Decision-Making Within a Constrained Population: Residential Choice by Black Urban Households

http://jbs.sagepub.com/Journal of Black Studies

http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/14/3/327The online version of this article can be found at:

DOI: 10.1177/002193478401400303

1984 14: 327Journal of Black StudiesLeo E. Zonn

Black Urban HouseholdsDecision-Making within a Constrained Population : Residential Choice by

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

can be found at:Journal of Black StudiesAdditional services and information for

http://jbs.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://jbs.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://jbs.sagepub.com/content/14/3/327.refs.htmlCitations:

What is This?

- Mar 1, 1984Version of Record >>

at UNIV OF TEXAS AUSTIN on March 12, 2013jbs.sagepub.comDownloaded from

DECISION-MAKING WITHIN A CONSTRAINED POPULATION

Residential Choice by Black Urban Households

LEO E. ZONN Arizona Sfate University

The creation and perpetuation of the social spatial mosaic of a metropolitan area in the United States is a result of thousands of individual migrations. Each of these moves involved a decision-making process that included elements unique to each household. Embodied in each decision were personally unique goals, needs, and aspirations, as well as particular constraints that may have qualified or limited the realization of these desires. Virtually every household is subject to constraints. Income and distance to work, for example, are limitations that are experienced by most households. Households of a few subgroups, however, experience a unique set of constraints. Blacks, for example, have been limited to a particular segment of the city, primarily as a function of race. This limitation still exists, regardless of strong civil rights laws and activities that have occurred during the last decade. Blacks may be termed a constrained population, therefore, because of this unique and influential limitation.

Intra-urban migration is a popular topic among the many geographers, sociologists, and other urbanists concerned with the social composition of the American City. The traditional JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES, Vol. 14 No. 3, March 1984 327-340 0 1984 Sage Publicztions, fnc.

328 JOURNAL OF BLACK STUDIES / MARCH 1984

mode of analysis usually has centered ‘upon aggregate data sets, such as those provided by the U.S. Census or public utilities, while the analyses usually have centered upon general migration patterns, especially as they relate to social patterns of residential location. Relatively little attention has been focused upon the theoretical or empirical aspects of the individual decision-making processes that result in intra-urban migration. Residential choice behavior, for example, has been generally neglected as a research direction, although Some significant theoretical (Brown and Moore, 1970) and empirical (Rossi, 1955; Brown and Holmes, 1970; Butler, et al. 1969; Barrett, 1973; Michelson, 1977; Cadwallader, 1979) studies do exist. This particular literature set provides an adequate background for the development of more specific and valuable studies of residential choice. In particular, ‘the role of constraints in decision-making, which have yet to be treated in detail, can be analyzed by relying upon some of the material concerned with residential choice.

Residential decision-making within a constrained population is the focus of this article. Specifically, the purpose of this study is to delimit and anaIyze the decisions to move and choose as they occur among blacks. Emphasis is upon the elements that are included in the choice process. The model of intra-urban migration outlined by Brown and Moore (1970) is used as a framework for the empirical analysis of 101 migrant households. There are three major sections of this article. The first outlines the study’s conceptual framework. The second section compares the decisions to move and choose in terms of the elements relied upon in the decisions, while the third section discusses in more detail the elements of the choice decision.

Zonn / .DECISION-MAKING IN CONSTRAINED POPULATION 329

THE CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK

The conceptual framework for this study is based upon the model by Brown and Moore (1970), which centers on a two- fold decision-making process that occurs in intra-urban migration. The framework recognizes a sequence of decisions known collectively as the migration decision. The first of the two major divisions of this decision is referred to as the decision to move, which is concerned with the question of why a household chooses to look for a new residence in which to live, assuming such a choice is voluntary. This decision is a function of many characteristics, because individuals possess certain values regarding a desired lifestyles (Figure 1). Within the rubric of social, economic, demographic and personal constraints, these values are translated into expectations or aspirations related to housing (site) and neighborhood (situation) characteristics. Minimum expectations for the neighborhood and housing attributes are established and maintained. Furthermore, the present location is under constant evaluation, vis-his other locations, in relation to these expectations. This evaluation results in a degree of place utility, which is the relative level of satisfaction of the household in relation to the residence and/or neighborhood. When the place utility of the site and/or situation falls below the minimum threshold of expectations, the decision process begins. The decision alternatives- for the household are to: (1) adjust expectations; (2) modify the environment; or (3) seek a new residence. This article is concerned with those households that have both decided to search for a residence and that have been successful in that endeavor.

Once the decision to seek a new residence has been made, the second decision set, known as the decision to choose, begins (Figure 2). The first part of this process involves the establishment of criteria by which the household will attempt

0 3 - o c c u

3 0 m I 4

to evaluate and choose a residence. These criteria, which represent household needs and tolerances, were implicit prior to the decision to move. In order to search for a residence, however, such criteria need to be made explicit. To achieve this, household needs and constraints are ordered as to importance. Then, consciously or not, the household defines a threshold (usually minimum) and a range of acceptable values for each criterion. The requirements for a household’s needs, for instance, might include (in order of importance) a minimum of two large bedrooms, two bathrooms, a garage, and a large backyard. Constraints may be viewed in the same way; members of a particular ethnic group may not be acceptable as neighbors, the household can pay no more than $175.00 per month mortgage payment, and so on. It must be kept in mind that because these needs and constraints are ordered as to importance, trade-offs among the criteria will invariably occur. Obviously, those criteria that are lower on the scale are most likely to be compromised. Perhaps the mover will accept a few ethnic neighbors and only one bathroom if a residence that satisfies all other critera is found. The nature of these trade-offs will be partially contingent on the amount of search time available.

THE DECISIONS TO MOVE AND CHOOSE

The study sample was drawn from the subgroup of the black population of Milwaukee, Wisconsin composed of households whose intra-urban migration destination was a residence purchased by the same household. The sample represents about 40% of all black households that purchased a home during the twenty-week study period. Elements of the decisions to move and choose were evaluated by the study’s subjects during an interview. At two different times during the interview the respondent was presented with a table listing elements. The first table included those that may have been motivating factors in the decision to move from the original residence, while the second table included elements that may

Zonn / DECISION-MAKING IN CONSTRAINED POPULATION 333

have influenced the decision to choose the destination residence. Respondents were asked to rate the importance of each element using a scale ranging from 0 (not important) to 5 (very important) (Zonn, 1975).

The mean scores for the elements of the decisions to move and choose are shown in Table 1. Clearly, the scores of the decision to move are substantially lower than those of the decision to choose. In the former category only one element averaged over 4.00 while two elements averaged over 3.00. In the decision to choose category, however, five elements averaged over 4.00, while nine averaged 3.00. Comparison of the means

TABLE 1 Elements of the Decision to Move and Choose (mean values of

respondent’s ratings)

Decision t o move Decis ion t o choose

Closer t o family .67 c l o s e r t o work .44

Locat ional Elenents

Close t o work 1 .46 Close t o shopping 2.05 Close t o church 1.35 Close t o f a d l y 1 . 2 8

Space E lenen t s

Grounds v e r e too small 1 . 3 9 Residence vas too s m a l l 1.99 Residence was too big .24

House Cost E lenen t s

Wanted t o own a house 4 .24 A good d e a l f o r a new house 3 . 2 1

S i z e of grounds 4 .11 S i z e of house 4.49

P r i c e 4.30 Downpapent 3 . 4 1 I n t e r e s t 3 . 2 0 Prope r ty t a x e s 2 . 6 6 Cost of upkeep 3 .22

Environmental Qua l i ty E lenen t s

Wanted a b e t t e r house 3 .82 Qual i ty of schoo l s 2.23

Wanted b e t t e r schools 1 .32 neighborhood Didn’t l i k e neighbors 1 .79 Qual i ty of house 4.38

S t y l e of house 4 .15

Poor phys ica l cond i t ion of r e s idence 2 .14 Qual i ty of 3.L7

Other Choices

Marriage. divorce, o r dea th .23

SOURCE: Zonn, 1975.

of two groups by use of the t-statistic reveals a statistically significant difference at the .01 level. Furthermore, when elements are comparable between the two major groups the score of the choose category is always greater.

The fact that the elements of the decision to choose rank far higher than those of the decision to move, in both general and specific terms, is important because it clarifies an aspect of the model presented above. Specifically, the model indicated that after the household makes the decision to move it formalizes its needs and tolerances by establishing criteria that are used to evaluate potential destination residences. These factors are then ranked as to importance. The values of each criterion, represented in this study by elements, vary somewhat between the evaluated residences, because trade-offs among elements of a household occur. Table 1 reflects, therefore, the structure of the criteria set vis-2-vis the residence chosen. Why, then, are the element values higher for the choice decision than for the move decision? The answer is, on the one hand, a household usually moves as a result of a very limited set of factors, which are often specific and closely related. The desire to own or improve the character of the household's residence is the overwhelming factor motivating a move for households of the study population. On the other hand, when a household does decide to search for a residence, thus formalizing a criteria set, many factors are considered that had little or no bearing upon the decision to move. The primary reason for this differential is that the criteria set reflects constraints to the household's choice. The size of the lot, for example, is relatively unimpor- tant in the decision to move; however, when the household is selecting a new residence it must be considered. Therefore, a very few specific factors motivate the decision to move, while many factors are considered in the decision to choose.

The finding of this study concerning the differential between decision sets in terms of element consideration is also likely to be applicable to the general white population, although the character and degree of the differential may be significantly different between blacks and whites. It might be argued that the differential for blacks is less than for whites because the

zonn / DECISION-MAKING IN CONSTRAINED POPULATION 335

black household has access to a less diverse housing market than does its white counterpart and thus does not need to weigh the factors, in number or detail, that the white household considers. Furthermore, the trade-offs by the black family within the criteria set may have to be more substantial than within the set of the white household, again because of a lack of housing diversity (Zonn, 1979). I t may be hypothesized that these constraints similarly affect the decision-making of individuals within the more limited subgroups of the black population, such as female and low-income households. A means of testing this more specific contention is to delimit the frequency with which constrained groups rate criteria lower than do other groups. The relative threshold of each criterion should be lower in the case of the individual who has access to fewer alternative choices (i.e., the value attached to each criterion should be less). Furthermore, a constrained individual may be forced to trade-off more criteria than nonconstrained households. If these qualified and excluded criteria are included in the study as elements, then the numerical value of the elements should be lower than if they were rated by households that are less constrained. This more limited subgroup should assign, therefore, lower scores to the elements.

Individuals of the female and low-income categories are probably more constrained than those belonging to the other family structure and income categories. Low-income households are limited most by the cost of housing, including the downpayment. If the maximum price one can pay for a residence is very low, then the pool of potential choices is also very limited. In addition, these households may often be less- educated than the others and therefore may be less familiar with the full range of information sources that could expand the realm of potential choices. Finally, the delimitation of regions for which house loans are not granted, or “redlining,” s an institutional practice that limits further the size and iiversity of the housing stock accessible to the low-income iouseholds. Restrictions upon females often include lower ncomes, a weaker knowledge of alternatives as a function of a

TABLE 2 Extremes in Element Rating by Category and Household Type

HIGHEST FAYILY STRUCTURE LOWEST

1. Female 73.31: 13 .3%

2 . Male 13.3% 66.6%

3 . Husband-Wife 13.3% 20.0%

INCOME STRUCTURE

1. $9,000 53.3% 26.6%

2. $9.000 - $15,000 26.6% 26.6%

3 . $15,000 20.0% 46.6%

SOURCE: ZQM, 1975. NOTE There are 15 categories and 101 observations.

more limited activity pattern, and sexist policies of real estate and lending institutions.

The frequency with which each household type rates an element the highest or lowest within its respective set is shown in Table 2. Female households account for nearly three- quarters of all lowest scores within family structure, while the low-income group accounts for more than half of all the lowest scores within the income structure. These data support the contention that the more constrained households tend to evaluate residential choice criteria differently than do other individuals. Unfortunately, these data are not adequate to analyze further the contention of differentials in the residential selection process, but the nature and character of decision- making processes within the more limited subgroups of a constrained population should prove to be a fertile research endeavor.

ELEMENTS OF THE DECISION TO CHOOSE

Clearly, values of the four locational elements were the lowest of the fifteen elements included in the decision to

choose. This relative insignificance may reflect the constrained character of the study population. The destination residence for most households of the study sample was within the confines of the city’s black residential area, or ghetto. Perhaps most of the individual nodes of each location type, with the possible exception of work, are located within the ghetto boundaries (Stephenson and Zonn, 1978). If this generalization is true, then shopping, relatives, and church would usually be within a relatively short distance from the newly acquired residence, and thus little value would be- assigned to the respective elements. Perhaps these nodes would take on greater yalue if they were located outside the ghetto or if the ghetto were much larger in area and thus the opportunity for greater distance of movement was possible.

Space requirements of the household, usually in terms of residence size, have been shown to be traditionally important contributors to the out-migration of households. These requirements are usually associated with life cycle changes (i.e., marriage, children, divorce, death), which are the most frequently cited correlates of out-movement propensities (But- ler et al., 1969; Chevan, 1971; Leslie and Richardson, 1961; Simmons, 1968; Speare, 1970; Van Arsdol et al., 1968). The significance of these requirements, however, is not reflected in the appropriate elements of the study population’s decision to move, as shown in Table 1. The reason for this relative unimportance is that the primary stimulus for the move, the desire to own a home, took precedence over all other elements, and thus may have diminished the absolute values of the other elements. In fact, the mean of the house size in the choice decisions is the highest of the 28 elements included in this study, while lot size is one of the highest.

The great increase in the importance of size of residence and lot from the move decision to the search decision is contrary to the findings of Barrett (1973). In his study of white home purchasers in Toronto, the relative value of space requirements was rather constant. In terms of rank, space needs were the most important elements in the decision to move, with the

exception of the desire to own a home, while the needs were rated behind “best value for the money,” and “style of house” in the search decision.

While a11 of the means for elements of home cost are high, substantial differences do exist. The price and downpayment elements are more important to the home purchaser than the other three elements. This difference was expected. The price and downpayment reflect immediate and unequivocal constraints. Every household has a maximum price it is willing to pay and/or capable of paying. In the same way, each household has a maximum threshold for a downpayment. The fact that the means of the elements are not higher than they are indicates that perhaps the households consider residences that have a price and downpayment significantly below their threshold levels. When a residence is actually being considered, therefore, the significance of the threshold is dimished somewhat, because the residence would not be considered in the first place if the price and downpayment were beyond the threshold.

The study by Butler et al. (1969), indicated that households tend, by a large majority, to rank the quality of neighborhood above the quality of house in the decision to choose. That is, in a situation where trade-offs within the criteria set must occur, elements associated with the neighborhood take precedence over those associated with residence. The findings of this study indicate the opposite. The quality of home was rated substantially higher than the quality of neighborhood. A differential clearly exists, therefore, between the criteria rankings of the two populations. The quality of neighborhood may be less significant for the black household simply because he or she has fewer neighborhood alternatives within which a choice can be made. The household may assign less value to the element, therefore, simply because it has little power to affect its own desires.

The relative importance of the residence vis-his the neighborhood is substantiated further by the very high score of the style of home element. Perhaps the aesthetic character of

the residence is such an integral part of the home environment that it should resemble as closely as possible the individual’s desires. The studies by Barrett (1973) and by Butler et al. (1969) have indicated that the style of house is a surprisingly important element in the decision to choose. Although the relative value of the element may be slightly less important in this study, it is, nonetheless, very significant.

CONCLUSION

An implicit long-term goal of many researchers concerned with intra-urban migration behavior is to incorporate salient behavioral notions into metropolitan-scale aggregate models that could be used to estimate intra-urban migration flows (Barrett, 1973; Brown et al., 1970; Brown and Longbrake, 1970; Brown and Moore, 1970; Moore, 1972; Michelson, 1977). Attempts at the construction of such models, however, have proved to be rudimentary and have enjoyed a limited success, at best (Brown et al., 1970; Brown and Longbrake, 1970; Moore, 1971). A refinement of the existing behavioral constructs most likely is needed. Analyses of major population groups of the city and comparative studies of the same groups provide major examples of research directions that are prerequisites to such development. This study is a contribution toward both directions in that it has formulated some basic notions concerning the migration behavior of a constrained subgroup. These notions need more empirical attention and at the same time require a comparative framework. Comparison of constrained populations with the nonconstrained is neces- sary in order to crystallize the basic dimension of decision- making for both segments of the population, and thus for the metropolitan population as a whole.

REFERENCES

BARREIT, F. A. (1973) Residential Search Behavior. Toronto: York Univ. Press.

BROWN, L. A. and J. HOLMES (1970) Search Behavior in an Intra-Urban Context: A Spatial Perspective. Discussion Paper No. 13 Columbus, OH: Department of Geography, Ohio State University.

BROWN, L. A. and D. LONGBRAKE (1970) “Migration flows in intra-urban space: place utility considerations.” Annals of the Assn. of Amer. Geographers 60,

BROWN, L. A. and E. G. MOORE (1970) “The intra-urban migration process: a

BROWN, L. A., F. E. HORTON and R. I. WITTICK (1970) “Place utility and the

BUTLER, W. E. et. d. (1969) Moving Behavior and Residential Choice: A National

CADWALLADER, M. T. (1979) “Neighborhood evaluation in residential mobility.”

CHEVAN, A. (1971) Family Growth, Household Density, and Moving,

LESLIE, G. R. and A. H. RICHARDSON (1961) “Lifecycle, career pattern, and the

MICHELSON, W. (1977) Environmental Choice, Human Behavior, and Residential

MOORE, E. G. (1971) Residential Mobility in the City. Washington, DC: Assn. of

ROSSI, P. H. (1955) Why Families Move. Glencoe, New York Free Press. SIMMONS, J. W. (1968) “Changing residence in the city: a residence in the city: a

SPEARE, A. (1970) “Home ownership, life cycle state, and residential mobility.”

STEPHENSON, L. K. and L. E. ZONN (1978) “Black residential change and the

VAN ARSDOL, M. D., G. SABAGH and W. B. EDGAR (1968) “Retrospective and

ZONN, L. E. (1979) “Housing and urban Blacks: a social distance-residential distance

(1975) “Residential search patterns of BIack urban households: a spatial-

368-384.

perspective.” Geografiska Annaler. 52B: 1-13.

normative allocation of intra-urban migrants.” Demography, 7: 175-183.

Survey. Washington DC Highway Research Board.

Environment Planning A, 11: 393-401.

Demography, 8: 451-458.

decision to move.” Amer. Soc. Rev. 2 6 894-902.

Satisfaction. New York Oxford Univ. Press.

American Geographers.

review of intra-urban mobility.” Geographic Rev. 58: 621651.

Demography 7: 499-458. -

journey-to-work.” J. of Social and Behavioral Sciences 24: 125-131

subsequent residential mobility.” Demography 5: 249-269.

view.” Annals of Regional Science 13: 55-65.

behavioral view.” Ph.D. dissertation, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

Leo A . Zonn is Associate Professor of Geography at Arizona State University. His research interests have centered upon rhe spatial organization of urban blacks and the ~ec~ ion~niak ing ~ p e c t s o f b fack migration, particular,!v the search behavior and information characteristics of movement. Some recent publica- tions in this research include: “Housing and Urban Blacks: A Social Distance- Residential Distance View”Anna1s of Regional Science, (1979). “Information Ffows in Blnck Residential Search Behuvior, ” The Professional Geographer, ( I 980); Housing Fiftrutionandthe Intra- Urban Migration of BIack Households in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, ” Yearbook of the Association of Pacific Coast Geographers, Forthcoming (Summer, 1981).

Decision-Making Within a Constrained Population: Residential Choice by Black Urban Households

Documents

Transcript of Decision-Making Within a Constrained Population: Residential Choice by Black Urban Households

Households' Consumption of Electrical and Electronic ...

Transcend Residential Property Fund Limited

Which households use consumer credit in Europe

Uniform Residential Appraisal Report

On the Value of Households' Recycling Efforts

Food Stamp Participation among Adult-Only Households

HOUSEHOLDS WILLINGNESS TO PAY FOR IMPROVED ...

Conway Residential Historic District

Indebtedness of Farmer Households - The Hindu Centre

residential solutions - 2N

Over-indebted Households and Poverty

Resilient Energy-Constrained Microprocessor Architectures

ANALYSES OF RESIDENTIAL BUILDING ENERGY ...

KARNATAKA RESIDENTIAL EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS ...

Two storey Residential Building

Residential Locksets - schlage.pl

RESIDENTIAL LEASE - Liberty Management

RURAL HOUSEHOLDS IN MONTENEGRO

List of BPL Households

DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS