Out in the country: sprawl and the quest for nature nearby

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2003.09.006Get rights and content

Abstract

Residential development at the rural fringe, although contributing to many environmental problems, is steadily attracting new homeowners. Among the appeals of living “out in the country” 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. Study participants (N=231), drawn from 18 residential communities in the same rural township, responded to a mailed survey that included 24 photographs of natural areas in communities such as theirs. In addition to having the scenes rated in terms of their similarity to the participants’ own setting, the survey included other approaches to assessing the perception of the nearby natural setting. Responses to one of these, an open-ended question about describing their neighborhood to a friend, showed a strong preponderance of nature-related descriptions (33% of all items mentioned). Based on the other questions, a typology of seven distinct kinds of natural areas emerged: manicured/landscaped areas, trees, gardens, mowed areas, forest, open fields, and wetlands. Using these seven nature categories to predict participants’ ratings of community satisfaction, regression analyses showed the overwhelming role played by the availability of forests. The forested scenes were also by far the most preferred. Yet forests are particularly vulnerable as new developments replace existing woodlands. The study thus points to the importance of finding ways to preserve the forested land, for environmental reasons as well as for the satisfactions derived from them by residents, neighbors, and visitors. Such protection of forests, as well as wetlands and open meadows, is more likely if these areas are seen by residents as being integral, communally owned parts of the overall development.

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)

  • R. Kaplan

    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...
  • D.M. Brown

    Sprawl in rural America: what it is and how it affects communities

    Small Town

    (2001)
  • H. Frumkin

    Beyond toxicity: human health and the natural environment

    Am. J. Prev. Med.

    (2001)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

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 Tourism
    Citation 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 Greening
    Citation 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.

View all citing articles on Scopus

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.

View full text