Neighborhood Sustainability: a multi‐criteria sustainability indicator analysis Emily Kern and Weston Dripps, Furman University, Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, 3300 Poinsett Highway, Greenville, SC 29613,
[email protected] Abstract
Discussion
Methods
Increasing urban flight in the United States has led to widespread, rapid, unsustainable suburban development and sprawl. Suburban areas make up the majority of urban America, and therefore play an integral role in the development of sustainable cities. Unfortunately, architects and developers typically do not consider sustainability in the design and construction of subdivisions, creating neighborhood layouts, home designs, and homeowner association's covenants, codes, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that create significant barriers to sustainable living. While there are multiple actions homeowners can take to contribute to neighborhood sustainability on the plot‐by‐plot level, these lifestyle choices are not always adopted or supported by greater neighborhood norms. The current literature provides assessments of individual sustainability indicators at the homeowner and neighborhood level as well as multi‐indicator sustainability assessments of cities and larger metropolitan areas, but lacks such multi‐indicator analyses at the homeowner and neighborhood level.
Sustainability indicators were chosen based on previous studies (Shen et al. 2011; Sharifi and Murayma 2013; Visscher 2014; Ygitcanlar et al. 2015; Braulio‐Gonzalo et al. 2015) that have developed, applied, and assessed sustainability indicators for suburban and urban areas.
This study aims to address this gap by comprehensively assessing neighborhood sustainability of twelve neighborhoods in Greenville, South Carolina from a development and homeowner behavior perspective through a variety of different sustainability indicators including recycling habits, lawn care, tree planting, renewable energy use, home gardening, sidewalks, accessibility, public space, and home orientation, which address both the development and behavioral components of neighborhood sustainability. Necessary data were collected by on site observation from June ‐ July 2015, analysis of aerial images from Google Earth, and qualitative assessment of homeowner's association covenants. The results revealed that overall, 70% of the sample population recycled, 58% artificially cared for their lawn, 41% of the homes were oriented to optimize solar potential, 9% had home gardens, and 55% had more than two trees planted in the front yard. Neighborhoods with homeowners associations were found to have more barriers to sustainability than homes in neighborhoods without an association. From the analysis, these barriers were identified and used to make recommendations for improved neighborhood sustainability.
In order to assess if homeowners association’s CC&Rs presented any barriers to sustainable living, a thematic qualitative analysis of the convents was performed, and any phrasing or clauses that seemed to inhibit any aspect of sustainability were manually flagged. These flagged clauses were compiled and grouped into the area of sustainability which they potentially inhibited. The table below provides an example of the type of rhetoric that was considered to be a barrier to sustainability.
Homeowner behavior
Tree Planting
Lawn Care
Gardening
Solar Panels
Recycling
Development
HOAs and CC&Rs
Sidewalks
Public space
Access/Connectivity
Home Orientation
Neighborhood Sustainability
Figure 1. Neighborhood sustainability indicators divided by development and homeowner behavior. Lines connecting indicators shows how developer decisions can influence homeowner behavior.
Setting Greenville County is located in northwestern South Carolina and is rapidly growing with an estimated population of 482,752 in 2014. Greenville County is South Carolina's largest county, and the rapid and continued growth has prompted expansive suburbanization and construction of new subdivisions and homes. Neighborhoods were selected with a similar set of socioeconomic and demographic criteria in order to reduce demographic variability and ensure that the two groups could be objectively compared in order to determine if the presence of a HOA inhibits sustainable living. Neighborhood Included in Study
Figure 2. Map showing the location of the twelve neighborhoods included in this study.
•12 residential neighborhoods •6 in HOA •6 no HOA •North of the City of Greenville •Single family homes •3‐4 bedrooms •$150,000‐$250,000 fair market value
Homeowner Behaviors
• • • • •
Development
Recycling • Lawn Care • Tree Planting • Gardening • Use of Solar Energy
Sidewalks Public Space Access Home Orientation
Each plot was assessed visually on a lot‐by‐lot basis, and data were recorded manually during June ‐ August 2015. Assessed visually on foot Assessed by a visual analysis of aerial images from Google Earth.
Table 1. HOA Covenant Analysis Barrier Example
Inhibits mixed land use
• No number lot, or any part thereof, shall be used for any business or commercial purpose or for any public purpose
Inhibits gardens
• All fencing erected and/or planting of trees and/or planting of scrubs [sic] on the lots herein above referred to shall be approved by the committee
• There shall not be erected or placed a fence, wall, tree, or shrub that may at present or in future Inhibits trees obstruct the view from any other lot unless and except as approved by the ARC Promotes • All yards and vacant lots shall be maintained and kept in a neat, clean, and orderly manner. If a artificial lawn dwelling is completed on a lot, the yard must be grassed and the grass must be cut at care reasonable intervals. Inhibits solar
Figure 3. Examples of gardens from Google Earth images
• Any such building shall face toward the front line of the lot.
Results Table 2. All Indicators Neighborhood
Recycling
Orientat‐ ion
Solar panels
Brownstone Crossing Edgewood Paris Mtn Glastonbury Village
‐
39%
0%
63%
9%
0%
25%
0%
53%
6%
‐
63%
0%
64%
17%
22%
Half Mile Lake
78%
41%
1%
61%
7%
63%
None
Northcliff
74%
44%
0%
61%
6%
31%
Partial
50% Non‐HOA 59%
5%
64%
Partial
Lake, pool, athletic courts, walking paths Pool, playground, athletic courts Pool
10%
96%
None
None
Partridge Ridge
71%
20%
0%
Buxton Croftstone Acres Fox Springs Liberty Park Timberlake Windermere Total HOA Total Non‐HOA Total
76%
38%
0%
Lawn care HOA
Gardens
Side‐ walks
Public Space
21%
None
Playground
32%
None
None
None
Pond with benches
Trees
73%
52%
0%
49%
10%
70%
None
Park
‐ 61% 64% 86% 70% 71% 70%
45% 33% 33% 16% 40% 42% 41%
0% 1% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%
48% 64% 53% 70% 60% 55% 58%
15% 9% 9% 5% 8% 10% 9%
18% 84% 78% 64% 46% 75% 55%
None None None None 2 0 2
None None None None 5 1 6
Correlations Significant Positive Correlations • Recycle and Natural Lawn Care (.121) • Recycle and Garden (.077) Significant Negative Correlations • Trees and Natural Lawn Care (‐.080) Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level. Difference between HOA and Non‐HOA
80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%
HOA
Sustainability Indicators
Homeowners Association CC&Rs
Recycling • Rates found in this study were consistent with past studies. • Rates would be lower if the neighborhoods did not have curbside recycling programs • Increased rates could be achieved by informing and motivating homeowners (Seacat and Northrup 2012; Saphores and Nixon 2014)
Trees • The finding that homes in neighborhoods without HOA’s had more trees than homes in neighborhoods with HOA’s was consistent with previous studies (Martin et al. 2003) • Most significant difference out of all indicators • Majority of CC&Rs require that homeowners maintain “neat” landscapes Solar • The wooded design is widely considered “wild” and would • Low rates of solar are indicative of the influence of past solar policies therefore violate this CC&R requirement in South Carolina SC was one of the least friendly states in the US for solar power use Positive legislative action taken Summer 2015; gives incentives Prevalence of homes that utilize solar energy in Greenville, as in the rest of the state, will likely increase due to these positive policy changes (Fretwell 2014; Slade 2015) 59% of homeowners in Greenville still unable to optimize their solar potential due to the inopportune orientation of their home
Lawn Care • HOAs create neighborhood expectations for a green, well‐manicured lawn (through CC&Rs) and lead to higher overall fertilization rates (Blaine et al. 2012; Fraser et al. 2013) • HOAs provide cultural and legal pressure for homeowners to keep • their lawns up to their standards (Clayton 2007) • Many CC&Rs mandate the maintenance of neat, grassed lawns • Explains 0% of homes in HOA neighborhoods without Lawn Care conventional turf • Artificial lawn care rates found in this study are consistent with similar findings from other suburban studies (Fraser et al. 2013) Community Space • Homeowners artificially manage lawns because they: • More prevalent in HOA neighborhoods • Fear that “wild” lawns may lower their property values • HOA fee can be used to create and manage community spaces • Feel pressured to uphold community standards • Non‐HOA neighborhoods might not have a funding source • View the lawn as a reflection of personal character No significant difference • Value landscape aesthetics as one of the most important traits in • Recycling rate maintaining their lawns (Martin et al. 2003; Blaine et al. 2012) • Solar orientation • • •
Correlations • • Homeowners who recycle are more likely to have gardens and to use natural lawn care than homeowners who do not • Homeowners who have more trees are less likely to use natural lawn management practices
Solar panels • Influenced by curbside recycling, national and state solar legislation, and development of the neighborhood, not CC&Rs
Recommendations HOA CC&Rs provide opportunities to promote sustainability • Removing or revising clauses that currently inhibit sustainability/introducing clauses that promote sustainable behavior • Revision to any clause that requires a “neat and kept” lawn would be reduce artificial lawn care (Blane et al. 2012) • Educating homeowners • Provide information on how to make sustainable lifestyle choices through meetings, websites/social media, and newsletters • Inform about solar incentives, sustainable lawn practices and the environmental harms of chemical inputs, how to properly recycle and the benefits of participating in their recycling program, etc. • Implement mandatory recycling programs • Example: Woodbury, NJ: participation rate of 98% and diverts 50% of its waste stream through recycling (Burn 1991) • Random checks for compliance, warnings, refusal to collect trash, fines
References
Recycling Orientation Lawn Care Gardens Trees
Recycling = homeowner recycled at least once during the four week period; Orientation= home is oriented between between SW (45º West) to SE (45º East); Solar Panels= homeowner has installed a solar array; Lawn Care= homeowner uses artificial lawn management; Gardens= homeowner has a garden in their yard; Trees= more than two trees present in front yard
Overall results of the multi‐criteria analysis are displayed in the table above. Data for each sustainability indicator are shown for the individual neighborhoods as well as a summary comparison between/non‐HOA neighborhoods and the average for all neighborhoods. The above bar graph shows a comparison between HOA/non‐HOA neighborhoods for each of the neighborhood sustainability indicators.
Anderson, L.M., Cordell, H.K., 1988. Influence of trees on residential property values in Athens, Georgia (U.S.A.): A survey based on actual sales prices. Landscape and Urban Planning 15, 153‐ 164. Blaine, T.W., Clayton, S., Robbins, P., Grewal, P.S., 2012. Homeowner attitudes and practices towards residential landscape management in Ohio, USA. Environmental Management 50, 257–271. Braulio‐Gonzalo, M., Bovea, M.D., Ruá, M.J., 2015. Sustainability on the urban scale: Proposal of a structure of indicators for the Spanish context. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 53, 16–30. Burn, S.M., 1991. Social Psychology and the Stimulation of Recycling Behaviors: The Block Leader Approach, Journal of Applied Social Psychology 21, 611‐629. Clayton, S., 2007. Domesticated nature: Motivations for gardening and perceptions of environmental impact. Journal of Environmental Psychology 27, 215–224. Fraser, J. C., Bazuin, J.T., Band, L. E., Grove, J. M., 2013. Covenants, cohesion, and community: The effects of neighborhood governance on lawn fertilization: Landscape and Urban Planning, v. 115, p. 30– 38. Fretwell, S., 2014. Haley signs bill to ease restriction on solar energy. The State. Martin, C.A., Peterson, K.S., Stabler, L.B., 2003. Residential landscaping in Phoenix, Arizona, U.S.: Practices and preferences relative to covenants, codes, and restrictions. Journal of Arboriculture 29, 9‐17. Robbins, P., Birkenholtz, T., 2003. Turfgrass revolution: measuring the expansion of the American lawn. Land Use Policy 20, 181–194. Saphores J.M., Nixon, H., 2014. How effective are current household recycling policies? Results from a national survey of U.S. households. Resources, Conservation and Recycling 92, 1–10. Seacat, J.D., Northrup, D., 2010. An information–motivation–behavioral skills assessment of curbside recycling behavior: Journal of Environmental Psychology v.30 p. 393–401. Sharifi, A., Murayama, A., 2013. A critical review of seven selected neighborhood sustainability assessment tools. Environmental Impact Assessment Review 38, 73–87. Shen, L., Ochoa, J.J., Shah, M.N., Zhang, X., 2011. The application of urban sustainability indicators‐ a comparison between various practices. Habitat International 35, 17‐29. Slade, D., 2015. Residential solar power options expanding in South Carolina, The Post and Courier. Visscher, R.S., Nassauer, J.I., Brown, D.G., Currie, W.S., Parker, D.C., 2014. Exurban residential household behaviors and values: Influence of parcel size and neighbors on carbon storage potential. Landscape and Urban Planning 132, 37–46. Yigitcanlar, T., Kamruzzaman, M.D., Teriman, S., 2015. Neighborhood sustainability assessment: Evaluating residential development sustainability in a developing country context. Sustainability 7, 2570‐2602.
Acknowledgements
I would like to that Furman University for funding this research, and Hannah Wheeler and Elly Gay for assistance in data collection.
