Student Residents' Perceptions of Their Neighbourhood
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Aalto University School of Engineering Elina Koutonen Student residents’ perceptions of their neighbourhood – an evaluation of perceived residential environment quality Diplomityö, joka on jätetty opinnäytteenä tarkastettavaksi diplomi-insinöörin tutkintoa varten. Espoo 20.10.2019 Supervisor: Professor Marketta Kyttä Instructor: Anna Kajosaari Aalto University, P.O. BOX 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Abstract of master's thesis Author Elina Koutonen Title of thesis Student residents’ perceptions of their neighbourhood – an evaluation of perceived residential environmental quality Master programme Spatial planning and transportation engi- Code SPT neering Thesis supervisor Marketta Kyttä Thesis advisor(s) Anna Kajosaari Date 20.10.2019 Number of pages 101+14 Language English Abstract This study analysed, whether there are neighbourhood specific differences in how student residents’ perceive residential environmental quality and do the residents of the same neighbourhood have similar habitats with each other. Similarities were then evaluated: are they the connected to the demographical group of student residents or a specific neighbourhood or neighbourhood type. The study was quantitative, and the sample consisted of student residents’ living in various neighbourhoods around Helsinki metropolitan area. Data was collected with public participation GIS. To evaluate the perceived residential environmental quality, four quality factor categories were used: functional quality, social quality, appearances, and atmosphere. Each of these four categories were further divided into seven sub-categories. The analysis revealed that from student residents’ perspective the neighbourhoods of Helsinki metropolitan area can be divided into three neighbourhood types: central, campus, and suburban neighbourhoods. Student residents evaluated the overall environmental quality to be very good in both central and campus neighbourhoods. The residents’ of these two neighbourhood types also placed most of their important places within one kilometre radius of their home. The residents of suburban neighbourhoods evaluated their neighbourhoods residential environmental quality to be worse than the residents of the other two neighbourhood types, but none of the studied neighbourhoods received overall bad evaluations. East Helsinki was used as a case study to evaluate whether a neighbourhood with negative reputation would stand out from the other suburban neighbourhoods, but East Helsinki proved out to be just like any other suburban neighbourhood. Student resident related popular grievances were the perceived lack of local history and distance to important people. These two categories were evaluated quite negatively in all three neighbourhood types. Keywords perceived residential environmental quality, PREQ, residential satisfaction, person-environment fit, PPGIS Aalto-yliopisto, PL 11000, 00076 AALTO www.aalto.fi Diplomityön tiivistelmä Tekijä Elina Koutonen Työn nimi Student residents’ perceptions of their neighbourhood – an evaluation of per- ceived residential environmental quality Maisteriohjelma Spatial planning and transportation engineer- Koodi SPT ing Työn valvoja Marketta Kyttä Työn ohjaaja(t) Anna Kajosaari Päivämäärä 20.10.2019 Sivumäärä 101+14 Kieli englanti Tiivistelmä Tämä tutkimus arvioi, kokevatko opiskelija asukkaat eri naapurustojen elinympäristölaadun eri tavalla ja muistuttavatko saman naapuruston asukkaiden elinympäristöt toisiaan. Samankaltaisuuksien syitä arvioitiin: ovatko ne seurausta kohderyhmän samankaltaisesta elämäntilanteesta, naapuruston ominaislaaduista tai tietystä naapurustotyypistä. Tutkimus on kvantitatiivinen ja otokseen kuului opiskelija-asukkaita useista pääkaupunkiseudun naapurustoista. Aineisto kerättiin PPGIS-metodilla (public participation GIS). Aineisto jakautui neljään asuinalueiden laatua arvioivaan kriteeriin: toiminnallinen laatu, sosiaalinen laatu, alueen ulkoinen olemus ja ilmapiiri. Jokainen neljästä laatukategoriasta jaettiin seitsemään alakategoriaan. Analyysissa tunnistettiin opiskelijoiden näkökulmasta pääkaupunkiseudulla olevan kolmea naapurustotyyppiä: keskusta, kampus ja lähiö. Opiskelija-asukkaat arvioivat laaja-alaisesti elinympäristön laadun hyväksi sekä keskusta että kampus naapurustoissa. Näiden kahden naapurustotyypin asukkaat myös sijoittivat suurimman osan itselleen tärkeistä paikoista alle kilometrin säteelle omasta kodistaan. Lähiöiden opiskelija-asukkaat arvioivat naapurustonsa elinympäristönlaadun heikommaksi kuin toisten kahden naapurustotyypin asukkaat arvioivat omansa, mutta yksikään otoksen naapurustoista ei saanut kokonaisvaltaisen heikkoja arvioita. Itä-Helsinkiä tarkasteltiin tapaustutkimuksena, jossa tutkittiin vaikuttaako alueen negatiivinen maine asukkaiden kokemaan elinympäristön laatuun. Kerätyn aineiston perusteella Itä-Helsingin koettu elinympäristön laatu ei erotu muista lähiöistä. Kaikkien naapurustojen opiskelija-asukkaiden yleisesti heikommaksi koetut laatutekijät liittyivät ko- ettuun paikallishistorian vähäisyyteen ja asumiseen kaukana itselle tärkeistä ihmisistä. Avainsanat koettu elinympäristön laatu, PREQ, asukastyytyväisyys, asukkaan ja ympä- ristön yhteensopivuus, PPGIS Acknowledgments This thesis is a part of an Aalto Thesis project and was commissioned by Helsingin opiskelija asuntosäätiö (Hoas). Hoas gave only rough frames to the research. They wanted any data about the student residents perceptions of their surroundings. A special request was to look a bit more closely to East Helsinki. Very soon, the focus was set towards analysing area differences. During my studies, I have been interested in a bottom-up design approach and public participation methods. I truly believe, it is crucial to listen to the lay persons’ views to fully understand the functions and quality of an environment. Professor Marketta Kyttä proposed this group thesis for me and kindly promised to supervise my thesis. Previous research work done by both Marketta Kyttä and Aalto University’s Land use planning department was an outstanding resource of theoretical information for me, and I was very fortunate to have professor Kyttä as my supervisor. Doctoral student Anna Kajosaari was my invaluable instructor, and her expertise on ArcGIS proved to be crucial for my research. She helped me solve various problems with my analysis, and I didn’t have to worry about getting stuck with a technical problem. My Hoas contact was Saara Saksanen, who provided me all the Hoas related data I needed for this study. Niina Pitkänen was the principal Aalto Thesis Program manager, who ar- ranged group meetings. Tiia Penttinen wrote her thesis on Student housing and students’ identity construction as part the same group thesis commission. Though, our theses were independent researches, with different samples and methods. I thank all the people, who have contributed to this thesis. Special thanks I’d like to ex- press to my wonderful supervisor and instructor. A special thank you goes to all the stu- dents, who respondent to my questionnaire. Without them, this thesis would not exist. Espoo 7.10.2019 Elina Koutonen Elina Koutonen Contents Tiivistelmä Abstract Acknowledgments Contents........................................................................................................................ 1 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 3 1 Introduction........................................................................................................... 4 2 Environmental perceptions and preferences ........................................................... 6 2.1 Perceiving environment .................................................................................. 6 2.2 Concepts connected to perceiving residential environmental quality ............... 6 2.2.1 Urban environment .................................................................................. 6 2.2.2 Neighbourhood and habitat ...................................................................... 7 2.2.3 Residential satisfaction and neighbourhood attachment ............................ 8 2.2.4 Person-environment fit............................................................................. 9 2.3 Perceived residential environmental quality .................................................... 9 2.3.1 Studying perceived residential environmental quality .............................. 9 2.3.2 Functional quality .................................................................................. 10 2.3.3 Social quality ......................................................................................... 11 2.3.4 Appearance of a neighbourhood ............................................................. 13 2.3.5 Atmosphere of a neighbourhood ............................................................ 14 3 Methodology ....................................................................................................... 15 3.1 Research questions........................................................................................ 15 3.2 Methods ........................................................................................................ 15 3.3 Procedure...................................................................................................... 17 3.3.1 Sampling ............................................................................................... 17 3.3.2 The questionnaire .................................................................................