l a r dy any of th e core a r e a h a s
lat terrain
n o s t of th e core ar ea h a s Hat
erraln
19. There 1*public atreetllghting
ill blocks In the core areahave
itreet-lights a t every comer
tome core area blocks have
itreet-llghts
n o s t core a r e a blocks have no
itreet-lights
10/496
20. Transit stops have seating and covered shelter
ill core ar ea transit stops have
leatlng e n d overhead covering
io core area transit s tops have
testing and overhead covering
tome core ar ea transit stops
lave s eating and overhead
lovering
f 16 = Low (11, this Item is not applicable
APPENDIX F
New Urbanism Pilot-test Item Ratings
otal
79
74
70
69
67
66
62
59
58
53
54
56
57
51
51
44
42
40
New Urbanism Pilot-Test Ratings (32 Items), N= 18 Census Tract Central Areas
Census Tract Item Ratings
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32
1 Sellwood 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 1 1 3 3 2
17.01 North of Mt Tabor 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 3 3 1 3 2 3 1 3 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 2
12.02 East Ladd's Addition 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 2
38.02 North Portland 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 3 1 3 3 3 1 2 3 3 1 2 3 2 1 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 1
39.02 North Portland 2 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 2 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 2 3 3 2 2 1 2 3 3 2
8.01 Franklin Hi 1 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 3 3 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 3 2
28.02 Hollywood 1 3 3 2 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 1 3 3 3 1 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 3 3
30 NE Portland 1 3 3 2 2 2 3 1 1 1 2 1 2 1 3 1 2 2 2 1 2 3 0 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 3 2
29.01 NE Portland 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 1 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 3 1 1 3 3 2
4.01 Woodstock 3 3 3 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 3 1 1 3 1 1 3 2 1
7.01 South of Mt Tabor 1 3 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 3 1 3 1 3 1 1 2 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 2 1 1 2 3 1
80.02 South of Parkrose 1 3 3 3 2 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 3 1 1 1 1 3 1 2 2 1 2 2 3 1
16.01 Mt Tabor 1 2 3 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 2 2 3 1 3 2 1 2 2 3 0 0 0 2 3 3 3 1 2 1 2 1
310.1 East Beaverton 3 2 3 3 2 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 3 2
93 Glendover 1 3 3 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 3 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 3 3 1 1 1 3 1 2
92.01 Powellhurst 2 1 1 3 1 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 3 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 3 2 1 1 2 2 1
94 North of Glendover 1 2 1 3 2 1 1 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 3 2 1 1 2 0 0 0 0 2 1 1 2 1 1 1 2 1
314 SW Commonwealth 1 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3 2 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 3 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1
APPENDIX G
Census-tract Sample Demographic Characteristics
Demographic Characteristics of Census-tract Samples
Characteristics Census Tract
1 12.02 17.01 93 94 314.01 Total
n 20 19 23 24 22 25 133
Demographic
Age ( M Yrs) 78.8 79.0 77.2 77.9 77.6 78.1 78.1
Marital Status (%) 100
Widowed 65 95 70 86 90 76 80
Separated or divorced 25 13 4 10 20 12
Never mamed 10 5 17 4 4 7
Married 4
Education (A/ Yrs) 13.6 12.9 13.1 1X2 13.7 14.1 13.3
1994 Income Range (%) 100*
Under $ 10,000 35 28 36 30 14 24
$10,001-520,000 47 50 50 30 61 41 46
$20,001 -$30,000 18 11 14 17 28 23 18
Over $ 30,000 11 22 11 23 12
Occupational Status (A/, 7 - 1 ) 4.6 3.8 4.0 3.6 4.8 4.6 4.2*
Health Status
Functional Health (A/, 35 - 5) 23.2 22.7 24.0 26.6 25.6 26.1 24.8*
Social Support (A/, 5 - 1 ) 4.1 3.8 3.6 4.2 4.2 4.5 4.1*
Walking Distance Ability (A/, 4 - 1 ) 3.0 2.7 2.9 3.0 3.0 3.1 3.0
Able to Walk Outside (%) 85 90 96 96 86 96 92
Driving Ability (A/, 3 - 1 ) 2.1 2.0 1.8 Z6 Z3 2.3 2.2*
Housing
Dwelling Age (A f Yrs) 76.2 64.6 57.3 40.9 25.2 37.9 48.8*
Dwelling Tenure (A/ Yrs) 36.0 38.7 32.9 31.2 17.6 27.8 30.4*
Home Ownership (%) 90 100 96 100 95 100 97
*p<.0 5
APPENDIX H
Reasons for Moving to the Neighborhood
Responses to the Question, "Why did you move to this neighborhood?"
Subjects Who Mentioned Reason ( n)
Urban (N = 62) Suburban (A = 70)
n % of Total n of Total
Reasons Given By Both Samples
Liked the area (general statement) 14 13 16 12
Price, affordability 9 8 11 8
Easy transportation 8 7 4 3
Had family nearby 7 6 7 5
Liked the house 6 6 7 5
Near stores 6 6 5 4
For the schools 5 5 12 9
Near work 4 4 4 3
It was a pretty area 3 3 4 3
For new house size (needed smaller or larger) 3 3 5 4
Had friends nearby 3 3 5 4
It was a neat, clean area 2 2 5 4
Liked the friendly neighbors 2 2 2
2
It was a family area 2
2
2
2
It had new homes 1 1 4 3
Needed accommodations for illness/aging 1 1 4 3
Subtotal, Number of Mentioned Ideas 76 70 97 74
Reasons Given By Urban Sample Only
Inherited the house 9 8
Liked the parks 4 4
Near church 4 4
Used to live here 4 4
Bom near here 4 4
To keep kids in same school 2 2
To refurbish an old house
2
2
Liked housing diversity, not all the same 1 1
No close by rentals with too many children 1 1
No close freeway, railway, or factory pollution 1 1
Subtotal, Number of Mentioned Ideas 32 30
Reasons Given By Suburban Sample Only
Country-like, open, quiet, woodsy, uncrowded 12 9
It was a convenient location 5 4
It was a safe area 5 4
Liked the amenities 5 4
To leave problem housing (ligbtrail, dog needed room, was in the woods) 4 3
Liked idea of a controlled, adult community 2
2
It was an area of single family homes 1 1
Subtotal, Number of Mentioned Ideas 34 26
Total Number of Mentioned Ideas 108 100 131 100
APPENDIX I
New Urbanism Index Item-Total Correlations
New Urbanism Index Item-Total Correlations
_______________________________ Item__________________________r__
1 Street interconnects with other streets 0.51
2 Intersections have right-angle comers 0.30
3 Street has sidewalks 0.63
4 Street has planted strips along walkways 0.67
5 Residences have front porches 0.74
6 Residential garages are not at the front 0.81
7 Residential styles are consistent -0.15
8 Residential facades vary 0.44
9 Residential designs are traditional 0.84
10 Street is interesting to pedestrians: visabQity 0.10
11 Street is narrow 0.17
12 Block is small 0.17
13 Front yards are small 0.75
14 There are garage apartments 0.12
15 Trees are along the street at regular intervals 0.58
16 There is a centralized area with civic buildings, office & retai 0.72
17 There are convenient stores 0.77
18 The neighborhood has facilities for a mix of uses 0.70
19 Buildings have architectural variety and distinction, yet are c 0.62
20 Commercial and civic buildings have minimal setback from s 0.83
21 Commercial streets have curbside parking 0.58
22 Commercial area off-street parking is away from sidewalks -0.11
23 Housing types vary across the community 0.70
24 Streets form a rectilinear grid pattern 0.85
25 Transit stops are convenient 0.33
26 Neighborhood streets have sidewalks 0.62
27 Street trees provide overhead shade 0.64
28 There are midblock alleys 0.42
29 A green open space provides neighborhood focus -0.30
APPENDIX J
Neighborhood Improvement Suggestions
TRADITIONAL Group Responses to the Question, What Is The Most
Important Improvement That Could Be Made In Your Neighborhood?
(n = 40)
f
Improve private property maintenance by removing msightiy litter around
derelict empty building 16
Could have prisoners without serious problems dean up the neighborhoods,
which have lots of litter
Apartment buldings cause litter; renters don't respect property & owners here
pay high taxes
Fewer rentals; property owners who used to live here kept their properties up
More care by property owners to keep properties well groomed
Some first-time owners do not maintain their homes & yards
Make apartment owners keep up the yards in back and front
The (derelict) building should be remodeled &used
Finish neighbor's house after years of construction
All neighbors should keep up their homes &yards
Landlords need to keep up their properties
More people should keep their places up
Keep yards and homes more attractive
Overall home upkeep in the area
Improve rental properties
More yards mowed
Better traffic management (recent changes at Bybee/17th Jurction were very
poorly planned) 9
Post the streets for slower speed limits - for children
Put a traffic light at the comer of 74th and Glisan
Allow no through trucks on Gilham and NE 67th
A one-way street North in front of the post office
Take out those dam circles in the streets
Enforce residential area speed laws
Enforce the residential speed zone
Enforce a speed limit
Remove parked cars on residential streets; need major revitalization of alley
garages, which would reduce street theft of cars &vandalism 8
Close the Plaid Pantry (next door) at night to prevent young kids from hanging
around 24 hours/day
Get rid of slum landlords who rent to irresponsible or criminal tenants
Control stealing and bad language in the park to improve its use
Better street safety and less burglary
Control graffiti in the neighborhood
Police control in the area
More street lights
Slower traffic on my nearest street and perhaps speed bumps
Make the arterial street less of a thoroughfare
Less traffic on 131st, a through street
Less speeding traffic
Speed bumps
Slower traffic
Slower traffic
Less traffic
8
People should be more involved in the neighborhood association and watch
out for each other; it used to be great
Have block parties and functions for an intervention
A less stringent home association, i.e. reduce control of paint color & allow
individuality in landscaping without excessive penalties
5
Nearby shopping and banking
A small store wthin walking distance
A grocery store close to home
A grocery store in walking distance and better bus service
4
A cement wall to cut down noise from Murray Boulevard
Quiet down the freeway noise
2
Mail delivery to each house
Mail delivery to homes
2
Underground utilities
We were told about curbside drains, but have not gotten them
2
More young families
Slowdovm growth, have only single-family dwellings & less crowded
conditions than is happening wth multi-unit housing & the MAX station
2
Tali trees in this area really make me fearful during heavy w'nds 1
Stop the car and vehicle selling business on our streets and in our driveways 1
TOTAL SUGGESTIONS 56
MODERN Group Responses to the Question, What Is The Most
Important Improvement That Could Be Made In Your Neighborhood?
(n = 47)
________________________________________________________ f _
Sidewalks along the arterials to the store 14
At least curbing, if not sidewalks
Sidewalks on north-south streets
More sidewalks (lives on Glisan)
Sidewalks along Glisan
Sidevralks on this block
More sidewalks
Sidewalks
sidewalks
Sidewalks
Sidewalks
Sidewalks
Sidewalks
Sidewalks________________________________________________________________
Some houses show poor care with untrimmed shrubbery and junk 9
More concern about care of properties and homes
Consistency in yard and building maintenance
Clean up and painting and landscaping
Concern by neighbors for their yards
Maintain the greenery
Better lawn care
More consisten yard care
More weed diggers_________________________________________________________
Overall police protection to prevent children from destroying plantings, etc 8
Possibly more emphasis on keeping out vandals
Crime is getting steadily worse
More street lighting
Streetlights
Street lights
More lights
More police ____________________________________________________
Senior citizens need a meeting place
Activities for senior citizens
A facility that older people coiid use as a meeting place
3
Widen the street for one-side parking 3
Make more parking at Ihe Bybee/Milwaukie junction
Make more parking______________________________________________________
A library within walking distance 3
Some small shops like hairdressers, gift shop, flower shop, etc.
A dose grocery store that doesn't charge an arm and a leg______________________
Repave the streets____________________________________________________ 1_
Enforce the leash law__________________________________________________ 1_
Trim or cut down the high trees in the parking strip, especially on my street________ 1_
Improve the bus service________________________________________________ 1_
More street lights______________________________________________________1_
A park______________________________________________________________ 1_
Less noise___________________________________________________________ 1_
TOTAL SUGGESTIONS 48

SPDF New Urbanism

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

SPDF New Urbanism

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

INFORMATION TO USERS

Education 0.37 0.18 .22*

Ounng era oast 4 w a a u . . .

th e r e ar e bike parking facilities a t transit

sidewalk crossings ar e limited &

You might also like