Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers about preserving rural character in New England

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.10.005Get rights and content

Abstract

Rural areas across North America are experiencing unprecedented residential development that negatively impact the rural character that attracts new residents to these areas in the first place. This study looks at the three groups that influence residential sprawl in rural areas on the urban fringe: planners, homebuilders, and local citizens. This study in rural New England included both written surveys in the form of a photo-questionnaire, as well as interviews with planners and homebuilders about their attitudes toward development and open space preservation and their perceptions of rural character. Scenes of both traditional and innovative rural areas were used to elicit participants’ perceptions about the type of development, which they consider to be compatible with rural New England. The results of the survey showed many similarities between the three groups, but in some cases the “expert” planners revealed a more limited view of compatible development than did either local residents or homebuilders. Furthermore, homebuilders indicated that experimentation with innovative subdivision design was discouraged by current local planning laws. This study has planning implications for those interested in preserving rural character through innovative subdivision design, as well as reveals new insights into what attracts people to move to rural areas.

Introduction

Suburban sprawl is a phenomenon that affects the rural countryside on the edge of metropolitan areas throughout North America and Europe. In the United States in particular, urban sprawl often takes the form of low-density residential subdivisions (Johnson and Beale, 1995). The amount of land consumed by urban sprawl is tremendous; the National Resources Inventory estimates that between 1992 and 2002, 20 million acres of land were developed (USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2004). This low-density development has serious environmental impacts on water quality and habitat, as well as serious social costs in the form of traffic congestion and cost of municipal services. The impact of urban sprawl on agriculture is particularly acute as one-third of the nation's farms are in metropolitan regions (Heimlich and Anderson, 2001). However, it is often the visual impacts of rural residential sprawl that is most apparent to local residents of these areas. As farmland and woods are developed, the rural character of the countryside is seriously degraded, which can have negative impacts on the scenic quality and the local tourist industry.

Urban sprawl is particularly acute in New England. The southern part of the region has a high population density – the state of Massachusetts averages 784 people per square mile; the third highest density in the nation (US Census Bureau, 2000). Furthermore, the proximity of major cities places rural areas in easy reach of commuters. New England relies heavily on its scenic and historic landscape for tourism, the region's second largest industry. Urban sprawl threatens New England's rural character, which is cherished by local residents and tourists alike.

Local planning units in New England, as in many part of the United States, wield considerable power in making the planning decisions that have resulted in the rapid residential development of the rural countryside (Pendall, 1999). The decisions regarding where and in what form to build new residential development are shared by three groups: local residents, planners, and developers. Local residents make up the local planning boards, attend public meetings, and often vote on decisions regarding community master plans and zoning changes. Thus, the role of the professional planner is as advisor to the local planning boards who are a small committee of private citizens that make most planning decisions. Professional planners bring the expertise to develop planning and zoning recommendations for public approval, as well as review new development proposals for compliance with local planning regulations. Residential developers, primarily from the private sector, are often perceived as the major force creating residential sprawl. However to be fair, developers are limited by local planning and zoning regulations and while they often reap the financial rewards from new development, they also take the financial risks. In the United States, developers are often members of homebuilder associations. The term, “homebuilder” usually refers to a general contractor who may build a single custom home, as well as a company who builds entire subdivisions. This latter term will be used throughout this paper, because residential development in rural New England is often led by individual homebuilders who develop small subdivisions or individual homes. Understanding the diverse attitudes of these three groups toward new residential development and preserving rural character is the focus of this research study.

Section snippets

Background

Rural areas across North America have seen a major influx of new residents (Johnson and Beale, 1995). New residents are drawn to the rural–urban fringe by affordability, large lots (Davis et al., 1994), privacy (Joseph et al., 1989), and the proximity to open space and other natural areas (Ryan, 2002, Austin and Kaplan, 2002). The ambience or rural character of these areas is another more intangible draw for people moving to the country. Unfortunately, as more people move to these areas, the

Study area

The study involved residents in the western Massachusetts town of Sunderland; as well as homebuilders and professional planners from the entire western Massachusetts region. The town is approximately 90 mile west of the Boston metropolitan area and 25 miles north of Springfield, Massachusetts. The town of Sunderland has a smaller population of 3777 residents (US Census Bureau, 2000) and is 14.77 square miles in area. Dominated by rich farmland along the Connecticut River and a large forested

Results

Preserving rural character was rated extremely important by all three groups of study participants, particularly local residents who gave it a significantly higher rating than did the homebuilders (Table 1). These results show that even planners and homebuilders believe that residents of the towns in which they work think preserving rural character is important.

Study participants were also asked the extent to which the area of town in which they live or work (in the case of builders and

Discussion

The role of the landscape architect and planner in preserving rural character has been described as one of melding new land uses with historic and cultural patterns of the rural landscape (Millage and Tysdal, 1986). However, even without new residential development, changing agricultural practices are reshaping the rural landscape (Coen et al., 1987). The small fields surrounded by stone walls that are quintessentially New England were made economically uncompetitive by Midwestern agriculture

Acknowledgments

Funding for this study was provided by a Hatch grant (#MAS00818) from the USDA Experiment Station at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst and a Healey Endowment Grant from the Office of Research Affairs at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst. This project was conducted in conjunction with the Center for Rural Massachusetts. Thanks go to the office of Dodson Associates in Ashfield, Massachusetts for providing us with many examples of innovative subdivision design. Thanks go to the

Robert L. Ryan is an Associate Professor at the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he teaches courses in landscape planning, research methods, and environment and behavior studies. He holds a PhD in Natural Resources (Environment and Behavior Concentration), Master in Landscape Architecture and Master of Urban Planning degrees from the University of Michigan and Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture from California

References (38)

  • D. Coen et al.

    Landscape architecture in the rural landscape

    Landscape Architecture Technical Information Series No. 10

    (1987)
  • L.J. Cronbach

    Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests

    Psychometrika

    (1951)
  • T.L. Daniels

    Where does cluster zoning fit in farmland preservation?

    J. Am. Plann. Assoc.

    (1997)
  • T.L. Daniels et al.

    Holding Our Ground: Protecting America's Farms and Farmland

    (1997)
  • J.S. Davis et al.

    The New ’burbs: the exurbs and their implications for planning policy

    J. Am. Plann. Assoc.

    (1994)
  • Heimlich, R.E., Anderson, W.D. 2001. Development at the Urban Fringe: Impacts on Agricultural and Rural Land....
  • Heyer, F., 1990. Preserving Rural Character. Planning Advisory Service Report No. 429. American Planning Association,...
  • P. Hubbard

    Diverging attitudes of planners and the public: an examination of architectural interpretation

    J. Archit. Plann. Res.

    (1997)
  • T. Hudspeth

    Visual preference as a tool for facilitating citizen participation in urban waterfront revitalization

    J. Environ. Manage.

    (1986)
  • Cited by (66)

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    Robert L. Ryan is an Associate Professor at the Department of Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning, University of Massachusetts, Amherst where he teaches courses in landscape planning, research methods, and environment and behavior studies. He holds a PhD in Natural Resources (Environment and Behavior Concentration), Master in Landscape Architecture and Master of Urban Planning degrees from the University of Michigan and Bachelor of Science in Landscape Architecture from California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. His research has focused on landscape planning and environmental psychology including the study of place attachment. He is the co-author with Rachel and Stephen Kaplan of With People in Mind: Design and Management of Everyday Nature (Island Press, 1998). In addition, he is the co-director of the New England Greenways Project with Julius Gy. Fabos and Mark Lindhult (www.umass.edu/greenway). He has co-edited two special issues of Landscape and Urban Planning that are devoted to the international greenway movement.

    View full text