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. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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).
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    8. 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.
    9. 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.
    10. 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).
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.

    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. 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.
    2. 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).
    3. 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.
    4. Jariyasunant, Jerald & Carrel, Andre & Ekambaram, Venkatesan & Gaker, David & Sengupta, Raja & Walker, Joan L., 2012. "The Quantified Traveler: Changing transport behavior with personalized travel data feedback," University of California Transportation Center, Working Papers qt3047k0dw, University of California Transportation Center.
    5. 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.
    6. Deslatte, Aaron & Szmigiel-Rawska, Katarzyna & Tavares, António F. & Ślawska, Justyna & Karsznia, Izabela & Łukomska, Julita, 2022. "Land use institutions and social-ecological systems: A spatial analysis of local landscape changes in Poland," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    7. 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.
    8. Abdul‐Rahman Khokhar & Hesam Shahriari, 2022. "Is the SEC captured? Evidence from political connectedness and SEC enforcement actions," Accounting and Finance, Accounting and Finance Association of Australia and New Zealand, vol. 62(2), pages 2725-2756, June.
    9. Xue, Fei & Yao, Enjian, 2022. "Impact analysis of residential relocation on ownership, usage, and carbon-dioxide emissions of private cars," Energy, Elsevier, vol. 252(C).
    10. Kajosaari, Anna & Hasanzadeh, Kamyar & Kyttä, Marketta, 2019. "Residential dissonance and walking for transport," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 74(C), pages 134-144.
    11. Fung, Timothy K.F. & Choi, Doo Hun & Scheufele, Dietram A. & Shaw, Bret R., 2014. "Public opinion about biofuels: The interplay between party identification and risk/benefit perception," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 344-355.
    12. Wenjia Zhang & Ming Zhang, 2018. "Incorporating land use and pricing policies for reducing car dependence: Analytical framework and empirical evidence," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(13), pages 3012-3033, October.
    13. 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.
    14. 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.
    15. Guthrie, Andrew & Fan, Yingling, 2016. "Developers' perspectives on transit-oriented development," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 51(C), pages 103-114.
    16. Pot, Felix Johan & Koster, Sierdjan & Tillema, Taede, 2023. "Perceived accessibility and residential self-selection in the Netherlands," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 108(C).
    17. Xinyu Cao & Patricia L. Mokhtarian, 2012. "The connections among accessibility, self- selection and walking behaviour: a case study of Northern California residents," Chapters, in: Karst T. Geurs & Kevin J. Krizek & Aura Reggiani (ed.), Accessibility Analysis and Transport Planning, chapter 5, pages 73-95, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    18. Duque, Ricardo B. & Gray, David & Harrison, Mariah & Davey, Elizabeth, 2014. "Invisible commuters: assessing a university’s eco-friendly transportation policies and commuting behaviours," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 38(C), pages 122-136.
    19. Hindriks, Jean & Lockwood, Ben, 2009. "Decentralization and electoral accountability: Incentives, separation and voter welfare," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 25(3), pages 385-397, September.
    20. Peter Boettke & Christopher Coyne & Peter Leeson, 2011. "Quasimarket failure," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 149(1), pages 209-224, October.

    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.