Residential Density and Location Decisions: The Factors Affecting Homeowners’ Choice of Denser Neighborhoods

References

• Alonso, W. (1964). Location and land use, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bhat, C. R., & Guo, J. (2004). A mixed spatially correlated logit model: Formulation and application to residential choice modeling. Transportation Research Part B: Methodological, 38(2), 147–168.
   Google Scholar
• Bowes, D. R., & lhlanfeldt, K. R. (2001). Identifying the impacts of rail transit stations on residential property values. Journal of Urban Economics, 50(1), 1–25.
   Google Scholar
• Bromley, R. D. F., & Thomas, C.J. (1993). The retail revolution, the carless shopper and disadvantage. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 18(2), 222–236.
   Google Scholar
• Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New urban and standard suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals. Journal of the American Planning Association, 57(4), 402–419.
   Google Scholar
• Brownstone, D., & Golob, T. E (2009). The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. Journal of Urban Economics, 65(1), 91–98.
   Google Scholar
• Bunker, R. (1985). Urban consolidation and Australian cities. Built Environment, 11, 83–96.
   Google Scholar
• Burton, E. (2000). The compact city: Just or just compact? A preliminary analysis. Urban Studies, 37(11), 1969–2001.
   Google Scholar
• Calthorpe, P. (1993). The next American metropolis: Ecology, community and the American dream. New York, NY: Princeton Architectural Press.
   Google Scholar
• Campoli, J., & MacLean, A. (2004). Visualizing density (Phase 2). Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Carruthers, J. I. (2003). Growth at the fringe: The influence of political fragmentation in United States metropolitan areas. Journal of Economics, 82(4), 475–499.
   Google Scholar
• Carruthers, J. I., &Ulfarsson, G. F. (2002). Fragmentation and sprawl: Evidence from interregional analysis. Growth and Change, 33(3), 312–340.
   Google Scholar
• Champion, A. G. (2001). A changing demographic regime and evolving poly centric urban regions: Consequences for the size, composition and distribution of city populations. Urban Studies, 38(4), 657–677.
   Google Scholar
• Clark, W. A. V. (2000). Monocentric to polycentric: New urban forms and old paradaigms. In G. Bridge & S. Watson (Eds.),A companion to the city (pp. 141–154). Oxford, England: Blackwell. Collie, M. (1990). The case for urban consolidation. Australian Planner, 28(2), 26–33.
   Google Scholar
• Colwell, P. F., Dehring, C. A., & Turnbull, G. K. (2002). Recreation demand and residential location. Journal of Urban Economics, 51(3), 418–428.
   Google Scholar
• Danielsen, K. A., Lang, R. E., & Fulton, W. (1999). What does smart growth mean for housing? Housing Facts & Findings, 1(3), 1,12–15.
   Google Scholar
• Downs, A. (1994). New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Duany, A., Plater–Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York, NY: North Point Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles–style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 107–125.
   Google Scholar
• Ewing, R., &Cervero, R. (2001).Travel and the built environment: A synthesis. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 1780, 87–114.
   Google Scholar
• Forsyth, A., Oakes, J. M., Schmitz, K. H., & Hearst, M. (2007). Does residential density increase walking and other physical activity? Urban Studies, 44(4), 679–697.
   Google Scholar
• Fyfe, G. (1994). Poor and paying for it: The price of living on a low income. London, UK: HMSO.
   Google Scholar
• Galster, G. C, & Killen, S. P. (1995). The geography of metropolitan opportunity: A reconnaissance and conceptual framework. Housing Policy Debate, 6(1), 7–43.
   Google Scholar
• Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26, 38–52.
   Google Scholar
• Jacobs, J. (1961). The death and life of great American cities. New York, NY: Vintage.
   Google Scholar
• Javis, H. (2003). Dispelling the myth that preference makes practice in residential location and transport behaviour. Housing Policy Debate, 18(4), 587–606.
   Google Scholar
• Kain, J. F. (2004). A pioneer's perspective on the spatial mismatch literature. Urban Studies, 41(1), 7–32.
   Google Scholar
• Kline, J. D. (2000). Comparing states with and without growth management analysis based on indicators with policy implications comment. Land Use Policy, 1 7(4), 349–355.
   Google Scholar
• Kowinski, W. S. (1985). The mailing of America: An inside look at the great consumer paradise. New York, NY: Pantheon. Lee, B. A., Oropesa, R. S., & Kanan, J. W. (1994). Neighborhood context and residential mobility. Demography, 31(2), 249–270.
   Google Scholar
• Lozano, E. (1990). Community design and the culture of cities. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Morrow-Jones, H. A. (2000). The thinning metropolis: The role of repeat home buyer purchases in decreasing density. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
   Google Scholar
• Morrow-Jones, H. A., Irwin, E. G., & Roe, B. (2004). Consumer preference for neotraditional neighborhood characteristics. Housing Policy Debate, 15(1), 171–202.
   Google Scholar
• Myers, D., & Gearin, E. (2001). Current preference and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 633– 659.
   Google Scholar
• National Association of Home Builders. (1999). 1999 smart growth survey Washington, DC: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Nelson, A. C. (1999). Comparing states with and without growth management: Analysis based on indicators with policy implications. Land Use Policy, 16, 121–127.
   Google Scholar
• Newman,P. W. G.,&Kenworthy,J. R. (1989). Cities and automobile dependence: An international sourcebook. Aldershot, UK: Avebury Technical.
   Google Scholar
• Pawlukiewicz, M., &Myerson, D. L. (2002). ULI/NMHC/AIA Joint forum on housing density. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute. Peiser, R., &Xiong, J. (2003). Crime and town centers: Are downtowns more dangerous than suburban shopping nodes? Journal of Real Estate Research, 25(4), 577–605.
   Google Scholar
• Pendall, R. (1999). Do land use controls cause sprawl? Environment and Planning, 26(4), 555–571.
   Google Scholar
• Pendall, R., & Carruthers, J. I. (2003). Does density exacerbate income segregation?: Evidence from U.S. metropolitan area; 1980 to 2000. Housing Policy Debate, 14(4), 541–589.
   Google Scholar
• Rees, J. (1988). Social polarisation in shopping patterns: An example from Swansea. Planning Practice and Research, 3(6), 5–12.
   Google Scholar
• Rossi, P. H. (1955). Why families move: A study of the social psychology of urban residential mobility. New York, NY: Free.
   Google Scholar
• Sanchez, T. W., & Dawkins, C. J. (2001). Distinguishing city and suburban movers: Evidence from the American Housing Survey. Housing Policy Debate, 12(3), 607–631.
   Google Scholar
• Sander, W. (2005). On the demand for city living. Journal of Economic Geography, 5(3), 351–364.
   Google Scholar
• Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2005). What affects commute mode choice: Neighborhood physical structure or preferences toward neighborhoods? Journal of Transport Geography, 13(1), 83–99.
   Google Scholar
• Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2007). Attitudes toward travel and land use and choice of residential neighborhood type: Evidence from the San Francisco Bay area. Housing Policy Debate, 18(1), 171–207.
   Google Scholar
• Shen, Q.(1996). Spatial impacts of locally enacted growth controls: The San Francisco Bay Region in the 1980s. Environment and Planning, 23(1), 61–91.
   Google Scholar
• Song, Y., & Knaap, G.-J. (2003). New urbanism and housing values: A disaggregate assessment. Journal of Urban Economics, 54(2), 218–238.
   Google Scholar
• Speir, C., & Stephenson, K. (2002). Does sprawl cost us all?: Isolating the effects of housing patterns on public water and sewer costs. Journal of the American Planning Association, 68(1), 56–70.
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (2002). The social goals of New Urbanism. Housing Policy Debate, 13(1), 165–188.
   Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (2006). Neighborhood-level social diversity. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), 431–446.
   Google Scholar
• United Nations. (2006). Retrieved December 1, 2009, from the official Millennium Development Goals Indicators website at http://mdgs. un.org/unsd/mdg/SeriesDetail.aspx?srid=751.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau. (n.d.). Retrieved August 10, 2011, from http://www. census.gov/
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Department of Agriculture. (2007). Forest service open space conservation strategy: cooperating across boundaries to sustain natural and working landscapes, Retrieved June 1, 2010, from http://www.fs.fed.us/openspace/O S__Strategy__final_web.pdf
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Green Building Council. (2009). LEED 2009 for neighborhood development, Retrieved August 15, 2011, from http://www.usgbc. org/DisplayPage.aspx?CMSPageID=148
   Google Scholar
• Van De Vyvere, Y., Oppewal, H., & Timmermans, H. (1998). The validity of hierarchical information integration choice experiments to model residential preference and choice. Geographical Analysis, 30(3), 254–272.
   Google Scholar