a
n
ho
nce
form
market evaluation (e.g. Lacy, 1990; Mohamed, 2006). How-
ever, there are few data about consumer stated preferences
for conservation subdivision design, especially in the midwest-
ern United States where the use of this approach is relatively
new. This article reports on a study that examines sales and
* Corresponding author. Tel.: þ1 515 294 0024; fax: þ1 515 294 2995.
E-mail addresses: forester@iastate.edu (T. Bowman), jrrt@iastate.edu
(J. Thompson), colletti@iastate.edu (J. Colletti).
1 Tel.: þ1 515 294 1458; fax: þ1 515 294 2995.
2 Tel.: þ1 515 294 4912; fax: þ1 515 294 2995.
Journal of Environmental Manageme1. Introduction
As urban populations increase and household sizes shrink,
metropolitan areas continue to expand from their city centers
into the surrounding landscape. Areas of particularly rapid
population growth and land conversion face increased pressure
since land use policy often lags behind development. This sit-
uation has led to debate between developers, urban planners,
and citizen groups about the social and environmental conse-
quences of suburban development, and has created interest
in alternative housing design patterns. Conservation subdivi-
sion design and low impact design are oft-mentioned method-
ologies that can protect against some forms of environmental
damage and still maintain comparable housing densities by
clustering homes and preserving natural areas.
Past studies have shown that clustered housing with re-
served open space has considerable promise with regard toKeywords: Open space; Willingness to pay; Urban growth; Contingent valuation; Conservation subdivisionsAvailable online 3 January 2008
Abstract
Conservation subdivision design has been promoted as a way to protect ecologically sensitive areas while maintaining housing densities
comparable to standard subdivisions, but many developers and planners question the appeal of conservation design to consumers. This study
was conducted to compare economic aspects of conservation subdivision design to standard subdivision design in the midwestern United States.
Three methods were used to determine the value homebuyers have for embedded conservation features in residential areas: transactional anal-
yses (to indicate the value homebuyers have expressed for such features in the past); hedonic analyses (to determine the proportion of present
value of homes attributable to such features); and contingent valuation (to examine willingness to pay according to homebuyers’ preferred
features, an indicator of potential future investment). Transactional analyses were based on assessment and transaction data for homes in three
conservation-oriented subdivisions and three standard subdivisions in Cedar Rapids, Iowa, United States. Hedonic price models were also
derived from assessment and transaction data. Contingent valuation analyses were based on a survey of residents in the same six subdivisions.
Transactional data indicated higher 5-year appreciation rates for conservation versus standard subdivision design. Hedonic price models re-
vealed that well-integrated conservation features (e.g. protected stream corridors) within subdivisions have a positive effect on home prices.
Sixty-six percent of all respondents indicated willingness to pay for more embedded open space. Maximum willingness to pay was related
to several factors including income, gender, desired level of open space, and concern about urban development. Overall, these results indicate
that consumer demand and willingness to pay for conservation subdivision design are positive and should not be considered a barrier to
implementation.
 2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.Valuation of open sp
features in reside
Troy Bowman1, Jan T
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management, 339 Scie
Received 19 October 2005; received in revised0301-4797/$ - see front matter  2007 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.10.008ce and conservation
tial subdivisions
mpson*, Joe Colletti2
II Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011-3221, United States
27 September 2007; accepted 4 October 2007
nt 90 (2009) 321e330
www.elsevier.com/locate/jenvman

of 47.5% over the same time period) greatly exceeds its pop-
003)
eco-
logical and cultural areas. Pelchar et al. (2007) provide a clear
mendefinition that distinguishes conservation subdivision design
from other open-space projects, suggesting that ‘‘conservation
development.relies on scientific assessments of the ecologi-temporary theory and practice by Arendt (1996, 1999, 2
whose approach emphasizes the preservation of importantulation growth rate. Finally, Cedar Rapids is one of few loca-
tions were multiple subdivisions with embedded conservation
features are present in the state.
We chose to examine subdivisions in the middle-income
(w$200 000) price range. While limiting the scope of our
study, this price range is an important factor in influencing
the use of conservation in subdivision development in the
Cedar Rapids area. At price points below this range, housing
developments in Cedar Rapids are usually designed to maxi-
mize housing units per acre, leaving consumers few choices
with respect to embedded conservation features. At the other
end of the spectrum, homebuyers considering higher-priced
housing units have carte blanche access to open space features
based on their income. Homebuyers in the middle price range
we studied are those consumers who must make explicit trade-
offs among housing, lot size, and neighborhood amenities (e.g.
conservation features) when choosing a residence, making that
market segment most pertinent to measure consumer value for
conservation features.
1.2. Background
1.2.1. Conservation subdivisions
The concern for preservation of natural areas during
development is not a recent phenomenon. Influential works
by Howard (1902) and Perry (1929) promoted the inclusion
of centralized open space in communities for the benefit of
residents. Whyte (1964) advocated clustering subdivision res-
idences to allow for interconnected networks of suburban open
space. The idea of clustered housing has become central to
modern conservation subdivision design, as proposed in con-appreciation of houses located in those subdivisions as well as
both conservation and standard subdivision residents’ willing-
ness to pay for conservation features.
1.1. Study area
Cedar Rapids, Iowa (United States) was chosen for this
study because as one of the state’s most rapidly expanding
cities, there is a large potential impact of residential develop-
ment on neighboring natural resources (the Cedar River, its
tributaries and surrounding gallery forests) that are unique in
the predominantly agricultural landscape of the state. The
2000 metropolitan population of Cedar Rapids was 237 230,
an increase of 12.6% over the previous decade (U.S. Census
Bureau, 2003). As a result, Cedar Rapids is both the second-
largest and second-fastest growing metropolitan area in Iowa.
In addition, geographic expansion of Cedar Rapids (at a rate
322 T. Bowman et al. / Journal of Environcal importance of a property’s assets to identify what parts
of a property should be protected and restored and how theremainder should be developed.’’ (p. 70). Implicit in this
definition is that comprehensive site analyses should provide
the information necessary to identify and protect significant
features on a subdivision site prior to development. In contrast,
standard developments are typically subdivided with the
primary goal of providing the greatest number of lots of the
minimum required size according to local regulations, without
specific regard for the site’s original natural features (Pelchar
et al., 2007). While there are no true conservation subdivisions
in Cedar Rapids (as per Arendt, 1999, or Pelchar et al., 2007),
there are subdivisions with significant embedded open space
areas that function as conservation features, including pro-
tected meadows, forests, and wetlands e developments that
we consider ‘‘conservation-oriented’’ subdivisions.
1.2.2. Market characteristics
One approach to examining the value of conservation in
subdivision design is to compare market characteristics (i.e.
rate of sales, days on market, number of sales) and house ap-
preciation rates. Lacy (1990) took this approach and found that
clustered subdivisions with protected open space appreciated
at a higher rate than standard subdivisions.
Some studies use the assessment value of homes to com-
pare market values. While this is the easiest way to obtain
market information because of a consistent availability of
comparable data, Kitchen and Hendon (1967) show that this
approach may ignore certain externalities that affect real sales
prices. Furthermore, because assessment value is partially
based on sales of surrounding properties, it can lag behind
true market value when housing prices are increasing, and
depending on citizen politics can contain bias from property
owners (Goolsby, 1997). We use both assessed value and sales
value in our study.
1.2.3. Hedonic price models
Hedonic pricing analyses have been used to measure con-
sumers’ revealed preferences for goods and services through
examination of their demonstrated purchasing behavior by
describing the utility of a good as a sum of a series of charac-
teristics rather than of the good itself (Lancaster, 1966). Rosen
(1974) applied this concept to housing markets by relating the
hedonic price function to supply and demand functions of
a number of individual attributes including factors such as
home structure and neighborhood characteristics (Freeman,
1993).
A number of hedonic price studies have explored the effect
of natural features on housing values. In general, neighbor-
hood parks have been shown to positively affect the price of
homes with distance (Kitchen and Hendon, 1967) and usage
(Weicher and Zerbst, 1973; Lutzenhiser and Netusil, 2001)
as important mediating factors. Open space can increase house
prices (Bolitzer and Netusil, 2000; Lacy, 1990); however, this
effect may be significantly less than the effect of additional
lot space (Peiser and Schwann, 1993). Greenbelts, forests
and streams are also mentioned as features that can increase
tal Management 90 (2009) 321e330home values (e.g. Correll et al., 1978; Bolitzer and Netusil,
2000; Thorsnes, 2002). In work conducted in Kingston, Rhode