Brianna Park
Emily Hartz
Jeff DeCelles
Peter Freeman
Assessment of Built Capital in Burlington, Vermont
Built Capital is defined as any pre-existing or planned formation that is constructed or retrofitted
to suit community needs. (In other words, it is any human-made environment.) Built capital can
either be private or public. Private built capital is any personally owned technology. Public built
capital is any mechanism, building, or technology that helps the community function. Examples
of private built capital (as given in the survey) are home, automobile, food and drink, household
goods (furniture, appliances, etc.), personal accessories (clothing, shoes, jewelry, etc.), and
entertainment goods (such as skis, bike, video games, etc.). Examples of private investments in
the neighborhood are shops, restaurants and offices. Examples of public investments in the
neighborhood are streets, sidewalks, streetlights, parking, and public septic systems.
Background of Built Capital Investments in Burlington:
 North-south bike path through Burlington:1997 - need for the path discovered, 1999 –
resolution outlining the reasons why Burlington needs a north-sound bike path through
downtown, 2003 – first steps for implementation of path outlined.
 Downtown transit center: 2003 – beginning to look into redesigning the downtown transit
center
 Traffic calming: The East Avenue neighborhood is working with the City of Burlington’s
Department of Public Works have worked together to design a map of proposed changes
to address concerns for pedestrian safety and traffic.
The survey questions regarding built capital address the following: how important private
investments are to Burlington residents, and how satisfied Burlington residents are with their
income and both private and public investments.
Built Capital – overall data
Burlington residents were asked a series of six questions regarding their happiness with built
capital (“things you or others own in your home and Neighborhood”), and the level of
importance that they would assign to built capital in terms of overall quality of life.
The first question in the built capital section was an overall importance rating. The question
stated: “How important are the things you own or rent (for example, your home, car, furniture,
clothes, etc.) to your happiness and quality of life?” There were 578 responses to this question.
Of the 578 the mean importance rating was 2.07. The median and mode rating was 2; the
standard deviation was 0.98. 30% of respondents said that built capital, “the things you own or
rent”, is most important in terms of total happiness and quality of life. 46% said that built capital
came in second. 15% people said third; 6% said fourth and 3% said fifth.
Question 2 attempted to separate out the different forms of built capital and how people would
rate them according to happiness and importance. Respondents were asked to rate from one to
five how important they thought each of several forms of built capital were to their overall
happiness and quality of life. Then, respondents were asked to assign a score for each of the
categories according to how satisfied they were with each.
Importance of Built Capital
Rating the importance of certain forms of built capital, respondents said:
On Home: Of the 561 responses to this question, the mean importance rating for “home” was
1.58. The median and mode rating was 1. The standard deviation for this question was 0.82. Of
the 561 58% gave “home” the highest importance score. 31% gave home second highest in
importance, 8% gave home third, 2% said fourth and 1% said fifth.
On Transportation: Of the 550 responses to this question, the mean importance rating for
“transportation” was 2.24. The median and mode rating was 2. The standard deviation for this
question was 1.08. Of the 550 28% said that transportation was mot important. 36% said that is
was second in importance. 23% said that it was third; 9% said fourth and 4% said fifth. A
number of respondents chose to write in forms of transportation that they valued. These
included: bicycle, bus, cab, wheel chair, public transportation, airlines and walking.
On Food and Drink: Of the 557 responses to this question, the mean importance rating was 1.85.
The Median rating was 2; the mode rating was 1. The standard deviation on this question was
0.98. Of the 557 respondents, 45% said that food and drink were most important. 34% said that
they were second in importance. 15% said third; 5% said fourth and 2%said fifth.
On Consumer Durables: This form of capital was described as “furniture, appliances, and other
household goods” in the survey. Of the 554 responses to this question, the mean importance
rating was 2.67. The median rating was 3, the mode was 2. The standard deviation for this
question was 1.02. Of the 554 responses, 10% said that consumer durables were most important.
37% said that consumer durables were second in importance. 34% said that they were third in
importance; 14% said fourth, 5% said fifth.
On Personal Accessories: Examples of this form of capital given in the survey were “clothing,
shoes, jewelry, and other personal accessories.” Of the 549 responses to this question, the mean
importance rating was 2.67. The median score was 3; the mode was 2. The standard deviation for
this question was 1.10. Of the 549 responses, 14% said that personal accessories were most
important. 34% said that they were second. 31% said that they were third; 14% said fourth and
7% said fifth.
On Entertainment Goods: Examples given in the survey for this question were “skis, bike, video
games, etc.” Of the 526 responses to this question, the mean importance rating was 2.64. The
median score was 3 and the mode score was 2. The standard deviation on this question was 1.16.
Of the 526 responses, 17% said that entertainment goods were most important. 31% said that
entertainment goods were second in importance. 30% said that they were third. 14% said fourth;
7% said fifth.
On Other: Of the 42 responses to this question, the mean importance rating was 1.45. The
median and mode scores were 1. The standard deviation on this question was 1.02. Of the 42
responses, 76% said that “other” was important. 14% said that it was second in importance. 2%
said that other was third and 2% said fourth. 5% said that other was fifth. For “other”
respondents wrote in quite a variety of things. It appears that some misunderstood the built
capital aspect of the question and write in things like friends and family. Write-ins that had
something to do with built capital included: hot tub, art collection, personal library, artist studio,
tools, music equipment, accessibility to public library, Burlington Center, community gardens,
and “irreplaceable keepsake stuff”. The most common write-in for other was garden. Although
closely related to natural capital, these folks must have considered gardens a form of
private/public investment or a thing that they own.
Conclusions on Importance of Built Capital:
The forms of built capital that had the highest mean importance ratings were home and food and
drink. The two forms of built capital with a standard deviation below 1 were also home and food
and drink. The ‘Other’ category received extremely high importance ratings; this may be
attributed to a number of things. Several respondents wrote-in “family” or “friends.” As the built
capital questions were first on the survey, it is possible that people misunderstood that these
questions pertained only to built capital. This does illustrate that when asked about total quality
of life, the first thing that comes to the minds of many is human contact and relationships.
Happiness with Built Capital
Respondents were also asked to rate their current level of happiness with each of the above forms
of built capital.
On Home: Of the 570 responses to this question the mean score was 1.85. The median rating was
2; the mode was 1. Standard deviation for this question was 0.95. Of the 570 responses, 45% said
that they were most happy with their home. 34% gave a happiness score of 2. 15% gave a
happiness score of 3. 6% said four; 1% said five.
On Transportation: Of the 558 responses to this question, the mean happiness score was a 2.12.
The median and mode scored were 2. The standard deviation for this question was 1.05. Of the
558 responses, 32% said that they were most happy with transportation. 38% gave a happiness
score of 2. 15% gave a score of 3; 6% said four; 4%said five.
On Food and Drink: OF the 563 responses to this question, the mean happiness score was 1.77.
The median score was 2; the mode score was 1. The standard deviation for this question was
0.87. Of the 563 responses, 50% said that they were most happy with their food and drink. 39%
gave a happiness rating of 2. 12% gave a 3. 3% gave a 4. 1% gave a five.
On Consumer Durables: Of the 560 responses to this question, the mean happiness score was
2.19. The median and mode scores were both 2. The standard deviation for this question was
0.92. Of the 560 responses, 25% said that they were most happy with their consumer durables.
40% gave a happiness rating of 2. 27% gave a 3. 6% gave a 4. 1% gave a 5.
On Personal Accessories: Of the 558 responses to this question, the mean happiness score was
2.16. The median and mode scores were both 2. The standard deviation for this question was
0.96. Of the 558 responses, 28% said that they were most happy with their personal accessories.
39% gave a happiness score of 2. 26% gave a 3; 6% gave a 4 and 2% gave a 5.
On Entertainment Goods: Of the 550 responses the mean happiness score was a 2.08. The
Median and mode scores were both 2. The standard deviation for this question was 0.93. Of the
550 responses, 30% said that they were most happy with their entertainment goods. 41% gave a
happiness score of 2. 22% gave a score of 3. 5% gave a 4 and 2%gave a 5.
On Other: of the 50 responses to this question, the mean happiness score was a 1.42. The median
and mode were both 1. The standard deviation was 0.70. Of the 50 responses to this question,
68% said that they were most happy with some other form of built capital. 24% gave a happiness
rating of 2. The balance was divided; 6% answered 3 and 2% answered 4. In the section above,
“on other” in the importance breakdowns there is a list of what various people wrote in for
“other.”
Conclusions on Happiness with Built Capital
The two forms of built capital that people appeared to be most pleased with were home and food
and drink. In general, the standard deviations for happiness with built capital were low. The
highest standard deviation was transportation, but not by much. As illustrated on the graph,
happiness scores were greatest for home and other. The percentage of people happiest with
consumer durables was lowest. Happiness and importance ratings were similar fiord
transportation, food and drink, and other; the remaining scores were significantly different.
Graph # Percentage of 1) Respondents who Considered Built Capital Most Important and 2)
Percentage of Respondents who were Most Happy with Built Capital
Public Built Capital
Question five was designed to get at how people felt about the public investments in built capital
that have been made around Burlington. Question five stated: “how happy are you with the
public investments in your neighborhood (for example, streets, sidewalks, streetlights, parking,
public septic, etc.)?”
Of the 586 responses to this question the mean happiness rating was 2.38. The mode and median
scores were both 2. The standard deviation on this question was 0.98. Of the 550 responses, 17%
said that they were most happy with the public investments in their neighborhood. 44% gave a
happiness score of 2. 24% gave a score of 3; 12% gave a 4 and 2% gave a 5.
Private Built Capital
Question six was designed to get at how happy people are with the private investments in their
neighborhood. Question six stated: “how happy are you with the private investments in your
neighborhood (for example, shops, restaurants, offices, etc.)?”
Of the 573 responses to this question the mean happiness score was a 2.35. The median and
mode were both 2. The standard deviation for this question was 1.03. Of the 573 responses, 21%
said that they were most happy with the private investments in their neighborhood. 41% gave a
happiness rating of 2. 25% gave a score of 3. 10% gave a 4 and 3% gave a 5.
For ratings of happiness regarding private and public built capital, it will be most beneficial to
study neighborhood breakdowns, paired with an inventory of the actual built capital in those
neighborhoods. It could also prove interesting to compare private and public forms of built
capital with ethnic diversity and other special interest groups. This comparison may shed light on
needs not being met for specific demographic groups in the area. A more detailed study
specifically dealing with built capital could answer these questions and more.
Income
Question seven addressed how happy residents are with their current yearly income. Question
seven stated: “are you happy with your current family or personal yearly income? [ ] Yes [ ] No.
If not, how much more income per year would you need to be satisfied?”
Of the 576 responses, 66% of respondents said that they were happy with their current income.
34% of respondents said that they were not. Of the group that listed how much more income per
year they would need to be satisfied, the mean amount was $61,898. The Median amount was
$20,000. The mode was $20,000. The standard deviation for this question was $243,225. If a
respondent reported a range of money that would make them satisfied, we took the midpoint of
that range for our calculations.
Local Currency
The last question in the built capital section was about the local currency here in Burlington,
Burlington Bread. Respondents were asked to circle yes or no depending on whether or not they
had heard of Burlington Bread. Another class at UVM on local currencies requested this
question; they wanted to see how many people had even heard of our local currency. Of the 586
responses to this question, 35% of respondents had never heard of Burlington Bread; 65% had.
Demographics of Income
The end of the survey asked the respondents to indicate which income bracket they fell into
(either under $15,000, between $15,000 and $30,000, between $30,000 and $60,000, between
$60,000 and $120,000, and finally more than $120,000 a year). Their responses to the built
capital questions listed above were then broken up by income, and the results were graphed. The
data revealed varying conclusions about how different people value what they own (from luxury
goods to home and food), how they value what the town provides them, and how happy they are
with their purchasing power to acquire material goods.
Demographic Differences Between Income Blocks on Built Capital
Happines with Private Investments
Happiness with Public Investments
Happiness with Entertainment Goods
Happiness with Personal Accessories
Happiness with Consumer Durables
Happiness with Food and Drink
<15
>120
60-120
30-60
15-30
Happiness with Transportation
Happiness with Home
Importance of Entertainment goods (4.6):
importance of personal accessories (4.5):
importance of consumer durables (4.4):
importance of food and drink (4.3):
importance of transportation (4.2):
importance of house (4.1):
total importance (3):
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
Average Rating
Unfortunately, the most unclear and inconclusive data is that referring to how households with
different income think built capital is important to their lives overall. The graph seems to be
backward bending, suggesting that it is held as less important to the highest and lowest income
brackets, but more so to the middle class. However, the $15,000-$30,000 range holds it as very
unimportant to their total quality of life, creating a sort of outlier (mean of 2.196, with the next
nearest of 1.805 for the under $15,000). This makes it tough to draw a conclusion because it is
not the highest or lowest income households that value material goods most, but rather a group in
the middle. Maybe this could be attributed to an imperfection in the statistics of the survey.
On homes:
Importance: Each income bracket seems to consider their house as equally important to their
quality of lives. There is very little range within the responses (between highest mean of 2.358
for under $15,000 and lowest 2.145 for the $30,000-$60,000), and the actual numerical value
(overall mean of 1.58) is relatively low to other items that adorn the house like accessories
(overall mean of 2.67), consumer durables (overall mean of 2.67), and entertainment goods
(overall mean of 2.64). One might be able to extrapolate a few conclusions about this consistent,
but relatively high home value, such as a sociological conclusion addressing the physical home
versus family or other material items. Maybe people prefer to spend money their houses as
opposed to other goods that adorn the house. Maybe Burlington’s development restrictions allow
many options for new construction, causing people to want something new as opposed to be
satisfied with what they have, thus causing people to think about their homes more.
Happiness: There was a large positive relationship between income and happiness with homes,
however. The below $15,000 income bracket was much less happy with their homes (mean of
2.292) than the above $120,000 bracket (mean of 1.553) with a consistent slope in between.
Households in the lowest two income brackets take out most of the rentals in Burlington, which
might suggest that the rental market here is of bad value, especially those at the lower end
(perhaps this is because of the tight vacancy rate, and high demand with high prices). Although
this will be handled in more detail with the neighborhood groups, the high student population
and the supply of low-income housing could keep rental prices up. This of course favors the
wealthier classes and makes it hard on those with tight living budgets. This problem was
addressed by the town with low income housing, but these sort of programs are very difficult to
make large and broad enough to alleviate an expensive market.
On transportation:
Importance: The importance of transportation was just as inconclusive. The only clear pattern
between income brackets was that everyone pretty much thought transportation was reasonably
important to their overall quality of life (values were between 2.358 and 2.171). Most people
marked that they own their own car (73%). Along with the $30,000-$60,000 bracket, the lower
bracket of people actually valued their transportation the least (2.171). However, not by much,
and there was no pattern in between. This could suggest that these people who did not own a car
thought public transportation to be very important, however it seems as though they are not very
happy with it because it’s use is low. Walking and ride shares are higher.
Happiness: Alternative forms of transportation to a car were very common with the low-income
households (27% citywide), and these were also the people who were least happy with their
modes of transportation (under $15,000 said 2.245, and $15,000-$30,000 said 2.26087). The
values of happiness had a positive relationship to income, which could suggest two things. First,
those without cars here are not happy with the public transportation and/or a car is more
important here than in other places. This could lead someone to be perfectly happy with walking
or taking the bus because it is convenient and relatively just as enjoyable and practical as driving
one’s own car. This could also lead to the rich being happy with their cars because either they
find them to be necessary, parking and traffic is good and reduces the increases the utility of
owning a car, etc.
On food and drink:
Importance: Most of the income brackets consider food and drink equally important to their
quality of lives, and relatively highly at that with a low, 1.85 mean. However, the over $120,000
group held food as less important than all others by a large amount (2.0555 next to the next
highest of 1.842 for $30,000-$60,000).
Happiness: Although the highest income households hold food and drink as less important to
their lives than the less wealthy, they are the happiest with it’s supply in Burlington ($60,000$120,000 had a mean of 1.664, with the next closest of a +.1). This could suggest that there are a
good supply of high-scale restaurants and markets for them. The group that is the least happy
with the food and drink here is the under $15,000 group (1.919) . This is a bad indicator that
markets here are well priced and a high range of food is obtainable for them. However, this is
still not a very low score, and the data might suggest that the food situation is only better for the
high income families than the low income, but both consider it good overall.
On consumer durables:
Importance: Lower income households seem to hold consumer durables as less important than
the middle class (2.810 for $15,000-$30,000 versus 2.538 for $60,000-$120,000). The results fall
out in the middle class, then the richest group considers it as not very important, but not as little
as the under $15,000 group. There is a positive relationship of importance to income up until the
highest income bracket where it seems to be considered less important. This inconsistency makes
it hard to draw a strong conclusion.
Happiness: Households become more happy with their consumer durables as their income goes
up. This positive relationship provides two possible conclusions. One is that there is a poor
supply of cheap durables in town through places like Recycle North for the less wealthy. This
would suggest that instead of those who can not usually afford something like a washing
machine are not happy here because those items aren’t affordable. In regards to the wealthiest
being the most happy with their consumer durables (mean of 2 versus 2.33 for the under $15,000
bracket), maybe they are satisfied for the same reasons, and the supply of these goods favors
luxury over affordability.
On personal accessories:
Importance: Income does not seem to affect how important personal accessories are to one’s
quality of life because there is not much disparity between income brackets. However, everyone
holds their personal accessories as relatively high to other built capital goods (mean of 2.67
overall).
Happiness: There is a negative relationship between groups’ happiness with their personal
accessories and income. It is tough to make conclusions based on this about the city of
Burlington other than there may be more reasonably priced shops at which stuff like jewelry can
be bought than very expensive ones, leaving people less satisfied as their demand for luxury
items grows.
On entertainment goods:
Importance: As with personal accessories, income does not seem to be related to how important
entertainment goods are to one’s quality of life. However, it appears as though they are slightly
more important to the wealthiest (2.444 mean). Entertainment goods are held as relatively
important compared to other goods, like personal accessories.
Happiness: There is a large positive relationship between happiness with one’s entertainment
goods and income. Like many of the other categories, this could suggest that the availability of
material goods in Burlington seem to favor the more rich than the moderately wealthy or low
income.
On public investments:
The lower-income households are least happy with the public investments put in by the town
(2.714 for under $15,000 families). Happiness increases with income up until the highest
bracket, where the wealthiest households are not very happy with the public investments (2.289
mean). A good question for the neighborhood groups would be one regarding if the wealthier
areas of town are better supported by the town than other areas, maybe because of their concern
with aesthetics, or are there just bad services such as public transportation and public space.
On private investments: (and concluding thought)
There is a positive relationship between happiness with private investments and income up until
the two highest brackets, which are the most happy out of the population in Burlington ($60,000$120,000 has a 2.115 mean and over $120,000 has a 2.289 mean). This seems to be consistent
with patterns of happiness with the goods that private investments such as shops and restaurants
found in the results regarding entertainment goods, accessories, and consumer durables. This
might be the most conclusive trend in the data in regards to how accurately the commerce in
town reflects supply and demand. One conclusion is that private services and commerce are
pretty accurately and fairly distributed because the happiness with private services is
proportionate to number of people in the various income brackets. There is a larger low and
middle class in Burlington than a high class, and as a result, those people are less happy with the
businesses here. This reflects negatively in terms of ecological economics.