The heterogeneity of residents’ preference over a wide array of services, provided by a master planned community (MPC)

References

• Anderson, ST, and SE West. 2006. “Open Space, Residential Property Values, and Spatial Context.” Regional Science & Urban Economics 36: 773–789. doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.03.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andrew, JH, R Rasker, B Maxwell, JJ Rotella, JD Johnson, AW Parmenter, U Langner, WB Cohen, RL Lawrence, and MPV Kraska. 2002.“Ecological causes and consequences of demographic change in the New West: as natural amenities attract people and commerce to the rural west, the resulting land-use changes threaten biodiversity, even in protected areas, and challenge efforts to sustain local communities and ecosystems.” BioScience 52(2): 151–162.
   Google Scholar
• Azarova, V, J Cohen, C Friedl, and J Reichl. 2019. “Designing Local Renewable Energy Communities to Increase Social Acceptance: Evidence from a Choice Experiment in Austria, Germany, Italy, and Switzerland.” Energy Policy 132: 1176–1183. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2019.06.067.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beharry-Borg, N, and R Scarpa. 2010. “Valuing Quantity Changes in Caribbean Coastal Waters for Heterogeneous Beach Visitors.” Ecological Economics 69 (5): 1124–1139. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2009.12.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Beyer, S. 2018. “For Population, L.A. County’s Loss Is the Inland Empire’s Gain.” https://marketurbanismreport.com/blog/for-population-l-a-countys-loss-is-the-inland-empires-gain
   Google Scholar
• Bhatta, B. 2010. Analysis of Urban Growth and Sprawl from Remote Sensing Data. Springer, Verlag Berlin Heidelberg.
   Google Scholar
• Boxall, PC, and W Adamovicz. 2002. “Understanding Heterogeneous Preferences in Random Utility Models: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental Resource Economics 23 (4): 421–446. doi:10.1023/A:1021351721619.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brennan, N, and TM Van Rensburg. 2016. “Wind Farm Externalities and Public Preferences for Community Consultation in Ireland: A Discrete Choice Experiments Approach.” Energy Policy 94: 355–365. doi:10.1016/j.enpol.2016.04.031.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brueckner, JK. 2000. “Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies.” International Regional Science Review 23: 160–171. doi:10.1177/016001700761012710.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brueckner, JK. 2007. “Urban Growth Boundaries: An Effective Second-best Remedy for Unpriced Traffic Congestion?” Journal of Housing Economics 16: 263–273. doi:10.1016/j.jhe.2007.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Buckman, S., I. Trivers, C.M. Kayanan, and T. Black. 2017. “Hope for New Communities as an Alternative to Sprawl?: Insights from Developers Perceptions of Amenities in Future New Communities in the U.S. And U.K.” Land Use Policy 60: 233–241. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.10.036.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bujosa, A, A Riera, and RJ Hicks. 2010. “Combining Discrete and Continuous Representations of Preference Heterogeneity: A Latent Class Approach.” Environmental Resource Economics 47: 477–493. doi:10.1007/s10640-010-9389-y.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carlsson, F, P Frykblom, and CJ Lagerkvist. 2005. “Using Cheap Talk as a Test of Validity in Choice Experiments.” Economic Letter 89: 147–152. doi:10.1016/j.econlet.2005.03.010.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cervero, R. 1995. “Planned Communities, Self-containment and Commuting: A Cross-national Perspective.” Urban Studies 32 (7): 1135–1161. doi:10.1080/00420989550012618.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen, S. 2019. “Best Master-Planned Communities in Orange County.” https://www.neighborhoods.com/blog/best-master-planned-communities-in-orange-county
   Google Scholar
• Costley, D. 2006. “Master Planned Community: Do They Offer a Solution to Urban Sprawl or a Vehicle for Seclusion of the More Affluent Consumers in Australia?” Housing, Theory, and Society 23 (3): 157–175. doi:10.1080/14036090600862346.
   Google Scholar
• De Ayala, A, D Hoyos, and P Mariel. 2015. “Suitability of Discrete Choice Experiment for Landscape Management under the European Landscape Convention.” Journal of Forest Economics 21 (2): 79–96. doi:10.1016/j.jfe.2015.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dias, V, and K Belcher. 2015. “Value and Provision of Ecosystem Services from Prairie Wetlands: A Choice Experiment Approach.” Ecosystem Services 15: 35–44. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2015.07.004.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ewing, R, K Bartholomew, S Winkelman, J Walters, and G. Anderson. 2008. “Urban Development and Climate Change.” Journal of Urbanism 1 (3): 201–216.
   Google Scholar
• Fu, Y, and X Zhang. 2017. “Planning for Sustainable Cities? A Comparative Content Analysis of the Master Plans of Eco, Low-carbon, and Conventional New Towns in China.” Habitat International 63: 55–66. doi:10.1016/j.habitatint.2017.03.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geoghegan, J. 2002. “The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use.” Land Use Policy 19: 91–98. doi:10.1016/S0264-8377(01)00040-0.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gordon, TM. 2004. “Planned Developments in California: Private Communities and Public Life.” http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.366.9696&rep=rep1&type=pdf
   Google Scholar
• Greene, W, and D Hensher. 2003. “A latent class model for discrete choice analysis: contrasts with mixed logit.”Transportation Research Part B: Methodological 37(8): 681–698.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hersperger, A.M., E. Oliveira, S. Pagliarin, G. Palka, P. Verburg, J. Bolliger, and S. Gradinaru. 2018. “Urban Land-use Change: The Role of Strategic Spatial Planning.” Global Environment Change 51: 32–42. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2018.05.001.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Indeed blog. 2018. “Report: What Is the Best City for Job Seekers?” http://blog.indeed.com/2018/04/12/best-cities-for-job-seekers/
   Google Scholar
• Jank, R. 2017. “Annex 51: Case Studies and Guidelines for Energy Efficient Communities.” Energy and Buildings 154: 528–537. doi:10.1016/j.enbuild.2017.08.074.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaza, N, SF Riley, R Quercia, and CY Tian. 2016. “Location Efficiency and Mortgage Risks for Low-income Households.” Housing Policy Debate 26 (4–5): 750–765. doi:10.1080/10511482.2016.1159972.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ladenburg, J, and SB Olsen. 2014. “Augmenting Short Cheap Talk Scripts with a Repeated Opt-out Reminder in Choice Experiment Surveys.” Resource and Energy Economics 37: 39–63. doi:10.1016/j.reseneeco.2014.05.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lee, S. 2019. “Understanding the context of neighborhood parks: a method for public space classification.” Journal of Urbanism: International Research on Placemaking and Urban Sustainability 12(1):103–127.
   Google Scholar
• Manski, CF. 1977. “The structure of random utility models.” Theory and Decision 8: 229–254.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCormick, K. 2017. “Orange County: Where Master-Planned Communities Reign.” https://urbanland.uli.org/industry-sectors/residential/orange-county-master-planned-communities-reign/
   Google Scholar
• McFadden, D. 1974. “Conditional Logit Analysis of Qualitative Choice Behavior.” In Frontiers in Econometrics, edited by P. Zarembka. New York: Academic Press.
   Google Scholar
• Menzori, I.D., I.C.N. De Sousa, and L.M. Gpmcaves. 2021. “Urban Growth Management and Territorial Governance Approaches: A Master Plans Conformance Analysis.” Land Use Policy 105: 105436. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2021.105436.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nicholls, L., C. Maller, and K. Phelan. 2017. “Planning for Community: Understanding Diversity in Resident Experiences and Expectations of Social Connections in a New Urban Fringe Housing Estate.” Australia. Community, Work & Family 20 (4): 405–423. doi:10.1080/13668803.2016.1186609.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Patterson, Z, JM Darbani, A Rezaei, J Zacharias, and A Yazdizadeh. 2017. “Comparing Text-only and Virtual Reality Discrete Choice Experiments of Neighbourhood Choice.” Landscape and Urban Planning 157: 63–74. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2016.05.024.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Permadi, DB, M Burton, R Pandit, D Race, and I Walker. 2018. “Local Community’s Preferences for Accepting A Forestry Partnership Contract to Grow Pulpwood in Indonesia: A Choice Experiment Study.” Forest Policy & Ecoomics 91: 73–83. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2017.11.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Public Policy Institute of California. 2018. “Economy – California’s Future.” https://www.ppic.org/wp-content/uploads/r-118sbr.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R.D. 2000. Bowling Alone. Simon and Schuster: New York.
   Google Scholar
• Rewitzer, S, R Huber, A Gret-Regamey, and J Barkmann. 2017. “Economic Valuation of Cultural Ecosystem Service Changes to a Landscape in the Swiss Alps.” Ecosystem Services 26: 197–208. doi:10.1016/j.ecoser.2017.06.014.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rocchi, L, C Cortina, L Paolotti, G Massei, FF Fagioli, P Antegiovanni, and A Boggia. 2019. “Provision of Ecosystem Services from the Management of Natura 2000 Sites in Umbria (Italy): Comparing the Costs and Benefits, Using Choice Experiment.” Land Use Policy 81: 13–20. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2018.10.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Rosenblatt, T, L Cheshire, and G Lawrence. 2009. “Social Interaction and Sense of Community in a Master Planned Community.” Housing, Theory and Society 26 (2): 122–142. doi:10.1080/14036090701862484.
   Google Scholar
• Sander, HA, and S Polasky. 2009. “The Value of Views and Open Space: Estimates from a Hedonic Pricing Model for Ramsey County, Minnesota, USA.” Land Use Policy 26 (3): 837–845. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2008.10.009.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sara, A., B. Caryl, and H. Gordon. 2020. “The “Hothouse Community” and Its Implications for Older Age Residents.” Urban Policy & Research 38 (2): 132–149. doi:10.1080/08111146.2020.1753688.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scholte, SSK, BT van Zanten, PH Verburg, and AJA van Teeffelen. 2016. “Willingness to Offset? Residents’ Perspectives on Compensating Impacts from Urban Development through Woodland Restoration.” Land Use Policy 58: 403–414. doi:10.1016/j.landusepol.2016.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shandiz, S.C., B. Rismanchi, and G. Foliente. 2021. “Energy Master Planning for Net-zero Emission Communities: State of the Art and Research Challenges.” Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 137: 110600. doi:10.1016/j.rser.2020.110600.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shr, Y-H, R Ready, B Orland, and S Echols. 2019. “How Do Visual Representations Influence Survey Responses? Evidence from a Choice Experiment on Landscape Attributes of Green Infrastructure.” Ecological Economics 156: 375–386. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.10.015.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stone, BS. 2008. “Urban Sprawl and Air Quality in Large US Cities.” Journal of Environmental Management 86: 688–698. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2006.12.034.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Stumer, J, and W Siembieda. 2012. “Master Planned Communities: Design and Planning Makes an Enduring Difference.” Real Estate Review 41 (1): 75–89.
   Google Scholar
• Tian, L, B Ge, and Y Li. 2016. “Impacts of State-led and Bottom-up Urbanization on Land Use Change in the Peri-urban Areas of Shanghai: Planned Growth or Uncontrolled Sprawl?” Cities 60: 476–486. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2016.01.002.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tilt, JH, and L Cerveny. 2013. “Master-planned in Exurbia: Examining the Drivers and Impacts of Master-planned Communities at the Urban Fringe.” Landscape and Urban Planning 114: 102–112. doi:10.1016/j.landurbplan.2013.03.003.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Traore, S. 2019. “Residential Location Choice in A Developing Country: What Matter? A Choice Experiment Application in Burkina Faso.” Forest Policy & Economics 102: 1–9. doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2019.01.021.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Travisi, CM, R Camagni, and P Nijkamp. 2010. “Impacts of Urban Sprawl and Commuting: A Modelling Study for Italy.” Journal of Transport Geography 18: 382–392. doi:10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2009.08.008.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• United States Census of Bureau. 2018. “QuickFacts California.” https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/CA
   Google Scholar
• Viegas, CV, DL Saldanha, A Bond, JL Duarte Ribeiro, and PM Selig. 2013. “Urban Land Planning: The Role of a Master Plan in Influencing Local Temperatures.” Cities 35: 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.cities.2013.05.006.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• World Population Review. 2019. “US States- Ranked by Population 2019.” http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/
   Google Scholar
• Yoo, J, J Browning, and K Minesinger. 2018. “Open space premium near commercial zones - a case study in the city of Corona, California.” International Journal of Urban Sciences 22(3): 322–333.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoo, J, and RC Ready. 2014. “Preference Heterogeneity for Renewable Energy Technology.” Energy Economics 42: 101–114. doi:10.1016/j.eneco.2013.12.007.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar