Different Types of Open Spaces and Their Importance to Exurban Homeowners

Society and Natural Resources

Volumn 25, Issue 4, 2012, Pages 368-383

  Wang, Zhifang ^a   Nassauer, Joan I ^b   Marans, Robert W ^b   Brown, Daniel G ^b  

^a TEXAS A AND M UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN   (United States)

Author keywords

conservation; ecosystem services; land use planning; landscape perception; policy; residential development; web survey

Indexed keywords

CONSERVATION; ECOSYSTEM SERVICE; HOMEOWNER; LAND USE PLANNING; LANDSCAPE; OPEN SPACE; RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT;

MICHIGAN; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84863272117     PISSN: 08941920     EISSN: 15210723     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.571231     Document Type: Article

References (67)

1. Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. Combining revealed and stated preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage. 26: 271 - 292.
2. Ahern, J.2007. Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. In Cities of the future, ed. V. Novotny and P. Brown, 267-283. London: Iwa Publishing.
3. Alberti, M. 1999. Urban patterns and environmental performance: What do we know? J. Plan. Educ. Res. 19 (2): 151 - 163.
4. Andersson, E., S. Barthel, and K. Ahrne. 2007. Measuring social and ecological dynamics behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 17 (5): 1267 - 1278.
5. Appler, D. R. 2004. America's converging open space protection policies: Evidence from New Hampshire, Virginia, and Oregon. Urban Lawyer 36 (2): 341 - 374.
6. Benedict, M. A., and E. T. McMahon. 2002. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the 21st century. Renewable Resources J. 20 (3): 12 - 7.
7. Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2006. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized environmental accounting units. http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-06-02.pdf (accessed 12 December 2009).
8. Brown, D. L., G. V. Fuguitt, T. B. Heaton, and S. Waseem. 1997. Continuities in size of place preferences in the United States, 1972-1992. Rural Sociol. 62 (4): 408 - 428.
9. Burchell, R. W., and S. Mukherji. 2003. Conventional development versus managed growth: The costs of sprawl. Am. J. Public Health. 93 (9): 1534 - 1540.
10. Cook, C., F. Heath, and R. L. Thompson. 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates in web or Internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60: 821 - 836.
11. Daily, G. C. 1993. Social constraints on restoration ecology. In Reconstruction of fragmented ecosystems: Global and regional perspectives, ed. D. A. Saunders, R. J. Hobbs, and P. R. Ehrlich, 9 - 16. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
12. Daily, G. C. 1997. Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosystems. Ecol. Soc. Am. Issues Ecol. 2: 1 - 16. http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/issue2.pdf (accessed 12 November 2004).
13. Daniels, T. 1999. When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.
14. Fernandez, L. E., D. G. Brown, R. W. Marans, and J. I. Nassauer. 2005. Characterizing location preferences in an exurban population: Implications for agent based modeling. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Design 32 (6): 799 - 820.
15. Field, R., A. N. Tafuri, S. Muthukrishnan, B. A. Acquisto, and A. Selvakumar. 2005. The use of best management practices (BMPs) in urban watersheds. Lancaster, PA: DEStech Publications.
16. Gamborg, C., and F. Rune. 2004. Economic and ecological approaches to assessing forest value in managed forests: Ethical perspectives. Society Nat. Resources 17: 799 - 815.
17. Garrod, G., and K. Willis. 1992. Valuing goods' characteristics: An application of the hedonic price method to environmental attributes. J. Environ. Manage. 34 (1): 59 - 76.
18. Geoghegan, J. 2002. The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy 19 (1): 91 - 98.
19. Giles-Corti, B., M. H. Broomhall, M. Knuiman, C. Collins, K. Douglas, K. Ng, A. Lange, and R. J. Donovan. 2005. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractiveness, and size of public open space? Am J. Prev. Med. 28: 169 - 176.
20. Gobster, P. H. 1995. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation. Landscape Urban Plan. 33: 401 - 413.
21. Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: What does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol. 22: 959 - 972.
22. Grose, M. J. 2009. Changing relationships in public open space and private open space in suburbs in south-western Australia. Landscape Urban Plan. 92: 53 - 63.
23. Gude, P. H., A. J. Hansen, R. Rasker, and B. Maxwell. 2006. Rate and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape Urban Plan. 77: 131 - 151.
24. Hansen, A. J., and D. Brown. 2005. Land use change in rural America: An introduction. Ecol. Appl. 15 (6): 1849 - 1850.
25. Hansen, A. J., and DeFries, R.2007. Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to surrounding lands. Ecol. Appl.17:974-988.
26. Hansen, A. J., R. Knight, J. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P. Hernandez, and K. Jones. 2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, research needs. Ecol. Appl. 15 (6): 1893 - 1905.
27. Heimlich, R. E., and W. D. Anderson. 2001. Developing the urban fringe and beyond: Impacts on agriculture and rural land. Report 803. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research Service.
28. Hogan, D. M., and M. R. Walbridge. 2007. Urbanization and nutrient retention in freshwater riparian wetlands. Ecol. Appl. 17 (4): 1142 - 1155.
29. Hollis, L. E., and W. Fulton. 2002. Open space protection, conservation meets growth management. http://www.solimar.org/pdfs/hollisfultonopenspace.pdf (accessed 12 November 2004).
30. Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environ. Behav. 33: 507 - 542.
31. Kaplan, R., and M. E. Austin. 2004. Out in the country: Sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape Urban Plann. 69 (2-3): 235 - 43.
32. Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
33. Kearney, A. 2006. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction. Environ. Behav. 38: 112 - 139.
34. Kopits, E., V. McConnell, and M. Walls. 2007. The tradeoff between private lots and public open space in subdivisions at the urban-rural fringe. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
35. Lee, S. 2006. An evaluation of nonresponse and coverage errors in a prerecruited probability web panel survey. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 24 (4): 460 - 475.
36. Lyons, E. 1983. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ. Behav. 15: 487 - 511.
37. Marans, R. W. 2003. Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies: The 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape Urban Plan. 65 (1-2): 75 - 85.
38. Matsuoka, R. H., and R. Kaplan. 2008. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape Urban Plan. 8: 7 - 19.
39. Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
40. Myers, D., and E. Gearin. 2001. Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate 12 (4): 633 - 59.
41. Mulvihill, D. A., A. M. Welch, D. L. Leininger, G. L. Cory, J. J. Scavo, L. A. Hirsh, R. M. Garl, S. A. Winter, and W. B. Renner. 2001. Golf course development in residential communities. Washington, DC: ULI-The Urban Land Institute.
42. Nassauer, J. I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape Ecol. 6 (4): 239 - 50.
43. Nassauer, I. J. 1995a. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecol. 10 (4): 229 - 237.
44. Nassauer, J. I. 1995b. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape J. 4 (2): 161 - 170.
45. Nassauer, J. I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. In Placing nature: culture in landscape ecology, ed. J. I. Nassauer, 65 - 84. Washington, DC: Island Press.
46. Nassauer, J. I. 2004. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24 (4): 756 - 765.
47. Nassauer, J. I., Z. Wang, and E. Dayrell. 2009. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms for ecological design. Landscape Urban Plann. 92 (3-4): 282 - 292.
48. National Association of Home Builders. 2007. NAHB consumer preference survey. http://www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx? (accessed 23 November 2009).
49. National Association of Realtors. 2001. NAR survey shows public support for open space depends on use and cost. http://www/realtor/org/SG3.nsf/Pages/mngrtpressurvey?OpenDocument (accessed 9 November 2005).
50. National Golf Foundation. 2004. Golf participation in the U.S. http://www.uli.org/~/media/Documents/Events/Conferences/2003/Golf_03%20pdf.ashx (accessed 12 November 2004).
51. 2 emissions-Special Report 298. http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12747.html (accessed 23 December 2009).
52. Nelessen, A. C. 2002. Are they worth 1000 words? Smart growth through community visioning. http://www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf/Pages/worthwords?OpenDocument (accessed 12 September 2005).
53. Newburger, E. C. 2001. Home computers and Internet use in the United States: August 2000. Demographic Programs Current Population Reports 23 - 207. https://www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf (accessed 12 December 2009).
54. Peiser, R. B., and G. M. Schwann. 1993. The private value of public open space within subdivisions. J. Architect. Plan. Res. 10 (2): 91 - 104.
55. Saito, Y. 1998. The aesthetics of unscenic nature. J. Aesthetics Art Criticism 56 (2): 101 - 11.
56. Schaeffer, P. V. 2008. Thoughts concerning the economic valuation of landscapes. J. Environ. Manage. 89: 146 - 154.
57. Sills, S. J., and C. Song. 2002. Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 20 (1): 22 - 30.
58. Song, Y., and G. J. Knaap. 2004. Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 34 (6): 663 - 680.
59. Sorace, A., and M. Visentin. 2007. Avian diversity on golf courses and surrounding landscapes in Italy. Landscape Urban Plan. 81 (1-2): 81 - 90.
60. Sugiyama, T., and T. C. Ward. 2008. Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood open space and older people's walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 7: 41 - 51.
61. Sullivan, W. C. 1994. Perceptions of rural-urban fringe: Citizen preferences for natural and developed settings. Landscape Urban Plan. 29: 85 - 101.
62. Talen, E. 2001. Traditional urbanism meets residential affluence: An analysis of the variability of suburban preference. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 67 (2): 199.
63. Ulrich, R. S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan. 13: 29 - 44.
64. Vogt, C. A., and R. W. Marans. 2004. Natural resources and open space in the residential decision process: A study of recent movers to fringe counties in southeast Michigan. Landscape Urban Plan. 69 (2-3): 255 - 269.
65. White, E. M., A. T. Morzillo, and R. J. Alig. 2009. Past and projected rural land conversion in the U.S. at state, regional, and national levels. Landscape Urban Plan. 89 (1-2): 37 - 48.
66. Zhang, Y., H. S. He, and J. Yang. 2008. The wildland-urban interface dynamics in the southeastern U.S. from 1990 to 2000. Landscape Urban Plan. 85 (3-4): 155 - 62.
67. Zube, E. H., D. G. Pitt, and T. W. Anderson. 1975. Perception and prediction of scenic resource values of the northeast. In Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and resources, ed. E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos, 151 - 182. Stroudsburg, PA: Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.