IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/taf/rjpaxx/v76y2010i2p219-237.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development

Author

Listed:
  • Paul G. Lewis
  • Mark Baldassare

Abstract

Problem: The future of compact development depends in part on understanding and shaping the public's attitudes toward it. Previous studies have suggested life cycle, socioeconomic, attitudinal, and ideological dimensions to preferences regarding development patterns, but rarely have all of these factors been examined systematically across a broad, generalizable sample of respondents. Purpose: To examine public attitudes toward compact development, we asked survey respondents to weigh four important tradeoffs between compact and sprawling growth. We assess the relative influence of a variety of individual characteristics on these attitudes. Methods: We use results from two large-scale, randomized telephone surveys, one conducted in California in 2002 and the other in four other southwestern states in 2007. Using logistic regression, we assess which personal characteristics are associated with stated preferences regarding compact development, and illustrate their degree of influence. Results and conclusions: Support for the compact development alternatives is significant, in some cases exceeding support for traditional, decentralized suburban patterns. However, question wording appears to matter considerably, and individuals' beliefs about different facets of compact development are often inconsistent. Although race, income, age, and the presence of children in the household are strongly associated with some views on the four tradeoffs, only political ideology is consistently associated with opposition to compact development. Takeaway for practice: The significant support evident for compact development may not translate into actual housing choices unless local governments and lenders do more to support the production of such housing and neighborhood environments. If, as our results suggest, a major constituency for transit-oriented and mixed-use projects is low income residents, renters, and minorities, then well crafted urban infill projects that take into account the needs of these groups will help fulfill the potential of smart growth. Advocates might also frame compact development to appeal more to political conservatives. Research support: The 2002 survey was conducted by the Public Policy Institute of California, with financial support from the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation, James Irvine Foundation, and David and Lucille Packard Foundation. The 2007 survey was conducted and supported by the Institute for Social Science Research at Arizona State University. All views expressed are solely those of the authors, not these organizations.

Suggested Citation

  • Paul G. Lewis & Mark Baldassare, 2010. "The Complexity of Public Attitudes Toward Compact Development," Journal of the American Planning Association, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 76(2), pages 219-237, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:76:y:2010:i:2:p:219-237
    DOI: 10.1080/01944361003646471
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1080/01944361003646471
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1080/01944361003646471?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Suzanne Vallance & Harvey C Perkins & Kevin Moore, 2005. "The Results of Making a City More Compact: Neighbours' Interpretation of Urban Infill," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 32(5), pages 715-733, October.
    2. Schwanen, Tim & Mokhtarian, Patricia L., 2003. "The Extent and Determinants of Dissonance Between Actual and Preferred Residential Neighborhood Type," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt8728p24s, University of California Transportation Center.
    3. Jennifer Steffel Johnson & Emily Talen, 2008. "Affordable housing in New Urbanist Communities: A survey of developers," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 19(4), pages 583-613, January.
    4. Tim Schwanen & Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 2007. "Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: Evidence from the San Francisco bay area," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 18(1), pages 171-207, January.
    5. Teske, Paul & Schneider, Mark & Mintrom, Michael & Best, Samuel, 1993. "Establishing The Micro Foundations of a Macro Theory: Information, Movers, and the Competitive Local Market for Public Goods," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 87(3), pages 702-713, September.
    6. Tim Schwanen & Patricia L Mokhtarian, 2004. "The Extent and Determinants of Dissonance between Actual and Preferred Residential Neighborhood Type," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 31(5), pages 759-784, October.
    7. Rayman Mohamed, 2008. "Who Would Pay for Rural Open Space Preservation and Inner-city Redevelopment? Identifying Support for Policies that Can Contribute to Regional Land Use Governance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(13), pages 2783-2803, December.
    8. Paul Goren, 2005. "Party Identification and Core Political Values," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 49(4), pages 881-896, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Huang, Yu & Parker, Dawn & Minaker, Leia, 2021. "Identifying latent demand for transit-oriented development neighbourhoods: Evidence from a mid-sized urban area in Canada," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 90(C).
    2. Mace, Alan & Holman, Nancy & Paccoud, Antoine & Sundaresan, Jayaraj, 2015. "Coordinating density; working through conviction, suspicion and pragmatism," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 56768, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    3. Zhongming Lu & Frank Southworth & John Crittenden & Ellen Dunhum-Jones, 2015. "Market potential for smart growth neighbourhoods in the USA: A latent class analysis on heterogeneous preference and choice," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(16), pages 3001-3017, December.
    4. Doberstein, Carey, 2020. "Role-playing in public engagement for housing for vulnerable populations: An experiment exploring its possibilities and limitations," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    5. Boschmann, E. Eric & Brady, Sylvia A., 2013. "Travel behaviors, sustainable mobility, and transit-oriented developments: a travel counts analysis of older adults in the Denver, Colorado metropolitan area," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 1-11.
    6. Cécile Hérivaux & Philippe Le Coent, 2021. "Introducing Nature into Cities or Preserving Existing Peri-Urban Ecosystems? Analysis of Preferences in a Rapidly Urbanizing Catchment," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(2), pages 1-34, January.
    7. Daniel Hummel, 2020. "The effects of population and housing density in urban areas on income in the United States," Local Economy, London South Bank University, vol. 35(1), pages 27-47, February.
    8. Barbara B. Brown & Wyatt A. Jensen & Doug Tharp, 2019. "Residents’ expectations for new rail stops: optimistic neighborhood perceptions relate to subsequent transit ridership," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 125-146, February.
    9. Katrina Raynor & Tony Matthews & Severine Mayere, 2017. "Shaping urban consolidation debates: Social representations in Brisbane newspaper media," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 54(6), pages 1519-1536, May.
    10. William L. Swann & Shelley McMullen & Dan Graeve & Serena Kim, 2019. "Community Resistance and Discretionary Strategies in Planning Sustainable Development: The Case of Colorado Cities," Urban Planning, Cogitatio Press, vol. 4(4), pages 98-110.
    11. Yanhong Yin & Yuanwen He & Lei Zhang & Dan Zhao, 2019. "Impact of Building Environment on Residential Satisfaction: A Case Study of Ningbo," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(4), pages 1-13, February.
    12. Felix Haifeng Liao & Steven Farber & Reid Ewing, 2015. "Compact development and preference heterogeneity in residential location choice behaviour: A latent class analysis," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 52(2), pages 314-337, February.
    13. Acolin, Arthur & Colburn, Gregg & Walter, Rebecca J., 2022. "How do single-family homeowners value residential and commercial density? It depends," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 113(C).
    14. Yin, Yanhong & Aikawa, Kohei & Mizokami, Shoshi, 2016. "Effect of housing relocation subsidy policy on energy consumption: A simulation case study," Applied Energy, Elsevier, vol. 168(C), pages 291-302.
    15. Apostolos Papagiannakis & Athena Yiannakou, 2022. "Do Citizens Understand the Benefits of Transit-Oriented Development? Exploring and Modeling Community Perceptions of a Metro Line under Construction in Thessaloniki, Greece," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 14(12), pages 1-22, June.
    16. Tomás Cox & Ricardo Hurtubia, 2022. "Compact development and preferences for social mixing in location choices: Results from revealed preferences in Santiago, Chile," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(1), pages 246-269, January.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Donggen Wang & Tao Lin, 2019. "Built environment, travel behavior, and residential self-selection: a study based on panel data from Beijing, China," Transportation, Springer, vol. 46(1), pages 51-74, February.
    2. Lin, Tao & Wang, Donggen & Guan, Xiaodong, 2017. "The built environment, travel attitude, and travel behavior: Residential self-selection or residential determination?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 111-122.
    3. van Wee, Bert & De Vos, Jonas & Maat, Kees, 2019. "Impacts of the built environment and travel behaviour on attitudes: Theories underpinning the reverse causality hypothesis," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 80(C).
    4. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Baker, Douglas & Washington, Simon & Turrell, Gavin, 2013. "Residential dissonance and mode choice," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 12-28.
    5. Eveline S. van Leeuwen & Viktor A. Venhorst, 2021. "Do households prefer to move up or down the urban hierarchy during an economic crisis?," Journal of Geographical Systems, Springer, vol. 23(2), pages 263-289, April.
    6. Sylvia Jansen, 2014. "Why is Housing Always Satisfactory? A Study into the Impact of Cognitive Restructuring and Future Perspectives on Housing Appreciation," Social Indicators Research: An International and Interdisciplinary Journal for Quality-of-Life Measurement, Springer, vol. 116(2), pages 353-371, April.
    7. van de Coevering, Paul & Maat, Kees & van Wee, Bert, 2018. "Residential self-selection, reverse causality and residential dissonance. A latent class transition model of interactions between the built environment, travel attitudes and travel behavior," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 118(C), pages 466-479.
    8. Ettema, Dick & Nieuwenhuis, Roy, 2017. "Residential self-selection and travel behaviour: What are the effects of attitudes, reasons for location choice and the built environment?," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 59(C), pages 146-155.
    9. Phani Kumar, P. & Ravi Sekhar, Ch. & Parida, Manoranjan, 2018. "Residential dissonance in TOD neighborhoods," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 166-177.
    10. Guo, Zhan, 2013. "Does residential parking supply affect household car ownership? The case of New York City," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 26(C), pages 18-28.
    11. Cho, Gi-Hyoug & Rodríguez, Daniel A., 2014. "The influence of residential dissonance on physical activity and walking: evidence from the Montgomery County, MD, and Twin Cities, MN, areas," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 41(C), pages 259-267.
    12. Haixiao Pan & Qing Shen & Ming Zhang, 2009. "Influence of Urban Form on Travel Behaviour in Four Neighbourhoods of Shanghai," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 46(2), pages 275-294, February.
    13. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Deilami, Kaveh & Yigitcanlar, Tan, 2018. "Investigating the urban heat island effect of transit oriented development in Brisbane," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 66(C), pages 116-124.
    14. De Vos, Jonas & Ettema, Dick & Witlox, Frank, 2018. "Changing travel behaviour and attitudes following a residential relocation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 131-147.
    15. Kamruzzaman, Md. & Shatu, Farjana Mostafiz & Hine, Julian & Turrell, Gavin, 2015. "Commuting mode choice in transit oriented development: Disentangling the effects of competitive neighbourhoods, travel attitudes, and self-selection," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 42(C), pages 187-196.
    16. De Vos, Jonas & Mouratidis, Kostas & Cheng, Long & Kamruzzaman, Md., 2021. "Does a residential relocation enable satisfying travel?," Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice, Elsevier, vol. 153(C), pages 188-201.
    17. Cao, Xinyu (Jason), 2015. "Heterogeneous effects of neighborhood type on commute mode choice: An exploration of residential dissonance in the Twin Cities," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 48(C), pages 188-196.
    18. Khan, Mobashwir & M. Kockelman, Kara & Xiong, Xiaoxia, 2014. "Models for anticipating non-motorized travel choices, and the role of the built environment," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 117-126.
    19. Pot, Felix Johan & Koster, Sierdjan & Tillema, Taede, 2023. "Perceived accessibility in Dutch rural areas: Bridging the gap with accessibility based on spatial data," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 170-184.
    20. Jonas De Vos & Patricia L. Mokhtarian & Tim Schwanen & Veronique Van Acker & Frank Witlox, 2016. "Travel mode choice and travel satisfaction: bridging the gap between decision utility and experienced utility," Transportation, Springer, vol. 43(5), pages 771-796, September.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:taf:rjpaxx:v:76:y:2010:i:2:p:219-237. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Chris Longhurst (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.tandfonline.com/rjpa20 .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.