-
Title
-
Eng
Perceptions of Green Spaces and Suburban Identity: The Aesthetics and Safety of Naturalization in Everett, Washington
-
Date
-
2018
-
Creator
-
Eng
McGowan, Hillary
-
Subject
-
Eng
Environmental Studies
-
extracted text
-
PERCEPTIONS OF GREEN SPACES AND SUBURBAN IDENTITY:
THE AESTHETICS AND SAFETY OF
NATURALIZATION IN EVERETT, WASHINGTON
by
Hilary McGowan
A Thesis
Submitted in partial fulfillment
of the requirements for the degree
Master of Environmental Studies
The Evergreen State College
December 2017
© 2017 by Hilary McGowan. All rights reserved.
This Thesis for the Master of Environmental Studies Degree
by
Hilary McGowan
has been approved for
The Evergreen State College
by
Kevin Francis, Ph.D.
Member of the Faculty
Date
ABSTRACT
Perceptions of green spaces and suburban identity:
the aesthetics and safety of naturalization in Everett, Washington
Hilary McGowan
Suburban and edges of urban communities have expanded over the past century.
These areas consume more resources than dense urban cores, have greater environmental
impact, and are often characterized by impervious surfaces and manicured green spaces.
The documented benefits from increasing green spaces has motivated efforts to increase
the naturalization of urban and suburban areas. However, we lack substantial research on
how targeted communities perceive such green spaces. In this study, 40 residents of
Riverside neighborhood in Everett, Washington completed a survey about their selfidentification and their perceptions of green spaces and naturalization. These residents
self-identified more with urban and urban-suburban than suburban, and displayed
relatively high concern for both safety and the environment. When rating images of wild,
combination of wild and manicured, and manicured yards, these residents were more
likely to favor green spaces with wild and naturalized attributes rather than a
conventional manicured lawn. The respondents also perceived combination yards as more
safe than conventionally manicured lawns. These results support future naturalization
projects that utilize more combination designs of manicured and wild aesthetics due to its
perceived attractiveness and safety.
Table of Contents
List of Figures
v
List of Tables
vi
Acknowledgements
viii
Chapter 1: Introduction
1
Chapter 2: Literature Review
6
Literature Roadmap
6
Defining Terminology
9
Suburban
9
Green Spaces and Naturalization
21
Nature
23
History of Suburban Development
26
New Urbanism
35
Suburban Development in the Puget Sound
38
Environmental Costs of Suburban Development
41
Benefits of Naturalized Areas
45
Aesthetics
48
Safety
52
Chapter 3: Methods
57
Riverside Neighborhood
58
Survey
65
Chapter 4: Results
69
Chapter 5: Discussion
77
Chapter 6: Recommendations for Future Research and Conclusion
80
References
82
Appendix
89
Survey Questions
89
Visual Preference Survey
92
iv
List of Figures
Figure 1: Wedge Transect
11
Figure 2: Rural-Urban Transect
12
Figure 3: Example of a Community Planning Map
14
Figure 4: City of Everett Neighborhood Map
59
Figure 5: Riverside Neighborhood Boundaries
61
Figure 6: Age Range of Riverside Respondents
70
Figure 7: Self-Identification of Neighborhood Suburban Identity
71
Figure 8: Environmental and Safety Concerns of Riverside Residents
72
Figure 9: Importance of Green Spaces of Riverside Residents
72
Figure 10: Yard Design Preferences of Riverside Residents
73
Figure 11: Mean Visual Preference Survey Results
74
Figure 12: Detailed Visual Preference Survey Results
75
v
List of Tables
Table 1: Main Characteristics of Transect Zones
12
Table 2: Total Population of US Metropolitan Areas
33
vi
Acknowledgements
I would like to thank the entire MES faculty for their help throughout the thesis
writing process; particularly my thesis reader, Kevin Francis, and my qualitative methods
instructor/statistics maven, Kathleen Saul. Thanks also to the City of Everett for
providing me with information about previous studies concerning parks and green spaces
in the region.
Thanks to those who helped edit my thesis and provided constructive feedback
over the past year: Dylan Kubina, Alex Case-Cohen, Carrie Fisher, Paige Anderson, and
Arielle Simmons. Thanks to my fellow 2015 MES cohort that helped me throughout the
discussion of my topic.
Special thanks to my friends and family who supported me throughout my time in
the MES program: Wade Oberlin, Annalise Nicholson, Henry Yarsinske Jr., Mort, Austin
Polley, Debby Polley, Rory McGowan, and Scott McGowan. Thanks to Kelsey Hopkins
for her assistance with survey distribution.
vii
Chapter One
Introduction
Suburban areas have increased in population and extent over the past half century.
Metropolitan areas have increased in density and geographic spread--more people live in
suburban areas in the past half-century than ever before. With increasing media coverage
of climate change and an overall increase of knowledge of environmentalism and
sustainability, urban and suburban areas are transitioning towards building green and
incorporating sustainable design. City Planners are adopting Environmental Planning into
their catalog of Planning techniques. How suburban residents perceive these
Environmental Planning projects, in particular the use of green spaces, shapes the
interactions an individual has with their environment, behavioral responses, and the use
of their physical environment.
Urban and suburban areas are human-created environments that are physically and
geographically distinctive from one another. High density urban areas are popularized in
Urban Political Ecology and Urban Planning, two fields that study and shape human built
environments and their relationships with how people use them. ‘Urban’ is often used as
an umbrella term that incorporates all cities within a non-rural metropolitan area.
Suburban cities, also referred to as satellite cities or edge cities, are not considered truly
1
metropolitan by professionals and scholars, and have been largely ignored in these areas
of study and expertise.
The modern human establishment of suburbia is a new way, both in form and
function, in which humans use their physical space. The suburban realm in the United
States is uniquely conceptualized in pop culture and scholarly research. It exists between
metropolitan, urban, and rural areas, characterized as largely dependent on relative range
to dense urban areas. Urban Planning professionals have yet to agree on how to define
suburban areas. This lack of definition stems from the fact that there are different kinds of
suburban areas with different characteristics and features (Forsyth, 2012). This means
that there are many potential definitions for the term, ranging throughout the suburban
spectrum (Groves, 2011).
Due to this lack of definition, suburban areas have largely been ignored in
studies of this nature, leading to an increased need to find out how suburban
communities in the United States perceive green spaces. Perception and
acceptance of green spaces is an important component for city planners and
developers to recognize, as climate change and human activity puts pressure on
the environmental integrity of urban and suburban areas. Proximity to green
spaces is associated with a wealth of physical and emotional health benefits.
Identifying how suburban nature is viewed can support how suburban areas are
developed to best serve its residents. Increasing the knowledge of how green
spaces can be used more effectively to maximize well-being, aesthetics, and
ecological landscapes can assist planners and developers to maximize future
development and revitalization.
2
This project seeks to advance the knowledge of suburban perceptions of
naturalization in Everett, Washington. Naturalization is the process of increasing
green spaces in urban and suburban areas that are more sustainable than
conventional planning development (Randall, 2003). Green and naturalized
spaces can serve many purposes, active play, walking, parks, playgrounds, school
fields, trees lining roadways, and yards and gardens of homeowners (Parsons,
1995). Increased green spaces have been noted by many researchers to increase
the overall wellbeing of the inhabitants nearby. Studies addressing increasing
green spaces have mainly focused on highly dense urban centers, mainly outside
of the United States.
My research was broken into two main questions:
1. How do residents in Everett, WA perceive where they live within the
suburban spectrum?
2. How do these same residents perceive the safety and attractiveness of
different kinds of green spaces?
To define a suburban space, this thesis will profile the current suburban
landscapes in the United States, the Pacific Northwest, and consider how scholars
approach defining suburban spaces. Due to the lack of definition of suburban areas,
particularly in fringe spaces near urban cores, this study seeks to use the personal
definitions of how residents describe their areas through use of a survey combined with
historical scholarly thought of how these areas are described. While exploring how
3
residents define their physical and geographic space, this thesis will also investigate how
suburban residents perceive their natural surroundings.
The definition of nature to an individual in a strictly urban area may differ from
what an individual views nature to be in a suburban or rural area. These perceptions of
nature and the environment shape the way in which people interact with their physical
surroundings. How nature is defined within the context of urbanity is relevant to how
cities are formed and how humans interact with the spaces of their city. Individual
perceptions of nature influence how people utilize, view, and interpret their surroundings.
These perceptions shape relationships between the environment and how people use
nature specific activities and benefits. The benefit of understanding perceptions of green
spaces more comprehensively allows researchers, the public, and urban planners to be
able to communicate better, have a more nuanced view of planning projects and
naturalization.
Since Urban Political Ecology acknowledges the socio-political-natural
connection of humans and human built spaces, socio-economic and racial backgrounds
should not be ignored in this this study. Although not a part of the study specifically,
these backgrounds will be considered in the chosen suburban areas to help shape how the
respondents reflect their geographical location. These unique backgrounds and their
corresponding locations (suburban locations based on Urban Planning research) have not
been studied in a comparative form in the context of identifying nature perceptions. This
study would add to the scholarship of identifying how nature is perceived, while
providing a broader framework based on human localities.
4
This study assists political ecologists, urban planners, geographers, and
environmental behaviorists in future studies on naturalization in suburban areas.
Researchers could more broadly evaluate in what ways a suburban nature definition
preferences influence how suburban residents interact with nature and their built
environments. It could also help to bridge the understanding on how perceptions of green
spaces broaden the understanding of how residents perceive naturalization projects. In
identifying how nature and green spaces are perceived and whether certain areas are seen
to be more natural than others, perception of nature can guide what forms of green spaces
are more accepted by suburban residents. Identifying how suburban nature is viewed can
support how these areas are developed to best serve suburban residents. This study will
also fill in an important gap in current research for both identifying suburban zones in
Snohomish County, and gathering data of nature perceptions for suburban residents.
5
Chapter Two
Literature Roadmap
The following literature review begins by examining how the terms suburban,
green spaces, naturalization, and nature are used by urban planners and scholars. This
chapter will explore definitions of these terms, providing a basic overview of how the
terms are used by professionals and scholars. This section will also provide working
definitions for how these terms will be throughout the rest of this thesis.
Once these terms are better understood, I will examine the historical context of
suburban development. This section discusses the transition of United States urban
settlements in the middle to late 20th Century, provides descriptions of this new growth,
and how the change in location and settlements shaped how green spaces are used and
grown. To understand suburban and urban development in the modern era, it is essential
to recognize the influence of New Urbanism, a planning methodology that shaped
development in the past century and today. New Urbanism is a theoretical framework that
allows for city planners to further develop urban cores with a focus on preserving
environmental space (Ellis, 2002). New Urbanism contextualizes how urban, suburban,
and rural areas are perceived to many professionals and scholars.
6
Next discussed is suburban development in the Puget Sound region. As suburban
areas have grown and changed throughout the United States, the Puget Sound region in
the Pacific Northwest has experienced its own set of changes based on industry,
development, population growth, and geographic boundaries.
After exploring the history of suburban development, New Urbanism, and
suburban development in the Puget Sound, the following section discusses the
environmental costs of suburban development. In response to these environmental costs,
the benefits of naturalization will be explored, as they provide positive physical and
emotional health benefits (Priego et al, 2008). These benefits are linked with the
geographical features of a nature setting, visual perceptions, and ability to use nature for
recreation or play (Priego, 2008). Interacting with nature and ‘green space’ contributes
towards improved welfare for citizens (Sang et al, 2016).
Despite the myriad of benefits from green spaces, naturalization projects have
been criticized by the public. In identifying how nature is aesthetically perceived and
whether certain areas are seen to be more natural than others, perception of nature can
guide what forms of green spaces are more beneficial to residents near-by. Identifying
how suburban nature is viewed can support how these areas are developed to best serve
suburban residents.
In addition to aesthetics, scholars have also examined how the public identifies
the safety of naturalized areas. Safety concerns have been raised as these ‘natural’
landscapes appear to some as dangerous for children, women, and the elderly (Randall,
2003). Particularly in parks, naturalization of public spaces is controversial for how safe
that public space is perceived. When naturalized areas are perceived as both aesthetically
7
appealing and safe, it is more likely that urban planners can reap the benefits of
increasing naturalized spaces.
8
Defining Terminology of Suburban, Green Spaces, Naturalization, and
Nature
Suburban
Suburbia: the place where over half the population of the United States call home
(Lopez, 2014). The monumental changes of American moving from urban zones to
suburban caused political, social, environmental, and economical transformations.
Suburbanization represents shift in planning theory and political governing that
descended from the socioeconomic platforms of the early 20th century. The term
‘Suburban’ is present in popular culture to describe the in-between areas of urban core
and rural landscapes. Despite its frequent usage, urban scholars have yet to agree how to
define suburban areas, although a common theme exists based on the suburbs’ relative
proximity to a metropolitan area and relative newness (Forsyth, 2012). The range of
meanings of suburban only expands when other fields and popular culture share their
definition (Forsyth, 2012).
The U.S. census doesn’t specifically classify a suburb versus a denser urban city,
causing difficulty in distinguishing a national numerical population who occupy suburban
spaces (Forsyth, 2012; U.S. Census Bureau, 2015). Although the bureau doesn’t use
‘suburban’ as a classification, they do delineate between two kinds of urban densities.
The U.S. Census Bureau (Urban and Rural Geography U.S. Census Bureau, 2017)
classifies two types of urban areas as:
•
Urbanized Areas (UAs) of 50,000 or more people;
•
Urban Clusters (UCs) of at least 2,500 and less than 50,000 people
9
Rural areas encompass all population, housing and territory not included within one of
the two urban areas above (Urban and Rural Geography U.S. Census Bureau, 2017).
The Federal Government mandates that the Census Bureau and the Office of
Management and Budget use this rigid form of classification to afford uniformity across
governmental entities (Groves, 2011). This uniformity allows for statistics to be used
throughout different factions of the Federal Government. Representatives from the U.S.
Census Bureau note the rigidity of the definitions of urban densities, and state on their
website that there are many definitions of urban, suburban, and rural, each suitable for
different uses (Groves, 2011). It is also recognized that many suburban areas have
populations that are above 50,000 people, leaving there no distinguishing element
between urban and suburban. Despite noting the suburban spectrum, the Census Bureau
is committed under Federal regulations to stand by these definitions (Groves, 2011).
The American Planning Association (APA) is another body that recommends
widely used definitions and classifications, like the U.S. Census Bureau. The APA is an
international organization established in 1978 that unites professional urban planners and
those interested in the Planning profession (About APA, 2017). This organization
promotes using regulatory ‘codes’ that promote sustainable urban form (Duany & Talen,
2002). Regulatory codes allow for Planners to classify certain elements of a city, such as
commercial districts, single-family homes, and agricultural land.
In the early 2000s, the APA developed regulatory codes that used transects,
images that display the differences between codes and shows immersive environments
(Duany & Talen, 2002). Below are two different transects, a Wedge Transect (Fig. 1) and
a Rural-Urban Transect (Fig. 2). The Wedge Transect shows a view of the world we
10
occupy, with no set boundaries between urban, suburban, and rural. This is transect is
used more often to display larger trends than for regulatory codes (Center for Applied
Transect Studies, 2017). The second transect (Fig. 2) is an example of how Planners
distinguish different kinds of zones, providing lines that determine urban, suburban and
rural areas (Center for Applied Transect Studies, 2017). Each zone on this figure is
labeled, with T3 being the designation for ‘Sub-Urban’ Zone.
Figure 1. Wedge Transect. This transect shows the gradients between urban, suburban,
and rural. The figure has no distinct lines between the gradients
(Center for Applied Transect Studies, 2017)
11
Figure 2. Rural-Urban Transect. This transect dissects urban, suburban, and rural
areas with distinct lines. Each zone represents an individual transect.
(Center for Applied Transect Studies, 2017)
T1
Natural
Zone
Surface waterbodies, protected wetlands, protected habitat, riparian
corridors, purchased open space, conservation easements, transport
corridors
T2
Rural Zone
Flood plain, aquifer recharge areas, steep slopes, open space to be
acquired, corridors to be acquired, buffers to be acquired, legacy
woodland, legacy farmland
Medium slopes, woodlands, most residential habitat of a community,
buildings consist of single-family, detached houses, office and retail
buildings are permitted on a restricted basis, buildings are a max of
two stories, open spaces are rural in character
The generalized, but primarily residential, buildings consist of singlefamily, detached houses and row houses on small and medium-sized lots,
limited office buildings and lodging are permitted, retail is confined to
designated lots, typically at corners
T3
Sub-Urban
Zone
T4
General
Urban Zone
T5
Urban
Center Zone
T6
Urban Core
Zone
The denser, filly mixed-use habitat of a community, buildings consist of
row houses, flex houses, apartments, and offices above shops, office and
retail buildings are lodging are permitted, buildings are a max of five
stories, open spaces consists of squares and plazas
The densest residential, business, cultural, and entertainment
concentration of a region, buildings consist of row houses, apartments,
office buildings, and department stores, buildings are disposed on a wide
range of lot sizes, surface parking lots are not permitted on frontages
Table 1. Main characteristics of Transect Zones adapted from Duany and Talen’s
APA article, “Transect Planning” (2002, p. 255).
12
Duany and Talen (2002), characterize each zone along the rural-urban transect
(Table 1). Their table has been adapted for this thesis to show the most relevant
information for this study. These transects are examples of the guidelines used by Urban
Planning professionals who map out and design cities (Duany & Talen, 2002). T3 is the
tiered transect zone that represents suburban areas, and is widely used throughout the
United States by Urban Planners.
In addition to transects, urban planners utilize zoning and planning data, to create
‘zoning maps’ to that mark density and land use. These maps often color code the tiers of
T1 through T6 to display the characteristics of a city. Figure 3 is an example of a
Community Plan that utilizes all six transects, along with designations of districts, civic
areas, and grid patterns (Duany & Talen, 2002). Maps such as this one could be used for
a neighborhood, city, county, or even up to a regional level, depending on the desired
scale.
13
Figure 3. Example of a Community Plan map using Transect Zones, Districts,
Civic Reservations, and Special Requirements.
(Duany and Talen, 2002, p. 261).
14
To expand upon the Federal Government and American Planning Association
definitions, scholars provide their own explanation of suburban, with boundaries that are
specific to their study area (Groves, 2011; Forsyth, 2012). These definitions range from
mapping density to administering perception studies. Classifications of suburban areas
are also molded by different stereotypes of suburbia. The following are examples of some
of these academic descriptions.
Many scholars consider suburban sprawl to be a space-time context of
development, shaped by its density and spatial distribution (Moudon & Hess, 2000;
Barnes et al., 2007). Often suburban definitions incorporate multiple dimensions, leading
to increased complexity that further fragments the ability for comparative study (Forsyth,
2012). The areas that suburban growth represent are not dense urban centers, and are
often referred to as edge cities, metrocenters, and suburban zones (Moudon & Hess,
2000; Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010). Despite these varied terms, scholars have
found that there are substantial areas of medium-density multifamily housing that are not
categorized or represented in literature (Moudon & Hess, 2000; Short et al., 2016).
Moudon and Hess (p. 243, 2000) recognized a broader sphere of suburban spaces
as indicating “that residential functions in maturing suburbs not only densify, but also
nucleate.” The authors cite that at regional levels, suburban clusters represent low-level
concentrations of activity. These land-use based activities are representative of land-use
planning models from the early 20th century (Moudon and Hess, 2000). These clusters of
suburban nucleation represent a modern take on suburbanization, allowing for a flexible
definition based on the regional landscapes and uses of the land to develop.
15
Cities and urban centers are a part of a wider system of social and political
relationships that exist in many different scales (Scott & Scorper, 2014). Within the
context of the whole city and its region, diversity and individual distinctions of its
characteristics influence its urban/suburban/rural classification and type of city (Scott &
Scorper, 2014). The modern delineation between urban and suburban is largely reliant on
the historical development from the past century. Design elements such as those seen in
early suburban settlements still exist today, as the geographic spread of population
occurred mainly after 1950 (Moudon & Hess, 2000).
Suburban areas are stereotyped as areas that are made up of middle-class families
with children, living in private detached houses, with low density and open space
(Forsyth, 2012). Suburbs are also framed as either being positive (low density, increased
green space) or negative (uncultured, environmentally harmful), based on their
definitions (Forsyth, 2012). Suburban areas are often considered to be irresponsible,
poorly-planned developed sites that are harmful to the environment, increase traffic, and
increases taxes, and some scholars go so far as to refer to it as a cancerous growth or
virus to urban development (Barnes et al., 2007).
The lack of understanding urban, suburban, and rural divides has complicated
efforts of measuring the stages and kinds of urbanization and managing natural resources
impacted by land change (Short Gianatti et al., 2016). Improving this understanding of
how urban to rural gradients are measured and defined is important for addressing
environmental problems and managing natural resources (Grimm et al., 2000; Pickett et
al., 2011; Short Gianatti et al., 2016). Among studies that currently define these urban
gradients, there is little consistency in methods being used to define urban, suburban and
16
rural (Raciti et al., 2012; Short Gianatti et al., 2016). Measuring these three areas include
using population density, density of roads and impervious surfaces, and linear distance
from an urban core (Short Gianatti et al., 2016). Despite the commonalities for measuring
the urban-rural divides, literature on this topic is still dependent on comparability to
previous studies and how ‘urban’ is defined in each study (Raciti et al., 2012; Short
Gianatti et al., 2016).
This divide in suburban and urban areas helps to define urbanized areas. Since
suburban and urban areas are not necessarily characterized by their design or density
alone, the characteristics that shape each area also classify these zones (Short Gianatti et
al., 2016). Suburban areas lack a clear definition, in part due to the varied ways that they
have quickly developed over the last century. A lack of centralized definitions of the
elements of sprawl, characterized by their time and space components, leads to a lack of
comprehensive literature on the topic. Without boundaries or descriptors for individual
types or elements of suburban zones, studies about suburban areas cannot be directly
compared unless their individual definitions are similar (Forsyth, 2012). When the
opinions of researchers, policy makers, activists, and the public disagree over how to
define suburban areas and sprawl, efforts to mitigate or decrease this type of land
development are complicated (Barnes et al., 2007).
An example how these studies are defined comes from a paper by Robinson,
Newell & Marzluff (2005, pg. 57), who described the differences between Urban,
Suburban, and Rural lands in their paper, “Twenty-five years of sprawl in the Seattle
region.”:
17
“Urban: Buildings cover the majority of land. Building density is high and
includes multi-family housing, multi-storied buildings, commerce, and industry.
High-density single-family housing on relatively small lots (<0.2 ha) is also
common.
Suburban: Building density is moderate and lawns and other vegetation are often
readily apparent. Lawns and gardens are generally more extensive than within
urban areas. Single-family housing predominate on small to moderately-sized lots
(0.1-1.0 ha). Multi-family housing, basic services, and light industry are scattered
throughout. Structures over two stories tall are uncommon.
Rural: Building density is relatively low and surrounded by agricultural lands.
Settlement is sparse, primarily single-family housing on moderate to large lots
(.5-20 ha).”
Another description for suburban zones are defined as: “A pattern of landuse/land-cover conversion in which the growth rate of urbanized land significantly
exceeds the rate of population growth over a specified time period.” (Barnes et al., 2007;
Powell et al., 2007). This definition lacks specific numbers to define suburban areas, but
instead displays growth trends. Many scholars use this definition, or a version of this
definition, to approximate suburban areas through their historical growth. This
description also allows scholars to observe different rates of population and urbanized
land growth in comparison to each other, using the significant difference to define a
suburban space based on its contextual growth.
A different kind of description for suburban areas relies on the residents of
suburban zones to classify their perception of where they live. Definitions of suburban
areas that rely entirely on physical and geographic boundaries and population density
often ignore the socio-political aspects of self-characterization (McIntyre et al., 2000;
Coulton et al., 2001; Priego et al., 2008; Short Gianatti et al., 2016). A growing body of
scholarly research suggests that residents’ perceptions of their surrounding environment
18
are important in understanding how the spaces in which they occupy are classified
(McIntyre et al., 2000; Coulton et al., 2001; Short Gianatti et al., 2016). To help describe
suburban areas, Anacker (2015) articulates suburbia to be that “suburbanites themselves
are the arbiters of what is suburban” (Anacker, 2015, p. 25).
There is a current gap in literature for studies to incorporate resident perception
into the body of suburban classifications. Short Gianatti et al. (2016) conducted a study to
link the abstract perceptions of urban, suburban, and rural to their geospatial
characteristics counterparts. Residents of different areas were asked to define where they
were, and the authors compared their responses to the existing classification of the space
based on the popular literature understanding of urban, suburban, and rural (Short
Gianatti et al., 2016). The authors argued that this method was particularly useful in
capturing the social and ecological processes that help in providing a meaningful measure
of urbanization. This method can also be used to scale-up sociological studies and assist
the development of conservation policies (Short Gianatti et al., 2016, p. 825). When the
authors used the perception data along with population density and characteristic maps,
they were able to model a ‘decision tree’ that better directs how to classify an area as
urban, suburban, and rural.
Further exploring how individuals classify themselves, Kolko (2015) devised a
survey to predict where people would want to live in the future. Due to the lack of
definitions for urban and suburban areas, a survey was developed by an online housing
economics site, Trulia.com to find out the definition of suburbia by the American
population (Kolko, 2015).
19
The study used responses from 2,008 adults and evaluated where they live based
on their own description (urban, suburban, or rural), then cross-evaluated their responses
against their given zip codes. 26% described themselves as urban, 53% as suburban, and
21% stated they were rural (Kolko, 2015). The survey found that self-reporters of urban
areas were better able to align themselves with density based definitions of urban and
suburban areas determined by official city boundaries. Suburban residents were less
likely than urban residents to be able to align themselves with the pre-determined city
boundaries (Kolko, 2015). This gap shows that Urban Planning definitions for urbansuburban-rural divides are better recognized by urban residents than suburban residents,
and that suburban residents are less likely to agree with how City Planners designate their
zone.
Increasingly, scholars are adopting sociological elements of perceptions studies to
better understand suburban boundaries (Coulton et al., 2001; Forsyth, 2012; Short
Gianatti et al., 2016). Further questioning of suburban boundary perception has
developed to better understand how neighbors define their location and how individual
differences can attribute to their differences of urban and suburban definitions (Coulton et
al., 2001). Coulton et al (2001) set up a pilot study to better understand how residents
perceive their boundaries. The authors used a set of small neighborhoods and used the
Census Bureau’s boundaries to establish their own smaller geographic boundaries.
Respondents in these designated neighborhoods were asked to draw on a map their own
version of how they saw their neighborhood boundaries (Coulton et al., 2001). The study
found that residents were more likely to have a more expansive or different perception of
their neighborhood boundaries than the Census maps (Coulton et al., 2001). Although
20
this survey did not ask for their perceptions on whether they were urban or suburban, this
study represents a need for further perception studies to create a more accurate
representation of neighborhood and suburban boundaries.
The changing landscape of The United States, the ebbs and flows of populations
moving in and around cities, have contributed to this nebulous definition of the suburbs.
Unfortunately, there is no common consensus how to define different suburban areas,
leading to the problematic outcome that studying suburbia is discounted by researches
(Barnes et al., 2007; Forsyth, 2012). Despite this issue, researchers are increasingly
improving how suburban zones are characterized, classified, and described. Given the
diverse array of definitions for suburban, scholars suggest that using more specific
terminology to define different areas that a suburb might encompass to honor their
diversity and sociological impacts (Forsyth, 2012).
For the purpose of this study, suburban will be used to designate a T3 Zone area,
as specified by the APA (Duany & Talen, 2002). The term will also be used to reflect the
perceptions from the survey results from the residents in the Riverside Neighborhood.
Green Spaces and Naturalization
While discussing the effects of suburban sprawl, scholars refer to the vegetation
and the landscape as green space. Green spaces can be represented by parks, lawns,
gardens, and areas with growing plants, among other examples (Jennings & Gaither,
2015). Expanding green spaces are attributed towards improving physical health, mental
health, increasing community support, and improving neighborhood aesthetics (Wolf,
21
2014). Because of suburban development, green spaces in suburban areas are decreasing
(Brabec et al., 2002; Robinson et al., 2005; Powell et al., 2007).
The term naturalization is based off of the assumption that green spaces are perceived
as being ‘natural’ while human built spaces are the opposite, leading to naturalization
being synonymous for increasing green spaces (Grimm et al., 2000; Priego et al., 2008).
Naturalization is the process of moving a designated area away from ‘unnatural’
conditions towards more ‘natural’ conditions, resembling the ecosystem that existed
before humans influenced that specific environment (Grimm et al., 2000; Priego et al.,
2008).
Urban nature is where these green spaces exist in human built regions, such as urban
and suburban zones (Priego et al., 2008). Naturalizing, aka increasing urban greenery, is
notable for improving the environmental, social, and physical aesthetics of that area
(Grimm et al., 2000; Priego et al., 2008). Naturalization of suburban areas can be
increased in local public areas and at private residences. The role of perception of these
naturalized areas is a key component to increasing green spaces on the governmental and
public side, as residents rely on visual, safety, and community preferences (Jorgensen et
al., 2002; Priego et al., 2008). Individual perceptions of nature influence how people
utilize, view, and interpret their surroundings. These perceptions shape relationships
between the environment and how people relate to their surroundings, using nature
specific activities and benefits (Parsons, 1995).
When examining naturalized areas, scholars compare ‘wild’ to ‘manicured’ areas.
How vegetation is cared for and managed is directly related to how that vegetation is
perceived. Wild and manicured differ in their definition and perception on an individual
22
level. Scholars and planners use these terms to describe the differences between
naturalized and non-naturalized spaces, with wild areas being associated with naturalized
and non-naturalized with manicured areas. The perception that non-naturalized areas
reflect “order and industriousness” (Feagan & Ripmeester, 1999) has shaped how new
urbanist planners have designed green areas.
Nature
Nature has various meanings, from both a historical and present perspectives. As
cities have changed, the perception of nature has changed as well (Priego et al, 2008).
Divergent conceptions of nature become a barrier for environmental communication and
environmental value of an area, especially for urban planning. Urban residents may not
have the same perception of what nature is, leading to problems for communicating
building projects, development, use of space, master plans, and value of certain kinds of
spaces. If people in suburban communities don’t agree with the more common and
popularized urban definition and use of nature, larger planning projects could negatively
impact these areas more (Randall et al, 2003). Awareness of nature and its significance
relative to an individuals’ surroundings is also instrumental to communicating
environmental problems on a local and global scale (Priego et al, 2008).
Nature is a term that is multifaceted in its conceptualization and its definition various
from person to person. Per Noel Castree (2001), nature is either 1) external, 2) intrinsic,
3) universal, or 4) social. External implies that nature exists separate from human society.
Intrinsic is a fixed nature, something that is an inherent quality for something or
someone. Universal, the opposite of external, describes a nature residing everywhere and
23
in everything. It can also be the idea of ‘mother nature’. Social nature remains more
ambiguous—the idea of nature as a socialized entity, emerging from social interactions
(Castree, 2001). These various definitions skew the way in which one conceives of and
treats nature. For example, do we view nature as pristine, untouched, and untouchable?
Can nature be something built by humans? Are urban parks “natural”?
The bond between human developed spaces and this relative view of nature are
inherently intertwined, as brought to life by popular authors in the urban political ecology
field (Lefebvre, 1976; Jacobs, 1992) who state that human built environments are as
natural as pristine nature, since humans are natural beings. These authors found a source
of contradiction in the idea that cities and other built environments were viewed to be
theoretically separate from the earth. These assumptions connect nature to humanity in a
unique light, which provides a basis in which the environment that humans have built is
socially and physically natural (Swyngedouw, 2005). Today, many urbanized areas are
implementing city beautification programs to increase quality of life (Wolf, 2014).
The revitalization of urban and suburban spaces is connected to how humans interact
with their environment and some cities are framing this increased connectivity as an
amenity (Wolf, 2014). Other municipalities, particularly in more suburban areas, are less
likely to adopt the diversification of plants that naturalization encourages (Sandberg &
Foster, 2005). Naturalization can also be viewed as bourgeois that is targeted towards
wealthier residents of suburban neighborhoods (Castree, 2001; Sandberg & Foster, 2005).
Although naturalization has these associations of elitism, naturalized areas cost less for
maintenance than traditional lawns that require pesticides, weed-pulling, and watering
(Sandberg & Foster, 2005). The perception that naturalized areas are a threat to the order
24
of a societally influenced definition of natural lawns is a challenging element for
naturalization (Sandberg & Foster, 2005).
This thesis recognizes the different academic definitions of nature, but will utilize a
conventional interpretation for the purposes of this study. As a working definition, nature
and natural will be used to represent non-human built areas, but encompasses wild and
manicured green spaces. Naturalization, in this case, is increasing green space that is not
built by humans, such as buildings or sidewalks. Naturalization in this study represents
green spaces that can be managed by humans, but is living vegetation of some kind. In
the survey, residents are asked to apply their own definitions of ‘green space’ since no
definition is provided.
25
History of Suburban Development
The history of suburban development from the past century is essential in
understanding how suburban areas exist today. Planning theory and suburban settlements
cemented how neighborhoods and communities established, including the laws and codes
surrounding those areas. Suburban areas are unique to human settlement; therefore, this
brief historical outline presents the major trends and developments that helped to shape
modern suburban neighborhoods.
The Great Depression marked a change in how urbanization progressed. In
August of 1929, the economy contracted and began one of the largest economic
depressions ever experienced in the United States, lasting from 1929 to 1939 (Rosenberg,
2003). The Great Depression became the catalyst for the creation of the New Deal, a
federal commitment to implement policies that would improve government, economic,
social and labor policies. Scholars concur that the Great Depression was a major
motivator for the United States government to promote policies that would increase
homeownership to stimulate the economy.
Before the depression hit, increased production and labor productivity stimulated
investments in new plants and equipment and new residential construction (Rosenberg,
2003). Despite this growth, wages and salaries were slow to rise with the growing
progress. Many attribute this to the attacks on unions by employers, which caused
unionization rates to fall from 12.1% in 1920 to 7.2% in 1929 (Rosenberg, 2003). In
addition to rising labor productivity in the years before the Great Depression, automobile
development increased three-fold in the 1920s (Rosenberg, 2003). Throughout the growth
in the 1920s, the top 5% of the population prospered significantly due to income
26
inequality (Rosenberg, 2003). Owing to this wealth disparity, the economy became
dependent on the top 5% to invest in new plants and equipment.
The second element which helped to prime the Great depression was increased
level of credit purchases. Nearly 75% of all automobiles were bought using credit, which
dramatically grew personal debt (Rosenberg, 2003). Personal debt from automobiles and
home mortgages grew faster than disposable income in the 1920s, which rose to being
30% of overall disposable income by 1929 (DuBoff, 1989, pp. 88). The increase in
consumer debt along with income inequality fostered the severity of the Great Depression
and the housing policies that developed from it.
In 1921, the home ownership rate hovered around 41%, a number that Secretary
of Commerce then Herbert Hoover saw as problematic (Rome, 2005). Hoover sought to
increase the percentage of homeowners in the United States as a mission of retaining and
supporting social order (Rome, 2005). To help rehabilitate a post-war nation, Hoover
applied engineering solutions to increase the efficiency of homebuilding throughout the
1920s (Rome, 2005). These solutions dramatically increased the amount of homes built,
with 1925 peaking at 937,000 homes annually, which was nearly twice the homes built in
the previous records established pre-1922 (Rome, 2005). By the late 1920s,
homeownership rate grew to 47.8% (Historical Census Housing Tables, 2017). When the
Great Depression hit, homebuilding slowed to only 93,000 built homes in 1933. Along
with the growing number of foreclosures reaching the thousands per week in the early
1930s, homeownership rates fell back down to only 41% (Rome, 2005). Despite these
major setbacks, the Federal Government still sought to increase the levels of
homeownership during the 1930s, particularly without government intervention. Instead
27
of investing in federal programs to stimulate growth as an initial response in the early
1930s, Hoover instead encouraged business owners and builders to create mass-produced
housing stock that would be cheaper and faster to build (Rome, 2005).
The combination of the slow rate of built homes pre-1920s and the Great
Depression left nearly a third of the nation living in substandard dwellings and slums
after 1929 (Rome, 2005). Increasing homeownership through mass-produced housing
stock was a direct effort to move Americans to homes that were safer and more
affordable. Mass-production from builders was a means to prevent federal intervention,
and to preserve conservative capitalistic ideals while avoiding social programs similar to
those in Europe (Rome, 2005). As a result, the modern housing industry was born to
create mass-produced homes across the United States. The Federal Government, in
response to the Hoover’s housing goals and the depression in the early 1930s, designated
massive funding and energy to the creation of homes for individual homeownership
(Rome, 2005). As the country reeled from the Great Depression, increased car production
and reliance on automobiles from the 1920’s required new infrastructure to accommodate
it (Rosenberg, 2003). Suburbanization was fostered by the advent of the automobile,
which in turn brought an increased amount of spending on new housing (Rosenberg,
2003). The reaction of debt from rising credit and the Great Depression caused massive
disparity and poverty-stricken conditions for countless Americans.
A shift occurred in how the federal government approached housing with Franklin
D. Roosevelt’s presidency in 1933. The Roosevelt administration created The New Deal,
a program to help lift the nation out of the Depression (Rome, 2005). The New Deal
encouraged affordable homeownership through creating the National Housing Act of
28
1934 and the Federal Housing Administration (FHA), which was a Federal guarantee to
private lenders (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010; Rome, 2005). The Federal
National Mortgage Association, also known as Fannie Mae, bought mortgages that
allowed banks the freedom to lend even more funds. The minimum 20-year loan
dramatically increased owner-occupied dwellings which established a housing boom
(Rome, 2005).
The push from the government to invest in private homeownership and to focus
on urban renewal, especially in response to the trying times of the depression, motivated
families to make the shift from urban life to suburban life. Federal Housing Loans
became more accessible to families, and housing stock was increasingly being built
outside of urban cores (Rome, 2005; Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010). This change
took people out of the cities and into the newly constructed homes with long, winding
streets, set-back houses, and little evidence of the troubles that large cities faced. The
dream of personal homeownership was solidified in the 1940s as the economy began to
dramatically recover. From the years 1934 to 1974, the percentage of owner occupied
dwellings increased from 44% to 63% (US Census Bureau, 2017).
Early suburban settlements were characterized by their efforts to eschew the
industrial landscape that many large cities had adopted due to the industrial revolution.
One of the early plans for suburban neighborhoods was developed by Clarence Perry,
who idealized a self-contained neighborhood unit in a garden setting (Laurice &
Macdonald, 2017). This Garden suburb was centered around a school and community
center, and was bounded by arterial streets where apartment buildings, retail, and services
with parks distributed throughout (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010; Laurice &
29
Macdonald, 2017). The suburban neighborhood was concentrically laid out to optimize
access vehicle movement and aesthetic beauty from the rounded curves of cul-de-sacs to
the plentiful parks that separated spaces, all leading to single-family units around the
outside of the core of each (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010; Laurice & Macdonald,
2017). These neighborhoods were planned to create separate spaces: residential separated
from residential, schools separated from commercial, pedestrian separated from
automobile. Suburban areas were largely dependent on post World War II policies that
allowed for planners and real-estate developments to code subdivision standards into
policies that are still present today (Laurice & Macdonald, 2017).
As the New Deal and the FHA funded Americans into newly built homes, new
land was carved out to build single-family dwellings. Homes were built away from urban
areas, creating new satellite cities connected by roads (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck,
2010). Housing grew quickly throughout the 1940s and 1950s, as builders completed
over 15 million homes. This growth amounted to more than twice the amount of growth
during the 1940s and six times the amount during the 1930s (Rome, 2005).
One of the first notable examples of a suburban development division was in
Levittown, a hamlet of the Town of Hempstead in New York (Duany, Plater-Zyberk &
Speck, 2010; Hales, 2014). Founded by builder-entrepreneur William Levitt in 1951,
Levittown was a planned community with building designs reflecting cost-effectiveness
and speed of completion (Rome, 2005). Levittown resembled a garden suburb’s
aesthetics, but could achieve the look with far less cost and effort. Levitt utilized time and
labor-saving machinery, even when the techniques were expressly prohibited by the
unions, and the sites for the homes were set up like an assembly-line (Larabee, 1948). In
30
addition to the housing design, Levittown stood out as consisting of an entirely Caucasian
neighborhood (Hales, 2014). The Levittown leases forbid any non-white individuals to
purchase, lease, or rent homes in the neighborhood (Larrabee, 1948; Hales, 2014). The
unique design of Levitt’s neighborhood, mass-production capabilities, along with many
of the problematic racial policies, became popularized as suburban zones expanded
(Rome, 2005). Levitt’s neighborhoods were partly popularized from the media push for
homeownership for post-war families, which marketed homeownership as a definitive
way to fulfill the American Dream (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010; Hales, 2014;
Rome, 2005).
Suburban growth exploded in the 1950s and tapered off in the 1960s, although
non-metropolitan growth was still favored over urban growth (Schnore & Alfred, 1963).
Suburban areas grew nearly 4 ½ times as quickly as the cities that they surrounded. These
suburban edges around an urban center captured approximately 75% of the total increase
of populations moving from rural to metropolitan areas (Schnore & Alfred, 1963). Urban
areas, as a result of this movement, experienced population and economic resource
decreases (Schnore & Alfred, 1963; Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010).
Social and economic inequality persisted, especially into the 1970s. Urban
communities that were pushed away from the newly built suburban communities felt the
pressure of income inequality and urban unrest. The lack of affordable housing in
acceptable condition as well as a lack of jobs in city centers from major companies
moving to the suburbs caused a stratification of class, race, and socioeconomic status
(Lichter, Fuguitt & Heaton, 1985).
31
Planners began to design cities around the new format—open space, cluster
housing, and hierarchical roads (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010). A major
transportation shift occurred as well, as wide-spread residential spaces and increased
automobile traffic prompted roads and vehicle infrastructure to be built at an accelerated
rate. The 1956 Interstate Highway Act bulldozed through cities to make way for the
primary mode of travel: the personal vehicle (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010). The
country in this time expanded outward rather than up (Schnore & Alfred, 1963). This
encouraged the nation to build massive highways and freeways to allow for people to get
around. Roads also dominated the individual cities as mixed-use housing disappeared in
favor of isolated zones of single-family housing with large grocery and department stores
in remote sections of the city (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010).
Planning professionals adapted to the new suburban requirements through
changing the style of politics and government bodies to better serve suburban
communities as well as the now-wasting urban cores. Suburbs possessed different forms
of governments that displayed measurable differences in social and economic
characteristics (Schnore & Alfred, 1963). With these different types of governing came
the array of societies and demographics of the people who inhabited its area. The
changeover shifted the biases held by many political figures (Duany, Plater-Zyberk &
Speck, 2010). Suburbanization brought significant changes politics, policies, and
government subsidies that benefited mainly white, middle class citizens (Lubienski &
Dougherty, 2009). The shift of demographics and social classes from the cities to the
outward suburban areas altered how local governments approached zoning and code
enforcement, as well as how tax dollars funded public resources such as schooling and
32
parks (Lubienski & Dougherty, 2009, Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010).
Opportunistic hoarding of social, economic, and educational goods proliferated in
suburban areas, resulting in a major divide between suburban and urban areas (Rury &
Saatcjoglu, 2011).
1970
Population
Suburban
49,101,068
Population
Urban
84,283,519
1980
69,967,436
84,680,392
1990
85,239,692
92,431,065
2000
101,295,542
102,952,391
2010
114,357,186
111,554,393
Year
Table 2. Total population of US Metropolitan Areas, 1970-2010.
In a study that measured suburban sprawl (Lopez, 2014), the author used the U.S.
Census data and tract population maps to determine suburban and urban areas. Tracts
with populations between 200 and 3500 per square mile were defined as suburban, and
greater than 3500 were determined to be urban (Lopez, 2014, p. 6).
33
By the 1990s, nearly half of the American population occupied a suburban
neighborhood, as seen in Table 2 (Sharpe & Wallock, 1994; Moudon, & Hess, 2000;
Lopez, 2014). More than 95% of the United States Population growth took place in
suburban areas outside of cities in the 1970s and 1980s (Robinson, Newell & Marzluff,
2005; Lopez, 2014). An earlier study found that over half of the American population
occupied a suburban neighborhood in 1990, which grew from 35.2 to 101.5 million
people between 1950 and 1980 (Sharpe & Wallock, 1994).
Today, suburban growth has transformed massive areas of agricultural and open
land to accommodate a relatively modest growth in population (Moudon & Hess, 2000).
Suburban areas occupy significantly more land than dense urban areas with multi-storied
landscapes (Grimm et al, 2000; Robinson, Newell & Marzluff, 2005). The result of the
scattered, lower-density development, also called sprawl, has had significant effects on
the land and its resources. In addition to its environmental impacts, suburban growth has
significantly higher economic and social costs than dense urban areas, particularly
regarding transportation and infrastructure costs (Robinson, Newell & Marzluff, 2005).
34
New Urbanism
New Urbanism is a theory of planning that stemmed from critiques of suburban
development. It is a commonly used planning method that works to create livable,
sustainable communities. The Charter of New Urbanism states that urban planning
professionals believe that modern metropolitan regions should be revitalized and
enhanced with infill development, sustainable transportation options, well-defined edged
cities, and compact development to preserve environmental space (Ellis, 2002). Its roots
extend from the City Beautiful Movement, a system developed in the turn of the 20th
Century that emphasized comprehensive and democratized city planning that increased
aesthetic and sanitary conditions (Talen, 2005). New Urbanism is defined by the
Congress of New Urbanism as “the restoration of existing urban centers and towns within
coherent metropolitan regions, the reconfiguration of sprawling suburbs into communities
of real neighborhoods and diverse districts, the conservation of natural environments, and
the preservation of our built legacy” (Charter of New Urbanism, 2012).
The growth of urban and suburban areas is a major driver of land change (Grimm
et al., 2000; Short Gianotti et al., 2016). This urbanization, the movement and expansion
of populations, has shaped the current landscape of the United States today. Throughout
this urban growth, Urban Planners have used a variety of planning theories to direct their
designs. These theories help to dictate how land is distributed for specific purposes, and
shapes the way in which areas are developed.
Modern urban planning theory used in the United States has developed
throughout the 20th Century, beginning in the 1920s with major influence from the
Chicago School of Urban Sociology (Scott & Scorper, 2014). This sociology-based
35
theory of social organization as capitalism was criticized in the 1960s and 1970s, until
Marxist ideologies shaped new planning theory as a painting of class struggles (Scott &
Scorper, 2014). The 1980s brought new arguments about the city and the process of
urbanization, including feminism, gender and race dimensions. These arguments were the
foundation for challenging past social motivations for urban development (Scott &
Scorper, 2014). Within these new dimensions, planners particularly focused on how
neighborhoods were socially disparate and how neighborhood development and
displacement impacted political governance (Scott & Scorper, 2014). These trends
brought forth the modern concept of neo-liberal urban planning.
New Urbanism works by developing a system of ‘smart codes’ that allow
planners to incorporate these principles into pre-existing as well as newly developing
communities. Codes create rulebooks for planners to make decisions for developing and
designing all areas. These codes focus on bringing elements of sustainable design,
connectivity, and transport to address environmental impacts from previous
developments. New Urbanism also seeks to mitigate social and environmental
inequalities, a commonly reflected statement in New Urbanist literature (Duany, PlaterZyberk, and Speck, 2000). Environmental urban planners employ New Urbanism for its
contemporary ability to adapt to growing population density within cities and to
incorporate sustainable design. Although New Urbanist planning has succeeded in its
goals to mitigate many social and environmental inequalities, there are inadequacies in its
abilities to counter the problems that it seeks to solve. Many of the studies investigating
this topic intermingle and conflate the effects of environmental urban planning on class
with race, as the two are closely related in observed effects.
36
By the turn of the century, major shifts in neo-liberal urban planning advanced to
embrace a new look at how cities functioned. This most recent urban planning trend
marks the beginning of neoliberal dominance over the political process of urban
settlement (Scott & Scorper, 2014). New Urbanism’s focus on neighborhood design
influenced urban design plans that created urban villages. These areas are reminiscent of
early suburban planning principles that idealized a core of retail, schools, and community
center, connected throughout arterial roadways surrounded by varying density levels of
residential units (Laurice & Macdonald, 2017). Notable modern urban villages that
reflect these designs are St. Paul (Minnesota), San Diego (California), and Seattle
(Washington) (Laurice & Macdonald, 2017). An example of neighborhood urban villages
in Seattle are Ballard, Fremont, West Seattle Junction, and North Rainier (City of Seattle,
2005).
37
Suburban Development in the Puget Sound
The Puget Sound regional urban and suburban areas are characterized as an Urban
Growth Area (UGA) that encompasses King County, Snohomish County, Pierce County,
and Kitsap County (Moudon & Hess, 2000; APA, 2017). The central Puget Sound region
grew by 2.1% between 2016 and 2017, adding 82,000 people to the total population of 4
million in 2017 (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2017). 2017 marked the second year that
the region experienced population growth that exceeded 80,000 in a single year, a marked
increase in growing trends (Puget Sound Regional Council, 2017). All the counties within
the UGA experienced growth; King County experienced the most growth at a rate of
2.3% with Snohomish County as a close second at 2.1% (Puget Sound Regional Council,
2017). Overall, King and Snohomish County have experienced a population growth of
1.4 million in 1970 to 2.5 million in 2005 (Powell et al, 2007).
In a study that sought to classify the growth of suburban areas in the Puget Sound,
the authors defined the suburban region as the Puget Sound Urban Growth Area,
excluding dense older central cities (Seattle and Tacoma) (Moudon & Hess, 2000). The
authors claimed that the central Puget Sound area is a model example of urban planning
theories, since the region experienced a three-fold increase in population and a five-fold
increase in geographic spread since the 1950s (Moudon & Hess, 2000). Within the past
40 years, the ratio of people residing in urban cores and in suburban areas has been
reversed, creating a situation where less than 35% of the population lives in older urban
cores such as Seattle and Tacoma (Moudon & Hess, 2000). Due to this decentralization
and geographic spread, housing communities and metropolitan functions compete for
funding and resources (Moudon & Hess, 2000).
38
Despite the continuing growth throughout the region in the 1990s, The UGA
lacked definitions to categorize population densities in varies zones, or the housing types
and their various distributions (Moudon & Hess, 2000). The authors identified that
central Puget Sound residential development tends to agglomerate near commercial uses.
Within these agglomerations, high density areas existed, with 20% of the designated
region’s population occupying only 8% of the total land area (Moudon & Hess, 2000).
These high-density areas held nearly twice as many people of color than the remaining
80% of the population in less dense, suburban areas (Moudon & Hess, 2000).
Incorporating the elements of population clusters, Moudon & Hess (2000) identified 85
suburban clusters that represented the region, finding that a significant portion of these
clusters lived in multi-family housing, such as apartments or condominiums, rather than
the strict single-family housing that is typically assumed. The authors continued to
characterize these clusters as representative of early suburban planning from the 1920s
and New Urbanism methods.
A unique element of the Puget Sound’s suburban development is the way in
which these developments lacked much intent. The suburban clusters in the Puget Sound
were a part of regional development since the 1960s (Moudon & Hess, 2000). Despite the
plan for regional development, only a small amount of the suburban areas were planned
communities from their origination. The suburban clusters that were not regionally
planned became ‘opportunistic forms,’ expanding without intent. This opportunistic
growth was the result of the combined interests of retail and apartment building industries
and the expanding market of suburban single-family subdivisions (Moudon & Hess,
2000). New Urbanist planners in the region zoned for expansion to promote these
39
industries and housing markets, but did not provide a formal plan for these developments
to function within (Moudon & Hess, 2000). The hybrid suburban design of zoning
restrictions with free-form development is representative of the region. Suburban clusters
in the Puget Sound region are both densifying and nucleating, often in combination with
commercial functions (Moudon & Hess, 2000).
40
Environmental Costs of Suburban Development
This suburban growth has sparked a national debate on how suburban areas
should be managed, further developed, and how employment and retail activities function
within the suburban systems (Moudon & Hess, 2000). The decentralization of
employment centers and residential areas requires additional resource use and
infrastructure development to occur, placing greater pressure on cities and states to invest
in serving these suburban areas (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010). These
investments for infrastructure are inherently political when considering the stakes of who
pays for the infrastructure, who benefits from the infrastructure, and how much capital is
devoted to suburban areas (Moudon & Hess, 2000). The question of equitability and
sustainability are routinely discussed among urban planners of large-scale development
planning projects (Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010). As suburban sprawl grows, so
does the increasing concern for its effects on the environment, political and social
spheres, and the current infrastructure used for transport.
Suburban living has also attributed to additional economic, emotional, aesthetic,
and physical costs for its residents. Barnes (2007, pg. 6) outlines the individual negative
attributes of suburban development:
“Unfavorable economic costs include higher taxes, higher costs of providing
infrastructure, adverse fiscal impacts on local governments, ill-health from air
pollution generated by traffic, and reduced worker productivity. Emotional costs
include loss of community spirit and values and loss of a sense of place. Aesthetic
costs include less leisure time and more ugly, monotonous suburban landscapes.
Physical costs include over-crowded schools, increased traffic congestion, longer
41
commuting times, and more aggressive driving patterns.”
The increase of suburban areas caused many environmental impacts. Forests,
agricultural land, and wetlands are converted into built areas. Water ways are negatively
impacted through increased pollution. Wildlife areas are reduced, decreasing habitat
availability, and overall habitat quality (Mckinney, 2002; Robinson, Newell & Marzluff,
2005; Barnes, 2007). By the year 2000, suburban sprawl was responsible for 51% of all
wetland loss in the United States (Robinson, Newell & Marzluff, 2005; US Fish and
Wildlife, 2000). Such habitat loss degrades and fragments the remaining natural areas,
which makes the landscape more susceptible to damage from invasive species and natural
events (Robinson, Newell & Marzluff, 2005). Fragmentation in suburban areas increases
where vegetation in single-family homes consists of altered green spaces of lawn rather
than native ground cover (Robinson, Newell & Marzluff, 2005). Suburban development
has high environmental, social, and political costs.
Suburban and urban areas actively contribute to climate change and are
susceptible to its effects (Grimm et al, 2000). Increased traffic and residential
urbanization produce increased levels of carbon dioxide (Ziska et al, 2003). The
decreased levels of green spaces and increased areas of impervious surfaces causes
warming and reduced air filtration from plants, which becomes a public health concern
(Ziska et al., 2003). Suburban areas are also more vulnerable to extreme heat events than
in urban areas, which are seen in increasing levels due to climate change (Stone, Hess &
Frumkin, 2010). Suburban areas are more likely to have a loss in green spaces (loss in
evapotranspiration), increased impervious dark surfaces with low albedo (surface
reflectivity), and increased heat from personal engines (vehicles, generators) (Randall et
42
a.l, 2003; Stone, Hess & Frumkin, 2010). These elements combined can intensify
warming during extreme heat events (Stone, Hess & Frumkin, 2010). Climate change
also impacts suburban areas on a water management level, as projected increases of
heavy rainfalls and raised peak volumes of water threaten suburban areas where drainage
issues exist (Semadeni-Davies et al., 2008).
As suburban sprawl spreads, it actively changes the land around it. In addition to
affecting wildlife and habitat, land cover change fundamentally effects how water and
nutrients are cycled (Powell et al, 2007). Roadways and homes in urban and suburban
areas change soils and groundcover to impervious pavement for roadways, parking lots,
and residential use. In fact, impervious surfaces have been recognized as an indicator of
the intensity of the urban/suburban environment and has served as an element in which to
define these spaces (Brabec, Schulte & Richards, 2002). In areas with large amount of
impervious pavement, groundwater is not filtered through the soil (Barnes, 2007; Powell
et al, 2007). The amount of land with native wildlife and green cover that has been
converted to urban and suburban space has led to decreases in areas for water, or runoff,
to be absorbed and cleaned by the natural systems (Brabec et al, 2002). Stormwater
runoff from impervious surfaces collects pollutants and sediments as it heads to drains,
streams, and local waterways (Brabec et al, 2002). This increased pollution is often not
treated when it goes down storm drains, and is increasingly polluting the waterways that
it enters. This pollution directly impacts the systems, harming the biotic and abiotic
wildlife (Brabec et al., 2002; Pickett et al., 2011).
Efforts to mitigate this pollution from water runoff have mainly come from local
jurisdictions who implement programs to incentivize use of stormwater management
43
tools for private residences (Davis et al., 2009; Freeborn et al., 2012). Use of low impact
development (LID) tools such as rain gardens, bio-retention gardens, and pervious
pavement help to divert stormwater into the ground where it can be treated, rather than
going directly into local waterways and drains (Davis et al, 2009, Freeborn et al, 2012).
LID offers increased environmental protection for often less cost than other sources of
stormwater and climate mitigation development, but it experiences barriers due to
political bias, professional training for installation, and personal choices for aesthetics
(Coffman, 2002; Turk et al., 2014). Aesthetics of the greenery that make up these LID
projects is essential to the success and acceptance from the general public (Turk et al,
2014). Understanding how green spaces are accepted in suburban areas is essential
towards furthering mitigating the effects of suburban sprawl. The benefit of defining
nature more comprehensively allows researchers, the public, and urban planners to be
able to communicate better, have a more nuanced view of planning projects and direct the
growth of certain kinds of planned areas.
44
Benefits of Naturalized Areas
Exposure to nature has positive physical and emotional health benefits (Parsons,
1995; Priego et al., 2008; Zhou & Parves Rana, 2012; Wolf, 2014). These benefits are
linked with the geographical features of a nature setting, visual perceptions, and ability to
use nature for recreation or play (Priego et al, 2008). Interacting with nature and green
space contributes towards improved welfare for citizens (Wolf, 2014; Sang et al., 2016).
Naturalized environments, those with more ‘wild’ green spaces, contribute towards the
health and wellbeing for adults and children, contributing toward improved mental and
physical health (Flouri et al., 2014). Environmental aesthetics are associated with positive
effects on cognitive processing and stress reduction, even when viewed from a window
(Parsons, 1995). Health benefits are also associated with their recreational opportunities,
such as green walkable environments like connective walking corridors and parks allow
for increased exercise and physical activity (Priego et al., 2008; Wolf, 2014) Naturalized
spaces with trees are thought to influence behavior to choose walking and biking over
driving in streets with more tree canopy (Wolf, 2014).
Exposure to green spaces is also linked to how people perceive environmental
problems (Priego et al., 2008). Naturalizing urban and suburban spaces are associated
with improving resident’s overall physical health. Increased green spaces also provide
significant air-quality and energy-conservation benefits, that reduce the amount of carbon
dioxide, greenhouse gases, and other ground-level pollutants that can impact health
(Randall et al., 2003). In identifying how nature is perceived and whether certain areas
are seen to be more natural than others, perception of nature can guide what forms of
green spaces are more beneficial to near-by residents.
45
Increased green spaces are also associated with a reduction in mental and physical
stress (Bratman, Hamilton & Daily, 2012). Walkable green environments were shown to
increase life satisfaction for seniors and even are associated with increasing overall
lifespan (Takano, 2002; Wolf, 2014). Naturalized areas are positively associated with
relaxation, revitalization, psychological restoration, improved mood, improved attention,
and reduced stress and anxiety (Bratman et al., 2012; Zhou & Parves Rana, 2012; Wolf,
2014). Ulrich et al. (1991) found that stress—measured by pulse, blood pressure, and
facial muscle activity—was most quickly recovered from when patients were presented
with naturalized outdoor environments. Modern lifestyles require constant attention of a
diverse array of inputs that require full the individual’s full attention, including driving,
phone use, work, school, etc., that leave many feeling fatigued with difficulty
concentrating (Wolf, 2014). Exposure to green areas have been shown to give this part of
the brain a change to rest and restore with involuntary interactions with natural places
(Wolf, 2014). Walking in a natural setting versus an urban one is also shown to provide
greater positive and lesser negative emotional responses, suggesting that naturalized areas
are aesthetically preferred and provide greater health benefits (Hartig et al., 1993;
Parsons, 1995).
Green spaces are an important part of the nutrient and water cycling processes
(Powell et al, 2007; Jennings & Gaither, 2015). As discussed in the previous section
‘Suburban Environmental Impact,’ reduced vegetative cover increases the risks
associated with climate change, polluted stormwater runoff, increased extreme heat, and
overall pollution (Randall et al., 2003; Nassauer et al., 2004; Powell et al., 2007; Barnes,
2007; Stone et al., 2010). Manicured lawns are green spaces, but require additional
46
pesticide use and water to maintain (Sandberg & Foster, 2005). Instead, naturalization
encourages diversifying the kinds of green spaces to embrace using native plants that
would decrease the need for pesticides and water, while also helping to manage
stormwater runoff (Sandberg & Foster, 2005).
Naturalized areas also require a reduced amount of materials for maintenance, such as
energy and gas for mowers, water, fertilizer, and pesticides (Randall et al, 2003). The
reduced use of these products helps to save time and cost both for suburban residents on
private property and for local governments maintaining public spaces (Randall et al,
2003). For example, buildings with trees around their structure have reduced heating and
cooling costs ranging from 10%-50% than isolated buildings (Randall et al, 2003). Green
spaces and increased naturalization are associated with increased health and recreation,
leading to reduced obesity levels that lowers the cost of healthcare (Jennings & Gaither,
2015).
47
Aesthetics
The aesthetics of naturalization improves quality of life through increased
exposure to green spaces (Priego et al., 2008; Yang et al., 2014). Examples of this
exposure include a walk down a suburban street, sitting in a garden, or using a park for
recreation and relaxation (Crow et al., 2006; Priego et al., 2008). The aesthetics of these
natural surroundings is an important community feature that that contributes towards
resident’s appreciation of their neighborhood (Crow et al., 2006; Priego et al., 2008;
Yang et a.l, 2014). The scenic beauty, cleanliness, and pleasant sounds attributed to
naturalized spaces are all within the category of aesthetic preference (Priego et al, 2008).
The perceived aesthetics and ecological benefits from naturalized areas have mainly been
studied separately, although scholars note the benefits of both in terms of health and
sustainability (Yang et al., 2014).
In a study that sought to understand the value of urban nature (Priego et al, 2008),
the authors found that access to green spaces was a key element in the survey
respondent’s link to achieving full personal development, regardless of socio-cultural
status. Understanding the kinds of nature that are most aesthetically pleasing to residents
in particular socio-economic states, neighborhoods, and regions is essential in increasing
their overall well-being (Priego et al, 2008). Although aesthetic preferences are less
tangible as metrics of observing naturalization, since lawn care and gardening are
entrenched in current culture, the benefits of understanding suburban aesthetics is
essential for increasing overall naturalization (Randall et al, 2003).
48
Green spaces in suburban areas are typically highly manicured areas that require large
water and chemical demands (Randall et al, 2003; Feagan & Ripmeester, 1999; Sandberg
& Foster, 2005).
Native green spaces are less common in suburban neighborhoods because of
historical suburban aesthetic planning (Randall et al, 2003). Despite the reduced
naturalization, suburban areas typically have a higher amount of green spaces than urban
areas due to the density and developmental history of urban neighborhoods. Some
scholars attribute the aesthetics and increased levels of green spaces to be a major reason
why suburban residents choose to live where they do because it is greener than in more
urban areas (Randall et al., 2003; Priego et al., 2008). In 1999, Feagan and Ripmeester
discovered that suburban societies are attached to the conventionally manicured lawn.
Responses from their survey yielded the findings that suburbanites associate order and
industriousness with conventionally manicured lawns, and that alternatives to
conventional lawns were met with disdain (Feagan and Ripmeester, 1999). Lawn care is
perceived as a status symbol internalized by society to represent cultural and societal
adhesion to the norm (Sandberg & Foster, 2005).
Nassauer et al. (2001) also found that public preference over ecological
landscapes were mainly based on the level of how manicured they were. A healthy
stream with woody debris was found to be considered ‘messy’, and that mown grass
areas were preferred over taller grass along streams (Nassauer et al., 2001). Many
scholars and policy writers believe that ecologically sustainable green spaces, spaces that
are more natural and wild, are perceived to be less attractive than other kinds of green
spaces (Parsons, 1995). These examples demonstrate that the aesthetics of naturalization
49
can’t be simplified into a list of its benefits to be accepted by suburban residents (Randall
et al, 2003). Instead, naturalization should be informed by public attitude and perceptions
to make residential and public green spaces more acceptable to society (Randall et al,
2003).
Nassauer et al. (2004) conducted a study evaluating how agricultural design in a
suburban neighborhood would impact public perceptions of attractiveness. The
researchers compared images of agricultural spaces that varied in ecological effectiveness
in suburban areas in the upper Midwest states. This visual preference survey showed the
potential alternative futures of ‘green’ space design from the view of a window of a
suburban home, placing ecological benefits alongside aesthetic design. The images
showed conventional design versus a more ecological design. The conventional design
showed increased individual septic systems and wells, a higher density of homes and
roads, and a lack of indigenous plants and ecosystems. The ecologically beneficial image
displayed an increase of open green spaces, increased indigenous plants and ecosystems,
and increased spaces that were not human altered. The main goal of the ecological future
scenario was to maintain more rural spaces, enhance habitat connectivity and
congruency, improve water quality, and reduce inputs of pollutants in storm water
systems (Nassauer et al., 2004, p. 4).
Respondents were broken up into two groups, those with a self-determined
environmental bent and the general public. Survey takers were not informed about the
design benefits of an ecologically improved space, but were only asked to rate
attractiveness out of a seven-point scale, with 4 being neutral. Out of the 336 adults
surveyed, the environmental group members perceived the ecological designs as
50
significantly more attractive than the general population. Conversely, the general public
found the conventional design area more attractive than the environmental group.
Overall, the ecological landscapes were perceived as more attractive than the
conventional developed design (Nassauer et al., 2004).
In another study evaluating tools for generating and evaluating neighborhood
greening, Randall et al. (2003) looked at the alternatives for conventional suburban
development green spaces through GIS. The study focused on management of existing
spaces as well as the development of future suburban areas. Claiming that residents of
suburbanites live where they do because it is more green than in urban cities, the study
proposed future research for understanding how to make naturalization more acceptable,
through aesthetics and safety, to urban and suburban residents (Randall et al, 2003).
Nassauer et al. (2004) asked a similar question about how landscapes and naturalized
spaces could be better accepted aesthetically in order to create further naturalization.
51
Safety
The perceived safety of green spaces is another important element in determining
the acceptance of that space in a neighborhood. The aesthetics of green spaces is tied into
the perception of how that space is viewed as being safe. The link between safety and the
aesthetics of an area is biologically linked; humans have a predisposition to associate
negative events with spatially restricted natural environments (Ulrich, 1993; Parsons,
1995). Humans therefore have a natural aversion to areas that present themselves as
containing hidden dangers and limit opportunities to escape (Ulrich et al., 1991; Ulrich,
1993; Foster et al., 2013).
Fear of crime and safety concerns are related to residents’ overall emotional
health as well (Foster et al., 2013). Studies of safety perceptions found that conventional
suburban areas with curvilinear street layouts were perceived to be safer than those in
more traditionally planned grid street layouts or hybrid communities (Wood et al., 2008;
Foster et al., 2013). When fear of crime and safety is prevalent in a community, even
crime levels are relatively safe, communities reduce their social and physical activities as
well as their acceptance of features that appear to be less-safe (Foster et al, 2013).
Acknowledging safety concerns is important to the progression of increasing naturalized
areas, both private and public.
Safety studies often use visual representations to understand an individual’s
perceptions of safety and aesthetics of a particular space (Jorgensen et al., 2002).
Spatially restricted areas are thought to be perceived as the opposite to wide and open
areas, such as wild areas versus more manicured ones (Ulrich, 1993). Human’s
predisposition to spaciousness is viewed as an evolutionary adaptive response to avoid
52
hidden predatory threats, which agree with research findings that show when presented
with an element of danger, humans are more likely to fear naturalized areas than open
ones (Ulrich et al., 1991).
Fear of the safety of naturalized areas was even given the term ‘biophobia’ by
heavily cited researcher Roger Ulrich, who authored several papers on the associated
with psychology, aesthetics of nature, and fear (Ulrich, 1993). This fear of enclosed
natural spaces is directly tied to the acceptance of naturalization, and understanding how
perceptions of designed naturalized spaces is crucial for future sustainable growth
(Parsons, 1995; Ulrich, 1993; Randall et al, 2003). Increasing the amount of research of
how humans relate to natural settings has immense social and scientific significance to
understand what is lost when natural areas are eliminated and what benefits naturalized
areas present (Ulrich, 1993).
The evolutionary fear argument of open-spaces versus more spatially restricted
environments is often addressed as ‘site line’ observations in scientific studies (Ulrich
1993, Jorgensen et al., 2002). Stress tests that evaluate psychological responses to
varying landscapes use site lines to determine how far people can see and how responses
are associated with that distance of viewing (Ulrich, 1993, Jorgensen et al., 2002). In
studies that evaluated the preferences for tree density in public spaces, site line studies
were able to find the most aesthetically pleasing density arrangement (Schroeder &
Orland, 1994; Jorgensen et al., 2002). Although these studies specifically evaluated the
aesthetic preference of these naturalized areas, scholars note the two are connected due to
differences in the users’ cultural and social backgrounds (Jorgensen et al., 2002).
Throughout these site line studies, researchers found that a mix of vegetation types and
53
lower density greenery led to increased aesthetic and safety perceptions (Jorgensen et al.,
2002).
Site line studies use enclosure of spaces, such as partial enclosure, full enclosure,
and no enclosure, to describe the how wild or manicured a space appears (Jorgensen et
al., 2002). The presence of vegetation and its perceived maintenance serves a way to
understand how aesthetics and safety are related in visual preference surveys. Jorgensen
et al. (2002), used pictures to evaluate the safety and attractiveness of each scene. The
study used pictures of a familiar public park in the United Kingdom, drawing responses
from residents from immediately surrounding areas. Using varying scenes of enclosure
that displayed a more wild and dense vegetation versus more manicured and open
vegetation, participants rated 15 pictures on a linear scale (Jorgensen et al., 2002).
Results indicated that scenes with full enclosure (most naturalized, wild) had the lowest
safety scores and the highest safety scores were associated with no enclosures
(manicured, non-naturalized) (Jorgensen et al., 2002). Aesthetic preferences were less
clear, but responded to the varying spatial arrangement and indicated partial enclosure to
be the highest when examples were more dense and wild (Jorgensen et al., 2002). The
study found that more open wood-land spaces were more safe than enclosed ones and that
naturalistic areas were perceived to be less safe (Jorgensen et al., 2002). The authors
suggest that further perception study of naturalization and enclosure is needed to better
understand how focal points of trees and shrubs and the wildness versus manicured states
contributes to perception and safety (Jorgensen et al., 2002).
Conventionally manicured and mowed areas are often seen to be safer than areas
that have been more naturalized (Parsons, 1995; Randall et al, 2003). These perceptions
54
are particularly shared by children, women, and the elderly (Randall et al, 2003). Since
acceptance of these green spaces on private property in suburban areas are determined by
their occupants, the design of more natural landscapes need to consider what these
stakeholders perceive as safe (Randall et al, 2003; Madge, 1997). In urban areas in the
United Kingdom, fear of parks due to their naturalized settings was a significant reason
restraining their use (Jorgensen et al, 2002; Madge, 1997). This fear leads to the question
of how the spatial arrangement of naturalized areas can better be accepted by their users
(Parsons, 1995; Jorgensen et al., 2002; Randall et al., 2003). Understanding these user
groups’ preferences also increases the likelihood of neighborhood and community
acceptance for naturalization in public spaces, which increases sustainable and
ecologically beneficial areas (Jorgensen et al., 2002; Randall et al., 2003).
Developing an ‘ecological aesthetic,’ a term provided by Parsons (1995), poses a
direct conflict to design for both aesthetics and ecological sustainability (Parsons, 1995).
Naturalized areas are often framed as lacking in both safety and a reduced preference
aesthetically, despite the numerous health and biological benefits (Parsons, 1995).
Understanding human attitudes and perceptions of these naturalized green spaces is
essential for developing them in the different areas that humans inhabit, from dense urban
cores to less dense suburban areas (Parsons, 1995). The implications from future research
about perceptions of green spaces has implications for landscape planning decisions and
landscape management policy (Parsons, 1995), and could directly help the efforts of
those seeking to increase naturalized areas. Social, cultural, population density, and
gender differences were found to be a significant indicator of landscape preference and
55
perception, indicating a need for more specific perception studies to increase the
likelihood of naturalization acceptance (Jorgensen et al., 2002).
The need for a better definition for suburban gradient areas and the need for
understanding how residents in these suburban zones perceive and accept naturalization
led to the creation of this study. Increasing our understanding of how people in suburban
and edge urban areas self-identify will help to define this kind of suburban edge area,
which will help to direct further research, align suburban studies better for comparison,
and aid land-use planners. Understanding how these residents in their particular suburban
edge zone perceive different kinds of green spaces will help with the design and
acceptance of future public and private naturalization projects.
56
Chapter Three
Methods
This study used a visual preference survey in combination with a questionnaire to
identify how residents identified themselves within the boundaries of urban, suburban
rural, and how they perceive the aesthetics and safety of green spaces in their community.
Study participants were selected from Riverside neighborhood in Everett, Washington,
who participated in an online survey. The hypothesis underlying this study was that
residents would self-identify as suburban and that their preference of aesthetics and safety
of green spaces would most likely be in hybrid scenarios of wild and manicured.
57
Riverside Neighborhood, Everett, WA
Everett, Washington, is a growing city in the North Puget Sound. The City of
Everett borders the Puget Sound and is within the boundaries of Snohomish County. In
2017, Snohomish County’s population was 757,600, with a growth rate of 2.1% (Puget
Sound Regional Council, 2017). Populations in Snohomish County are concentrated in
lower elevations closer to Puget Sound waters, mainly in the City of Everett (Powell et
al., 2007). Snohomish County houses the Snoqualmie and Skykomish watersheds, which
convene together to form the Snohomish River that releases into the Puget Sound
alongside Everett (Powell et al, 2007).
Everett’s population in 2017 was 109,800. Since 2010, the city has experienced a
6.6% increase in population, making it one of the fastest growing cities in the region
(Puget Sound Regional Council, 2017). Everett, WA is 75.8% White, 4.5% Black, and
8.2% Asian. Hispanic or Latinos of any race are 16.1% of the population (Everett SocioEconomic Voter Turnout, 2016).
58
AM
BO
AT
SL
5
INTERSTATE
9
HWY
52
G
OU
SPENCER ISLAND
NE
(PRIVATE)
AVENE 32ND
35T H
AVE NE
H
28TH PL
NE
GOLF CO
RD
35TH AVE
(PR I VAT E ) 2 7TH PL NE
Neighborhood Map
SL
SMITH ISLAND
City of Everett
ON
E) 36T
H PL
NE
I
UN
(PR IVAT
SR - 529
(OLD
H
HWY
G
OU
99)
S TE
T
ES
W
R
MA
January, 2012
R IN
ST NE
PINE ST
ST N LA
PIN E LIN DEAM
LS
BA ORNE
K
W TH PIL CH UC
HA
H
PAT
E MARINE VIEW DR
N.
BR
O
LOCUST ST
MAPLE
ISLAN
D
ST
SM ITH
5
AVE
GRAND AVE
EA ST
RAI LWA
Y
SUMMIT AVE
INTERSTATE
CLEVELAND AVE
HARRISON AVE
WALNUT ST
MAPLE ST
HIGHLAND AVE
CHESTNUT
H
GOLD
WAY
E SE
AV
36TH
35TH ST SE
H PL
SE
33RD DR SE
31ST AVE SE
31ST AVE SE
44T H
42ND
41ST
40TH
ER
RD
56TH AVE SE
JOHN DAVIS ROAD
120TH
120TH PL SE
H
121ST
SE
44TH AVE
130TH
29TH
132ND ST SE
131ST
130T
124TH
DR SE
47TH DR SE
127T
PL SEH
LARIMER
CORNER
RO
T
AT
SE
-H
LE
AD
L
IL
126TH
48TH
46TH DR SE
122ND
39TH
38TH
42ND DR SE
122ND ST SE
116TH ST SE
53RD AVE SE
46TH DR SE
119TH PL SE
49T
38TH DR SE
116TH ST (GREEN LANTERN ROAD)
120TH PL SE
35TH AVE SE
131ST ST SE
AVE
SE
34TH
34TH
33RD DR SE
33RD DR
34TH
DR
27 AVE SE
29TH
30TH
31ST AVE SE
27 AVE SE
27TH AVE SE
28TH DR SE
29TH DR SE
31ST AVE SE
TH
24TH PL SE
25
RUGGS LOOP RD
29TH AVE SE
130TH PL SE
RI M
128TH PL SE
129TH
H
47THAV
E
27TH AVE SE
97T
27TH AVE SE
GOBLIN LANE
24TH
24TH
25TH
23
RD
23RD
23RD PL SE
22N D
21ST DR SE
19TH AVE SE
123RD
129TH PL SE
LA
36TH AVE SE
MONTE
21ST DR SE
21ST AVE SE
22ND AVE SE
16TH AVE SE
16TH ST SE
ECLIPSE MILL RD
(PRIVATE)
NORT RR R/W
HERN
TO N
ING
BU RL
SOUTH 4TH AVE
SOUTH 3RD AVE
MCDOUG ALL
MCDOUGALL AVE
RI
24TH
N DR
SL OA
CRISTO DRIVE
DR
GOT HIC
WAY
HALLA
VAL
MEADOW WA
Y
19TH AVE SE
JUNIPER DR
D
OO
EW
DG
TIMBER
BR OA
DW AY
SPOKANE DR
FLORIDA DR
HEATHER
E HE
YEW ST
AT HE
RW
AY
Lombard
WASHINGTON AVE
JEFFERSON AVE
GRANT DRIVE
ER CIA
CO MM
BROADWAY
Co
mm
er ci
al
WASHINGTON
WETMORE AVE
ND
LA
VE
RL
Y
L AVE COLBY AVE
BE
HI GH
DR
HIGHLAND
INT ERS
TATE
5
14TH
14TH DR SE
PINE ST
BAKER AVE
FULTON AVE
AVE
CEDAR ST
HIL L
5
TE
R ST
A TE
IN
PAINE ST
PL
MER
SMITHAVE
SUM
INTERSTATE
5
VIEW DRIVE
VIEW DRIVE
TA
AL
WETMORE
RO
LO
W EL C KE
FE
L
LL
ER
COLBY AVE
MANOR PL
HIGHWAY PL
WAY
LI OT
PI C
HIGHLAND
HIGHLAND DR
OLYMPIC
XAVIER WAY
OLD INTERU
RBAN R/W
WEST MALL DR
R /W
CEDAR ST
McDOUGALL
RAINIER AVE
VIRGINIA AVE
BROADWAY
LOMBARD AVE
AVENUE
ROCKEFELLER AVE
HOYT AVE
COLBY AVE
RUKER AVE
WETMORE AVE
COLBY AVE
ST 46
48
S E TH
TH
ST
ST
SE
SE
AVE
RUCK ER
DR.
BEAUMONT
PI NE
OL
YM
BERKS HIRE
CADY
NE
LS
RE
W
AN
D
11TH DR SE
12TH
10TH DR SE
8TH PL SE
9TH PL SE
WALTHAM DR
27TH DR SE
LIP
LA
TU
GRAND AVE
NORTON
GRAND AVE
FEDERAL AVE
ALGER
Madison
AVEEL
CASTLE LN
SEN T
K HIOLIVE ST
MEADOW LN
CRE
PL NASSAU
MA RB
Thomson Ave LL
GLACIER LN
EVERGR
FRIDAY AVE
LE LN
EEN WAY
GRAND AVE
CLA REM
N RD
ONT
TO
WAY
HIGH STREET
RL
TERRACE DR
WILMINGTON
CA AVE
T PL
AR E
ON
RUCKER AVE
DELEW
ME RM
AVE
DELEWA RE
GE AVE
FLEMIN
G ST
EL
ROAD
H
6T
N
BA
TE
R S 7TH AVE SE
TA
FR
TE
EE
5
WA
PE
Y
PL
TE
RS
OLD
SA
RD
TE
IN
TE
R
RD
R UR
5TH AVE SE
IN
5TH AVE SE
DR SE
4TH
STATE ST
W MARIN
BURLINGTON NORTHERN
RR R/W
AV
FEEDERAL AVE
TE
RM
IN
AL
W. MARINE VIEW DR
NORTON AVE
GEDNEY ST
AV
E
ON
VE
RN
KROMER
FEDERAL AVE
SHORT ST
NASSAU ST
BELL
SNOHOMISH
SEVENICH DR
TULALIP
FO WL
ER
AL
Y
RD
.
EAST DRIVE
CA
D
DEXTER AVE.
FLEMIN G STREET
EVERGR
EEN
RAI NIE WAY
R
RAIN IER
DR
EAST CADY RD
CARSON
RAINIER
WAY
G RE
EN
EV
ER
10TH AVE
7TH AVE SE
9TH AVE SE
10TH AVE SE
7TH AVE SE
9TH
9TH DR SE
1OTH DR SE
7TH AVE SE
4TH DR SE
AVE SE
3RD DR
3RD PL
3RD AVE SE
MERIDIAN AVE
12TH AVE W
COLLEGE
BLACK
FOREST
LANE
HILLTOP
WEST DRIVE
3R
3RD PL SE
3RD AVE SE
D
2N
MERIDIAN AVE
1ST DR SE
1ST AVE SE
MERIDIAN AVE
4TH AVE W
8TH AVE W
AY
W
AL
TY
IR
AD
M
Kromer
FOREST DR
SUNSET LN
WILLOW RD
BEVERLY LANE
D
G RE
EN
EV
ER
1ST DR SE
2ND
O NT
LM
BE
1S
T
2ND AVE W
1ST PL W
4TH PL W
11TH
RALT
Y WA
Y
AD MI
WAY
GH
HI
CIFI
C
PA
WAY
A LE
1ST DR SE
8TH AVE W
AD
RO
R
AN
DE
EX
AL
AV
ON
D
CO LLE
PA
DR
N
R TH
W
CR
O
PL
ME
CENTER
HO
HAVEN
RD NO
5th Ave
BASSWOOD
OLYMPIC BLVD
HEATHER RD
ELM ST
DOGWOOD DR
A
VIST
VIE
W
LAND
W. HIGH
DOGWOOD DR
PA RK
SUNSET LN
1ST DR SE
SYCAMORE PL
BLUFF PL
CA
P RI
TYEE RD
MERIDIAN AVE
W GLEN DR
E GLEN DR
WAY
5TH AVE W
4TH AVE W
5TH PL
W
WAY
G RE
EN
4TH AVE W
1ST AVE SE
1ST
1ST DR SE
O
CH
RA
N
6TH AVE W
2 ND PL W
PL
EV
ER
1 ST PL W
12TH AVE W
9TH AVE W
PL. W
21ST PL W
MARINO AVE
COMMANDO RD
S
BO TA R
M A FI R
E
R
BE C R A V
ED VE D E
M O R LY
N D PA
S RK
RO
AD -
30TH AVE W
LOWER RIDGE
RD
6TH AVE W
7TH DR W
8TH AVE W
10TH AVE W
WALTER E HALL RD
18TH AVE W
18TH
21ST AVE W
19T H
23RD AVE W
W
131ST ST SE
Y
25TH
HW
TT
23RDAVE SE
CASCADIAN WAY
RD
MEA DOW
W AY
AL
M IR
AD
MAN OR
E RD
Y 99
HW
LRO
IL
E-H
TL D
AT O A
SE R
SILVERCREST DR
AD
5
INTERSTA
TE
ASH WAY
143RD ST SW
143RD ST SE
This full color map may be purchased
from the Dept. of Planning &Community
Development for $ 10.00.
A blackline map is available for $ 3.00 .
146TH ST SE
MIL
LC
R
B LV
D
SE
146TH ST SW
VD
BL
525
148TH ST SW
UM
HWY
148TH ST SW
Neighborhoods Updated
January, 2012
140TH ST SW
Y
X
IL LI
SONWAY
BY RD
WAY
TR
JEF FER
Geographic
Information
Systems
IVE
DR
CKNE
Y
WAY
TY
E STI
THEL
L EVE
RE
AD
S RO
LAK
MADI SON
BO
35TH AVE
G
W AT
TE AY E
RR
AC
E
HA
6TH PL
W
7TH PL
W
9TH PL
W
18TH AVE W
14TH AVE W
11TH PL W
10TH PL W
AIRPORT ROAD
DR
N
U TE
MA
MIN
RD
LT
EN
AU
CH
29TH AVE W
118TH
119TH
121ST
D
3R
12
124TH ST SE
45TH
110T H
MA
LAKE STICKNEY
LAK
116TH
117TH
RUGG'S LAKE
130T H
SE
L-
115TH PL
120TH PL SE
128TH ST SE
128TH PL SE
129TH PL SE
E
AV
105TH PL SE
EL
114TH ST
118TH PL S.E.
124TH ST SE
131ST
TH
40
111TH
112TH
Silver Lake
116TH ST SE
122ND
127TH PL SE
130TH
110TH PL
32ND
32ND AVE SE
129TH
104TH
104TH
PL.
PL SE
32ND
105TH PL SE
107TH
107TLAKE
H ST
PL SE
SE
108TH
108TH ST SE
10
109TH
8T
H
109TH
W
S RO
AD
ST SE
LO
110TH ST SE
HE
IGHT
98TH
100TH ST SE
102ND PL SE
39TH
KE
ER RD
107TH PL SE
26TH
LA
95THSE
PL
99TH ST SE
HILTON
111 TH
120TH PL SE
98TH
99TH PL SE
102ND PL SE
110TH ST SE
DR
RIM
108TH ST SE
LL -LA
LO WE
103RD ST SE
104TH ST SE
105TH ST SE
105TH
125TH PL SE
126TH ST SE
AVE
96TH ST SE
DR
94TH PL SE
94TH PL SE
95TH PL SE
DU
525
WAY
WAY
SEREN
E
SH EL
92ND ST SE
98TH ST SE
101ST ST SE
101ST PL SE
102ND PL SE
104TH ST SE
132ND
137TH ST SW
SER ENE
LAK E
91ST ST SE
96TH PL SE
105TH ST SE
106TH ST SE
PEAK
IER
DR
GL AC
GORIN
89TH ST SE
OD
N
EL GI Y
WA
88TH ST SE
WO
132ND ST
134TH ST SE
RIM DR
A 86TH ST SE
HELEN
OW
SH AD
MA
TA RA
E
AD
CA SC
134TH ST SW
RIVERVIEW BLVD
FOREST VIEW DR
VIS
132ND ST SW
AY
123RD
PANAVIEW
81ST PL SE
CK
WATTS RD
UG
80TH PL SE
90TH ST SE
100TH ST SE
121ST ST SE
S LO
Valley
View
HI LL
CI TI M B
R C ER
LE
BEDEL LN
99TH ST SE
SILVER
LAKE
TH
13
DR
W
73RD
EL CAPITAN WAY
SILVER
119TH
EY
Lowell
E
JACKSON
74TH
74TH
75TH ST SE
ROAD
SILVER LAKE
19TH AVE SE
LAK E
AS
H
75TH ST SE
PUGET DRIVE
84TH ST SE
ON
RS
IB BE
KE
.
HWY
LINC OLN
124TH ST SE
ADAMS
MONROE
112TH ST SE
112TH ST SE
128TH ST SE
128TH ST SW
AY
109TH ST SE
EB
D AV
MELVIN
PINEHURST
COLUMBIA
106TH ST SE
110TH PL SE
MI
S
FRANKLI N ST
HOWARD
MADISON
73RD ST SE
74TH
102ND
D
LA
AD
RO
OR
W
KOSSUTH AVE
BALLEW AVE
SILVER
O RT
AI RP
AN
119TH
120TH PL.
124TH ST SW
126TH ST
GIB
SON
RD
117TH
119TH ST SE
EU CLI
EBEY ISLAND
HO
LOWELL RIVER ROAD
RAVENNA ST
LEXINGTON
SCENIC DR
DE
S NO
LENORA ST
HU
PL
AD
116th
116TH PL SE
ZILLAH ST
LINCOLN ST
EW
R
RO
115TH ST SE
105TH PL
MAIN ST
X
ST VI
N TE
ON
120TH ST
S CA
104TH PL SE
104TH PL SE
52ND ST SE
EA
CE
NM
113TH ST SE
113TH
ROAD
122ND
73rd
14TH
AY
ST SW
RUSSELL
WAY
RUSSELL WAY
132ND ST SW
108TH ST SE
FA
61ST ST SE
100TH ST SE
ROA
IR
EC
W
GI BS
128TH
ST SE
106TH ST SE
107TH ST SE
117TH PL SE
CENTER
PL SW
72ND
WAY
BR US
KR UD
EUGENE ST.
62ND ST SE
70TH PL
100TH ST SE
BIGLOW ST.
IT
WH
N
D
125TH ST SW
122ND
MA LL
100TH PL SE
93RD
48TH ST
49TH
CAMPO
W
AVE
EL
YORK ROAD
119TH ST SW
120TH ST SW
121ST ST SW
Y
WA
N
EE
DRIVE
AD
IN G
GR
FL EM
ER
EV
H RO
ETT
EVER
94TH
103RD PL SE
104TH ST SE
105TH
106TH ST SW
115TH PL SW
116TH ST SW
115TH ST SW
117TH ST SW
116TH PL SW
118TH ST SW
122ND ST SW
95TH ST SE
115TH ST SW
119TH ST SW
120TH ST SW
BEVERLY-MUKILTE
O CUT OFF
SW
D ST
122N
UT
SO
112TH ST SW
PL SE
91ST
97TH PL SE
97TH ST SE
TE
R
Twin
Creeks
108TH ST SW
FI
E ST
BR
AD
L RO
E IN
N
104TH ST SW
108TH ST SW
E
IN
SA
Y
WA
MIL
ILY
107TH ST SW
113TH ST SW
117TH ST SW
EVERGREEN DRIVE
AR
105TH ST SW
106TH PL SW
107TH PL SW
HOLLOW DALE PL
PA
DR
87TH
90TH
47TH ST SE
60TH ST SE
62ND ST
LM
PINKERTON
SR
526
84TH ST SE
89th
92ND ST SE
E
S
PL
SW
E
Y AV
D
OD
PI ON
US
OL D
92
ST
ST
cG
ILL
AV
E
IN TE
RC
IT Y
CIT
O
PA L IV
RO R IA
AD K
3R
10
H ST
E
IV
G TO
IN
SH Y
WA WA
106T
W.
M
ST
PL
5T HEST
W
W
5T
10
DR
IV
E
AV
AY
W
HO
H
96TH ST SW
98TH ST SW
L LY
DR
RN
TA
LY
46TH ST SE
ST SE
Pinehurst
CA
d
52N D
FA
63RD ST SE
PA
Cascade View
DR
EM
94TH ST SW
100TH
L
HO
89TH ST SE
TRENTON PL
91ST ST SE
DO
A
OT
PL
106TH ST SW
N
MO
RD
Holly
WO
RO SE
AD
T RO
OR
AI RP
DR
RD
525
CY PR
OR
RB
IN
95TH ST
101S
T
104TH
112TH ST SW
FALCO N
JO
NAVA
SR
SC
CO
S
R oa
si no
88TH ST SW
91ST PL SW
97TH ST SW
K
DA
103RD ST SW
L
EL
SS
RU O A D
R
85TH PL SW
88TH PL SW
89TH ST SW
94TH ST SW
M PU
45TH ST SE
55TH SE
PARK
BARBARA LN.
79TH PL SE
E. CASINO RD
93RD ST SW
Field
NA
CA
Ca
Paine
98TH PL SW
AK E
LY L
75TH ST SE
44TH ST SE
53RD ST SE
66TH PL
MORGAN COURT
B EV ER
W. CASINO ROAD
88TH ST SW
Westmont
2ND DR SE
RTH
OLYMP DR
IC BLV
D
CL
IF
F
HO WA
RIDGEMONT DR
9TH AVE W
10TH PL
CREST LN
ST
MERIDIAN AVE
W MAGNOLIA
KENWOOD
RD
ON
ES
RD
16TH AVE W
SEAWAY BLVD
78TH PL SW
80TH PL SW
UPPER RIDGE RD
S R 526
100TH ST SW.
74TH ST SE
76TH ST SW
76TH PL SW
80TH ST SW
W CASINO ROAD
MADISON ST
Evergreen
NE
LE
77TH PL SW
S R 526
TAMARACK
72ND ST SE
TYEE RD
EASY ST
15TH
VEW
1 3T H A
25
T
23RD DR W
W BEECH
VE W
HA
10TH DR W
PL
GIBSON
LN
HAR BOR
D
23R
ez
e
27TH AVE W
SEAVIEW WAY
24TH
S ea b
re
Ln
OCEAN AVE
Gey
er
CHINOOK DR
SOUND AVE
ALKI DRIVE
33RD
33RD AVE
40TH AVE W
S R 526
73RD ST SW
74TH ST SW
RA
VE
43RD ST SE
47TH
49TH
VD
Y BL
RL
VE
80TH ST SW
D
ST
BE
44TH AVE W
78TH ST SW
B LV
43RD
AD
75TH ST SW
76TH ST SW
CY
65TH PL.
36TH ST
41ST
BERKSHIRE DR
ROSE WAY
E BEECH ST
33RD ST
ER
R IV
UE
61ST ST SE
PECKS
E MAGNOLIA AVE
AVE
32ND ST
H
-D
40TH
57TH
ER
R RO
LAR IME
RS
VE
SIE
ER
WEST MINST
60TH PL SE
60TH ST SE
LK
PO
SEAWAY BLVD
38TH
E
AVE
TH W
60 S
ST
M ERRI L L C R EEK P K Y
36TH ST
37TH ST
TEMPLE DR
ND
59TH ST SW
51st
LA
58TH ST SW
50th
View Ridge
Madison
SEAH URST
36 TH AVE W
PL SW
55T H
48TH
Brentwood
S
ST
55TH
RD
DR
54TH
53rd
D AVE
60TH ST SW
51ST PL SW
ELMA 52ND PL SW
OO
GLENW
HS
T SW
56TH ST SW
K
R EE
GE
E
LE
55T
35TH ST
CLINTON
44TH
Alder
R IV
SR 2
32ND ST
46TH ST SE
48th
OM
I SH
26TH PL
RAILW AY
42ND
47th
24TH ST
OH
HEWITT AVE
South
Forest
Park
Glacier
View
49TH
E CREST LN
Riverside
PACIFIC AVE
45TH
48TH
SN
WALL ST
LN
SUMMER
46th
47TH
49TH ST SW
51ST ST SW
NC
R ID
AR
ORCA VIEW LN
T
SW
WATER TOWER
CH
D
59T H S
SW
W
EL
ST
TS
R
VE
E
58T
HS
LN
UN
SO
LE
56TH ST SW
ST
DO
AV
T
57
BR ID
H
SEAHURST AVE
E RE
OR LN
EDGEMO
KENILWORTH PL
en
av
nh
Gle
ED
LV
ND
O AD
54TH ST SW
HarborviewSeahurstGlenhaven
BAILEY AVE
HOLBROOK
26TH
CALFORNIA
39TH
41ST
42ND
RO AD
CHESTNUT ST
WALNUT ST
21ST
22ND
23RD
EVERETT AVE
40TH
41ST
Mukilteo
E VIEW RIDGE DR
45th
Mukilteo
England
Boulevard Bluffs
Veiw Crest
56
T H S T SW
OR
RB
HA LN
W
VIE
DULL PL
GLENWOOD AVE
BE
49th
W
BLV D
VIEW
RIDGE DR
CROWN DR
42ND
PA
RK
PL
AERATION
POND
20TH
LEONARD DR
21ST
25TH
4TH ST. S.E.
VICTOR PL
20TH
23RD
24TH
39th
39th
SEWAGE LAGOON
HAYES ST
19TH
34TH ST
VE
CITY OF EVERETT
DALE PL
18TH
33RD ST
LA
MILL ST
WIN TER
E
WAYNE AVE
AD
W LE
AY
GIO WINTON SKYLIN
E
N AVE
DR
WAVERLY AVE
BROADWAY
LOMBARD AVE
OAKES AVE
RAINIER
POPLAR ST
LARCH ST
HEMLOCK ST
FIR ST
MA
W
B LV
D
ER
SO
N
ALV
LAN
SB Y
MA UL
Hoyt
GRAND AVE
COLBY AVE
WETMORE AVE
RUCKER AVE
E VIEW DR
18TH
19TH
EDWARD
EO
PIG
ILTE O
DARLINGTON LN
51ST
W MUK
PL
HOLS
NIC
PL
RD
KIR BY BEC K
NAR
Narb eck
LA
RR
ON
EL
BR
NE
UP
MA
DE
HILLSIDE LN
Saratoga
50TH ST SW
52ND PL SW SW
LN
49th Pl
DRIVE
LA
KILT EO
DR.
WAVE
TAYL OR
ER
IEW
YV
BA
W MU
LA
LN
TEO
MU KIL
OR
er
dn
Gar
SH
E
E AV
BAK
E
AV
VIE
MA
A
ON
DR
CROWN DR
RK
DR
R
EA
CHARLES
RD.
14TH
17TH
Port
Gardner
SHARON CREST
ISLAN D
ITH
13TH
16TH
E
IN
AR DR
E M EW
VI
EL DRNILES
SM
12TH
Delta
15TH
Bayside
Warren
ER
12TH ST
22ND
LA UR
RIV
10TH
11TH
17TH
ST
12TH ST. N.E.
8TH
ST
ST
16TH
ND
SH
MI
BUTLER
9TH ST
15TH
BO
O
OH
7TH
ST
TH
10
OKLAHOMA AVE
JADE AVE
14TH
DR
12TH
13TH
W
8TH ST
IE
6TH ST
7TH ST
TOWER
ST
9TH
ST
EV
IN
A R AY
EM W
ID GE
10TH
11TH
14TH ST
SN
BR
6TH ST
7TH ST
MEDORA
WHITE
HORSE
5TH ST
8TH ST
9TH
AV
E
DR
E VI
EW
W
VIE
DR
E
3RD ST
Northwest
Everett
13TH ST
RO
SS
IN
2ND ST
4TH ST
5THST
VILL
THOMAS
LAKE
AG
EG
RE
EN
DR
IVE
N
This map has been produced using
the best information available.
20
TH
DR
SE
Not to Scale
s:\nieghborhds\Neighborhd11x17.mxd
Figure 4. City of Everett Neighborhood Map (2012)
59
Everett faces an opioid crisis, and as of January 2017, has been in a civil lawsuit
with Purdue Pharma for allowing OxyContin to be funneled through the black market
(Lawsuit Against Purdue Pharma | Everett, WA - Official Website, 2017). In the official
lawsuit documents, the city claims that it is facing increased arrests, prosecution,
emergency medical services, and crime due to the drug epidemic in the city (Lawsuit City
of Everett v Purdue Pharma, 2017). Safety is a key concern for the city, as increased
crime has been a hot topic for news organizations, neighborhood associations, city
government officials, and residents (Lawsuit Against Purdue Pharma | Everett, WA Official Website, 2017). The perception of a lack of safety is notable for Everett
residents, as general welfare is associated with being impacted by the perception of a lack
of safety (Foster et al, 2013).
Everett’s comprehensive plan recommends climate change action and
sustainability initiatives, portraying environmental concern (Everett Mayor’s Office,
2017). To help implement these initiatives, the city has a rain garden program that
specifically targets stormwater management (Rain Gardens | Everett, WA – Official
Website, 2017). The incentive program is for single-family private residences and
advertises itself as a low-maintenance alternative to a lawn that can provide habitat for
local wildlife, can help recharge groundwater, and can assist with drainage issues on
private property (Rain Gardens, Everett, WA – Official Website, 2017). Programs that
address green spaces, promotion of aesthetics, and target private residences can directly
benefit from this research, as it will assist with targeting their audience for a preferred
design.
60
The Riverside Neighborhood is in North Everett, one of the 19 neighborhoods
within the city (Figure 4). The neighborhood contains 5 small parks, historic properties,
and an active Neighborhood Association (Riverside | Everett, WA - Official Website,
2017). Over 40% of households in Riverside make less than $50,000 per year (Everett
Demographic Maps, 2016). Out of the 19 neighborhoods in Everett, Riverside ranks 12th
for population (approximately 4,900), and is 13th for population density (3,950 per square
mile) (Statistical Atlas – Riverside Neighborhood, 2017). The lower density indicates that
the neighborhood is not within the urban core.
Figure 5. Riverside Neighborhood Boundaries
(Riverside Neighborhood Association, 2017)
61
The neighborhood has a strong connection throughout social media and the
Riverside Neighborhood Association. The neighborhood uses two main Facebook pages
to communicate and a community cell phone ‘App’. The neighborhood association page
communicates information such as meetings, election information, and community news,
and has a little over 350 members (Riverside Neighborhood Association, Everett WA. |
Facebook.com, 2017). The other Facebook page, Take Back Our Neighborhood Everett –
North (Facebook.com, 2017), is mainly used for community discussion and is not
primarily focused on the Riverside Neighborhood, as issues are all for North Everett
neighborhoods. The page has nearly 3,000 members and engages its users in community
topics of concern such as crime, candidates and elections, housing affordability, the
opioid crisis, and volunteer opportunities for concerned citizens (Take Back Our
Neighborhood Everett – North, Facebook.com, 2017). The Nextdoor App has nearly 850
members all within the strict boundaries of the Riverside neighborhood. Discussion is
frequent and reflects the ‘Take Back Our Neighborhood Everett – North’ page, but with a
more direct focus on safety issues affecting neighbors (Nextdoor Riverside, 2017). This
strong connection of communication between members displays that the identity of
suburban classification is tied to the identity of being a Riverside resident.
Riverside is zoned by Snohomish County as primarily Suburban Residential and
Single Family Detached Medium with a small segment devoted to Single Family
Medium-Historic Overlay (Everett North Zoning and Future Land Use Map, 2012).
Using conventional urban planning methods, Snohomish County Planning and
Development Services classifies Riverside land use and future land use growth as
62
suburban in their most recent demographic maps (Everett North Zoning and Future Land
Use Map, 2012).
Although it’s classified as suburban, this active neighborhood fits definitions for
suburban edge and urban neighborhood (Moudon & Hess, 2000; Duany & Talen, 2002;
APA, 2017)in addition to its suburban medium-density classification by the city. An
older neighborhood, Riverside was founded in the 1880s and has been expanding since
the 1920s. The neighborhood has experienced decades of suburban growth (Riverside
Remembers, 1985). The streets are grid-like, an example of traditional planning, but it’s
lower to medium density indicates a hybrid of urban and suburban (Wood et al., 2008;
Foster et al., 2013). For the purposes of this study, Riverside is used as an example of a
neighborhood that has been impacted by the growth of suburban development, but is part
of an area that lacks academic definition due to its hybrid nature (Moudon & Hess, 2000;
Forsyth, 2012).
Riverside can be classified as a suburban neighborhood because it fits the mold
for suburban in the following examples. The neighborhood fits the APA classification of
T3 Sub-Urban area (Duany & Talen, 2002), as designated by the city (Everett North
Zoning and Future Land Use Map, 2012). On the academic level, Riverside fits with
Newell & Marzluff’s (2005) definition:
Suburban: Building density is moderate and lawns and other vegetation are often
readily apparent. Lawns and gardens are generally more extensive than within
urban areas. Single-family housing predominate on small to moderately-sized lots
(0.1-1.0 ha). Multi-family housing, basic services, and light industry are scattered
throughout. Structures over two stories tall are uncommon.
63
Conversely, the neighborhood has characteristics that would not normally be used
as an example suburban zone. The lack of cul-de-sacs and cookie-cutter houses means
that Riverside does not share the conventional suburban aesthetics held by many
(Forsyth, 2012; Duany, Plater-Zyberk & Speck, 2010). Therefore, Riverside is a
neighborhood that falls outside uniform suburban definition.
The results of this study will help to define the neighborhood as suburban, urbansuburban, or urban by asking residents to self-identify their neighborhood. The study
seeks to improve efforts for naturalization to residents in similar areas to Riverside.
64
Survey
The study consisted of two distinct components; the first a questionnaire and the
second a visual preference survey assessing attractiveness and safety (Appendix X and
Y). The questionnaire asked 9 questions, including self-identifying as 1. Urban, 2. UrbanSuburban, 3. Suburban, 4, Suburban-Rural, and 5. Rural. This range was set to be more
expansive than a tradition urban-suburban-rural divide in order to get more detailed
information. The survey also gathered age range information, concern for environmental
issues, concern for safety issues, importance of green spaces in their neighborhood, and
yard design preferences. The yard design preference was labeled as gradient of
manicured to wild, 1. Manicured Cut Grass, 2. Grass with Some Plants, 3. Equal Parts
Grass and Plants, 4. Mostly Plants with Some Grass, and 5. All Plants.
These questions were meant to ascertain the possible predisposition to the visual
preference survey using language found in reference studies (Feagan & Ripmeester,
1999; Jorgensen et al., 2002; Nassauer et al, 2004; Randall et al., 2003; Schopfer et al.,
2005; Short Gianatti et al., 2016). All questions were closed answer with only one answer
allowed. The only question required was for respondents to either indicate what number
was on their paper survey or their cross streets to ensure they were within the boundaries
of the Riverside Neighborhood.
The visual preference survey is a popular tool used in planning, ecology,
environmental, land-use, and perceptions studies to evaluate perception of a given scene.
The pictures were labeled on a 5-point Likert scale (1 the least, 5 the most) for
attractiveness and safety, as found in the study by Jorgensen et al (2002). There were a
series of 16 pictures grouped into 4 sections. The four sections grouped as such:
65
1.) Lawn with little to no other kinds of vegetation, more manicured
2.) Combination of manicured and vegetation, hybrid
3.) Combination of manicured and vegetation, hybrid
4.) Mostly plants with some grass, more wild
The sections were all single-family residential homes in or near the Riverside
neighborhood, taken directly from the sidewalk or road, profiling the front view of the
house. Section 3 differed slightly, which had the camera angle of being in the middle of
the road. It was hoped that pictures of similar neighborhoods would help support
respondents to recognize the area the photographs were taken to prevent assumptions
regarding the context of the pictures. This separate section was to view if there were any
differences of perceptions based on increasing the site-line and street preferences, rather
than just how the houses themselves were designed. The houses chosen were ones that
had exaggerated features that could be easily recognizable via photograph. Each of the
four sections has a variety of homes of different sizes, assumed affluence, and upkeep.
The photographs used were taken on a late winter/early spring day in March 2017, with
help from Wade Oberlin, an Everett resident. The weather was rainy and cloudy, a typical
day during non-summer season in the Pacific Northwest.
Instead of handing out paper surveys to every respondent, sheets provided
explanation for the survey and gave the link to the online survey. To reach a larger
population of the study area, I provided the survey link and the same language as the
printed sheet to the Riverside Neighborhood Association Facebook page, Take Back
Everett – North Facebook page, and the Nextdoor App for Riverside Neighborhood.
Since safety concerns in the neighborhood were heightened, I also alerted the
66
neighborhood of when I would be dispersing paper survey invitations through the
Facebook pages and the Nextdoor App. Responses from reaching out online were all
thankful; I was told by several residents that my presence may be alerted to the police if
someone in the neighborhood had not read my messages. The additional sampling
strategy of including residents who were hand-delivered invitations to the survey and
residents using digital forums allowed for a greater level of response from different kinds
of perspectives and different levels of preferred contact.
The study took place on a weekend in September 2017, where 225 surveys were
handed out to approximately 5% of the neighborhood. This number was determined by
feasibility of personal disbursement. Each survey had an identification number on the top
corner for respondents to enter into the online survey. Houses for survey delivery were
not randomly picked out ahead of time. Instead, this technique was followed to reach the
largest area feasible:
a. Pick a ‘quarter’ of the neighborhood to make sure paper surveys were
given to entire area
b. Go East and West down the blocks, turn Right (North) and circle the
block. Continue West to the next intersecting block.
c. Approach houses in this order, if it failed one of these move to the next
house. This technique averaged approximately every 4th house
i. No gate
ii. Safe steps/walkway
iii. Does not have a ‘no soliciting’ sign
iv. Has a secure place to leave survey
67
d. If all the qualifications passed, I left the survey in this order
i. Door crack
ii. Behind (and sticking up) mailbox next to door
iii. Under door mat (sticking up)
e. If I encountered someone walking on the street or in front of their house, I
would
i. Introduce myself using the same language as my postings
ii. Ask if they live in the neighborhood
iii. Offer them the survey sheet
Out of the 6 respondents who I spoke to in person, 4 had recognized me from my
social media posts and indicated they felt more comfortable with taking the survey
because I had introduced myself. This series of methods allowed for more respondents to
participate in the survey, even if their home restricted access to a paper invitation. Online
respondents were required to list either the number on the survey from the paper
invitation or their cross-streets before they could be invited to complete the online survey.
68
Chapter Four
Results
The online survey generated responses from 52 individuals. The first question
from the survey allowed for the results to be narrowed to only allow responses from
individuals who had received paper invitations or provided cross-streets that were within
the boundaries of the neighborhood. This resulted in 12 responses being excluded from
the evaluation. The removed responses either did not provide cross streets or provided
cross streets that were outside the boundaries of the neighborhood. The final usable
responses were collected from 40 respondents (N = 40).
69
Age
15
16
14
12
12
11
10
8
6
4
2
2
0
19-35
36-50
51-65
66+
Figure 6. Age Range of Riverside Respondents
Demographic age data is displayed in Figure 6. There was an adequate age range
of respondents that reflected the diversity of ages within the neighborhood. The ages
tended to be older, with the 51-65 age group representing a plurality of responses,
although there were only 2 respondents who were 66+. This spread of age responses
leans slightly older than the age demographics of Everett, but may be more representative
of Riverside, in which there is no specific data available (Everett, WA Demographics
Census Data, 2017).
Self-identification results of the neighborhood trended towards urban (Figure 7),
with nearly 43% of respondents identifying themselves and their neighborhood as urban.
35% identified as suburban-urban, and the remaining 22% defined their neighborhood
and suburban. Residents tended to see themselves as more urban than suburban, but still
being a large contingency that identified as suburban in some way.
70
Self-Identification of Neighborhood
Rural
0
Suburban-Rural
0
Suburban
9
Urban-Suburban
14
Urban
17
0
5
10
15
20
Figure 7. Self-Identification of Neighborhood Suburban Identity
Participants (Figure 8) showed that they were both concerned about safety and the
environment, with environmental concern being ranked significantly higher than safety in
‘very concerned’ and slightly less-so than most concerned. In terms of landscaping,
respondent preferences leaned towards mostly plants and equal parts grass and plants.
71
Environmental and Safety Concern Rating
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
16
16
13
10
7
8
7
2
1
0
Least
Concerned
Somewhat
Concerned
Concerned
Environmental
Very
Concerned
Most
Concerned
Safety
Figure 8. Environmental and Safety Concerns of Riverside Residents
Importance of Green Spaces
23
25
20
15
8
10
5
1
1
Least
Important
Somewhat
Important
7
0
Important
Very
Important
Most
Important
Figure 9. Importance of Green Spaces of Riverside Residents
72
Riverside residents appear to value green spaces (Figure 9). The respondents
rated green spaces as being very important, with 38 of the responses being important and
above and only 2 being somewhat important or least important.
Yard Design Preference
All Plants
5
Mostly Plants with Some Grass
13
Equal Parts Grass and Plants
10
11
Grass with Some Plants
Manicured Cut Grass
1
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Figure 10. Yard Design Preferences of Riverside Residents
The yard design preference (Figure 10) indicates that combination yard design is
the most preferential of yard designs. Riverside residents appear to prefer more wild and
hybrid yard designs than traditionally manicured grass. This goes against traditional
analysis that suburban residents prefer manicured yards (Feagan & Ripmeester, 1999;
Sandberg and Foster, 2005). In fact, only two respondents preferred manicured cut grass
over a combination of grass and plants.
73
Mean Ratings for Attractivness and Safety
3.8
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
3.34
3.51 3.42
3.49 3.46
3.44
2.9
Manicured
2.8
All Combination
Homes
Combination
Safety
Road
Combination
3.06
Wild
Attractivness
Figure 11. Visual Preference Survey Results of Mean Ratings for
Attractiveness and Safety
The substantive results of average means for manicured, combination (isolated
homes, roads, and all) and wild is displayed on Figure 11. The overall mean safety score
was highest for combination pictures (3.8) and for attractiveness (3.44). The lowest mean
safety scores were for the wild category (2.8). The lowest mean attractiveness was
manicured (2.9). Both the means for the combination category (houses combination and
road combination) ranked higher than wild for safety and attractiveness. The visual
preference survey revealed that combination yards were perceived to be both more safe
and more attractive.
74
Degree of Naturalization
4.5
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
Combination
Combination
Combination
Wild
Combination
Wild
Combination
Wild
Manicured
S3
S4
S5
S6
S7
S8
S9 S10 S11 S12 S13 S14 S15 S16
Safety
Combination
Manicured
S2
Combination
Manicured
S1
Combination
Manicured
Wild
0
Atractiveness
Figure 12. Visual Preference Survey Results of Detailed Mean Ratings for
Attractiveness and Safety. Labeled by picture in survey and the corresponding
classification of manicured, combination, and wild.
75
Figure 12 is a more detailed view of the mean ratings of the 16 photographs, with
their designated category of either manicured, combination, or wild on the bottom. Two
outliers, S1 and S16, that are below a 3.0 mean score for safety and attractiveness rating.
There are little similarities in the two pictures, except for the fact that they are both
extreme examples of manicured with no other vegetation (S1) and wild with little to no
visible lawn (S16).
76
Chapter Five
Discussion
The results demonstrate that respondents view themselves as being more
urban and suburban-urban than strictly suburban. These findings are compatible with the
initial hypothesis that Riverside neighborhood was not perceived as a fully suburban
zone, but one integrated with the urban edge. The survey shows that residents are
integrated with the edge of their urban area, and don’t see themselves as one specific
definition. The results were somewhat surprising though that 43% of the respondents
classified themselves as urban, directly conflicting with the idea that Riverside is
classified as suburban by the county and as a traditional hybrid of suburban-urban
through the literature (Moudon & Hess, 2000; Wood et al., 2008; Foster et al., 2013).
The difference in perception between urban and suburban show that a gradient is
needed to better capture self-identification results. Since respondents identified strongly
with a gradient of suburban-urban, it’s likely that other neighborhoods that are designated
as suburban would also show different residential perception results. Expanding how
these areas are classified will help to better recognize how to increase sustainable
planning and naturalization. These findings also support that further research is needed to
understand how self-identification within suburban gradients affects perception and
acceptance of naturalization (Parsons, 1995; Jorgensen et al., 2002).
77
The questionnaire revealed that the respondents were concerned with
environmental issues and found green spaces to be important. This environmentallyinclined population is probably more likely to participate in naturalization incentive
projects such as rain gardens, as well as continuing to increase in combination category
of wild and manicured within their own lawns. City representatives would most likely
have to appeal to this predisposition to environmental concerns to increase their
naturalization projects.
The questionnaire also indicated that safety concerns were present, which could
stem from the opioid crisis in the city. Further study is needed to confirm this
assumption. Increased study of resident perceptions city- and neighborhood-wide would
allow for a more comprehensive estimate of safety concerns and whether they are
heightened in certain parts of the city where opioid use is more prevalent.
The questionnaire and the visual preference survey indicated that there was
internal consistency between the self-reported yard design preferences and the visual
display or yard designs. Yard design preferences yielded similar results to those of the
visual preference survey. Respondents found that combination yard designs, a mix of
plants and grass were the most appealing. Even when all grass (manicured) and all plants
(wild) are directly compared against each other, manicured grass areas only received 1
response versus wild with 5 responses. This indicates that the visual preference survey
was accurate in surveying the respondents in Riverside neighborhood, as their preference
was already more likely to be favorable towards more naturalized areas than primarily
open, manicured spaces.
78
The combination areas that represented a mixture of manicured and wild spaces
ranked higher means on attractiveness and safety than either manicured and wild only.
This data conflicts with previous studies that suggest that homes with manicured lawns
would be considered safer and more aesthetically pleasing than any other kind of green
space (Feagan and Ripmeester, 1999; Nassauer et al., 2001; Sandberg and Foster, 2005).
This was a fairly surprising result, as previous studies indicated that more naturalized and
wild spaces were seen as both less safe and less attractive (Nassauer et al., 2004;
Sandberg and Foster, 2005).
One reason for this difference in results could be increased naturalization within
Everett. The efforts by the city and state to increase naturalization projects have increased
as environmental planning initiatives are now more accepted and utilized. It’s also
possible that the area in which past studies were based had a set of respondents who
preferred more manicured areas, and that the Puget Sound Areas has a higher abundance
of individuals who prefer combination yard designs and naturalization.
79
Chapter Six
Recommendations for Future Research and Conclusion
Landscape and naturalization preference studies are constantly evolving as new
data demonstrates differences in socio-spatial perceptions. As definitions for suburban
and urban areas continue to expand, so will the ability to categorize neighborhoods and
suburban developments. As these areas become better defined, managing green spaces
and increasing naturalization acceptance in public and private locations can be more
successful since targeting similar areas with similar perceptions will be easier.
The findings show that visual attractiveness and safety cannot be fully considered
in isolation from another. This supports the findings from Jorgensen et al. (2002), that
suggested that more naturalistic vegetation could be used in parks and other suburban
green spaces, if they were spatially arranged in a way that was attractive and safe to
residents. Riverside residents’ highly rated images could be used for future examples of
naturalization projects that will be more likely to be accepted in the future.
Improving the acceptance of green spaces in suburban and urban edge
neighborhoods will allow for more naturalization and Low Impact Development projects
to be installed. Utilizing the combination designs that had high mean rates is likely to
improve the chance of naturalization acceptance. The benefits of these naturalization
projects include increased environmental health, mental health, and physical health of the
80
residents nearby (Randall et al., 2003; Nassauer et al., 2004 Bratman et al., 2012; Zhou &
Parves Rana, 2012; Wolf, 2014).
The hypothesis that Riverside is primarily a suburban-urban edge area was
confirmed by self-identification findings, but also proves the importance of increasing
these kinds of studies in areas where residential areas differ in characteristics. These
preliminary findings suggest that land-use managers, planners, and city representatives
can be more aggressive in using environmental arguments for increasing naturalization in
Riverside and similar neighborhoods, and will most likely have a positive reception for
combination designs of yards.
Finally, I recommend that more surveys and research that utilize perception study
techniques along with historical analysis to better inform the knowledge base.
Understanding how suburban residents see themselves is essential for improving
environmental conditions and habits.
81
References
About APA. (2017). American Planning Association. Retrieved 7 October 2017, from
https://www.planning.org/AboutAPA
Arnberger, A., & Eder, R. (2012). The influence of green space on community
attachment of urban and suburban residents. Urban Forestry & Urban
Greening, 11(1), 41-49. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2011.11.003
Barnes, K., Morgan, J., Roberge, M., & Lowe, S. (2007). Sprawl Development: Its
Patterns, Consequences, and Measurement. Geospatial Research And Education
Laboratory, Department Of Geography And Environmental Planning.
Brabec, E., Schulte, S., & Richards, P. (2002). Impervious Surfaces and Water Quality: A
Review of Current Literature and Its Implications for Watershed Planning. Journal
Of Planning Literature, 16(4), 499-514.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/088541202400903563
Bratman, G., Hamilton, J., & Daily, G. (2012). The impacts of nature experience on
human cognitive function and mental health. Annals Of The New York Academy Of
Sciences, 1249(1), 118-136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.2011.06400.x
City of Everett's lawsuit against Purdue Pharma | Everett, WA - Official Website.
(2017). Everettwa.gov. Retrieved 20 October 2017, from
https://everettwa.gov/1681/Purdue-Lawsuit
City of Seattle. (2005). Seattle Comprehensive Plan - Urban Village Element. City of
Seattle.
Coffman, L. (2002). Low Impact Development: Smart Technology for Clean Water Definitions, Issues, Roadblocks, and Next Steps. Global Solutions For Urban
Drainage. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/40644(2002)20
Coulton, C., Korbin, J., Chan, T., & Su, M. (2001). Mapping Residents' Perceptions of
Neighborhood Boundaries: A Methodological Note. American Journal Of
Community Psychology, 29(2), 371-383. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1010303419034
Crow, T., Brown, T., & De Young, R. (2006). The Riverside and Berwyn experience:
Contrasts in landscape structure, perceptions of the urban landscape, and their effects
on people. Landscape And Urban Planning, 75(3-4), 282-299.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2005.04.002
Davis, A., Hunt, W., Traver, R., & Clar, M. (2009). Bioretention Technology: Overview
of Current Practice and Future Needs. Journal Of Environmental
Engineering, 135(3), 109-117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1061/(asce)07339372(2009)135:3(109)
Demographics | Snohomish County, WA - Official Website.
(2017). Snohomishcountywa.gov. Retrieved 10 September 2017, from
https://snohomishcountywa.gov/2465/Demographics
82
Duany, A., & Talen, E. (2017). Transect Planning. Scribd. Retrieved 25 November 2017,
from https://www.scribd.com/document/359905608/Duany-Talen-2002-Transectplanning-pdf
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2010). Suburban nation. New York, N.Y:
North Point.
DuBoff, R. (1989). Accumulation & Power: An Economic History of the United States.
By Richard B. DuBoff · Armonk, N.Y.: M. E. Sharpe, 1989. Business History
Review, 63(04), 974-975. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3115984
Everett North Zoning and Future Land Use Map. (2012). Everett, WA. Retrieved from
http://ftp://ftp.snoco.org/Planning_and_Development_Services/Buildable_Lands/201
2_BLR/MUGA%202012%20Buildable%20Lands%20Map%20Series/blr2012_Ever
ettMUGAMaps.pdf
Everett Socio-Economic Indicators Voter Turnout. (2016). Everettwa.gov. Retrieved 14
September 2017, from https://everettwa.gov/DocumentCenter/Home/View/7469
Feagan, R., & Ripmeester, M. (1999). Contesting Natural(ized) Lawns: A Geography of
Private Green Space In The Niagara Region. Urban Geography, 20(7), 617-634.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2747/0272-3638.20.7.617
Flouri, E., Midouhas, E., & Joshi, H. (2014). The role of urban neighbourhood green
space in children's emotional and behavioural resilience. Journal Of Environmental
Psychology, 40, 179-186. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvp.2014.06.007
Forsyth, A. (2012). Defining Suburbs. Journal Of Planning Literature, 27(3), 270-281.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0885412212448101
Foster, S., Wood, L., Christian, H., Knuiman, M., & Giles-Corti, B. (2013). Planning
safer suburbs: Do changes in the built environment influence residents' perceptions
of crime risk?. Social Science & Medicine, 97, 87-94.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2013.08.010
Freeborn, J., Sample, D., & Fox, L. (2012). Residential Stormwater: Methods for
Decreasing Runoff and Increasing Stormwater Infiltration. Journal Of Green
Building, 7(2), 15-30. http://dx.doi.org/10.3992/jgb.7.2.15
Grimm, N., Morgan Grove, J., Pickett, S., & Redman, C. (2000). Integrated Approaches
to Long-TermStudies of Urban Ecological Systems. Bioscience, 50(7), 571.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0571:iatlto]2.0.co;2
GRIMM, N., MORGAN GROVE, J., PICKETT, S., & REDMAN, C. (2000). Integrated
Approaches to Long-TermStudies of Urban Ecological Systems. Bioscience, 50(7),
571. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/0006-3568(2000)050[0571:iatlto]2.0.co;2
Groves, R. (2011). Rural and Suburban America: When One Definition is not
Enough. The United States Census Bureau. Retrieved 14 November 2017, from
https://www.census.gov/newsroom/blogs/director/2011/08/rural-and-suburbanamerica-when-one-definition-is-not-enough.html
83
Hales, P. (2014). Outside the gates of Eden (p. Ch. 4, Levittown's Palimpest: Colored
Skin). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Hartig, T., Mang, M., & Evans, G. (1991). Restorative Effects of Natural Environment
Experiences. Environment And Behavior, 23(1), 3-26.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916591231001
Historical Census of Housing Tables - Homeownership. (2017). Census.gov. Retrieved 2
December 2017, from
https://www.census.gov/hhes/www/housing/census/historic/owner.html
Jacob, P. (1992). A Dialectic of Personal and Communal Aesthetics: Paradigms of Yard
Ornamentation in Northeastern America. The Journal Of Popular Culture, 26(3), 91105. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-3840.1992.2603_91.x
Jennings, V., & Gaither, C. (2015). Approaching Environmental Health Disparities and
Green Spaces: An Ecosystem Services Perspective. International Journal Of
Environmental Research And Public Health, 12(2), 1952-1968.
http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijerph120201952
Jorgensen, A., Hitchmough, J., & Calvert, T. (2002). Woodland spaces and edges: their
impact on perception of safety and preference. Landscape And Urban
Planning, 60(3), 135-150. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s0169-2046(02)00052-x
Kellert, S., Wilson, E., & Ulrich, R. (1993). The Biophilia hypothesis. Chapter 3.
Biophilia, Biophobia, and Natural Landscapes. (pp. pg 73-137). Washington DC:
Island Press.
Kolko, J. (2015). Urban Headwinds, Suburban Tailwinds. Trulia.com. Retrieved 7
September 2017, from https://www.trulia.com/blog/trends/cities-vs-suburbs-jan2015/
Larice, M., & Macdonald, E. (2017). The Urban Design Reader second addition.
Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge.
Larrabee, E. (1948). The Six Thousand Houses That Levitt Built. Harper's, (197:1180),
79-83.
Lawsuit City of Everett v Purdue Pharma. (2017). Snohomish County. Retrieved from
https://everettwa.gov/DocumentCenter/View/9016
Lefebvre, H. (1976). Reflections On The Politics of Space. Antipode, 8(2), 30-37.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8330.1976.tb00636.x
Lichter, D., Fuguitt, G., & Heaton, T. (1985). Racial Differences in Nonmetropolitan
Population Deconcentration. Social Forces, 64(2), 487.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2578652
Lopez, R. (2017). Urban Sprawl in the United States: 1970-2010. Cities And The
Environment (CATE), 7(1). Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.lmu.edu/cate/vol7/iss1/7/
84
Lubienski, C., & Dougherty, J. (2009). Mapping Educational Opportunity: Spatial
Analysis and School Choices. American Journal Of Education, 115(4), 485-491.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/599783
Madge, C. (1997). Public Parks and Geography of Fear. Tijdschrift Voor Economische En
Sociale Geografie, 88(3), 237-250. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.14679663.1997.tb01601.x
Mayor's Office. (2017). Climate Action Committment. City of Everett.
Mcintyre, N., Knowles-Yánez, K., & Hope, D. (2000). Urban ecology as an
interdisciplinary field: differences in the use of “urban” between the social and
natural sciences. Urban Ecosystems, 4(1), 5-24.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/a:1009540018553
McKINNEY, M. (2002). Urbanization, Biodiversity, and
Conservation. Bioscience, 52(10), 883-890. http://dx.doi.org/10.1641/00063568(2002)052[0883:ubac]2.0.co;2
Moudon, A., & Hess, P. (2000). Suburban Clusters. Journal Of The American Planning
Association, 66(3), 243-264. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976105
Nassauer, J., Allan, J., Johengen, T., Kosek, S., & Infante, D. (2004). Exurban residential
subdivision development: Effects on water quality and public perception. Urban
Ecosystems, 7(3), 267-281. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/b:ueco.0000044039.65448.48
Nextdoor. (2017).
Parsons, R. (1995). Conflict between ecological sustainability and environmental
aesthetics: Conundrum, canärd or curiosity. Landscape And Urban Planning, 32(3),
227-244. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-2046(95)07004-e
Pickett, S., Cadenasso, M., Grove, J., Boone, C., Groffman, P., & Irwin, E. et al. (2011).
Urban ecological systems: Scientific foundations and a decade of progress. Journal
Of Environmental Management, 92(3), 331-362.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2010.08.022
Powell, S., Cohen, W., Yang, Z., Pierce, J., & Alberti, M. (2007). Quantification of
impervious surface in the Snohomish Water Resources Inventory Area of Western
Washington from 1972-2006. Remote Sensing Of Environment.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2007.09.010
Priego, C., Breuste, J., & Rojas, J. (2008). Perception and Value of Nature in Urban
Landscapes: a Comparative Analysis of Cities in Germany, Chile and
Spain. Landscape Online. http://dx.doi.org/10.3097/lo.200807
Puget Sound Regional Council. (2017). Puget Sound Trends: Populations of Regions and
Towns. Seattle, WA.
Raciti, S., Hutyra, L., Rao, P., & Finzi, A. (2012). Inconsistent definitions of “urban”
result in different conclusions about the size of urban carbon and nitrogen
85
stocks. Ecological Applications, 22(3), 1015-1035. http://dx.doi.org/10.1890/111250.1
Rain Gardens | Everett, WA - Official Website. (2017). Everettwa.gov. Retrieved 10
October 2017, from https://everettwa.gov/817/Rain-Gardens
Randall, T., Churchill, C., & Baetz, B. (2003). A GIS-based Decision Support System for
Neighbourhood Greening. Environment And Planning B: Planning And
Design, 30(4), 541-563. http://dx.doi.org/10.1068/b12970
Riverside | Everett, WA - Official Website. (2017). Everettwa.gov. Retrieved 9 September
2017, from https://everettwa.gov/516/Riverside
Riverside Neighborhood Association, Everett WA.. (2017). Facebook.com. Retrieved 6
October 2017, from https://www.facebook.com/Riverside-NeighborhoodAssociation-Everett-WA-128052370552692/
Riverside Neighborhood Boundaries. (2017). Riversideneighborhood.org. Retrieved 10
September 2017, from http://riversideneighborhood.org/boundaries.html
Riverside remembers. (1985). Everett, Washington.
Robinson, L., Newell, J., & Marzluff, J. (2005). Twenty-five years of sprawl in the
Seattle region: growth management responses and implications for
conservation. Landscape And Urban Planning, 71(1), 51-72.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2004.02.005
Rome, A. (2005). The bulldozer in the countryside. Cambridge [u.a.]: Cambridge Univ.
Press.
Rosenberg, S. (2003). Introduction. American Economic Development Since 1945:
Growth, Decline And Rejuvenation, 3-18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-1-40399026-6_1
Rury, J., & Saatcioglu, A. (2011). Suburban Advantage: Opportunity Hoarding and
Secondary Attainment in the Postwar Metropolitan North. American Journal Of
Education, 117(3), 307-342. http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/659210
Sandberg, L., & Foster, J. (2005). Challenging Lawn and Order: Environmental
Discourse and Lawn Care Reform in Canada. Environmental Politics, 14(4), 478494. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/09644010500175692
Schnore, L., & Alford, R. (1963). Forms of Government and Socioeconomic
Characteristics of Suburbs. Administrative Science Quarterly, 8(1), 1.
http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2390884
Schroeder, H., & Orland, B. (1994). Viewer preference for spatial arrangement of park
trees: An application of video-imaging technology. Environmental
Management, 18(1), 119-128. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/bf02393754
86
Scott, A., & Storper, M. (2014). The Nature of Cities: The Scope and Limits of Urban
Theory. International Journal Of Urban And Regional Research, 39(1), 1-15.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/1468-2427.12134
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., & Gustafsson, L. (2008). The
impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden:
Suburban stormwater. Journal Of Hydrology, 350(1-2), 114-125.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.11.006
Sharpe, W., & Wallock, L. (1994). Contextualizing Suburbia. American Quarterly, 46(1),
55. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2713354
Short Gianotti, A., Getson, J., Hutyra, L., & Kittredge, D. (2016). Defining urban,
suburban, and rural: a method to link perceptual definitions with geospatial measures
of urbanization in central and eastern Massachusetts. Urban Ecosystems, 19(2), 823833. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11252-016-0535-3
Statistical Atlas - Riverside Neighborhood. (2017). Statisticalatlas.com. Retrieved 15
October 2017, from
https://statisticalatlas.com/neighborhood/Washington/Everett/Riverside/Population
Stone, B., Hess, J., & Frumkin, H. (2010). Urban Form and Extreme Heat Events: Are
Sprawling Cities More Vulnerable to Climate Change Than Compact
Cities?. Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(10), 1425-1428.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.0901879
Swyngedouw, E. (2004). Scaled geographies: nature, place and the politics of scale in
Scale and geographic inquiry: edited by Sheppard and McMaster (pp. 129-153).
Malden: Blackwell Publishing.
Takano, T. (2002). Urban residential environments and senior citizens' longevity in
megacity areas: the importance of walkable green spaces. Journal Of Epidemiology
& Community Health, 56(12), 913-918. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/jech.56.12.913
Take Back Our Neighborhood, Everett North. (2017). Facebook.com. Retrieved 8
September 2017, from https://www.facebook.com/groups/TBOC.NEverett/
Turk, R., Kraus, H., Bilderback, T., Hunt, W., & Fonteno, W. (2014). Rain Garden Filter
Bed Substrates Affect Stormwater Nutrient Remediation. Hortscience, 49(5), 645652.
Ulrich, R., Simons, R., Losito, B., Fiorito, E., Miles, M., & Zelson, M. (1991). Stress
recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments. Journal Of
Environmental Psychology, 11(3), 201-230. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/s02724944(05)80184-7
Urban and Rural - Geography - U.S. Census Bureau. (2017). Census.gov. Retrieved 5
November 2017, from https://www.census.gov/geo/reference/urban-rural.html
87
US Census Bureau 2017, Homeownership Rate for the United States.
(2017). Fred.stlouisfed.org. Retrieved 2 November 2017, from
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/RHORUSQ156N
US Fish and Wildlife. (2000). Status and Trends of Wetlands in the Conterminous United
States 1986 to 1997. Washington DC.
Wolf, K. (2014). Greening the City for Health. Communities & Banking, (25, 1), 10-12.
Wood, L., Shannon, T., Bulsara, M., Pikora, T., McCormack, G., & Giles-Corti, B.
(2008). The anatomy of the safe and social suburb: An exploratory study of the built
environment, social capital and residents’ perceptions of safety. Health &
Place, 14(1), 15-31. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2007.04.004
Yang, D., Luo, T., Lin, T., Qiu, Q., & Luo, Y. (2014). Combining Aesthetic with
Ecological Values for Landscape Sustainability. Plos ONE, 9(7), e102437.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102437
Yang, D., Luo, T., Lin, T., Qiu, Q., & Luo, Y. (2014). Combining Aesthetic with
Ecological Values for Landscape Sustainability. Plos ONE, 9(7), e102437.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0102437
Zhou, X., & Parves Rana, M. (2012). Social benefits of urban green space. Management
Of Environmental Quality: An International Journal, 23(2), 173-189.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/14777831211204921
Ziska, L., Gebhard, D., Frenz, D., Faulkner, S., Singer, B., & Straka, J. (2003). Cities as
harbingers of climate change: Common ragweed, urbanization, and public
health. Journal Of Allergy And Clinical Immunology, 111(2), 290-295.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1067/mai.2003.53
88
Appendices
Survey
Questionnaire
Confidential Online Survey Consent Form
You are being invited to participate in a research study titled, Perceptions of
Neighborhood Green Spaces in Suburban Everett, Washington. This study is being done
by Hilary McGowan from The Evergreen State College.
The purpose of this research study is to understand aesthetic and safety perceptions of
green spaces that are wild versus manicured, in order to better serve neighborhood
planners and development. If you agree to take part in this study, you will be asked to
complete an online survey/questionnaire. This survey/questionnaire will ask about your
opinion on the safety and attractiveness of pictures of green spaces from around Everett
and it will take you approximately 10 minutes to complete.
You may not directly benefit from this research; however, we hope that your participation
in the study may increase neighborhood planners’ ability to increase overall
attractiveness and perceived safety to suburban residents in the Puget Sound area.
Increased green spaces have also been show numerous health benefits, including reduced
pollution, reduced neighborhood resource use, and increased recreational opportunities.
Planning these green spaces to maximize health benefits, attractiveness and safety and
helps to maximize the overall welfare of residents in suburban areas.
Risks to you are minimal and are likely to be no more than mild discomfort with sharing
your opinion. To the best of our ability your answers in this study will remain
confidential. With any online related activity, however, the risk of a breach of
confidentiality is always possible. We will minimize any risks by removing any
signifying data such as your name, age, and neighborhood location. All raw data will be
monitored and used only by Hilary McGowan for a Master’s Thesis. The final report will
be available on Ms. McGowan’s final Thesis.
Your participation in this study is completely voluntary and you can withdraw at any
time. You are free to skip any question that you choose.
If you have questions about this project or if you have a research-related problem, you
may contact the researcher: Hilary McGowan, mcghil30@evergreen.edu. If you have any
questions concerning your rights as a research subject, or you experience problems as a
result of participating in this research project, you may contact John McLain, IRB
Administrator at The Evergreen State College at 360.867.6045 or irb@evergreen.edu.
89
By clicking “I agree” below you are indicating that you are at least 18 years old, have
read and understood this consent form and agree to participate in this research study.
Please print a copy of this page for your records.
_I Agree
_I Disagree
2. What number is written on the top of the paper given to you that has information
about this survey? If you don’t have a number, please provide your cross streets.
_______________________________________
3. Are you a resident of Everett, Washington?
____Yes
____No
4. What is your age?
___0-18
___19-35
___36-50
___50-65
___66+
5. What best describes your neighborhood?
___Urban
___Urban-Suburban
___Suburban
___Suburban-Rural
___Rural
6. How do you rate your concern about environmental issues?
___Lease Concerned
___Somewhat Concerned
___Concerned
___Very Concerned
___Most Concerned
7. How important is it to you to have green spaces in your neighborhood?
___Lease Important
___Somewhat Important
___Important
___Very Important
___Most Important
90
8. Are you concerned about safety in your neighborhood?
___Lease Concerned
___Somewhat Concerned
___Concerned
___Very Concerned
___Most Concerned
9. What is your yard design preference?
___Manicured cut grass
___Grass with some plants
___Equal parts grass and plants
___Mostly plants with some grass
___All plants
91
Visual Preference Survey
Please rate the following groups of images on a scale of 1 to 5 on attractiveness and
safety.
1 is least attractive and safe
3 is somewhat attractive and safe
5 is most attractive and safe
S1
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
S2
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
S3
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
S4
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
92
S5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
S6
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
S7
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
S8
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
3 4 5
3 4 5
93
S9
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
S10
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
S11
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
S12
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
94
S13
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
5
5
S14
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
5
5
S15
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
5
5
S16
Safety 1 2 3 4 5
Attractiveness 1 2 3 4 5
5
5
95
