Preserving Rural Character in New England:
Perceptions of Alternative Residential Subdivision Design

Robert L. Ryan, Assistant Professor
Tel: (413) 545-6633, email: rlryan@larp.umass.edu
Graduate assistants: Amanda Walker, MLA/MRP; Rebecca Sozanski, MRP

Project Subject: Perceptions of rural character and residential subdivision design

Project Area: Rural/Western Massachusetts

Project Outline/Phasing:

1. Research and Project Development
   
2. Surveys/Photo Questionnaires (meetings and mailings):
   • Amherst Residents
   • Planners
   • Homebuilders/Developers
   • Sunderland Residents
3. Interviews with Planners and Developers
   
4. Synthesis

Timeframe: Fall 1999 - Spring 2002

Funding: University of Massachusetts Agricultural Experiment Station Hatch Grant # MAS00818; University of Massachusetts Healey Faculty Research Grant #1-60262.

Objectives:
This study explores the attitudes of local rural residents, planners, and homebuilders/developers towards rural character and subdivision design, with a focus on their perceptions of new and/or alternative subdivision design (i.e. cluster or conservation subdivisions). This work examines these perceptions in order to build an understanding of the values placed on rural landscapes by rural residents, planning officials, and developers, and to assess the perceived relationship between rural character, open space, and (new) subdivision design.

Research Issues/Questions:
With the increasing need to address sprawl development through growth management strategies, how can we balance increased housing densities, preservation of open space, and the preservation of rural character?

Do alternative subdivision designs (such as cluster/conservation subdivisions) preserve rural character? What features or layouts of new subdivisions are important in terms of rural character?

What are the differences in perceptions of rural character and new residential subdivision design between rural residents, planners, and homebuilders? What are the similarities in perceptions? How can the results of this study increase understanding between or within these groups and foster more informed residential subdivision design and development?

Methods:
A survey was developed for each of the study groups which included several questions and a photo survey which were rated by the respondents; the ratings for the survey were based on a 5-point Likert scale. The photo survey consisted of 24 scenes/photos of residential development in western Massachusetts; these photos were predominantly scenes from cluster subdivisions (with a couple of exceptions), taken during the initial research phase of the project. In the survey, respondents were asked to rate these scenes based on how compatible they felt the photos were with local rural character (Scoring: 1 = not compatible, to 5 = very compatible with local rural character). Other questions within the survey asked respondents to indicate how much certain landscape features contribute to the rural character of their town; what were the positive and negative aspects of rural living; what changes they had seen in their area/town; and their attitudes towards new development, regulation and farm/forest protection.

Analysis/Survey Results:

Response rates: Amherst 35% (173 surveys received), Planners 46% (47 surveys received), Homebuilders 25% (38 surveys received), Sunderland 32% (227 surveys received)

Photo Survey

Rural Scenes
These scenes were rated higher than both suburban scenes and the village cluster category for all groups; homebuilders gave this category the highest rating (3.94), indicating their perception that the scenes were more compatible with local rural character. Sunderland and Amherst residents scores were also relatively high (3.79, 3.74), as were the planners' rating of this category (3.40). However, the planners' perception that the rural scenes were less compatible with local rural character than both residents and homebuilders. Photo A was one of the highest rated scenes in the rural category; many of the rural scenes featured woods and established vegetation, narrow country roads, few houses (low density) and open fields. Many of these scenes were clustered rural subdivisions with open space that was visible from public roads.

Suburban Scenes
The suburban scenes category (which also included clustered subdivisions) scored lower than both the rural scenes and village cluster category for all groups. While the scores for all groups were much lower, the homebuilders again gave this category higher rating than the other groups (3.03), indicating their perception that these scenes were more compatible with rural character than did local residents (Amherst, 2.84; Sunderland, 2.77) or planners (2.66). The following was one of the lowest rated scenes, indicating a lack of compatibility with local rural character. Other photos in this category depicted scenes with a number of houses (higher density) and elements such as sidewalks, curbing, and immature plantings or no plantings.

Village Cluster Scene
This was a single-item photo category, including only one scene which was rated as a statistically different category for all groups. This scene received median scoring, falling between the rural and suburban scenes categories in terms of rural character compatibility, with very similar scores between groups. Noted features include clustering of smaller houses, open lawn/field, and the presence of established vegetation and mountain views in the background.

a,b = significant difference between means, using Bonferroni's post-hoc test

Other Survey Questions

• Attitudes toward rural character preservation:

  • The importance of preserving rural character* was rated highest by Sunderland residents (4.65 mean), followed by Amherst residents (4.47), planners (4.37), and significantly lower by homebuilders (4.03).

  • The extent of rural character that respondents thought their area had* was rated considerably lower for all groups than the importance of preserving rural character; Sunderland residents perceived their area to have the most rural character (4.01 mean), followed by Amherst residents (3.81), planners (3.69), and homebuilders (3.61).

• Attitudes toward new development:

  • Limiting residential development* was of greater importance to planners (4.08 mean), with residents of Sunderland and Amherst indicating relatively high importance (3.86, 3.85), and homebuilders rating it much lower (2.91).

  • Limiting commercial development* was also of greater importance to planners (4.12 mean) than others, followed by Amherst residents (3.90), Sunderland residents (3.74), and, again, rated much lower by homebuilders (3.18).

  • Protecting forests* received overall high scoring; Sunderland and Amherst residents both rated this category very high (4.51 mean), followed by planners (4.31) also high, and homebuilders rating it significantly lower (3.41).

  • Protecting farmland* also received overall high scoring; Sunderland residents again rated protection highest (4.69 mean), Amherst residents (4.52), planners (4.50), and homebuilders significantly lower (3.32).

• Factors that contribute to rural character*:
  Factors such as natural areas, views of nature, and farms were considered to contribute most to rural character. Mean scores in these categories ranged from 3.37 to 4.61; natural areas and views of nature were generally rated higher by Amherst and Sunderland residents than by planners and homebuilders. Country roads (e.g. narrow roads, a lack of sidewalks) received the lowest scores (2.59 - 3.07 mean), reflecting the perception that they contribute much less to rural character than other factors. Cultural elements and a lack of new subdivisions fell in the upper-middle range of scores in contributing to rural character.

• Positive aspects of rural living*:
  The factor rated highest in positive contributions to rural living was nature and recreation (including being close to nature and having nearby places to walk/hike), with mean scores ranging from 3.80 to 4.50. Rural setting was rated lower by Amherst residents (3.38 mean) compared to other groups, and highest by Sunderland residents (3.64). Rural community was also scored highest by Sunderland residents (3.95), and lowest by planners (3.58).

• Negative aspects of rural living*:
  Negative aspects of rural living formed a single category, which included items such as commute time to work, limited services, distance to schools, lack of sidewalks, distance from shopping/restaurants, and smell or dust from nearby farms. Overall, this category received very low scores, indicating a perception that the negative aspects of rural living are less significant than (or are outweighed by) the positive aspects. Homebuilders' ratings (2.87 mean) and planners' ratings (2.80) reflected that they perceived the negative aspects to be more significant than the residents did (Sunderland, 2.10; Amherst, 1.97).

*Statistically significant differences between scores for all groups.

Conclusion

The results of the study showed some surprising similarities and differences between the three groups. For example, local residents and planners indicated that preserving rural character was important in their towns. Homebuilders also recognized that preserving rural character was important to the residents of the towns in which they build homes, but to a lesser degree than the other two groups. With regards to subdivision design, the survey results showed that subdivisions in which the protected open space is more visible from the public realm (i.e. along roads and entries) are perceived to be more compatible with the rural landscape. It was interesting that the planners had a more limited view of compatible development than did either local residents or homebuilders. In other words, local residents may be more accepting of well-designed rural subdivisions with ample protected open space than are local planners. Local rural residents also indicated that two of the most important aspects of rural living were being close to nature and having places to walk or hike. Thus, local planners and homebuilders need to work towards planning new developments that retain natural areas and provide trails or other recreation opportunities. This research study provides empirically-based survey results that can help local planners and residents accommodate new residential development in a manner which is more compatible with the traditional rural landscape.