Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby
Introduction
Where once there was forest the land was cleared. Roads were built. Big houses went up. Sod was laid down on bare soil. People moved in. For these new residents this became their dream home “out in the country.”
The flight to the country is not a recent phenomenon. In recent decades, however, the dilemmas caused by the massive transformation of the landscape have received increasing recognition internationally. Sprawl has become a problem of national proportion in the United States. Among its characteristics are: low-density developments, reliance on automobiles, lack of centralized planning, and segregated land uses and land covers (Brown, 2001). Despite all the negative ramifications, the leap-frogging continues. More big houses on big lots appear in yet another area that had recently been a field, farm, or forest.
People who move to these new locations likely do not cherish the longer commutes and dependence on their cars. Among the tradeoffs that make living “out in the country” an attraction are being closer to “nature” and having “space.” The purpose of this study is to examine what these concepts mean to individuals who decide to live in new commuter-based subdivisions at the urban fringe. While these homeowners live in an area that is still relatively rural, their subdivisions are emblematic of suburban sprawl with relatively large lots and substantial lawns.
There is a sizable literature that documents the desire for and benefits of having access to nearby natural areas (e.g., Schroeder, 1988, Kaplan and Kaplan, 1989, Frumkin, 2001). There is also indication that knowledge of the availability of nature plays an important role whether or not residents actively engage with it (Kaplan, 1984a) and that having natural elements in the view from the window is a source of psychological benefits (Kaplan, 2001).
There are many ways to satisfy these desires and benefits from the nearby natural environment. Residential developments at the urban fringe, however, all too often meet these desires at great environmental cost (Benfield et al., 1999). Existing forestland is removed to make room for homes; habitat for wildlife is destroyed; impervious surfaces are increased; and the chemicals used to maintain vast lawns are unhealthy for entire watersheds. It is thus important to examine whether the desire for space and for living close to nature can be satisfied in ways that are more environmentally sustainable. This study explores a variety of natural settings available to the homeowners and their satisfactions with the patterns of nature available to them. Such information can help determine if there are ways of structuring developments in natural areas so that they simultaneously provide satisfaction for homeowners and protection for the environment.
Section snippets
Study site and participants
The study was conducted in southeastern Michigan in Hamburg Township, an area that was formerly a summer resort community. Its 30 lakes and 10 miles (16 km) of river are still a major attraction, as is its proximity to major transportation routes and reasonable commute to Detroit (Stanford, 1999). Hamburg Township is one of the fastest growing townships in Michigan’s fastest growing county, Livingston (Livingston County Data Book, 2000).
In the early 1990s Hamburg Township enacted an
How would you describe your neighborhood to a friend?
The 949 responses to the open-ended question about describing the neighborhood to a friend represent an average of just over four responses per participant. A coding manual was developed based on these responses with inter-rater reliability between the two researchers of r=0.98. The eight categories are listed in Table 2, both in terms of their occurrence in the participants’ responses and their position as first to be mentioned.
Nature/open space was by far the most frequently used category
Discussion
Participants in the study are the first owners of homes in a fast growing, relatively rural township. Their residential communities have few if any jobs or services in walking distance and provide no public transportation. These communities are characterized by lots ranging between 0.5 and 2 acres (0.2–0.8 ha) with no fences to mark boundaries. They have large mowed areas, trees, and landscaping around the individual homes and at the entrances to the subdivisions, and individuals may have
Conclusion
The flight to the countryside represents a complex array of human desires. This research provides evidence that the proximity to the natural environment plays a particularly important role for residents living in new subdivisions at the urban fringe. The process of developing new residential communities in these areas, however, often destroys these very qualities (Kaplan, 1984b) and the nearby woodlands that made a residential community attractive may soon become the site of another residential
Acknowledgements
The work reported here was supported, in part, by the US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service North Central Research Station (Project 23-1999-20-RJVA). Our thanks to Paul Gobster and two anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments on the manuscript.
Rachel Kaplan is the Samuel T. Dana Professor of Environment and Behavior in the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, where she is also a professor in the department of psychology. Her research focus on benefits of natural environments to human well-being is reflected in two co-authored volumes, Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective and With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature, as well as numerous other publications.
References (15)
Impact of urban nature: a theoretical analysis
Urban Ecol.
(1984)- Arendt, R., 1996. Conservation Design for Subdivisions: A Practical Guide to Creating Open Space Networks. Island...
- Arendt, R., 1999. Growing Greener: Putting Conservation into Local Plans and Ordinances. Island Press, Washington,...
- Austin, M.E., 2003. Resident perspectives of the open space conservation subdivision in Hamburg Township, Michigan....
- Benfield, F.K., Raimi, M.D., Chen, D.D.T., 1999. Once There Were Greenfields. Natural Resources Defense Council, New...
Sprawl in rural America: what it is and how it affects communities
Small Town
(2001)Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment
Am. J. Prev. Med.
(2001)
Cited by (117)
Landscape character assessment, perception surveys of stakeholders and SWOT analysis: A holistic approach to historical public park management
2021, Journal of Outdoor Recreation and TourismCitation Excerpt :Natural environments are generally preferred over many other environments (Kaplan & Kaplan, 1989); the current study as well as many other studies showed this. Kaplan and Austin (2004) showed the preference of people for the availability of forests among other forms of natural settings (manicured/landscaped areas, trees, gardens, mowed, areas, open fields, and wetlands). Employees showed a preference for the presence of naturalistic vegetation over mowed and groomed planted areas near their workplace (Kaplan, 2007).
Landscaping preferences influence neighborhood satisfaction and yard management decisions
2021, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningCitation Excerpt :In particular, the shape and size of forest patches in a neighborhood influence resident satisfaction (Ellis et al., 2006; Lee et al., 2008). The presence of shared open space, such as parks or nature preserves, also positively influences satisfaction Kearney, 2006), even for residents who do not physically visit the space (Kaplan, 1985; Kaplan and Austin, 2004). Likewise, Kearney (2006) found people living in subdivisions closer to preserved open space expressed stronger satisfaction with the natural environment of their neighborhood.
Hidden outlaws in the forest? A legal and spatial analysis of onshore wind energy in Germany
2019, Energy Research and Social ScienceCharacteristics of urban parks and their relation to user well-being
2019, Landscape and Urban PlanningPreferences for green infrastructure and green stormwater infrastructure in urban landscapes: Differences between designers and laypeople
2019, Urban Forestry and Urban GreeningCentrally located yet close to nature: A prescriptive agent-based model for urban design
2019, Computers, Environment and Urban Systems
Rachel Kaplan is the Samuel T. Dana Professor of Environment and Behavior in the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan, where she is also a professor in the department of psychology. Her research focus on benefits of natural environments to human well-being is reflected in two co-authored volumes, Experience of Nature: A Psychological Perspective and With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature, as well as numerous other publications.
Maureen E. Austin is an assistant professor of environmental science and outdoor studies at Alaska Pacific University in Anchorage. Her research interests include public participation in natural resource management, in particular exploring the exchange of information between resource professionals and the public. Her research and writing focus on urban forestry, land-use planning, and community resource management. She received her master’s degree in forestry from Duke University and her PhD in community environmental education from the University of Michigan. Research for this article was conducted while serving as a research fellow at the School of Natural Resources and Environment at the University of Michigan.