A Spatial Perspective on Urban Problems: A View from Atlanta, Georgia

A SPATIAL PERSPECTIVE ON URBAN PROBLEMS: A VIEW FROM ATLANTA, GEORGIA N ancy B. H u ltqu ist* INTRODUCTION. Some critics attribute the “urban crisis” in our metro­ politan areas tQ fragmentation of our organizational structure. Several studies seeking an ideal scheme have been presented. (1) Any attempt at urban reorganization will profit from an assessment of the opinions of urban residents regarding the priorities and perceived scale of metro­ politan problems. From such an analysis appropriate levels of control responsive to citizen opinion can be proposed. This research develops a methodology to measure and assess differ­ ences in viewpoint within a sample of residents of Atlanta, Georgia. A student/non-student dichotomy is purposefully introduced to provide inherent differences within the total sample for the purpose of testing the descriptive properties of the methodology. It is logical to assume university students generally are more aware and more liberal. Further, the younger generation is a significant and growing part of the urban population. OBJECTIVES. The first objective of this research is to identify current political issues and problems of concern to metropolitan residents. Similar studies exist that suggest predominant concerns which might be incorpo­ rated into policy decision-making efforts. (2) Concurrent with this survey, the federally established Urban Observatory undertook attitude surveys in ten large cities to measure citizen feelings and perceptions about their local government services. (3) Since its survey was confined to the central city, the sample differs substantially from this one, and responses are also different. However, the Urban Observatory notes that people do not agree on priorities of problems in central cities. “Not even as many as 25 percent of the people in any city give the same answers. . . . Schools constitute the largest single government cost, but they are mentioned by less than 10 percent.” (4) The present study reveals at least five issues on which more than 25 percent expressed concern. A second objective is to determine the existence of a spatial ordering of problems through a forced dichotomy. Each respondent was requested to indicate three problems of concern to him at each of two scales, local and national. “Local” is defined for this study as “within the metro­ politan area.” Different outlooks (i.e., local or national) can be retrieved through a ranking determined by paired comparisons of the respondent’s •Mrs. Hultquist is a doctoral candidate in the Department of Geography, University of Iowa. The paper was accepted for publication in June 1972. V ol. XII, No. 2 79 six write-in problems. (5) It is hypothesized that the two subgroups resulting from this local/national analysis differ in their priorities and scale attachments to urban problems. TTie national subgroup, being more cosmopolitan and concerned with encompassing problems such as pov­ erty, inflation, and over-population, rather than with specific problems such as garbage, traffic, and schools. The third objective is to account for the difference of opinion within the sample, pertaining to the scale of concern and level of control for selected problems. Student and non-student subgroups are hypothesized to show differences of opinion on twenty problems they rank dealing with a range of issues, local to national. These differences are examined to determine the varying importance of socioeconomic, location, and communication media variables. DATA COLLECTION. Data were obtained in a questionnaire consist­ ing of four parts. The first section requested simple socioeconomic data. A few other questions were included to elicit communication media information, such as news source preferences, via television or news­ paper. The second and third parts required that the respondent write in problems of concern to him at both the local and national levels, as well as indicating the level of greatest concern (local, national, both) which he perceived for the problem, and to indicate its appropriate level of con­ trol. The fourth section included a map of Atlanta on which each respon­ dent indicated his place of residence. The questionnaire was distributed in Atlanta, Georgia, in October, 1970, to 116 university students and to 151 non-students. (6) In this pilot study, the sampling procedure was neither random nor stratified, but was accomplished in an expedient manner by student distribution at various points in the...