MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1531667809 · doi:10.1068/b3039

The Extent and Determinants of Dissonance between Actual and Preferred Residential Neighborhood Type

2004· article· en· W1531667809 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Tim Schwanen, Patricia L. Mokhtarian

Bibliographic record

VenueEnvironment and Planning B Planning and Design · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsQuarter (Canadian coin)Cognitive dissonanceGeographyIncentivePreferenceDemographic economicsResidential areaPsychologySocial psychologyEconomicsPolitical science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although households' general preference for low-density residential environments is well documented in the literature, little research in geography and urban planning has explicitly investigated how many and which households experience a state of mismatch in terms of land-use patterns between their preferred residential neighborhood type and the type of neighborhood where they currently reside. Using data from 1358 commuters living in three communities in the San Francisco Bay Area, in this study we find that nearly a quarter of the residents live in a neighborhood type that does not match their land-use related preferences. The results of an investigation of the determinants of such dissonance are consistent with existing knowledge about residential preferences. It is shown that single suburban dwellers and large households and families in the city are more likely to be mismatched, or experience higher levels of mismatch in terms of neighborhood type. Further, the extent of mismatch is clearly related to automobile orientation, as well as to lifestyles and personality traits. The results suggest that policies aiming to attract a diverse market to neotraditional, high-density neighborhoods may not be as effective as decisionmakers and planners hope. If a broad range of households is artificially attracted to such new developments (for example, through providing financial advantages or other policy incentives), this might on average result in lower levels of residential satisfaction, higher residential mobility, lower sense of community, and enduring auto dependency. On the other hand, it is encouraging to see that there is also a substantial proportion of suburban dwellers preferring high-density environments. Relaxation of land-use laws in existing suburban communities might be successful in reducing residential neighborhood type dissonance for these types of suburban dwellers, but perhaps at the cost of increasing dissonance for the suburbanites preferring lower densities. It would be valuable to investigate whether there is a mix of densities and uses that would optimally satisfy both types of preferences.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.043
Threshold uncertainty score0.777

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.067
GPT teacher head0.302
Teacher spread0.236 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations8
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEnvironment and Planning B Planning and DesignSame topicUrban, Neighborhood, and Segregation StudiesFrench-language works237,207