See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/233144975

Different Types of Open Spaces and Their Importance to Exurban

Homeowners

Article  in  Society and Natural Resources · April 2012

DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.571231

CITATIONS READS

8 2,860

4 authors, including:

Zhifang Wang Joan I. Nassauer

Peking University University of Michigan
20 PUBLICATIONS   454 CITATIONS    103 PUBLICATIONS   3,697 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Robert Marans
University of Michigan
107 PUBLICATIONS   1,971 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Measuring the Quality of Life in Famagusta (Gazimagusa) *funded by TUBITAK (The Sceintific and Technical Research Council) **partner of
the International Program of Research on Quality of Urban Life (Univ. of Michigan) View project

LCLUC Synthesis: Ecosystem-Society Interactions on a Changing Mongolian Plateau View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Zhifang Wang on 27 November 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

This article was downloaded by: [Texas A&M University Libraries]
On: 16 April 2014, At: 21:29
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Society & Natural Resources: An

International Journal
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/usnr20

Different Types of Open Spaces

and Their Importance to Exurban
Homeowners
a b c
Zhifang Wang , Joan I. Nassauer , Robert W. Marans & Daniel G.
b
Brown
a
Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning , Texas
A&M University , College Station , Texas , USA
b
School of Natural Resources and Environment , University of
Michigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan , USA
c
Institute for Social Research, Taubman College of Architecture and
Urban Planning , University of Michigan , Ann Arbor , Michigan , USA
Published online: 16 Aug 2011.

To cite this article: Zhifang Wang , Joan I. Nassauer , Robert W. Marans & Daniel G. Brown (2012)
Different Types of Open Spaces and Their Importance to Exurban Homeowners, Society & Natural
Resources: An International Journal, 25:4, 368-383, DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.571231

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/08941920.2011.571231

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever or
howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arising
out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
 Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014
 Society and Natural Resources, 25:368–383
Copyright # 2012 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 0894-1920 print=1521-0723 online
DOI: 10.1080/08941920.2011.571231

Different Types of Open Spaces and Their

Importance to Exurban Homeowners

ZHIFANG WANG
Department of Landscape Architecture and Urban Planning, Texas
A&M University, College Station, Texas, USA
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

JOAN I. NASSAUER
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

ROBERT W. MARANS
Institute for Social Research, Taubman College of Architecture and
Urban Planning, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

DANIEL G. BROWN
School of Natural Resources and Environment, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA

Exurban residential settings are relevant for understanding how societal desires for
open space impact landscapes and their ecosystem services. In a 2005 image-based
web survey of 468 exurban homeowners in southeast Michigan, we investigated
how exurban home-buying choices may be related to having open space nearby,
and we measured homeowners’ relative preferences for seven different types of
open spaces characterized by different ecosystem services. Our study confirms that
nearby open space is important to exurban homeowners, but it suggests that home-
owners are somewhat heterogeneous in their preferences for different types of open
spaces. They generally prefer forests, lakes, and streams, but their preferences for
wetlands, prairies, playgrounds, and golf courses vary somewhat with education,
age, or having children. In addition, homeowners for whom open space was less
important when they bought their home had somewhat different preferences. We
discuss the implications for protecting ecosystem services in planning, design,
and development.

Keywords conservation, ecosystem services, land use planning, landscape

perception, policy, residential development, web survey

Received 27 April 2009; accepted 19 November 2010.

Address correspondence to Zhifang Wang, Department of Landscape Architecture and
Urban Planning, 3137 TAMU, Langford A332, College Station, TX 77843-3137, USA.
E-mail: zhifangw@tamu.edu

368
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 369

Challenges for Open Space Conservation in Exurbia

People may choose to live in exurbia at least partly because they prefer to live near
open space (Daniels 1999; Gude et al. 2006), but the expansion of exurbia may dim-
inish the very open space characteristics that exurban homeowners seek. In this
study, we focus on exurban homeowners’ preferences for specific types of open
spaces, each with different characteristic ecosystem services. Preferences in the con-
text of exurban sprawl have been received little attention in past empirical studies.
Unlike preference for wild or scenic landscapes, preferences for the landscape near
one’s home is complicated by differently combined aesthetic, economic, and societal
issues (Gobster et al. 2007). Understanding the extent to which open space types with
different ecosystem services are attractive to exurban residents may help decision
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

makers limit environmentally destructive impacts of exurban development by

encouraging protection of ‘‘win–win’’ open space types that are both highly pre-
ferred and environmentally beneficial. Protecting open space types that are most pre-
ferred also may help to ensure that ecosystem services are sustained for the broader
community over time (Nassauer 1997).
Exurban residential development, which we operationalized as large lot develop-
ment with private wells and septic systems (Nassauer et al. 2009), extends beyond
urban and suburban development in many regions (Hansen and Brown 2005; Heim-
lich and Anderson 2001; White et al. 2009; Zhang et al. 2008). However, increases in
exurban residential development are associated with open space losses (Burchell and
Mukherji 2003; Hansen et al. 2005). The open space concept is often imprecisely
defined and varies with its use (Appler 2004); one often-used definition includes
all unbuilt landscapes, whether privately or publically owned (Ahern 2007; Benedict
and McMahon 2002; Hollis and Fulton 2002). In this study, we adopted this defi-
nition, including open space types such as forests, lakes, wetlands, playing fields,
and golf courses.
Land use planning and management must balance the natural and cultural eco-
system services offered by different open space types. Cultural acceptance is essential
to maintaining ecosystem services (Daily 1993; Nassauer 1992). If beneficial open
space ecosystems are not also visually attractive, exurban residents may not value
and protect them over time (Nassauer 1997). In addition, the attractiveness of open
space is in itself a cultural ecosystem service that contributes to human welfare (Boyd
and Banzhaf 2006), public health (Giles-Corti et al. 2005; Sugiyama and Ward 2008),
and psychological satisfaction (Kearney 2006). Knowing which open space types
exurban residents prefer may help managers develop stronger planning approaches
for protecting beneficial ecosystem types. This may be done by protecting ‘‘win–
win’’ open space types that are both environmentally beneficial and highly preferred,
or by carefully designing ‘‘unscenic’’ open space types so that these open spaces have
immediately attractive spatial characteristics (Nassauer 1995b; Saito 1998).
Different open space types provide different levels and types of ecosystem ser-
vices (Alberti 1999; Daily 1997), but their overall ecosystem services may be unre-
lated to their attractiveness. For example, wetlands can recharge aquifers and
filter pollutants, and serve as habitat for many species considered endangered or
threatened (Hogan and Walbridge 2007; Mitsch and Gosselink 1993), but may be
perceived as unattractive (Nassauer 2004). Forests can regulate hydrological flows,
prevent soil erosion, produce oxygen, sequester carbon, and serve as habitat
(Gamborg and Rune 2004). In comparison, playing fields and golf courses provide
 370 Z. Wang et al.

lower levels of ecosystem services but are generally understood to be attractive when
located within residential subdivisions (Andersson et al. 2007; Sorace and Visentin
2007).
In this study, we operationalized attractiveness as stated preference, following a
long tradition of measuring preference as a global affective response to the appear-
ance and associated perceived characteristics of landscapes (Hansen and DeFries
2007; Kaplan and Kaplan 1989; Zube et al. 1975). Stated preference can be
considered a psychological precursor to behaviors that reveal economic values
(Adamowicz et al. 1994; Schaeffer 2008), and revealed preference studies have con-
cluded that certain open space types in certain development contexts are associated
with higher prices for nearby homes. Stated preference provides a complementary,
more complete measure.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

To assist managers and policymakers in considering how to sustain different

types of open spaces within exurban development patterns, we examined three
research questions:

1. To what extent is open space important to exurban homeowners when they

choose their neighborhood and home?
2. Which types of open space are more preferred by exurban homeowners?
3. Are exurban homeowners heterogeneous in their preferences for different types of
open space?

Open Space in Home-Buying Choices

Exurbia is a persistent and growing feature of the American landscape (White et al.
2009). A series of national surveys has consistently shown that the American popu-
lation tends to prefer living in single-family detached dwellings in locations with low
densities and easy automobile use (Myers and Gearin 2001; NRC 2009; Talen 2001).
In 1997, 30% preferred to live in a city, 50% preferred suburbia, and the other 20%
preferred rural areas or small towns away from a city (Brown et al. 1997). In 2007,
only 7% preferred to live in a city, 30% preferred suburbia, and more than 60%
preferred exurban or rural areas (NAHB 2007).
Nearby open space and the experience of nature may help to explain these per-
vasive preferences for low-density living (Kaplan and Austin 2004; Song and Knaap
2004). A 2001 survey of the Detroit metropolitan area found open space to be one of
the most important factors in home-buying choice (Fernandez et al. 2005; Vogt and
Marans 2004). The National Association of Realtors (NAR) found that 57% of
Americans, if they were in the market to buy a new home, were more likely to select
a neighborhood that is close to open spaces over another one without open spaces
nearby (NAR 2001).
However, open space is not the most important factor affecting home-buying
choices. Vogt and Marans (2004) concluded that neighborhood design, schools,
and convenience to school and work were as important as open space in choosing
a home in the Detroit metropolitan area. Hedonic pricing studies suggest that in
urban–rural fringe landscapes, residents put a high value on open space but an even
higher value on large-size lots (Kopits et al. 2007; Peiser and Schwann 1993). In vary-
ing metropolitan contexts, hedonic models consistently suggest that lot size, number
of bedrooms, garage size, and school districts affect home price as well (Garrod and
Willis 1992; Geoghegan 2002).
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 371

Preferences for Different Open Space Types

We distinguished different open space types by their landcover and land use. Tra-
ditional landscape preference studies generally conclude that landscapes character-
ized by water features (lakes, streams, etc.) are highly preferred (Kaplan 2001;
Ulrich 1986). Forests and trees also generally enhance preference in metropolitan
landscapes (Kaplan and Austin 2004; Sullivan 1994). Preferences for wetlands are
mixed (Nassauer 2004; Zube et al. 1975). Playing fields generally negatively affect
preferences (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989).

Homeowners’ Background Characteristics

Different background characteristics have sometimes been shown to be related to
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

landscape preference (though not specifically open space preference), but conclusions
have not been consistent. Preference sometimes varies with respondent age, gender,
or education, but most studies have found no significant difference in landscape pre-
ferences related to these characteristics (Lyons 1983; Matsuoka and Kaplan 2008;
Nassauer 1995a).

Methods
Data
The data used in this study were drawn from an April 2005 image-based web survey
of 494 southeast Michigan exurban homeowners who lived within 207 ZIP codes
where local governments use large lot zoning and do not provide sewer and water
services. This was a targeted convenience sample. All respondents were volunteers
who had agreed to receive invitations to participate in web surveys (SurveySpot:
http://www.surveyspot.com). E-mail invitations to participate in the survey were
targeted to volunteers who were self-identified homeowners or had a high income
(>US$200,000=year), because high-income persons are likely to be homeowners
but are less likely to respond to requests to participate in web surveys.
The survey instrument was approved by the University of Michigan Institutional
Review Board, and the invitation identified the University of Michigan as conduct-
ing the survey. In addition, the image-based web questionnaire was designed to emu-
late the experience of ‘‘shopping’’ for a home and yard. It included many images of
houses, yards, and neighborhoods that were highly salient to exurban homeowners.
Data were collected from 512 respondents, all of whom self-identified as home-
owners. We reviewed all completed questionnaires to identify ‘‘race-through respon-
dents’’ (18 of 512 respondents), those who completed the questionnaire in a very
short time and also answered our validity check items inconsistently. We then
removed these invalid cases from our data.
Despite our efforts to target our sample, design a salient and engaging instru-
ment, and remove invalid cases, our study does not provide solutions for other sam-
ple bias and coverage errors that can happen in web surveys (Cook et al. 2000; Lee
2006). Web samples raise different problems than traditional survey sampling tech-
niques. Most obviously, they exclude people who do not use the web. However, gen-
eralizability is of less concern if web use is widespread among the population of
interest (Sills and Song 2002). According to the U.S. Census Bureau, 61.7% of
U.S. households used the Internet by 2007, and exurban households were more likely
 372 Z. Wang et al.

than central city or nonmetropolitan households to have Internet access. In 2000,

88% of adults living in households with annual incomes US$75,000 had a computer
and 79% used the Internet (Newburger 2001). The exurban counties of southeast
Michigan have the highest median household incomes in the state, ranging from
about US$52,000=yr to about US$73,000=yr. Each of these characteristics led us
to conclude that a web-based survey could produce valuable data for understanding
exurban homeowners in southeast Michigan.
Respondents to our web survey were largely representative of that population as
described by 2000 U.S. Census data for our study area (Nassauer et al. 2009). The
survey oversampled women, but analyzing our data, we found no overarching sig-
nificant differences between the women and men in our sample. Of all 494 respon-
dents, 468 completed all items related to the questions examined in this article.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

For this investigation, we used questionnaire items about:

. The importance of different factors in homeowners’ choice to move to their cur-
rent home (home-buying choice).
. Preferences for different types of open spaces near their homes.
. Background characteristics including gender, age, household income, number of
children at home, education and employment status.

Home-Buying Choices
To address our first research question, we used items addressing the importance of
different factors in respondents’ decisions to move to their current home. These 13
items (Table 2) using a 4-point importance scale (1: ‘‘not at all important’’ to 4: ‘‘very
important’’) replicated items in the 2001 Detroit Area Survey (DAS) (Fernandez
et al. 2005; Marans 2003; Vogt and Marans 2004).

Preference for Different Open Space Types

To address our second question, we used image-based items that presented respon-
dents with seven types of exurban open spaces in southeast Michigan: both
natural-appearing open space types (forests, streams, lakes, wetlands, and prairie)
and more obviously manipulated landscapes, such as golf courses and playing fields
(Figure 1). These images included 14 photographs of exurban open spaces in south-
east Michigan, one photograph of each of two different open spaces (replicates) of
each of the seven open space types. Photographs were controlled on season (midsum-
mer images only), time of day (midday images only), and ephemeral elements
(excluding people and animals). All photographs were taken to eliminate foreground
‘‘framing’’ elements and to emphasize middle ground landscapes. Respondents were
randomly assigned to view one of the two different replicates of each type of open
space, and were asked to rate their preference for the open space shown in each
image assuming it was within three miles of their new home but not next to their pro-
perty. We used three miles as a measure to elicit preferences that could extend to
regional open spaces and their related ecosystem services. Respondents indicated
their preference on a 7-point Likert rating scale (1: ‘‘strongly do not prefer’’ to 7:
‘‘strongly prefer’’). t Tests comparing responses of the groups that viewed different
replicate images showed no significant difference between groups, and we assumed
that image sequence and variations in images of each open space type did not bias
response.
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 373
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

Figure 1. Preferences for different types of open spaces (two images for each type).

Heterogeneous Respondent Groups

For our third research question, whether exurban homeowners are hetero-
geneous in their preferences for different types of open spaces, we operationa-
lized heterogeneity in two ways: demographic background characteristics
(Table 1) and the importance that homeowners had placed on open space when
they bought their home, as indicated by responses related to our first research
question (Table 2).
 374 Z. Wang et al.

Table 1. Background characteristics of respondents

Background characteristics Categories n %

Children under 18 years Having children 217 53.6
Not having children 251 46.4
Age (years) <40 140 30.1
40–60 276 59.5
>60 48 10.3
Employment Full-time 233 50.3
Part-time 62 13.4
Not employed 168 36.3
Marriage Single, never married 33 7.1
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

Married 352 76.0

Separated=divorced=widowed 57 12.3
Domestic partnership 21 4.5
Household income <$20,000 27 6.2
$20,000–$29,999 34 7.8
$30,000–$39,999 37 8.5
$40,000–$49,999 56 12.9
$50,000–$59,999 47 10.8
$60,000–$74,999 62 14.3
$75,000–$99,999 62 14.3
$100,000–$149,999 88 20.3
$150,000þ 21 4.8
Education High school graduate 79 17.1
College degree 308 66.7
Post-college graduate 75 16.2
Gender Male 100 21.6
Female 364 78.4

Analysis Techniques
To address our first research question, we replicated the technique Fernandez et al.
(2005) used in analyzing data for the Detroit area. We employed a principal compo-
nent factor analysis (PCA) with varimax rotation (factors with eigenvalues greater
than 1.00 and alpha coefficients greater than 0.70) to generate meaningful themes
among the 13 variables. Statistical analyses were executed in SPSS13.0 for Windows.
Using descriptive statistics, we also compared the 13 variables’ relative importance in
home-buying choice. For our second research question, we used pairwise compari-
sons of the observed set of stated preferences using t tests. For our third research
question, we first used background characteristics to define respondent groups,
and then compared their preferences for different open space types by t test and
analysis of variance between groups (ANOVA) (F test). We used a post hoc Tukey’s
test to identify significant differences among specific groups. Finally, we generated
each respondent’s comparative ranking of the different open space types and used
Kendall’s tau C to test for differences in the ranking of each type across groups.
In a second analysis for this question, we used K-means cluster analysis of the open
space factor scores (from our first research question) to cluster respondents into
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 375

Table 2. Principal Components Analysis (PCA) and descriptive statistics of home-

owners’ stated importance on different items in their home-buying choice

Home-buying factors (eigenvalue) and Factor

items (indented) Mean SD loadingsb
Close to natural areas (woods, ponds, streams, etc.) 3.24 0.80 0.88
Openness and spaciousness of area 3.39 0.72 0.84
Housing costs and good value 3.54 0.65 0.57
Attractive appearance of neighborhood 3.37 0.67 0.77
Appearance and layout of the dwelling 3.44 0.69 0.90
People similar to me 2.66 0.87 0.73
Familiar with area 2.72 0.92 0.83
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

Close to family and friends 2.68 1.00 0.77

Good schools 3.17 1.08 0.74
Lots of recreational opportunities 2.72 0.87 0.68
Close to worka 2.61 0.96
Convenient to places such as shopping and schoolsa 2.85 0.81
Community sizea 2.99 0.83
Note. Total variance explained is: open space (24.23%), neighborhood design and cost
(14.93%), social factors (9.86%), school and activities (8.51%).
a
Items had low loading coefficients and=or loaded almost equally on two factors.
b
Most items load cleanly on a single factor (factor loading higher than 0.5 after Varimax
rotation with Kaiser normalization) except those listed under others. Cronbach’s alpha for
all items is .72.

groups that placed different levels of importance on open space in their home-buying
choice. Then we used the same statistical tests as above to compare these groups’
preferences for different types of open spaces.

Results
Importance of Open Space in Home-Buying Choices
We found that having open space nearby was important to home-buying choices in
exurban southeast Michigan. We described factors derived from our PCA analysis as
open space, neighborhood design and cost, social concern, and school and rec-
reational opportunities (Table 2). Variables loading on the factor neighborhood
design and cost were most important in homeowner decisions, followed by variables
loading on the factor open space. Quality of schools also was relatively important.
Other variables were rated far less important than neighborhood design=cost, open
space, and good schools.

Preferences for Different Open Space Types

Forests were most preferred by exurban homeowners in our sample, almost the same
as preference for lakes and streams (slightly lower than forests but not significantly
different). Golf courses and playing fields were least preferred. Respondents also had
relatively high agreement in their preference for forests compared with other land
 376 Z. Wang et al.

Table 3. Paired sample t test of open space preferences of all respondents (n ¼ 468)

t Statistics
Open space
types Mean SD Forests Lakes Streams Prairie Wetlands Golf courses
Forests 6.32 0.99
Lakes 6.27 1.09 0.84
Streams 6.22 1.10 1.75 1.02
Prairie 5.61 1.31 13.38a 9.30a 9.30a
Wetlands 5.28 1.43 15.33a 15.44a 15.85a 4.65
Golf courses 4.14 1.50 23.52a 23.97a 22.26a 14.59a 10.92a
Playground 4.12 1.77 26.30a 26.33a 24.93a 16.35a 12.14a 0.23
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

a
Indicates significant differences with p < .05.

covers. Multiple t tests comparing ratings of different types of open spaces demon-
strated that exurban homeowners’ most preferred open space types were forests,
lakes, and streams, somewhat preferred open space types were prairie and wetlands,
and golf courses and playing fields were least preferred overall (Table 3).

Differences Among Respondent Groups

Some background characteristics including gender, income levels, employment, and
marriage did not relate to preference. However, having children living at home, edu-
cation level, and age were associated with open space preferences across open space
types (Table 4). Compared with those who had no children at home, exurban home-
owners with children under 18 years had significantly lower preferences for living near
forests, lakes, and wetlands but higher preferences for living near playing fields. Rank-
ing all open space types, those with children ranked wetlands significantly lower and
playing fields significantly higher than homeowners without children. Those under age
40 years also ranked playing fields significantly higher than older homeowners. Com-
pared with younger homeowners, those over 60 years old had higher preferences for
living near golf courses. Compared with older homeowners, those under 40 years
old had significantly lower preferences for living near streams. High school graduates
had significantly lower preferences for living near golf courses, and those with gradu-
ate degrees had significantly lower preferences for living near prairies.
It is important to note that when respondents’ rankings of the different open
space types are compared across groups, open space rankings generally are not sig-
nificantly different among groups (Kendall’s tau C statistic; see Table 4). For
example, though forests, lakes, streams, and wetlands are rated differently by differ-
ent age groups, they are not ranked significantly differently. Considering both rating
(F statistic) and ranking (Kendall’s tau C statistic) comparisons, open space types
that are most consistently heterogeneous across background groups are playing
fields (heterogeneous based on age and having children) and golf courses (hetero-
geneous based on age and education).
To investigate whether exurban homeowners who placed more importance on
living near open space in home-buying choice prefer different types of open spaces,
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 377

Table 4. Background characteristics significantly related to preferences for open

spaces

Preference mean rating for different types of open spaces

Background Golf
characteristics (n) Forests Lakes Streams Wetlands Prairie Playground courses
Education
High school 6.34 6.27 6.38 5.42 5.82a 3.89 3.62a
graduates
(79)
College degree 6.35 6.29 6.21 5.25 5.63b 4.17 4.17b
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

(308)
Post-college 6.15 6.27 6.16 5.33 5.25c 4.31 4.43b
graduates
(75)
F statistics 1.29 0.02 0.96 0.45 3.841 1.65 4.401
Kendall’s tau C 0.01 0.07 0.01 0.05 0.121 0.01 0.111
Age (years)
<40 (140) 5.96a 6.14a 5.91a 4.94a 5.46 4.37 4.02a
b b
40–60 (276) 6.45 6.42 6.39b 5.48b 5.75 4.04 4.04a
c c
>60 (48) 6.27 5.94 6.29b 5.21c 5.19 4.02 4.94b
1 1
F statistics 12.10 4.04 11.351 5.191 2.52 1.73 4.171
Kendall’s tau C 0.04 0.05 0.04 0.06 0.07 0.161 0.131
Having children under 18 years of age
No (251) 6.41 6.37 6.32 6.37 5.61 3.95 4.09
Yes (217) 6.21 6.06 6.22 6.06 5.60 4.36 4.16
t Statistics 4.831 9.991 1.03 9.291 0.00 8.881 0.18
Kendall’s tau C 0.06 0.07 0.05 0.141 0.05 0.191 0.01
Note. F statistics compare mean ratings and Kendall’s tau C statistics compare relative
ranking of open space types for each characteristic; superscript 1 indicates significant differ-
ences with p < .05. Values with different letter superscripts (a, b, c) within a column are stat-
istically different (alpha ¼ .05; Tukey’s post hoc comparisons).

K-means cluster analysis divided respondents into three groups according to their open
space factor score in PCA analysis. Homeowners with a mean factor score of 1.03 were
classified as putting very high importance on open space in their home-buying choice
(‘‘high importance’’), those with a mean factor score of 0.02 were classified as putting
neutral importance on open space (‘‘neutral importance’’), and the remaining home-
owners, with mean factor scores below
1.82, were classified as finding open space
relatively unimportant (‘‘low importance’’). Groups of homeowners who had placed
different importance on open space in their home-buying choice had different ratings
for nearly all open space types except the more obviously manipulated landscapes,
playing fields, and golf courses (Table 5), which had the lowest mean ratings by all
groups. In contrast, homeowners grouped by education, age, or having children were
heterogeneous in their preferences for playing fields and golf courses. Among impor-
tance groups, ranked preference for different open space types was significantly differ-
ent for lakes and wetlands but not the other open space types.
 378 Z. Wang et al.

Table 5. Preference for open space types by respondent groups that placed different
importance on living near open space when they bought their home (one-way
ANOVA)

‘‘High ‘‘Neutral ‘‘Little

importance’’ importance’’ importance’’
Open respondents’ respondents’ respondents’
space mean rating mean rating mean rating Kendall’s F
types (n ¼ 161) (n ¼ 215) (n ¼ 92) tau C statistic
Forests 6.68a 6.27b 5.82c 0.07 46.81
Streams 6.53a 6.28a 5.55b 0.05 17.031
Lakes 6.52a 6.27a 5.84b 0.09 12.141
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

Prairie 5.99a 5.56b 5.04c 0.07 23.661

Wetlands 5.75a 5.23b 4.55c 0.09 19.111
Golf 4.15 4.14 4.04 0.07 0.69
courses
Playground 4.14 4.14 4.14 0.07 1.21
Note. Superscript 1 indicates significant differences with p < .05. Values with different letter
superscripts (a, b, c) within a column are statistically different (alpha ¼.05; Tukey’s post hoc
comparisons).

Overall, knowing about how the importance of having open space nearby influ-
enced the choice of a home may help to anticipate heterogeneity in preferences for
different types of open spaces, especially in anticipating exurban homeowners’ pre-
ferences for open space types that provide high levels of ecosystem services. It may be
useful to continue to explore open space importance clusters as indicators of hetero-
geneity in open space preference. Education, age, and having children at home are
more helpful for anticipating heterogeneity in preferences for playing fields (more
preferred by homeowners with young children) and golf courses (more preferred
by older and well-educated homeowners).

Discussion
Our study has many implications for the role of open space in exurban development,
particularly planning and management of public open spaces at the neighborhood or
regional scale (Grose 2009). Our finding that open space is important in choosing a
home is consistent with previous studies and replicates a key conclusion from data
drawn from the 2001 Detroit Area Study (Fernandez et al. 2005). However, our con-
clusion is different from studies that sampled within urban areas (Vogt and Marans
2004; NAR 2001; Nelessen 2002); these concluded that location relative to urban fea-
tures (nearness to shops, nearness to work, etc.) is more important than open space.
Our different results may indicate distinct characteristics of exurban residents, who
may place greater importance on nearby open spaces and natural environments than
do residents from across an urban area.
While we found relative preferences for most open space types to be consistent
across different homeowner groups, we also found evidence of some heterogeneity
based on life stages and different levels of education. Compared with others, people
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 379

with children at home have higher preferences for living near playing fields but lower
preferences for wetlands, perhaps because parents need places for children to play
but may perceive wetlands as less safe for children (Field et al. 2005). Our finding
that people over 60 or with more education had greater preferences for golf courses
nearby might be explained by the fact that these groups play golf more frequently
than others (NGF 2004). However, our most relevant finding for land planning that
protects ecosystem services may be that all exurban groups prefer forests, lakes, and
streams over other open space types.
We also found significant differences in preference ratings among homeowners
who placed different importance on open space in their home-buying choice, but
we found few statistically significant differences in their rankings of open space
types. This result may shed light on a more fundamental interaction among natural
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

and human systems. Considering preference ratings (F statistic), people for whom
nearness to open space was more influential in a very important life choice, their
home, had higher absolute preferences for open space types that do not appear to
be highly manipulated, including prairies and wetlands. In contrast, people for
whom nearness to open space was less important when choosing a home had lower
absolute preferences for forests, streams, lakes, prairies, and wetlands. Only open
space types that appear to be highly manipulated (playing fields and golf courses)
are rated similarly (low) by all these groups. Considering how each of the open space
importance groups ranked the seven open space types (Kendall’s tau C statistic), all
groups ranked forests, lakes, and streams high, consistent with many previous stu-
dies. However, homeowners who placed little importance on open space nearby
ranked lakes higher significantly more than did other groups. Forests, lakes, and
streams in southeast Michigan have high potential ecosystem services, and our
results suggest these ecosystems enhance the value of nearby residential property
as well. We conclude that along with the well-known market premium for homes
near lakes, exurban homeowners’ strong preferences for forests and stream ecosys-
tems nearby also suggest a market premium.
Playing fields and golf courses, more obviously manipulated landscapes, were
least preferred by nearly all groups in both analyses. Some past research also has
shown that playing fields are less preferred. Nevertheless, playing fields are widely
recognized as important for recreation, and having such facilities nearby may pro-
mote public health. Our study suggests that the location and total area of playing
fields within a community should be strategically determined to meet community
needs, especially the needs of families with young children, but also balanced against
community preferences for recreation in many types of open spaces, including for-
ests, lakes, streams, and wetlands. Most groups’ lower preference for golf courses
nearby contradicts the popularity of golf community developments. Many people
who live in golf communities are not golfers, but they appreciate golf courses for
the aesthetic value of the permanent open space provided by the courses (Mulvihill
et al. 2001). Our research suggests that other open space types that provide greater
ecosystem services than golf courses might have even greater aesthetic value for
many nearby homeowners.
Planning for wetlands and prairie as part of exurban development patterns can
be challenging because many homeowners may not find these ecosystem types parti-
cularly attractive. This result is consistent with findings from previous studies, which
suggest that the effects of wetlands on perception and property values vary, partially
depending on wetland types. Prairies and wetlands provide valuable natural
 380 Z. Wang et al.

ecosystem services in southeast Michigan. Since not all exurban homeowners prefer
to live near wetlands and prairie, future exurban development should rely on careful
design to present these ecosystems as attractive in order to protect them. Especially
for these open space types, design may dramatically affect preference. In addition,
regulations and codes can be used to preserve these ecosystems, and environment
education efforts should be strengthened to increase residents’ appreciation of ben-
eficial ecosystems as well as their support for protection (Gobster 1995).

Conclusions
Exurban development is the result of a complex mix of landscape characteristics,
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

human desires, market forces, and policy choices. The goal of this study was not
to attract more people to exurban locations by giving them the kinds of open spaces
they prefer, but rather to anticipate and influence exurban landscape change if the
strong trend toward exurban development continues and as existing exurban devel-
opment is retrofit by future occupants. Exurban development is by definition exten-
sive, and, compared with other forms of settlements, its relative influence on
landscapes is disproportionately great. Ironically, the low densities that make exur-
ban landscapes undesirable with respect to travel and service costs also heighten
opportunities for design and planning to protect and enhance ecosystem services
within the exurban landscape matrix. Looking closely at possible convergence
between homeowner preferences and open space types that are characterized by
different levels of ecosystem services is one perspective that may build planning
arguments for achieving the larger public good, greater ecosystem services, even in
the midst of exurban development.
Our study demonstrates that open space plays an important role in preferences
for living in exurban locations in southeast Michigan. While different groups’ rela-
tive preferences for different types of open space are generally similar, their absolute
preferences are more heterogeneous, relating to life stage and education, as well their
perspective on the importance of open space. In general, natural-appearing open
space types (forests, streams, lakes, wetlands, and prairie) are preferred over more
obviously manipulated landscapes, such as golf courses and playing fields.
Exurban development creates tension between the desire to have open space
nearby and the loss of open space for development. Both the ecological health of
metropolitan areas and the long term availability of open space experiences depend
on planning exurban development to maintain desirable open space patterns and
experiences. Our research suggests that maintaining forests, lakes, and streams as
part of the public open space system in exurbia can simultaneously satisfy home-
owners’ preferences and enhance ecological quality. Careful design of wetlands
and prairies is essential to protect these extremely valuable ecosystems that are
not always seen as attractive. Golf courses and playing fields should be strategically
prioritized and sited.

References
Adamowicz, W., J. Louviere, and M. Williams. 1994. Combining revealed and stated
preference methods for valuing environmental amenities. J. Environ. Econ. Manage.
26:271–292.
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 381

Ahern, J. 2007. Green infrastructure for cities: The spatial dimension. In Cities of the future,
ed. V. Novotny and P. Brown, 267–283. London: Iwa Publishing.
Alberti, M. 1999. Urban patterns and environmental performance: What do we know? J. Plan.
Educ. Res. 19(2):151–163.
Andersson, E., S. Barthel, and K. Ahrne. 2007. Measuring social and ecological dynamics
behind the generation of ecosystem services. Ecol. Appl. 17(5):1267–1278.
Appler, D. R. 2004. America’s converging open space protection policies: Evidence from New
Hampshire, Virginia, and Oregon. Urban Lawyer 36(2):341–374.
Benedict, M. A., and E. T. McMahon. 2002. Green infrastructure: Smart conservation for the
21st century. Renewable Resources J. 20(3):12–7.
Boyd, J., and S. Banzhaf. 2006. What are ecosystem services? The need for standardized
environmental accounting units. http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-06-02.pdf
(accessed 12 December 2009).
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

Brown, D. L., G. V. Fuguitt, T. B. Heaton, and S. Waseem. 1997. Continuities in size of place
preferences in the United States, 1972–1992. Rural Sociol. 62(4):408–428.
Burchell, R. W., and S. Mukherji. 2003. Conventional development versus managed growth:
The costs of sprawl. Am. J. Public Health. 93(9):1534–1540.
Cook, C., F. Heath, and R. L. Thompson. 2000. A meta-analysis of response rates in web- or
Internet-based surveys. Educ. Psychol. Meas. 60:821–836.
Daily, G. C. 1993. Social constraints on restoration ecology. In Reconstruction of fragmented
ecosystems: Global and regional perspectives, ed. D. A. Saunders, R. J. Hobbs, and P. R.
Ehrlich, 9–16. Chipping Norton, NSW, Australia: Surrey Beatty & Sons.
Daily, G. C. 1997. Ecosystem services: Benefits supplied to human societies by natural ecosys-
tems. Ecol. Soc. Am. Issues Ecol. 2:1–16. http://www.epa.gov/watertrain/pdf/issue2.pdf
(accessed 12 November 2004).
Daniels, T. 1999. When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe.
Washington, DC: Island Press.
Fernandez, L. E., D. G. Brown, R. W. Marans, and J. I. Nassauer. 2005. Characterizing
location preferences in an exurban population: Implications for agent based modeling.
Environ. Plan. B Plan. Design 32(6):799–820.
Field, R., A. N. Tafuri, S. Muthukrishnan, B. A. Acquisto, and A. Selvakumar. 2005. The use
of best management practices (BMPs) in urban watersheds. Lancaster, PA: DEStech
Publications.
Gamborg, C., and F. Rune. 2004. Economic and ecological approaches to assessing forest
value in managed forests: Ethical perspectives. Society Nat. Resources 17:799–815.
Garrod, G., and K. Willis. 1992. Valuing goods’ characteristics: An application of the hedonic
price method to environmental attributes. J. Environ. Manage. 34(1):59–76.
Geoghegan, J. 2002. The value of open spaces in residential land use. Land Use Policy
19(1):91–98.
Giles-Corti, B., M. H. Broomhall, M. Knuiman, C. Collins, K. Douglas, K. Ng, A. Lange,
and R. J. Donovan. 2005. Increasing walking: How important is distance to, attractive-
ness, and size of public open space? Am J. Prev. Med. 28:169–176.
Gobster, P. H. 1995. Perception and use of a metropolitan greenway system for recreation.
Landscape Urban Plan. 33:401–413.
Gobster, P. H., J. I. Nassauer, T. C. Daniel, and G. Fry. 2007. The shared landscape: What
does aesthetics have to do with ecology? Landscape Ecol. 22:959–972.
Grose, M. J. 2009. Changing relationships in public open space and private open space in sub-
urbs in south-western Australia. Landscape Urban Plan. 92:53–63.
Gude, P. H., A. J. Hansen, R. Rasker, and B. Maxwell. 2006. Rate and drivers of rural resi-
dential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape Urban Plan. 77:131–151.
Hansen, A. J., and D. Brown. 2005. Land use change in rural America: An introduction. Ecol.
Appl. 15(6):1849–1850.
 382 Z. Wang et al.

Hansen, A. J., and DeFries, R. 2007. Ecological mechanisms linking protected areas to
surrounding lands. Ecol. Appl. 17:974–988.
Hansen, A. J., R. Knight, J. Marzluff, S. Powell, K. Brown, P. Hernandez, and K. Jones.
2005. Effects of exurban development on biodiversity: Patterns, mechanisms, research
needs. Ecol. Appl. 15(6):1893–1905.
Heimlich, R. E., and W. D. Anderson. 2001. Developing the urban fringe and beyond: Impacts
on agriculture and rural land. Report 803. Washington, DC: USDA Economic Research
Service.
Hogan, D. M., and M. R. Walbridge. 2007. Urbanization and nutrient retention in freshwater
riparian wetlands. Ecol. Appl. 17(4):1142–1155.
Hollis, L. E., and W. Fulton. 2002. Open space protection, conservation meets growth man-
agement. http://www.solimar.org/pdfs/hollisfultonopenspace.pdf (accessed 12 Novem-
ber 2004).
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

Kaplan, R. 2001. The nature of the view from home: Psychological benefits. Environ. Behav.
33:507–542.
Kaplan, R., and M. E. Austin. 2004. Out in the country: Sprawl and the quest for nature
nearby. Landscape Urban Plann. 69(2–3):235–43.
Kaplan, S., and R. Kaplan. 1989. The experience of nature: A psychological perspective. New
York: Cambridge University Press.
Kearney, A. 2006. Residential development patterns and neighborhood satisfaction. Environ.
Behav. 38:112–139.
Kopits, E., V. McConnell, and M. Walls. 2007. The tradeoff between private lots and public
open space in subdivisions at the urban–rural fringe. Washington, DC: Resources for the
Future.
Lee, S. 2006. An evaluation of nonresponse and coverage errors in a prerecruited probability
web panel survey. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 24(4):460–475.
Lyons, E. 1983. Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environ. Behav. 15:487–511.
Marans, R. W. 2003. Understanding environmental quality through quality of life studies:
The 2001 DAS and its use of subjective and objective indicators. Landscape Urban Plan.
65(1–2):75–85.
Matsuoka, R. H., and R. Kaplan. 2008. People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis of
landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape Urban Plan. 8:7–19.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 1993. Wetlands. New York: John Wiley and Sons.
Myers, D., and E. Gearin. 2001. Current preferences and future demand for denser residential
environments. Housing Policy Debate 12(4):633–59.
Mulvihill, D. A., A. M. Welch, D. L. Leininger, G. L. Cory, J. J. Scavo, L. A. Hirsh, R. M.
Garl, S. A. Winter, and W. B. Renner. 2001. Golf course development in residential com-
munities. Washington, DC: ULI-The Urban Land Institute.
Nassauer, J. I. 1992. The appearance of ecological systems as a matter of policy. Landscape
Ecol. 6(4):239–50.
Nassauer, I. J. 1995a. Culture and changing landscape structure. Landscape Ecol. 10(4):
229–237.
Nassauer, J. I. 1995b. Messy ecosystems, orderly frames. Landscape J. 4(2):161–170.
Nassauer, J. I. 1997. Cultural sustainability: Aligning aesthetics and ecology. In Placing
nature: culture in landscape ecology, ed. J. I. Nassauer, 65–84. Washington, DC: Island
Press.
Nassauer, J. I. 2004. Monitoring the success of metropolitan wetland restorations: Cultural
sustainability and ecological function. Wetlands 24(4):756–765.
Nassauer, J. I., Z. Wang, and E. Dayrell. 2009. What will the neighbors think? Cultural norms
for ecological design. Landscape Urban Plann. 92(3–4):282–292.
National Association of Home Builders. 2007. NAHB consumer preference survey. http://
www.nahb.org/fileUpload_details.aspx? (accessed 23 November 2009).
 Different Types of Open Spaces in Exurbia 383

National Association of Realtors. 2001. NAR survey shows public support for open space
depends on use and cost. http://www/realtor/org/SG3.nsf/Pages/mngrtpressurvey?
OpenDocument (accessed 9 November 2005).
National Golf Foundation. 2004. Golf participation in the U.S. http://www.uli.org/~/media/
Documents/Events/Conferences/2003/Golf_03%20pdf.ashx (accessed 12 November
2004).
National Research Council. 2009. Driving and the built environment: The effects of compact
development on motorized travel, energy use, and CO2 emissions—Special Report 298.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog/12747.html (accessed 23 December 2009).
Nelessen, A. C. 2002. Are they worth 1000 words? Smart growth through community vision-
ing. http://www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf/Pages/worthwords?OpenDocument (accessed 12
September 2005).
Newburger, E. C. 2001. Home computers and Internet use in the United States: August 2000.
Downloaded by [Texas A&M University Libraries] at 21:29 16 April 2014

Demographic Programs Current Population Reports 23–207. https:==www.census.gov/

prod/2001pubs/p23-207.pdf (accessed 12 December 2009).
Peiser, R. B., and G. M. Schwann. 1993. The private value of public open space within
subdivisions. J. Architect. Plan. Res. 10(2):91–104.
Saito, Y. 1998. The aesthetics of unscenic nature. J. Aesthetics Art Criticism 56(2):101–11.
Schaeffer, P. V. 2008. Thoughts concerning the economic valuation of landscapes. J. Environ.
Manage. 89:146–154.
Sills, S. J., and C. Song. 2002. Innovations in survey research: An application of web-based
surveys. Soc. Sci. Comput. Rev. 20(1):22–30.
Song, Y., and G. J. Knaap. 2004. Measuring the effects of mixed land uses on housing values.
Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 34(6):663–680.
Sorace, A., and M. Visentin. 2007. Avian diversity on golf courses and surrounding landscapes
in Italy. Landscape Urban Plan. 81(1–2):81–90.
Sugiyama, T., and T. C. Ward. 2008. Associations between characteristics of neighbourhood
open space and older people’s walking. Urban For. Urban Green. 7:41–51.
Sullivan, W. C. 1994. Perceptions of rural–urban fringe: Citizen preferences for natural and
developed settings. Landscape Urban Plan. 29:85–101.
Talen, E. 2001. Traditional urbanism meets residential affluence: An analysis of the variability
of suburban preference. J. Am. Plann. Assoc. 67(2):199.
Ulrich, R. S. 1986. Human responses to vegetation and landscapes. Landscape Urban Plan.
13:29–44.
Vogt, C. A., and R. W. Marans. 2004. Natural resources and open space in the residential
decision process: A study of recent movers to fringe counties in southeast Michigan.
Landscape Urban Plan. 69(2–3):255–269.
White, E. M., A. T. Morzillo, and R. J. Alig. 2009. Past and projected rural land conversion in
the U.S. at state, regional, and national levels. Landscape Urban Plan. 89(1–2):37–48.
Zhang, Y., H. S. He, and J. Yang. 2008. The wildland-urban interface dynamics in the south-
eastern U.S. from 1990 to 2000. Landscape Urban Plan. 85(3–4):155–62.
Zube, E. H., D. G. Pitt, and T. W. Anderson. 1975. Perception and prediction of scenic
resource values of the northeast. In Landscape assessment: Values, perceptions, and
resources, ed. E. H. Zube, R. O. Brush, and J. G. Fabos, 151–182. Stroudsburg, PA:
Dowden, Hutchinson & Ross.

View publication stats