Although neotraditional architecture largely focuses on promoting sense of community (SOC), it has the potential to influence environmentalism in residents as well. In October 2002, the authors conducted a mail survey of 1,611 middleclass homeowners in Gainesville, Florida, to determine if there were differences in SOC and environmental behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge among homeowners from three development types (traditional, post–World War II, and neotraditional). The neotraditional community reported the strongest SOC among the development types. In terms of environmental behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge, however, the neotraditional communitywas not more environmentally friendly than were the post– World War II communities and it was considerably less so than was the traditional community. The results suggest that neotraditional design could play a role in influencing homeowners'SOC but that it may not go far enough in terms of promoting the environmental behaviors and awareness needed to form sustainable communities.
Arcury, T. A. (1990). Environmental attitude and environmental knowledge. Human Organization, 49, 300-300.
2.
Audirac, I. (1999). Stated preferences for pedestrian proximity: An assessment of New Urbanist sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 19, 53-66.
3.
Beauregard, R. A. (2002). New Urbanism: Ambiguous certainties. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 19, 181-194.
4.
Benfield, K. F., Raimi, M. D., & Chen, D. D. (1999). Once there were greenfields: How urban sprawl is undermining America's environment, economy, and social fabric. NewYork: Natural Resource Defense Council.
5.
Berke, P. R., MacDonald, J., White, N., Homes, M., Line, D., Oury, K., et al. (2003).Greening development to protect watersheds: Does New Urbanism make a difference?Journal of the American Planning Association, 69, 397-413.
6.
Brown, B. B., Burton, J. R., & Sweaney, A. L. (1998).Neighbors, households and front porches: NewUrbanist community tool or mere nostalgia?Environment and Behavior, 30, 579-601.
7.
Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). NewUrban and standard suburban sub divisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals. Journal of the American Planning Association, 67, 402-419.
8.
Byers, B. A. (1996). Understanding and influencing behaviors in conservation and natural resource management: African biodiversity series, No. 4. Washington, DC: Biodiversity Support Program.
9.
Calthorpe, P., & Fulton, W. (2001). The regional city: Planning for the end of sprawl. Washington, DC: Island.
10.
Cialdini, R. B. (1996). Activating and aligning two kinds of norms in persuasive communications. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1 (1), 3-10.
11.
Coley, R. L., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1997). Where does community grow? The social context created by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29, 618-638.
12.
Congress of New Urbanism. (2001). Charter of the new urbanism. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.cnu.org
13.
Crawley, M. J. (2002). Statistical computing: An introduction to data analysis using S-plus. New York: John Wiley.
14.
Dillman, D. A. (1978). Mail and telephone survey.New York: John Wiley.
15.
Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley.
16.
Dunlap, R. E., & Scarce, R. (1991). Poll trends: Environmental problems and protection. Public Opinion Quarterly, 55, 651-672.
17.
Dunlap, R. E., & Van Liere, K. D. (1978). The “New Environmental Paradigm”: A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9,10-19.
18.
Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones, R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56, 425-425.
19.
Ellis, R. J., & Thompson, F. (1997). Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91, 885-897.
20.
Fried, M. (1984). The structure and significance of community satisfaction. Population and Behavior, 7, 61-86.
21.
Furman, A. (1998). A note on environmental concern in a developing country: Results from an Istanbul survey. Environment and Behavior, 30, 520-534.
22.
Gottdiener, M. (1993). A Marx for our time: Henri Lefebvre and the production of space. Social Theory, 11,129-134.
23.
Hall, K. B., & Porterfield, G. A. (2001). Community by design: New Urbanism for suburbs and small communities. New York: McGraw-Hill.
24.
Hostetler, M. (1999). Scale, birds, and human decisions: A potential for integrative research in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning, 45, 15-19.
25.
Hostetler, M., & Holling, C. S. (2000). Detecting the scales at which birds respond to structure in urban landscapes. Urban Ecosystems, 4, 25-54.
26.
Hostetler, M., & Knowles-Yanez, K. (2003). Land use, scale and bird distributions in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62,55-68.
27.
Jacobson, S. (1999). Communication skills for conservation professionals. Washington, DC: Island.
28.
Katz, P., & Scully, V., Jr. (1994). The NewUrbanism: Toward an architecture of community. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
Kim, J., & Kaplan, R. (2004). Physical and psychological factors in sense of community: New Urbanist Kentlands and nearby Orchard Village. Environment and Behavior, 36, 313-340.
30.
Kuo, F. E., Bacaicoa, M., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Transforming inner-city landscapes—Trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior, 30, 28-59.
31.
Leung, C., & Rice, J. (2002). Comparison of Chinese-Australian and Anglo-Australian environmental attitudes and behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality, 30 (3), 251-262.
32.
Mazzumdar, S., & Mazzumdar, S. (1997). Intergroup social relations and architecture: Vernacular architecture and issues of status, power, and conflict. Environment and Behavior, 29, 374-422.
33.
Musser, G. (2000). Between burb and burg: Tthe father of New Urbanism, Andres Duany, is reshaping suburbia—and the practice of architecture. Scientific American, 282, 28-28.
34.
Myers, R., & Ewel, J. (1990). Ecosystems of Florida. Orlando: University of Central Florida Press.
35.
Plas, J. M., & Lewis, S. E. (1996). Environmental factors and sense of community in a planned town. American Journal of Community Psychology, 24, 109-143.
36.
Platt, R. H. (2004). Toward ecological cities: Adapting to the 21st century metropolis. Environment, 46, 10-18.
37.
Platt, R. H., Rowntree, R. A., & Muick, P. C. (Eds.). (1994). The ecological city. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.
38.
POPIN. (2000). World population information. United Nations population information network. Retrieved January 20, 2002, from http://www.undp.org/popin
39.
Seguin, C., Pelletier, L. G., & Hunsley, J. (1998). Toward a model of environmental activism. Environment and Behavior, 30, 628-653.
40.
Shrivastava, P. (1995). The role of corporations in achieving ecological sustainability. Academy of Management Review, 20,936-960.
41.
Song, Y., & Knapp, G. J. (2003). NewUrbanism and housing values: Adisaggregate assessment. Journal of Urban Economics, 54, 218-238.
42.
Talen, E. (1999). Sense of community and neighborhood form: An assessment of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Studies, 36,1361-1379.
43.
Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., Kuo, F. E., & Sullivan, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city— Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior, 30,3-27.
44.
Till, K. E. (2001). New Urbanism and nature: Green marketing and the neo-traditional community. Urban Geography, 22220-248.
45.
Zimmerman, J. (2001). The “nature” of urbanism on the New Urbanist frontier: Sustainable development, or defense of the suburban dream?Urban Geography, 22, 249-267.
