Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: citizen preferences...

LANDSCAPE AND

URBAN PLANNING

Landscape and Urban Planning 29 ( I 994) 85-10 1

Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: citizen preferences for natural and developed settings

W.C. Sullivan III* Human-Environment Research Laboratory, University ofIllinois, 1201 S. Dower Drive, Urbana, IL 61801, USA

Accepted 4 April 1994

Abstract

The most dramatic changes in the American landscape today are occurring at the rural-urban fringe. There is a tremendous increase in development at the fringe, yet there has been little work to identify physical characteristics of the fringe that individuals prefer. The cost of this oversight is that development may in fact destroy the features that attracted people in the first place. This work presents new empirical evidence regarding the perceptions and preferences of the fringe on the part of the people who live there. In this study, 5 10 farmers, township planning commissioners, and other citizens living in Washtenaw County, Michigan, provided preference ratings for 32 pictures taken at the rural-urban fringe. They preferred settings including both farm and forest. Participants also preferred housing developments with mature trees over developments with few trees, and preferred settings with single family housing over those with multiple family housing. The findings are discussed in light of the trend to develop cluster housing at the rural-urban fringe, and the implications for maintaining rural character are addressed.

Keywords: Citizen preferences; Perceptions; Rural-urban fringe

1. Introduction

Edge Cities, Urban Villages, Technoburbs, Galactic Metropolis, or even TomorrowLand; whatever the name, Americans have dramati- cally changed the countryside (Lewis, 1984; Leinberger and Lockwood, 1986; Beers, 1987; Wefeld, 1988; Fishman, 1990; Gareau, 1991). The development of these new cities has occurred on what was recently farmland, range- land, or forests (Heimlich et al., 199 1 ), on land that is adjacent to, or near, older cities-land that is referred to collectively as the rural-urban fringe.

* E-mail address: Sullivan @uxl.cso.uiuc.edu.

These new Edge Cities represent the third wave of urban development during this century. As Gareau ( 1991, p. 4) describes it: “First, we moved our homes out past the traditional idea of what constituted a city. This was the suburbani- zation of America. Then . . . we moved our mar- ketplaces out to where we lived. This was the malling of America. Today, we have moved our means of creating wealth, the essence of urban- ism-our jobs-out to where most of us have lived and shopped for two generations. [This] has led to the rise of Edge City.”

Growth at the rural-urban fringe presents a complex challenge to planners and designers. Planners and designers share a goal of creating habitable, economically viable places. Yet deci-

0169-2046/94/$07.00 0 1994 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved SSDIO169-2046(94)00170-S

86 I+‘.<‘. Sulliwtz / Lundscapc md Lkharr Plutlrling 29 (1994) CYS- IO1

sions about the development of farmland, range- land, and forests tend to be driven by economic considerations that all too often ignore the non- economic values people have for places (S. Ka- plan, 1984). While economic concerns are important,‘there is growing recognition of the crit- ical role the places we inhabit have in our lives. Hiss argues, “the places where we spend our time affect the people we are and can become . . . places have an impact on our sense of self, our sense of safety, the kind of work we get done, the ways we interact with other people, even our ability to function as citizens in a democracy” ( 1990, p. xi).

Considering the tremendous increase in development at the rural-urban fringe’, there has been little empirical work to identify the physical characteristics of this landscape that matter to individuals. On the one hand, a number of writ- ers have described general preferences of North Americans for rural settings (Lewis, 1984), and other non-urban settings (Schmitt, 1969; Jack- son, 1985 ), and the preferences for nature are well recognized (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989; Relf, 1992).0n the other hand, however, there is a recognition that individuals differ in their preferences for specific settings (Talbot et al., 1987)) and that variation exists not only between urban and rural dwellers, but also between individuals from different regions within North America (Hiss, 1990).

Several questions are pressing. How do people who live at the rural-urban fringe perceive their surroundings? What do they like most, and least, about the ways the fringe is configured? Are they of one mind in their perceptions? What is the relationship between current development trends and citizen preferences? This paper sheds light on these questions by describing the results of a study that examines the relationship between current residential development strategies and the preferences of individuals who live at the ru-

’ For a comprehensive review of the factors that have led to the increased development of the countryside, as well as a

discussion of the implications of this development, see Nel-

son (1992).

ral-urban fringe in a rapidly growing portion of the State of Michigan.

The concepts of environmental psychology provide an important basis for examining the appropriateness of proposed or existing developments. The fundamental premise of environmental psychology is that physical environments have significant and measurable effects on people, and that an understanding of these effects can suggest guidelines for designing more humane and beneficial settings (Frey, 198 1). An effec- tive method for assessing the relationship between individuals and a specific setting involves the measurement of preference.

I. 1. Preference

A necessary ingredient in evolution is that animals prefer the kinds of environments in which they thrive (Charlesworth, 1976; S. Kaplan, 1988 ). This tendency, called habitat selection, is the inclination, for each species, to show a preference for those places in which successful ad- aptation of that species is more likely (Wecker, 1964 ). Humans are no exception to this (Wood- cock, 1982 ) .

Within the framework described by Kaplan and Kaplan ( 1982, 1989 ), human preference can be viewed as an expression of bias towards adaptively suitable environments, environments that include elements and spaces that are useful and supportive for human functioning. According to this framework, the study of preference concen- trates on the types of environments and the kinds of cognitive processes that have been especially important in human evolution.

Humans interpret the environment in terms of their needs and prefer settings in which they are likely to function effectively. This study, therefore, used measures of preference for various natural and developed settings to assesses the rural-urban fringe.

1.2. Contact with nature

New residential development at the rural-urban fringe occurs in settings that can provide considerable contact with nature. Contact with

W.C. Sullivan /Landscape and Urban Planning 29 (1994) 85-101 87

nature offers compelling and wide ranging benefits to individuals (Talbot et al., 1987). These benefits can accrue to individuals who are ac- tively involved in outdoor recreation, as well as to those who are observing or contemplating nature at their doorstep (R. Kaplan, 1984).

The availability of, and interaction with, natural environments are vital sources of satisfaction. Frey ( 198 1) reported higher levels of both neighborhood and life satisfactions among people who participated in gardening and other nature related activities near their homes. Kaplan and Kaplan ( 1989) report that satisfaction can be more closely related to the perceived availability of a setting than with its use. Talbot et al. ( 1987) show that some areas for which residents expressed the highest preference were those that they frequented least often. In other words, one does not have to be active outdoors to benefit from natural settings.

Natural elements are often the dominant features of low density residential developments. These natural features undoubtedly provide residents of such settings with a great deal of satisfaction. This study investigates the relationship between varying amounts of nature and preference for developments at the rural-urban fringe.

2. Methods

In order to appraise individuals’ attitudes regarding growth at the rural-urban fringe, a photo- questionnaire was developed and distributed to a sample of people in Washtenaw County, MI. Washtenaw County is located in southeastern Michigan, approximately 30 miles west of De- troit. Ann Arbor, the county seat, and three other cities, Milan, Saline, and Ypsilanti, are located within the county. The county is also home to four incorporated villages: Barton Hills, Chel- sea, Dexter, and Manchester. About 80% of the land in the county is devoted to non-metropolitan uses (Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission, 1987 ) .

The study site, Washtenaw County, MI, is rep- resentative of many areas experiencing growth at the rural-urban fringe. Garreau ( 199 1) identi-

fied Ann Arbor as one of nearly 200 “edge cities”. The United States Bureau of the Census reported that Washtenaw County grew from a population of almost 265 000 people in 1980 to more than 280 000 people in 1990, almost a 6% increase (Magner, 1990). The vast majority of this growth occurred in the county’s rural areas adjacent to Ann Arbor and Saline. Residential and commercial growth within the county have become important political issues during this time. Newspaper headlines such as “Pittsfield Township to ‘hold the line’ on development” (Rogers, 1990a), “Development out of control in Ann Arbor” (Huhn, 1990)) “Television parts plant spurs growth in Saline: City prepares for the arrival of 400 families” (Rogers, 1990b) and “Township residents like rural living” (Ann Ar- bor News, 1991) hint at the contradictory way in which county citizens view growth. On the one hand, people seem pleased that growth brings new jobs to the county. On the other hand, rural dwellers are very protective about keeping their communities “rural” and are annoyed at new residential growth. These concerns seem war- ranted, given that there were 24 new residential subdivisions approved for development within the county during 1989 (Lloyd, 1990).

2.1. Images of the rural-urban fringe

How do people who live at the rural-urban fringe perceive their surroundings? What do they like most, and least, about the way in which the fringe is configured? Do current development patterns reflect people’s preferences? A photo- questionnaire was designed to address these concerns.

The photo-questionnaire included 32 black and white photographs taken at the rural-urban fringe in Washtenaw County. None of the photos were taken in the cities or the incorporated villages within the county. The images represent the kinds of development visible at the rural-urban fringe near Ann Arbor, Dexter, Milan, Saline, and Yp- silanti. The 32 photographs reproduced in the questionnaire were selected from an original set of over 200. Pictures with particularly dramatic composition or striking features were elimi-

88 cI:C, Sulliran /Landscape md C’rhun Pluntting 29 (1994) R5- 101

nated, as were pictures that included people or animals.

The photographs consisted of scenes of farmland bordered by woods, wooded areas, and a variety of residential settings, including multiple family cluster housing and single family housing on small and large lots. This variety of housing types was included in the questionnaire because it represents the predominant types of development occurring at the rural-urban fringe today (Yaro et al., 1987; Nelson, 1992). The farmland and forest scenes were included in the questionnaire because they may be lost as a result of further development. As such, these scenes can be thought of as “before” scenes.

Participants were asked to indicate their preference for the pictures by circling a number on a five-point scale located beneath each photo- graph. A 1 on the scale denoted very low preference, while a 5 denoted very high preference. Black and white photographs offer a low cost approach to providing visual images. A number of studies have demonstrated that these procedures pose no problems in obtaining people’s reactions to such scenes (Frey, 198 1; Kaplan, 1979; Ham- mitt, 1978; Yang, 1988).

The questionnaire also included a number of background items designed to determine the participants’ housing type (single or multiple family), lot size, home ownership, household composition, length of residence at their current address, age, and employment status.

2.2. Participants

Three groups of Washtenaw County residents participated in this study: ( 1) township planning commissioners; (2) farmers; (3) citizens living at the rural-urban fringe. Each of the county’s 133 township planning commissioners and 456 farm operators and owners were mailed a questionnaire. Nine-hundred and ninety-six county residents who were not farmers or township planning commissioners, and who lived in unincorporated portions of the county (the “citizens” sample), were also mailed questionnaires. A total of 1585 questionnaires was mailed.

The names and addresses of these 1585 indi-

viduals came from three sources. The township planning commissioners’ names and addresses came from the Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission: 1990 Directory. Names and addresses of the farmers came from the files of the Washtenaw County Agricultural Stabili- zation and Conservation Service, a division of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. The names and addresses of the citizens were purchased from Washtenaw Lists, a company located in Ann Arbor, MI, that specializes in maintaining lists of addresses. The procedure used for selecting the citizens’ names and addresses is described below.

Citizens living at the rural-urban fringe within 16 of the county’s 20 townships were mailed questionnaires. Citizens in Ann Arbor and Yp- silanti Townships were not included in the mailing list because these townships are predomi- nantly urban. Citizens in Manchester and Sharon Townships were not included in the mailing list because these townships were thought to be under minimal pressure to add new housing or commercial enterprises.

Within each of the remaining 16 townships, two to seven roads were identified and compiled in an inventory. A road, or a portion of a road, was eligible to be included in this inventory as long as it did not pass through a city or incorporated village. All state highways (e.g. M52 ) were excluded from the inventory. This inventory contained a total of 75 county roads and was supplied to Washtenaw Lists. Washtenaw Lists provided a name and address for each household located on these roads; a total of 1603 households. A random selection of these households produced the final set of 996 names and addresses of citizens’. A reminder postcard was sent to the entire sample 3 weeks after the original mailing. Ten individuals called requesting another copy of the questionnaire.

Of the 1585 questionnaires that were mailed,

’ The 996 names were selected by determining a random starting point on the original list of 1603 households and choosing two of three names that followed until 1000 households had been selected. Four households had incomplete addresses, were not retained. and were not replaced.


the post office returned 15 as undeliverable. Five of the 15 were addressed to farmers and the remaining ten were addressed to citizens. A total of 1570 questionnaires was delivered; 5 15 were filled out and returned. Of these, 5 10 were coded and used in the data analysis, for a final return rate of 32.5%. The remaining live questionnaires were received too late to be entered into the data file, and were omitted from the analysis.

The three groups surveyed had considerably different response rates. Township planning commissioners returned 73 of the 133 questionnaires mailed to them, for a return rate of 54.9%. The return rate for the farmers was 36.8% (166 of the 45 1 questionnaires delivered). The return rate for the citizens3 was 27.3% (269 of the 986 questionnaires ) .

2.3. Data analysis

The initial step employed dimensional analysis techniques in an effort to identify and understand the underlying categories associated with a given set of variables. Dimensional analysis techniques allow an analyst to discover (or ver- ify) underlying categories that relate to a set of chosen variables. The distinguishing characteristic of this analytic approach is the assumption that observed covariation is due to some underlying common categories. Two such procedures were used in this study; the Guttman-Lingoes Smallest Space Analysis (55A-In) (Lingoes, 1972) and ICLUST (Kulik et al., 1970).

In order to determine inclusion of any item in a specific category, four widely accepted deci- sion rules have been employed (Kaplan and Ka- plan, 1989, p. 2 14). These rules include the following.

( 1) An item must have a factor loading of at least ? 0.40.

(2 ) Categories must have eigenvalues that are greater than or equal to 1 .OO (an eigenvalue is a

3 For brevity, the participants in this study are categorized as Farmers, Planners and Citizens. Participating farmers and planners were indeed citizens. The categorization is used, however, to avoid identifying one group, for example, as the non-farm-non-planner-citizens.

measure of amount of variance explained by each category).

(3 ) An item that has a loading greater than 0.40 on two or more categories will not be included in the definition of any of the categories.

(4) To be designated as a category, at least two items must meet the previous requirements.

After completing the dimensional analysis tasks, the data were prepared for further exami- nation by computing a set of new variables. These new variables represent each participant’s mean rating for the items constituting each identified category. Much of the investigation that follows employs these category means as dependent variables. For the final phase of data analysis, standard statistical procedures such as analysis of variance and Student’s t-tests were used to ex- amine the relationship between independent and dependent variables.

3. General characteristics

Thirty-two images of Washtenaw County’s rural-urban fringe were rated by 5 10 participants. The overall mean for the 32 photographs was 3.2 (on a live-point scale ). The means for specific pictures ranged from 1.4 to 4.5. The preference scores are slightly skewed toward the high end of the scale. It is fair to say that, in general, the participants liked the images.

One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the overall preference mean of commissioners, farmers, and citizens. No significant differences were found among the groups; in fact, the overall means were almost identical.

4. Perceptual categories of the rural-urban fringe

Five distinct categories were generated using dimensional analysis of the preference data. Two of the original 32 images had loadings greater than 0.40 on two of the five categories, and therefore were not included in further analysis. The categories are described below.

4.1. Farm and Fores1

The Farm and Forest category consists of ten scenes (Fig. 1 ), each including some forested land. In five cases a majority of the scenes showed near views of a forest in which the foreground texture consisted of closely mowed grass. These pictures were taken on the grounds of a housing development, and look through a hedgerow to farmland. A person in these settings would find

it easy to move around, a characteristic that is often associated with higher preference (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982 ). The remaining live scenes in this category contained views of agricultural land with forested land or hedgerows serving as a backdrop.

It was surprising that the forest scenes and the agricultural scenes combined to form a single category. That they did reinforced the importance of plant material in defining this category.

W.C. Sullivan /Landscape and Urban Planning 29 (1994) 85 101 91

Fig. 1. Examples from the Farm and Forest category.

In fact none of these scenes show buildings and all scenes without buildings are included in this category.

Each scene in this category received a high mean rating, between 4.3 and 4.5. This category was the most preferred of the five categories; its mean of 4.4 is very high when compared with preference research in general. In a review of over two decades of preference research, Kaplan and

Kaplan ( 1989 ) report that “it is most unusual to find a grouping with a mean of 4.0 or higher...”

(P. 42). One reason for such a high mean rating may

be related to the absence of buildings in these scenes. Natural features, as a number of studies have demonstrated (Herzog et al., 1982; R. Ka- plan, 1985; Yang, 1988 ), are strong and perva- sive predictors of preference. Not all natural fea-

tures, however, have received such high ratings in past research.

Along with their natural features, the scenes in this category share another characteristic: a sense of spatial definition. Each of the ten scenes con- tains several edges. Spaces are defined by the edges created at the juncture of farm and forest, between crops, and at the seam along which pas- ture grass and wooded lot are joined. Kaplan and Kaplan reported that people consistently prefer natural settings that “are open, yet defined” ( 1989, p. 48). In spatially defined settings such as these scenes of open forests and conlined crop land, it is easy for individuals to judge where they might venture safely and what to expect. Such scenes tend to be highly favored.

4.2. Farm House

Each of the five scenes comprising the Farm House category (Fig. 2) included an older two- story home, mature trees, and a relatively small grass lawn. The trees in these images are distinct from the trees in any other category. These trees are widely spaced, have well developed, full, broad crowns with branches that begin a few feet from the ground. In each case, views of the house are partially obscured by trees.

A second characteristic that distinguishes this category is that the houses are set close to the road. Four of the five images in this category show a portion of the road located in front of the house. Mean preference for this category was nearly a full scale point lower than the Farm and Forest category. The mean was 3.5, with a range of 3.2-3.8.

4.3. Large-Lot

The Large-Lot category included five scenes with houses that sit back from the road, on deep, large lots (Fig. 3 ) . The foreground of these scenes included a portion of the road, and a substantial expanse of grass that led directly to the house. While each of the live scenes included mature trees in the background, this category is characterized by a lack of trees in the foreground. Means

within this category fall between 2.9 and 3.2. The mean rating for the group was 3.1.

A vast, open, undistinguished foreground appeared in each image. These front yards are ex- posed, and lack a sense of scale, or pattern, pre- senting the risk that one may be caught in a wide- open area. Appleton ( 1975) and Kaplan and Kaplan ( 1982) argue that such settings should not be preferred by humans. It would be difficult to find shelter in any of the front yards included in this category, which may explain the lower preference mean earned by this group of pictures. On the other hand, if viewed in terms of one’s estate, then having this openness might af- ford opportunities for unhindered seeing; a characteristic Appleton ( 1975 ) calls “prospect” and argues should enhance preference.

Five scenes, each showing one- and two-story multiple family housing units, and a considerable amount of plant material, make up the Mul- tiple Family with Nature category (Fig. 4). These images were taken in a “clustered housing development” (Yaro et al., 1987). The housing units in these scenes, while clustered together, do not give the impression of great density. Given the angles at which these pictures were taken, it is not clear that the units are indeed attached to one another. Still, when compared with the two previous categories, the housing in these scenes is considerably more dense. Means within the category ranged from 2.5 to 3.1. The mean rating for this group was 2.7, significantly lower than any of the previously described categories.

The density of housing and trees is a distinguishing visual characteristic between the Mul- tiple Family with Nature category and the Farm House category. Within both categories, the images showed well maintained housing that was close to the road. The Farm House scenes included only one house, while there were a number of housing units in each of the Multiple Fam- ily with Nature scenes. The trees in the Farm House category were broad- crowned, and widely spaced, they created shady places in the front yards. Some of the trees in the Multiple Family

U’.C. Sullivan /Landscape and Urban Plannin,~ 29 (1994) X- 101 93

Fig. 2. Examples from the Farm House category

with Nature category, however, were so dense that they created a dark woods near some of the residences. For some, the density of these trees may have had an ominous or foreboding quality.

4.5. Multiple Family without Nature

As with the previous three categories, the Mul- tiple Family without Nature category included

five images. These scenes are typified by one-, two-, and three-story multiple family housing units in settings that are nearly devoid of plant material (Fig. 5). These scenes show considerably more housing units per acre than the Mul- tiple Family With Nature images. The mean ratings for these images ranged from 1.4 to 1.8. The category mean was a very low 1.5, more than a full point lower than the previous category. Ka-

Fig. 3. Examples from the Large-Lot category.

plan and Kaplan ( 1989, p. 42) report that “it is most unusual to find a grouping . . . that is at 2.0 or lower”. It is fair to say that the participants found these images undesirable.

Several factors are likely to contribute to this low preference. The density of housing itself may be a problem. The architectural uniformity also adds a faceless quality to these scenes. Further- more, there is a striking lack of trees. Because of

these factors (density, uniformity, lack of trees that might serve as landmarks) these images would rate low in legibility (the sense that one could wander into the scene and explore without getting lost), an important component in landscape preference (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1982 ) .

The five categories are thus distinct in terms of both the role that natural elements play and the density and type of housing. The preference

W.C. Sullivan /Landscape and Urban Planning 29 (I 994) &i-l01 95

Fig. 4. Examples from the Multiple Family with Nature category.

U’.C. Sulhan /Landscape and Urban Planttitzg 29 (1994) X.C- IO1

Fig. 5. Examples from the Multiple Family without Nature category

means range widely between 1.5 and 4.4 and, in fact, the preferences are significantly different from each other.

4.4. Discussion

ings for the Farm and Forest category? (2) What role do trees play in shaping prefer,

ences for scenes at the rural-urban fringe? (3) How do the results presented here corn,

pare with conventional views of residential de, velopment at the rural-urban fringe?

The results of the photo preferences raise the following three issues.

( 1) Why are there such high preference rat-


4.6.1. Preference research on agricultural land Forested scenes often have been shown to be

highly preferred. In contrast, there has been relatively little preference research on farmland. Open farmland with little spatial definition has received low preference ratings. The scenes included in this study, however, did not include such settings.

The agricultural scenes in the Farm and Forest category include several qualities that are associated with high preference. While the middle ground of each scene is open, forested areas in the background act to enclose and define each setting. Also, the scenes contain foreground elements such as trees, tall grass, and in two cases, strong shadow patterns. These foreground elements imply a setting in which the observer is not in the middle of a great void, but at an edge, looking across a space.

The scenes in this category share a degree of “mystery”, consistently found to be a strong predictor of preference (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989 ). Mystery represents the promise that one could learn more by venturing deeper into a setting. “Something in the setting draws one in, encour- ages one to enter and to venture forth, thus providing an opportunity to learn something that is not immediately apparent from the original van- tage point” (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, p. 55). Mystery was expressed by the light patterns in the open forest and the meandering juxtaposi- tion of cropland and forest. These characteristics probably contributed to the high mean rating this category earned.

These results demonstrate that some agricultural scenes are highly preferred. Such scenes are characterized by spatial definition, tine textured ground surfaces, foreground details, and a degree of mystery.

4.6.2. Relationship between housing and trees The results of the photo preferences indicate

that participants prefer single family housing over multiple family housing, and housing developments with many mature trees over developments with few mature trees (see Fig. 6 ) . These results show evidence of an interaction between

the quantity of mature trees and the type of housing preferred (F= 147.6, P~O.001).

4.63. Rural residential development Yaro et al. ( 1987) argue that large-lot zoning

of rural lands leads to patterns of housing development that are wasteful and unsightly. They propose an alternative approach based on his- toric development patterns. For centuries, rural communities organized themselves based on planning principles which emphasized the development of closely-knit villages surrounded by open space. Yaro et al. call for a return to these planning principles through the use of zoning ordinances that require cluster housing and the preservation of open space. Cluster housing in- cludes both single and multiple family units.

Yaro et al. maintain that zoning ordinances that mandate minimum lot sizes (e.g. 5 or 10 acres) have grown out of well-meaning, but mis- guided efforts to preserve rural character. They suggest that rural character can indeed be pre- served if planners and citizens learn about, and begin requiring, cluster housing developments. Yet the results of the preference ratings suggest this may not be what planners, farmers, and citizens want.

The Multiple Family with Nature category provides an excellent example of the type of development that Yaro et al. advocate. Scenes in this category show clustered housing that pre- serves farm and woodland surrounding the development. Yet participants indicated a significantly greater preference for exactly the type of development that Yaro et al. disparage, the Large- Lot. Yaro recommends a development pattern for which rural-urban fringe dwellers may not be ready. Perhaps, however, there are individuals living at the fringe for whom cluster housing developments are preferred over Large-Lot type developments. The following section addresses this issue.

5. Comparison among groups

Three sets of comparisons are made in this section. The comparisons focus on the relation-

9x

I

51 I

4--l_ Mean Preference Rating

Few Many Trees Trees

Fig. 6. Mean preference for the four photo-categories that differ on housing type and quantity of trees

Table 1 Table 2 Student’s r-tests of preference ratings for five categories by housing type

Student’s I-test of prefcrcnce ratings for five categories by lot size

Category Housing I Signif.

Single Multiple :V=4?5 R’= 34

Category

Farm and Forest 4.2” 4.3” 1.20 NS Farm House 3.jh 3.4b 0.82 NS Large-Lot 3.1’ 7.5’ 3.49 0.001 Multiple Family With Nature 2.1d 3.jb 4.76 0.001 Multiple Family Without Nature 1.5’ 2.5c 1.39 0.001

Column means followed by the same letter are not signifi-

Farm and Forest 4.3” 4.5a 1.90 NS Farm House 3.5h 3.P 0.03 NS Large-Lot 3.1’ 3 IC _ ._ 1.68 NS Multiple Family With Nature 2.9’ 2.P 4.96 0.001 Multiple Family Without Nature I .6“ I.48 3.17 0.005

Column means followed by the same letter are not significantly different at P10.02. cantly different at P< 0.02.

ship between mean preference ratings for the five perceptual categories and: ( 1) township planning commissioners, farmers, and citizens; (2 ) individuals who live in single and multiple family dwellings; ( 3 ) people who live on lots of varying sizes.

(mean 3.1). Overall, commissioners, farmers, and citizens held similar preferences for images of the rural-urban fringe.

5.2. Single and multiple family dwellings

5. I. Commissioners, farmers and citizens

One-way analysis of variance was used to compare the five category preference means among commissioners, farmers, and citizens. One significant difference was found. Farmers indicated lower preference for the Multiple Family with Nature category (mean 2.5) than did citizens (mean 2.8) and commissioners

Although a proportionately small sub-sample of the study participants lived in multiple family housing, it is important to determine whether their preferences for housing type showed a different pattern. A series of Student’s t-tests compared the Iive category preference means among individuals who lived in single and multiple family dwellings (Table 1). Three significant differences appeared. Individuals living in single family dwellings showed a significantly higher

Housing 1 Signif.

5 2 acres > 2 acres :V=l84 -2 .2;- 79

W.C. Sullivan /Landscape and Urban Planning29 (1994) 85-101 99

preference for the Large-Lot category than did residents of multiple family dwellings. However, individuals living in multiple family dwellings showed a significantly higher preference for both categories that include multiple family developments (i.e. Multiple Family With Nature, and Multiple Family Without Nature) than did residents of single family dwellings.

These results show evidence of an interaction between the perceptual categories and participant’s current housing type. Farm and Forest is clearly the most preferred regardless of housing type. Those who live in multiple family settings rate the Farm House equivalent in preference to the Multiple Family with Nature, while the Large- Lot and Multiple Family without Nature categories are also equivalent and far lower in preference. Note also that Multiple Family without Nature is a full scale point higher for those living in multiple family settings than for single family dwellers. This suggests that multiple family dwellers may prefer the development patterns advocated by Yaro et al.

5.3. Lot size

A series of Student’s t-tests compared the live category preference means among individuals who lived on varying sized lots. Two significant differences were found, Participants living on relatively small lots (2 acres or less) found both Multiple Family categories more acceptable than those who lived on lots larger than two acres (Table 2 ) . Notice also that individuals living on smaller lots did not show a preference for the Large-Lot category over the Multiple Family with Nature category. These findings suggests that cluster designed housing developments may be acceptable to residents in portions of the rural- urban fringe where lot sizes are relatively small.

6. Conclusions

The dramatic changes in the way we build cities present an opportunity to provide more humane and beneficial settings-settings that reflect human preference. This study used measures

of preference to assess various images of the rural-urban fringe. Preference is viewed as an expression of bias toward adaptively suitable environments, environments that include elements and spaces that are useful and supportive to human functioning.

Participants provided preference ratings for 32 pictures taken at the rural-urban fringe in Wash- tenaw County, Michigan. Five distinct categories were generated through dimensional analysis of the preference data. The Farm and Forest category, which included no built elements, was by far the most preferred of the live categories. The other four categories included two with single family settings, Farm House and Large-Lot, that were generally preferred over two multiple family categories, Multiple Family with Nature and Multiple Family without Nature. In the case of both the single family and multiple family categories, one of the two had distinctly more tree cover than the other, and it was the preferred category.

This work presents new empirical evidence regarding the preferences and perception of the rural-urban fringe on the part of the people who live there. Examining the categories generated through dimensional analysis of the preference data reveals three factors that contribute to the perception of the fringe. These factors include: ( 1) farmland in association with woodlands; (2 ) housing type (single or multiple family); ( 3 ) the amount and density of trees.

Settings including both farm and forest are highly preferred. Along with the content of these scenes, the arrangement of farmland and forests contributes to this high preference. The scenes in the Farm and Forest category are characterized by arrangements of farmland and woodlots that result in a high degree of spatial definition. Spa- tially defined settings tend to be highly favored (Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989). Moreover, the scenes in this category share a degree of “mystery”, a characteristic consistently found to be a strong predictor of preference (Kaplan and Ka- plan, 1989). Finally, each “farm” scene is “foreground anchored”, giving the feeling of looking out on a more open area from a more enclosed area. Views from enclosed areas to open areas al-

low one to gain information about a setting while providing the viewer a measure of shelter. Such spatial configurations are undoubtedly positive factors in people’s preferences.

The high preference ratings for the Farm and Forest category signify the importance of agricultural and natural elements at the rural-urban fringe. Attempts to preserve rural character must include the preservation of agricultural land, open space, hedgerows and woodlots. Develop- ments that hope to be interpreted as having rural character should be built in close association with these elements. In the case of new development on land that lacks hedgerows or woodlots, rural character may be invoked by planting a considerable number of trees.

Participants prefer housing developments with mature trees over developments with few trees. Settings with single family housing are generally preferred to those with multiple family housing. The exceptions to this pattern offer insight into situations in which cluster housing developments are most acceptable. Preference for the Large-Lot (single family) category and the Mul- tiple Family with Nature category showed no significant difference for individuals living on relatively small lots (less than 2 acres). The Multiple Family with Nature category was rated significantly higher in preference than the Large- Lot category by the participants who reside in multiple family homes. These findings suggest that cluster housing developments are most acceptable in portions of the rural-urban fringe where lot sizes are relatively small or where multiple family housing exists.

6.1. Implications for planning boards

The general pattern of results described here may be generalize to other Midwestern counties dealing with growth at the rural-urban fringe. However, people and places differ (Talbot et al., 1987; Hiss, 1990). Municipal and county planning boards can conduct studies similar to the one described here as a way of understanding preferences of local citizens. Such studies should be based on a careful sampling of the development patterns currently in vogue, and the types

of developed and undeveloped settings that are likely to change as growth continues. Carrying out such studies will certainly lead to new insights regarding citizens’ perceptions of local character, and will shed light on the relationship between current development trends and citizens’ preferences.

6.2. Further investigation

Farmers report that development of new housing adjacent to existing farming operations brings “urban dwellers” in close contact with barnyard odors, noise, dust, slow moving vehicles and farm pesticides (Lapping et al., 1989 ). Further investigations should explore the physical connections between housing and farming in order to understand how these connections contribute to the development of satisfying places; that is, satisfying from the perspective of the new residents. and the farmers who work the surrounding land. Further investigations should also include po- tential future residents of the rural-urban fringe-individuals who reside in urban and suburban areas today.

Acknowledgements

Rachel Kaplan contributed in many ways to this paper, especially in terms of conceptual issues and interpretation of the results. Sugges- tions and comments were also made by Lisa Bardwell, Frances Kuo, and two anonymous re- viewers. I appreciate the contributions of each.

References

Ann Arbor News, 199 I. Township residents like rural living.

.4nn Arbor News. 8 January, p. A4.

.Appleton. J.. 1975. The Experience of Landscape. Wiley,

London. Beers, D.. 1987. TomorrowLand: We have seen the future.

and it is Pleasanton. San Francisco Examiner, Sunday 18 January, Image magazine. pp. 14-18.

Charlesworth, W.R., 1976. Human intelligence as adapta-

tion: An ethological approach. In: L.B. Resnick (Editor).

The Nature of Intelligence. Erlbaum. Hillsdale. NJ, pp.

147-168.

W.C. Sullivan / Landscapeand &ban Planning 29 (1994) 8S-101 101

Fishman, R.. 1990. Megalopolis unbound. Wilson Quarterly Winter.

Frey, J.E., 198 I. Preferences, satisfactions, and the physical environments of urban neighborhoods. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. (Unpublished. )

Garreau, J., 199 I. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. Dou- bleday. New York.

Hammitt. W.E., 1978. Visual and user preference for a bog environment. Doctoral dissertation, University of Mich- igan. Ann Arbor. (Unpublished. )

Heimlich, R.E., Vesterby, M. and Krupa, KS., 1991. Urban- izing farmland: Dynamics of land use change in fast- growing counties. Agric. Inf. Bull. No. 629, USDA. Wash- ington, DC.

Herzog, T.R., 1988. A cognitive analysis of preference for tield-and-forest environments. In: J.L. Nasar (Editor), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Appli- cations. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp. 343- 356.

Herzog, T.R., Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R., 1982. The predic- tion of preference for familiar urban places. Environ. Be- hav., 5: 43-59.

Hiss, T., 1990. The experience of place: A completely new way of looking at and dealing with our radically changing cities and countryside. Knopf, New York.

Huhn, K., 1990. Development out of control in Ann Arbor. The Ann Arbor News, 3 May, p. A IO.

Jackson, K.T., 1985. Crabgrass frontier: The suburbaniza- tion of the United States. Oxford University Press, New York.

Kaplan, R.. 1979. Visual resources and the public: An empirical approach. In: USDA Forest Service, Proceedings of Our National Landscape. Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-35, USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Ex- periment Station, pp. 209-2 16.

Kaplan, R., 1984. The impact of urban nature: A theoretical analysis. Urban Ecol., 8: 189-197.

Kaplan. R., 1985. Nature at the doorstep: Residential satisfaction and the nearby environment. J. Arch. Plann. Res., 2: 115-127.

Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S., 1989. The Experience of Nature: .4 psychological Perspective. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Kaplan, S., 1984. Affect and cognition in the context of home. The quest for intangibles. Popul. Environ., 7: 126-133.

Kaplan. S.. 1988. Perception and landscape: Conceptions and misconceptions. In: J.L. Nasar (Editor), Environmental Aesthetics: Theory, Research, and Applications. Cam- bridge University Press, New York, pp. 45-55.

Kaplan, S. and Kaplan, R., 1982. Cognition and Environ- ment: Functioning in an Uncertain World. Praeger, New York.

Kulik. J.A., Revelle, W.R. and Kulik, C-L.C., 1970. Scale

construction by hierarchical cluster analysis. University of Michigan Computing Center, Ann Arbor.

Lapping, M.B., Daniels, T.L. and Keller, J.W., 1989. Rural Planning and Development in the United States. The Guilford Press, New York.

Leinberger, C.B. and Lockwood, C., 1986. How business is reshaping America. The Atlantic, October, pp. 43-52.

Lewis, P.F., 1984. The galactic metropolis. In: R.H. Platt and G. Macinko (Editors), Beyond the Urban Fringe: Land Use Issues of Nonmetropolitan America. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, pp. 23-50.

Lingoes, J.C., 1972. A general survey of the Guttman-Lin- goes nonmetric program series. In: R.N. Shepard. A.K. Romney and S.B. Nerlove (Editors), Multidimensional Scaling, Vol. I. Seminar, New York.

Lloyd. J., 1990. Preserving farmland in Washtenaw County: The Potawatomi Community Land Trust. Ecol. Rep. Vol. 22, pp. l-3.

Magner, M., 1990. State loses a percentage point in population, census shows. Ann Arbor News, 19 August, p. A I.

Nelson, A.C., 1992. Characterizing exurbia. J. Plann. Lit., 6 (4): 350-368.

Relf, D., 1992. The Role of Horticulture in Human Well-being and Social Development. Timber Press, Portland.

Rogers, T., 1990a. Pittsfield Township to “hold the line” on development. The Ann Arbor News, 9 April, p. A7.

Rogers, T.. 1990b. Television parts plant spurs growth in Sa- line: City prepares for the arrival of 400 families. The Ann Arbor News, 28 May, p. A3.

Schmitt, P.J., 1969. Back to Nature: The Arcadian Myth in Urban America. Oxford University Press, New York.

Talbot, J.F., Bardwell, L.V. and Kaplan, R., 1987. The func- tions of urban nature: Uses and values of different types of urban nature settings. J. Arch. Plann. Res., 4: 47-63.

Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission, 1987. Washtenaw County Michigan: General and His- toric Information. Washtenaw County Metropolitan Planning Commission, Ann Arbor.

Wecker, S.C., 1964. Habitat selection. Sci. Am., 211 (4): 109- 116.

Wefeld, I., 1988. Where we live: The American home and the social, political, and economic landscape, from slums to suburbs. Simon & Schuster, New York.

Woodcock, D.M., 1982. A functionalist approach to environmental preference. Doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor., unpublished.

Yang, B.E., 1988. A cross-cultural comparison of preference for Korean, Japanese and Western landscape styles. Doc- toral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor., unpublished.

Yaro. R., Arendt, R.. Dodson, H. and Brabec, E., 1987. Deal- ing with change in the Connecticut River Valley: A design manual for conservation and development. Center for Rural Massachusetts, Amherst.

Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: citizen preferences...

Documents

Transcript of Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: citizen preferences...