Copenhagen Area Survey Report by Kinder Institute for Urban Research

The FIRST 2012 housTon THE ANNUAL COPENHAGEN SURVEY educaTionAREA survey: Public PercePtions in a critical time

TAKING THE PULSE OF THE REGION #

November June 2014 2013

Kinder Institute for Urban Research Rice University, MS 208 6100 Main Street Houston, TX 77005 Telephone: (713) 348-4132 http://www.kinder.rice.edu Written by Written by Stephen L. Investigator Michael O.Klineberg, Emerson,Principal Principal Investigator Jie Wu, Research Project Manager Students of the Danish Institute for Study Abroad Kiara Douds, Post-Baccalaureate Fellow Soren Troldborg & Allan Toft Knudsen, Project Directors, Epinion Contact us for more information at kinder@rice.edu.

TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................ 3

Survey Area ................................................................................................................................... 3

Overview .......................................................................................................................................... 3

LIVING IN THE COPENHAGEN AREA ................................................................................................ 4

Overall Views ................................................................................................................................... 4

Figure 1. What do you like most about living in the Copenhagen Area? ................... 4

Figure 2. Biggest problem facing people in the Houston area ...................................... 5

Figure 3. Biggest problem facing people in the Copenhagen area ............................... 5

Figure 4. Other problems facing Copenhagen area residents ...................................... 6

Figure 5. Residentsâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; ratings of Copenhagen area as a place to live .............................. 7

COMPARISONS: COPENHAGEN & HOUSTON ................................................................................. 8

Figure 6. Comparisons between Copenhagen and Houston ........................................ 8

Figure 7. More comparisons between Copenhagen and Houston .............................. 9

TRANSPORTATION ................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 8. In the past 3 years, motor vehicle traffic has: ............................................... 10

Figure 9. Which comes closer to your view for Copenhagen? ................................... 10

Figure 10. Ranking of options for the best way to improve Copenhagen

area transportation over next 10 years ............................................................. 11

Figure 11. Main transportation modes used to get to work ....................................... 12

VIEWS ON NATIONAL ISSUES.............................................................................................................. 13

Figure 12. View on national issues by city and suburban residence .......................... 13

Figure 13. Views on economic distribution and poverty issues ................................. 14

PERSONAL SITUATIONS, OPINIONS, & PRACTICES .................................................................... 15

Religion .......................................................................................................................................... 16

Figure 14. Comparisons of Views between Copenhagen and Houston ................... 15 Figure 15. Religion in the Copenhagen area ................................................................ 16

Well Being ...................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 16. How happy are you? ...................................................................................... 17

Figure 17. I am satisfied with my quality of life ........................................................... 17

Figure 18. Self-rated health ............................................................................................. 17

CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................................... 18 PAPERS BY DIS STUDENTS ................................................................................................................... 19 Copenhagen Area Survey

2 Kinder Institute for Urban Research

INTRODUCTION The Copenhagen area is a dynamic, growing region that serves as the cultural, economic, and social hub of Denmark and beyond. It is also a world leader on many fronts, from its bicycle culture to its current status as the Green Capital of Europe. The city and its surrounding suburbs are in the midst of interesting times, with changes occurring around the globe impacting the region. How the area responds to such changes will go far in shaping its future. The Copenhagen Area Survey zeros in on the attitudes, views, and actions of the region’s residents. It asks residents questions about their lives in the Copenhagen area, about their views on national issues, and about their personal situations and practices. SURVEY AREA The Copenhagen Area is defined as people residing in the city, that is København and Frederksberg Kommunes (the yellow areas below) and those residing in the suburban areas, that is Storkøbenhavn, outside of the city (the green areas below). OVERVIEW The Copenhagen Area Survey is an inside look at what area adults think on important issues of the day and on the issues affecting their quality of life. The representative sample of 1093 area residents was collected in April 2014 by Epinion, with 56% of the sample residing in København and Frederiksberg Kommunes (the city) and 44% of the sample residing in Storkøbenhavn (the suburbs, outside the city). For comparative purposes, the survey was conducted at the same time as the Houston Area Survey, and comparisons to that survey will be made in this report. All differences discussed in this report are statistically significant.

Copenhagen Area Survey

LIVING IN THE COPENHAGEN AREA Overall Views Respondents were asked what they most liked about living in the Copenhagen area. This was an open-ended question, meaning they could say whatever came to mind, and as much as came to mind. Categorizing their responses, patterns became clear. LIVING IN THE COPENHAGEN AREA Two reasons stood out as the most commonly mentioned. As Figure 1 shows, the most comOverall Views monly cited reason, mentioned by 45% of those surveyed, was some variation of they “all the culturRespondents were asked what most liked alabout options of the area, ” “Copenhagen is full of living in the Copenhagen area. This was life,” “it is such a vibrant place,” “it has a pulse, open-ended question, could aan constantly beating heart.”meaning In short,they what the say whatever came to mind, and as much as residents most like about the Copenhagen area to mind. their iscame it is where theCategorizing action is, with allresponses, its cultural options and its pulsating, non-stop activity. patterns became clear. Two reasons stood out as the most commonly mentioned. As Figure 1 shows, the most

The second factor named as most liked about living in the Copenhagen area (mentioned by 31% of people) is that everything is close by, and everything is easy to get to. Often this reason accompanied the culture/life/vibrancy reason, such as “I love all the cultural options and life of Copenhagen, and that everything is so close to everything else.” For the majority of residents, these two reasons were cited as the best aspects of the Copenhagen region. These reasons were followed by praise for the transportation system (great cycle tracks, can bike everywhere, easy reason, access tomentioned well-running commonly cited by 45% of public transportation, walkable) and the beauty those surveyed, was some variation of “all the of the urban design (beautiful buildings, the options of the “Copenhagen greencultural space, the squares, thearea,” coziness). About is of life,” “it is such vibrant (this place,” 6% offull respondents cited thea people is “it has a wherepulse, my friends and family are,heart.” Copenhagen a constantly beating In short, area people are good people) and the diversity what the residents most like about the (so many different types Copenhagen area isofitpeople). is where the action is, with all its cultural options and its pulsating, non-stop activity.

Figure 1: What do you most like about living in the Copenhagen Area? 45%

Culture/Life/Vibrancy 31%

Close/Easy to get places 13%

Transportation

12%

Urban Environ & Beauty 6%

The People

The Diversity 3%

Safe, calm, easy living 0%

10%

The second factor named as most liked about 4living in the Copenhagen area (mentioned by Kinder Institute for Urban Research 31% of people) is that everything is close by, and everything is easy to get to. Often this

20%

30%

40%

50%

These reasons were followed by praise for the transportation system (great cycle tracks, can bike everywhere, easy access to well-running public transportation, walkable) and the beauty

reside causin too m of tran with p

categories of the Houston Area Survey, we can compare the responses. In Figures 2 & 3, we see that in both regions, the most common answer given is “traffic” and the percentage is identical (29% in Houston and in Copenhagen).

Residents were also asked what they viewed as “the biggest problem facing people in the Residents were asked whatcould they viewed Copenhagen areaalso today. ” They respondas “the biggest problem facing people in the with anything that came to mind. The Kinder Copenhagen areaArea today.” Theyconducted could respond Institute Houston Survey, in the with anything that came to mind. The Kinder Houston metropolitan region of Texas, USA at Institute Area Survey, conducted in the the same Houston time as the Copenhagen Area Survey, Houston region of Texas, USA at asked the metropolitan same question. Using the categories the same time as the Copenhagen Area of the Houston Area Survey, we can compare Survey, askedIn theFigures same question. thein the responses. 2 & 3, we Using see that categories of the Houston Area Survey, we canis both regions, the most common answer given compareand thethe responses. In Figures 2 & 3, we in “traffic” percentage is identical (29% see that in both regions, the most common Houston and in Copenhagen). answer given is “traffic” and the percentage is identicalthe (29% in Houston and“traffic” in Copenhagen). Notably, general category often

meant different things across the two regions. In Houston—almost dependent on Figure 2: Thecompletely biggest problem people in meant Houston cars forfacing mobility—people therearea are too many cars for the number and size of roads. More lanes are needed to improve traffic flow.

Almost never is this what Copenhagen area Traffic 15% 29% residents meant. Traffic meant too many cars, 20% causing pollution and a lower quality of Crime life, and too many people37% not using the alternative forms Economy of transportation, sometimes due to the Other issues with public transportation. Notably, two other two substantial concerns of Houstonians—crime and economic issues (such as too few jobs)—are mentioned by very few Notably, two other two concerns of Copenhageners (just 3 substantial & 4% respectively). For Houstonians—crime and economic issues Copenhagen Area residents, that leaves a large (such asoftoo portion thefew piejobs)—are labeled as mentioned “other.” by very few Copenhageners (just 3 & 4% respectively). For Copenhagen Area residents, that leaves a large portion of the pie labeled as “other.”

What were the “other” areas of concern for Copenhageners? Figure 4 shows those concerns mentioned by 5% or more of people. The environment was named by 14% of respondents, often connected to pollution generated by the over-reliance on cars.

Figure 2: The biggest problem facing Houston area Notably, thepeople general in category “traffic” often meant different things across the two regions. In Houston—almost completely dependent on cars for mobility—people meant there are too many cars for the15% number and size of roads. Traffic 29% More lanes are needed to improve traffic flow. 20% Crime

Almost never is this what CopenhagenEconomy area 37% residents meant. Traffic meant too many cars, Other causing pollution and a lower quality of life, and too many people not using the alternative forms of transportation, sometimes due to the issues with public transportation. Notably, two other two substantial concerns of Figure 3: Biggest problem facing Houstonians—crime and economic issues people in Copenhagen area (such as too few jobs)—are mentioned by very few Copenhageners (just 3 & 4% respectively). For Copenhagen Area residents, that leaves a 3% 4% large portion of the pie labeled as “other.”

Resid chang

Traffic

29%

What were the “other” areas of concern for Crime Copenhageners? Figure 4 shows those 64% Economy concerns mentioned by 5% or more of people. The environment was named by 14% of Other respondents, often connected to pollution generated by the over-reliance on cars.

Residents were also concerned with climate change. The Copenhagen area is expensive, often ranked as one of the most expensive areas in the world. Though salaries are also high, 11% of residents specifically named the high cost of living as a problem. Most often they were referring to the rising costs of public transportation, goods, property taxes, and especially housing.

Related to the high cost of housing was the shortage of housing, mentioned by 8% of residents. Often this was named in conjunction Copenhagen Area Survey

The C ranke the w of res living referr transp espec

Relate shorta reside

What were the â&#x20AC;&#x153;otherâ&#x20AC;? areas of concern for Copenhageners? Figure 4 shows those concerns mentioned by 5% or more of people. The environment was named by 14% of respondents, often connected to pollution generated by the over-reliance on cars. Residents were also concerned with climate change. The Copenhagen area is expensive, often ranked as one of the most expensive areas in the world. Though salaries are also high, 11% of residents specifically named the high cost of living as a problem. Most often they were referring to the rising costs of public transportation, goods, property taxes, and especially housing. Related to the high cost of housing was the shortage of housing, mentioned by 8% of reswith the difficulty of renting or purchasing idents. Often this was named in conjunction apartments, or a shortage of student housing. with the difficulty of renting or purchasing Two other areas were mentioned byhousing. 5% of apartments, or a shortage of student residents: construction. Two other Inequality areas wereand mentioned by 5% By of resiinequality people and usually referred toBy what they dents: Inequality construction. inequal-

ity people usually referred to what they perceived as growing disparity in neighborhoods by income levels or in some cases, the growth of ghettos. By construction, residents referred to infrastructure issues as a result of so much current construction, such as with the new metro line. While residents named both positives and challenges about the Copenhagen area, what do they think about life overall in the region? To find out we asked a series of questions. First, to get the most localized perspective, we asked residents to rate the quality of life in their neighborhood. Wegrowing followeddisparity that question by perceived as in asking residents to rate the quality of life overall neighborhoods by income levels or in some in thecases, Copenhagen area.ofLater in the we the growth ghettos. Bysurvey construction, askedresidents residentsreferred to evaluate the Copenhagen area to infrastructure issues as a as a place to live compared to other northernsuch as result of so much current construction, European cities. with the new metro line.

14%

Environment 11%

High Living Cost 8%

Public Transport 6%

Housing Shortage Inequality

Construction

5% 0%

6 Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Residents love the cultural vitality of the

10%

12%

14%

While residents named both positives and challenges about the Copenhagen area, what do they think about life overall in the region?

Figure 5 shows the results. Across the series of questions, residents were overwhelmingly positive about life in the Copenhagen area. When asked about their neighborhoods, 84% said life there was excellent or good. When asked about the Copenhagen area overall, three-quarters rated it as excellent or good place to live. The same proportion ranked the Copenhagen area as a better place to live than other European cities. For this question, 15% of people said they did not know, perhaps because they had not lived in any other northern European cities. When we examine the responses of just those who had an opinion, a full 88% said the Copenhagen area is a better place to live than its counterparts. Figure 5 showpeople the results. the were series of Interestingly, living Across in the city genquestions, residents were overwhelmingly erally even more positive about the Copenhagen positive in the Copenhagen area. area thanabout were life residents in the suburban areas.

When asked about their neighborhoods, 84% saidexample, life therewhereas was excellent good. When For 70% oforsuburban residents asked about the Copenhagen area overall, said that the Copenhagen area was an excellent three-quarters it as excellent or good or a good placerated to live, 80% of residents in the place to live. The same proportion ranked the

city said it was an excellent or good place to live. As noted, several of the measures on the Copenhagen Area Survey were also included in the Houston Area Survey (see the sidebar on the following page for more information about Houston). These two urban areas are interesting to compare because they are very different in so many ways and yet they are also roughly equally ranked cities on global city scales (which measure centrality in the global system of cities based on economics, cultural influence, political power, and human capital). As reported in Figure 6 on the next page, the majority of residents in both urban regions report that job opportunities are excellent or good. Copenhagen area as place within to live than Yet in Houston, which hasa abetter reputation other European cities. For this question, 15% the United States as one of the top job creators, of people are saideven theymore did not know,about perhaps the residents positive the they had in any other job because opportunities thannot arelived the residents of the northern European wejob examine Copenhagen area (63%cities. vs. 53%When saying opthe responses of just those who had an opinion, portunities are excellent or good). a full 88% said the Copenhagen area is a better place to live than its counterparts.

Figure 5: Residents' ratings of Copenhagen area as a place to live 84%

Neighborhood is excellent or good place to live 75%

CPH area is excellent or good place to live

75%

CPH area better place to live than other northern European cities

88%

CPH better place to live (excluding don't knows) 0%

Interestingly, people living in the city were generally even more positive about the Copenhagen area than were residents in the suburban areas. For example, whereas 70% of suburban residents said that the Copenhagen area was

20%

40%

60%

80%

different in so many ways and yet they are also roughly equally ranked cities on global city scales (which measure centrality in the global 7 Copenhagen Area Survey system of cities based on economics, cultural influence, political power, and human capital). As reported in Figure 6 on the next page, the

COMPARISONS: COPENHAGEN & HOUSTON FOR COMPARSION The Houston area is among the fastest growing urban areas in the United States. The city has 2.2 million people and the surrounding suburbs have 4 million more people. At 6.2 million, the Houston urban region thus has more people than does Denmark (5.6 million). The Houston area is the United States’ most racially diverse region, with no majority racial group. It has several hundred thousand Asians, and more than a million each of whites, blacks, & Hispanics. It is also a region with very high economic inequality, expressed in economically separated neighborhoods. COPENHAGEN SURVEY DETAILS The survey was conducted online, averaged 17 minutes in length, and had a response rate of 77%. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to 75. While 3% had lived in the Copenhagen area a year or less, the average length of residence was 28 years.

80%

Figure 6: Comparisons between Copenhagen and Houston

70% 60% 50%

68%

63% 53%

59% 47%

40%

30% 20%

20% 10% 0%

Job opportunities excellent or good

Ethnic diversity a growing problem

Copenhagen

Somewhat or very worried about crime

Houston

Most regionsininthe themodern, modern,globally globally connected Most large large urban urban regions connected world world experience immigration and increasing ethnic diversiexperience immigration and increasing ethnic diversity. When asked if thisWhen increasing will eventually be a growing problembefora the ty. askeddiversity if this increasing diversity will eventually region orproblem a sourcefor of great strength, of Copenhagen area growing the region or a47% source of great strength, residents said it wouldarea be aresidents growing said problem (33%be said it would be a 47% of Copenhagen it would a growing source of great strength, and 19% did not know). In contrast, over twoproblem (33% said it would be a source of great strength, and thirdsdid of not Houstonians said diversity will two-thirds eventually be a growing 19% know). In contrast, over of Houstoproblem, likely due in part to the substantial ethnic diversity of that nians said diversity will eventually be a growing problem, likely region (see sidebar). due in part to the substantial ethnic diversity of that region (see sidebar). A major need of humans is to feel safe, free from fear of crime. When respondents were asked how worried that they personally or a member

Aofmajor need would of humans is to feel safe, free from fear of crime.were their family be a victim of crime, substantial differences When respondents were asked how worried that they personalfound. Just 20% of Copenhagen area residents are somewhat or very lyworried or a member of their family would be a victim of crime, subabout crime victimization. This figure stands in sharp contrast stantial differences were found.(59%) Just 20% offearing Copenhagen area to Houston, where the majority report crime victimization. residents are somewhat or very worried aboutdifference crime victimThese differences in concern match the actual in crime, as ization. This figure stands in sharp contrast to Houston, where crime in the Houston region is substantially higher than in the the majority (59%) Copenhagen region.report fearing crime victimization. These differences in concern match the actual difference in crime, as Notably, variation within each is region exists in higher who fears crime and who crime in the Houston region substantially than in the does not. In Houston, those living in the surburban areas are the least Copenhagen region. worried about crime victimization. In Copenhagen, those living in the city are the least worried 35% of Notably, variation withinabout each crime regionvictimization. exists in whoWhereas fears crime suburban Copenhagen residents say that are “not at all worried” and who does not. In Houston, those living in the surburban about crime victimization, for city residents that figure is 44%.

areas are the least worried about crime victimization. 8 Kinder Institute for Urban Research

FOR COMP

The Hou among t growing in the Un

The city million p surround have 4 m people. the Hous region th people th Denmark

The Hou the Unite most rac region, w majority It has se thousand more tha each of w & Hispan

It is also very high inequalit in econo separate neighbor

COPENH SURVEY

The surve conducte averaged length, an response

Respond age from

While 3% the Cope year or le length of 28 years.

In Copenhagen, those living in the city are the least worried about crime victimization. Whereas 35% of suburban Copenhagen residents say that are “not at all worried” about crime victimization, for city residents that figure is 44%. Copenhagen is known for its careful urban planning, while Houston has no zoning and does minimal planning. Yet when residents are asked if their respective regions should have a land-use plan to guide development, the substantial majority in both regions agree. Copenhagen area residents are however even more supportive than are Houston area residents (82% compared to 68%).

Copenhagen is known for its careful urban planning, while has is noimportant, zoning and Trust in one’s localHouston government so does minimal planning. Yet when residents we asked residents if their local authorieties can are asked their respective should have a be reliedifupon, trusted. Justregions over half of Houston area residents agreed, while two-thirds ofthe Copenland-use plan to guide development, hagen area residents a full 10% points, substantial majorityagreed. in bothBy regions agree. Copenhagen city residents are more likely to Copenhagen area residents are however agree even that they can rely on local authorities than are more supportive than are Houston area suburban residents. residentsarea (82% compared to 68%).

We asked residents how often they visit area museums, theater, opera, and related venues. We report here the percentage who attended these venues at least several times in the past year. A substantial difference exists, with Copenhagen area residents nearly twice as likely as Houston area residents to visit these cultural venues several times a year or more. Although both regions provide substantial opportunities, Copenhagen area residents appear signficantly more likely to frequently visit these cultural venues. When asked whether they have frequented city center shops, restaurants, and night life at least Trust local government is important, so several timesininone’s the past year, Copenhagen area we asked residents if their local authorieties can residents are nearly three times as likely to have be relied trusted. over halfinof frequented theseupon, venues at least Just several times Houston area residents agreed, while two-thirds the past year compared to Houston area residents. Part ofofthis difference reflects a difference in urban Copenhagen area residents agreed. By a full form—Copenhagen has a classic city center, while 10% points, Copenhagen residents are Houston is a multiple-nuclei region, with multiple more likely to agree that they can rely on local cultural and employment authorities than arecenters. suburban area residents.

Figure 7: More comparisons between Copenhagen and Houston 90%

82%

81%

80% 70%

68%

60%

66% 54%

50%

45%

40% 28%

30%

24%

20% 10% 0%

We need land-use planning to guide

You can rely on public Visited area authorities museums,theater, etc. Copenhagen

We asked residents how often they visit area museums, theater, opera, and related venues. We report here the percentage who attended these venues at least several times in the past

Visited city center shops, etc.

Houston

When asked whether they have frequented city Copenhagen Area Survey 9 center shops, restaurants, and night life at least several times in the past year, Copenhagen area residents are nearly three times as likely to

TRANSPORTATION An urban area cannot function without the ability to move its people freely about the region—to work, school, shopping, home, visiting others, partaking in all the region has to offer. The transportation system of an urban area truly is the region’s veins and arteries, enabling the constant flow of city’s lifeblood. The survey asked several questions about transportation issues. When Copenhagen area residents were asked if motor vehicle traffic has gotten better, stayed the same, or gotten worse in the past 3 years (asked only of those who had lived in the Copenhagen at least 3 years), nearly 7 out of 10 said it had gotten worse (see Figure 8), which aligns with our finding that traffic is identified as the greatest challenge Copenhageners encounter. Transportation An urban area cannot function without the

Weability also asked if Copenhagen, known to move its people freely about worldthe wide for its extensive cycling infrastructure region—to work, school, shopping, home, and usage, should strive to be the capitalhas of the visiting others, partaking in allcycle the region to world. three-quarters of area residents offer.About The transportation system of an urban said yes,truly though 1 in 5 said cycle is area is thenearly region’s veins andthe arteries, overemphasized. enabling the constant flow of city’s lifeblood. The survey asked several questions about

Perhaps not surprisingly, people responded to this question in different proportions depending on where they lived. City residents favored Copenhagen striving to be the cycle capital of the world by 10 percentage points more than did suburban residents. Given the problems identified with traffic, and people’s responses to the cycle question, we asked residents to consider a range of transportation options. We asked them to rate each option on a scale from not at all important (1) to the most important (10) as a means for improving transportation in the Copenhagen area over the next decade. By averaging their responses, we can assess the relative ranks that residents assign to the range of transportation available for transportation issues. strategies When Copenhagen area achieving smooth-flowing mobility. Doing residents were asked if motor vehicle trafficso has demonstrates what residents themselves to gotten better, stayed the same, or gottenwish worse emphasize in 3the coming years. in the past years (asked only of those who had lived in the Copenhagen at least 3 years), nearly 7 out of 10 said it had gotten worse (see Figure 8), which aligns with our finding that traffic is identified as the greatest challenge Copenhageners encounter.

Figure 8: In the past 3 years, motor vehicle traffic has: 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

69%

29% 2% Gotten better

Stayed the same

Gotten worse

We also asked if Copenhagen, known worldwide for its extensive cycling infrastructure and Kindershould Institute for Urban Research 10 usage, strive to be the cycle capital of the world. About three-quarters of area residents said yes, though nearly 1 in 5 said the cycle is overemphasized.

Figure 9: Which comes closer to your view for Copenhagen? 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%

73%

19%

Strive to be Emphasized Don't know bike capital the bike too of world much

people’s responses to the cycle question, we asked residents to consider a range of transportation options. We asked them to rate each option on a scale from not at all important (1) to the most important (10) as a means for improving transportation in the Copenhagen

As might be expected, where people live shapes the relative ranking of some of these options. City residents are more likely to favor improving the Metro than are suburban residents (8.9 compared to 8.2 average rating), expanded cycling (8.4 compared to 7.6 average rating), and more walking streets (5.7 compared to 5.3 average rating). Suburban residents are more likely to favor building bigger and better roads than city residents, though both give this option their lowest ranking (5.1 compared to 4.6 average rating). No differences exist in average rating for switching to electric cars, and expanding bus and S-Tog service.

As Figure 10 shows, residents clearly differentially rank the various transportation options. The least important, easily, is the option to build bigger, better roads. It is the only option ranked less than moderately important by Copenhagen residents. The other two options seen as less central for improving mobility are switching to electric cars and creating more walking streets. What residents do stress is improving public transportation and cycle track infrastructure, and in turn encouraging more ridership of each of these. Topping the list is improving the Metro and encouraging more ridership. This bodes well with the significant expansion of the Metro currently underway.

We asked people who work outside of their homes what mode(s) of transportation they use to get to work. Because people may use importantmodes by Copenhagen other multiple during a residents. single tripThe (driving two options seen as less central for improving to a train station for example) or may use mobility are switching to electric cars and different modes depending on the season

Residents next wish to emphasize cycling and the S-Tog, followed by expanded bus service and As Figure 10 shows, increased ridership. All residents of these clearly mobility options differentially rank the various transportation have average scores closer to “most important” options. The least important, easily, is the (10) than they do to “moderately important” (5). option to build bigger, better roads. It is the only option ranked less than moderately

creating more walking streets.

Figure 10: Ranking of options for the best way to improve Copenhagen area transportation over next 10 years

6.2

Switch to using electric cars 4.9

Build bigger & better roads for cars

7.6

Encourage riding & improve bus service

8.1

Encourage riding & improve S-Tog

8.6

Encourage riding & improve Metro 8.1

Encourage & improve biking 5.5

Create more walking streets 4

1-10 scale with higher scores reflecting greater importance.

What residents do stress is improving public transportation and cycle track infrastructure, and in turn encouraging more ridership of each of these. Topping the list is improving the Metro and encouraging more ridership. This

As might be expected, where people live Copenhagen Survey 11 shapes the relative ranking of some Area of these options. City residents are more likely to favor improving the Metro than are suburban residents (8.9 compared to 8.2 average rating),

(cycle for 3 seasons, but ride public transport during the winter), the percentages can add up to more than 100 percent. Houstonians were also asked this question. The comparative results are reported in Figure 11. How Copenhageners and Houstonians commute to work differs dramatically. Houston is a one-horse town—92% get to work in a motor vehicle, overwhelmingly driving alone (81% of all commuting trips). Copenhagen stands in sharp contrast: 38% report they drive to work (34% alone, 4% with others), but more common is cycling to work (48%) and taking public transport (46%). Many people combine modes. We asked people who work outside of their Also, Copenhagen area residents are also four homes what mode(s) of transportation they times as likely to walk to work as Houstonians use to get to work. Because people may (12% compared to 3%). use multiple modes during a single trip (driving to a train station for example) or may use different modes depending on the

Copenhagen city residents differ from their suburban counterparts. They are less likely to use a car—26% compared to 44%, and they are more likely to cycle—55% compared to 38%. Both cycling figures are high compared to the rest of the world, and the 55% figure for season (cycle for 3 seasons, but ride public Copenhagen crosses the 50% threshold transport the winter), the the city setduring for 2015. percentages can add up to more than 100 percent. Houstonians were also asked this question. The comparative results are reported in Figure 11.

Figure 11: Main transportation modes used to get to work 90% 80%

81%

70% 60% 50% 30%

34%

20%

11% 4%

10% 0%

48%

46%

40%

Drive alone

Drive with others

4% Public Transit Copenhagen

How Copenhageners and Houstonians commute to work differs dramatically. Houston is a one-horse town—92% get to Kinder Urban Research 12 work in aInstitute motor for vehicle, overwhelmingly driving alone (81% of all commuting trips).

1% Cycle

12%

Walk

Houston

Copenhagen city residents differ from their suburban counterparts. They are less likely

VIEWS ON NATIONAL ISSUES For the latter question only a minority of residents of both areas believe immigration strengthens Danish culture. Most believe it threatens Danish culture or are uncertain.

We assessed Copenhagen area residents’ views on national issues. As a sizeable proportion of the Danish population, Copenhagen area residents’ attitudes on national issues matter for national politics.

In the past few years debate about whether to legalize cannabis has surfaced. Based on the survey, Copenhagen area residents are split on the issue—in the city about half favor legalization difference exists between the two areas. On andquestions half do not. In the suburbs, only 38% favorare about immigration, city residents legalization. more likely to favor granting a path toward

What isON more, since new views often emanate VIEWS NATIONAL ISSUES from large urban centers, what Copenhagen area residents think on nationalarea issues today may We assessed Copenhagen residents’ suggest what theissues. nation will think in the future. views on national As a sizeable Figure 12ofpresents the results comparing the proportion the Danish population, views of residents in the city and the suburbs. Copenhagen area residents’ attitudes on In all cases at least a 10 percentage point differnational issues matter for national politics. ence exists between the two areas. On questions about city views residents areemanate more What is immigration, more, since new often likely to favor path toward citizenship from large urbangranting centers,a what Copenhagen for illegal immigrants who speak Danish and area residents think on national issues today have no criminal record (though neither is as may suggest what the nation will think in the supportive as in Houston, where 76% support future. a path to citizenship), less likely to want fewer immigrants admitted thecomparing next decade, Figure 12 presents the over results theand more likely to believe that immigration mostly views of residents in the city and the suburbs. Instrengthens all cases atDanish least a culture. 10 percentage point

citizenship for illegal immigrants who speak

When asked if the national government is Danish and have no criminal record (though spending too little on protecting the environneither is as supportive as in Houston, where ment, half of city residents said yes, compared 76% support a path to citizenship), less likely to to 39% of suburban residents. Overall, then, on want fewer immigrants admitted over the next national issues, important city/suburb differencdecade, and more likely to believe that es exist. immigration mostly strengthens Danish culture. For the latter question only a minority of residents of both areas believe immigration strengthens Danish culture. Most believe it threatens Danish culture or are uncertain.

Figure 12: Views on national issues by city and suburban residence 60% 50% 40%

56%

46%

30%

52%

48%

43%

32%

50% 38%

39%

31%

20% 10% 0%

Favor granting illegal immigrants citizenship path

Want fewer legal Immigration mostly Favor legalizing immigrants over strengthens Danish cannabis next 10 years culture City

In the past few years debate about whether to legalize cannabis has surfaced. Based on the survey, Copenhagen area residents

Spending too little to protect environment

Suburbs

When asked if the national government Copenhagen Area Survey 13is spending too little on protecting the environment, half of city residents said yes,

Figure 13 displays the results from five related questions on economic inequality and poverty. We first asked residents why they believe most people are poor. About 1 in 5 people said it is because the poor do not work hard enough (twothirds said it is due to circumstances beyond one’s control and 15% did not know). In the Houston sample, 1 in 3 residents said people are poor because they do not work hard enough. Overall, 43% of Copenhagen area residents believe that it is a very serious problem if the gap between the rich and the poor grew significantly larger than it is today. This varied by area of residence—47% of those in the city thought it very serious problem theresidents. results from five comparedFigure to 38%13ofdisplays suburban

This again differs by area, with city residents more likely than suburban residents to believe too little is being spent (a difference of 10 percentage points).

poverty. Accordingand to the Copenhagen Area Survey analysis by DIS student Eddie Mohr (see his paper We first asked residents why they believe listed at the end of this report), more important most people poor.amount About 1ofinpre-taxed 5 people than where people liveare is their said it is because the poor do not work household income. Dividing respondents into 3hard enough (two-thirds it is dueincomes, to groups—the poorest third ofsaid household circumstances beyond one’s control and the middle third, and the richest third, he found 15% did not know). In the Houston sample, that whereas 35% of the richest third believe it a se1 in 3ifresidents saidgap people are47% poorof the rious problem the income grows, because theyso, doand not53% workof hard middle third believes the enough. poorest third believes so. A little less than half of residents Overall, 43% of Copenhagen area residents (43%) believe the government is spending too little that it is aof very problem if to improvebelieve the conditions theserious poor (10% believe the gap between the rich and the poor grew too much is being spent).

compared 38% of suburban residents. Residents weretoasked if the government should see to it that everyone what wants to work can find a to the Copenhagen Area Survey job, According and 70% of Copenhagen area residents agreed. analysis by existed DIS student Eddie Mohr No differences between city and(see suburban his paper listed at the end of this report), residents.

related questions on economic inequality

significantly larger than it is today. This

DIS student Eddie Mohr’s analysis revealed another important pattern. He found that among those who think people are poor because they do not work hard enough only 9% believe Denmark is spending too little to improve the conditions of the poor, while for those who think it is due to circumstances beyond people’s control, a full 67% believe Denmark is spending too little to improve the conditions of the poor. How one understands why people are poor has dramatic results for how they by area spending of residence—47% those viewvaried government to reduceofpoverty. in the city thought it very serious problem

more important than where people live is theirasked amount of pre-taxed household Finally, if the government has a responsibilincome. Dividing respondents into 3 ity to reduce the inequalities between the rich and groups—the poorest third of household the poor, more than three-quarters (77%) agreed. the middletothird, and of theHoustonians richest Thisincomes, is in comparison the 58% he found that whereas the Houswhothird, agreed. And when we look35% just of at white tonians (those European descent), the gap richest thirdof believe it a serious problem if is eventhe more dramatic: 77% compared 39%. income gap grows, 47% of the to middle third believes so, and 53% of the poorest third believes so.

Figure 13: Views on economic distribution and poverty issues 90% 80% 77%

70%

60% 50% 40%

43%

30% 20% 10% 0%

19% Most people poor because do not work hard

Very serious problem if economic gap grows

Spending too little Agree government to improve should help find conditions of poor jobs

A little less than half of residents (43%)

Institute for Urban Research 14 Kinderbelieve the government is spending too little

This again differs by area, with city residents more likely than suburban residents to believe too little is being spent (a difference of 10 percentage points).

to improve the conditions of the poor (10% believe too much is being spent).

Government should reduce economic inequalities

PERSONAL SITUATIONS, OPINIONS, & PRACTICES Focusing on the individual residents, we asked a series of questions about general outlook on life, other people, and one’s personal views. Figure 14 compares the outcomes with Houstonians. Do respondents think they will be economically better off 3 years down the road? About one-third of Copenhagen area residents think so (37%), but this is significantly less optimistic than Houstonians, 54% of whom think they will be economically better off in 3 years. Part of this difference may be due to the Houstonian, Texan, and American cultural tendency toward optimism—that no matter the situation, life will get better. For Copenhageners, the most common response is that they will be economically about the same in 3 years, also perhaps a cultural tendency toward being even-keel, avoiding excessive optimism or pessimism.

The move toward the extremes (or not) is reflected in the next question of Figure 14: “People who work hard and live by the rules are not getting a fair break these days.” Though Houstonians are more optimistic about their economic future, they are nearly twice as likely as Copenhageners to agree that, currently, hard work and abiding by the rules is not paying off as they would expect. In both Denmark and the United States, volunterism has a strong tradition. When compared, a higher percentage of Houstonians volunteered in the past year than did Copenhageners (58% vs. 46%). In part the higher rate of volunterism is due to the smaller role government plays in Houston compared to Copenhagen, necessitating that more social services be done through volunetering.

Figure 14: Comparisons of Views between Copenhagen and Houston 90% 80%

81%

70% 60%

63% 58%

54%

50%

46%

40% 30%

37%

41%

35%

33%

20% 15%

10% 0%

Better off in 3 years

Those working hard no fair break

Volunteered in past year

Copenhagen

In both Denmark and the United States, volunterism has a strong tradition. When compared, a higher percentage of Houstonians volunteered in the past year than did Copenhageners (58% vs. 46%). In part the higher rate of volunterism is due to the smaller

Most people can Problems if both be trusted parents work

Houston

believe most others can be trusted. Though more study is needed, clearly these vast Copenhagen Area Survey 15 difference in trust impacts life in the respective regions. The role of children and the meaning of family

Trust in others plays a vital role in society, allowing social life to be possible and enabling governments and public entities to function. When asked if in general most people can be trusted, we find a fundamental difference between the two regions. Over 80% of Copenhageners say most people can be trusted, but only one-third of Houstonians believe most others can be trusted. Though more study is needed, clearly these vast difference in trust impacts life in the respective regions. The role of children and the meaning of family and parenting differ across the two regions. On average, Houstonians have signficantly more children than do Copenhageners, and Houstonians are more traditional on family issues. For example, just 15% of Copenhageners believe that pre-school children will experience problems if both of the parents works, in contrast to the 41% of Houstonians who believe this. This is reflected in actual Religion living patterns. Whereas only 1% of Copenhagen Per cultural religion is little discussed in residents are norm, “stay-at-home” parents, 14% of Houspublic Denmark. ton areainresidents are.We asked Copenhagen area residents five questions about religion, with the results reported in Figure 15. Religion

When asked how important religion is in the

Per cultural norm, religion is little discussed in respondents’ lives, just over one-quarter (27%) public in Denmark. We asked Copenhagen area said it was somewhat or very important. This

residents five questions about religion, with the results reported in Figure 15. When asked how important religion is in the respondents’ lives, just over one-quarter (27%) said it was somewhat or very important. This contrasts sharply with Houstonians, 84% of whom say religion is somewhat or very important to them. Although part of this substantial difference may be due to the differential meaning of “religion” in the two cultural contexts, clearly a substantially greater percentage of Houstonians say religion is important to them than do Copenhageners. Although somewhat less than the national percentage, a substantial percentage of Copenhagen area residents (70%) are members of the Danish national church. This is a higher membership rate than in Houston, where about 50% of people are members of places of worship. If we define religion as public belonging, Copenhageners are more enasharply with Houstonians, 84% of gagedcontrasts in religion than are Houstonians.

whom say religion is somewhat or very If weimportant define religion as monthly or more frequent to them. Although part of this church attendance, Copenhagners dodue not to much substantial difference may be the engage in the practice of religion. Just 10% of differential meaning of “religion” in the two Copenhageners say theyclearly have attended religiousgreater cultural contexts, a substantially services other than weddings, funerals, and confirpercentage of Houstonians say religion is important to them than do Copenhageners.

Figure 15: Religion in the Copenhagen area 70%

70%

60% 50% 40% 30% 20%

40% 27% 10%

10% 0%

Religion is Member of the Attended Believe go to At least somewhat or Danish national religious heaven or hell occasionally very important church service in past when die think what in my life 30 days happens when die

16 Kinder Institute for Urban Research

Although somewhat less than the national percentage, a substantial percentage of Copenhagen area residents (70%) are

is measured as attending religious services on “high holy days” of Christmas and Easter, as Danish scholar of religion Peter Lachau notes,

mations in the past month. In contrast, more than five times as many Houstonians (54%) attended religious services in the past month. However, if religion is measured as attending religious services on “high holy days” of Christmas and Easter, as Danish scholar of religion Peter Lachau notes, Copenhagen is as religious as Houston. When asked what respondents believe happens to them when they die, just a tiny percentage (6%) gave the standard Christian answer of going to heaven or hell. Though we do not have his exact question for Houstonians, we do know that over 70% believe in hell, “a place of eternal punishment for sins” andWell over 80% believe in heaven, “where Being people live with God forever.” The most common Danes are often labeled as the answer givenThough by Copenhageners for what happens happiest people on earth, this is the result of when they die is they cease to exist (54%). security, And, as objective indexes combining economic of political life expectancy and noted above,lack 40% give atcorruption, least occasional thought other factors. But what do we find if we directly to what happens to them when then die.

Across the world, one simple question highly predicts people’s health and longevity: Self-rated health. Asking Copenhageners to rate their health, 15% say they are in excellent health, 35% say they are in very good health, and 30% are in good health. About 1 in 5 residents say their health is but fair or poor. Even controlling for age, city residents report better health than do suburban residents. We find significant relationships between happiness, life satisfaction, and reported health. For example, while just 5% of those who say they are very happy report having fair or poor health, almost three-quarters (74%) of those who are very unhappy report fair to poor health. Figure 16: How happy are you?

Very Unhappy

Fairly Unhappy

Very Happy

Fairly Happy 64%

ask people how happy they are? As Figure 16 shows, plenty of variation. Following cultural norms, most Copenhageners avoid the extreme, with instead 64% optiong for “fairly happy,” easily the most commong response.

Well Being

Though Danes are often labeled as the happiest people on earth, this is the result of objective But what if we instead ask if people are indexes combining economic security, lack of posatisfied with their quality of life, a more stable litical corruption, expectancy and17other measurelife of well-being? Figure showsfactors. that a for this measure a substantially higher But what do we find if we directly ask people how percentage of Copenhageners (47%) strongly happy they are? As Figure 16 shows, plenty of agree and another 38% slightly agree. Very variation. Following cultural norms, most Copenfew residents are unsatisfied with their lives. hageners avoid theresidents extreme, with instead 64% opMarried report greater satisfaction with life (90%) do the single residents (79%). tiong for “fairly happy, ” than easily most commong We find a significant relationship between response. But what if we instead ask if people are satisfaction with life and happiness (correlation satisfied with their quality ofstrong life, assocation). a more stable = .58, a moderately measure of well-being? Figure 17 shows that a for Across the world, one simple question highly this measurepredicts a substantially higher percentage people’s health and longevity: Self- of rated health. Asking Copenhageners to rate Copenhageners (47%) strongly agree and another their health, 15% say they are in excellent 38% slightlyhealth, agree.35% Very few residents are unsatsay they are in very good health, isfied with their lives. Married residents and 30% are in good health. About 1 report in 5 residents say their health is but fair or greater satisfaction with life (90%) than dopoor. single Even controlling for age, city residents report residents (79%). We find a significant relationship better health than do suburban residents. We between satisfaction with life and between happiness (corfind significant relationships happiness, life satisfaction, and reported health. relation = .58, a moderately strong assocation). For example, while just 5% of those who say they are very happy report having fair or poor health, almost three-quarters (74%) of those who are very unhappy report fair to poor health.

26%

Figure 17: I am satisfied with my quality of life Slightly Disagree

Strongly Disagree

11%

Slightly Agree 38%

Strongly Agree 47%

Figure 18: Self-rated health Poor 4%

Excellent

15%

Fair 16% Good 30%

Very Good 35%

Copenhagen Area Survey 17

CONCLUSION Cities are now the global engines of human development, culture, economics, and well-being. Studying them specificallyâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;rather than just the nation-states in which they resideâ&#x20AC;&#x201D;is vitally important if we are to understand who we are and who we are to become. Urban regions are living, ever-changing organisms. As such, it is of much value to conduct extensive and repeated surveys of the citizens of these regions. In this first annual Copenhagen Area Survey, we have reported basic findings from many of the surveyâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s questions and reflected on basic patterns. Much more is to be learned. To delve deeper into a particualar topic we recommend reading one of the DIS student papers listed on the next page (available after June 1, 2014 at kinder.rice.edu) or downloading the data and further analyzing it (available at kinder.rice.edu after January 15, 2015 or before that by special request to moe@rice.edu). Copenhagen is dynamic, distinctive, and forward looking. Through its own negotiations, cooperation, experimentation, and vision it has developed special qualities looked to from around the world. Tracking the attitudes and actions of its range of citizens through an on-going ominbus survey will help officials, planners, scholars, journalists, business leaders, non-profit organizations staff, and many others have a ready access to the changing entity that is the Copenhagen area. We recommend that a local entity take up the mantel of continuing the Copenhagen Area Survey. To ensure a healthy heartbeat, take the pulse to the city.

18 Kinder Institute for Urban Research

PAPERS BY DIS STUDENTS More in-depth examinations of the data “On Transportaton and Satisfaction,” by Megan Goldman. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014). “Attitudes toward Redistribution of Wealth in a Welfare System,” by Edward Mohr. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014). “How do Copenhageners Cope with Climate Change?” by Katherin Sibel. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder. rice.edu (2014). “Length of Residence and Higher-Order Goods in Greater Copenhagen,” by Thomas Pera. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014). “Copenhagen Religiousity,” by Lydia C. Miller. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014). “Fear of Crime in Copenhagen and Houston,” by Daniella Mostow. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice. edu (2014). “Copenhagen’s Green Image: Where the City and Citizens Stand on Climate Change,” by Linh Kostiuk. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014). “Immigration Policy and Neighborhood Development,” by Virginia Walsh. Kinder White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014). "Does Socioeconomic Status Shape Environmental Awareness in Denmark?" by Jordan Chang. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014). "A Mix for Sustainability: Mixed-Use Development and Transportation in Copenhagen," by Lev McCarthy. Kinder Institute White Paper Series, kinder.rice.edu (2014).

Copenhagen Area Survey 19

MISSION: Rice Universityâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Kinder Institute for Urban Research conducts scientific research, sponsors educational programs, and engages in public outreach that advances understanding of pressing urban issues and fosters the development of more humane and sustainable cities.