Cohousing For Whom? Survey Evidence to Support the Diffusion of Socially and Spatially Integrated Housing in the United States

References

• Ansolabehere, S., & Schaffner, B. F. (2016). Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2016: Common Content [Computer File]. Release 2: August 4, 2017. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University [producer]. Retrieved from http://cces.gov.harvard.edu
   Google Scholar
• Baar, K. (1992). The national movement to halt the spread of multifamily housing, 1890-1926. Journal of the American Planning Association, 58(1), 39–48. doi:10.1080/01944369208975533
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Baldassare, M. (1984). Predicting local concern about growth: The roots of citizen discontent. Journal of Urban Affairs, 6(4), 39–49. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9906.1984.tb00456.x10.1111/j.1467-9906.1984.tb00456.x
   Google Scholar
• Baldassare, M. (1985). The suburban movement to limit growth: Reasons for support in orange county. Review of Policy Research, 4(4), 613–625. doi:10.1111/j.1541-1338.1985.tb00309.x10.1111/ropr.1985.4.issue-4
   Google Scholar
• Berggren, H. M. (2017). Cohousing as civic society: Cohousing involvement and political participation in the United States. Social Science Quarterly, 98(1), 57–72.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Botsman, R., & Rogers, R. (2010). What’s mine is yours: The rise of collaborative consumption. New York, NY: Harper Collins.
   Google Scholar
• Boyer, R. H. (2014). Sociotechnical transitions and urban planning: A case study of eco-cohousing in Tompkins County, New York. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(4), 451–464. doi:10.1177/0739456X1455403710.1177/0739456X14554037
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyer, R. H. (2015). Grassroots innovation for urban sustainability: Comparing the diffusion pathways of three ecovillage projects. Environment and Planning A, 47(2), 320–337. doi:10.1068/a140250p10.1068/a140250p
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyer, R. H. (2017). Intermediacy and the diffusion of grassroots innovations: The case of cohousing in the United States. Environmental Innovation and Societal Transitions. doi:10.1016/j.eist.2017.08.001
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boyer, R. H., Peterson, N. D., Arora, P., & Caldwell, K. (2016). Five approaches to social sustainability and an integrated way forward. Sustainability, 8(9), 878. doi:10.3390/su809087810.3390/su8090878
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bresson, S., & Denèfle, S. (2015). Diversity of self-managed co-housing initiatives in France. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 5–16. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.101142310.1080/17535069.2015.1011423
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bullard, R. D., Johnson, G. S., & Torres, A. O. (2000). Costs and consequesnces of suburban sprawl: The case of Metro Atlanta. Georgia State University Law Review, 17, 935.
   Google Scholar
• Burstein, P. (2003). The impact of public opinion on public policy: A review and an agenda. Political Research Quarterly, 56(1), 29–40. doi:10.1177/10659129030560010310.1177/106591290305600103
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chatterton, P. (2013). Towards an agenda for post-carbon cities: Lessons from Lilac, the UK’s first ecological, affordable cohousing community. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 37(5), 1654–1674. doi:10.1111/1468-2427.1200910.1111/1468-2427.12009
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Checkoway, B. (1980). Large builders, federal housing programmes, and postwar suburbanization. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research, 4(1), 21–45. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.1980.tb00350.x10.1111/ijur.1980.4.issue-1
   Google Scholar
• Chiodelli, F. (2015). What is really different between cohousing and gated communities? European Planning Studies, 23(12), 2566–2581. doi:10.1080/09654313.2015.109691510.1080/09654313.2015.1096915
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Erikson, R. S., Wright, G. C., & McIver, J. P. (1993). Statehouse democracy: Public opinion and policy in the American States. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Eurostat. (2014). Figure 1: Distribution of the population by dwelling type, 2014. Living conditions and social protection. Housing. ( online data code: ilc_lvho01).
   Google Scholar
• Ewing, R. H., Bartholomew, K., Winkelman, S., Walters, J., & Chen, D. (2007). Growing cooler: The evidence on urban development and climate change. Washington, DC: ULI.
   Google Scholar
• Fidler, D., Olson, R., & Bezold, C. (2011). Evaluating a long-term livable communities strategy in the U.S. Futures, 43(7), 690–696. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2011.05.01010.1016/j.futures.2011.05.010
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Garciano, J. L. (2011). Affordable cohousing: Challenges and opportunities for supportive relational networks in mixed-income housing. Journal of Affordable Housing & Community Development Law, 20(2), 169–192.
   Google Scholar
• Handy, S., Sallis, J. F., Weber, D., Maibach, E., & Hollander, M. (2008). Is support for traditionally designed communities growing? Evidence from two national surveys. Journal of the American Planning Association, 74(2), 209–221. doi:10.1080/0194436080201041810.1080/01944360802010418
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Harris, R. (2009). The birth of the housing consumer in the United States, 1918–1960. International Journal of Consumer Studies, 33(5), 525–532. doi:10.1111/j.1470-6431.2009.00797.x10.1111/ijc.2009.33.issue-5
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hayden, D. (2002). Redesigning the American dream: The future of housing, work, and family life. New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company.
   Google Scholar
• Hendrickson, D. J., & Wittman, H. K. (2010). Post-occupancy assessment: Building design, governance and household consumption. Building Research & Information, 38(5), 481–490. doi:10.1080/09613218.2010.49437710.1080/09613218.2010.494377
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jarvis, H. (2011). Saving space, sharing time: Integrated infrastructures of daily life in cohousing. Environment and Planning A, 43(3), 560–577. doi:10.1068/a4329610.1068/a43296
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kaltenborn, B. P., Krange, O., & Tangeland, T. (2017). Cultural resources and public trust shape attitudes toward climate change and preferred futures—A case study among the Norwegian public. Futures, 89, 1–13. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2017.04.00510.1016/j.futures.2017.04.005
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kostova, D. (2011). Can the built environment reduce obesity? The impact of residential sprawl and neighborhood parks on obesity and physical activity. Eastern Economic Journal, 37(3), 390–402. doi:10.1057/eej.2009.4710.1057/eej.2009.47
   Google Scholar
• Lewis, P. G., & Baldassare, M. (2010). The complexity of public attitudes toward compact development. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(2), 219–237. doi:10.1080/0194436100364647110.1080/01944361003646471
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Liao, F. H., Farber, S., & Ewing, R. (2015). Compact development and preference heterogeneity in residential location choice behaviour: A latent class analysis. Urban Studies, 52(2), 314–337. doi:10.1177/004209801452713810.1177/0042098014527138
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lockyer, J. P. (2007). Sustainability and utopianism: An ethnography of cultural critique in contemporary intentional communities. Athens, Georgia: The University of Georgia.
   Google Scholar
• Maestas, C. (2016). Cooperative Congressional Election Study, 2016: UNC-Charlotte Team Content [Computer File]. Release: August 4, 2017. Charlotte, NC: University of North Carolina Charlotte [producer].
   Google Scholar
• Marckmann, B., Gram-Hanssen, K., & Christensen, T. H. (2012). Sustainable living and co-housing: Evidence from a case study of eco-villages. Built Environment, 38(3), 413–429. doi:10.2148/benv.38.3.41310.2148/benv.38.3.413
   Google Scholar
• Markle, E. A., Rodgers, R., Sanchez, W., & Ballou, M. (2015). Social support in the cohousing model of community: A mixed-methods analysis. Community Development, 45(5), 1–16. doi:10.1080/15575330.2015.1086400
   Google Scholar
• Martin, C. J. (2016). The sharing economy: A pathway to sustainability or a nightmarish form of neoliberal capitalism? Ecological Economics, 121, 149–159. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.02710.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.11.027
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McCamant, K., & Durrett, C. (2011). Creating cohousing: Building sustainable communities. Gabriola Island, BC, Canada: New Society.
   Google Scholar
• Mohamed, R. (2008). Who would pay for rural open space preservation and inner-city redevelopment? Identifying support for policies that can contribute to regional land use governance. Urban Studies, 45(13), 2783–2803. doi:10.1177/004209800809820610.1177/0042098008098206
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moos, M., Whitfield, J., Johnson, L. C., & Andrey, J. (2006). Does design matter? The ecological footprint as a planning tool at the local level. Journal of Urban Design, 11(2), 195–224. doi:10.1080/1357480060064438110.1080/13574800600644381
   Google Scholar
• Myers, D., & Gearin, E. (2001). Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate, 12(4), 633–659. doi:10.1080/10511482.2001.952142210.1080/10511482.2001.9521422
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• National Family Opinion. (2002). Consumers survey conducted by National Association of Realtors and National Association of Home Builders. Chicago, IL: National Association of Realtors.
   Google Scholar
• Neuman, M. (2005). The compact city fallacy. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25(1), 11–26. doi:10.1177/0739456X0427046610.1177/0739456X04270466
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Page, B. I. (1994). Democratic responsiveness? Untangling the links between public opinion and policy. PS. Political Science and Politics, 27(1), 25–29. doi:10.2307/42045310.1017/S1049096500039834
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pew Research Center. (2016). 2016 Party identification detailed tables. Retrieved from http://www.people-press.org/2016/09/13/2016-party-identification-detailed-tables/
   Google Scholar
• Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.10.1145/358916
   Google Scholar
• Rogers, E. M. (1995). Diffusion of innovations, 4th edition (4th ed.). New York, NY: Simon and Schuster.
   Google Scholar
• Ruiu, M. L. (2014). Differences between cohousing and gated communities. Sociological Inquiry, 84(2), 316–335. doi:10.1111/soin.1203110.1111/soin.2014.84.issue-2
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sanguinetti, A. (2015). Diversifying cohousing: The retrofit model. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 32(1), 68–90.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sargisson, L. (2012). Second-Wave cohousing: A modern Utopia? Utopian Studies, 23(1), 28–56.10.5325/utopianstudies.23.1.0028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schwanen, T., & Mokhtarian, P. L. (2004). The extent and determinants of dissonance between actual and preferred residential neighborhood type. Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 31(5), 759–784. doi:10.1068/b303910.1068/b3039
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Statistics Canada. (2011). Private households by structural type of dwelling by province and territory. Retrieved from https://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil55c-eng.htm
   Google Scholar
• Stimson, J. A., Mackuen, M. B., & Erikson, R. S. (1995). Dynamic representation. American Political Science Review, 89(03), 543–565. doi:10.2307/208297310.2307/2082973
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tummers, L. (2015). Understanding co-housing from a planning perspective: Why and how? Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 64–78. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.101142710.1080/17535069.2015.1011427
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Underwood, A., & Zahran, S. (2015). The carbon implications of declining household scale economies. Ecological Economics, 116, 182–190. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.02810.1016/j.ecolecon.2015.04.028
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2015). Total population in occupied housing units by tenure by units in structure. (Table B25033). American Community Survey. 2011-2015 5-Year Estimates.
   Google Scholar
• U.S. Census Bureau. (2016). Households, by type: 1940 to present. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/hhes/families/data/households.html
   Google Scholar
• Utz, R. L., Carr, D., Nesse, R., & Wortman, C. B. (2002). The effect of widowhood on older adults’ social participation. The Gerontologist, 42(4), 522–533. doi:10.1093/geront/42.4.52210.1093/geront/42.4.522
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Vestbro, D. U., & Horelli, L. (2012). Design for gender equality: The history of co-housing ideas and realities. Built Environment, 38(3), 315–335. doi:10.2148/benv.38.3.31510.2148/benv.38.3.315
   Google Scholar
• Wankiewicz, H. (2015). The potential of cohousing for rural Austria. Urban Research & Practice, 8(1), 46–63. doi:10.1080/17535069.2015.101142610.1080/17535069.2015.1011426
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wheeler, S. M. (2008). The evolution of built landscapes in metropolitan regions. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(4), 400–416. doi:10.1177/0739456X0831588910.1177/0739456X08315889
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (2005). Sun, surf and sustainable housing—cohousing, the Californian experience. International Planning Studies, 10(2), 145–177. doi:10.1080/1356347050025882410.1080/13563470500258824
   Google Scholar
• Williams, J. (2008). Predicting an American future for cohousing. Futures, 40(3), 268–286. doi:10.1016/j.futures.2007.08.02210.1016/j.futures.2007.08.022
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar