The Dwelling Panel – A New Research Method for Studying Urban Change

Jürgen  Friedrichs; Jörg  Blasius

doi:10.1007/s13147-015-0369-0

Authors

Jürgen Friedrichs Institute for Sociology and Social Psychology, University of Cologne, Greinstr. 2, Cologne, 50939, Germany
Jörg Blasius University of Bonn, Institute for Sociology and Political Science, Lennéstr. 27, D-53113, Bonn, Germany

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1007/s13147-015-0369-0

Keywords:

Dwelling, Panel study, Urban research, Neighbourhoods, Methodology, Cologne

Abstract

Classical panel studies, such as the German Socio-Economic Panel (GSOEP), the US Panel Study of Income Dynamics (PSID), and the British Household Panel Study (BHPS), are based either on households or persons in households. Any attempts to break down such data into smaller spatial units such as neighbourhoods, due migration and changes in a specific sample can only be described by the stayers and the out-movers. With the exception of new members in stayer households, there is no information on households moving into a given neighbourhood. Consequently, when using classical panel data, it is not possible to analyse appropriately changes in small areas.

In order to solve the problem of population changes in small spatial units such as neighbourhoods, we recommend using an alternative sampling unit: instead of households, we suggest focusing on dwellings and houses. The dwelling panel allows us to examine processes, such as gentrification, poverty and voting behaviour in small urban areas.

Drawing on an ongoing study, we shall discuss methodological issues and show how a dwelling panel can be constructed and maintained in several waves. In the process, we shall discuss panel attrition and compare possible replacement strategies in classical panels with those in dwelling panels.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

AAPOR (American Association of Public Opinion Research) (2007): Why Sampling Works. www.aapor.org/Why_Sampling_Works1.htm. (Accessed February 23, 2013).

Andersson, R.; Musterd, G.; Galster, G. C.; Kauppinen, T. (2007): What Mix Matters? Exploring the Relationships between Individuals’ Incomes and Different Measures of Their Neighbourhood Context. In: Housing Studies 22, 5, 637–660.

Arthurson, K. (2012): Social Mix and the City. Collingwood.

Atkinson, R.; Bridge, G. (eds.) (2005): Gentrification in a Global Context. The New Urban Colonialism. London.

Blasius, J.; Thiessen, V. (2013): Detecting poorly conducted interviews. In: Winker, P.; Menold, N.; Porst, R. (eds.): Interviewers’ Deviations in Surveys—Impact, Reasons, Detection and Prevention. Frankfurt am Main, 67–88. = Schriften zur empirischen Wirtschaftsforschung, 22.

Brick, J. M. (2013): Unit Nonresponse and Weighting Adjustments: A Critical Review. In: Journal of Official Statistics 29, 3, 329–353.

Briggs de Souza, X.; Popkin, S. J.; Goering, J. (eds.) (2010): Moving to Opportunity. The Story of an American Experiment to Fight Ghetto Poverty. Oxford.

Brown-Saracino, J. (2010): The Gentrification Debates. London.

Budowski, M.; Tillmann, R.; Zimmermann, E.; Wernli, B.; Scherpenzeel, A.; Gabadinho, A. (2001): The Swiss Household Panel 1999–2003: Data for Research on micro-social Change. In: ZUMA-Nachrichten 49, 100–125.

Burton, J. L.; Heather, L.; Lynn, P. (2006): The Long-term Effectiveness of Refusal Conversation Procedures on Longitudinal Surveys. In: Journal of the Royal Statistical Association 169, 3, 459–478.

Chetty, R.; Hendren, N.; Katz, L. F. (2015): The effects of exposure to better neighborhoods on children: New evidence from the Moving to Opportunity experiment. Cambridge. = National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) Working Paper 21156.

Cisneros, H. G.; Engdahl, L. (eds.) (2009): From Despair to HOPE. HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities. Washington.

Clay, P. L. (1979): Neighbourhood Renewal. Middle-class Resettlement and Incumbent Upgrading in American Neighbourhood. Lexington.

DeLuca, S.; Duncan, G. J.; Keels, M.; Mendenhal, R. (2012): The Notable and the Null: Using Mixed Methods to Understand the Diverse Impacts of Residential Mobility Programs. In: Van Ham, M.; Manley, D.; Bailey, N.; Simpson, L.; MacIennan, D. (eds.): Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Dordrecht, 195–224.

Finkel, S. E. (1995): Causal Analysis with Panel Data. Newbury Park.

Fitzgerald, J.; Gottschalk, P.; Moffitt, R. (1998): An Analysis of Sample Attrition in Panel Data: The Michigan Panel Study of Income Dynamics. In: Journal of Human Resources 33, 2, 251–299.

Fraser, J.; DeFilippis, J.; Bazuin, J. (2012): HOPE VI: Calling for Modesty in its Claims. In: Bridge, G.; Butler, T.; Lees, L. (eds.): Mixed Communities. Gentrification by Stealth? Bristol, 209–229.

Frees, E. W. (2004): Longitudinal and Panel Data. Cambridge.

Friedrichs, J.; Blasius, J. (2009): Attitudes of Owners and Renters in a Deprived Neighbourhood. In: European Journal of Housing Policy 9, 4, 435–455.

Friedrichs, J.; Galster, G. C.; Musterd, S. (eds.) (2005): Life in Poverty Neighbourhoods. European and American Perspectives. London, New York.

Galster, G. C. (1987): Homeowners and Neighborhood Reinvestment. Durham, London.

Galster, G. C. (2008): Quantifying the Effect of Neighbourhood on Individuals: Challenges, Alternative Approaches and Promising Direction. In: Schmollers Jahrbuch 128, 1, 7–48.

Galster, G. C.; Andersson, R.; Musterd, S. (2015): Are Males’ Incomes Influenced by the Income Mix of their Male Neighbors? Explorations into Nonlinear and Threshold Effects in Stockholm. In: Housing Studies 30, 2, 315–343.

Hagenaars, J. A. (1990): Categorical Longitudinal Data. Newbury Park.

Haynie, D. L. (2001): Delinquent Peers Revisited: Does Network Structure Matter? In: American Journal of Sociology 106, 4, 1013–1057.

Heckman, J. J. (1979): Sample Selection Bias as a Specification Error. In: Econometrica 47, 1, 151–161.

Hedman, L.; van Ham, M. (2011): Understanding Neighbourhood Effects: Selection Bias and Residential Mobility. In: Van Ham, M.; Manley, D.; Bailey, N.; Simpson, L.; MacIennan, D. (eds.): Neighbourhood Effects Research: New Perspectives. Dordrecht, 79–100.

Laska, S. B.; Spain, D. (eds.) (1980): Back to the City. Issues in Neighborhood Renovation. New York.

Lazarsfeld, P.; Berelson, B.; Gaudet, H. (1944): The People’s Choice. How the Voter makes up his Mind in a Presidential Campaign. New York.

Lees, L.; Slater, T.; Wyly, E. (eds.) (2008): Gentrification. London, New York.

Lees, L.; Slater, T.; Wyly, E. (eds.) (2010): The Gentrification Reader. London, New York.

Lynn, P. (ed.) (2009): Methodology of Longitudinal Surveys. Chichester.

Ludwig, J.; Liebman, J. B.; Kling, J. R.; Duncan, G. J.; Katz, L. F.; Kessler, R. C.; Sanbonmatsu, L. (2008): What Can We Learn about Neighborhood Effects from the Moving to Opportunity Experiment? In: American Journal of Sociology 114, 1, 144–188.

Manley, D.; van Ham, M.; Doherty, J. (2012): Social Mixing as a Cure for Negative Neighbourhood Effects: Evidence-based Policy or Urban Myth? In: Bridge, G.; Butler, G.; Lees, L. (eds.): Mixed Communities. Gentrification by Stealth? Bristol, 151–167.

Musterd, S.; Galster, G. C.; Andersson, R. (2012): Temporal dimensions and the measurement of neighbourhood effects. In: Environment and Planning A 44, 3, 605–627.

Myers, A. S. (2013): Secular Geographical Polarization in the American South: The Case of Texas, 1996–2010. In: Electoral Studies, 32, 1, 48–62.

Orr, L.; Feins, J.; Jacob, R.; Beecroft, E.; Sanbonmatsu, L.; Katz, L. F.; Liebman, J.B.; Kling, J. R. (2003): Moving to Opportunity. Interim Impacts Evaluation. Washington.

Park, R.; Burgess E.; McKenzie, R. (1925): The City. Chicago, London.

Popkin, S. J.; Cunningham, M. K. (2009): Has HOPE VI Transformed Resident’s Lives? In: Cisneros, H. G.; Engdahl, L. (eds.): From Despair to HOPE. HOPE VI and the New Promise of Public Housing in America’s Cities. Washington, 191–203.

Sampson, R. J. (2012): Great American City. Chicago and the Enduring Neighborhood Effect. Chicago, London.

Schelling, T. C. (1971): Dynamic Models of Segregation. In: Journal of Mathematical Sociology 1, 1, 143–186.

Schelling, T. C. (1978): Micromotives and Macrobehavior. New York.

Skogan, W. G. (1990): Disorder and Decline. Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Neighborhoods. Berkeley, New York, Toronto.

Smith, N.; Williams, P. (eds.) (1986): Gentrification of the City. Boston.

Spiess, M. (2005): Derivation of Design Weights: The Case of the German Socio-Economic Panel (SOEP). Berlin. = DIW Berlin Data Documentation, 8.

Stadt Köln (ed.) (2012): Statistisches Jahrbuch 2012, 90. Jahrgang (Statistical Yearbook 2012, Volume 90). Köln.

Theodorson, G. A. (ed.) (1961): Studies in Human Ecology. New York.

Theodorson, G. A. (ed.) (1982): Urban Patterns. Studies in Human Ecology. Revised Edition. London.

Vermunt, J. (1996): Causal Log-Linear Modeling with Latent Variables and Missing Data. In: Engel, U.; Reinecke, J. (eds.): Analysis of Change: Advanced Techniques in Panel Data Analysis. Berlin, New York, 35–60.

Wasmer, M.; Scholz, E.; Blohm, M. (2010): Technical Reports 2010/4. Konzeption und Durchführung der “Allgemeinen Bevölkerungsumfrage der Sozialwissenschaften” (ALLBUS) 2008. Mannheim.

Wilson, W. J. (1987): The Truly Disadvantaged. Chicago, London.