2000115-Strengthening-Communities-with-Neighborhood-Data

Advances in Analytic Methods for Neighborhood Data 351
be associated with nonlinear processes (Galster, Quercia, and Cortes
2000; Galster, Cutsinger, and Lim 2007; Lim and Galster 2009).
To understand the origins of the aggregate flows of majority (and
minority) households leading to selective moving patterns and residential
segregation, one must look at the micro level and mobility decisions
of individual households. Much literature on the micro level follows
Brown and Moore’s (1970) classic work and divides the moving process
into two separate decisions: the decision to move and the choice of destination.
These decisions are of course interrelated as many people decide
to move when they find an interesting and feasible alternative. Nevertheless,
the distinction is useful for theoretical purposes.
The decision to move is often viewed on the micro level as an outcome
of a primary dissatisfaction with the home in relation to the households’
preferences and needs (Brown and Moore 1970; Speare 1974; Clark and
Dieleman 1996). A growing body of literature suggests, however, that
more focus should be directed to the role of the neighborhood (Lee,
Oropresa, and Kanan 1994; Lu 1998; Kearns and Parkes 2003; Clark,
Deurloo, and Dieleman 2006; Clark and Ledwith 2006; van Ham and
Feijten 2008; Feijten and van Ham 2009; van Ham and Clark 2009; Hedman,
van Ham, and Manley 2011). That the neighborhood matters for
residential satisfaction and mobility decisions has been shown empirically.
When Coleman (1978) asked people whether they preferred a good
house in a less desirable neighborhood or a less desirable house in a
good neighborhood, a vast majority chose the latter alternative. Similarly,
results by Galster (1987), Lee et al. (1994), and Lu (1998) showed
that people who were satisfied with their neighborhood environment
were less likely to report moving intentions than those who were dissatisfied.
The factors affecting residential satisfaction are of course many and
likely to differ among individuals and groups depending on preferences
and what they are used to (Galster and Hesser 1981). Several studies,
however, have shown a positive correlation between neighborhood
attachment and neighborhood satisfaction and between neighborhood
attachment, moving intentions, and actual mobility (Clark and Ledwith
2006; Guest et al. 2006; Permentier, van Ham, and Bolt 2009). People
who are attached to their neighborhoods, either to the area itself or to
people or activities in it, are less likely to leave. Residential dissatisfaction
seems to be greatest in poverty areas (Burrows and Rhodes 2000; Parkes,
Kearns, and Atkinson 2002; Kearns and Parkes 2003). This finding can
probably be related to the generally high impact of physical appearance,