Literature Review (CORe project)

Metropolitan Planning Council

www.metroplanning.org

Population Mobility in Chicago

June 4, 2007

The Metropolitan Planning Council is a nonprofit, nonpartisan group of business and civic leaders committed to serving the public interest through the promotion and implementation of sensible planning and development policies necessary for a world-class Chicago region.

Population Mobility in Chicago

I. CORe GoalsII. Why Mobility MattersIII. Mobility in the RegionIV. Understanding MobilityV. Research ApproachesVI. CORe Approach

I. CORe Goals Test conventional wisdom about mobility choices Fill gaps in existing knowledge about mobility behavior

in Chicago Provide a portrait of salient factors influencing

mobility decisions Provide evidence about who comprises these groups Identify opportunities for policy interventions

II. Why Mobility Matters

When is mobility bad for neighborhoods?

Population Decline High Population Turnover

Disinvestment Weak bonds btwn. neighbors

Physical disorder Poor collective problem solving

Social disorder Loss of unique social fabric

Low racial and economic diversity

Services mismatch

III. Mobility in the Region

Components of Population Change: Region 1990-2000

Components of Population Change: Region 2000-2004

Population Change, 1990-2000

Map source: Metro Chicago Information Center http://info.mcfol.org/WWW/DataInfo/MapReports/mapPDF/Chicago_Pop_Chg_by_Number.pdf

National Migration from Cook County by Region

Out-Migrants In-migrantsMidwest 68% 64%

Northeast 5% 8%South 16% 16%West 11% 12%

Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.

Net Migration To/From Cook County, 1993-2005

Location In Out NetDupage Co., IL 192061 329457 -137,396Will Co., IL 56622 184921 -128,299Lake Co., IL 86362 185304 -98,942Kane Co., IL 42984 101536 -58,552Lake Co., IN 34544 80875 -46,331McHenry Co., IL 22379 68687 -46,308Phoenix, AZ 12080 37343 -25,263

Las Vegas, NV 5969 20801 -14,832Kankakee Co., IL 6518 13046 -6,528Twin Cities, MN 10611 15303 -4,692Dallas, TX 9304 13700 -4,396Los Angeles, CA 24226 14229 -4,282New York, NY 9947 15279 -3,553San Diego , CA 9858 12962 -3,104Milwaukee, WI 13105 16004 -2,899

Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.

In-migration to Cook County: National, 1993-2005

Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.

Out-migration from Cook County, National 1993-2005

Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.

In-migration to Cook County, Midwest Detail 1993-2005

Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.

Out-migration from Cook County, Midwest Detail 1993-2005

Data from: County to County Migration Flow Files. Internal Revenue Service, 1993-2005.

IV. Understanding Mobility

Why Do People Move Away?

Economics

• Housing• Employment• Transportation

Consumption: households move to the suburbs for more housing for less money?

Displacement: households forced out by rising rents/home prices?

Economics

• Housing• Employment• Transportation

Map source: “Immigration, Gentrification and Chicago Race/Ethnic Relations in the New Global Era,” Metro Chicago Information Center, 2004. available online at: http://info.mcfol.org/WWW/datainfo/hottopics/artsculture/immigration.asp?pagenbr=1.

Economic Gain/Decline, 1990-2000

Economics

• Housing• Employment• Transportation

Economics

• Housing• Employment• Transportation

Location

• Public Services/Amenities

• Schools

Environment

• Crime Levels• Environment for

children• Neighborhood

Stress

Why Do People Come?Why Do People Stay?

Economics

• Homeowner-ship• Employment• Transportation

Social Context

• Identity• Neighborhood

Attachment

Lifestyle

• City Amenities

V. Research Approaches Data Sources Challenges

Methods: Revealed Preference Analysis Attitudinal Surveys Stated Preference Surveys

Revealed Preference Analysis Looks at actual relocation decisions using census or

other data and examines characteristics of sending and receiving locations for significant differences

Uses location decisions as proxy for value of elements like schools

Problems: Difficult to model both individual level and

aggregate factors Lack of direct responses

Attitudinal Surveys Subjects rate their response to different aspects of

cities Metro Chicago Information Center Survey Pittsburgh Residents Survey Twin Cities Metro Residents Survey Kids in Cities College-Educated Survey

Relatively easy to administer Problems:

Respondents may misrepresent actual reasons for moving

Stated Preference Surveys Respondents compare randomized ‘bundles’ of neighborhood

attributes: Atlanta Smarttraq Project Edmonton Sensitivity to Elements of Urban Form and

Transportation Preferences for Neo Traditional Neighborhood Designs

(Columbus, OH) By forcing respondents to make tradeoffs, answers will be more

reliable Problems:

Some misrepresentation still possible Difficult to design More useful for understanding general preferences

Fill gaps in existing knowledge about mobility behavior in Chicago

Test conventional wisdom about mobility choices Provide a portrait of salient factors influencing

mobility decisions Provide detailed evidence about who comprises these

groups Identify opportunities for policy interventions

VI. CORe Approach

CORe Approach Who?

Groups vulnerable to decline Young families African-Americans Middle Class

Groups showing increases 20s and early 30-somethings Empty Nesters

Movers as well as potential movers

CORe Approach How?

Direct discussions with individuals about their own reasons for moving or staying

Detailed survey work? Analysis of neighborhoods, demographic change?

Why? Understand mobility in the context of indicators of

healthy neighborhoods