Resident, developer, and city staff perceptions of LID and CSD subdivision design approaches

Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Resident, developer, and city staff perceptions of LID and CSD subdivision design approaches Troy Bowman, Jan Thompson ∗ , John Tyndall Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 339 Science II, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3221, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 27 July 2011 Received in revised form 15 April 2012 Accepted 19 April 2012 Available online 11 May 2012 Keywords: Conservation subdivision Low-impact development Land-use planning Urban–rural interface

a b s t r a c t As urban areas expand, standard approaches to development have been associated with many negative environmental effects, increasing interest in the use of low impact development (LID) and conservation subdivision design (CSD) approaches that mitigate some of these effects. In the case of residential development three major groups influence subdivision design by developing, approving, and purchasing homes: developers, city staff, and residents. Previous studies of LID and CSD have focused on residents and their purchasing decisions. In this study, we used surveys and focus groups in Ames, IA to examine developer, city staff, and resident perceptions of development in general, and LID and CSD features in particular. Residents, developers, and city staff members expressed interest in using LID and CSD approaches. Developers and city staff members believed the amenities created by including LID and CSD features would add a premium to home prices. Resident survey respondents indicated moderate interest in LID and CSD features, while focus group participants indicated stronger interest in these designs when embedded environmental attributes were made explicit. Knowledge of the perspectives of all three groups creates a clearer understanding of ways to create opportunities for implementation of LID and CSD approaches where they do not already exist, to achieve a better balance between development and conservation of natural resources in municipalities in the Midwest. © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Residential subdivision designs such as low-impact development (LID, which uses natural and built features to control runoff; Coffman, 2000) and conservation subdivision design (CSD, which preserves areas of ecological importance; Arendt, 2004) provide opportunities for addressing the negative effects of development practices through the protection and integration of natural features (such as forests and wetlands) on development sites. LID and CSD are somewhat new approaches, and in some parts of the Midwest (United States) there are relatively few examples of their use (e.g. Crick & Prokopy, 2009; Miller et al., 2009). These approaches could lower the societal and infrastructural costs of development (Mohamed, 2006a), but since they have not yet been widely adopted the public may have little knowledge of them. The perceptions and knowledge base of stakeholders involved in development can determine the propensity for demanding or implementing LID or CSD, and misconceptions or limited/inaccurate information about them could create barriers to their use (Bowman & Thompson, 2009). Subdivision development itself is a process

∗ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 515 294 0024; fax: +1 515 294 2995. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (T. Bowman), [email protected] (J. Thompson), [email protected] (J. Tyndall). 0169-2046/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2012.04.011

driven by three primary groups: homebuyers who purchase lots and houses creating demand for developed properties; developers who purchase, subdivide, build and supply lots and houses to consumers; and city staff members who draft and enforce regulations that enable the development process. This paper reports on a study that addresses four research questions: (1) Are these stakeholders familiar with LID and CSD approaches, and do they have accurate understanding of them? (2) Are stakeholders interested in purchasing (homebuyers) or providing (developers and city staff) these design approaches? (3) Do differences in knowledge/perceptions among these groups limit implementation of LID and CSD? (4) Do stakeholder responses suggest opportunities for reducing barriers to use of LID/CSD?

1.1. Background on LID and CSD LID and CSD are innovative residential subdivision designs that have become more widely known in recent years. While the ultimate goals of LID and CSD are different, they can (but do not always) share similar design features (e.g. use of natural swales as bioretention features). LID is an approach that uses topography, natural or constructed bioretention features, and pervious infrastructure (or minimization of impervious surfaces) to manage water runoff and reduce the need for storm sewer installations (Coffman,

44

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

2000). LID is comprised of sets of “Integrated Management Practices” (IMPs), usually installed on individual lots, providing on-site infiltration and storage of water close to the source to maintain pre-development stormwater runoff characteristics at the subdivision scale (Dietz, 2007). CSD is an approach that identifies and preserves ecologically important features (e.g. wetlands and vegetated stream buffer zones), and clusters homes on smaller lots around commonly held open space containing those features (Arendt, 1996, 2004; Pejchar, Morgan, Caldwell, Palmer, & Daily, 2007). CSD intentionally identifies biodiversity protection and provision of ecosystem services as explicit development goals (Pejchar et al., 2007). Both LID and CSD are approaches that can be integrated with higher-level planning tools (such as overlay zones, critical areas ordinances, growth management regulations) to address large-scale development issues such as landscape connectivity (Hostetler, Allen, & Meurk, 2011; Stokes, Hanson, Oaks, Straub, & Ponio, 2010). LID has been demonstrated to effectively capture precipitation on-site and limit pollutant export from developed residential areas (Dietz, 2007; Dietz & Clausen, 2008). CSD has been reported to be successful for preserving natural features, but effectiveness in achieving biodiversity conservation goals has been questioned (Hostetler & Drake, 2009; Lenth, Knight, & Gilgert, 2006; Milder, 2007) and may be more dependent on larger-scale landscape configuration. Thus, the effectiveness of these approaches may vary based on context and methods of implementation.

1.3. Developer knowledge and perceptions of subdivision designs Developers across the Midwest are reported to be unfamiliar with or misinformed about LID and CSD subdivision designs (Bosworth, 2007; Bowman & Thompson, 2009; Westbrook, 2010). This can impede developer adoption of new approaches in several ways. First, the development business is fundamentally risk-averse – investing in untested development techniques (especially given uncertainty about consumer preferences) is unlikely given developers’ tendency to choose development options that are already known to meet revenue goals (but not necessarily maximize them, e.g. Bosworth, 2007; Mohamed, 2006b; Svelka, 2004). Second, lack of technical information limits the willingness of developers to attempt these approaches (Bosworth, 2007; Thompson, 2004). Third, misconceptions about the potential benefits or costs of different approaches to subdivision development can dissuade developers from making investments in them (Bosworth, 2007; Westbrook, 2010). Finally, developers’ assessment of risk is associated with their perception of consumer demand (Svelka, 2004). Previous studies have indicated both that developers can underestimate homebuyer preferences for LID/CSD (Bowman & Thompson, 2009; Ryan, 2006), and that developers can accurately assess consumer preferences (Westbrook, 2010). This ambiguity may lead to perceived lack of interest by homebuyers and discourage developer implementation of LID/CSD subdivisions (Ryan, 2006). 1.4. City staff knowledge and perceptions of subdivision designs

1.2. Resident knowledge and perceptions of subdivision designs Previous research has indicated that residents select homes based on their preference for the overall subdivision look and design (Nassauer, Wang, & Dayrell, 2009; Vogt & Marans, 2004). Open space and conservation features can play a role in those choices (Bowman & Thompson, 2009; Kaplan, Austin, & Kaplan, 2004; Noiseux & Hostetler, 2010; Vogt & Marans, 2004). Views of and proximity to natural areas, for example, have been shown to be important in home purchasing decisions (Gocmen, 2006; Kearney, 2006; Ryan, 2006; Zheng, Zhang, & Chen, 2010) and subdivisions with natural amenities are preferred compared to similar ones that do not (i.e. Kenwick, Shammin, & Sullivan, 2009). At the same time, previous studies have indicated that homebuyers’ preferences tend to reflect the cultural norms and status quo associated with their current subdivision’s design (Gocmen, 2006; Nassauer et al., 2009; Zheng et al., 2010). That is, residents express strong preference for esthetics that are similar to and reinforce the overall look and design of their own subdivision, and they may have serious concerns about designs for newer subdivisions in surrounding areas that contrast starkly with that esthetic (Kaplan & Austin, 2004; Nassauer et al., 2009). Thus, preferences for subdivision design that residents project onto surrounding neighborhoods can lead to either support for or resistance to incorporating conservation features (Nassauer et al., 2009; Thompson, 2004). Compounding this conundrum, residents generally lack knowledge about approaches that provide LID/CSD features (Bosworth, 2007; Hostetler & Noiseux, 2010; Thompson, 2004). In municipalities where these approaches have not previously been used, residents may have no reference point to compare to standard designs (Thompson, 2004). Even given previous experience with LID or CSD, including living in such subdivisions (Bowman & Thompson, 2009; Hostetler & Noiseux, 2010), they may not fully understand the embedded environmental benefits of these approaches. This is especially true with regard to less “visible” attributes such as water quality protection or pollution abatement (Gocmen, 2006; Thompson, 2004).

City staff generally have greater familiarity with LID/CSD approaches than residents (Kaplan et al., 2004), but they may not be as familiar with how residents and developers perceive those approaches (Bosworth, 2007; Ryan, 2006). This can lead to ineffective subdivision ordinances that result in poor development decisions (Hamin, 2006). Municipal planners that do recognize the value of LID/CSD approaches may be able to offer incentives to developers to encourage their use (Bosworth, 2007). Nevertheless, knowledge of or familiarity with LID/CSD approaches among city staff members in and of itself does not necessarily lead to implementation (e.g. Crick & Prokopy, 2009). With respect to both planning and policy formulation more generally, Innes (1998) has argued that a shared knowledge base (where all stakeholders involved in the process have examined the available information themselves) is necessary to promote effective action. Thus, increasing the accessibility of information for all stakeholder groups may promote greater local implementation compared to a decision process led solely by city staff (Kartez & Casto, 2008; Stokes et al., 2010). 1.5. Subdivision regulations Municipal regulations and subdivision standards themselves can present barriers to use of LID and CSD. Strict development regulations meant to allow delivery of city services (i.e. street widths and frontages for emergency vehicles and city utilities) can often prevent use of development designs that would decrease environmental impacts (Stone, 2004). Regulations can also impede LID/CSD use through less direct means if ambiguous language and additional approval processes lengthen the time for approval and thus increase costs for developers (Bowman & Thompson, 2009; Ryan, 2006). Even when specific enabling regulations exist to allow implementation of LID/CSD, there can be important differences between stated principles and actual outcomes. For instance, a conservation subdivision ordinance that is not supported by a larger-scale land use policy plan to promote interconnectedness of conserved lands is already incongruent with the original design philosophy (Hamin, 2006). An additional legal ramification that

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

both developers and city staff should consider is that the presence of commonly accessible natural areas within subdivisions necessitates identification of an entity responsible for maintaining that part of the property (Austin & Kaplan, 2003; Austin, 2004; Bosworth, 2007). 1.6. Study questions This investigation was designed as a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics surrounding residential development by comparing knowledge and perceptions about LID and CSD approaches among three stakeholder groups (residents, developers, and city staff) in one community. We examined four sets of study questions that would reveal the knowledge and perceptions held by these stakeholders in the development process: 1. Are residents, developers and city staff familiar with LID/CSD approaches? How accurate is their understanding of them? 2. Are stakeholders interested in purchasing (homebuyers) or providing (developer, city staff) LID/CSD designs? Do developers and city staff perceive homebuyer interest in them? 3. Do differences in knowledge and perceptions among these groups limit implementation of LID/CSD? 4. Do stakeholder responses suggest opportunities for reducing barriers to use of LID/CSD? 2. Methods To address our research questions, we used a series of survey instruments and focus groups involving residents, developers, and city staff to examine residential development dynamics in Ames, Iowa. All surveys and focus group protocols were reviewed and approved by the Office of Responsible Research, and all focus groups were facilitated by personnel from the Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology at Iowa State University. 2.1. Study area Ames, Iowa (population 52,000; area encompassing 5590 ha) was chosen for study as a representative Midwestern (USA) city with increasing pressure for residential development along the urban–rural interface. Urban land cover within the incorporated area of Ames increased by 80% between 1992 and 2002, due to transitions from grasslands (1021 ha) and croplands (453 ha); significant forest land (172 ha) was also converted (Bowman, Thompson, Tyndall, & Anderson, 2012). In the context of historic large-scale landscape change from natural ecosystems to intensive agricultural uses across the Midwest, additional loss of any natural areas is of growing concern (Secchi, Tyndall, Schulte, & Asbjornsen, 2008). Proposed development in Ames is first reviewed by the Development Review Committee (DRC), made up of city staff from eight departments. The DRC forwards plans for subdivision-scale development with a recommendation to the Planning and Zoning Commission (appointed citizens), which then makes a recommendation to the City Council (elected officials). At the time of this study, Ames did not have specific regulations enabling use of LID/CSD approaches, although a new CSD ordinance has recently been adopted. Subdivision standards for Ames specify minimum density requirements of 9.3 units/ha, and require installation of curb/gutter and storm sewer infrastructure (that otherwise could be avoided using LID/CSD approaches). To date, Ames does not have residential developments where LID/CSD features have been integrated at a whole-subdivision scale.

45

2.2. Resident survey and focus groups A mail-return survey instrument to assess knowledge of and preferences for LID/CSD was designed and distributed to Ames residents using the Dillman tailored design approach (Dillman, 2009). The surveys were sent with a cover letter explaining the purpose of examining homebuyer preferences for different subdivision designs. Two versions of the survey were disseminated: the first version included a series of questions about LID, and the second included questions about CSD. Each survey included a description of the design goals and strategies of the respective designs. For example, for the CSD survey, a seven-point list described the strategies of preserving natural areas to function for stormwater processing and wildlife habitat, protecting those areas with easements, clustering the same number of homes on smaller lots in other areas, reducing impervious surfaces, and keeping natural areas communally owned so that all residents would have access to them. In addition, survey inserts showed sketches of subdivision layouts and photographs of the individual features with schematic diagrams to describe them for the respective development approaches, with narrative describing the environmental benefits associated with each feature. For example, on CSD surveys stream buffers were described as conserved areas with both herbaceous and woody vegetation that helped to protect stream water quality by filtering pollutants, preventing erosion, mitigating flooding, and providing habitat for wildlife. Other survey items were identical, including questions about the variety of subdivisions available, residents’ preferences for subdivision amenities, and level of concern about environmental impacts from development. Several demographic questions were also included. We chose a sample frame that included homebuyers who were familiar with the housing market in Ames by randomly selecting two thousand households who had purchased a single-family home between 2003 and 2008 from the City of Ames Assessor’s Office GIS database to receive a survey. The two versions (LID and CSD) of the survey were randomly and evenly divided among the sample. Reminder cards were mailed to non-respondents after two weeks, and an additional survey was mailed after one month. Households that were incorrectly listed in the database were removed from the sample, resulting in a total eligible sample of 1804. Non-response bias was tested by comparing responses to first and second mailings of the survey (Dooley & Lindner, 2003). Resident perceptions of the variety of neighborhoods available in Ames were measured using a 3-point scale (1 = there is a neighborhood to fit everyone’s needs, 2 = there are different kinds of neighborhoods; but more could be done to increase variety, and 3 = there is little variety in neighborhoods). The importance of eleven neighborhood attributes from “overall look and feel” of the subdivision to neighborhood “seclusion” were rated on a 5-point scale (with 1 = not at all important, 3 = neutral, 5 = very important). The amount of concern residents have about the potential negative effects of residential development on the environment was also measured on a 5-point scale (with 1 = strongly disagree about concern, 5 = strongly agree with concern). Familiarity with LID or CSD approaches was rated on a 3-point scale (with 1 = had not previously heard of LID or CSD, 2 = had maybe heard of LID or CSD, 3 = had heard of LID or CSD). An open-ended question was provided for respondents to indicate where they had previously heard of LID or CSD designs. Respondents were asked to indicate whether they thought LID or CSD features were included in existing subdivisions (yes/no). An open-ended question was also available for respondents to provide an example of LID or CSD in Ames. Finally, respondents were asked to indicate whether they would consider purchasing a home, or if they would pay more for a home in a subdivision with LID or CSD features (measured on a 5-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 5 = strongly agree).

46

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

Thirty-six survey respondents were randomly selected and solicited by telephone to attend a resident focus group. The telephone invitations included information about how participants were selected, referring to the earlier survey that they had completed about their preferences for subdivision designs, and explained how the overall project would include examination of developers’ and city staff members’ opinions in addition to their own. The invited participants were a subset of respondents who purchased a home with a sale price between US $185,000 and $215,000 (which would ensure a uniform group based on the price range most likely to contain alternative subdivision features, e.g. Bowman, Thompson, & Colletti, 2009)). Three focus groups were scheduled with 12 participants in each event. Respondents who agreed to attend were mailed a reminder letter and offered a $40 incentive payment to be provided at the focus group meeting. The resident focus group was designed to emulate a real estate transaction between a homebuyer and broker, with participants indicating their level of interest in various properties through a successive bidding process. To begin, focus group participants were informed that researchers were interested in their opinions on housing market choices, both real and hypothetical, in Ames. Opening remarks also included introductions of project personnel, an overview of the process to be used for reviewing homes in different subdivision layouts, and an explanation of the elements on the property sheets describing each layout. Participants were asked to rate three properties in each of five rounds, each time comparing a standard subdivision property to a property that included a feature with little or no environmental benefit (e.g., a stream with no buffer), and to a property with a similar feature that included a positive environmental attribute (e.g., a stream with a vegetated buffer). Each property sheet (designed to mimic those used by local real estate agents) showed the same home (the house was described as identical for each) photo-shopped on a background with the feature (if present) to be considered. Property sheets also showed a schematic subdivision layout with the exact location of the home identified, the location of the feature (if present) relative to the home, and a narrative describing the particular feature (if present) and its benefits (several bullet points, identical to those supplied in the surveys). Residents were asked to rate the three properties within each round using a 5-point scale (1 indicated they had little interest, and 5 indicated they had a strong interest in purchasing it). Examples of features that participants compared to standard layout included those with a flower garden versus a rain garden (LID), a stream versus a stream with a vegetated buffer (CSD), and clustered housing versus clustered housing with preserved communally owned forest (CSD). 2.3. Developer survey and focus group The City of Ames Department of Planning and Housing provided researchers with a list of all developers who were based in Ames and known by the DRC to purchase and subdivide land in Ames and then sell the lots (either as a raw lot or a lot developed with a house). The list was checked against a directory obtained from the Ames Homebuilders Association. Developers from outside of Ames were excluded. The list included eight developers who were invited by telephone to participate in the focus group session. Developers who agreed to attend were sent a reminder letter and were offered an incentive of $40 to be provided at the focus group meeting. A survey was given to each developer to complete before the focus group session. Developers were asked to rate their familiarity with LID and CSD on a 5-point scale (1 = not at all familiar, and 5 = very familiar), and to provide a list of the most important features of both designs. The survey also asked them to indicate how familiar they thought Ames residents were with these design approaches (on the same scale). Developers were also asked

whether features from either design approach had been included in any of their previous subdivisions and if yes, to describe which features they had used. Developers were asked (on a 5-point scale, 1 = not at all likely, 5 = very likely) their opinion about whether Ames residents would consider either purchasing or paying more for a home in a LID or CSD neighborhood. They were then queried on their opinions about how current regulations affected their ability to use LID/CSD features (on a 5-point scale, 1 = impede the use, 5 = encourage the use). They were also asked about the length of their tenure in the development business, the approximate number of subdivisions they had developed in the last 5 years, the average cost of a house in one of their subdivisions, and about how their company obtained information on consumer demand. The developer focus group was designed to examine developers’ decision-making process when choosing to purchase land for subdivision development. To begin, participants were informed that researchers were interested in their approach to developing subdivisions in Ames as part of a larger study examining homebuyer preferences as well as city staff opinions. Opening remarks included introductions of project personnel, and an overview of the process to be used for developing and evaluating different subdivision layouts. Developers were asked to evaluate three potential subdivision designs on each of two vacant properties selected from aerial photographs of undeveloped property in the Ames area. Each property was 36.5 acres and within city limits, with access available from any side of the property. One property contained a 16-acre forest and the other property featured a stream running across the site. Developers were asked to rate and bid on the property containing forest first, and the property containing the stream second. For each property, each participant was first given an aerial photo of the site and was asked to draw a sketch of how they would subdivide it, indicating the location of roads and lots. Developers were then asked to rate their interest in purchasing the property on a 5-point scale (where 1 = little interest in purchasing, and 5 = strong interest in purchasing) based on their own design. Then developers were asked to submit a sealed bid (in US $ per acre) for the amount they would be willing to pay at auction for the property (given city approval for the design). Developers were also asked to provide an estimate of the price they would ask for an individual lot in the current housing market. Bids were collected and developers were notified of the highest and second-highest bid amount. Participants were given a second aerial photo of the site with an overlay of a standard subdivision layout which did not include LID or CSD features. Ratings, bids and estimates of sales prices were collected as before. Each design provided to developers contained 96 lots and met all of the City of Ames minimum subdivision density regulations. During each round, developers were provided information from the prior resident focus group ratings for the same properties. Finally, developers were provided with a third aerial photo of the site with a clustered housing design featuring the forest as shared open space (for the first property using the CSD layout provided in the resident survey/focus group), and shared open space with a 100-foot stream buffer (for the second property using the CSD layout provided to residents). Ratings, bids, and estimates of sales prices were collected as described before. 2.4. City staff survey and focus group Ames city staff members were provided a written invitation to attend a focus group session by a member of the Department of Planning and Housing staff who collaborated closely with researchers. All city staff members in the eight departments involved in the DRC subdivision approval process were invited to

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

participate. The written invitation indicated researchers’ interest in their opinions on subdivision designs because of their role in the plat approval process, and also described the work being done to elicit preferences of residents and developers. A short survey was provided to each participant before the focus group, which was identical to the instrument provided to developers with two added items. First, city staff members were asked their opinion about how current regulations affected a developer’s ability to add either LID or CSD features to a subdivision on a 5-point scale (with 1 = impede the use, 5 = encourage the use). Secondly, they were asked about length of their employment with the city and the approximate number of subdivisions they had reviewed in the last 5 years. This focus group session was designed to emulate the city’s typical subdivision approval process, in which participants use both personal expertise and group discussion in evaluating proposed subdivision designs. City staff participants attended as part of their working day and did not receive any form of additional payment for their involvement. To begin the focus group discussion, participants were informed that researchers were interested in understanding their approach and opinions in recommending subdivisions to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Opening remarks also included introductions of project personnel, and an overview of the process to be used for evaluating different subdivision layouts. Participants were given the opportunity to rate their interest in approving four different subdivision layouts provided for one property. The subdivision layouts were superimposed on an aerial photo, with lot lines and roads indicated, and with resident and developer ratings (from their respective focus groups) for each of the comparable designs indicated on the sheets. The property shown was the same 36.5 acre forested property used for the previous resident and developer focus groups and included the same standard subdivision, a developer’s design, and the CSD layout from the earlier focus groups. An additional CSD layout was included (based on developer focus group comments) that did not involve use of culs-de-sac, with the same acreage and density as the previous CSD layout. All designs had the same number (96) of lots and met all subdivision code requirements. For each of the four designs, city staff members were asked to rate (on a 5-point scale, 1 = not at all interested and 5 = very interested) their interest in approving the design for development. They were then asked to provide a list of pros and cons for the design. City staff then had the opportunity to discuss the design among the whole group with participants giving their professional opinions based on their staff position as if they were consulting with planning staff during an approval meeting. After discussion, staff members were asked to re-rate the design and provide any additional input they thought pertinent. 2.5. Data analysis All of the 3- and 5-point scale questions were analyzed using means and t-tests to examine differences from neutral (a 2 on a 3-point scale or a 3 on a 5-point scale) and ANOVA tests for similar questions were used to compare between groups. We used threshold criteria of p < 0.01 and p < 0.05 to determine statistical significance, and p > 0.10 to confirm non-significant results. 3. Results 3.1. Survey respondent and focus group participant demographics Overall, 777 of 1804 (43%) eligible resident surveys were returned. Survey respondents were 94% white and 52% male

47

with an average age of 41.9 years. Respondents had an average household size of 2.9 persons with 1 child living at home, and had lived in Ames an average of 11.2 years. Eighty-four percent of respondents had a college education and they reported mean household income between US $75,000 and $100,000. Sample t-tests showed no evidence of non-response bias or any differences between respondents to the first and second mailings with regard to these demographic variables, or relationships to responses (p > 0.10 for all comparisons). This sample is similar to overall demographic characteristics for Iowa in terms of race (91.3% white), gender (49.5% male), and household size (2.4 persons). However, respondents were characterized by higher incomes (state median is $48,065) and a greater proportion of college graduates (state average is 24.2%) (US Census Bureau, 2011). Twenty-seven of 36 respondents (75%) invited to focus groups agreed to participate, and were 92% white and 54% male and an average of 49.5 years old. Participants had mean household size of 3.3, with 1.2 children and had lived in Ames 15 years. Eighty percent of participants held a college degree and mean household income was between US $75,000 and $100,000. Six of the eight developers who were invited (75%) agreed to participate in a focus group, and they were 100% white and male. On average, participants had been in the development business for 16.8 years (ranging from 3 to 43 years) and each had completed approximately six subdivision projects in the past 5 years. Homes in these projects generally sold for a price between $200,000 and $400,000. The 15 city staff focus group participants were 100% white and 80% male. Participants had been employed by the city of Ames for an average of 8.1 years and had reviewed a mean of 15.5 subdivision projects within the last 5 years. Participants represented seven of the eight city departments in the DRC, with personnel from planning and zoning, inspections, the assessor’s office, public works, electric distribution, water and pollution control, and parks and recreation. 3.2. Resident perceptions of current subdivision characteristics Half of resident survey respondents (50%) felt that Ames had a neighborhood that would fit everyone’s need. Forty-five percent of respondents thought that Ames had different kinds of neighborhoods, but more could be done to increase variety. Six percent of respondents reported there was little variety or that they were unsure. Of the choices about neighborhood characteristics provided on the survey, respondents reported that the “overall look or feel of the neighborhood” was the most important to them when purchasing their home (4.4 on a scale of 5, where 5 = very important), significantly higher than any other item (p < 0.01; Fig. 1). Mature trees (3.9), neighborhood parks (3.8), and neighborhood open space (3.7) were also important (Fig. 1). Wildlife (3.1), closeness to neighbors (3.0), and seclusion (3.0) were not different from neutral (p > 0.10). Only neighborhood streams were below neutral, rated at 2.8 (p < 0.01). 3.3. Resident, developer, and city staff perceptions of environmental impact and regulations Residents agreed that they had some concern (3.6 on a scale of 5, where 5 = strongly agree) about the potential negative environmental effects of subdivision development in Ames (Table 1). They indicated that they were not concerned, however, about the effects of their own neighborhood (mean of 2.2 where 1 = not at all concerned), reporting a neutral impact on the environment (mean of 3.2 on a 5-point scale, where 5 = large and positive impact).

48

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

Fig. 1. Resident opinions on the importance of various neighborhood amenities when purchasing their current residence (1 = not at all important, 5 = very important). Error bars indicate a 95% confidence interval around the sample mean.

Developers and city staff members reported that subdivision regulations did not have a large impact on the implementation of LID or CSD features (Table 2). Developers (2.5 for both LID and CSD) and city staff (2.6 for LID and 2.9 for CSD) rated the effect of regulations similarly. 3.4. Familiarity with and use of LID and CSD Half of residents surveyed said they had previously heard of LID and nearly half (47%) also believed that LID was currently in use in Ames (Fig. 2). Only 39% of residents had heard of CSD before, but 57% thought that CSD was being used in Ames. A majority of developers (83%) and city staff (63%) reported they were familiar with LID features and believed (83% of developers, 85% of city staff) that they had previously either used or approved LID. Fewer respondents (67% of developers and 50% of city staff) were familiar with CSD and had used or approved CSD before (50% of developers and 64% of city staff) (Fig. 2). Both developers (3.3 on a 5-point scale where 5 = very familiar) and city staff (3.3) were unsure whether Ames residents were familiar with LID design features. Developers (2.8) and city staff (2.9) also expressed neutral opinions with regard to Ames residents’ familiarity with CSD.

Table 1 Resident perceptions about effects of development for both overall residential development in Ames and their own neighborhood. Responses were rated on a 5-point scale (1 = strongly disagree, 5 = strongly agree). Mean

Std. err.

% Don’t know

n

The City of Ames considers potential negative effects on the environment. . . 0.05 16.2% 770 Before approving 3.2 subdivision developments I am concerned about the potential negative effects on the natural environment of. . . 3.6 0.05 1.4% 771 Overall residential development in Ames My own neighborhood 2.2 0.04 N/A 764 My own neighborhood has. . . 3.2 0.04 N/A 773 What kind of impact on the natural environment? (1 = large and negative, 5 = large and positive)

3.5. Interest in purchasing and providing LID and CSD features Given information about goals, design elements, and images of specific LID features, resident survey respondents expressed interest in homes with LID features (3.6 on a 5-point scale where 5 = very likely; p < 0.01) but did not agree that they would pay more (2.8 on the same scale) for these features (Fig. 3; p < 0.01). Developers (4.2 on the same scale) and city staff (4.5) indicated that residents would be willing to purchase a home in a neighborhood with LID features. Developers were unsure (3.2) whether residents would be willing to pay more for a home with LID features, but city staff (3.9) believed that residents would pay more (p < 0.01). Similarly, given information about goals, design elements, and images of specific CSD features, resident survey respondents indicated interest in buying a CSD home (3.3 on the same scale; p < 0.01), but again indicated that they would not be willing to pay more (2.6) for the home (Fig. 3; p < 0.01). Developers were neutral about whether residents would purchase (3.2) or pay more (3.2) for a home with CSD features. City staff, however, expressed belief that consumers would buy (3.9) and pay more (4.4) for a CSD home (p < 0.01). No relationship between willingness to pay more and respondent knowledge level about development approaches was detected using one-way ANOVA (conducted for LID and CSD survey respondent groups separately).

Table 2 Developer and city staff perceptions of the effect of development regulations in Ames on the implementation of alternative subdivision design features. Mean

Std. err.

n

Developers: Ames development regulations affect the implementation of alternative subdivision design features by. . . 0.50 6 2.5 Encouraging or impeding their use (1 = impede, 5 = encourage) City staff: Ames development regulations affect the implementation of LID and CSD subdivision features by. . . 2.6 0.24 15 Encouraging or impeding LID use 2.9 Encouraging or impeding CSD 0.25 15 use (1 = impede, 5 = encourage)

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

49

Fig. 2. Percent of residents (LID: n = 391, CSD: n = 376), developers (n = 6), and city staff (n = 15) familiar with LID and CSD, that indicated either use or approval of LID or CSD features, or believe that LID and CSD features are currently used in Ames, IA.

3.6. Focus group responses to CSD examples 3.6.1. Example 1: clustered housing with forest Given fact sheets with illustrations of subdivision layouts and details about environmental benefits, resident survey respondents who participated in the follow-up focus groups expressed strong interest in a clustered neighborhood design with communally owned forest (4.6 on a 5-point scale where 5 = very interested) rating it much higher than the standard design (2.5) and higher than neutral (Fig. 4; p < 0.01). Developers participating in the focus group expressed interest in a clustered design that preserved forest (3.6 on the same scale) compared to a standard design (2.7) (Fig. 4; p < 0.05).

Given images and details about CSD, city staff focus group participants expressed concern over the use of culs-de-sac in the same clustered housing with forest design, giving ratings of 2.4 (before discussion) and 2.0 (after discussion) on a rising 5-point scale. City staff showed greater interest in approving an otherwise similar clustered design with forest without the implementation of culsde-sac (3.6 before discussion, 3.5 after; p < 0.01); ratings made after group discussion were not different from those made before in either case (Fig. 4). Developers’ own designs featured shared forest space (6 of 6 designs) and trails (4 of 6) for the forested property. Although some developers included part of the forest in subdivided lots, all saved at least part of the forested land as a common resource for

Fig. 3. Resident (LID: n = 389, CSD: n = 377), developer (n = 6), and city staff (n = 14) perceptions of residents’ likeliness to both purchase and pay more for a home with LID or CSD features (1 = not at all likely, 5 = very likely). Error bars indicate a 95% confidence interval around the sample mean.

50

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

Fig. 4. Resident (n = 27), developer (n = 6), and city staff (before and after group discussion) (n = 15), interest in purchasing (residents), developing (developers), or approving (city staff) a home in a subdivision featuring standard and clustered designs with and without culs-de-sac (1 = not at all interested, 5 = very interested). Error bars indicate a 95% confidence interval around the sample mean.

neighborhood residents. There were no significant differences in the mean bid per acre offered by developers for any of the forest property designs (Table 3). Average purchase prices offered ranged from $16,500 per acre for the standard design to $19,900 per acre for the clustered design with forest (Table 3). Mean proposed prices for lots in the developers’ own designs ($62,300) were higher than for the standard design provided to them ($52,100) (Table 3; p < 0.01)

3.6.2. Example 2: stream with forested buffer Resident focus group participants gave lower mean ratings for the standard (2.5 on the same 5-point scale) and stream without buffer (2.5) scenarios than for the stream design with a forest buffer (3.7) (Fig. 5; p < 0.01 for both comparisons). Residents’ interest in the standard and un-buffered stream properties was significantly less than neutral while their rating for the stream with a forest buffer was significantly greater (Fig. 5; p < 0.01). Developers expressed similar levels of interest (2.5–3.0) for all three designs for the property with a stream (Fig. 5). Due to time limitations, the stream buffer scenarios were not used in the city staff focus group. Developer drawings for the property containing the stream shared common elements including parceling the stream into private lots in 5 of 6 designs, and the addition of open spaces in 4 of 6 designs. None of the developers included a vegetated buffer with the stream in their own designs. Developer bids showed no difference for either purchasing the raw property or for the selling price for subdivided lots for any of the designs (Table 3). The mean purchase price offered ranged from $15,900 per acre for the

standard design to $17,700 per acre for the design with a forested buffer (Table 3). Developers indicated proposed prices for selling lots that ranged from $51,300 for the standard to $53,200 for the developers’ own designs (Table 3).

4. Discussion Our sample frame was limited to recent homebuyers (among residents), locally-based residential developers (six participants), and city staff members (15 participants) with a direct role in the residential development approval process for one municipality. Although this limits our ability in some cases to detect statistical significance (especially for developers) or to make broad generalizations, it does provide a comprehensive analysis of the dynamics associated with residential development in a medium-sized municipality. Because Ames is similar to many other cities in Iowa and the Midwest region with respect to race, gender, and household size (although respondents were characterized by higher median income and a greater proportion of college graduates) our results may well apply to other cities with similar demographics that are experiencing rapid residential growth. In this case, residents, developers, and city staff all expressed some interest in LID/CSD approaches, and when presented with a choice often indicated preference for these designs over standard subdivisions. However, lack of familiarity with and knowledge about LID/CSD features among all three groups as well as routine application of standard subdivision regulations may limit implementation of these designs.

Table 3 Mean developer (n = 6) bids (in thousands of US $) for purchasing land and estimated developer lot selling price for lots developed based on various neighborhood designs and features. Land description

Design type

Mean bid/acre

Std. err.

Mean lot price

Std. err.

Farmland with stream

Standard Own design Stream with forested buffer Standard Own design Clustered housing with forest

15.9 17.4 17.7 16.5 17.8 19.9

1.9 1.6 2.3 2.1 2.4 2.9

51.3 53.2 52.8 52.1 62.3b 57.6ab

7.0 8.4 5.1 2.9 6.3 3.6

Farmland with forest

Different superscript letters indicate a significant difference at p < 0.05.

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

51

Fig. 5. Resident (n = 26) and developer (n = 6) interest in developing or purchasing a home in a neighborhood with no stream, a stream with no buffer, or a stream with a forested buffer (1 = not at all interested, 5 = very interested). Error bars indicate a 95% confidence interval around the sample mean.

4.1. Perceptions of current subdivision characteristics in Ames Half of the Ames resident survey respondents were clearly satisfied with the variety of subdivision types available in Ames. With few exceptions, however, subdivisions in Ames have similar layouts and styles even across housing price ranges, similarities that underscore the conundrum associated with typical preferences for “uniformity” (e.g. Nassauer et al., 2009), particularly in light of the importance placed on “overall look” for subdivision amenities by these respondents (Fig. 1). It also presents an opportunity for developers (with support from city staff) to consider including LID/CSD features as a way to create subtle distinctions for future subdivisions that lead to a broader palette of choices for homebuyers. For example, several years ago developers and city staff in Ames worked together in the create a “New Urbanist” development, a process that included variances for setbacks and density, as well as tax deferments to allow unique design elements and facilitate buyin. Although buy-in was initially very slow, the area is now close to fully developed and has gained broad appeal. Given survey respondents’ low level of concern about the environmental impacts of their own subdivisions, it is interesting that they did express concern about the potential negative impacts of additional subdivision development. This could be interpreted as concern over new development that might displace additional natural or agricultural landscapes. On the basis of this information, careful integration of LID/CSD features that would attenuate the impact of development could be a very important selling point for homebuyers. Based on experience with the “New Urbanist” neighborhood, a process employing variances and deferments could be used to successfully initiate use of LID/CSD approaches. 4.2. Resident, developer, and city staff familiarity with and knowledge about LID and CSD Resident survey respondents reported limited familiarity with LID/CSD approaches: one-half or fewer indicated they had previously heard of them (Fig. 2). Developers and city staff also perceived a lack of knowledge on the part of residents regarding these designs. Previous studies have shown that residents’

knowledge about LID or CSD subdivision designs is limited, even for those actually residing in “green” developments (Bowman & Thompson, 2009; Hostetler & Noiseux, 2010). If examples of these approaches were made available (with support from city staff for review, approval and implementation) developers and city staff could partner to provide education about these developments, and use those opportunities to enhance residents’ overall environmental knowledge (Hostetler, Swiman, Prizzia, & Noiseux, 2008). This could support greater and more explicit homebuyer demand for LID/CSD (Thompson, 2004), sending a clear message to a larger group of developers about consumer preferences that could further reinforce use of these approaches. Generally, developer and city staff respondents reported greater familiarity with both LID and CSD (to a lesser degree) than residents did (Fig. 2). We surmise that there is an important distinction between familiarity with and knowledge about LID and CSD. For example, even though many developers and city staff indicated familiarity with LID and CSD, on open-ended queries they did not provide accurate information about LID features, and provided no specific information about CSD features. When asked to identify such developments, residents, developers and city staff alike frequently identified the “New Urbanist” development in Ames as an example of both LID and/or CSD development. Other answers from resident respondents indicated that although they could not identify a specific development with such features they believed that there must be one in Ames. Lack of knowledge, especially about CSD, appeared to cause respondents to assume that a “different-looking” subdivision layout is associated with environmental benefits even when that is not the case. Previous city- and homebuilder-association-sponsored workshops, speakers from regional design firms, and state agency outreach efforts have provided opportunities for developers and city staff in Ames to learn about LID and CSD (to a lesser extent) approaches. These participants’ greater familiarity with LID features indicates that such activities have been useful, and that additional efforts could prove valuable as well. Additional developer and city staff events should include a greater emphasis on the technical and how-to aspects of LID/CSD implementation, and information for developers on the costs associated with them.

52

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

Finally, broadening the audience to include potential homebuyers could be especially useful to increase demand for these subdivision designs (see also Thompson, 2004). Because of a lack of local examples of either LID or CSD (where features of either approach have been integrated throughout a subdivision) in Ames, there is no basis for residents, developers, or city staff to develop a heuristic for the differences between these and more conventional developments. This is an issue for many rapidly growing medium-sized cities in Iowa (and more generally for a number of similar cities across the Midwestern US), since the main interactions between developers and consumers about home-buying preferences take place at open houses in standard subdivisions (Bowman & Thompson, 2009). Without examples of these forms of development, homebuyers are unable to express preferences for LID/CSD approaches, and without this feedback, developers are less likely to take risks to implement these designs. Developers considering implementation of LID/CSD will likely need support and leadership from city staff and other local professionals as they expand their efforts to understand consumer preferences and identify potential homebuyers for these subdivisions. 4.3. Interest in purchasing or providing homes in LID/CSD subdivisions Residents rated features that are often associated with embedded conservation attributes as important in their purchasing decisions (Fig. 1). This is consistent with previous studies (Bosworth, 2007; Bowman & Thompson, 2009; Gocmen, 2006; Kaplan & Austin, 2004; Noiseux & Hostetler, 2010; Ryan, 2006) indicating that natural features (in particular, views of open space and nature) are among important home-buying criteria. Mature trees, parks and open spaces were all rated as important in residential purchasing decisions (Fig. 1). However, willingness to pay more for homes embedded in subdivisions that incorporate these elements was generally low among survey respondents (Fig. 3). We were unable to detect a relationship between knowledge level and willingness to pay, and both phenomena may have been due to the fact that most resident survey respondents lacked adequate knowledge about these designs. Focus group participation (which included more interaction about LID/CSD features, overarching design themes, and embedded environmental attributes) was associated with greater interest in both designs (e.g. survey responses in Fig. 3 versus focus group responses in Figs. 4 and 5) and for the environmental attributes associated with these designs. This interaction also led to greater willingness to pay (determined by another facet of the resident focus groups, an experimental real estate negotiation process, reported in Bowman, Tyndall, Thompson, Kliebenstein, & Colletti, in press). This provides initial evidence that engaging residents in learning about LID and CSD approaches could lead to greater demand for these options in the housing market. Other studies have indicated faster absorption rates (e.g. Mohamed, 2006a) and higher market prices (e.g. Bowman et al., 2009) for homes in subdivisions with LID/CSD features. Developers also indicated some preference for LID/CSD designs compared to standard approaches (Figs. 4 and 5). When providing designs for example properties, all developers conserved part of the natural areas shown to serve as embedded subdivision features. Developer bids for properties also revealed a preference for conserving and integrating natural landscape features rather than simply maximizing available lot acreage. Developers also indicated that lots in subdivisions with conserved natural areas would be valuable to residents (their mean lot asking price was higher for designs with preserved stream and forest areas, Table 3). Like developers, city staff indicated a preference for LID/CSD approaches compared to standard subdivision designs

(Figs. 4 and 5). However, there were particular issues that city staff indicated would make approval for these designs difficult to recommend. First, city staff members were not interested in clustered housing designs that included culs-de-sac. Even though participants acknowledged the benefits of this layout (e.g., amount of forest/open space preserved, family safety aspects) the additional resources required to provide city services (utilities, fire protection, and snow removal) were deemed too high. Second, city staff were concerned about neighborhood open space maintenance; in particular, they discussed the question of responsibility for the upkeep of open areas if neighborhood associations failed to do so. While participants recognized the conservation and recreation value of open spaces, city staff members were hesitant to recommend approval for designs with large amounts of open space if it was likely that city departments could become responsible for maintenance in the future. 4.4. Real and perceived differences in knowledge and interest Previous studies have shown that what developers and city staff believe about residents’ preferences can differ from reality (Ryan, 2006). Ames city staff, in particular, indicated misconceptions about residents’ interest in LID and CSD development, consistently overestimating the willingness of homebuyers to both buy and pay more for LID and CSD developments. Lack of communication and understanding between the groups affecting residential development could be an important factor in this regard. While additional focus on embedded subdivision features in education efforts (such as that provided during resident focus groups) may shift resident interest, city staff need to be aware that unless some form of education/interaction occurs, residents may be less willing to invest in LID and CSD approaches. 4.5. Regulations Both developers and city staff indicated that current subdivision standards and regulations range from “somewhat impeding” the use of LID/CSD to having a neutral effect on implementation (Table 2). Neither party believed that regulations encouraged the use of LID or CSD features. This dynamic is prevalent in Iowa (Miller et al., 2009) and could be a significant barrier to the use of LID and CSD. Further, implementation of local regulations is done by city staff members who also must consider a wide spectrum of city services in their decision-making process. For example, in the city staff focus group there was lengthy discussion of city infrastructure design and service delivery (e.g. utility distribution) that could be complicated by elements of LID/CSD approaches. Conversely, subdivision regulations that are formulated to allow for delivery of city services can limit the incorporation of LID/CSD features (Stone, 2004; Hostetler et al., 2011). Thus, further research should include closer examination of the perspectives of a broad array of city staff professionals in order to more accurately reflect municipal decision-making processes. 5. Conclusions Despite the inherent limitations associated with our selective sample frame, the evidence from this case study of Ames, Iowa suggests that residents, developers and city staff all have interest in LID/CSD subdivision designs that integrate preserved natural areas as well as other subdivision features that have environmental benefits, especially so when those benefits are made explicit. However, limited familiarity with and explicit knowledge about LID and CSD features among these groups may create barriers that prevent the adoption of these approaches.

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

In the Ames housing market, stakeholders have direct experience only with existing (standard) subdivision designs, and many residents, in particular, are unaware of LID/CSD development options. While a greater proportion of developer and city staff participants in our study indicated familiarity with LID and CSD, they were misinformed about the use of these approaches in Ames. Lack of information and misconceptions about LID/CSD creates a feedback loop that reinforces continued use of standard subdivision designs, a situation that is not uncommon throughout Iowa and the Midwest. Regulations that do not encourage the use of LID/CSD approaches can cause further uncertainty on the part of developers about potential approval for these designs. Finally, the risk management behavior of developers can hinder their exploration of innovative development options if there is uncertainty about garnering support from city staff. Broad-spectrum education for all groups, with assistance from state, federal, and non-governmental organizations could interrupt this cycle by providing information about development options. City staff could provide leadership for a local development mapping and land-cover change study, with input from all stakeholders, which would be useful to assess where adoption of LID and/or CSD development could produce the greatest benefits. Targeted marketing research could provide both developers and city staff with additional information on potential homebuyer willingness to pay for LID/CSD. Also, city staff could prepare ordinances that outline city goals for the use of these designs that is clearly linked to the land use policy plan (in addition to design standards such as those included in the CSD ordinance that was just approved). Finally, city staff could also consider possible tax deferments or density incentives for meeting low impact/conservation criteria, as well as increased flexibility in the approval process for future LID/CSD developments. Ultimately, this could be a “win–win–win” solution for development stakeholders: residents would be offered more subdivision choices, developers could reap additional incentives and opportunities to capture residents’ preferences for conservation features, and city staff could provide leadership in promoting economic growth through designs that reduce impacts on natural systems. Acknowledgments We would like to thank the following for their help conducting the work reported in this paper: Jan Larson and Allison Tyler with the Center for Survey Statistics and Methodology for help with survey design and focus group facilitation; Sam Perry and staff with the City of Ames Planning and Housing office; the Ames Home Builders Association; Brice Kelso, Dan Clausen, and Chelsea Kincheloe for help with data compilation; and survey and focus group participants. Support for this study was provided by funds from the McIntire-Stennis program, the College of Agriculture and Life Sciences, and the State of Iowa. References Arendt, R. (1996). Conservation design for subdivisions: A practical guide to creating open space networks. Washington, DC: Island Press. Arendt, R. (2004). Linked landscapes: Creating greenway corridors through conservation subdivision design strategies in the Northeastern and Central United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 68(2-3), 241–269. Austin, M. E. (2004). Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3), 245–253. Austin, M. E., & Kaplan, R. (2003). Resident involvement in natural resource management: Open space conservation design in practice. Local Environment: The International Journal of Justice and Sustainability, 8(2), 141–153. Bosworth, K. (2007). Conservation subdivision design: Perceptions and reality. Thesis. United States – MI: University of Michigan.

53

Bowman, T., & Thompson, J. (2009). Barriers to implementation of low-impact and conservation subdivision design: Developer perceptions and resident demand. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(2), 96–105. Bowman, T., Thompson, J., & Colletti, J. (2009). Valuation of open spaces and conservation features in residential subdivisions. Journal of Environmental Management, 90(1), 321–330. Bowman, T., Thompson, J., Tyndall, J., & Anderson, P. (2012). Land cover analysis for urban foresters and municipal planners: Examples from Iowa. Journal of Forestry, 110(1), 25–33. Bowman, T., Tyndall, J., Thompson, J., Kliebenstein, J., & Colletti, J. Multiple approaches to valuation of conservation design and low-impact development features in residential subdivisions. Journal of Environmental Management, in press. Coffman, L. (2000). Low-impact development design strategies, an integrated design approach. MD: Prince George’s County. Crick, J., & Prokopy, L. (2009). Prevalence of conservation design in an agriculturedominated landscape: The case of northern Indiana. Environmental Management, 43, 1048–1060. Dietz, M. E. (2007). Low impact development practices: A review of current research and recommendations for future directions. Water Air and Soil Pollution, 186(14), 351–363. Dietz, M. E., & Clausen, J. C. (2008). Stormwater runoff and export changes with development in a traditional and low impact subdivision. Journal of Environmental Management, 87(4), 560–566. Dillman, D. A. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed-mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons. Dooley, L. M., & Lindner, J. R. (2003). The handling of non-response error. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 14(4), 99–110. Gocmen, Z. (2006). Land development patterns, environmental perceptions, and residential preferences in Southeast Michigan. Dissertation. United States – MI: University of Michigan. Hamin, E. (2006). Reading (conservation subdivision) plans. Planning Theory, 5(4), 147–172. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1473095206064972 Hostetler, M., Allen, W., & Meurk, C. (2011). Conserving urban biodiversity? Creating green infrastructure is only the first step. Landscape and Urban Planning, 100, 369–371. Hostetler, M., & Drake, D. (2009). Conservation subdivisions: A wildlife perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90(3–4), 95–101. Hostetler, M., & Noiseux, K. (2010). Are green residential developments attracting environmentally savvy homeowners? Landscape and Urban Planning, 94(3–4), 234–243. Hostetler, M., Swiman, E., Prizzia, A., & Noiseux, K. (2008). Reaching residents of green communities: Evaluation of a unique environmental education program. Applied Environmental Education and Communication, 7(3), 114–124. Innes, J. E. (1998). Information in communicative planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, 64(1), 52–63. Kaplan, R., & Austin, M. E. (2004). Out in the country: Sprawl and the quest for nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3), 235–243. Kaplan, R., Austin, M. E., & Kaplan, S. (2004). Open space communities: Resident perceptions, nature benefits and problems with terminology. Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(3), 300–312. Kartez, J. D., & Casto, M. P. (2008). Information into action: Biodiversity data outreach and municipal land conservation. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(4), 467–480. Kearney, A. R. (2006). Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction: Impacts of density and nearby nature. Environment and Behavior, 38(1), 112–139. Kenwick, R. A., Shammin, M. R., & Sullivan, W. C. (2009). Preferences for riparian buffers. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91(2), 88–96. Lenth, B. A., Knight, R. L., & Gilgert, W. C. (2006). Conservation value of clustered housing developments. Conservation Biology, 20(5), 1445–1456. Milder, J. C. (2007). A framework for understanding conservation development and its ecological implications. Bioscience, 57(9), 757–768. Miller, J. R., Groom, M., Hess, G. R., Steelman, T., Stokes, D. L., Thompson, J., et al. (2009). Biodiversity conservation in local planning. Conservation Biology, 23, 53–63. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1523-1739.2008.01110.x Mohamed, R. (2006a). The economics of conservation subdivisions: Price premiums, improvement costs, and absorption rates. Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), 376–399. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1078087405282183 Mohamed, R. (2006b). The psychology of residential developers: Lessons from behavioral economics and additional explanations for satisfying. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26(1), 28–37. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0739456X05282352 Nassauer, J. I., Wang, Z., & Dayrell, E. (2009). What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms and ecological design. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92(3–4), 282–292. Noiseux, K., & Hostetler, M. (2010). Do homebuyers want green features in their communities? Environment and Behavior, 42(5), 551–580. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916508326470 Pejchar, L., Morgan, P. M., Caldwell, M. R., Palmer, C., & Daily, G. C. (2007). Evaluating the potential for conservation development: Biophysical, economic, and institutional perspectives. Conservation Biology, 21(1), 69–78. Ryan, R. L. (2006). Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England. Landscape and Urban Planning, 75(1–2), 5–22.

54

T. Bowman et al. / Landscape and Urban Planning 107 (2012) 43–54

Secchi, S., Tyndall, J., Schulte, L., & Asbjornsen, H. (2008). High crop prices and conservation: Raising the stakes. Journal of Soil and Water Conservation, 63(3), 68–75. Stokes, D. L., Hanson, M. F., Oaks, D. D., Straub, J. E., & Ponio, A. V. (2010). Local landuse planning to conserve biodiversity: Planners’ perspectives on what works. Conservation Biology, 24(2), 450–460. Stone, J. (2004). Paving over paradise: How land use regulations promote residential imperviousness. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(1), 101–113. Svelka, T. (2004). Subdivision development: Risk, profit, and developer surveys. Appraisal Journal, Summer, 242–252. Thompson, R. H. (2004). Overcoming barriers to ecologically sensitive land management – Conservation subdivisions, green developments, and the development of a land ethic. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(2), 141–153.

US Census Bureau (2011). State and county quick facts. http://quickfacts.census. gov/qfd/states/19000.html (retrieved 30.01.12). Vogt, C. A., & Marans, R. W. (2004). Natural resources and open space in the residential decision process: A study of recent movers to fringe counties in Southeast Michigan. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2-3), 255–269. Westbrook, S. (2010). Residential developers’ perception of ecological alternatives for exurban and suburban development. Thesis. United States – MI: University of Michigan. Zheng, B., Zhang, Y., & Chen, J. (2010). Preference to home landscape: Wildness or neatness? Landscape and Urban Planning, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j. landurbplan.2010.08.006