<%BANNER%>

Is a New Urban Development Model Really Building Greener Communities? A Comparative Study of Homeowners from Three Deve...

xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20110221_AAAACS INGEST_TIME 2011-02-21T21:10:21Z PACKAGE UFE0003222_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 6990 DFID F20110221_AAAGRE ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH youngentob_k_Page_085.QC.jpg GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
dc83f5830c1430d4dbfdb119de1b114d
SHA-1
69994eda2f5f224598b498174e61df43a838aa5b
967103 F20110221_AAAFMZ youngentob_k_Page_026.jp2
5d072801c8f7565b625e27d2fda7c026
9966e7684d14f81eb44d2e8fb1546d28514958a3
790 F20110221_AAAFOC youngentob_k_Page_123.txt
55da9519ba11b3b7ecfa340113dac4e6
b36486bd0412a40cf67bc9893130ca23354b5f6d
22942 F20110221_AAAGRF youngentob_k_Page_087.QC.jpg
2d2340ab09cba850256624fc2de737e6
4354ef34aba5bb6444d1835429e4ecd5978e18d5
32601 F20110221_AAAGQQ youngentob_k_Page_055.QC.jpg
dca90e91b9a366b294c1f6039a2b0eae
89f87351a09e90756d11ef4e5452c38b87e6033c
1825 F20110221_AAAFNO youngentob_k_Page_080.txt
94b2a88ce22746e065e11e7a8bcd69ee
1f5d0f51f74ed465e481ccea8f5f0241721a4768
29958 F20110221_AAAFOD youngentob_k_Page_065.QC.jpg
07a4e241ccfd7e4eff2678b2870e70ee
137683256968f153bb9a4e284739e69ab15dfb08
21172 F20110221_AAAGRG youngentob_k_Page_090.QC.jpg
80b30434e47417b88d2f592ea3df4bb3
621775880d3588b79b02a101082137d819811398
31075 F20110221_AAAGQR youngentob_k_Page_056.QC.jpg
03deb8e1ffe820b3d16fea51859bb03f
da1c1fdacc457de70a66d9482ffbc29bfc1c04d3
6794 F20110221_AAAFNP youngentob_k_Page_011thm.jpg
03d402d147009588d5d636acefa8d4a0
dc638c0370e9fc2dc567172d5ae1823fd69b6b8d
690864 F20110221_AAAFOE youngentob_k_Page_094.jp2
c818ff512a14714d87920977bde02801
55d2c8c5cc100e98c3d6524e00acf01bfb798f28
23482 F20110221_AAAGRH youngentob_k_Page_091.QC.jpg
aacf66b8ce10076c43f8ec3660711638
74cc73a166ba7c208b87b6740e5f2d685e1b6e31
23803 F20110221_AAAGQS youngentob_k_Page_058.QC.jpg
b413b4d40e0cfaf6388adb413381ccdf
5eeedc209b4e1d435102f822c3f1098194dd1606
41908 F20110221_AAAFNQ youngentob_k_Page_011.pro
4bde3eb33c6ac4d1d8c3b12cbe9947d7
96ad900593787882c1940c2c81ffceccd317fe93
1602 F20110221_AAAFOF youngentob_k_Page_108.txt
afc25ff57470f18a61511314cb4e5019
d3344e2b90ab5096ae8e28a85f14a05df8d4abf4
20369 F20110221_AAAGRI youngentob_k_Page_094.QC.jpg
5c48cec1e437bbb0913eec7c68c78b4e
cd3b86de551df7cbeada8b49051b6a9bb3947df3
29735 F20110221_AAAGQT youngentob_k_Page_059.QC.jpg
c86ab399dc2b9f6cbfd5475d4375dffe
d99a66f67afd52e02fab134f9d4dbbd5f5c31469
33728 F20110221_AAAFNR youngentob_k_Page_115.pro
34d1194fb159871fd29647ff0411a074
2c07f4cb4eacf0e9fbf9835e0a161da19103483c
34208 F20110221_AAAFOG youngentob_k_Page_049.QC.jpg
b9158371a185087392f0f29fc0aa212c
67a604508c0c598f8a4a772e12534598fde7dcc7
14617 F20110221_AAAGRJ youngentob_k_Page_096.QC.jpg
ca47fdb09106626ac30701b932f50339
53352cc677b4791cdd3eef566a5af14f3e3fa096
33232 F20110221_AAAGQU youngentob_k_Page_060.QC.jpg
ec0de58e3adcd4b97aac44400813c7bf
2cf7f6243eb2f4dea9f54f67ec51d064d2230644
97533 F20110221_AAAFNS youngentob_k_Page_056.jpg
9fabce529ee0eaf7d5b88712f4320d6e
23654c3b7dc5918d4f6257910d5abff01e263e9f
8423998 F20110221_AAAFOH youngentob_k_Page_067.tif
581337f6c1ecf72d9af7c0eec76e8ce6
5743f1b620df46796124cbec4e18a51df6ed4b1a
33926 F20110221_AAAGRK youngentob_k_Page_101.QC.jpg
c393cfdb14eddcf1c062f6ccf9f0f805
fe2f07205a37808775760bc3ff49f45012ef0346
33249 F20110221_AAAGQV youngentob_k_Page_062.QC.jpg
79075597aed5088f690e05465ca6083b
f87bac21f74683a6639c1ff604035c108d4719b9
1807 F20110221_AAAFNT youngentob_k_Page_059.txt
4b0d1af77710b52c6373a48fff38715b
d92ae7f237ced80e96ddaeb99557986032398893
11463 F20110221_AAAFOI youngentob_k_Page_117.QC.jpg
a61311247ae75332d9da95ffc6302612
4be042ec19203f64b5c6806d713ea8bbf7398092
21168 F20110221_AAAGRL youngentob_k_Page_105.QC.jpg
433ed8302a3b992e400dd2d6fec5264e
63940053364b95655e6e164a6a24d1aa9366a4a9
32871 F20110221_AAAGQW youngentob_k_Page_064.QC.jpg
29fd4598cd2d8e7cc705f4da28fe42bc
0a3c584cf94099e9deacc9350b80f240f4e58623
52819 F20110221_AAAFNU youngentob_k_Page_053.pro
197c511652f02afff3ce7eb182a6f705
61220c14cd14a1526db16cc773e56b5667a211e1
F20110221_AAAFOJ youngentob_k_Page_029.tif
786a0ee473e1b5ad60b29ff30cf76caa
cc01f941388b19a47ed1d890c48bef144859b3fb
7261 F20110221_AAAGSA youngentob_k_Page_026thm.jpg
c7f13e03d8c7dab5f31cd49df93a8a7a
4bb3fddce9d5917e8f7eacf8ee22150ce3aaba0d
28654 F20110221_AAAGRM youngentob_k_Page_106.QC.jpg
b107c659fb03ec897ca9f870d90752f8
c8fa6fb0930141306dca76ffdbfdc1e6dbfded2b
30776 F20110221_AAAGQX youngentob_k_Page_072.QC.jpg
9b68f3b1e1f70b29d6c4bfbc057634a0
23eda1c9e16a5e5dd23a9c007a6c19d939a9663e
1452 F20110221_AAAFNV youngentob_k_Page_092.txt
43fce9112f58e894b3c38d7fc2dd213e
d7e1cd5930ca053a565fe458d3e43194e7a1bcb6
103852 F20110221_AAAFOK youngentob_k_Page_028.jpg
c5ec184d906388b4a9fa664224bb7273
b3add21410b88b69706ba91683a7a6812175ea07
7993 F20110221_AAAGSB youngentob_k_Page_033thm.jpg
379a0b9140fc24421b245aa8723a05c7
27fd93d6b47a9b0ce2ae2c25bedaf36f941c874b
27310 F20110221_AAAGRN youngentob_k_Page_112.QC.jpg
38ed0a2a1fec51009f77c10bedc79ba4
f084821ae91af5bff2d24c00f7e92974b2eed186
32156 F20110221_AAAGQY youngentob_k_Page_073.QC.jpg
ea9588e3a1399fd93ab7e84b7d58159d
09fee62236c40f701bf4e1a95c98eebc9c59a0fe
F20110221_AAAFNW youngentob_k_Page_095.tif
cf8436476bc406e9e92f3c0e3c52823f
4efdd50e3fdaedd8f50e90cc6974662d835051ea
1898 F20110221_AAAFOL youngentob_k_Page_072.txt
d5ddd243d6781e571569cc0a12776bea
8def41868e7e3ece943c7580a71a5377a87e5c5f
8081 F20110221_AAAGSC youngentob_k_Page_035thm.jpg
688c5141a3eef110f23494019ff0a161
73ad09bfb3b4bc694fc9a1fde41f0a081c0e87f4
27806 F20110221_AAAGRO youngentob_k_Page_118.QC.jpg
919afb231bb22ef1731beec247b453b6
189163e9c1b5125d499cdb1c026d724a8fd3f62e
31758 F20110221_AAAGQZ youngentob_k_Page_075.QC.jpg
ef435b4453e9719307ed7603f5bf3ae5
afcde0c48089bc3ffa07a03c9f9f0e64901cbe38
1908 F20110221_AAAFNX youngentob_k_Page_056.txt
ff77e595a0c660d8f95215255c801eab
a2ccf3a89e4bb5590048e6433c0209c8a97ce14f
31154 F20110221_AAAFPA youngentob_k_Page_066.QC.jpg
ff0d54da3fd6e9deb4f925af56588249
bc731e48587ab7921523a12f23899836a5dc839d
33125 F20110221_AAAFOM youngentob_k_Page_035.QC.jpg
d4206cdeeb03e9d3e6c9076a924b87ce
4d8a72b1cefda1b28ef38d2e3225e412abf4a218
7379 F20110221_AAAGSD youngentob_k_Page_038thm.jpg
87a58332ee20cc7712ee7f69862c4e8c
32d7cf4804251f051fff597823f68fbcd6a633f5
32006 F20110221_AAAGRP youngentob_k_Page_119.QC.jpg
94e5c978bf76afc6fa9d012195a67670
6ac3e3efdfd4c455f62ef0d69116b90c7804e5f0
1336 F20110221_AAAFNY youngentob_k_Page_088.txt
545a31ded3f52e88eaf185a56b8b2c5f
95950c8fb9f39ff3a63c47ee3b498c4e2e2282da
96845 F20110221_AAAFPB youngentob_k_Page_066.jpg
1ff529e84f9ac2e17796fda7af8d2ece
efc472534eaeb3cc7e8e1d2092b7babbd19b0e3b
1051937 F20110221_AAAFON youngentob_k_Page_050.jp2
eab8e80a6ca97fb0bd9ed7fe982b5368
09d71e94ce7cc42773142b5b4a26707cc20bfc88
7434 F20110221_AAAGSE youngentob_k_Page_040thm.jpg
457dfaf0a4aabfd40c7fd191b1db8ffd
3f224e2d461b08273d8f69c615c95a6f6ac26744
33634 F20110221_AAAGRQ youngentob_k_Page_121.QC.jpg
763cce6e718330b624bb9abd14fd26eb
0a20dc7468398700a54d3f0b61b28433f520cf4c
86195 F20110221_AAAFNZ youngentob_k_Page_011.jpg
7e8125e43c6da8722e22c96df5ff8d31
ac75fbcd747454bafe9746f4527e5fbf8621b366
1890 F20110221_AAAFPC youngentob_k_Page_052.txt
1ff316d0c9dec6be8dd5d9a599c2ec92
ea647ab1268b042f0789839581c2c07be5221083
769102 F20110221_AAAFOO youngentob_k_Page_115.jp2
79fdd39cb6c54c6c4829d2d960d384b6
7d65ffcc0e365361a77e90a1ef36d66d571be576
8253 F20110221_AAAGSF youngentob_k_Page_041thm.jpg
ce66a432f7d59f494d76ca5ffb7551a5
737f928901ee6e7f567c1b32a3674519eab60b2f
8274 F20110221_AAAFPD youngentob_k_Page_051thm.jpg
b0068856c7d64e8ae8d1671f463a373e
8a2fe95252c83eb077771e32443ca39b7ca91f3e
7047 F20110221_AAAGSG youngentob_k_Page_043thm.jpg
c17abb69dc6e25ecf5b9bad8684410fa
1b56dd2665f7dda9bced66c823a549d5c6f520b6
11494 F20110221_AAAGRR youngentob_k_Page_123.QC.jpg
5d2ff53aaaa1b641b1a6d8b4e33551f8
9da5d66a816c4feea2095adb2017a07fc3001bc1
18332 F20110221_AAAFPE youngentob_k_Page_123.pro
330d5a851c2bda5af88fd12e3f5acb5b
7b868ac759b4236e6bd3c483e2f5a97ec62e9be8
1699 F20110221_AAAFOP youngentob_k_Page_038.txt
a511951a40413ee555be4a98746f4115
13822fb43f4fa99826df8a53466fb62929405497
7903 F20110221_AAAGSH youngentob_k_Page_044thm.jpg
6b3528a255e1d7b3e179a75b1baa3c9d
ef0569d94548ef9c4c5bdae8814420a076955f72
520 F20110221_AAAGRS youngentob_k_Page_003thm.jpg
5450b764655544eed20f1f7835c485e2
e8925bde98db70148eb6968614f15ab9985520da
98193 F20110221_AAAFPF youngentob_k_Page_075.jpg
4236c959d071f6666d638818a526de03
ae8025d3397ff06ce6ca4681dee1f4a0e6064c45
2683 F20110221_AAAFOQ youngentob_k_Page_042.txt
131cbc42509cdcc83b82398109e8d9fc
2a709fc5f7bee551788e1071fafbe2ae7f8192c3
8046 F20110221_AAAGSI youngentob_k_Page_052thm.jpg
b4a945fe3efbca39331b018e3e014e65
48593d4a1f0fc49171ce6ed4c162ecf8a2485b82
4993 F20110221_AAAGRT youngentob_k_Page_005thm.jpg
21eb4665142cfd9fa1cbabd14ce91dac
72e25c35312e2b79befdb5ea798eb94d5825805b
81009 F20110221_AAAFPG youngentob_k_Page_108.jpg
c4eec5192a301432ebd7a622c28bdccd
0be82aa613199beab54c741ced9c2a7345726153
1051912 F20110221_AAAFOR youngentob_k_Page_054.jp2
d081a5fed0bc5f1830316059a0cce280
800096f23bcbaa27e2ed0639f91a62c1ede5a0ab
8106 F20110221_AAAGSJ youngentob_k_Page_054thm.jpg
f08ccb8cf2144407afe24d0869bf7982
d781c4962aef627435c75ca77ee92138edc2c4c4
6344 F20110221_AAAGRU youngentob_k_Page_008thm.jpg
f779f2989091f670085ad5e2fef3ffc2
7112e1bb2c1d33e3160da230ebc65934e5a4c376
51359 F20110221_AAAFPH youngentob_k_Page_018.pro
27bd92ef0ebd76525f728cfcc32735a1
d2d6a2ce8e44691869e83b93915a0fbf7cb863c4
31598 F20110221_AAAFOS youngentob_k_Page_042.QC.jpg
df1ef11be95a463a5e0dfc1290d7b411
bb12780def27b935d061778cab6c484d5cbf29f5
7960 F20110221_AAAGSK youngentob_k_Page_055thm.jpg
119942d0a422fdc80a974ec868ea5ca0
d32d796a0a86224f9a19391f398a0a0fd4d7ca6c
8298 F20110221_AAAGRV youngentob_k_Page_014thm.jpg
7ce315ce31f5f406a3b20c155fd88f3b
2d672a96e25f4684224af67f7903317c91646cdc
47128 F20110221_AAAFPI youngentob_k_Page_077.pro
4070e8154f53d9d2f2e9cb3f938d2f8a
f9c2d163592f04983ca94fa0788697e7cf382aa1
7986 F20110221_AAAFOT youngentob_k_Page_032thm.jpg
283a2f2ced1f1bd34725356a5e0639ce
440bc026ead3822b3dcb59c00754b7842bdc251c
7813 F20110221_AAAGSL youngentob_k_Page_056thm.jpg
fed258ab44f0c6acc44b9563bbae5a77
7c3218547fb71baee2f8ea0154efb04dccd5287f
8571 F20110221_AAAGRW youngentob_k_Page_016thm.jpg
973f8b6eac86e31ad1945b17b115ff11
75928a0ee819e2aa5ec14b75b8ea82beeebef1f9
50601 F20110221_AAAFPJ youngentob_k_Page_020.pro
2febbc3c53ed3b763599af08304223d1
b2d95f43fd3e7cdf55fca268103fa77f830c90a0
78915 F20110221_AAAFOU youngentob_k_Page_098.jp2
30927d3ae6d0b4527d448960b7636b85
7d9a7796fa5bdd2e32a057f359d71a319b1114ae
7273 F20110221_AAAGTA youngentob_k_Page_111thm.jpg
36d29939de20f7ae77901a5e2ec7a8b0
eec26a63d1f58de6a235c7d0c9b1131a74013ffb
7324 F20110221_AAAGSM youngentob_k_Page_069thm.jpg
78f437ee0d2716d386d1c2bacf21ca93
d79697017267ae11e8bcebb38f61c319372dcad6
8359 F20110221_AAAGRX youngentob_k_Page_020thm.jpg
8ba9b71c25ebe26cf527b3391c925b8b
9d2ab82798bd48be705730796e95bae7a9c0f112
F20110221_AAAFPK youngentob_k_Page_114.tif
12cd039575dfbcad1d126e25db5791ed
e24614b5065304795ad39155daa1a5f995a06657
21753 F20110221_AAAFOV youngentob_k_Page_088.QC.jpg
06507873f9244c9a9f5a512f726f1c9e
da1d71c8e9bc32b9695b6b03bcd0b208917b73b6
7396 F20110221_AAAGTB youngentob_k_Page_112thm.jpg
0aaf77d83ec1ca70f8006b9646eaf147
90500e0ef0dc5899e4c4034870e92201939e6809
8545 F20110221_AAAGSN youngentob_k_Page_073thm.jpg
d9e1c94446065c685dad26a5f5196018
dc73cea75cb8fcee0c0d44a82c958a685da3c506
7963 F20110221_AAAGRY youngentob_k_Page_022thm.jpg
aaaab17b55c9971cd2cb6e7d991b2625
f2747d6ef29dfb305e122c532a11723de62b3262
31915 F20110221_AAAFPL youngentob_k_Page_010.QC.jpg
0614554998e7e3cb3c664a84589a461e
c4e29f5947451c031cb98cf5919a5d98269e2b43
39169 F20110221_AAAFOW youngentob_k_Page_009.pro
b2069f788e1195c77f84dff75501e46b
ecbd7c926924f28fdeeeec3f8438ab53d40b31b7
6102 F20110221_AAAGTC youngentob_k_Page_115thm.jpg
feee7003797c08773e7ef900d83bc425
55acb39b6330439967aef5134583812148766ac9
7040 F20110221_AAAGSO youngentob_k_Page_074thm.jpg
dda6ec4430282205c41d0a3eca39c3ed
0078bc09d12abf1cac91c2ee035b3ecab1dfd97b
2876 F20110221_AAAGRZ youngentob_k_Page_025thm.jpg
ce51ef5b9e55faf94eb59a8ce5150413
7e458f02fc199cf3083d4848a1533c54590d9c7b
32486 F20110221_AAAFQA youngentob_k_Page_030.QC.jpg
c0120a0f1a20d0e9cb62347c3aeb8b8c
af14eec623b26219dba7b5fcb2603e07254690a9
2010 F20110221_AAAFPM youngentob_k_Page_050.txt
7c246eb9d4fba3f6fb9abcefb12aa30f
f0b4a7b641d945a05cc6e581a0fc5b89ed0242c2
8431 F20110221_AAAFOX youngentob_k_Page_082thm.jpg
bbbfc04efcd48461c31ae7f945ba8dea
b64aaeff5dc039ed5a2b7d96557bb26349eb20b7
3281 F20110221_AAAGTD youngentob_k_Page_117thm.jpg
e4defcfa35d96c9715895ea254ae110d
0437074953edf665007fd5a43e30c7a15b6118ca
7473 F20110221_AAAGSP youngentob_k_Page_080thm.jpg
aad6fcacb7e8d3eeb7cadde31933db15
d5a62290ccac13604c63b2951addcf56bd3a414e
1051923 F20110221_AAAFQB youngentob_k_Page_118.jp2
697577de8558140f14983a53b6bd0682
c480dcb3a63584aab1c98947d91c27eec7632e0f
F20110221_AAAFPN youngentob_k_Page_009.tif
bc8f8213118499a233848f3b095b9cac
6e5fec2bfda002875a0246c2b2d3dd3527dbd1c1
19633 F20110221_AAAFOY youngentob_k_Page_089.QC.jpg
d9bf38176c7af4b76923f2f0fa6214e0
35d87d446025f0bc4dd1dc4a0b76801f6a15dc6e
8768 F20110221_AAAGTE youngentob_k_Page_120thm.jpg
efbceb532212fbfa5329721351795fae
2220bfbc17e0e22ae789007a5df4652e33a0102f
2028 F20110221_AAAGSQ youngentob_k_Page_085thm.jpg
f299d58c9ab13dac2a5a2304434f763c
a2f0d79dd89011000ab988454ee73d9223168340
58076 F20110221_AAAFQC youngentob_k_Page_101.pro
f0f5b9315cd9aa9943e333201729a44d
032b7f220b97364eecf4df4b3a7b6cfc79637654
49517 F20110221_AAAFPO youngentob_k_Page_048.pro
0f7065ae3504b0341ff78d162533586f
9d63506a442112a40cc81fffaf784730a2f996dc
8351 F20110221_AAAFOZ youngentob_k_Page_078thm.jpg
1d6d4f765b08ca7bd40a651ac014dd5b
3e0a95f60059a67a1e2a00bf38cc416262295d17
8593 F20110221_AAAGTF youngentob_k_Page_122thm.jpg
520b616ce811a4a967c758c52b420cf9
e27f2858fb207c90312b85b83c0a76955db39698
5996 F20110221_AAAGSR youngentob_k_Page_090thm.jpg
97d9fddad27d9b6e1e240cb3f133b00f
6efaf798ed92976203c5b86326dba6edf5933e11
645960 F20110221_AAAFQD youngentob_k_Page_110.jp2
79cbc1bf7c24f0dec8effcf4b849708a
eb3a1ba51c8cd65a2cd066272316f650a531bc50
21991 F20110221_AAAFPP youngentob_k_Page_093.QC.jpg
801698e50f80504f384eae0b97989995
0efd08ccc661be7d073fc1d8d4a121800274d8ba
105484 F20110221_AAAFQE youngentob_k_Page_020.jpg
1d883f9311d82ce8cb2e5441cf76f444
6047238978b846285c05231b8fad329a7a22431e
5429 F20110221_AAAGSS youngentob_k_Page_094thm.jpg
e3d51d85e97c64424a6cf90fdf5b2d7d
27878741662bab3cbad0bbc2c1dd0ba50cd6ea06
6833 F20110221_AAAFQF youngentob_k_Page_004.QC.jpg
209f8e851201c198940204bc96004de3
157ccd9b8ad02ba67c6e15dc70a8544119d952c4
51706 F20110221_AAAFPQ youngentob_k_Page_029.pro
697b24320d5fd2b4e30e188612011fd0
d9d50c1abc71518608d95dbd97c00f7d18ea27f6
1080 F20110221_AAAGST youngentob_k_Page_098thm.jpg
b47579793a4d73fe1e33e500e19d3acd
a3875eaa88913b5e452e94baba9acc7131636c6c
56304 F20110221_AAAFQG youngentob_k_Page_124.jpg
d3272184274f8a11629e344c364f9820
4dc6f5cab3a996a6607e6a8f91c5aba7831b382b
9518 F20110221_AAAFPR youngentob_k_Page_001.pro
8b82f78613f5dd4898dab93facba4e25
7deec968ff3db9aa8784fa2eb3f712feb4e4fb5e
8219 F20110221_AAAGSU youngentob_k_Page_101thm.jpg
15c408717aa470f746c8dc217b688af2
a3b52141a7e4938b027c483af26e22418dec6dc5
105380 F20110221_AAAFQH youngentob_k_Page_082.jpg
2309ca48dfc917f7ecf2e84b33a2b8da
8e23b63df5344927508d23b929a8c4ca5cc68fff
101630 F20110221_AAAFPS youngentob_k_Page_033.jpg
4c2df56a95d858e9d06f7d0143168721
398a39138a6face44acd03047b95fd8016675b17
7110 F20110221_AAAGSV youngentob_k_Page_102thm.jpg
ea1c3c5f631df9d5158ef84a8c67675e
61f1d63b9eb30744a5f4ec93369aacf50f177312
7899 F20110221_AAAFQI youngentob_k_Page_030thm.jpg
3e6996d49376674100ab501b06d38d00
f576c4b37628bca2ba8ea2c5800e085ef62a2376
33495 F20110221_AAAFPT youngentob_k_Page_034.QC.jpg
65e2f3ccad8b5d3e722eabe7f1093639
98f3aa8627cd95f83aff46dc332fc61727bcc471
8598 F20110221_AAAGSW youngentob_k_Page_103thm.jpg
f034674b3199e273e97e48def245f504
ea2869f456f043cf1423e2d7df6dc2606073b821
96792 F20110221_AAAFQJ youngentob_k_Page_036.jpg
eafe4a1fe7b12a798f4942e2852eff68
01974545458c47c22392fc3555b4e006239294e7
102853 F20110221_AAAFPU youngentob_k_Page_012.jpg
b1682d3608c8ea16c4bd76163962e62f
6401c5e9726e97626a1aef553ae76116d88d0508
6098 F20110221_AAAGSX youngentob_k_Page_105thm.jpg
00ba041bfcc9ef6f07af5899da855596
a433ca99e9becfc66deccba19b71ac493d4022d9
1051983 F20110221_AAAFQK youngentob_k_Page_078.jp2
73b0b99c7e2aabbe13a6eb6cfb37aac2
71e98b88c6b3bb53acf3b86d76d97cfd5206326d
2835 F20110221_AAAFPV youngentob_k_Page_100.txt
de7baa80751c52dbddc56daa053d9b31
9323553d815470157b62c0ff0b04f08a9113ad98
3383 F20110221_AAAGSY youngentob_k_Page_107thm.jpg
9c127a6320b4a56ea6b2d85152c7016c
1c1cfc427a540b534ac0d754681ced837e813537
1049259 F20110221_AAAFQL youngentob_k_Page_006.jp2
18b704c9a0174d31d784adaf4d9c802a
584abe99c11d1ec55cc951f31c8404803b9e3844
48234 F20110221_AAAFPW youngentob_k_Page_056.pro
d10ce50b6b1a25f8b1ca37744ccd60f7
fe23cb29d2b3a9e2c19bdd02184700b407aea6ed
5265 F20110221_AAAGSZ youngentob_k_Page_109thm.jpg
958cb37f66345662a7c0882648e4b00e
341dd3ced63103bd3fce44156d3d25c50760c6ae
1042546 F20110221_AAAFQM youngentob_k_Page_079.jp2
51681e06653e17f19bb68477a8a310dc
e66fe580ad31b06fe0835fb0143c2e2bd09e2561
8124 F20110221_AAAFPX youngentob_k_Page_015thm.jpg
5499c7d50ad1b460665a072e3a1e2eaf
84e4cc9f2ae7473b04addf073b53121aefeaa6eb
49492 F20110221_AAAFRA youngentob_k_Page_034.pro
56f8c4e45d42321ce0c277d2c5d54e51
a246a6f9123d85845cf26c81f5ad353f5ebf4cf7
2003 F20110221_AAAFQN youngentob_k_Page_012.txt
d676a75d2f98eb4c1b09c781ba9404d6
16fe8661df89587f30d37cd86587eecb88c0af43
35021 F20110221_AAAFPY youngentob_k_Page_023.QC.jpg
31753d3c913579c91bf5a8a569f14e8a
879be822d26b0584c0e3dc6e9dad52fb5111e2cb
1819 F20110221_AAAFRB youngentob_k_Page_112.txt
1b99c17666c3837afa8acd08964f12f3
bf2d2844982118ec41c227bb39fc76c3ab82e715
782456 F20110221_AAAFQO youngentob_k_Page_091.jp2
ae8d06c236f7fb00a040c5f2941b9a49
63eece1e0fee8b9eca6bab499ebbb9356942f835
8239 F20110221_AAAFPZ youngentob_k_Page_047thm.jpg
52063420cbfb049ebdc8e45f5625a0ae
371230f258a77424e2824438f6b0bfe95fa27d34
1302 F20110221_AAAFRC youngentob_k_Page_003.pro
95084ee2577793fd96359b67b58be210
300527cbfa5bea7613486a0f4eff1c669b03c6eb
1051977 F20110221_AAAFQP youngentob_k_Page_081.jp2
2721a270c4bbe68fb2c9a85068108022
9837ea15fa33feca8ff1e9df3669ebdb3f4bac68
3313 F20110221_AAAFRD youngentob_k_Page_104.QC.jpg
e93b94f7c97296d11e585a40d09a4ce9
a9d8e6559d62d0fc1306a0f34160882395c39d18
500 F20110221_AAAFQQ youngentob_k_Page_116.txt
03ca09e178c14f73ba0dea53d2c48c07
ff6b64bee3ed4729e2c014da664cac5895e76776
51751 F20110221_AAAFRE youngentob_k_Page_069.pro
a1304fd79854a757674e5e650845e7b9
c5a5894bba66299a415d0cd3e09fc04730a43eda
28340 F20110221_AAAFRF youngentob_k_Page_074.QC.jpg
b2227594882d68e9b81d9724c6fe25f4
8cd659ebd1164fde6429b319f1a671f1d873c13b
1337 F20110221_AAAFQR youngentob_k_Page_113.txt
eb0fdf70f5a13731eec69baa27fa02d4
74421e66db9927857b3f4a4de9843e54df89035f
89460 F20110221_AAAFRG youngentob_k_Page_026.jpg
302afe92c3b3b82b745b1fdc44f7a53b
922673e05890ad8695323151c71d60f727984176
307 F20110221_AAAFQS youngentob_k_Page_099.txt
3d2f50589097d8e13886a0191e877590
a3a1dbb31ae961d6361fea4a9e186a2d9e39314f
6773 F20110221_AAAFRH youngentob_k_Page_019thm.jpg
68c9a72b553616ecb553e7305c1affce
b5df6f174d0021a0a21417bc5b1bfbbf63d17e1e
12081 F20110221_AAAFQT youngentob_k_Page_095.pro
05ef78868ded5ff8e9727c87698e7b5f
cdd2580fb295618d8741a1d37fea4b02a9f15b74
F20110221_AAAFRI youngentob_k_Page_079.tif
40a09fd9b2bfc0e29922f0f63893f0f6
82df701b5e2939a95fd4998e8ee2f49daa6a1d24
2881 F20110221_AAAFQU youngentob_k_Page_097thm.jpg
0b4c79d1466d06b3f250f62b546f08d6
53a314cbef9374827539e3ce4e0ef6b024299c4f
1051943 F20110221_AAAFRJ youngentob_k_Page_036.jp2
89ce9fe8486a65280e04edd1151c885c
84a14503b5e825b13cf4a3b05e23eb1628664f17
100721 F20110221_AAAFQV youngentob_k_Page_054.jpg
e96a74344f7b329722e3ca3298595a92
b5eb5534c6bfd26e5623c9e41c7a108d73466756
1235 F20110221_AAAFRK youngentob_k_Page_003.QC.jpg
2e5b9968af2b1fbe433b1bcccc7f884f
4fd76deb61301593230305961731b09f664c2a81
50660 F20110221_AAAFQW youngentob_k_Page_040.pro
8a970397b59c9b0246f83e364f0ef990
99bf3fb5f05c26b287acb06bb1219d789e179a14
28076 F20110221_AAAFRL youngentob_k_Page_019.QC.jpg
828072d0afb07536da9a434044908a45
6efb6586c99b4947cf524698a820052d529cd8c6
1051964 F20110221_AAAFQX youngentob_k_Page_056.jp2
ac8f1ef5b7717da3861c5d5a80b770e9
6120a7b34b6059e2f250bd898f261d3240cb78ee
94576 F20110221_AAAFSA youngentob_k_Page_072.jpg
d6345c3c464ab829ca629a8a839294ff
aff01101046d3bf493d1c6b4c8f7f9216beae724
103071 F20110221_AAAFRM youngentob_k_Page_050.jpg
fafed41135ffe9790847ed89d5cd8f7b
940086cc9d7a12a9faa7d101508c8393f19d21b4
50045 F20110221_AAAFQY youngentob_k_Page_047.pro
e0f3b7f8b938ba1ff56e06106c70ce49
e8adc9a7848ae3fc74d1782dadc936a57cc9d6a4
136491 F20110221_AAAFSB youngentob_k_Page_099.jp2
0146419fb4cb2e74c3678779df1fc603
361f598ccb21b03675a2cc3dc24b199ab95d78c8
1092 F20110221_AAAFRN youngentob_k_Page_104thm.jpg
b641380f88df30f87a043567b989d505
0b36217d2e93221123e0f799dd67be73ac95b992
1966 F20110221_AAAFSC youngentob_k_Page_063.txt
8eb615626188947ba231aaa155fa358d
9039eda913bf9bcd5f23f5a7f576b6d757311704
9929 F20110221_AAAFRO youngentob_k_Page_104.jpg
292c24173149eedb581e665846a17441
78cb3982bb305940e2c20621d54454fd5992578e
97650 F20110221_AAAFQZ youngentob_k_Page_073.jpg
0c33b5a1f16dd73f550cb2ff2e0782e4
8c9406e6d66143b5763b33285703f08ee1d49432
2070 F20110221_AAAFSD youngentob_k_Page_040.txt
f0ccca8a7345ba0aa4fda919cd0fb998
9d1c549ef9cee46593edfab15de539522e729532
2823 F20110221_AAAFRP youngentob_k_Page_116thm.jpg
fe4aa77377f944659fa14f4a31c0094b
e35e2d2d7e6604c1a4e641f9160ed37bbabaa64d
2092 F20110221_AAAFSE youngentob_k_Page_023.txt
97a478a018da2ac9957ed4de79ef8ebd
810e74ff1888870564f3daa0fe665fb831d76717
276902 F20110221_AAAFRQ youngentob_k_Page_095.jp2
5f4844511c73005e5a295f43514ae530
f23029cb2d80560535e906e2f3712fcf07fec232
2354 F20110221_AAAFSF youngentob_k_Page_045.txt
7fc51a9f72d76aa1316f691a5169b917
c4668c6c396631c08369cdf76d9f1f7b4887a2af
29680 F20110221_AAAFRR youngentob_k_Page_102.QC.jpg
74bdeca526caaddddefcacf4bcd4a73a
5b5638e6a2dcb81436d4cbf328e0fc6d7ce71b8d
12540 F20110221_AAAFSG youngentob_k_Page_107.QC.jpg
580ee5c2d7495e28e24fd5aaf6a2e227
95dfa6255ab0bc0f6d35cc9a7343f9dfab02222e
2016 F20110221_AAAFSH youngentob_k_Page_018.txt
50bdbafbe8270f1d023c11c224088731
4cf245c5a019ddc3261d1e9a82a8ecb69af7d28e
64874 F20110221_AAAFRS youngentob_k_Page_092.jpg
fd469eb411b858266c1843461b5937cb
5808675cc25b7c80235e988cbbfe4e2e28dcd672
F20110221_AAAFSI youngentob_k_Page_121.tif
65208d77bca770ce7ba02c91782ab459
99c99920675dec43bb2fc49bf452e61f6fede115
F20110221_AAAFRT youngentob_k_Page_078.tif
5c9cb80d77336e6f5f3922712a7ce7f5
d8785e387474c9560bc3177c27097744bac46182
94662 F20110221_AAAFSJ youngentob_k_Page_079.jpg
5136da0e4857938d5d35c2c11bb84055
d5cb972615f9e631ce652af480dd76097783c7a6
32784 F20110221_AAAFRU youngentob_k_Page_057.QC.jpg
2cc6d6ed45306d4b4742558c08bcf6ce
5e280133acf9d0c9182fa90b1d15aee8a9881a26
24889 F20110221_AAAFSK youngentob_k_Page_108.QC.jpg
8462a09848043340c97665999c115056
c89b06e996f5d77884ec62a00b02dc52accc6a15
38115 F20110221_AAAFRV youngentob_k_Page_123.jpg
96f73c068aa913f24753b30de84cf80d
18bda0098ae826d8c055e46d6f31ac52a8a4b3cd
984950 F20110221_AAAFSL youngentob_k_Page_106.jp2
a8093bf59c90ea9ce6a800490f9b5aa0
dafe2dcd7b64fbb0098dd254237be65e6837657f
2510 F20110221_AAAFRW youngentob_k_Page_122.txt
07d5ab56b5558a05b47b036deb9fd2cc
8ca575ebfb873200ca1826b7dffbe3f145d792d8
25559 F20110221_AAAFSM youngentob_k_Page_124.pro
bf5ac1f426f213023b5a992b3c52321e
0dffb13b441e1095834a5e1939984d5691e3e146
8209 F20110221_AAAFRX youngentob_k_Page_010thm.jpg
3d185325b7f84e007e321a103e6604a1
d98a0455c8220ea31a9400cfb94e60d94ee13ba5
31346 F20110221_AAAFTA youngentob_k_Page_032.QC.jpg
991140682741ce32770d528900551bba
47af4c8362f918e8ebd3037436ba3882cf00c068
98515 F20110221_AAAFSN youngentob_k_Page_052.jpg
114b2307233f39d64d3741a8a2a3eed0
4423f33e1d993c86a1e12802da19fab715d943af
27710 F20110221_AAAFRY youngentob_k_Page_011.QC.jpg
931164f79f5a102f34c90b36e02dfa28
e5e4681fb99ef60a08dc590175a262681e78e06d
5626 F20110221_AAAFTB youngentob_k_Page_099.pro
8d4a721d5d6c01c77bc11b9ada7bbb57
d93ad7417c52e706144f8a613d02a7c71a7004fb
F20110221_AAAFSO youngentob_k_Page_122.tif
7a18c59f52f3f14986db3dad132c61d1
6924191f7e6bc6c5f2f80c1d2c6f8bf9acc3ca39
33027 F20110221_AAAFRZ youngentob_k_Page_113.pro
232cc60e4c64f5a02c67e13537270bb7
229305de1f540bb5802f5d2cf5b6f7bc2071f4a4
6068 F20110221_AAAFTC youngentob_k_Page_089thm.jpg
5bd2a5a5dfa3fd1ef3634d9ae6741c36
2e482fa1871b7a63cfaef7f4892854425d62653d
85157 F20110221_AAAFSP youngentob_k_Page_069.jpg
f071188e091f3b339b9dd31222ed4e35
e3689418cf06f5e1d97628fbd35409a42d9fd05e
8380 F20110221_AAAFTD youngentob_k_Page_028thm.jpg
0c7093e90d582a17791a4716a303c589
a707f2ddd9101261a4e15fb291ff67aeda0e8c4a
62141 F20110221_AAAFSQ youngentob_k_Page_109.jpg
b232779a7238bbb96ac9f9739aff2eb8
328c893329a9141a0c8635ef67b12c386973d0d0
27663 F20110221_AAAFTE youngentob_k_Page_071.QC.jpg
54b47e48c06e729b49896f967e9f36d1
0b22f41b263764ab015eb3f2280373cb8f01c5ec
32111 F20110221_AAAFSR youngentob_k_Page_090.pro
bb4ca7019012ce238e7ea6f347820e4f
25c69762274c8a61ea7ff7b1f7fae8397982a156
7736 F20110221_AAAFTF youngentob_k_Page_114thm.jpg
910a5c7c30d6debaaef4c404bc88c7f8
65ed45e284700178daaad2c143a9fec0644da8ed
F20110221_AAAFSS youngentob_k_Page_106.tif
fae19842c0eade525b22d8d7f6c8ddfa
fabf350496a5c0c2a7f31ce24ce88ce827e3cf36
F20110221_AAAFTG youngentob_k_Page_090.tif
6a94fc735ca2189a66b39ae3f25600e0
0fdbfedfe9ccd8b1127a4467ca532c691abbbd88
952859 F20110221_AAAFTH youngentob_k_Page_070.jp2
43ee484055d6af893f17a8f245ebdf39
f8cc3b76b374ef72330a4471eebc065374b799d6
F20110221_AAAFST youngentob_k_Page_003.tif
759fd5b04e2bef3027be31d2af5ea788
4174cf27320714e95df71aebe948b57aafcc6d23
8475 F20110221_AAAFTI youngentob_k_Page_029thm.jpg
ef53af703acaa3c914360d822abdb591
0900fae47892ebe51b796ce47d5eb98cb75f9bf5
41766 F20110221_AAAFSU youngentob_k_Page_026.pro
4151b529df93252b0a6025ab57aadf24
0cce635132983d2a19f9f5bd012166b5c89077ec
62706 F20110221_AAAFTJ youngentob_k_Page_122.pro
e3b5aece902aae4bac22569bd38b3715
270dd69413fc593980625bca9ab7574ede6a3096
33460 F20110221_AAAFSV youngentob_k_Page_050.QC.jpg
62f673957d9378c49b808288140962e7
8c240528be4e1eb1ab3a3e1900de2d072aa6011f
149307 F20110221_AAAFTK UFE0003222_00001.mets FULL
84e4ae2c51cc2540f6ad24f713cdda8f
f0be229f2e33a6bf62e8ffbe754b9dd7736b6ae3
1920 F20110221_AAAFSW youngentob_k_Page_035.txt
0f31b62ca8188ef516fda7ef049d632e
0a49673d618c12b948ea36fe76719f8539b95f07
3562 F20110221_AAAFSX youngentob_k_Page_098.QC.jpg
a661b2cf61df3f7cd40e8f84c180651a
3724c00872d9b0ac5e48456f16c645f9691ed3a8
F20110221_AAAFUA youngentob_k_Page_017.tif
a18d5aa079436ed17c57a0751157ae9d
9f980508d6b42e83f81967992bcee5b449e39038
708630 F20110221_AAAFSY youngentob_k_Page_105.jp2
1d42f88b0c7e94bd89f145ea5ed8465d
74d19ccec4e2146ae9401d460459868dad274f91
F20110221_AAAFUB youngentob_k_Page_018.tif
3ac75d44785132442362be2cf81fcf3f
6af7c900acab3b4931c45de42cec4e4d3d610f2d
F20110221_AAAFTN youngentob_k_Page_001.tif
ccd5c0552fbdc80b97ab40034dc4af33
0fadb1a9aa2d6662e5e73b034c2f6defec4b3755
2303 F20110221_AAAFSZ youngentob_k_Page_119.txt
0cf8904a2102f4d35ffc27c9bc521952
1525696fcb0b264bcc104ee655d2d0005fc290b4
F20110221_AAAFUC youngentob_k_Page_019.tif
10bd596a1877c0f37634a5b0306cc98b
cc638d05d3c0de4d8e152a4553e1b3a53b8fbebe
F20110221_AAAFTO youngentob_k_Page_002.tif
6dc90fb8e2f7b3ba6b12cbeed95ad914
551b39eb2507b9bbe69900b53eada9ccd2dac96b
F20110221_AAAFUD youngentob_k_Page_020.tif
8cfe112fe1ee01b0e9871def725670a8
4e48117df29a8da68943e641f73932007be1ff84
F20110221_AAAFTP youngentob_k_Page_004.tif
d72755de2cd5596cdc2b684cc030144e
cdf872a67916dc2b877dd0215ccc5e62767ad209
F20110221_AAAFUE youngentob_k_Page_021.tif
018615ebeca8692eb92d87a0c7d836ba
5847031935a66e77145b6ee40f93a3ce1300a958
F20110221_AAAFTQ youngentob_k_Page_005.tif
e544041c066dec45e4078590c10dcaa8
f0c58f56ce6e4bfb44b5f1f8cf849df8b311335b
F20110221_AAAFUF youngentob_k_Page_022.tif
b32ddec627e3d508139c3fe99e117b22
94bab5ee453dff67d665c3b76d4f2cad6634aabb
F20110221_AAAFTR youngentob_k_Page_006.tif
b2cf5eff224ee53ad4cd52a17eff5877
c7434a192bdf3e2fa8574eb1453d35c20ad954ca
F20110221_AAAFUG youngentob_k_Page_023.tif
ecf7020e9632e2c4ab41083f26a50eef
a3c47ff93c13860ac99c4ad4981af548efd5ddaf
F20110221_AAAFTS youngentob_k_Page_007.tif
65d863a86079fe43453100446f9b46cd
d73e90594646a55be9382d67b2f2be135d6eff50
656 F20110221_AAAGAA youngentob_k_Page_086.txt
4f0f9a9845f8677f95f68a6e2076dfa2
bf8850c2b551820d373a76577c57f8cf7248ab56
F20110221_AAAFUH youngentob_k_Page_024.tif
d46ca9503ec4ee134c69dfaceb17f205
164e4f1288bf68d59e55f0ad490ff787a898a526
F20110221_AAAFTT youngentob_k_Page_008.tif
3d088ced2c090ba7b1a8adf2da53de6e
594aa95ca5e9977dcb4748a6a4dc06288b57967e
1443 F20110221_AAAGAB youngentob_k_Page_087.txt
dd046ba0df03eee20e40698f892e23d9
a0e1a8e8f09f4a3b91c6a9ba217b14cf8161a072
F20110221_AAAFUI youngentob_k_Page_025.tif
7c60bb9fda6269e307133551786b43f8
ef0e80eba5436e17ed0b44bedeff3c9a586003b1
1548 F20110221_AAAGAC youngentob_k_Page_090.txt
4a682345905c9d243ae3eb096409ac9c
a2b90c5e8c3c5d3ee7545c820e381479950e8fb9
F20110221_AAAFUJ youngentob_k_Page_026.tif
d17543818367819b6a6f6bf683375455
8b4f5e133bb11f1617a22d790e59458c895c78da
F20110221_AAAFTU youngentob_k_Page_010.tif
cbea70279e83e6d8c79fe947bf1feb7b
0c57b2170e2e2943ed0b842a5cfdfbbc458fbf10
1539 F20110221_AAAGAD youngentob_k_Page_091.txt
7cdc1e3630f0e3ec325ecc9bc0988bf3
28066e43edbd813cbeaeaec5490f92652de056f8
F20110221_AAAFUK youngentob_k_Page_027.tif
cf9542aeb3be141af36d2a61420cbd92
a67961aa405a147c070737d6bc4ef095a445d2c4
F20110221_AAAFTV youngentob_k_Page_011.tif
fab2e9614db014131d77a7e54aeed24e
4eda203b7455679ae990e3752c767b623f9b65fc
1425 F20110221_AAAGAE youngentob_k_Page_093.txt
27520df5dcf613d8f9f4c5535c862c96
4d4e823034542dbfd43c6eea015efbdb8c1047db
F20110221_AAAFUL youngentob_k_Page_028.tif
17aaae3243602c9b908974e67ed046f1
f9ff9725bc5ebdd0a3b3accec5ce2b56705a53b2
F20110221_AAAFTW youngentob_k_Page_012.tif
4882c6dde415234898393ded0a48e343
d60deb6a2f77637fdbd19b817e20dfae4e2a1e5f
1325 F20110221_AAAGAF youngentob_k_Page_094.txt
ecef74f7cff5dcf000b6c8b5e8b98504
86c2d72ec7e1e1af533f801ad4a5a90fe424fc15
F20110221_AAAFVA youngentob_k_Page_044.tif
9ac5f2905e545c1801787a0fac86fb1a
66d1db532ca1b3eb8b37919c9a8920aa010e622c
F20110221_AAAFUM youngentob_k_Page_030.tif
5746036de4df3436f5b538e0f7a1eb24
cec396b2bd3c79c5f5368b77fe42935b15a009c3
F20110221_AAAFTX youngentob_k_Page_013.tif
13f37df1f9d6649385777feaa275dff2
6ca6517ec05903bc8effb821c6bac53ebaee7082
538 F20110221_AAAGAG youngentob_k_Page_095.txt
d24294ac170aeab2624c6c7c2ca23ad5
3f78fc1fadbfeb67cc803491be7e76f7f29e0525
F20110221_AAAFVB youngentob_k_Page_045.tif
67f796c5ba7e826056b6cfd06367f898
870a159100da9003e02b9948e6681ffac768cd1a
F20110221_AAAFUN youngentob_k_Page_031.tif
f6ece2b7ebd4c24a5c329f42afa0ce07
4c313966d1d57d8d42fb30c2757a1e29674df262
F20110221_AAAFTY youngentob_k_Page_014.tif
a194059ce91677d6c05600de0d546820
11bb9c339e0af127ec11c2b75a5648414be4b9f7
810 F20110221_AAAGAH youngentob_k_Page_096.txt
0bea579d5f44dd2c4a5ff17196cf8e9f
edd2c88a92e56d613fffeb91bef6220cdbe0ae6d
F20110221_AAAFVC youngentob_k_Page_046.tif
faaecb985409d5f0d80f07a3a9565bc0
a63be85728d7f7a43c05de1359690539717cd19d
F20110221_AAAFUO youngentob_k_Page_032.tif
87c295555baa875e47294aae8ce2aa3d
4cea9b9db785eb842c60e36b829550b01054d2fc
F20110221_AAAFTZ youngentob_k_Page_016.tif
d69f7d3c230dca436455e1eda52d8f12
3e7f3b3306e8b89dca9c168934650f17991538a5
667 F20110221_AAAGAI youngentob_k_Page_097.txt
a9fdf410df8e1c607c2db2d35e82d14d
5ded70cebee1f10cfa5c580c6d87047faf632fc0
F20110221_AAAFVD youngentob_k_Page_047.tif
3fcabda19d834df361762918e9e6dbdc
7b0d8a4ebff4915d3658db0e29f32fddd3e8bf93
F20110221_AAAFUP youngentob_k_Page_033.tif
e135619fdfb95b250ed7bc4898adb78a
65102892e15044b3d071df1aa98b7d8b6058cb72
118 F20110221_AAAGAJ youngentob_k_Page_098.txt
19fcc4679564f3fb073bc7e40823dee2
9008b97b5e9f592ab4ef74f21251c28ad4c60872
F20110221_AAAFVE youngentob_k_Page_048.tif
c2ea34b1eea9fea143d7b495d7894061
2363bc01c2b5d5234a3ec13651efbf1243ccb831
F20110221_AAAFUQ youngentob_k_Page_034.tif
ec5aeb60a079de4b3c9fdd47077fbdff
6ff5e76799122cf55a1bb01ea931457bff3e11a6
2313 F20110221_AAAGAK youngentob_k_Page_101.txt
2a674bba5a5f6abff3c37059e43ab6ea
e0be540bc1c55870cb8560e115fb37ca80b5ed34
F20110221_AAAFVF youngentob_k_Page_049.tif
dee704f2ae097ed52ab0e01a23796584
e5c8ac6ec1a873c2b19cfba34ff1577c4cd52a40
F20110221_AAAFUR youngentob_k_Page_035.tif
f57e0917b5faec2cbd1ef67fe9c7b278
c7d2650c58161350ab5908eda973a7889078df86
8460 F20110221_AAAGBA youngentob_k_Page_004.pro
b15a4744c3b92f4cc4f807c175bf7e9d
a42c070c2ba1b0b209fc820e6e98ce53b1c2d168
F20110221_AAAGAL youngentob_k_Page_102.txt
c298809d61780e12fbbbc9e03325c836
d1c79ed251d83af2424c5d2066bebdbd19444603
F20110221_AAAFVG youngentob_k_Page_050.tif
8b70729c1d93a8be7787e445f19946e3
1d9688501f84a2c31cb488bd49dd3f98c02a407a
F20110221_AAAFUS youngentob_k_Page_036.tif
fbe1195cdad6859f7aedeb9eef35bc75
5f3298125f4b807b191eb7e143f1a791238d5705
2216 F20110221_AAAGAM youngentob_k_Page_103.txt
46f90150690f3124259bdea3e6eb5ccc
5f8773daead084a3b76abd4dc84163ba98c34b40
F20110221_AAAFVH youngentob_k_Page_051.tif
63a91252a15e93b28ddd732d013ebb59
80fbe67962b01f262137a9b519e16398ab60e900
F20110221_AAAFUT youngentob_k_Page_037.tif
3934d2d6b8692a9370ee714c59dc6948
014839ef3c8689660344884fc0d27daa0a0695d1
60211 F20110221_AAAGBB youngentob_k_Page_005.pro
4003fdfc33a5195cec651924793d39fc
e1627e01751d33aac465d50b781ef9ef8ccae08e
139 F20110221_AAAGAN youngentob_k_Page_104.txt
7641acb769e21af8bedc67519f96b9de
77e5350da8aa07ff51c9eb506a720a9f338991bf
F20110221_AAAFVI youngentob_k_Page_052.tif
42a4581f3f45f269ffbb01857a1b2c85
035a1e4ad9d63a0524387df6248416ab2805182a
F20110221_AAAFUU youngentob_k_Page_038.tif
d086b12c8f0dfbcbeb58b827a1ec4430
afc5b2d242f57f86510b854b632de0a380d6c8dd
72309 F20110221_AAAGBC youngentob_k_Page_006.pro
e9fd64960a14551529bab9852e2732f3
d56cc8c190854cab74644fcaaf9c32230d9cd6cd
1393 F20110221_AAAGAO youngentob_k_Page_105.txt
a18dbb86b3edb32284dd2bc719d343fc
a864c38b62595ab91ba37bbe4603bc63d1949cd7
F20110221_AAAFVJ youngentob_k_Page_053.tif
8ee7c347f3e001280742265c30749767
71166dfc8a30b1de8604c865cd2e42931cae6951
11994 F20110221_AAAGBD youngentob_k_Page_007.pro
3fd1af18977f83ce26fb94a988e638f2
6ca60a7475c105a8ffe6f6308377b2ad90fa09d4
F20110221_AAAGAP youngentob_k_Page_106.txt
7fa3af06d92220b4ce1b69edd2b9ea08
6ed45a871e60e211a4b5bba91911900d18e45e6c
F20110221_AAAFVK youngentob_k_Page_054.tif
9e7f26acf7d81693c1d596d8514a80fc
bcb9704bf2b4fa42289a27e5a1611957148b4be3
F20110221_AAAFUV youngentob_k_Page_039.tif
ada6d992bd40d482ad2a73409c39b0a4
8e07fc79ed608730af6f79ca4657f6827e08bd17
56923 F20110221_AAAGBE youngentob_k_Page_008.pro
e8cf4a02b8901ac9a98233fb4f7adb73
f5c50405e0f2a0624247e2f7cfd7b1c5bdc98812
1249 F20110221_AAAGAQ youngentob_k_Page_109.txt
09875fd3fa693fe81196510dfd47cecf
67b4d0d7881e30e909078272aa09519418ed5b6c
F20110221_AAAFVL youngentob_k_Page_055.tif
306c04ab620cb49a836fd55168ccf1b8
392d5bbd326cad06785de0d3d6c9bf393d4dddbf
F20110221_AAAFUW youngentob_k_Page_040.tif
8c6054aa823e17f1bfc6b85b5d56e3a3
813926a4c64977e206a02abde22f74aba9613c72
48605 F20110221_AAAGBF youngentob_k_Page_010.pro
bf10c0f300edf36ee061c757bf3dc4fe
a41f304c82f17907e128e1924234e12c099600fe
1180 F20110221_AAAGAR youngentob_k_Page_110.txt
fdc9ad98acd345c7990a4cbd3a9ffc2e
ab0e7b22bfed32c946eba249e53450356db1a74d
F20110221_AAAFVM youngentob_k_Page_056.tif
20042019497888f3020d3d79346274ed
e611745b853eaf732eee2a886a9432394ddfd4bc
F20110221_AAAFUX youngentob_k_Page_041.tif
922acd29c4230582d1c49e70fd548f4a
9f3da4f4e8e5f6fcbf0307e5f1771ad5efe3239d
50829 F20110221_AAAGBG youngentob_k_Page_012.pro
ef0f3eacddeceb10cc83d2d7245cbb4f
254e5c0f3c828d9844124136133c9e7c198da226
F20110221_AAAFWA youngentob_k_Page_071.tif
547b51fb2fb3f5a8978c102d81016c94
3e5eb970b2f929e5e0b9d0dd342ab232303b959a
1902 F20110221_AAAGAS youngentob_k_Page_114.txt
0123c42f1eebb54ec860bb12ae5d5edc
92def1b6ab24a3f912753b4f9317244c8f7e9042
F20110221_AAAFVN youngentob_k_Page_057.tif
3405161bf3572c212f0d4e0856af6138
5674116edc92777eb951afe4b0d5503218049c21
F20110221_AAAFUY youngentob_k_Page_042.tif
677bf8d1185e784e7dae12bfc4ee56fe
ac69ec41b6486687d109de533092c92f781a7a80
48792 F20110221_AAAGBH youngentob_k_Page_013.pro
13b6169f22119df7c7cda3d81c96c246
16a79680951f2a844480c4b107703829845b3efa
F20110221_AAAFWB youngentob_k_Page_072.tif
10654604bf1734e135239333f0a59479
93355c6a0000847f5b6ddcda91968111f9c5f745
1385 F20110221_AAAGAT youngentob_k_Page_115.txt
fd10e8e450cee6a2099431a9c9debf10
0f53b48454dc8b6c3619dae6933128c9a91a9d20
F20110221_AAAFVO youngentob_k_Page_058.tif
5ae61889d96ffda679bdfa589f0fe0f4
624bede002802caebd87704d49a43afda380642d
F20110221_AAAFUZ youngentob_k_Page_043.tif
8881e263ba902c620a1006f69d7754aa
fbe4066feed132518caa4ceaa3350abd81e817a5
48426 F20110221_AAAGBI youngentob_k_Page_015.pro
344975f39a7edad7095d9c85eaf78482
6a195c1bcb14302069ade329c20bad10bca9259d
F20110221_AAAFWC youngentob_k_Page_073.tif
f348d7b95a1865a06cafa570d6fa9979
211fd11d8ded6ae1750553a7999f271e87519378
850 F20110221_AAAGAU youngentob_k_Page_117.txt
03e41b919d7578e809d4da97efc88288
397e8be10b8aab07c8263eb11487e57d9d08b261
F20110221_AAAFVP youngentob_k_Page_059.tif
13ad15560155a0d1349facebc783e9a9
b031c137e9f19dee04bf68a05bca12918799cae2
52639 F20110221_AAAGBJ youngentob_k_Page_016.pro
407dce34a437ede85e125af00519186b
cb3cafb02ed10d6183c47756faf27f04f8a934ef
F20110221_AAAFWD youngentob_k_Page_075.tif
b53e3a587701f792469bc09960e3989f
8975635adbfc1af047399c868ae99f5962e96f54
1998 F20110221_AAAGAV youngentob_k_Page_118.txt
4e9f975755c1b987503a64711893ba18
5d9ed49c1cd759627e8a4fb22472dfdf9b8fb2c4
F20110221_AAAFVQ youngentob_k_Page_060.tif
0a0aa5bf09cbbf2a6e58d5d2d6bd6ec2
3d782c04e8111f894f043d4e27adb195ad9d613d
49533 F20110221_AAAGBK youngentob_k_Page_017.pro
bd93b2042757a288cff55693546bbd32
196b3de55ba03d88c5a821acb377c8bb75234081
F20110221_AAAFWE youngentob_k_Page_076.tif
f14dbbd10dc7dfc070d3566ac41a0a65
3b896fd497e9f97cf8b36359619459a4a4ac753a
2490 F20110221_AAAGAW youngentob_k_Page_120.txt
5cff535b1263eb9037205dbf71d23895
d054503f9dc6b8e449daca0ac5f20e1550e79513
F20110221_AAAFVR youngentob_k_Page_061.tif
6d94201554d58aac83e0a7300fdc2795
5edcf66c0402deb1a69c062616d167427b0bc30e
48044 F20110221_AAAGCA youngentob_k_Page_041.pro
3a60931a34c845fc2f8d4063f58811d0
54c1a3f7c8308b60b4e42d82967eee4b787a3a9e
41988 F20110221_AAAGBL youngentob_k_Page_019.pro
c0859ab26fea23f04d05369e27e51989
0673847ada60c865f55747e601576edb78c1e058
F20110221_AAAFWF youngentob_k_Page_077.tif
56ef7c9ec1c218d9a492781500314e18
b02af487d4c0a7889bcccbe8a116525944262fb6
2309 F20110221_AAAGAX youngentob_k_Page_121.txt
f5ad1bc9045c40f405c1dda298f34e4e
21d4ff6b6e344ced5c8ae6e12bb1c0fa981fad26
F20110221_AAAFVS youngentob_k_Page_062.tif
7f83dec1a22b8d8a05cb3d2c0a9af237
db11dc458f9a9986f03e3aa893e38e7c3e08f351
58547 F20110221_AAAGCB youngentob_k_Page_042.pro
92d9819ec9748f5533e3eb4923d1a12e
1c29dec68a95ba839f74dfcb881b73a7afd236c4
49257 F20110221_AAAGBM youngentob_k_Page_022.pro
19600e1ee0f9f3e73cb776b89280c2d2
fff1e3f230b66d4cca5c8846af8b2e5519c16c76
F20110221_AAAFWG youngentob_k_Page_080.tif
bc68736d6d6ae5d67baf65472b47b69b
10f5c335c8bfdce7eade8cc1b6dd192412379bcc
1064 F20110221_AAAGAY youngentob_k_Page_124.txt
50ffcc592ad77855e664e981265eeee8
0427dad9eaf56765804920959b8f68e7787a4e6d
F20110221_AAAFVT youngentob_k_Page_063.tif
447c748a9041cf2ed9e4551ca27166d7
47c4d69ae3a79c16c57088ee182a4aec1f748be0
52981 F20110221_AAAGBN youngentob_k_Page_023.pro
9cadd3c88fd458a4e6137aa5ced19e3a
0a7cfd3c3bf3d7cb6fb2ee54888fc88efc4d7ac3
F20110221_AAAFWH youngentob_k_Page_081.tif
127f8216500ffbf3d256abbc06cefbb0
2fdaef69e2fee693a0a1309fbeba4acb5612bf60
1176 F20110221_AAAGAZ youngentob_k_Page_002.pro
3d8c21dea253049ac63dcf2b56d91bec
d342fdd3fb8a122140c38c7a93fca7c5b6245969
F20110221_AAAFVU youngentob_k_Page_064.tif
caeb2cf61b913c58421fe1d5598fadd1
ea0a9b81b8f50f85f91e2edd32eb4dd15afc2d33
47678 F20110221_AAAGCC youngentob_k_Page_043.pro
473dcecfc02dee369b329be639809270
93a9a1e833e27f09a03c08f5cdba76bfbc178e38
17484 F20110221_AAAGBO youngentob_k_Page_025.pro
850f24976792dce0fb43505fd5c32b01
0b7247ea4e59ff211126ea93aaf81b4c0de47b7c
F20110221_AAAFWI youngentob_k_Page_082.tif
586aa1e7ed637902e9edca133b4160bc
4dbbade3fc607857aa393f54abff3fe706e834a5
F20110221_AAAFVV youngentob_k_Page_065.tif
b8153aeab7f8c669cc48680669fba532
8bb4844e1ed5ceb90403a90f910d16935bf58569
63917 F20110221_AAAGCD youngentob_k_Page_044.pro
f93988d9aab3b510fb1588b757ce09c1
3b23d7fa62af11f74bf89a0363e92f707727b47a
50670 F20110221_AAAGBP youngentob_k_Page_027.pro
2a8ddfebc5829200e7a42b710fc269b4
dfe9c5b8052347108a7ee50cc51824cf8f8918f7
F20110221_AAAFWJ youngentob_k_Page_083.tif
2ca8122b9f3073a74176330f94e074f5
fcb8e5f96b767654ba4f5b3d2144290b81ba17b3
55512 F20110221_AAAGCE youngentob_k_Page_045.pro
40e93a891a028d596a490575c02a4c33
5ec06c94e6de9669a931259abf3d1e9b85548c4d
50371 F20110221_AAAGBQ youngentob_k_Page_028.pro
0260e18dc64643f4e1fc753a83536e95
ebfc90b8915e0e40f1ac7383f434e5b64d2a11a0
F20110221_AAAFWK youngentob_k_Page_085.tif
f81dcee1c88ee8bc5769cc6d3fadd685
df8f0dab0dec659855ef25ebc30fe4d6a1c18f3b
51478 F20110221_AAAGCF youngentob_k_Page_049.pro
f4a143fd3562180330caf7aa68f2e20a
66d1226a0f46413952876e24886e954ffe791aa5
48719 F20110221_AAAGBR youngentob_k_Page_030.pro
dc6a5c1f8820f6a8f0ce81f73fa49ab1
14fe359a718f30b45573a4a21c6dd0c87a447294
F20110221_AAAFWL youngentob_k_Page_086.tif
bf13c8b62eac4da8fe1ab2b02ce13945
2fad6f995e5871eb71f6797bcce2f6303866787d
F20110221_AAAFVW youngentob_k_Page_066.tif
0c6132e3f14ce4fd9e94366a2508ff9b
a80e8a18e5991346f25b5dfbd846346134cbe862
50267 F20110221_AAAGCG youngentob_k_Page_051.pro
0984936764b73e95ed482ab4b849ab69
1bead00feb70ecf5460991e9c790415d169bc298
F20110221_AAAFXA youngentob_k_Page_104.tif
889493d8dca068b4924c908998e0b19f
44891b1d4001e6edde177e8b5798107af1583ff9
49143 F20110221_AAAGBS youngentob_k_Page_031.pro
68aaa22c819b0f7f0f7a14e9742fe8ae
2daf2b38c5bb12e2c3d9c76bd1d0c0df4678c821
F20110221_AAAFWM youngentob_k_Page_087.tif
abf7252e0bc87e9fce3cad57360f84d4
e99ca7b0f22c9408d73612a5f2becf0e8e849fda
F20110221_AAAFVX youngentob_k_Page_068.tif
af9c8dba845c4c169a9be4ab8f13e9e7
2a0fe31104283976f15652d6e7fe0ce297d33d9c
47921 F20110221_AAAGCH youngentob_k_Page_052.pro
43ac50e90d0b6fca07314613a5e456a3
13984e34e341a875c267a9570d31b75625247a3b
F20110221_AAAFXB youngentob_k_Page_105.tif
382da4fe3eca86e73831e9947197b990
3d520ccd5b3919c65f485cdeeab39303da0127c7
46491 F20110221_AAAGBT youngentob_k_Page_032.pro
734c350716a1e10ae711debd597868a6
3f801483ec4dd2bec22fb54ff7f8dd5d0d91105b
F20110221_AAAFWN youngentob_k_Page_089.tif
a1d801fc48dac6c67963396841b530c7
45535a2172b50bbc99272d97cd538136025e74e7
F20110221_AAAFVY youngentob_k_Page_069.tif
d1a00434da729b5f587f93bee8a467ad
9a1ee40c115207de76d065065d75eb1d70a49abf
49858 F20110221_AAAGCI youngentob_k_Page_054.pro
f070efa364d1eb1688c02654107ce0c6
a412ac06301d3e069b44daa90970f21ceab4ae1d
F20110221_AAAFXC youngentob_k_Page_107.tif
92cf1e16c3e92003898d0cbd02dd0d7c
f7133c899734f6f53a33de009e61d4d17fa2d433
49151 F20110221_AAAGBU youngentob_k_Page_033.pro
1b26f54e2f30386be795cc57b9d937fa
bb036c622690c044065bcc26a5679248d149ac83
F20110221_AAAFWO youngentob_k_Page_091.tif
39e9975e194727baa2bc42ee12479f37
8a364f05c5bd4b7b85dfe5999c0cfbdcc6b2736c
F20110221_AAAFVZ youngentob_k_Page_070.tif
bc4ee293cc33b68176e1628634e78299
8afc643406f11c225ec9cf8d4f6971b3ea4d7fe3
49224 F20110221_AAAGCJ youngentob_k_Page_055.pro
ae9be37d3b6a78b7649d2e02401ebbfe
9a6a9b2e865e46d143e10841310d4f2ec501e89a
F20110221_AAAFXD youngentob_k_Page_108.tif
06cc6f0d75fa78b5918cb49481a3f8a4
af48ce4e9e34be8032ae54c7f5f55071714db701
48655 F20110221_AAAGBV youngentob_k_Page_035.pro
4add6c4d726c6a4c2536b3da620f740f
fce2c18d8045a1cf05d45e7442a8fecbf82a7621
F20110221_AAAFWP youngentob_k_Page_092.tif
195e53ddfc7c53528471c10b87c98dbf
c347f387fa05fc7f403d882367d8547e35bc148b
49735 F20110221_AAAGCK youngentob_k_Page_057.pro
e54a27f2c54965204a078b2945c9492f
77cad1b47feaae24328ebd50abff633da69e1356
F20110221_AAAFXE youngentob_k_Page_109.tif
b59ced5e4a16c6fcef98b1bb9709ffe1
73b4eda18889b9c97474af82fceb9da9b2015a7c
46780 F20110221_AAAGBW youngentob_k_Page_036.pro
90dd8d6989a556339c731bc1a4eaeeed
f19c894217c1a3317e34f84ee6996b571f7f3ee5
F20110221_AAAFWQ youngentob_k_Page_093.tif
a1cf90c96143763bfc69fddc4205ef7b
264d0e37e2c45ac5456ede095ec1a82149445fa4
34874 F20110221_AAAGCL youngentob_k_Page_058.pro
b38c67e4a6cc97fe1778619b20c2ef91
d6c05d71f9519377fc55ef50643ca8b9ce5d7ad0
F20110221_AAAFXF youngentob_k_Page_110.tif
52903b611f6dd2547679223940098d20
bdd4deed3b947bed05722cb8b19f1f7a16995aac
49574 F20110221_AAAGBX youngentob_k_Page_037.pro
45a2b8b20d457c47885ad6b65b5029e5
c704ffb71b36670e77e8f897f4a9b3c34c13254f
F20110221_AAAFWR youngentob_k_Page_094.tif
b173a358144828adec9af1113b263e23
8ea24785cd64c02f7705f4f389c6f58131b8786a
52102 F20110221_AAAGDA youngentob_k_Page_076.pro
143d6c8936cac27f9a0f29925b00554a
8883a308b0985082a608ae5d5386007945ea65db
42942 F20110221_AAAGCM youngentob_k_Page_059.pro
dcfba7f9a0441dcf7c8e76523ae46cc4
9e692e1e51b3556d3bc8d5a08a27b3aae2855045
F20110221_AAAFXG youngentob_k_Page_111.tif
94105d989f224a6c621ba97309c8d265
e88f220b90e2c5db835686d28d2cefb7b9cbc98c
41690 F20110221_AAAGBY youngentob_k_Page_038.pro
6013c0553fa7ac8c6980a5f9b8e9174c
9e10a736cb44599c7e6730d438b6502aeaec1246
F20110221_AAAFWS youngentob_k_Page_096.tif
4b3426ab7c1419864e2c8ee5c661537b
2a81c4a138cdb93d1d47743d5171810b1605a2e7
50857 F20110221_AAAGDB youngentob_k_Page_078.pro
0de7f23472a9a505f33f1c56a1b19aec
4f0b5db3f6e14f9ab306efe002a77f24ac9a1e6a
50635 F20110221_AAAGCN youngentob_k_Page_060.pro
c056b8775a1a17c30334a13a212acc01
61b5531432b4071fe47547a017a7ca96e993e133
F20110221_AAAFXH youngentob_k_Page_112.tif
887e2957ba674ec192e98dd12be44e15
5b219d4a6bcfbfa7a1197168778fef49c73cba75
68550 F20110221_AAAGBZ youngentob_k_Page_039.pro
6e1fdc3760cd066d7c68d3ca0a2f230f
ccd1c8e67f3dd471f54739a3fea00ef8daeed2d1
F20110221_AAAFWT youngentob_k_Page_097.tif
8bf27bf56b2ab9d735c52cbefafa351b
96ffebfe1e56995c81604e8b4f70526956be7017
46268 F20110221_AAAGDC youngentob_k_Page_079.pro
294cfd696178f3bbe9935e9c5eef4e2b
d8bcd8f7329af2050339b4de09e43a30bae74a30
49592 F20110221_AAAGCO youngentob_k_Page_061.pro
03639e587068b41bb6797d81aa4c698d
0f9964bd7f821bfe6f3fb7777263aac07e85e15c
F20110221_AAAFXI youngentob_k_Page_115.tif
813eb1f2327a69bb1b50ff10398043be
c452342daa1a7b706818f06970b52f2447ea893d
F20110221_AAAFWU youngentob_k_Page_098.tif
e0ab278b60a2df98bc465e034552851b
67ad500fa1347e587bb2cb68009e8887149a3021
50256 F20110221_AAAGCP youngentob_k_Page_062.pro
e77184c1fec9e33b162b33a5291af5c4
7068667001d051575856f7f7702a1391916a2f3f
F20110221_AAAFXJ youngentob_k_Page_116.tif
8d25fe4d9a3dd494fa26f6eadee37025
3f75490b70c5e502ef5761c942581b4d6c20245c
F20110221_AAAFWV youngentob_k_Page_099.tif
2381288c2c0137f0c329e4161e4385e0
da91b4de5ff195aa0508ae7beb16e7a305d3c9d6
46144 F20110221_AAAGDD youngentob_k_Page_080.pro
c782ea3cdeb7e95ab87f52aa42d76ea9
7132d937dcb58377db2493cd190ab71d9b5c11ab
49078 F20110221_AAAGCQ youngentob_k_Page_063.pro
dd0d5ecae0aca63af22a46a53605e5fa
5665c482673755b9bbb4da0a953afbf9e47ee57a
F20110221_AAAFXK youngentob_k_Page_117.tif
92b40cde8e023bbeb5dda87a6bd919b2
b10ed376c2ce4626c0725100e478ac2887332e16
F20110221_AAAFWW youngentob_k_Page_100.tif
2ba4832d6beec1e5d2ee59aaf2f50a41
51cd1dc75f685059bfe0b9e32118cbd630d95328
51222 F20110221_AAAGDE youngentob_k_Page_081.pro
1195e3f23e3443fbefe90fb97dc96cc2
a134fd72055d6fa6f5e6e61061c8131c55639f82
43709 F20110221_AAAGCR youngentob_k_Page_065.pro
3f4243f1da3c3eb0ade1310351207b6f
68ce96f35342e13636c2d6764334650bac91b623
F20110221_AAAFXL youngentob_k_Page_119.tif
e535b796cce82723d1922db3b0c7857a
4c7bdce32b0884cacd53c05aab4d0cd71c55adde
51425 F20110221_AAAGDF youngentob_k_Page_082.pro
ea88ad3281a537470ec9054ce94fd44e
3d96f43c6df6fcc2a032dc3c7997ff524ae61246
47268 F20110221_AAAGCS youngentob_k_Page_066.pro
ba7bcf4f0194844500c58ec8c3026370
7713ac27fb8048ef85d509654a02320bcb856ac0
F20110221_AAAFXM youngentob_k_Page_120.tif
0121d16d337c39b9772f42b90d8a111e
4a6bbedba3c436ef8cc37d8bc9d19f586153ec20
F20110221_AAAFWX youngentob_k_Page_101.tif
e12ca421cf220fe5d6b57e1f03fa92dc
78195b2cea239b7baa0859c5a6c23de5eb4e11db
50337 F20110221_AAAGDG youngentob_k_Page_083.pro
8bc30ef58b215654b98cc45b302b5062
61ccf6743d87b5ddc3f7685314b9c624c747c610
1961 F20110221_AAAFYA youngentob_k_Page_014.txt
5a4b4dc58e4c4bbf7a79ce304640ee97
2749dc13b810bfbcd52e3395a2fead79fcfae19b
55535 F20110221_AAAGCT youngentob_k_Page_068.pro
8aca27eff1bdbaf87ce85243892687d3
83a7be476f3161e6804186e0a5cf047052ab8ae0
F20110221_AAAFXN youngentob_k_Page_123.tif
847f9cf1ea6a70b5ddde0f45a5bb157c
604074cbfeebc7d7094acdabd316c0674c25e964
F20110221_AAAFWY youngentob_k_Page_102.tif
a346f387e4182fb5d0133e354a752cf3
dd6ed9d0cc971709d9409e55d6c490850bbd680d
29396 F20110221_AAAGDH youngentob_k_Page_084.pro
e13f33876e07cd0e376966741dfa828e
1307e025e12424902bb02546671d8e132fff8764
1918 F20110221_AAAFYB youngentob_k_Page_015.txt
a291cdcefcdff1ade9736780374edec7
f21ed03becdbbb9c9dc417cd42f35da1bad39e6b
F20110221_AAAFXO youngentob_k_Page_124.tif
3e9baf6d08bccdd32c4dca44ea55c739
f7a3460ecb570030033a7eba70601b726f79ccb3
F20110221_AAAFWZ youngentob_k_Page_103.tif
9361365f191243a45b589ea22fe6977d
186cbb30c986866e79b343414b40666b06315c97
8968 F20110221_AAAGDI youngentob_k_Page_085.pro
64ca5ccf2d0afb79aed7730341579561
fe3567756a7b60f5df96d044d55014684dba472f
2065 F20110221_AAAFYC youngentob_k_Page_016.txt
ae56f8bd57d53ebed1efba7cebdd32d5
a4bba53970d4f9ca64b72d02edc5bc03c1cdc091
45154 F20110221_AAAGCU youngentob_k_Page_070.pro
f1433a36c0485c016d536381a2fe4b94
8e294a3cc4d96a442b95e7323c755e1e5921ea67
108 F20110221_AAAFXP youngentob_k_Page_002.txt
bde78e60f3420763053fd68f8c3c98e3
6f1799b9dd3459817a5bed376d2f4fe5a48c7705
31275 F20110221_AAAGDJ youngentob_k_Page_087.pro
fea7580fb124ff0f540e5903caf4c335
34ff649b40371d5945bb612c672aa6243e220122
1955 F20110221_AAAFYD youngentob_k_Page_017.txt
73be03b3a2c3c5fcc7d131ca3662fb3e
9ed61ea38c25dda40686515a35b8040d8c0447dc
52938 F20110221_AAAGCV youngentob_k_Page_071.pro
30dedfcfef18f69a7bbbf47c07bb8f1b
dc3fb48bfab05b8dd03c7e1a9cd71ec34f2b66bb
104 F20110221_AAAFXQ youngentob_k_Page_003.txt
f31b2d4100a5b10be78a19718d94ae6c
0a16a1602199e4262a4b21470d3f7feb9c4ec6c4
31991 F20110221_AAAGDK youngentob_k_Page_088.pro
1b8dc5493e3537c380a11ad41d8d5ca8
2ff91306d0151b2d7000320db47dc505acf9b19e
1675 F20110221_AAAFYE youngentob_k_Page_019.txt
32ddad9120ed449322a07579b23ae345
f5893c0a9815280a8ebb9626b15685adcc1051d0
47293 F20110221_AAAGCW youngentob_k_Page_072.pro
2bed7e87b480064c296f9cb5d60cf2a3
89a1f03ae3ca309c7d83c0f48ddc776b44157851
387 F20110221_AAAFXR youngentob_k_Page_004.txt
6726b0c26216f6d749b2e9017725452f
0c49a139739af7917fc4b78a1b6919cbe28304f1
29757 F20110221_AAAGEA youngentob_k_Page_109.pro
f29b14c6ce3d57db610bac7c09a8a1f2
20a936cd4fec3dc68ca70038dda707910e649e60
34603 F20110221_AAAGDL youngentob_k_Page_089.pro
26e9fc6d5331e89f3983a4c86ee05ad3
668222a41424d7425a2104697ad06ef00dc518a3
1897 F20110221_AAAFYF youngentob_k_Page_021.txt
1608d6589190215d6387f0331428143e
6afe4a4a004229257b1593f2b520c43d830fd47c
54675 F20110221_AAAGCX youngentob_k_Page_073.pro
f3be039e6c44344d729a93e61f7f194d
4b2f5e3a0ba5ae86b6a5fda094eab61ca603db46
2691 F20110221_AAAFXS youngentob_k_Page_005.txt
acc942a5b8c4738a19f7e57feca9a2d9
ccd774ff8558af0bba838e555c3add51ffe6aead
29119 F20110221_AAAGEB youngentob_k_Page_110.pro
a8a1f940ef2d0f80e5efdcbe9e9fe355
71c0250c857dbff3d122b7acaa127e125c81e1c4
34170 F20110221_AAAGDM youngentob_k_Page_091.pro
89cb1a75fd735c2145762dd32f56f8cc
4ff944449568951efd731c11c20b97abc4594142
1988 F20110221_AAAFYG youngentob_k_Page_022.txt
df8065dd5bf357bab3b77ee2793adcb3
d60fbe2be975af45045311535c2bc7f80b5fa1d9
41522 F20110221_AAAGCY youngentob_k_Page_074.pro
5a66649a984cfc1cef0f34296318a1cf
92bd3f0eda73579a7db6d81918ed112afc59093e
3151 F20110221_AAAFXT youngentob_k_Page_006.txt
d355890d0c5e0a0c5c51d6b5237e44ac
a20b6b28f9bb477e8eb4bbf0306dfb0f43a33378
44440 F20110221_AAAGEC youngentob_k_Page_111.pro
3c463fd5ca29997394fae3403dc63ec6
b22ca16fbf9d03a5cfcea1859e0c496e21c8f415
31116 F20110221_AAAGDN youngentob_k_Page_093.pro
dc362807b374287509aeafe1f34325ca
b25fbf16e50c658209c34fa870e32caa5d16aae3
919 F20110221_AAAFYH youngentob_k_Page_025.txt
8670cb27e49cd2cd108d4dc9e51ec4cb
4cfc8a880a08fc5af1b2571a86c42733cd6015e3
47699 F20110221_AAAGCZ youngentob_k_Page_075.pro
06f10e26f2877c9623332cd85b72819c
8418b88a9d012f5e898e11db8642339bf780c4e9
450 F20110221_AAAFXU youngentob_k_Page_007.txt
324799ba3bf23c8bcc4d37f0aedae41a
196a47d8fd602ea2254a7edf285fb8e482c62357
46544 F20110221_AAAGED youngentob_k_Page_114.pro
c4bc68c7b59d49c602ec068b24968c7d
8bd401b9bb71f0ce172070addf42d6f4c7e13e01
31535 F20110221_AAAGDO youngentob_k_Page_094.pro
d875a13cc0609ae507d0e34f0943a923
80ac9f9e3e2ad49294b0c6a7dc4fe4ef644075fc
F20110221_AAAFYI youngentob_k_Page_027.txt
9834cc1e605e856bbf2cef2b892fe816
10dcd30446e56a19d658482698554659f586328f
2359 F20110221_AAAFXV youngentob_k_Page_008.txt
5f0fc8434449b8e48b7cde9b7a363911
8d0207fa1e53918a465cb8b1786e76ed803997e1
17712 F20110221_AAAGDP youngentob_k_Page_096.pro
875343a7562032a9c13ac287fb1eec47
2e4af3d69a5c70836726a7b9da915290263bb0c2
1984 F20110221_AAAFYJ youngentob_k_Page_028.txt
d679c614daa76f851bbeae571e66a7af
67bbc38a08313216f51c26026df9e8a91019364c
1734 F20110221_AAAFXW youngentob_k_Page_009.txt
24eeea1a8e1ecbaf3749f2a84517a828
328922412b0a907612b8acc1111a9f577a52b8ff
12290 F20110221_AAAGEE youngentob_k_Page_116.pro
99444ce00bf223ff8df4afbc6ab936c2
df42efd6ab225dee57f49ca981773fcb692d85ff
13960 F20110221_AAAGDQ youngentob_k_Page_097.pro
dc90cf017a3baa188ce64dbf7f971bcc
5909ccfcae797ca8c565229039ebd597c9acf440
2035 F20110221_AAAFYK youngentob_k_Page_029.txt
0c5c0870701936472b0538f2617c8640
a5fe03c22813eaae78271c66a4e5c18e5250c7aa
1917 F20110221_AAAFXX youngentob_k_Page_010.txt
f77b3d71500ab2613b7da968154f233b
7236049ffe0a30e60a024f714f95d43a9a2a20ab
16950 F20110221_AAAGEF youngentob_k_Page_117.pro
7e906f96fc29acf719083daa25062781
40a8ed05525ae1f36d46b920faef449ef4131b71
2930 F20110221_AAAGDR youngentob_k_Page_098.pro
0421ec8283c5cf9dee7e7408ab5cd12a
84d0e6f8a7734be032408df3ee6a56c6ec8651fc
1954 F20110221_AAAFYL youngentob_k_Page_030.txt
8b36f0148d00ecf072b62b086d86093a
3fbb4cace646c8296bd86298103d3c224c4c8c28
48419 F20110221_AAAGEG youngentob_k_Page_118.pro
851d7680e1699e85f13cf2c4e4ebca1a
710573bb380040de83d7750b5991cbd64a0e5b88
1964 F20110221_AAAFZA youngentob_k_Page_054.txt
a86ebfd7969c18f7ea939ba4304b891a
7680574934333e7d9ede5b11623c7f868eee79e4
68717 F20110221_AAAGDS youngentob_k_Page_100.pro
0d8b3a86cb76256173d66c0e470c4ad0
0687e3c48b5262727ee147a86f19f1ad7d29529a
1936 F20110221_AAAFYM youngentob_k_Page_031.txt
f776f1f2d4122009be1c53c0c2edcfd6
1febb7bacd19ea31b3b3441c75ace86b6fd737c4
1766 F20110221_AAAFXY youngentob_k_Page_011.txt
8d1e04bfb706f77e6dbd4956aaaa45d2
5ad14b198e1ea586037e1edaa14604c9887dd2de
56750 F20110221_AAAGEH youngentob_k_Page_119.pro
874062adc0ec6430a13106663eda6b6c
9cb787f6fe9d1a3d9dc5af0cb23d0844f07462d2
1940 F20110221_AAAFZB youngentob_k_Page_055.txt
13deb1c5e0af378a16a2073631ec6b31
3f6ca0fd4c2bd3e78f79f2d5b852f350f550ce32
50003 F20110221_AAAGDT youngentob_k_Page_102.pro
ee19c9681fd24f18c520893be528a225
92c9d9ecf730455303f855e15065854a82764b18
1837 F20110221_AAAFYN youngentob_k_Page_032.txt
5bc3bb1fc8ba765c919a7cf25937d484
0d130799223159e18af1b9c8f4b57ff5679e04c8
1926 F20110221_AAAFXZ youngentob_k_Page_013.txt
e21005b77b671f8975003f3b9626ea1a
4b46b3ec72c0bec4d2aeb3a2958e814228d81588
61832 F20110221_AAAGEI youngentob_k_Page_120.pro
c757592363417d3f03b9b986e08684c5
69b0a383bff1444b9a1e6e85c06f2cab72ec5379
F20110221_AAAFZC youngentob_k_Page_057.txt
3b0f4fe13dc5b029c91e34dff599676b
290496b2ac5d91f4b42f0eef09bd92314dc16e76
56658 F20110221_AAAGDU youngentob_k_Page_103.pro
38e6ec461bb3429d2741c5a5429ad01e
693d725544a16704f8a7a8b6162cd219d0342c79
1943 F20110221_AAAFYO youngentob_k_Page_033.txt
8fa8ce6a2ff86dc8b49bb54f25fafa7a
932cdfa921e27311d5dedc7b5ddce1dbc11c7a36
56897 F20110221_AAAGEJ youngentob_k_Page_121.pro
5f2acba569ab36ffe521c1b4c2c3a7e2
a307b785fb89b852f9f048b0d88358caf9a17848
1394 F20110221_AAAFZD youngentob_k_Page_058.txt
57d3fd5e2df29bbaa246c3ca2a98e036
cca3c021061a94a35390aa9271a0bb7de9995be0
3125 F20110221_AAAGDV youngentob_k_Page_104.pro
584e5eb08a05dfb7c0b99fc8221d5b37
16e4ba402e223a4347ebbe864d277b89db9bf467
1861 F20110221_AAAFYP youngentob_k_Page_036.txt
b7911b2170396265f7340b82acbcf661
ea308b02b6c806584d34e66f655fa560e6ee423a
31668 F20110221_AAAGEK youngentob_k_Page_001.jpg
e064d59664fbea0a2422a948acec7483
ebc87cb570e3d70d527f42798aacd9818c018173
F20110221_AAAFZE youngentob_k_Page_060.txt
d7b67e75635b409d5b102c2dc608d27e
4287881047734aee6044018e99ba171b68a33660
32057 F20110221_AAAGDW youngentob_k_Page_105.pro
0eb9425e7744ac5b1e468ba4628d908c
4aaed7c0527ae2b5ef76ad1dc4e81ece72217c8d
1957 F20110221_AAAFYQ youngentob_k_Page_037.txt
1ad00d10da6876c0730d5f6d4ec98769
5b9a9587038fe8ae80876c5ceef11253c093e7d0
4758 F20110221_AAAGEL youngentob_k_Page_002.jpg
7126e62b44691ffd7608a15ab271e711
dada78506db4c1826f190784fa0fd744e821c8b2
1953 F20110221_AAAFZF youngentob_k_Page_061.txt
ee803ae7438f01c0935a0685d2bf0d84
868c508e0716934d698beb574ab172907ae9b7f0
45714 F20110221_AAAGDX youngentob_k_Page_106.pro
f4a017cc0873bd4c7c933e0424c9b758
32b57087abae30d491a88b9f1085b5738057bf2c
2856 F20110221_AAAFYR youngentob_k_Page_039.txt
5823c52b74f7993a67d859594d4de657
638bac834b5d3dcc2deea672cdb0efbcaa1f74ca
97681 F20110221_AAAGFA youngentob_k_Page_021.jpg
d59f7a73ec42218a641693b54a9e7c92
2742266ea22869158d488bc9f08885de102681a3
21443 F20110221_AAAGEM youngentob_k_Page_004.jpg
891d137ad1443047a72d092df0a68174
c6a2b59b4239abdb441c0367c859284e3c822975
F20110221_AAAFZG youngentob_k_Page_062.txt
af924192d59b159c21fdc9c29489c6bf
59472a6a91d9b186bbbc3aa54daf1f147bcd64c6
16903 F20110221_AAAGDY youngentob_k_Page_107.pro
1896d81dfce088c7b2d5adfe286e3c12
af432e56120acb86e845ee2caf1faf5d6dbfcc5a
F20110221_AAAFYS youngentob_k_Page_041.txt
d32fddfb786616048499cd7278bf2724
3e8ce2efdac6cbf2c7f1b2846801bfd5ce081dfb
101382 F20110221_AAAGFB youngentob_k_Page_022.jpg
09b5cb8e86c3cce1e5a714422b670410
15277e45c491c36f7b0b9363459aec0519d8fa32
85550 F20110221_AAAGEN youngentob_k_Page_005.jpg
a36c1a323c20295733aac0e353d57775
7671549541b4f4c6f97f8b1983247ab1cc0e70fb
1935 F20110221_AAAFZH youngentob_k_Page_064.txt
579bdba6d5c5c4bce52c2bacbad1c7e3
7864786fcd136f193d3439fc7425a7a3f5231f0a
37678 F20110221_AAAGDZ youngentob_k_Page_108.pro
9c5a01519421250c574aead0a7b6d5b1
ff98dc50d547bc10cb600f5d6142cf56afb608dd
2110 F20110221_AAAFYT youngentob_k_Page_043.txt
68a381a226bcf3a9506742e4e703b6ac
cfe18307e2e06006e2a85ec4cbb614b592bdee1c
106992 F20110221_AAAGFC youngentob_k_Page_023.jpg
7eab060a4e5a748fd9cc0b02e55ee19d
07ea432e61eead1771ab43501a892a1c8010d4e3
103436 F20110221_AAAGEO youngentob_k_Page_006.jpg
c538af26f6eaf6806dc86373a1753249
f2f410ad2ca6ad24001b7934a581a3370b926f14
1739 F20110221_AAAFZI youngentob_k_Page_065.txt
f67188d6c8898dcea28d5ede70f3432f
5014403bbab472a3eb5e8d4a06eec1fa8d553d30
2605 F20110221_AAAFYU youngentob_k_Page_044.txt
c506a4f5953f6ff225a5a9becae497b9
ba2e5930c9232b20dc88ec3043ee5dbff7c70a0c
96662 F20110221_AAAGFD youngentob_k_Page_024.jpg
2c2613e9ed5b42510575ea3639dec77a
a1d3b7b580c3ad48bc8599bb54340ed1a60f7e42
20217 F20110221_AAAGEP youngentob_k_Page_007.jpg
46989e66f87b5859ab91a77265c06d7c
cec5de178cfca9700adc82dea92d3d888f9d69a4
1876 F20110221_AAAFZJ youngentob_k_Page_066.txt
d76faec2234d1f9aa5e01046cb0f2ba4
d096c6eed6eb63a4f4cc7bc9abba32aeffd1b46f
2007 F20110221_AAAFYV youngentob_k_Page_047.txt
66b268155185683cad1317c67aab38af
142787a010dd6bbfd309deea6919e9a5af322670
33322 F20110221_AAAGFE youngentob_k_Page_025.jpg
2fad6444466a58de424a476aaf5cb493
df24eb88088662a36316f8b10f4dee33e8083209
99601 F20110221_AAAGEQ youngentob_k_Page_008.jpg
004d5e1ba743be8ceb5e0399f7fe3d8e
0ee65a01d9c4f49de094589f2b534d044c3af0d7
1831 F20110221_AAAFZK youngentob_k_Page_067.txt
ed52318f3bf588b81bf38504ac6d084a
7b3068f6c2b1220d991eb682da6981112f71cc0e
F20110221_AAAFYW youngentob_k_Page_048.txt
0fda37cc43de15bc6786d4d098724b9c
d53d66eea6e20f306b6103376a28eeb6083230e7
86939 F20110221_AAAGER youngentob_k_Page_009.jpg
bee6d9208a9feb4b1d8e36e3e10afe4c
7811e603d5f75424dda8f00fa91996174d90d9ba
2924 F20110221_AAAFZL youngentob_k_Page_068.txt
a0f1d63660d67e33b67a54a8d52ca7b7
ae901fcfe5ecb132ddd34adf7cb55f7487eaf958
2021 F20110221_AAAFYX youngentob_k_Page_049.txt
5d5a18570509730430eb1cd45ace1311
b6611fed07bedf8ed881348393fb50728b369ebf
102271 F20110221_AAAGFF youngentob_k_Page_027.jpg
39e26c874679038a4e9ca25d4ff006de
372bc13e5eecb0240c8701f66f6b9447f6af8d1a
100254 F20110221_AAAGES youngentob_k_Page_010.jpg
f01fa5bfa53131f7a63b10ae1137cd60
97f9ef3693b1c22035f11404ccae6e23fafbe41e
F20110221_AAAFZM youngentob_k_Page_069.txt
d584631d2d480b2f80b363c3452cd0df
78038b0bbc7f63403aad231969bf74cf12ae83b1
1986 F20110221_AAAFYY youngentob_k_Page_051.txt
e2627b67c99fb4dd8e1cdc506ecdcf38
1948d181e10118aee36e0a474832c875af544e3d
104874 F20110221_AAAGFG youngentob_k_Page_029.jpg
5497491a4d25727f9a117d66a2688715
06d857e76880696a09fc5f9c2b473ec6babc604c
100472 F20110221_AAAGET youngentob_k_Page_013.jpg
d3f493d4674e766f481db8d5743c6d36
4449f15521cca4351756f72c0b2d7a3eecae9081
1839 F20110221_AAAFZN youngentob_k_Page_070.txt
786a741c4131f7115398235369e4920a
f77b254ffbfb9f112205f36c92abe6279bc81153
99079 F20110221_AAAGFH youngentob_k_Page_030.jpg
fc139275daccbe1779b847ad1513ef16
f57786f0a6172a45a8cedf4915cea40f5432ed05
100228 F20110221_AAAGEU youngentob_k_Page_014.jpg
46f38353e5fb5c0bcaebc218388d9d7f
818eaf66d4090e5d75eb85579debdc06ee578bd2
2562 F20110221_AAAFZO youngentob_k_Page_071.txt
0337aedc344f472703dbb99fee38e445
133629fc8737e8b944d62bc3cbcd5162dfff324a
2074 F20110221_AAAFYZ youngentob_k_Page_053.txt
526e8436716727d041add94cac835fdc
f735925e13fb16056f8d69765355edc54410adc4
95209 F20110221_AAAGFI youngentob_k_Page_032.jpg
e2b2bd81d13a059923b5b7573e209768
f43d200382377b09802a1f5c70394deae1abc83e
99389 F20110221_AAAGEV youngentob_k_Page_015.jpg
03a5bbece4e4547df77d4b26fd955bca
bbcde452b2e381d4f2ac553d1538432e656ac4bb
2771 F20110221_AAAFZP youngentob_k_Page_073.txt
fc862c522c598f959f9745239949d93a
6982faa15cb0ae8ca53e86fbeb00e610d8f78cb8
102844 F20110221_AAAGFJ youngentob_k_Page_034.jpg
10d2964571774dd87416c1179a0a5c23
4bfb47821cabb48c5e48fb888c1166b1f42bfe1b
107417 F20110221_AAAGEW youngentob_k_Page_016.jpg
bec96af6bc13251c669221945bf86ae6
6e76b91b10d5e0d5e202525c151199ca7656a5d5
1713 F20110221_AAAFZQ youngentob_k_Page_074.txt
1cf16b50a5ad6c77c90f17630c8de37d
7fb0b2306774487b61cabf9384aed1ceb03c089d
100592 F20110221_AAAGFK youngentob_k_Page_037.jpg
876fc28a583f932be55bb46441506e87
9b7d12f8c7af80754507da9bdc0e23f411ea7eeb
100208 F20110221_AAAGEX youngentob_k_Page_017.jpg
8c5ebbfb55034dc48ff65d3aa46239d6
511b3113880b07e278371c89816b0c1c4a5ae0cb
1880 F20110221_AAAFZR youngentob_k_Page_075.txt
16d7a1f8271c6196249eccaf04098d64
c34aa87102122b0f35bad9ee059fca0aa2954840
71586 F20110221_AAAGGA youngentob_k_Page_058.jpg
8b8b1b498d7be2ba69a99d5b98d0a128
a74b85c01d1dd70f68c95ab6edb20030a893b5f6
87002 F20110221_AAAGFL youngentob_k_Page_038.jpg
1659ed68709437da68fdaf647d0c2765
401fc4a532ea3b3000f11ee2a63307a3a6213de3
106151 F20110221_AAAGEY youngentob_k_Page_018.jpg
7470c2a9b83ec4a13d2eaf4a7a2914b6
311392927c735c0fb907a7fe3867a787191cf378
2048 F20110221_AAAFZS youngentob_k_Page_076.txt
f54191721736ffab8e2e60498a4959c3
f48a996ed67e5bab24cf7843175e2dfc00ade1b8
92728 F20110221_AAAGGB youngentob_k_Page_059.jpg
73aace91ba3a044128177964c4ee99ba
629357e7d9b395aabb0d5345b253064bc76ef495
109865 F20110221_AAAGFM youngentob_k_Page_039.jpg
67764b518ca673ae178a33f44f1f8d5e
a4e9e4b6ea6b831eba83a75c1e1733ff02e5c889
86270 F20110221_AAAGEZ youngentob_k_Page_019.jpg
740cebe42c723543918e153ea54cec33
3783702ed56c79ea1f3fe5221f98aba497ffdb88
1863 F20110221_AAAFZT youngentob_k_Page_077.txt
4e365bcff572cd53143832b27fb71d25
4b7ee287367834141b998736fd172d61cfccda57
101878 F20110221_AAAGGC youngentob_k_Page_060.jpg
f9d001f175fc5aee4f2d6915d63e1989
4f4e2f18aae74201b30a11ceca9e56e7085a5e45
87006 F20110221_AAAGFN youngentob_k_Page_040.jpg
999d8a45d3d6e5484c73ee77fa204dac
a6ca238d24cb1504a2c8982f7804b7c75647628b
F20110221_AAAFZU youngentob_k_Page_078.txt
061ab98e8e10f1762c14b13e71dec952
f67ffd0a04bd3e88bc59e4ec31401cc5cfff0e2f
101917 F20110221_AAAGGD youngentob_k_Page_061.jpg
4fa036355bf0f07a8bb1ca0f32c4f90f
9507b9d91e6bd320cfda2124343e9b0336463722
107504 F20110221_AAAGFO youngentob_k_Page_042.jpg
4a154d79f5e4f9d12d74d6bc1c7b27cb
02eae49b8176842007a0bbfe4e43777bb061fb52
1830 F20110221_AAAFZV youngentob_k_Page_079.txt
2c7df41d8a17a5f49bcbc3a2d6e49ffc
b94d21cee58f849b87e5fa2c59fe45a0ab180d7f
101539 F20110221_AAAGGE youngentob_k_Page_062.jpg
4dea00af58d8426e91ddffae9534480e
e725ddb4ba52c41430e86f3376b04a5d21a7c155
87632 F20110221_AAAGFP youngentob_k_Page_043.jpg
40d05934478d125875b611d51e75e9e1
d665fb47ce149f5127e12a7ace9be0d317174e2b
F20110221_AAAFZW youngentob_k_Page_081.txt
6f4a310afd9d655ecd38d93bf2031c8e
6229ca48dff6994adde510e3327d4668046710d1
101158 F20110221_AAAGGF youngentob_k_Page_063.jpg
66a5e16b58b787c3e7a0eb3d957e222a
1d8b112575d416b6f2210da5068eb579015da08a
110533 F20110221_AAAGFQ youngentob_k_Page_044.jpg
93d9c18ae63dbacdf5d603c28eed82f4
37d67cb2dbcaa31f5231cf19a8e0a44c366a1b73
2019 F20110221_AAAFZX youngentob_k_Page_082.txt
d3d989fc66dfdfe2d7dcaa55b7143ee6
ac4e18b1c1fdf26f4949a904833fa3c374baced7
107443 F20110221_AAAGFR youngentob_k_Page_045.jpg
bafbb18b697238eb27cd55fd187a44a8
d4a896194e6a40c3f6e1e617e7b06ce11571d52e
1174 F20110221_AAAFZY youngentob_k_Page_084.txt
9b721d37793703054a61589530aef965
d73af454b169b3fac70413f9e8cb4120d066222e
100187 F20110221_AAAGGG youngentob_k_Page_064.jpg
2ba1b9329234d8cd9e4096d27d900bbe
2e622cf4ded922ce611e6e1a5daa681ff4052155
102215 F20110221_AAAGFS youngentob_k_Page_046.jpg
1dcc14658fcc7d9aafd9a2c5997aa345
dd03b13ce597b5958fe457f6897f96c36ad7a7c6
439 F20110221_AAAFZZ youngentob_k_Page_085.txt
4c901adf8df218851c7bab066e54d54f
96d30aef109e0bfbd5858ef8537813f5a7e1ca14
92175 F20110221_AAAGGH youngentob_k_Page_065.jpg
776b00db1fb976efee9e5bebaeef3492
0ad16b963a27bc14c99c48436b15238e4910e7a4
102223 F20110221_AAAGFT youngentob_k_Page_047.jpg
af11ffa89fc6bd3bff278f1a78cb04f3
925399314b6b36233317a5741625804563da716f
92403 F20110221_AAAGGI youngentob_k_Page_067.jpg
d1cae06b9275e2a67d04e2140399e84e
fd14620700f917af17769c334aa00c198c5783bc
100038 F20110221_AAAGFU youngentob_k_Page_048.jpg
2abe8cab3d178a6136ba6e6763e5fe93
290fea64a7a605fa8e7c92935230abdc09bd424c
97933 F20110221_AAAGGJ youngentob_k_Page_068.jpg
3a6f76049ab2789e346a864c98f24f43
e94bded237220b6b08f67c5cbd569f4e64095b77
105119 F20110221_AAAGFV youngentob_k_Page_049.jpg
5105953eccac535d23c19a71f914da03
c7c6192813d2f58bb71c331510f2210678761680
85878 F20110221_AAAGGK youngentob_k_Page_070.jpg
2e412d5a71a75c161ed35a0266846097
ab00c6ae5bb52d5f7e738133ccb576492f2b93b3
101736 F20110221_AAAGFW youngentob_k_Page_051.jpg
e2faeca69237ba9fb93666d91c7a3239
61169164e244dd8ec14553c012125c2bb0689f85
79802 F20110221_AAAGHA youngentob_k_Page_091.jpg
ab25c723c18efaeff80225f63dbd9745
848b6d9b0fc1731a408d86a43af47dfc9326de66
90833 F20110221_AAAGGL youngentob_k_Page_071.jpg
8d73a18e1a6f644730d3ab851f5c9a15
7baee72a2c86a46e0b0cd22fce46b6d68beefede
108024 F20110221_AAAGFX youngentob_k_Page_053.jpg
ee6edabb8c928ecdff0a12dffd3fba3a
3e76e25c510e522292e46ecc22ea9c82e1e9404e
66972 F20110221_AAAGHB youngentob_k_Page_093.jpg
de3776a77106b7147cca8f8969d4deb5
e2820debfe71409c92bc188ec9c7bf26a481ae10
85285 F20110221_AAAGGM youngentob_k_Page_074.jpg
225b59b35db867202b640991ec96c708
c15743abf984fa8c634ffe1c420b1457524c7030
100253 F20110221_AAAGFY youngentob_k_Page_055.jpg
1f6231c484779a8833bbfec52563ad90
2083c3d87c44f494b443aeb743af9079f99dcbc4
68664 F20110221_AAAGHC youngentob_k_Page_094.jpg
e913bb8c77871cf2d06a871319b3ed27
5fdf012040d7d8c3956af6bfda32c1a76a8256b0
106160 F20110221_AAAGGN youngentob_k_Page_076.jpg
fc4b60608b9464368a791a3b8e2605c3
6ef78050486d611d0c7dba8cfe9e03a19c1a09d4
102428 F20110221_AAAGFZ youngentob_k_Page_057.jpg
cfaf8a4784297b252c0fcf8911080283
6609effd8170b3df4a0a9b8e7332d61379870158
29596 F20110221_AAAGHD youngentob_k_Page_095.jpg
4074f232edf83e77235ac20a7807e498
2897f5a5da5031a5bab9f16ded3f8a39972b888f
95977 F20110221_AAAGGO youngentob_k_Page_077.jpg
05266486c2ed8981c4b036a6a75589bd
288e3b0afdcf6002583b4a6f3a8c83671e4d14df
42128 F20110221_AAAGHE youngentob_k_Page_096.jpg
a48ef7abf60d9ae9ce35c82a17a9feef
3bb4e9f0c40462c9de2573ae7d931cae9244f260
103087 F20110221_AAAGGP youngentob_k_Page_078.jpg
03927932a99fa3d5fb391f1d1e2f68f5
cba1e1cd641fceb58c0fbaf13ce261c6d3d519bd
30154 F20110221_AAAGHF youngentob_k_Page_097.jpg
0a105f69d7b481ae2887ee2a47920eaa
8dc4c26647745617d8de3f4cfc3fe8f76189d014
95307 F20110221_AAAGGQ youngentob_k_Page_080.jpg
8b4231bbb06adeacbad94c3dce8b17c2
b523fcd43ea42e2e958f062379f6528176650558
8765 F20110221_AAAGHG youngentob_k_Page_098.jpg
08ba254d75a9215d1a4bd9adf47f5a77
4c1f13b86273e9ec11ecc55824f5f9e2823ed80a
104296 F20110221_AAAGGR youngentob_k_Page_081.jpg
0c30fc3b9c0519b509957cf97055d5ac
e2ea4a46f14f66da168d9ac29846a26af1cea80b
101985 F20110221_AAAGGS youngentob_k_Page_083.jpg
60bc721832d94762f4f14cab77afc8e6
e2efca1613c5aa0b383ba463424a2071a8132f50
15402 F20110221_AAAGHH youngentob_k_Page_099.jpg
49f04814a7379ff280e06b97f9168a44
ad998145930d3e33aef7ad5b23cdc7480284168a
62911 F20110221_AAAGGT youngentob_k_Page_084.jpg
6f67be0b9a4cb1e96e4172f8d1b0a1bf
f1b970df0ebae27c7b7ac574a29f71e9ee45be26
83151 F20110221_AAAGHI youngentob_k_Page_100.jpg
c9fddc92a5cd18050da35e1ace09f4a7
0e3e8ffb8c92ce515f73b4f73cb4ef3a125df972
22211 F20110221_AAAGGU youngentob_k_Page_085.jpg
f82bf6884c51e5e7d09134bf040fd350
a47f01a1d9a3bde71b3c03204f520a46f51a5530
120457 F20110221_AAAGHJ youngentob_k_Page_101.jpg
68ce7195fc77527d1c8060dc44820ffb
54fd1f90c548aa38e7a1b0b962dfe97749751534
60748 F20110221_AAAGGV youngentob_k_Page_086.jpg
3d159542f198df3b607758e8262f6058
95ecc5f6e8484717e70f4e948d50db717e3b91fd
104759 F20110221_AAAGHK youngentob_k_Page_102.jpg
0545cacb51f001d6740f216e1a957e00
6e52f93d850dd428f4603dfef344ee4cdf8af644
72451 F20110221_AAAGGW youngentob_k_Page_087.jpg
a68c15f374ed1296769e01e818fdad13
62608dbef658b96263ca1c73f5d5dd46df94c662
146251 F20110221_AAAGHL youngentob_k_Page_103.jpg
de3fe82a45b5336a052f2a7102b88971
bef0f9c6175b03af5c930ec0b2302333e02b1c4c
69711 F20110221_AAAGGX youngentob_k_Page_088.jpg
5a39b7fc12afbbc923cce42553601653
3de416a4580b0f82c3d343864c14c6238666ec3a
120529 F20110221_AAAGIA youngentob_k_Page_121.jpg
37e26d5d9b2290e686166b46bb65e9d7
9ab736ac3aca581c20fe6ed01d37eed3520f6f71
67977 F20110221_AAAGHM youngentob_k_Page_105.jpg
7257866cc37e984c2cdc7684df563287
c3d3d06d4ebf303623bfe8e72dd2cfe200987e06
68276 F20110221_AAAGGY youngentob_k_Page_089.jpg
06fbac0ffc070d03fe3def70dd0580cd
19ab2fd15baf45704281df26a0f82b5e729041d9
125069 F20110221_AAAGIB youngentob_k_Page_122.jpg
5db602d4bf777aa557c44b4febc6553c
908b9534a464fcbb82dbbcb5e990c5148d81bf99
91437 F20110221_AAAGHN youngentob_k_Page_106.jpg
013c151b8c2f7e508b268e576d0ebb0d
48333f2c91c06eed761fb7213edd9c7eb0ae4900
71886 F20110221_AAAGGZ youngentob_k_Page_090.jpg
cc25049b03f0186b93d5e580cd2dfcee
c7627a92540fc6f7fc9885b4c73d64873b963652
288924 F20110221_AAAGIC youngentob_k_Page_001.jp2
4bb47e015ca33e349669cd7195c548b0
07f3f737754ac15e69e91f19e884121b6fe9c427
37576 F20110221_AAAGHO youngentob_k_Page_107.jpg
ceeecb8c5cdc257eea86acd1ada3566e
9ba8c4a3034238221742e238a945ce1a4c4c9235
27933 F20110221_AAAGID youngentob_k_Page_002.jp2
5b35cef49ae8ad6dc494813279281f19
2603b2a1824d401de8c01452d89a5234983f63b5
58645 F20110221_AAAGHP youngentob_k_Page_110.jpg
4dad3d21e5002174e9f1ce54d331fb52
3b0cde82246ef00f571a3df0655aadf66c12bf68
27093 F20110221_AAAGIE youngentob_k_Page_003.jp2
1a7870511cfe2528f2418110a4bb73c3
b713dbf7560e90820cf4e71484f13b7c5bfd3d8c
89939 F20110221_AAAGHQ youngentob_k_Page_111.jpg
9ed15b560143f127499340850081467e
26312810d23475d07c7d0202ed526977e9362ba4
202223 F20110221_AAAGIF youngentob_k_Page_004.jp2
f5ab5fb319d50219beaa77e798b74704
789854fe02fe786a4c9cebd790ffc3c212a667b8
875313 F20110221_AAAGIG youngentob_k_Page_005.jp2
114bbc372eb3f351b7df46978ad1b590
2b9cb9fcd0b21ed703551edb3af354057ddd44e9
92960 F20110221_AAAGHR youngentob_k_Page_112.jpg
b844404142d0527aed2a087ba93ed355
2a6144c818378d165011e9fbdf07b1cf00557ff5
178981 F20110221_AAAGIH youngentob_k_Page_007.jp2
6d464bc9d9c496d498d95fd68eed0af0
792d37740000cfe35f540da3db1124d66c381372
69520 F20110221_AAAGHS youngentob_k_Page_113.jpg
fffd287802c7389f74f3f8ebf2ae83a7
9fcd6d76e07dd635f24b04bcb04b8000b255609a
91713 F20110221_AAAGHT youngentob_k_Page_114.jpg
052df5f9f2dc76268f24690d97f23d93
8af0b6eedb9db981b7354662092f0201cc707b2d
1051882 F20110221_AAAGII youngentob_k_Page_008.jp2
a6bb70865c8733d998e3acd97b7f6adf
05a6445296436cfadb88cbd2f70484a46283b8d7
71326 F20110221_AAAGHU youngentob_k_Page_115.jpg
ab6fb881448a9e1b2a0f24499515a804
421b87a9b1904ef3c93e98a7ae25110ab3262551
921304 F20110221_AAAGIJ youngentob_k_Page_009.jp2
dd185f5a23610e10baaa751d52e3a7e6
bdca7d4e4acaa37dd7531cbf795aca6c67399369
28527 F20110221_AAAGHV youngentob_k_Page_116.jpg
1b7a267e3fa0ecb909a9a79fe05a90e9
c9326ba73c4a43004ae44580ee340d117278e676
1051953 F20110221_AAAGIK youngentob_k_Page_010.jp2
c3246880d57e48efd0fceae1a0e04272
62720bb7480a7ae047fd6759de28fb7f22b836da
34333 F20110221_AAAGHW youngentob_k_Page_117.jpg
a6dab5f4eca5ff750d255a4a02ca94f4
345364f95230f5c0750ffb917e044292d2251073
1051980 F20110221_AAAGJA youngentob_k_Page_028.jp2
824faa3dfdb4849be14a41903a65fab4
4f3442d5d3b5429ceff109d0a505ebebc4b119ee
940765 F20110221_AAAGIL youngentob_k_Page_011.jp2
4ea53b8dbbadec0ac353badc6a032f70
d76252c94f6c1da1b5bb1d219a708a7ab77f74b4
94105 F20110221_AAAGHX youngentob_k_Page_118.jpg
236af763587e01dbde6d2eb0e6eea0d9
053398f45e7622209fbe9eb3b81be728490ff74f
1051982 F20110221_AAAGJB youngentob_k_Page_029.jp2
635f47e438caf21ed75ac943b487df79
be258a2a6c4f5445b44f2238cf457b0821ab5219
1051951 F20110221_AAAGIM youngentob_k_Page_012.jp2
536100a97891aec3f325d709793d7506
ab0100fb3d99f985bd0499f17a3585420afe2d0b
112319 F20110221_AAAGHY youngentob_k_Page_119.jpg
e8aae3a8030b1f0e72f25d7cbb46b053
73dac111c690846d67c6df4960ba9e708f4b947a
F20110221_AAAGJC youngentob_k_Page_030.jp2
40dfc439965e2694e7aa0d774133ad88
dee0310a30a713f639da3b8e90c0a3373582a54b
1051969 F20110221_AAAGIN youngentob_k_Page_013.jp2
e3e8dd8ad328adc5dc1d13c0a24d2db6
5b9f702d18baa3d1e216b141b5217ed56c3117b7
118485 F20110221_AAAGHZ youngentob_k_Page_120.jpg
22416f6609c6a21aeb5fbe7437e78e1b
d86b4f0f3883636179f81c2e64c401fbacb0fb22
1051959 F20110221_AAAGJD youngentob_k_Page_031.jp2
d076083739d66df204f8ff857ad9e749
9f6d650817f43ed6468887ac692ad02b4afa0a59
1051921 F20110221_AAAGIO youngentob_k_Page_014.jp2
eb95b5c1346edd2d078fc820cdad13d1
72e0693a7af72f8540967824371a09dbba024a37
1047035 F20110221_AAAGJE youngentob_k_Page_032.jp2
a30521db168e07c040ec521513248826
8f8aa02c27106438e52612885c83c6dc0252f951
1051952 F20110221_AAAGIP youngentob_k_Page_015.jp2
7128c55780c1137e00bbcf8ece686f21
bb23cb0aae8e6fc207847e1857e0ea2b69519b47
1051957 F20110221_AAAGJF youngentob_k_Page_033.jp2
a7d8ae9a61d0cae610f2af42d89fe764
abe42c1580d460e4e9c8fd29cf8f0e9c5994a767
1051965 F20110221_AAAGIQ youngentob_k_Page_016.jp2
a784c4390036f4b3a3d4f02ac2df48d7
d1aedbd4873335d05a5ba0b6159ceb33507ad974
1051984 F20110221_AAAGJG youngentob_k_Page_034.jp2
32da3d87d2000141eb488bad3964d5b2
8cdb77690021e036aa4c631388de3422666bc1b7
1051933 F20110221_AAAGIR youngentob_k_Page_017.jp2
88f1f1913b91da02acae9477b1833282
d939bdc0c73e3b65b7c27cced5c47279f875a57e
F20110221_AAAGJH youngentob_k_Page_035.jp2
8d65fe0e1b5dc143ea027c53c7e74853
b0f915aa3e09a1f4958337dda8818f460989e81d
1051958 F20110221_AAAGIS youngentob_k_Page_018.jp2
d8794982a62fb7b57e67891047331b37
95e01bbab4fc4bf3c812b4ba0e69961b2499d61f
1051985 F20110221_AAAGJI youngentob_k_Page_037.jp2
6fa0bd03d515b744090db51a35ae5a91
20e7c3a14b3c12d3d20c09dc1259a944b5aeca93
938800 F20110221_AAAGIT youngentob_k_Page_019.jp2
b51e9d26a68187d7289610abfa010e2a
d5ac99fe17f6ab50ac673fdb470e222f98aaf50c
1051877 F20110221_AAAGIU youngentob_k_Page_020.jp2
42ebf45c8cd9e617eaf3abd5453978bb
2c0a30d7de94a1d6558aa720b4a934e7be3fb094
949775 F20110221_AAAGJJ youngentob_k_Page_038.jp2
056fc8de731bfc6db0df6f65125f40d8
3e5b9f7ff40458955ffd8a3538dbdfe1f27fe2ef
1051922 F20110221_AAAGIV youngentob_k_Page_021.jp2
302699fdd3c07e7096087f5dd68bb7c9
6069f0d596f2559cea01a69a4da98bb7bf96fe3e
F20110221_AAAGJK youngentob_k_Page_039.jp2
2933c428850ca55ddb3b72930c2d5352
7b2400be9faf5f817108a73b16bb43c8315bb25f
1051963 F20110221_AAAGIW youngentob_k_Page_022.jp2
9e700b25218c7d188885784a9dfcacf1
c99a19b766d38566e86b60d7800ecc0f5191da69
1018164 F20110221_AAAGJL youngentob_k_Page_040.jp2
b6dc693fb3944133a2cadff525e5f7bc
b1aadc96e4f9c44cc72f6acfa23f3e8d0c257eb7
1051973 F20110221_AAAGIX youngentob_k_Page_023.jp2
9d21ace4fb82a0e80bb5b7f91233416d
6a7b49fed9c343cfdf21bea97e467f1c3b48884c
786259 F20110221_AAAGKA youngentob_k_Page_058.jp2
7d511742246c9eb44d9c9303f63f7a97
20755489a39b4dd46f5d69815a3858b5561f99dc
F20110221_AAAGJM youngentob_k_Page_041.jp2
bebffff75154646e88be9146523e1ff2
04f726ab6a82f9ff26eca1297b83169124358982
331895 F20110221_AAAGIY youngentob_k_Page_025.jp2
1d994c95791553833daa208a7e6b02e3
90dff811efebcf63a897fb84ca8ca5f0183e315f
998427 F20110221_AAAGKB youngentob_k_Page_059.jp2
710d88c31434a11694e739f66098d435
263abbf244735639020b91790a4df239dfa087c8
1051956 F20110221_AAAGJN youngentob_k_Page_042.jp2
39e045d6c1d2952e5643856b1d4c7219
d54d96eb96e63c37891324e7940fa6d247772baf
1051942 F20110221_AAAGIZ youngentob_k_Page_027.jp2
776f5ca44fa534487b1db0eb22ebb716
f4615c96c8fa08b3d71493b36727274d118cae4d
F20110221_AAAGKC youngentob_k_Page_060.jp2
76c7daf04f0c350b6ff4166c1c2ee595
0131c8e7bb3f1aa6f62d0327d4335d3f7d9e4c58
938589 F20110221_AAAGJO youngentob_k_Page_043.jp2
7d7e0525ab1763acfa3b9bf2b7242bbb
208bf8c773e262281ea5ba584266cb3b64ab5b94
1051944 F20110221_AAAGKD youngentob_k_Page_061.jp2
ca2235be4537471462cbb0af53052f2e
b4c8226dec267dacd353adb41c6b3d46ea3cd3cf
F20110221_AAAGJP youngentob_k_Page_044.jp2
281269cb03d92f9bb4fb925da94c8392
d54c263e315f7f6cf1745c8db21faad9c66236c1
1051970 F20110221_AAAGKE youngentob_k_Page_062.jp2
1e0e07081a0d8d773d70b2ca54c235fa
fe937bf5db7490ad2640cf19231a2e272e1c6484
1051916 F20110221_AAAGJQ youngentob_k_Page_045.jp2
fddbb75ef52ac0cc79bbabcba4664788
d87c1ac73c022ed8e4a0f5dc1c981d49939980aa
F20110221_AAAGKF youngentob_k_Page_063.jp2
3815d466cab5fee385a8ea476e76fe1a
959ec6946dddd42d4a6d048485de0c1833fc630c
F20110221_AAAGJR youngentob_k_Page_046.jp2
c56cb1e61e0d669b5c3420c7c381e410
c9527eaa70ac2713a32f1fa5fcad284d065b97e2
F20110221_AAAGKG youngentob_k_Page_064.jp2
f5401f39a45410f566d4666ec418a987
a7fc3dd7a946253f829441fbbef96bb85b5eab0c
F20110221_AAAGJS youngentob_k_Page_047.jp2
f468ea4e4f1a0ab645a4304fdf559dba
24843f048e5b0afe9301121ffa6b63441089ad4b
995677 F20110221_AAAGKH youngentob_k_Page_065.jp2
70a02111dfc6a3e277a83cead5154a19
5bcb3a9d6a289113ab43a4aad1a2faf2b7bb171e
1051974 F20110221_AAAGJT youngentob_k_Page_048.jp2
297945c2246cb5a797f4b2e89b275666
dda4dab329e1c8f16b419b8b56bcffd7ea5ad5d8
F20110221_AAAGKI youngentob_k_Page_066.jp2
476c21b4df644fd956a0a22a2b72040f
ada0555584a3cd02ab32731bc5877a164aa1d040
F20110221_AAAGJU youngentob_k_Page_049.jp2
495e4c4454d792b0808038720ddc93ff
bf5bb6f3b02a62ce2528dcd10ccf29576cb3bd19
F20110221_AAAGKJ youngentob_k_Page_068.jp2
cfc857c06fcd759d7d2cb4615744eeed
8617a71b4bf1c3313a33322fc0b59f3187c1b991
F20110221_AAAGJV youngentob_k_Page_051.jp2
9f65d26097f1f63359e161c7743589d8
52b2f02f6cfb8e37cf7df5b221b0f3fbc568de94
1051900 F20110221_AAAGJW youngentob_k_Page_052.jp2
a89cd63545e8aa32c238b08999aa471e
5b7505cefd29bcd13e49281cccc69942715b05f3
931699 F20110221_AAAGKK youngentob_k_Page_069.jp2
db2edf98943baa4edd8fdbb47b37276c
2108464e5be53f4670d21fe622737813faf27005
1051936 F20110221_AAAGJX youngentob_k_Page_053.jp2
1a07ebc748b1b377a991719be8b27761
75e909cf19bb8a8a1aa8572aaaa7093920b21646
734489 F20110221_AAAGLA youngentob_k_Page_089.jp2
cfb60bb430e273cabaf94768a4c21ffe
d197aaff377d28d3034ffbe21386b63b379391c4
992140 F20110221_AAAGKL youngentob_k_Page_071.jp2
2d5aead02fe428163f480ab5477f4654
1f6f8cc074651496f154f657c017c9cf5d865300
F20110221_AAAGJY youngentob_k_Page_055.jp2
3996ed015d55d12640239809c77073fc
dc38815d726a8f84ec84702fff97da094d2d609c
732126 F20110221_AAAGLB youngentob_k_Page_090.jp2
ff5951bd9f34e31bb816b775a5645dbd
79793142f3af7a8b843397f0f01be38c0983d861
1041757 F20110221_AAAGKM youngentob_k_Page_072.jp2
040d28dc43cb28b30a423ba630291b41
8c390fc032bc3979bc1f63e3b41eefdfca7c10c4
F20110221_AAAGJZ youngentob_k_Page_057.jp2
918fe5c5247632a03c5644f500a9321e
a50ec381bb756fbc994fd20854d9ccd16cfc1d5c
643431 F20110221_AAAGLC youngentob_k_Page_092.jp2
ed936703b646e6f6ca46b07d01e18758
1158982d7c02159e36c57b356ef72a9452477758
F20110221_AAAGKN youngentob_k_Page_073.jp2
22b5f520f3fa923a634def21e131ac17
637b67b8ffa9dc701097720ff8a683f4d7cdb7fe
693951 F20110221_AAAGLD youngentob_k_Page_093.jp2
47f5b91a84c21cd1059b372b4a2c0691
d4abb87aafbd277d05794a6a6fd3232c696b3eda
930668 F20110221_AAAGKO youngentob_k_Page_074.jp2
fc416dee4e4ad174cf073cde46baec97
5ad00a63bc9f5c995b164c359b20be7b90a46aa2
393004 F20110221_AAAGLE youngentob_k_Page_096.jp2
86070019e3e0ddc2f75c41b711bb44a3
f66299c109694f801aedae0a72e5eb115117982e
F20110221_AAAGKP youngentob_k_Page_075.jp2
9addbfec63cd3ef0034563bbef88ba88
b519894a8afe78f98637049a9fcf7086ee1bb81b
295810 F20110221_AAAGLF youngentob_k_Page_097.jp2
1af3efd508ee3832e4f349225d78918d
312406975f55d97babf7185579211e02332dd71d
1051955 F20110221_AAAGKQ youngentob_k_Page_076.jp2
e1124686e66b2ed340adf7632df951c9
24f54ad1dc750f36bb870678b266926eab0858e7
910697 F20110221_AAAGLG youngentob_k_Page_100.jp2
eec7e79131f1545015d7b21ca26c1880
873ca838d62078cb3eeb6e8e83c20538f042109a
1051976 F20110221_AAAGKR youngentob_k_Page_077.jp2
8a68df243033bf2fd1cdad384f59e6fa
58c29a8be0137e7ce9c6bb180a5ec56a7d7d6f76
F20110221_AAAGLH youngentob_k_Page_101.jp2
1e11bc5f8cf2524a48ce9001aafee4f2
0ae9791ea6149b4d997e51c51cd2eb5dabe8c2b2
1037951 F20110221_AAAGKS youngentob_k_Page_080.jp2
131dd7c36a093288915f65e1acf187be
9a9f536815e1f98f314ce393ac24b868caa45cd5
1051986 F20110221_AAAGLI youngentob_k_Page_103.jp2
16c3c249f48de9d20c722b4c5661218e
86e933ea79ba0a2c24ee8b1dce701cfe1856f899
F20110221_AAAGKT youngentob_k_Page_082.jp2
168d27d23d4e03199d8b3c8ebbd79f9d
8ce8ae6d7196d91edc1953aff962f31d45a685ce
77977 F20110221_AAAGLJ youngentob_k_Page_104.jp2
ac375afb79897977ff27bc40d7458d3f
72fbe6668429477d4e3981a75997ec0c125e266e
F20110221_AAAGKU youngentob_k_Page_083.jp2
23d99412c35ddae0c056ed277c854f11
605e29deea16d4dae5cbe16a0785462f3e3487e5
383482 F20110221_AAAGLK youngentob_k_Page_107.jp2
a6d7505bda38fb0999108cb848cec234
c8027d16c38f63487b7304a50de7a00662b0c017
669644 F20110221_AAAGKV youngentob_k_Page_084.jp2
11075a69e04791e20edd055a1f88826d
83a6e478a391a328e85f809095c217bc7ce00fbd
206597 F20110221_AAAGKW youngentob_k_Page_085.jp2
fbf9bff8ff2c8ad294d75d6e7662b88f
78e33db02dc431e46ad6c30a5c8871c0f9299931
30742 F20110221_AAAGMA youngentob_k_Page_067.QC.jpg
4983f039ddfb8939af4bc1920868110a
c9229837ad62a86658304525ccbfcf27f0af6350
860344 F20110221_AAAGLL youngentob_k_Page_108.jp2
f173757035f36cfa77f93d3f463a6cbb
49125616f5c0c28851c4ee541d8daad024b3d5b5
535060 F20110221_AAAGKX youngentob_k_Page_086.jp2
4cc34bd14a2b049d3d3a68bb940393c1
37b2b3466ec9bfa671992b32397ebade069870d5
4027 F20110221_AAAGMB youngentob_k_Page_096thm.jpg
64d861939e239ccf30f6bd9afdbed20a
c175e6a62a69f1610ff9dc934b162468c9db3180
671882 F20110221_AAAGLM youngentob_k_Page_109.jp2
07b9718c686fa469adcd3909ec26ee4c
50b5a87f0c7d1459cb2dbe9aa8b94b66de3dd029
705919 F20110221_AAAGKY youngentob_k_Page_087.jp2
c2aa1d8aad105c339dadc6952928fc05
51739befa0af357f705084c47bbcf2580df7dc31
3234 F20110221_AAAGMC youngentob_k_Page_095thm.jpg
d3c733848a472e2b29a476c974ca1cdd
91e6036505d4ebde1f4a803ac1cef3b890059d66
1004566 F20110221_AAAGLN youngentob_k_Page_112.jp2
8cd058c2c2c03331a486ed9d5173203c
9b50520b15990668bf95fd2b05a0997367358c45
716790 F20110221_AAAGKZ youngentob_k_Page_088.jp2
8a72c2bcc28f1975a8da102d06d6199c
ecf6910ec637f9cd0eca4fafb6f242910508e445
9108 F20110221_AAAGMD youngentob_k_Page_116.QC.jpg
505ef03d7a1611b45934919ac3457f1f
54ac69db8818ae149b5ce265be23f7d6a9bb5168
740818 F20110221_AAAGLO youngentob_k_Page_113.jp2
eae51e19acfaa99acac4e3cb5cb2f72e
529c29d2dd6d55429cb315447aedb61ff1517eb9
7562 F20110221_AAAGME youngentob_k_Page_065thm.jpg
3ad0fc0df6e7bfc3313b8c7078dea861
f9f7960d832aee29f7e0ac4ba866cd3ccfb183bd
1035139 F20110221_AAAGLP youngentob_k_Page_114.jp2
0ccfe4ed86a958ab4ce0805765ace5ad
8a27e434785958b9f8e788db22b5ef677a5be701
6247 F20110221_AAAGMF youngentob_k_Page_088thm.jpg
7fd06f517c993ba6623c45f2c8a4c8ba
6684ff7832f806886f186e33e84b42582f0f513f
283687 F20110221_AAAGLQ youngentob_k_Page_116.jp2
065f5e2492fa28544452e02a6b840f4f
f0dfefb76b8a5f76c040aeaf6d26628075519de9
8020 F20110221_AAAGMG youngentob_k_Page_013thm.jpg
0bee80a6b35ce5de3e1507bd2cab297f
d528d9039afa6afc977bb36a026ec8e20a22b4ac
343648 F20110221_AAAGLR youngentob_k_Page_117.jp2
34449dac5db48ab98a0828c9c8e88433
c6d95f93b97f555b386a40a6d5b0173e63134329
5090 F20110221_AAAGMH youngentob_k_Page_084thm.jpg
6a6515a9cc8a9e173553af8e8054717c
285a4bd20414d1ae6b379df82049e0c3ffb79c2b
F20110221_AAAGLS youngentob_k_Page_119.jp2
412b880d0c5a4bcf910a8998138debcf
d812d12f441e54c0e119bfbb7630203304ba3ad1
8267 F20110221_AAAGMI youngentob_k_Page_018thm.jpg
9ca5832f51ce64f33fae751a03acb7d2
0269ef3d3a7778b88e248d8aaba1fc8468d1f73b
1051934 F20110221_AAAGLT youngentob_k_Page_120.jp2
c3c3dfaac8a57308c5571cfbe852a472
ee6fe19accb118a449e79149907dcbee3945ee47
6415 F20110221_AAAGMJ youngentob_k_Page_087thm.jpg
5aab3a1d0fde7dc8b12692656c922524
8c24a1a96316306265da2f7a5ca1e15f679bc484
1051939 F20110221_AAAGLU youngentob_k_Page_121.jp2
443b91f573965bc7f3fc75845e3b7940
b5e17aa3390e9fdcf5c5213e0f22c9ab6987d6e0
31173 F20110221_AAAGMK youngentob_k_Page_077.QC.jpg
bd4d000a1d1dfd34d23053ecb93af547
45c0f54e0a16ce643dba392b49f7eeb69e9e0e90
F20110221_AAAGLV youngentob_k_Page_122.jp2
be866779e787217f966a64fab9f70b99
07699dce3a656f3b1bc2010279622dcc8e714327
18338 F20110221_AAAGML youngentob_k_Page_124.QC.jpg
b776731f2306a6f9f819d36358de04c4
641088501cbda2cf289901a7b19b613d1a77a6b4
427306 F20110221_AAAGLW youngentob_k_Page_123.jp2
f016c92409aece1dfacb746374317336
b4b0a1d4beb9cbc128b7a75c35f50b856ad7a0e9
594510 F20110221_AAAGLX youngentob_k_Page_124.jp2
a68d790f30ad87b1ab5d186c8cf31904
d7311443f05180bb54f519b7f148de283bcdaba0
37111 F20110221_AAAGNA youngentob_k_Page_103.QC.jpg
9e285426af5574a225fcaffd72a7a954
7d71f572954095c4a80bd447e6f24b4b7be08ca0
8032 F20110221_AAAGMM youngentob_k_Page_077thm.jpg
6c19b0165058917aa0b472661d5a3635
1968bbe8df3255deb5fb4c4f3a9ef0ecabff4e82
483578 F20110221_AAAGLY youngentob_k.pdf
bbdc0858a0d64f0b5d308ce92d429bf6
6cb407b3e59f243ae07f0638397f22fe5681e2ea
20196 F20110221_AAAGNB youngentob_k_Page_005.QC.jpg
8a4f07de3853a7bc0a0fea153645dbe1
bf1f4b50a32a5e0168db25d3edbe4ac283f54290
8284 F20110221_AAAGMN youngentob_k_Page_023thm.jpg
b3ff7c78fd45d2273e5769562b81ce2d
33befdc363b514e52b6e7649b7b3023a54ba6d92
28089 F20110221_AAAGLZ youngentob_k_Page_114.QC.jpg
773044697960bada891489a8adea57e8
b8a0d0201e9be3170a74583d19c6969c436825e9
5987 F20110221_AAAGNC youngentob_k_Page_092thm.jpg
968aa84ddff10b4e59e69222dcf8d894
5dbba07e34e266b1687b1e489863b365dfdaf8cb
32460 F20110221_AAAGND youngentob_k_Page_022.QC.jpg
12586695579509fcb80342bd031b8061
10b4a07428d817c277817defae9c11a0c4556897
8088 F20110221_AAAGMO youngentob_k_Page_031thm.jpg
10199783b9a3c2fab64e02e703712fff
a1d33918eb02f605d59c4e30517365b7764210ae
8221 F20110221_AAAGNE youngentob_k_Page_060thm.jpg
790ecff1d8253875acc1cd3df2e509b6
ff9545edd146ca92f67bee883c72f28af7d8f711
32627 F20110221_AAAGMP youngentob_k_Page_039.QC.jpg
dca4d44c993c4c2a078e6465501f74a0
f45693a8fa8cebb818ddbb7645dd5c4ec8676163
34225 F20110221_AAAGNF youngentob_k_Page_020.QC.jpg
ead95417d535b38156998d29cc1081e4
6bd7c20b456ea208f757c9f335184f93409fdfb3
32310 F20110221_AAAGMQ youngentob_k_Page_017.QC.jpg
cb3c3d1b063b9ab66c0d5d077a08ff5e
a73a2a2433a204c6f650ba9dc395846a9585b9ca
2973 F20110221_AAAGNG youngentob_k_Page_123thm.jpg
df217ef86453880dc6964a75943a641b
b66f4bba0d9cde2df39791c8bf5901cb52513c01
36580 F20110221_AAAGMR youngentob_k_Page_122.QC.jpg
de8f0b3f3717244eefdc5d1f15f085f4
335ff976b8e77f1474b7789a00697fef09f71127
8093 F20110221_AAAGNH youngentob_k_Page_057thm.jpg
096b5d804f9dd0780398cbaa5a83630d
b62d8af70e8aa12b90454b61f676d497aaa84286
6659 F20110221_AAAGMS youngentob_k_Page_091thm.jpg
e3fa6e2f8157ed6002e0a305a2aa7ae7
6fd1522753e8de64c12d7f9636fd42b1f53b55fd
32746 F20110221_AAAGNI youngentob_k_Page_083.QC.jpg
63f9c17b84b2f57f52c96b601308f518
20ba028acd9404db8636ea6e7fc68c8dddd442c2
7939 F20110221_AAAGMT youngentob_k_Page_045thm.jpg
6558942223508dcaff8d549490592ca4
bc1bc3a3fc051235b375302dc068fa9b3f669752
28114 F20110221_AAAGNJ youngentob_k_Page_070.QC.jpg
56bb5f77bb059282ca7bb1497a3b5b23
35f0caa2d23c574a5d8e89cdb512c2571478d6b3
8396 F20110221_AAAGMU youngentob_k_Page_012thm.jpg
33153929c2f450aac91049f0e399e754
6a859af6aa6e7c0e1fea4513d5373975baf7f103
32552 F20110221_AAAGNK youngentob_k_Page_048.QC.jpg
b16d22ee25b6279e6d1a2d95790255f9
801634e06179ea031221bd8fe6d13a7ff6b9a813
7657 F20110221_AAAGMV youngentob_k_Page_067thm.jpg
0533afe908d2513f92001e482bfc83f9
876de6273a41b5202fac400f8192952b753b4083
8572 F20110221_AAAGNL youngentob_k_Page_121thm.jpg
80ff0ed5a5aa8ab15901ee6bb82b3cdc
01086a064d5b9c0ac550dfe4048c3aaed9a62289
F20110221_AAAGMW youngentob_k_Page_036thm.jpg
390cb3547fcaa7d85d1172cc7f91ed70
1b3322ea85964cae8c55d96319d0df446a1e7d65
10487 F20110221_AAAGOA youngentob_k_Page_097.QC.jpg
866be6f982a514cb0fc52b07e7607909
f7865f97bdac2b4f4e695740e30e269344ccf313
7747 F20110221_AAAGNM youngentob_k_Page_079thm.jpg
97b334af9c7062ce100e93ee3a48b4bd
126038eaf34b4cb029c68d6440344e31c05f83fc
8256 F20110221_AAAGMX youngentob_k_Page_081thm.jpg
21c6aad00fbb6f3ce17b6e753c773df9
c5b597030f024cc822596e4859791aab14483087
4812 F20110221_AAAGOB youngentob_k_Page_124thm.jpg
0e64246262e1edebc13ee76e9fc82f71
0495c6f67c9e27e8929d3a385ca5e1d1fa3b9e6d
8076 F20110221_AAAGMY youngentob_k_Page_062thm.jpg
6baa107fce6078bf4a352a07f5d07003
42e5908f3721570c2a26d90004e586476d5d9a4d
F20110221_AAAGOC youngentob_k_Page_013.QC.jpg
32ca3a98c8792f35d68ab33c13cbc624
89f73ce3a14e1575f9bf79f0485c55bfb50a48ef
8183 F20110221_AAAGNN youngentob_k_Page_063thm.jpg
865381a7adbd18f54d68972c8bd10df3
4eaf3ecc2230b988099624bf0b57bd7c0182b82f
5137 F20110221_AAAGMZ youngentob_k_Page_099.QC.jpg
bb909bd7f763780d0decc99812f044c2
27099c7aadf1146c3c8ec03fb37f0d7e8ef612e2
31281 F20110221_AAAGOD youngentob_k_Page_052.QC.jpg
e1333f510fcdf8ae5cb55fe5f19b73d9
1e045cf62c98dc67eab4d7186af6e20d678864d8
32448 F20110221_AAAGNO youngentob_k_Page_045.QC.jpg
9e69d0bcfab8cf792b929ee48621f91d
55ed89b979c328403d0ebadeaa9554b250de92e4
19084 F20110221_AAAGOE youngentob_k_Page_086.QC.jpg
b92d21835542fac2d690e4097557f169
cfde12613a3fafcf7ddaf7fe3ef900a1dbee4cab
8371 F20110221_AAAGNP youngentob_k_Page_046thm.jpg
c214323cc1985107cb6ab1506d7dc4f3
80367e725890d642b18b22aef87ec6d9869c0c95
8378 F20110221_AAAGOF youngentob_k_Page_050thm.jpg
0075d65bb109ab8e50f65ff9f91f2375
4e2598c7b2db2100e15a95364412c3d0cd0348e6
2584 F20110221_AAAGNQ youngentob_k_Page_001thm.jpg
5ac5412d07a4a42453bbfe31239b7783
1ddb069862bed3a3bf09482fd0ee866c4d07de4a
33106 F20110221_AAAGOG youngentob_k_Page_063.QC.jpg
36b052cc80f58a999d4f454b31f0fec4
5b9c2afa82406063a4d7a6bb701e02adcb1c21d8
28698 F20110221_AAAGNR youngentob_k_Page_026.QC.jpg
2786ab5318f55c201c97e6c7f673fd94
9e140dff7cda927f91ee54db2cbedcf5502c661d
32298 F20110221_AAAGOH youngentob_k_Page_031.QC.jpg
7d52b3a733e90bbe11ce91db915ec876
fa23f9274540b8fecb2aa6f06e5a19884a887a8e
8172 F20110221_AAAGNS youngentob_k_Page_072thm.jpg
25492cd0aceeacab81a8f7b2b4e87849
8122ff27204c1e151cda96274caa193a4c75bf82
31393 F20110221_AAAGOI youngentob_k_Page_068.QC.jpg
e3112698a2c436aa1b8696706d08ea9f
02b74db239e9fcdd79187f7be4844f57b0bdad1f
F20110221_AAAGNT youngentob_k_Page_037.QC.jpg
53c4635d23b6d15334bf7fd08005f1e8
d6c687499eb00c0be223ddfefdbeab2ac74a46e2
31078 F20110221_AAAGOJ youngentob_k_Page_021.QC.jpg
a0f8e1fa20288eb30aacb6989ee467ba
5fcab86a0e98302ee7d003f0cc41fb8c6e9f20e1
26647 F20110221_AAAGNU youngentob_k_Page_008.QC.jpg
604ea5374892c6f943b8ff9627b07182
b263c21486a88e68058f7a19a9378acf8b14b252
11172 F20110221_AAAGOK youngentob_k_Page_095.QC.jpg
00273b0227a660bdeca8c1985676e62f
39be886aabe3ba016a89001dc9464352ff77f5ca
10049 F20110221_AAAGNV youngentob_k_Page_025.QC.jpg
aaac62f23d4b6eee4ecfd076f31f5732
5f41c22856af30f4183d47a24d150bd6dc88c28e
8414 F20110221_AAAGOL youngentob_k_Page_027thm.jpg
f6d4ba7e2ffebf78eae1e46fcdcb69f8
d15dc3b6699a567311b528d6957943c3f5b7ab1d
8577 F20110221_AAAGNW youngentob_k_Page_049thm.jpg
3fa1b2d28e63dcf5d31ae0243c3dd09e
d17784abf34377f4af7ddcd14cce0f6aae5cb480
1467 F20110221_AAAGOM youngentob_k_Page_099thm.jpg
900032069456517a31e500c10c2309ff
c2f0d00fdee7e9da898369527967ae8dfc27b35a
8447 F20110221_AAAGNX youngentob_k_Page_039thm.jpg
600dcb4f3e73aa2e6a44ca878e85a436
9d9aa7667e4b0c1d48396c29b2e805275a76ee3c
7332 F20110221_AAAGPA youngentob_k_Page_059thm.jpg
9f527c1d16d2f90ad8067227a3c81467
8b1f77e96aeab7a70741aefc57f3b60622c64fff
8091 F20110221_AAAGON youngentob_k_Page_083thm.jpg
791edec3bae3f607989e6dfef4764a32
bee9ec314683729ce18c324fead8351e044b0d8b
8262 F20110221_AAAGNY youngentob_k_Page_076thm.jpg
b4a59cb0d68c4181dbb2d3bc20c2dbd0
7aa1d79dee136904b21ed77adc6a42420eec204e
27003 F20110221_AAAGPB youngentob_k_Page_111.QC.jpg
3ba5417b54ecdcdbb608ff649c464df9
542b071c257e9b5bf226703cebb4793479803e8e
5809 F20110221_AAAGNZ youngentob_k_Page_086thm.jpg
ff0cdda14a7833d0a73c05320e1a6592
87ff607fb30c89edf16e796bd24cf9e9467bef66
F20110221_AAAFMA youngentob_k_Page_088.tif
53e33afbb974d2295809b56bf1abf2eb
ad234e2dbfd33c7bdc5fa3260a91dd3e8a011162
631 F20110221_AAAGPC youngentob_k_Page_002thm.jpg
b12b02f5a0defeeb6bd9a90bdc557d4a
b7b18907c93a4d4dd508d85a1134f14c4bf47efb
34320 F20110221_AAAGOO youngentob_k_Page_078.QC.jpg
c2ec6a067575cd2216a4f36b9d7b53e1
3dd7f50216ea941a86d3f61bd73e5dd0be70ae18
514 F20110221_AAAFMB youngentob_k_Page_001.txt
55b1fd5fd4002efc50e50bfe33f49a54
d7b37822c5a1c88e4dc105a5cc92e006ed655d1e
8227 F20110221_AAAGPD youngentob_k_Page_064thm.jpg
c0639da82d0a2f3c036c71947522ce43
12283dedc8c1f375d1ab37bda16d8f497dd8834e
F20110221_AAAGOP youngentob_k_Page_024.QC.jpg
afbc29a7575ead477365598719f9b211
83217ea450b7aff78fa24ed1d07c6907e4096f19
46584 F20110221_AAAFMC youngentob_k_Page_024.pro
d2ffa0717b724237316850109c6ebe44
ce27669fd427913fd8b04731a4f8d666d45b984b
8294 F20110221_AAAGPE youngentob_k_Page_061thm.jpg
e91110780f80e50bae24e51ab6adeb16
dff3b2cb0e2e6c6c347728b65fbe96b311014afc
8420 F20110221_AAAGOQ youngentob_k_Page_048thm.jpg
a4d23416db182285b142efa8f3eb7ffc
4f20f963e922aa7bd32ca4aa2aa153484f602f70
1007437 F20110221_AAAFMD youngentob_k_Page_067.jp2
b7ab88e2f2380f2da90edea0464cd3ed
20ea5e3e3a9e13fd59f13ad51ea636fe21e821ae
22491 F20110221_AAAGPF youngentob_k_Page_100.QC.jpg
c1c7b28977b148ef1341e5c9a3f537da
27bb472ebfc6592294363681b3f4f697d1d28cf1
18821 F20110221_AAAGOR youngentob_k_Page_109.QC.jpg
ea0f8baeb113d870952ab4763c560329
adef23989a1509bf749f466ddfed0aaf57b62c29
F20110221_AAAFME youngentob_k_Page_118.tif
ee55ff4dba3f6f1e641d9e8d9265f546
0c58ec1f50c83e7bc21f234b5b166faa6e016e71
7781 F20110221_AAAGPG youngentob_k_Page_024thm.jpg
1958d133b748f6a326a112166d246ffe
30aeae956d1bd22feae1279fbd51654f43a612a5
8259 F20110221_AAAGOS youngentob_k_Page_017thm.jpg
e555cde2e1e4df5de00f33099cd0bc0f
f6ac6fb03d8227a916be86a83f99d078fc37fdcb
F20110221_AAAFMF youngentob_k_Page_015.tif
83731b67b81cfe8f0e80e76ba90cc129
f1cec5a3a42ab3d9f70725ecdde674931d88829d
6061 F20110221_AAAGPH youngentob_k_Page_058thm.jpg
9132dfb380f2b36e6ff4a8c147138cf6
5a19dabd90d816e1b28b98f95eb007f45c17cba2
49896 F20110221_AAAFLR youngentob_k_Page_014.pro
f6c3a632b3eff3029546c21a055ca367
62f91ff6eb1a09fb2e6e195ac718f0046de167ab
34799 F20110221_AAAGOT youngentob_k_Page_081.QC.jpg
adf92003668354324d2cb7029c34178f
44939a3ebfbeeaa18bb007c06ab1ac41bab23294
1051886 F20110221_AAAFMG youngentob_k_Page_102.jp2
60e221578e9afd167afc8861074d9e11
1c1ffa1fc3f3015ab79da8c353c860be99c3c925
33140 F20110221_AAAGPI youngentob_k_Page_028.QC.jpg
32a5f629927ec39a93beb9ad34bbcdfa
47f4ab975e17b189d7c726b5e890019e58f9a364
7085 F20110221_AAAFLS youngentob_k_Page_070thm.jpg
de0d50a8c88fcb5c9787ca7c7612aecc
6c7a1a0917eedc4edafb531de31fc30c4d887f95
19980 F20110221_AAAGOU youngentob_k_Page_110.QC.jpg
658b446d361fb8703b5d81b6d03208cf
ace8be8d216b929541a1eaef623c5a42bf611afb
30337 F20110221_AAAFMH youngentob_k_Page_092.pro
6f41ddf8f8ea2a527c1689b4b3930b7c
684d5ebfb08bed09caeffa6c82629d98849abf8f
5849 F20110221_AAAGPJ youngentob_k_Page_006thm.jpg
0de42cc15f7d8ea8a4118f23f7834b0a
d55674b8560a522f85b73ee8fcead619f5232d4f
20213 F20110221_AAAFLT youngentob_k_Page_084.QC.jpg
bf483ce5e365afabb5cc4048c0de73cb
a11259eb6f893182640dfdf01b84688d2bdcef64
8505 F20110221_AAAGOV youngentob_k_Page_068thm.jpg
f7a80017125579eca751242912f8079d
6a4d1e2c298a38abb2c6740937b814a803235020
27555 F20110221_AAAFMI youngentob_k_Page_043.QC.jpg
4eedfbeeb4733c2d13b2619dd88287f2
3874d7ee0ad71d32a28bba6de137631949f68d8e
1635 F20110221_AAAGPK youngentob_k_Page_007thm.jpg
24b420792fd43105b21d94abe6d38601
a408a0946c630d6b4d45d557536fa7e080eed7f0
33362 F20110221_AAAFLU youngentob_k_Page_012.QC.jpg
3ee23a3aabdcf3dff67d81fd5a419244
2427a874e480c2f1ad885220824d23c2cc48900c
34747 F20110221_AAAGOW youngentob_k_Page_016.QC.jpg
512bb22ad8658433e042be774b439abd
ed9bcfe50316dd202108c17f7910784a5837ab31
1570 F20110221_AAAFMJ youngentob_k_Page_089.txt
3a1013a160ec7a8540885a62a79033fb
c7017e3bbbbf5add9bd558bd4899b5fb75706c0c
22029 F20110221_AAAGPL youngentob_k_Page_113.QC.jpg
5502117eb3be152cde51e7aaa79533af
1b830afd9fb17c06ad0e8b095537570be294249d
8121 F20110221_AAAGQA youngentob_k_Page_042thm.jpg
dae86e82da618487b02c11690db808d1
55f51aea779af7dc8ce25779259e8ea4cac4b7ff
1727 F20110221_AAAFLV youngentob_k_Page_026.txt
f36a72956d7e50954425421918d1b285
5567367ffcb8cf761373e49bd4b9e297806d3ca9
7428 F20110221_AAAGOX youngentob_k_Page_118thm.jpg
13dca5273ec4ce0d640104c2d1763aad
7f7557d3292e24c7f7981e1be27031479d9f8ed6
4605 F20110221_AAAFMK youngentob_k_Page_003.jpg
796049b9f314f3b52dc781e0662128fa
a5e25e3d0039fa5b4eb2e9a78dacf7a7add83ba8
7806 F20110221_AAAGPM youngentob_k_Page_075thm.jpg
56e4d98e60cdfe058edd101a42de7183
4ecfb4fdb900fc68767820cccdc2b15add54dd52
6563 F20110221_AAAGQB youngentob_k_Page_009thm.jpg
1d52eec0c46cebbd533bbcb0e098a761
81ed92bd011d4558c72c1edb4c7fbd6dc123b07a
5924 F20110221_AAAFLW youngentob_k_Page_093thm.jpg
f616026c1956ad6289b181664b0b4cb0
6ce65c87f6d0530f0a2ac7903662f8d381b4cd85
26663 F20110221_AAAGOY youngentob_k_Page_069.QC.jpg
04ad35f21c2850abf1cafe1c1ec49e67
04f745fd3766333a9257bc5b55119ffd7346ee0e
20789 F20110221_AAAFML youngentob_k_Page_092.QC.jpg
85671ffd5ffe770445835d6ef0bf21c8
f9770a78cabf741676e879dd383ef88effa556ea
6163 F20110221_AAAGPN youngentob_k_Page_007.QC.jpg
45d5e08917d860341eb309a95eca556d
9f76b4a2f0f9edb0e1becf655950f97ba219e2d9
2006 F20110221_AAAGQC youngentob_k_Page_004thm.jpg
69b9e8dd358e7682eb94023c4acd1bb8
93b88e441452b1f2087030c96104b70bd363c5ee
49603 F20110221_AAAFLX youngentob_k_Page_046.pro
d07d3f4fa71ab0043d0dc35aab2d1dff
d86fea77f0f29b844fe0cf1e4914ac314368706a
33391 F20110221_AAAGOZ youngentob_k_Page_046.QC.jpg
02ca9cbb5583713abc8fe42ff5d09056
8e76322f925a0dd48a80023dd0f0e44bcf739634
F20110221_AAAFNA youngentob_k_Page_074.tif
203f1daaec39af79eb2d077929c4d058
62004a461bf5a5f8c892d939e8afa463cf006dd4
1993 F20110221_AAAFMM youngentob_k_Page_034.txt
1f95512b3099828ee4fb4e2f01b3d166
a2c4c6821d5b51c86c3ef13f78cdaac374fbf380
34892 F20110221_AAAGPO youngentob_k_Page_120.QC.jpg
69c3a2fb8b7d2a3f0fa741737d1034d7
eed1576b6f0a516c594d502c3ba9e8f78cbfb367
204247 F20110221_AAAGQD UFE0003222_00001.xml
394aac60a7d6b6583d93746e3f0af055
94b7bbb43a060b7c130038d7eec7ea8779c6e8e4
8100 F20110221_AAAFLY youngentob_k_Page_037thm.jpg
72e54de01f2ba3a58d5b82ce3cc42acd
cff174f3306fb3bc58ef6c829aa627c058976fd1
100988 F20110221_AAAFNB youngentob_k_Page_031.jpg
cbcd2f0ebea0de29586bac7eb5b80ca3
d4802b15fb9de03f3ce9e8ecce372ecd0b69cefb
1580 F20110221_AAAGQE youngentob_k_Page_002.QC.jpg
6add0ffc885dae9d2b1ec0828a2d681e
7881b67a6b6d31320891cc1e5795507886623246
21391 F20110221_AAAFLZ youngentob_k_Page_115.QC.jpg
f04f95acf92d263435ee42ab78d2fb97
315bb64f794f1994f637d2ea2b9ecb4af137674c
16865 F20110221_AAAFNC youngentob_k_Page_086.pro
4caff49d2087bc33053be37c31285b8e
44a0b09878a4d9b3d40fc9a0386723e1f838d434
2000 F20110221_AAAFMN youngentob_k_Page_020.txt
608fb741c4d615c351cb2da065514e71
532b194a3d33b02700396bcab6264619fb395bd7
5449 F20110221_AAAGPP youngentob_k_Page_110thm.jpg
b16152d41744a0dea19c78400a03b138
989be46457a0bb921d5b24a7b977840cc81f67fd
23580 F20110221_AAAGQF youngentob_k_Page_006.QC.jpg
5e9e1eba0378f1584dca0c7d336eb2b4
ca454b482e251988a5042f0417ab15e2a66e3c49
984990 F20110221_AAAFND youngentob_k_Page_111.jp2
6af1b7c3ea4884b436f099f14d2d4941
b75b0317b154de43665058c8114027fecffa5756
33130 F20110221_AAAFMO youngentob_k_Page_041.QC.jpg
9a153e6ea6e760cd8b0d742a58f74b37
b349f088bfb819c9d738d7fff7ceaf9487b049bb
F20110221_AAAGPQ youngentob_k_Page_066thm.jpg
a8dc16af64b21fe4b3e1316012550e65
135866916894add9d464e34ed913082905a68c98
34237 F20110221_AAAGQG youngentob_k_Page_018.QC.jpg
ff1d05ded593a71d523ef0c9a5066f29
c87a2b48bb4b50063b3090ca386c3d11308a7566
F20110221_AAAFNE youngentob_k_Page_024.txt
7a61421148654447f379f06141976852
fe73b826ce52be4351c59e9ec51604459bd0b301
F20110221_AAAFMP youngentob_k_Page_084.tif
816418b02b6fbea414e6dc58637e324b
6f3b04ab5bb4851db7678633b09228ba66267f19
32011 F20110221_AAAGPR youngentob_k_Page_015.QC.jpg
3b35dfe9eb4d86c67d8c2fec50a657e9
bea1faa429296784aa3d7c3ddc2688cce73b28bf
32931 F20110221_AAAGQH youngentob_k_Page_027.QC.jpg
fcd966bed18e7d7dd5202ef6ffcf880b
2de88d36e27fe315221130041f90bb5eaed7b808
8138 F20110221_AAAFNF youngentob_k_Page_119thm.jpg
11abe8a497a50178a024ba8ca9467484
e995d169b47dd096bf3b2a17165876f68890eacb
F20110221_AAAFMQ youngentob_k_Page_113.tif
0cc05ef05b4af0fae439090b786d78b3
8f9733f2fc8bcd2f919b1ab16f0cb04369a25eea
5426 F20110221_AAAGPS youngentob_k_Page_100thm.jpg
1f99bdef00265828962a7cd034e792ed
98b36fddbe61457061b83c9af23ba95e47e02998
34015 F20110221_AAAGQI youngentob_k_Page_029.QC.jpg
b7076accc11c0726fa0be09ffeb2b382
bd5060905b69e8f6f99f1c56b0fe789a8d667fa3
F20110221_AAAFNG youngentob_k_Page_046.txt
16cb7a66fdaf0297afcf170db86a9287
1224f4aaff14b4fc8b7f97a4353e0610246dc9db
1842 F20110221_AAAFMR youngentob_k_Page_111.txt
01add5ef0319d19ee85209a3f09b72ff
bfae2389fc927e311dc89363446a7a9f493996c9
5921 F20110221_AAAGPT youngentob_k_Page_113thm.jpg
4a5f5d320449a67228935197d9764256
0631f585b808a137308fa204f3d6bb539bfbcfe6
32522 F20110221_AAAGQJ youngentob_k_Page_033.QC.jpg
01d6faddb0e7596781b06cbfc70f21cf
30f9ff42c309dca5fcc4b1c9a8e3434fd83279c2
F20110221_AAAFNH youngentob_k_Page_035.jpg
706b480c5a834d8e1148b582bed4eb2e
fdffd9313f12b7561c5a4344d79d0b81f01a67eb
27546 F20110221_AAAFMS youngentob_k_Page_040.QC.jpg
369ed40e2435f4cede3e0eaa9b31fb4e
bf581e931b8d7dffbe8dfba43a5907af8175e083
8094 F20110221_AAAGPU youngentob_k_Page_021thm.jpg
325cf2d0d25dac6c67f7022bb5625ddd
268e69e228dcf17dbf8fdf5bb74a78a96370f8b3
31399 F20110221_AAAGQK youngentob_k_Page_036.QC.jpg
b9b987e6f73a3e5ec56560c41e2bf524
497988ba28d3700b969b692c3d79a396cf2b8bff
1985 F20110221_AAAFNI youngentob_k_Page_083.txt
58ba316510eb4c2e19db1a6d13d07759
89db99a2376839ee349a3a4ed09335d1a678a5d7
32623 F20110221_AAAFMT youngentob_k_Page_014.QC.jpg
a23fc68aed171f1396cf8b11281f41f3
a740699fe24385178a9bcd10621db94d8c41a508
7486 F20110221_AAAGPV youngentob_k_Page_071thm.jpg
ca411668ff86bd94fc5d95870e55e2dd
53673bcc32de160f0d80ff93fb81fdc8cfd51b74
28139 F20110221_AAAGQL youngentob_k_Page_038.QC.jpg
7b7a6a2b16845ee1f273f301d6948848
409e405372f8d8e660e6e33a64d9b3327b72ce78
1046967 F20110221_AAAFNJ youngentob_k_Page_024.jp2
005695165a18a4aba32c6f496bb34b74
c4b669bfb912dfd851c698c3df97e1a94d848be6
45304 F20110221_AAAFMU youngentob_k_Page_067.pro
4d128a62262094aec00112baae209771
06375f3f560915fef7aedd376067faee0c0c07e4
33204 F20110221_AAAGPW youngentob_k_Page_061.QC.jpg
53aca8f15ad8d43bd654f774a4e50ede
da8df44b270677b6b3080e3886fdcf593f3316e7
34794 F20110221_AAAGRA youngentob_k_Page_076.QC.jpg
652ba6269002de5a3b12d41e540d8177
b2a1dc3c82553ec727eede2b7b2d416f64087115
31372 F20110221_AAAGQM youngentob_k_Page_044.QC.jpg
62c6e3082856bf1db5ab512c8ae53187
f108823fd3ae78d09a31abee264895520bddc62f
26409 F20110221_AAAGPX youngentob_k_Page_009.QC.jpg
31690614318fe5c06fd825ae8293f865
4d1f7d8779d34cd39faa403efa27edf703c3fceb
51086 F20110221_AAAFNK youngentob_k_Page_050.pro
e36702a5506a47431b71d7832f9870c8
bf41a7252ed92cc7523694d4fd9ca8d5d95b91a2
F20110221_AAAFMV youngentob_k_Page_034thm.jpg
2c7cfe57202321f0e5cad7f79ffbd81c
a279cbbf291b5351a60f143e9419b646d006be3b
30509 F20110221_AAAGRB youngentob_k_Page_079.QC.jpg
54e89c5c2c220b268f206d0dffe23d08
bdec8e9d224ba5574337b5279c714fc640c3d886
33779 F20110221_AAAGQN youngentob_k_Page_047.QC.jpg
3f60f3672165e551f0bf80271d1f2253
0d26e828fddb7f4f9260617cd13c1b616e8dbf67
9472 F20110221_AAAGPY youngentob_k_Page_001.QC.jpg
59aec6b969057457560f3080e41c2ca2
08e28e4a868b6327b00c80fc828bb29cb2e457a9
97594 F20110221_AAAFNL youngentob_k_Page_041.jpg
41c561ab7cfc4e70cf9b707c4d584209
9d76e07b38626ac3611f9ee93de9520fdf7a299b
49144 F20110221_AAAFMW youngentob_k_Page_064.pro
3fc47fbf8ce56d47116cd8a1cd69c057
e814fd8bb66a89498d90b580039f8c507adfe8d9
30227 F20110221_AAAGRC youngentob_k_Page_080.QC.jpg
b95a97d753d2d5a629aa1665945ab6d4
b995a68b5c7e05b29b283be4856d063f905102b7
33004 F20110221_AAAGQO youngentob_k_Page_051.QC.jpg
016a18f2aafcf98cfbd74172efd432b7
ba34d24d340a4c81882428a245665cba7425d966
8540 F20110221_AAAGPZ youngentob_k_Page_053thm.jpg
ca761a7ea63691a8bb62d41b9a95d057
92c54a305a0a16bc4125bbe825eddec773746d59
706 F20110221_AAAFOA youngentob_k_Page_107.txt
cba12e52ae70e3363296031f9ed116ff
2ce1403c463c83584a009ddbc6789d6d3b4b4b94
48120 F20110221_AAAFNM youngentob_k_Page_021.pro
0b4d532eac3701e43886bcb8f99f2838
8ea8ab6489ac712e7d934156a60dbc5efdbd14f4
7704 F20110221_AAAFMX youngentob_k_Page_106thm.jpg
51b886f5c3c4f0b451124d6cbb6a9949
eed12ca85c9d02a9321be0fe94e33f45a46d38b5
33966 F20110221_AAAGRD youngentob_k_Page_082.QC.jpg
9e2b4f73d07cb765abdd5924f7ae2e31
eea3349cabbb74e5436d851c2707ea713bdfba1f
33308 F20110221_AAAGQP youngentob_k_Page_054.QC.jpg
723ed99e0b34b52d52326f3a9879261a
e38be55fff341c8d7737443e5d73f839c65db955
34989 F20110221_AAAFNN youngentob_k_Page_053.QC.jpg
6489ce6a7cc33f97144f757ead929aa5
889fc40845f0c485f97ef5e26fd7ce4fc39e2111
6665 F20110221_AAAFMY youngentob_k_Page_108thm.jpg
dc89dc16976b17f2ffc1f0e673ba739a
cc769254da07f38251df3df9333aec89b08d17bf
44299 F20110221_AAAFOB youngentob_k_Page_112.pro
e18e2bcf0fe9ec6d384d1116e8206c23
b6f8da4d02bb3732b991005581ed5fd6a71fb198



PAGE 1

IS A NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL REALLY BUILDING GREENER COMMUNITIES? A COMPARATIVE STUD Y OF HOMEOWNERS FROM THREE DEVELOPMENT TYPES. By KARA NICOLE YOUNGENTOB A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2004

PAGE 2

Copyright 2004 by Kara Youngentob

PAGE 3

This thesis is dedicated to my friends.

PAGE 4

v ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I thank the people of Gainesville, Florida a nd the University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation for ma king this study possible. Thank you to my parents for making me possible. Many thanks are also due to my advisor, Dr. Mark Hostetler, for his support and encouragement.

PAGE 5

vi TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...................................................................................................v LIST OF TABLES.............................................................................................................ix ABSTRACT......................................................................................................................v ii CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................1 Background...................................................................................................................1 Urban Landscapes.................................................................................................1 Urban Sprawl.........................................................................................................4 Traditional and Neo-traditional Communities.......................................................8 Past Research on Peoples’ Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Pertaining to Environmental and Wildlife Issues..................................................................10 Research Design.........................................................................................................12 Objectives............................................................................................................12 The Study Site.....................................................................................................13 2 SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND E NVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, AND BEHAVIORS IN HOMEOWNERS FROM THREE COMMUNITY TYPES..............................................................................................16 Introduction.................................................................................................................16 Methods......................................................................................................................20 Participant Selection............................................................................................20 Question Design..................................................................................................22 Analysis......................................................................................................................2 4 Differences in Environmental Attitude Behavior, Knowledge and Sense of Community......................................................................................................24 Do Demographics Partially Expl ain the Patterns Observed?..............................25 Are observed differences attributed to exposure to educational programs or the design of the development?........................................................................26 Water and Energy Use.........................................................................................28 Results........................................................................................................................ .28 Sense of Community and Environmenta l Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior..28 Water and Energy Use.........................................................................................31

PAGE 6

vii Differences in Demographics..............................................................................32 Identifying Correlations.......................................................................................34 General Linear Model..........................................................................................34 Development Design and Education Programs...................................................35 Discussion...................................................................................................................37 Environmentalism and Sense of Co mmunity in a Neo-traditional Development....................................................................................................37 Environmentalism and Sense of Commun ity in a Traditional Development......43 Additional Results...............................................................................................44 The Future for “Green” Development.................................................................47 3 THE NEW ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM SCALE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMEN TAL ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS AND KNOWLEDGE...........................................................................................................49 Introduction.................................................................................................................49 Methods......................................................................................................................52 Analysis......................................................................................................................5 3 NEP and Sense of Community............................................................................54 Environmentalism, Sense of Co mmunity, and Social Norms.............................56 Results........................................................................................................................ .57 NEP......................................................................................................................57 Sense of Community...........................................................................................60 NEP and SOC......................................................................................................62 Gainesville Scores...............................................................................................63 Discussion...................................................................................................................64 NEP......................................................................................................................64 NEP and behavior.........................................................................................64 NEP and knowledge.....................................................................................66 NEP and demographics................................................................................67 Sense of Community...........................................................................................67 SOC and behavior........................................................................................68 SOC and knowledge.....................................................................................69 SOC and attitude..........................................................................................70 Sense of Community, Social Norms, and Environmentalism.............................71 Implications for Creating Green Communities...................................................71 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE...................................................................................75 B SURVEY COVER-LETTER......................................................................................89 C SCRIPT FOR REMINDER PHONE CALL..............................................................91 D UFIRB APPROVED PROPOSAL.............................................................................92

PAGE 7

viii E LIST OF SCALE QUESTIONS.................................................................................95 F ALL QUESTIONS USED IN CHAPTER 2 AND 3 ANALYSES............................98 G ADDITIONAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 2.............................................................107 LIST OF REFERENCES.................................................................................................108 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH...........................................................................................114

PAGE 8

ix LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Features of New Urbani sm compared to those offered in Haile Plantation.............15 2-1 Survey question results from homeowners that live in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville)....29 2-2 Energy and water use from utility data for homeowners in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville). ..................................................................................................................32 2-3 Demographic question results from hom eowners that live in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville).....................................................................................................................32 2-4 Results from Pearson’s correlation anal yses between demographics and questions asked on a survey for homeowners in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and postWWII developments (Gville)...........................34 2-5 Results from the General Linear Model analysis where significant interactions between question type and demograp hics were taken into account.........................35 3-1 Averages and Chi-squared results from reported environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors and demographics between more (lower NEP scores) and less (higher NEP scores) environmental groups................................................58 3-2 Averages and results from Chi-squared and T-tests from reported environmental attitudes, knowledge, and be haviors and demographics between stronger (lower SOC scores) and weaker (higher SOC scores) sense of community groups............61 3-3 Averages and results from sense of co mmunity Chi-squared and T-test analyses for more and less environmentally friendly groups.................................................63 3-4 Results from Gainesville’s overall envi ronmental attitude, behavior, knowledge and sense of community analysis.............................................................................64 G-1 Number of observed responses from the “top two reasons for choosing your home” over the expected number of responses......................................................107

PAGE 9

vii Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science IS A NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL REALLY BUILDING GREENER COMMUNITIES? A COMPARATIVE ST UDY OF HOMEOWNERS FROM THREE DEVELOPMENT TYPES. By Kara Nicole Youngentob May 2004 Chair: Mark E. Hostetler Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Neo-traditional communities are hypothesized to prom ote environmentalism among residents, but this claim has not been we ll researched. In October 2002, I conducted a mail survey of middle-class homeowners in Gain esville, Florida, to determine if there were differences in sense of community a nd environmental attitudes, behavior, and knowledge among homeowners from three develo pment types (Traditional, Post-war, and Neo-traditional). I also anal yzed survey responses from a representative sample of middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Flor ida, to explore whether sense of community and New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale scores had a relationship to other measures of environmental attitudes, know ledge, and behaviors. The Neo-traditional community had the str ongest sense of community between all three development types. In terms of e nvironmental attitudes, behavior, and most knowledge, however, the Neo-traditional co mmunity was not more environmentally friendly than the Post-war communities, and it was considerably less environmentally

PAGE 10

viii friendly than the Traditional community. A lthough Neo-traditional homeowners had the lowest levels of environmentalism overall, they did have greater knowledge about the legal status of the Gopher To rtoise when compared to respondents from Post-war communities. This may have been due to educ ation efforts directed at residents of the Neo-traditional development as part of an on-site Gopher Tortoise conservation program. Homeowners with greater environmentally fr iendly NEP scores were more likely to report environmentally friendly attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge. Homeowners who reported a stronger sense of community also reported more environmentally friendly attitudes, knowledge, and beha viors in response to some of the survey questions. One reason for the connection between a sense of community and environmentalism is that people with a stronger relations hip to their community may be more likely to respond to social norms of the community. Social norms have been shown to have a strong influence on motivating behaviors, includi ng conservation type behaviors such as recycling. Overall, survey respondents gene rally had environmental friendly scores and thus people with a greater sense of community may be responding to this “green” social norm of the city. The results suggest that a Neo-traditiona l community design can play a role in influencing a homeowner’s sense of communit y, but it may not go far enough in terms of promoting environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors. To build “green” communities, design and management plans should not only promote a sense of community, but plans should also encourage a social norm of environmentalism by including both proactive e ducation at the neighborhood le vel and a development design that truly addresses the cons ervation of natural resources.

PAGE 11

1 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Background Urban Landscapes Nearly 80 percent of the world’s human popul ation lives in cities and over 2 billion more are expected to join this urba nization trend by 2030, the same number of individuals projected to be added to the entire world’s population during the same period of time (United Nations Population Info rmation Network (POPIN) 2000). Urban populations are the fastest gr owing populations in the wo rld (POPIN 2000) and have a large impact on global environmental conditions particularly in hi ghly industrialized nations. The United States clearly illustrates this impact as a highly industrialized and urbanized country th at contributes 1/25th of the world’s population yet consumes 1/4th of the world’s energy (United Nations Depart ment of Economics and Social Affairs (UNSD) 2000). Alarmingly, ma ny urban populations have acce ss to resources from all over the globe and seemingly little appr eciation or understand ing of how their consumption of those resources affects th e environment around them. Residents’ decisions regarding their land and resources have a large collective impact on the environment, and it is in these growing urba n areas where attention should be focused on learning about peoples’ knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors pertaining to environmental issues (Bormann et al. 1993; Dunlap et al. 2000; Hostetler and Holling 2000). Florida has a larger th an average urban populatio n at around 85 percent and growing (Duda 1987). Florida’s bi odiversity is also higher than most other states, due in

PAGE 12

2 part to the largely subtropi cal climate (Myers and Ewel 1990). Not surprisingly, Florida also has its share of environmental concerns fr om the spread of exotics to dwindling fresh water resources and endangered species such as the Florida panthe r and manatee (Myers and Ewel 1990). These factors combine to make Florida an ideal place to study the environmental knowledge base of urban homeowners. In the process of creating an urban area, the cost to the immediate environment is high because landscapes and natural processes are usually completely disrupted. For example, roads disrupt animal movements; cars pollute the environment with their emissions; natural watercourses and systems are often altered or rerouted; and urban runoff, stemming from industrial, commercial, and residential waste, pollutes waters downstream (Gilbert 1989). Furt her, natural vegetation is usually destroyed to make room for new homogenous landscapes (e.g., la wn grasses) which can not sustain most wildlife and require vast amounts of energy to maintain. Even the glass windows on buildings can present a threat to bird populations (Gilbert 1989; Klem 1991; Bormann et al. 1993). Urban areas are also ideal places fo r exotic and introduced species of flora and fauna to gain footing because of created, artificial landscapes and because of urban inhabitants’ desire to landscape with exotic plants (Obara 1995). It is important to note that the effects of urban environm ents are not only localized to the immediate area. The behaviors a nd choices of people residing within these populations result in landscape impacts and re source strains near a nd far (Gilbert 1989). Bormann et al. (1993) explains how actions as simple as fe rtilizing our yard or using aerosol sprays can snowball into global wa rming, acid rain, and the depletion of the ozone layer. Hostetler and Holling (2000) illustrate how decisions by homeowners,

PAGE 13

3 developers, and city planners impact the distribution of birds from a neighborhood to a national scale. Clearly, we cannot expect our individual actions multiplied millions and even billions of times over not to have cons equences greater than th e effects they have on our immediate surroundings. Ecosystems are connected and interrelated pieces of a global environment and our actions in one area inevitably result in far reaching consequences (Myers and Ewel 1990). The study of human ecology, now called the new human ecology (Ellis and Thompson 1997) explains that ra ther than living in a sustai nable manner with the natural environment, modern societies tend to rely on growth strategies that intensify resource consumption and environmental degradation. Th e urban sprawl that typifies the majority of development radiating from modern ur ban centers began as a way to provide affordable individual space to an increas ingly individualistic society and promote automobile use and the increased consumpti on and consumerism that followed (Brown et al. 1998). However, this type of unbridle d growth is arguably counterproductive to environmental welfare and an individual’s need to experience community (Brown et al. 1998; Benfield et al. 1999; Ca lthorpe and Fulton 2001). In general, not only is the natural environment at risk from urban de velopments but human communities can also experience this modernization as a disrupt ive force (Benfield 1999). Some of the common criticisms regarding urbanization’s impact on human welfare include loss of community, increased crime rate, increased ment al health disorders, and higher rates of suicide (Benfield et al. 1999). Public awareness of resource depletion, pollution and environm ental degradation sprouted from Rachael Carson’s influential book, The Silent Spring and grew into the

PAGE 14

4 environmental movement of the early 1970s. De spite this increased realization about the limited nature of our natural resources, a nd a growing consensus that there might be problems inherent with modern development practices, thirty years later we are still trying to devise ways to work ourselves out of an environmentally harmful design and culture that continues to mechanistically re produce itself. Lefebvre explains in his well known work, The Production of Space that “every mode of social organization produces an environment that is a consequence of the social relations it po ssesses. In addition, by producing a space according to its own nature a society not only materializes into distinctive built forms, but also reproduces itself. The concept ‘production of space’ [is also a] duality of structure. That is, space is both a medium of social relations and a material product that can affect social relations” (Lefebvre as cited in Gottdiener 1993). In order to understand how people relate to their communities and the environment, it is important to consider how their surroundings are designed and managed. What thoughts and intentions lead to the desi gn strategies of particular de velopments, and what activities and behaviors does that design promulgate? Urban Sprawl The resolution of the Second World War brought the end of a massive economic depression that affected nearly the entire industrialized world. The dream of owning one’s own home and maybe even a little sli ce of lawn was becoming a reality for many families. Americans began leaving the cities in large numbers in the 1950’s and 1960’s to set up homes in a new environment calle d the suburbs (Hall and Porterfield 2001). This city flight was instigated by high property costs in the cities and the rapidly increasing development of roads and highway systems for personal automobiles that

PAGE 15

5 provided access to more affordable land and housing outside the cities. This dynamic also introduced a new economy and dependence on cars and gasoline. Many of the cities themselves went th rough massive redevelopment to add more and larger roads to accommoda te growing traffic and to provide affordable middle-class housing. This redevelopment leveled old buildings and neigh borhoods that were comprised of mostly poor, working class ci tizens—some of which, nevertheless, were thriving communities (Hall and Porterfield 2001). Many of these inner-city neighborhoods were destroyed to make way fo r new or wider roads and more efficient and often higher-class h ousing (Powell 2000). In the suburbs, the introduction of new roads, highways, and interstate systems made it possible to live far from work, the gr ocery, school, and religious centers, even in the absence of public transpor tation. New suburbanites had th eir little plot of land, and now the dream of a car in every garage had al so become a reality. This was an era of increased prosperity for the middle-class and upper-middle-class, and the consumption of land and fuel resources was reaching new hi ghs. Government subsidies for roads and tract housing encouraged this consumption wh ich in turn fueled a growing consumer economy (Powell 2000). It was a boom that paid little attention to the limited nature of many of the natural resources upon which it depended. People did not really begin to consider urban sprawl’s impact on the environm ent or culture for mo re than two decades after this new form of development began. Following on the heels of WWII was a new war--a war against communism, the cold war. At the same time that Americ an neighborhoods and commerce centers were becoming more and more spread out, our government was touting the virtues of

PAGE 16

6 individualism. The family was increasingly becoming the definition of community rather than the society of people th at lived in close proximity to one another or shared a common ideology. A study that illustrates this trend explai ns that neighborhood social interactions today, such as vi siting and helping out with small tasks, are best predicted by the number of family neighbors (i.e., parents and ch ildren) living in the neighborhood (Logan & Spitze 1994 cited in Mesch and Manor 1998). Neighborhoods no longer offer the same opportunities for interpersonal relations hips. Brown et al. (1998) relate that modern economic survival has grown to de pend more on individual education and work than in establishing interdependencies in th e areas of apprenticeshi ps, mentoring, trade, neighborly obligations or friendships. Th e individualism embraced by this new era has also increased resource consum ption, since the degree to whic h resources are shared has diminished, and this in turn provides more fuel to the American economy which depends on large scale consumerism. Some have gone as far to say that s uburbia stands as the economic, technological, and social “triumph” of individualism (Bro wn et al. 1998). Suburban growth took off during this boom period between the 1950s and 1970s, and continues growing at speeds that outpace even population growth today (Benfield et al. 2001). From 1960 to 1990, developed la nd around urban areas more than doubled, while the actual population increased by less than half (Benfield et al. 2001). From the 1960s to the late 90s, vehicle use more than tripled to over 2.4 trillion miles per year (Benfield et al. 2001). Urban sprawl continued to eat up la nd as if it were in endless supply. New commerce centers, known as st rip malls, developed to accommodate the new car culture. These malls were essentia lly shops organized around huge parking-lots, which further illustrated America’s new dependence on the pers onal automobile—also

PAGE 17

7 visible in the drive-in and drive-through phenomenon that be gan in the 1950s and 60s. Even the homes of this new era we re designed around the automobile. Traditional housing pre-WWII was typically stationed close to the sidewalk (this facilitated interaction with people walking by) and had one front-facing entrance, often on a porch which doubled as an outdoor gath ering area (Brown et al. 1998; Hall and Porterfield 2001). As access to the inside of the home became available through the garage, front porches began to disappear (B rown et al. 1998). House placement was pushed back from the street to accommodate driveways. Suburban tract housing as we know it today--rows of houses, spaced apart from one another and the street by squares of lawn, and often sharing similar designs--was born. Tract housing is not the only form of urban sprawl, but it is arguably the most extreme. Urban sprawl is recognizable by it s homogonous nature. Residential and commercial zones are not intermixed and ar e typically spaced far apart. Individual homes generally have yard space in the front and on either the sides and/or the back of the residence. Houses are set back from wide streets that are designed to accommodate car traffic. The distance between housing clusters or tracts, st ores, and offices are designed to be transverse via automobile. Additionally, there is usually poor access to public transportation. Genera lly, businesses are arranged in clusters or strips around large, often rectangular, parking ar eas that are either in front of or central to, the stores or offices. Urban sprawl typically ignores the inclusion of common spaces, such as community parks or gathering places in its desig n. Often a city will have a central area or a downtown that was built before WWII, and the post-war sprawl will radiate outwards from that “traditional” space.

PAGE 18

8 Traditional and Neo-traditional Communities Neo-traditional communities attempt to re capture the “old-time” community design found in most developments built pre-WWII. These “Traditional” developments have narrow streets, houses close to the sidewa lk, numerous community parks, commercial areas within walking distance of residen tial homes, and front porches on houses are common. Post-WWII developments generally do not follow this same lay-out, but instead opt for a more sprawling design that is adapted to automobile use (see above). One of the first Neo-traditi onal development models to gain widespread recognition is New Urbanism. New Urbanism was introduced specifically to combat urban sprawl and its perceived negative effects on the social and environmental community (Katz 1994). New Urbanism grew from the idea that commun ity architects are also agents of social change (Collin et al. 1995). Peter Calthor pe (2001) explains that this model for development is guided by the idea that ci ties and the natural e nvironment should be treated as a whole. New Urbanism architectur e claims to achieve this by creating defined edges (Urban Growth Boundaries), having a ci rculation system that is focused on the pedestrian (i.e., wide sidewalks, front access to stores and homes, and a regional transit system), maintaining large preserves of public space as a primary feature of the development, forming a “complementary hierar chy” of civic and private domains that group together commercial, cu ltural, and residential cent ers, and through fostering a diverse population by providing a range of jobs and housi ng. The design of New Urbanism is thought to encour age residents to spend more time outdoors by incorporating common “green” spaces into the developmen t and encouraging walking rather than automobile traffic along with “walkable” st reets and town centers within walking distance from residents’ homes (Katz 1994).

PAGE 19

9 New Urbanism aims to renew a feeling of community among urbanites, and some theorists feel that a sense of community is necessary before an individual can begin to address issues like enviro nmental protection and cons ervation (Maslow 1954). Proponents of Neo-traditional designs clai m that not only do these building styles increase community, but they also promot e a pro-environmental ethic through their complementary integration of the natural and built environments (Crow 1990; Katz 1994). Collin et al. (1995) propose that envi ronmentally conscious planning at the neighborhood, grassroots level wi ll become an important area for environmental justice as our society continues to adapt to the rea lization of our limited re sources. Whether or not Neo-traditional models provide the kind of framework necessary to propagate social change in the areas of community and environm ent remains to be seen. This is relatively new community architecture but so far things are looking promising (B enfield et al. 2001; Hall and Porterfield 2001). Possibly the most influential aspect of Neo-traditional design, is that through its architecture, it is one of the first modern development models to attempt to express a cultural respect for the environment, the community, and a desire for sustainability. It is still unclear, howeve r, whether Neo-traditional communities really succeed in creating a strong sense of comm unity for residents and whether these homeowners have different environmenta l knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors than homeowners that do not live in Neo-traditional communities.

PAGE 20

10 Past Research on Peoples’ Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Pertaining to Environmental and Wildlife Issues There have been numerous studies conduc ted to investigate peoples’ knowledge attitudes and behaviors pertai ning to wildlife and environmen tal issues. A survey of Floridians in 1986 found that environmental issues were ranked fourth among perceived local problems following community development crime, and social problems such as health care, discrimination, a nd immigration (Parker and Oppenheim 1986). “Floridians and Wildlife,” an in-depth technical report by Mark Duda (1987), found that a majority of Floridians support increased spending to pr otect the environment and support laws to protect the environment and w ildlife, regardless of age, e ducation level, income, party affiliation, or gender. Typically, however, a willingness to support environmental issues and spending is positively correlated w ith youth, middle-class, and liberalism and negatively correlated with post middle-age, lo w income, and conservatism (for a review see, Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dietz et al. 1998). Research has shown that environmen tal concern has been growing among Floridians and the general population as a whole since the early seventies (Florida Defenders of the Environment 1974; Park er and Oppenheim 1986; Sadd and Dunlap 2000). Though concern waned somewhat in the early 1990s for unidentified reasons, Americans still consistently rank wildlife and the environment as a top priority for protection and government spending, and gove rnmental policymakers have tended to greatly underestimate the importance of th e environment to Americans (Duda 1987; Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Sadd and Dunlap 2000). Interestingly, but not surprisingly, th e knowledge that Americans have about wildlife, ecology and natural resources appears to be greatly limited. One of the most in-

PAGE 21

11 depth national opinion surveys on wildlife and natural resources cited in Duda’s “Floridians and Wildlife” (1987) conducted by Kellert in 1980 reporte d that there are six key influences in determining public suppor t for wildlife conserva tion: “aesthetics, phylogenetic relatedness to human beings, direct versus indirect causes of endangerment, economic value of the species, socioeconomic impact of protection, and cultural and historical relationship to the species.” For example, while a majority of those surveyed were willing to vote against measures that w ould provide extra jobs in an area with high unemployment but at the cost of further th reatening endangered panthers, the majority were not willing to give the same support to an endangered speci es of spider (Duda 1987). It is generally understood that the ma instream public does not have a real understanding of the interrelate d and interdependent workin g of natural ecology and for this reason, modern surveys of attitudes and opinions of environmental issues have begun to focus more on “ecological consciousness, anthropocentrism, and ecocentrism” rather than just environmental knowledge or awaren ess (Dunlap et al. 2000). One of the most widely accepted of these new survey instru ments is called the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (NEP). This scale wa s created with the understandi ng that human behaviors are affecting the ecosystem on which all of our surv ival is dependent and that it is imperative that we find more sustainable forms of deve lopment (Dunlap et al. 2000). The findings of this survey, implemented in multiple c ountries over the past fourteen years, are consistent with most other environmental polls, showing a genera l increase in public awareness and concern across the board. Though awareness does not necessarily equal

PAGE 22

12 action (Wildegren 1998) it possibly represents a willingness, or even a desire, to see changing policy and regulations pertaini ng to the environment and wildlife. Research Design Objectives In Chapter 2, the primary objective was to determine whether differences exist in sense of community and environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among homeowners in a Neo-traditional community, a Traditional community, and a random draw of homeowners from developments with similar housing values that do not fit the criteria for Neo-tradit ional or traditiona l classification. Where differences occur, three hypotheses could explain these differences in attitudes, knowledge, and behavior: 1) The design of the development played some role (either in attracting individuals with a particular community and/or environmental mi ndset or in shaping peoples’ attitudes after they moved in), 2) The developments’ popula tions differ in demographic characteristics that have been shown to influence community or environmental dispositions, or 3) The homeowners in a particular area were e xposed to some interpretive or outreach program/materials that the other developments did not receive. A secondary objective was to include questions in the survey to help identify the role that each of these factors may have played in influencing observed differences among communities. Chapter 3 provides a more in-depth focu s on the relationship between sense of community and environmentalism. The obj ectives in Chapter 3 are as follows: 1. to determine whether people with more pr o-environment NEP scores indeed report more environmentally friendly at titudes, knowledge, and behaviors 2. to determine whether people with a str onger sense of community have more environmentally friendly NEP scores and other environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors

PAGE 23

13 3. to determine the environmental norms of Gainesville middle-class homeowners in terms of overall NEP scores, sense of community, and environmentally friendly behaviors The Study Site Gainesville, Florida is located in North Central Florida about an hour and a half from the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. The te mperate climate and near daily rain showers during spring and summer provide an ideal environment for plant growth. Undeveloped areas around Gainesville support pine-flatlands and numerous freshwater springs that attract visitors year round. Paynes Prairie, a state preserve near Gainesville is also a primary natural feature of the area and contai ns a large, wet prairie. The city of Gainesville was founded in 1869. The state of Florida’s oldest and largest university, The University of Florida, is situated near the city cente r. Covering 45.5 square miles, Gainesville is also home to 111,224 residents. Nearly 50,000 of those residents are involved in some way with th e University, either as stude nts or faculty/staff (City of Gainesville web site 2003). There are 87,509 households (inclusive of any type of residential dwelling) in Gainesville with an average income level of just over 30,000 (ibid 2003). The city of Gainesville provided an acceptable study cite in which to conduct this survey because it contains a Traditional, pre-WWII development built around a central downtown business district, a Neo-traditional development, and a large number of postWWII developments that do not fit into either of the first two development styles. The Duck Pond, a Traditional community, is Gainesville’s oldest collection of neighborhoods. It is comprised of 8 subdivisi ons, packed into a mere 292 acres. Located in the heart of downtown Gain esville, the roughly 400 homes within the Duck Pond were originally built between the 1880s and 1930s. The narrow streets of the neighborhoods follow a grid pattern and all streets have sidewalks on both sides. Sweetwater Branch

PAGE 24

14 creek flows through the development. The cr eek includes a water retention basin that local ducks have claimed as their home This ‘duck pond’ is the neighborhoods’ namesake. In addition to the linear park along the banks of the creek, the development also includes Roper Park and the Thomas Cent er Gardens, and Duck Pond residents have nearby access to the larg e communal center in downtown Gainesville. Haile Plantation, the Neotraditional community, comprised of roughly 1,500 houses in 34 subdivisions, sits on the South, West edge of Gainesville. Haile fits a majority of the characteristics of a New Urba nism development. However, since it does not conform to all of the requirements of New Urbanism architectural models, it will be referred to from here forward as Neo-traditi onal (Table 1-1). Ha ile Plantation has won several environmental awards. In particul ar, Haile Plantation is one of the seven exemplary communities cited in Best Deve lopment Practices published by the Joint Center for Environmental and Urban Problems for the Florida Depart ment of Community Affairs. Haile was selected as the 1996 winner of the Successful Community Award by the 1000 Friends of Florida, based on Neotraditional design incorporating greenways and a functional village center. Haile Plantation was also rece ntly included as part of a tour of developments for the Tenth Congress of New Urbanism in Miami, 2002. Though Haile Plantation does not have all the features of New Urba nism, it incorporates enough of them to be considered a Neo-traditi onal community by many architects (Lockette 2002). The biggest criticism of Haile by th e New Urbanism architectural community appears to be that it is too sp read out to be considered trul y “walkable” (Lockette 2002).

PAGE 25

15 Table 1-1. Features of New Urbanism compar ed to those offered in Haile Plantation* Grouping of commercial and residential domains Wide Sidewalks And Narrow Streets Range in Housing to Foster a diverse population Store fronts near pedestrian areas and rear parking for houses and businesses Preservation of “Green Spaces” as a primary feature Growth Boundary Good public transit system New Urbanism Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Haile Plantation Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Partial *Information based on literature provided by Haile Plantation a nd a site visit to the various communities that comprise the Haile Plantation development complex.

PAGE 26

16 CHAPTER 2 SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRO NMENTAL ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE, AND BEHAVIORS IN HOMEOWNERS FR OM THREE COMMUNITY TYPES Introduction It is appears that many fa ctors can play a role in influencing environmental awareness and action. There are numerous studies that explore people’s attitudes, knowledge, and behavior relating to the enviro nment, (for a review see, Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dietz et al. 1998). Many of th ese studies report links between environmentalism various demographic factors including; gender, education, liberal vs. conservative, income, ag e, and religiosity. However, the results from these studies are often conflicting and the only generally agreed upon demographic variable that has proven to be consistent across the board is age (Dietz et al. 1998). Younger people consistently tend to be more environmentalists than people born in earlier cohorts. Additionally, environmenta l attitude and knowledge can be important predictors of environmentally friendly be haviors (Hungerford 1996; Tarrant and Cordell 1997). However, environmental awareness and a ttitudes are not always the best or only predictors of pro-environmental behavior (Shultz and Oskamp 1996; Dietz et al. 1998; Hormuth 1999). A person’s perception of how th e majority is behaving can have a strong influence on their behavior as well (Cialdini 1996). For example, past research has shown that the social norms of the commun ity can be more influential in predicting recycling than a person’s attitude towards environmentalism (Hormuth 1999).

PAGE 27

17 Not only do people influence people, but our built environment is also thought to have an influence on our behaviors and even our values. Mazzumdar and Mazzumdar (1997) report that indeed, architecture can be a form of nonverbal communication, conveying the ideas and attitude s of people in a culture. Le febvre explains in his well know work, The Production of Space that “every mode of so cial organization produces an environment that is a consequence of the social relations it po ssesses. In addition, by producing a space according to its own nature a society not only materializes into distinctive built forms, but also reproduces itself…. space is both a medium of social relations and a material product that can affect social relati ons” (Lefebvre as cited in Gottdiener 1993). Unfortunately, it appears that the culture that we are reproducing now is one that uses resources at unsustainable levels (Platt et al. 1994; Shrivastava 1995), and one in which we are increasingly concerned with a perceived loss of community (Coontz 1992; Brown et al. 1998). Ecologists report that the need for environmental awareness and action is multiplying as our populations are spre ading out and consuming more resources (Myers and Ewel 1990; Platt et al. 1994). Human decisions, ev en at the level of our own backyards, are impacting wildlife on small and large scales (Hostetler and Holling 2000). Despite a generally steady rise in envir onmental concern in most populations since the 1970’s (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Dunlap et al. 2000), we are continuing to behave in ways that are compromising the security of our natural resources for future generations. Maslow’s Hierachy of Needs Theory (1954) has been interpreted to suggest that environmental conservation and environmenta lism reflect behaviors and mindsets that can only be accomplished once basic needs for food, safety and community have been

PAGE 28

18 met (Byers 1996; Hungerford 1996; Dietz et al. 1998). Therefore, this perceived loss of community could be impeding the adoption and dispersal of environmentally minded behaviors. The degradation of our natural environment and its disa ppearance as a result of rapid urbanization have also been linked to a decr ease in social interaction and overall life satisfaction (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997). Middle-class urbanites are no longer concerne d with basic survival needs such as food and shelter, but it is argued that what impoverishes these modern populations today is a sense of community (Coont z 1992; Brown et al. 1998). Numerous explanations for this change in community sense have been offered and range from the political promotion of individualism to the impact of new technologie s such as television (Brown et al. 1998). Another reason that has been proposed is the advent of urban spra wl (Benfield et al. 1999; Talen 1999). After WWII, the automotiv e boom meant that residential and commercial areas could be spread farther ap art. People had a new means for traveling quickly and across greater distances. Brown et al. (1998) make the connection that the distance the suburbs create m eans that an exorbitant amount of time is spent traveling from place to place and not as much time is le ft for cultivating neighborly ties at home. What role automobile dependence has play ed in community loss is only speculation. What is known is that Americans today are increasingly complaining of a loss of this sense of community (Coontz 1992). In an attempt to reclaim a sense of community in the neighborhood, a new model for development has emerged called New Urbani sm, a Neo-traditional design. This fairly recent trend in urban development styles atte mpts to recreate the close-knit, neighborly feel associated with “Trad itional” neighborhoods that were built before WWII (Calthorpe

PAGE 29

19 and Fulton 2001). Some of the design elem ents common in Neo-traditional communities include a circulation system that is focuse d on the pedestrian, (i.e ., wide sidewalks and front access to stores and houses), the preservati on of green spaces as a primary feature of the development, houses that are built closer to the street, front porch es, rear driveways, and a “complementary hierarchy” of civic and private domains that group together commercial, cultural, and residentia l centers (Calthorpe and Fulton 2001). Proponents of Neo-traditional development models claim that not only do they increase a sense of community, but they al so promote a pro-environmental ethic through their complementary integration of the natu ral and built environments (Crow 1990; Katz 1994). Neo-traditional and New Urbanism suppo rters claim that their developments are designed to exist in harmony with the natura l environment. Further they make the connection that by incorporating common green spaces as a primary feature of their developments, they are helping to creati ng opportunities for soci alization (Crow 1990; Katz 1994). The presence of nature elements such as trees and parks have been shown to be an important factor in urban residential satisfacti on, and even interaction among residents in a community (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997; Kwe on et al. 1998). However, little research has explored wh ether Neo-traditiona l designs increase a sense of community and environmentalism amo ng residents. In this study, I compared the sense of community and environmental a ttitudes, behavior, and knowledge of middleclass homeowners from three different deve lopment types; a Traditional (pre-WWII) development, a Neo-traditional development, and other post-WWII developments in Gainesville, FL. Where differences exist, I explored three hypothe ses that may explain any observed differences: 1) the observed diffe rences are attributed to the design of the

PAGE 30

20 development (either in attracting individuals with a particular community/environmental mindset or in promoting that ideology once they moved there), 2) the three development populations differ in demographi c characteristics that have been shown to influence community or environmental dispositions, or 3) the homeowners in a particular area were exposed to some interpretive or outreach progr am/materials that the other developments did not receive. Methods Participant Selection Gainesville, Florida was selected as the i nvestigation site to conduct a mail survey of middle-class homeowners living in one of three different community types: Neotraditional (Haile Plantation), Pre-WWII Trad itional (Duck Pond), and the remainder of the suburban community comprised of unspeci fied, post-WWII developments that did not conform to either Traditional or Neo-traditio nal development models. In October 2002, a mail survey was conducted of randomly select ed respondents who live in each of the three development types in Gainesville, Florida. A mail survey design, modified from the Dillman method (1978), was use for data collection. A total of 1611 surv ey questionnaires were sent to potential respondents. The number of surveys mailed was determined by the response rate necessary for proper statistical analysis given th e total population of the comm unities (Dillman 2000). The survey was printed in a 9 ” by 7” booklet. Surveys were mailed to all the selected participants in a hand-addressed envelope. The name of the respondent was written on the envelope as it appeared in their phonebook listing. In addition to the survey booklet, participants were sent a cove r-letter and a pre-addressed, st amped return envelope. The cover letter provided a brief but generic description of th e project and guaranteed the

PAGE 31

21 participants’ confidentiality. Respondents were given approx imately four weeks from the mailing date to respond. The response deadline was written on the cover page of the survey booklet and in the cover-letter. In stead of follow-up mailings, I used follow-up phone reminders. I called nearly all of the se lected participants w ho did not responded by this date, in random order. The survey booklet, selection method, cover letter, and reminder phone call script were all approved by the University of Florida Institutional Review Board (see appendices AD for copies). Potential respondents were identified through public Alachua County Property Appraisers records available on-line (ACPAF L web site 2003). Only homes that fell within the total taxa ble value range of 80,000 to 350,000 dollars were selected. I selected properties with values between 80,000 and 350,000 fo r three reasons. First, in order to compare Haile Plantation to ot her neighborhoods, this value ra nge is necessitated because the cost of homes in Haile and other Neotraditional communities are typically above 80,000 dollars. Secondly, people who are at le ast moderately financially secure are usually able and willing to focus attenti on on issues beyond their immediate survival, such as conservation, as explained by Masl ow’s “Hierarchy of N eeds” model (Maslow 1954). Third, middle-class and upper middl e-class homeowners make up a large percentage of the population in the United States and due to th eir financial standing; they have access to many resources and the moneta ry backing to consume large amounts of energy (UNSD 2000). Therefore, this group is an important population on which to gather information for environmental conserva tion efforts. Middle-class residents will be defined for the purpose of this research as homeowners living within greater Gainesville,

PAGE 32

22 Florida whose taxable house values are between the ranges of 80,000 US to 350,000 US dollars. A random sample of homeowners from thes e records was matche d with their listing in the local phone book for follow-up phone-cal l reminders. Matching names from the appraiser records to the phone book listings also helped to insure that the taxpayer was also the person living in the household. This was important because renters and homeowners might feel differently towards th eir community, and I wanted to exclude any potential “renter effect.” Ho meowners that did not have listings in the phone book were excluded. There are approximately 37,000 houses in all of Gainesv ille. Of those, approximately 1/3 met the criteria to be includ ed in this survey. Haile Plantation contains roughly 1,700 homes, with 1,500 comprising the se lection pool for this development. Approximately 400 homes make up the Duck P ond area. Only half of those met the necessary requirements to be selected. 643 surveys were sent to the Neo-traditional residents (Haile), 193 to the Traditional (Duck Pond), and 775 to the remaining Gainesville population (Gville). 349 answered questionnaires were returned from Haile, 113 from the Duck Pond, and 403 from the rand om draw of Gainesville, giving response rates of 54.3, 58.5, and 52 per cents respectively. Question Design The survey included questions designed to address five topics: sense of community, environmental action (behaviors), environmental attitude, environmental knowledge, and demographics. Most of thes e question types were located together within the survey (see Appendix A for the complete list and order of questions). Question flow and answerability were tested in a focus group consisting of a sample of

PAGE 33

23 11 middle-class Gainesville homeowners. Th e questionnaire cont ained a total of 74 questions. Not all of these questions were analyzed in this study. As part of the survey, The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) was used in its entirety to assess environmental attitude. The NE P (Dunlap and Van Lier e 1978; Dunlap et al. 2000) consists of 15 questions designed to provide an indication of environmentalism based on ecological consciousness, anthropocentrism, and ecocentrism (see Appendix E for list of questions). The NEP is a widely tested survey and has been used in many studies of environmental at titude across a broad spectrum of respondents and in both developed and developing countries (Dunlap et al. 2000). Supporters of this survey make the claim that the New Ecological Paradigm Scale is one of the best measures of environmental concern that exists today (Die tz et al. 1998). NEP scale reliability has proven to be consistently high and scored a (C ronbach’s alpha = .85) in this study. Also, I had 6 additional questions that addressed environm ental attitudes that were not part of the NEP (Appendix F). Based on survey results, several of the quest ions were also groupe d into scales and accepted as such if their reliab ility analysis yielded a Cronbach ’s alpha of .6 or higher. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency, which is based on the average inter-item correlation (SPSS 2000). Cronbach’s alpha can be used as an acceptable indicator of scale reliabil ity (Dunlap et al. 2000). Combining questions that ar e highly correlated with one another also helps reduce multicollinarity issues (Wald 2003 personal comm unication). Eight of the ten sense of community questions were collapsed into a Sense of Community sc ale (Cronbach’s alpha = .80) (see Appendix E). Of the 14 questions relating to environmental behavior, 12

PAGE 34

24 were collapsed into the Environmental Action scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .66). This scale was intended to provide an indication of environmentalism based on respondents’ selfreported likelihood to particip ate in certain environmen t and conservation related behaviors (Appendix E). For environmental knowledge, two questions were combined into an ID Plants and Birds scale (Cronbach ’s alpha = .80) (Appendix E). The remainder of the environmental knowle dge questions and all the de mographic questions were analyzed independently (Appendix F). In addi tion to the questionnaire, I collected data on water and energy use from a random sample of the respondents using public records available through the Gainesville Regional Util ity Company. This was done to have an actual measure of natural resource consum ption not based on homeowner responses. Most of the survey is comprised of 1-5 Likert-scale questions. In addition to Likert-scale questions, the survey also cont ained Yes, No, Unsure questions, open-ended questions, and particularly in the demographics section, seve ral questions that asked the respondent to choose the best response from a list of possible answers. The Environmental Action scale combined both Li kert-scale questions and yes, no, unsure questions (Appendix E). In order to combine these question types, I assigned ‘Yes’ a 1 (strongly agree on the Likert-s cale) and ‘No’ a 5 (strongly disagree). ‘Unsure’ was recoded into 3, which paralleled the number assignment for th e “unsure” option in the 1-5 Likert-scale. All the other scales were co mprised of only questions of the same type. Analysis Differences in Environmental Attitude Behavior, Knowledge and Sense of Community I separated the communities into pairs that represented all possible combinations (Duck Pond-Gainesville, Gainesville-Haile and Haile-Duck Pond). This pair-wise

PAGE 35

25 analysis was conducted because I was not in terested in three-way interactions. I identified differences among responses in the communities using a Chi-squared test ( = .05) that would account for non-nor mal distributions and ANOVAs ( = .05) for scale data. I felt that important variation would be lost if I were to compress scale data into categories for the Chi-square. A General Linear Model (GLM) was performed on all non-normal scale data. A GLM provides a P -value based on an F score that does not require a normal distribution for validity (Crawley 2002). Do Demographics Partially Explain the Patterns Observed? It is possible that the th ree community types incorpor ated into this study might differ significantly in some demographic factor (s) that could also ha ve an influence on differences observed in their question responses To control for this, I first determined whether demographic variables differed between the paired communities (DuckGainesville, Gainesville-Haile, Haile-Duck). Separate ANOVAs were performed for demographic variables between paired communities ( = .05). Again, with non-normal data, Chi-squared and GLM tests were used. If demographic differences occurred, I then explored with a Pearson’s correlation matrix to determine if these demographic variables significantly correlated ( = .05) to a specific question. If a demographic variable was significantly correlated with a question and both this de mographic and the question differed significantly between communities, I needed to account for this. I conducted a GLM for that community pair to control for the correlation between the demographic variable and the response variable. From this last test, I could determine whether a response value still differed among communitie s when the demographic variable was taken into account.

PAGE 36

26 If significant differences still existed among the communities even when relevant demographic factors were considered, then I was left with the two remaining hypothesis 1) that the community itself played some role in either attracting residents with a particular bent towards community or envir onmentalism or in promoting that ideology after the homeowner m oved into the development; or 2) homeowners in one development had been exposed to some educational program that the others did not receive. Are observed differences attributed to exposure to educational programs or the design of the development? To get at the education expos ure issue, I asked respondent s whether or not they had participated in an environmental education or extension program since they moved into their neighborhood. Again, I used an ANO VA or Chi-square test depending on the normalcy of the distribution. Respondents we re also asked to write in the specific program and date, if they answered “yes.” However, there were not enough write-ins to consider analyzing this portion for statistical differences. The Neo-traditional community (Haile) had a management plan to conserve Gopher Tortoises on the property and subsequently e xposed local residents to Gopher Tortoise conservation. The other two development types did not have any known, on-site Gopher Tortoise conservation efforts. A ques tion pertaining to Gopher Tortoises was intentionally included in the environmental knowledge portion of this survey. This was done in order to determine whether the Neotraditional community’s conservation efforts in this one area (Gopher Tortoise conserva tion) might have resulted in a significant difference in responses to this question be tween Haile and the other two development types.

PAGE 37

27 In order to look at the in fluence of the community de sign in either attracting residents with a particular minds et or in shaping environmental knowledge/attitude/behavior afte r they had moved in, I aske d the respondent whether or not it would be important for them to move into an environmentally friendly community if they were to move tomorrow and whether or not they felt like th ey had become more environmentally friendly since moving into their current neighbor hood. These questions were analyzed using the same methods described above. I also asked the participants to list the top two reasons why they chose their home. This question was an open-ended question in the survey to determine if there was something about the design of the community that attracted a homeowner. This might also help to elucidate whethe r or not the design of the co mmunity selected for certain types of homeowners. Respondent s were asked to write-in what ever answer they wanted. I looked for similar responses that had a high ra te of repetition in th e surveys. I created nine categories based on this visual analysis and the potenti al category’s relevance to the scope of this study. These nine categories included: 1) Community Oriented, 2) Natural Environment, 3) House Feat ures, 4) Value/Price, 5) Location (to work, school, or unspecified), 6) Historic Appeal 7) Walkability, 8) Quiet, an d 9) Other. I did not know which development type the respondent belong ed to when I assigned their response to a category. “Other” included all other responses that I could not place into any of the previous categories. I counted the total numbe r of responses in each category for all three communities. The responses were weighted evenly regardless of their ranking (first or second). For each of the categories, I perf ormed a Chi-squared test among all three communities ( = .05).

PAGE 38

28 Water and Energy Use I collected hard data on water and ener gy use from a random sample of survey respondents from each community. These records were provided by Gainesville Regional Utility Company. For the selected properties, I was provided with data on household consumption of water and ener gy from May through August, 2002 based on monthly meter readings. Energy is assesse d by units of kilowatt/hours and water is measured in thousands of gallons. I added together each month’s energy c onsumption reading and then divided that figure by the number of people in the hous ehold and the total area of the home (energy/number of people/tota l area). I also added together each month’s water consumption reading, and I divi ded that figure by the number of people in the household (water/number of people). I did not divide the water usage by the total area of the home because I did not feel that the area of the hous e in this instance would have a significant influence on water consumption. I performed an ANOVA ( = .05) with these final figures to determine if differences existed between pairs of communities. Results Sense of Community and Environmental Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior Responses to all four of the scales showed significant differences among communities, and out of the 18 questions analyzed individually, 9 differed significantly between at least one of the three paired co mmunities (Table 2-1). The other 9 questions analyzed showed no difference among communities (all tests P > 0.05, see Appendix F for a list of all ques tions analyzed).

PAGE 39

29 Table 2-1. Survey question results from ho meowners that live in a Neo-traditional (Haile), a Traditional (D uck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville). Based on Chi-squared and ANOVA te sts where significance was found between at least one paired commun ity for community and environment related questions. Significant P -values are in bold ( P < 0.05). Question* Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Means N NEP s F = 6.64 P = 0.01 F = 3.18 P = 0.08 F = 14.50 P < 0.0001 Duck 32.79 G-ville 35.89 Haile 37.35 106 370 331 Environmental Action s F = 5.00 P = 0.03 F = 7.33 P = 0.01 F = 18.77 P < 0.0001 Duck 29.58 G-ville 31.68 Haile 33.34 97 329 305 Sense of Community s F = 0.33 P = 0.57 F = 34.45 P < 0.0001 F = 13.22 P < 0.0001 Duck 13.90 G-ville 14.19 Haile 12.29 110 390 345 ID Plants and Birds s t F = 0.08 P = 0.78 F = 5.43 P = 0.02 F = 1.67 P = 0.20 Duck 13.90 G-ville 14.19 Haile 12.29 111 393 345 I believe the developer… X2 = 33.20 P < 0.0001 X2 = 67.11 P < 0.0001 X2 =128.24 P < 0.0001 Duck 2.82 G-ville 2.26 Haile 1.69 107 396 348 Amount of car traffic X2 = 13.40 P = 0.01 X2 = 0.61 P = 0.96 X2 = 11.74 P = 0.02 Duck 3.08 G-ville 2.60 Haile 2.62 112 398 349 More Federal support X2 = 7.28 P = 0.03 X2 = 3.32 P = 0.19 X2 = 14.54 P = 0.001 Duck 1.28 G-ville 1.47 Haile 1.56 101 335 279 Belong to org X2 = 1.99 P = 0.37 X2 = 8.92 P = 0.01 X2 = 6.35 P = 0.04 Duck 2.31 G-ville 2.41 Haile 2.54 112 399 346 Gopher Tortoise X2 = 1.37 P = 0.50 X2 = 6.10 P = 0.047 X2 = 1.46 P = 0.48 Duck 1.38 G-ville 1.40 Haile 1.31 112 395 344 Water in a street drain X2 = 3.69 P = 0.16 X2 = 4.82 P = 0.09 X2 = 8.98 P = 0.01 Duck 1.58 G-ville 1.67 Haile 1.78 111 396 343 Do you know invasive exo… X2 = 6.35 P = 0.04 X2 = 1.92 P = 0.38 X2 = 10.42 P = 0.005 Duck 1.40 G-ville 1.53 Haile 1.51 113 396 345 % Mowed grass X2 = 19.12 P = 0.001 X2 = 126.15 P < 0.0001 X2 = 23.64 P < 0.0001 Duck 3.02 G-ville 3.53 Haile 2.45 112 400 348 Amount water yard F = 3.32 P = 0.07 F = 0.63 P = 0.43 F = 5.60 P = 0.02 Duck 42.21 G-ville 63.26 Haile 70.01 106 380 329 s = see Appendix E for a list of all questions used in each scale t = high mean is more environmentally friendly for only ID Plants and Bi rds scale; for all other questions, a low mean is more environmentally friendly or a stronger sense of community *The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording, which can be found in the numbered list below in the order of their appearance.

PAGE 40

30 Question wording: 1 I believe that the developer(s) of my neighborhood were concerned with protecting the environment by the way they developed the land….. 2 There is a lot of car traf fic in my neighborhood….. 3 Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary support for wildlife and environmental issues? 4 Do you belong to any wildlife or environment-related organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others? 5 Is the Gopher Tortoise a “Species of Special Concern” in Florida? 6 Does water flowing into street drains go to a water treatment facility? 7 Are you familiar with the term invasive exotic when referring to plants or animals? 8 What percentage of your yard is mowed grass? 9 On average, for this September 2002, how many times per week did you water you yard, and how long did you leave the water running when you watered? Neo-traditional residents were more likely than Gainesville and Traditional residents to agree with the statement that the developers of their neighborhood appeared to be concerned with protecting the envir onment and Gainesville residents were more likely than Traditional residents to agree with this statement (Table 2-1). Gainesville residents had a significantly high er percentage of their yard that was mowed grass than both Neo-traditional and Traditional residents. Traditional residents reported that a higher percentage of their yard was mowed gr ass than Neo-traditional residents(Table 21) Neo-traditional residents reported wa tering their yards significantly more than Traditional residents (Table 2-1). Traditional neighborhood residents felt that the federal government should provide more support to wildlife and environmental issues than either the Neo-traditional residents or the Gainesville residents (Table 21). Traditional reside nts were significantly

PAGE 41

31 more likely than Neo-traditional residents to know that water flowing into a street drain does not go to a water treatment facility ( Table 2-1). Traditiona l homeowners were more likely than Neo-traditional homeowners and Gainesville homeowners to know the term “invasive exotic” (Table 2-1) Both the Traditional and the Gainesville re sidents were more likely than the Neotraditional residents to report that they bel onged to an environmenta l or wildlife related organization ( P = 0.04 and P = 0.01). Neo-traditional reside nts were more likely than Gainesville residents to know th at the Gopher Tortoise is a sp ecies of special concern in Florida (Table 2-1). The Traditional residents were more lik ely to score pro-en vironment on the NEP scale than both Gainesville and the Neo-tr aditional homeowners (T able 2-1). The Neotraditional residents were more likely to have more sense of community than either the Traditional or Gainesville residents (Table 2-1). Gainesville resi dents on average could identify more plants and birds than Neo-tr aditional residents (Table 2-1). On the environmental action scale, both Gainesville and Traditional residents reported more environmentally friendly behaviors than Neo-traditional homeowners (Table 2-1). Traditional residents also reported more environmentally friendly behaviors than Gainesville residents (Table 2-1). In addition, although it did not di ffer among communities (all tests: P > 0.05), a majority of the respondents indi cated that they wanted more information about their local environment: 57.8% of Gainesville, 58% of Ha ile Plantation, and 68.8% of Duck Pond. Water and Energy Use There were no significant differences among commun ities in water or energy consumption for the four months over whic h this data was collected (Table 2-2).

PAGE 42

32 Table 2-2. Energy and water use from utility data for homeowners in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville). Based on ANOVA tests. Means represent average household consumption of water and energy over four months from May through August in a particular community. Energy use is kilowatt/hours per person per square foot of heated area of the household. Water use is thousands of gallons per person in the household. Question Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Means N Energy Use F = 0.43 P = 0.51 F = 0.03 P = 0.86 F = 0.71 P = 0.40 Duck 1.4561 Gville 1.2903 Haile 1.2605 35 33 34 Water Use F = 3.07 P = 0.08 F = 0.100 P = 0.75 F = 1.75 P = 0.19 Duck 15.34 Gville 21.39 Haile 20.05 35 33 34 Differences in Demographics Significant differences among some of the communities were found for six demographic questions (Table 2-3). The ot her questions analyzed showed no difference between communities (all tests: P > 0.05, see Appendix F for a complete list of questions and question wording). Table 2-3. Demographic question results from homeowners that live in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville). Based on Chi-squared a nd ANOVA tests where significance was found between at least one paired co mmunity for demographic questions. Significant P -values are in bold. Demographic Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Means N Religiositys X2 =34.20 P < 0.0001 X2 = 7.96 P = 0.09 X2 = 16.22 P = 0.003 Duck 3.07 G-ville 2.37 Haile 2.49 109 394 343 Spiritualitys X2 = 3.16 P = 0.53 X2 = 9.72 P = 0.045 X2 = 1.67 P = 0.80 Duck 2.03 G-ville 1.93 Haile 1.97 111 385 343 Gender female = 1 male = 2 X2 = 7.63 P = 0.006 X2 = 0.32 P = 0.57 X2 = 9.56 P = 0.002 Duck 1.37 G-ville 1.52 Haile 1.54 113 401 343 Pop. of area where you grew up* X2 = 4.88 P = 0.30 X2 = 9.94 P = 0.04 X2 = 1.63 P = 0.80 Duck 3.00 G-ville 3.00 Haile 2.88 107 396 334 How many years of educationt X2 = 7.07 P = 0.13 X2 = 2.70 P = 0.61 X2 = 4.86 P = 0.30 Duck 3.23 G-ville 3.51 Haile 3.45 112 400 337 Political Aff. dem = 1 repub = 2 X2 = 0.06 P = 0.82 X2 = 0.35 P = 0.55 X2 = 0.41 P = 0.52 Duck 1.39 G-ville 1.40 Haile 1.43 93 317 242

PAGE 43

33 Table 2-3 continued Demographic Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Means N Ethnicity Caucasian = 1 Minority = 2 X2 = 0.51 P = 0.48 X2 = 1.70 P = 0.19 X2 = 2.80 P = 0.10 Duck 1.10 G-ville 1.08 Haile 1.05 111 397 334 How long do you plan to stay in Gainesvillet X2 = 7.35 P = 0.12 X2 = 1.23 P = 0.87 X2 = 3.71 P = 0.45 Duck 3.68 G-ville 3.68 Haile 3.65 112 397 335 Age of respondent t F = 0.04 P = 0.84 F = 0.85 P = 0.36 F = 0.69 P = 0.41 Duck 55.54 G-ville 55.85 Haile 56.86 111 396 340 How long have you lived in Florida t F = 9.41 P = 0.002 F = .24 P = 0.63 F = 7.12 P = 0.01 Duck 31.35 G-ville 25.30 Haile 25.94 109 404 341 How long have you lived in Gville t F = 6.28 P = 0.01 F = 0.66 P = 0.42 F = 2.90 P = 0.09 Duck 21.29 G-ville 17.56 Haile 18.40 107 399 333 How many years have you lived in the neighborhood t F = 2.68 P = 0.10 F = 0.001 P = 0.98 F = 2.30 P = 0.13 Duck 12.20 G-ville 11.30 Haile 11.28 112 399 337 s = high mean is less religious or less spiritual = high mean is larger population t = high mean is more years Traditional neighborhoods had a signif icantly higher proportion of female respondents than both Gainesv ille and Neo-tradit ional neighborhoods. The Traditional neighborhood respondents reported being less re ligious than both Gainesville and Neotraditional residents (Table 2-3). Gainesville residents reported higher levels of spirituality than Haile residents. Traditiona l residents also reported living in Florida approximately 6 years longer, on average, th an either Gainesville or Neo-traditional homeowners (Table 2-3). Traditional nei ghborhood homeowners also reported living in Gainesville significantly longer than Gainesvi lle residents. Haile homeowners tended to grow up in cities with slightly smaller popul ations than Gainesville homeowners (Table 2-3).

PAGE 44

34 Identifying Correlations Based on the above results, there were ten relevant correlations between demographics and responses to survey questi ons in at least one of the three community pairs. Religion showed the highest numb er of correlations to the other question responses. (Table 2-4) Table 2-4. Results from Pearson’s correla tion analyses between demographics and questions asked on a survey for homeow ners in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville). Significant P -values are in bold. Demographics vs Question* Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Direction of relationship Religion vs. Believe that developers… 0.14 P = 0.002 0.11 P = 0.003 0.26 P < 0.0001 More religious more likely to agree with statement Religion vs. More Support -0.20 P < 0.000 -0.18 P < 0.000 -0.21 P < 0.0001 More religious less likely want more Federal support for enviro Religion vs. % Mowed grass -0.14 P = 0.001 -0.11 P = 0.004 -0.02 P = 0.64 More religious higher percent of lawn that is mowed grass Religion vs. Belong to org -0.11 P = 0.01 -0.09 P = 0.02 -0.09 P = 0.05 More religious, less likely to belong to an environmental org Religion vs. NEP -0.17 P < 0.0001 -0.13 P = 0.001 -0.22 P < 0.0001 More religious less environmentally friendly attitude Religion vs. Sense of Community 0.09 P = 0.06 0.12 P = 0.001 0.12 P = 0.01 More religious higher sense of community Religion vs. Enviro Action -0.01 P = 0.79 -0.02 P = 0.68 -0.11 P = 0.03 More religious less likely behave in environmentally friendly ways Spirituality vs. Enviro Action 0.17 P < 0.0001 0.13 P = 0.001 0.03 P = 0.53 More spiritual more likely to behave in environmentally friendly ways Gender vs. Know invasive exo 0.09 P = 0.03 0.05 P = 0.20 0.07 P = 0.15 Females more likely to know about invasive exotics Time in Gville vs. Believe that developers… 0.11 P = 0.01 0.08 P = 0.03 0.06 P = 0.23 Less time in Gville more likely to agree with statement *The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording, which can be found in Appendix E (scale questions) and Appendix F (all other questions). General Linear Model Based on a General Linear Model wher e significant interactions between demographics and other survey questions were taken into account, Community-type differences remained significant in a majority of models (Table 2-5). The exceptions

PAGE 45

35 were Spirituality in relation to the Environmental Action scale and Gender in relation to knowing about invasive exotics. For the Gain esville-Haile comparis on, differences in the Environmental Action scale disappeared when Spirituality was considered. For the Haile-Duck Pond comparison, differences in th e invasive exotic question disappeared when Gender was considered. Table 2-5. Results from the Ge neral Linear Model analysis wh ere significant interactions between question type and demographics were taken into account. Significant P -values ( P < 0.05) indicate that when the demographic variable was taken into account, differences s till existed between respondents in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville). Some paired communities were not analyzed (N/A) because demographic differences did not exist or there was not a significant interaction between the response and the demographic. Question* Demographic Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Believe that developers… Religion P < 0.0001 F= 17.33 N/A P < 0.0001 F = 95.83 More Federal support Religion P = 0.03 F = 4.82 N/A P = 0.001 F = 11.83 Belong to org Religion N/A N/A P = 0.02 F= 5.58 % Mowed lawn Religion P = 0.003 F = 8.84 N/A N/A NEP Religion P = 0.03 F = 4.90 N/A P = 0.001 F = 4.08 Sense of Com Religion N/A N/A P = 0.02 F = 5.83 Enviro Action Religion N/A N/A P < 0.0001 F = 18.33 Enviro Action Spirituality N/A P = 0.78 F = 0.08 N/A Know invasive exotic Gender P = 0.11 F = 2.59 N/A N/A Believe that developers… Time in Gville P < 0.0001 F = 18.96 N/A N/A *The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording which can be found in Appendix E (scale questions) and Appendix F (all other questions). Development Design and Education Programs The influence of development design: Out of the 9 variables analyzed for choosing a home, Haile Plantation homeowners’ fi rst variable was a Community Oriented neighborhood with 172 out of 654 responses (26.3 %) listing this as th eir primary reason

PAGE 46

36 for buying a home. This was significantly more than Gainesville (89/714 – 12.5%) and Duck Pond homeowners (31/209 – 14.8%) (both tests: P < 0.0001). Duck Pond homeowners’ first variable was Hous e Features (48/209 – 23.0%) which was Gainesville’s’ third variable (120/714 – 16.0 %) and Haile Plantation’s fourth variable (89/654 – 13.6 %). Gainesville homeowners’ first variable was Location (200/714 – 28%), which was Haile Plantation’s third variable (100/654 – 15.3 %) and Duck Pond’s second variable (37/209 – 17.7%). Interestin gly, Natural Environment was Duck Pond’s eighth variable (7/209 – 3.3%), Gainesville’s fourth variable (89/714 – 12.5%, tied with Community Oriented), and Haile Plantati on’s fifth variable (78/654 – 11.9%). (See Appendix G for a table with observed a nd expected frequency of responses.) There were no significant differences among communities for the “Since I moved into my current neighborhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally conscious” question (X2 = 12.13, P = 0.15) or for the “If I moved tomorrow it would be important for me to move into an envir onmentally conscious neighborhood” question (X2 = 9.98, P = 0.34). However, the majority of homeowners from all three communities responded that if they moved tomorrow it woul d be important for them to move to an environmentally conscious neighborhood ( 65.5% from the Duck Pond, 69.5% from Gainesville, 68.1% from Haile). A high percent, though not a majority (except Gainesville), agreed or strongly agreed w ith the “since I moved” statement (48.2% from the Duck Pond, 53.2% from Gainesville, and 48.6 from Haile). The influence of environmental education: There were no significant differences among communities for the question asking if respondents had participated in an environmental education program si nce moving into their neighborhood (X2 = 4.46, P =

PAGE 47

37 0.35). However, Haile Plantation, the onl y community with the Gopher Tortoise conservation program, did show significantly higher homeowner knowledge about this issue than homeowners in Gainesville (Table 2-1) Discussion Overall, Haile Plantation (the Neo-traditional community) had the greatest sense of community. However, Haile Plantation is billed as a “green” community but the residents tended to score the lowest on environmental attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge. Duck Pond, the traditional commun ity, tended to score consistently higher than Haile Plantation in environmental atti tude, behavior, and know ledge questions and was slightly more environmentally friendly than the random draw from Gainesville. Below, I discuss the results of the Trad itional and Neo-traditional communities’ responses to environmental and sense of community questions and propose whether observed differences could be explained by the design of the community. Environmentalism and Sense of Community in a Neo-traditional Development It was clear that homeowners in Haile Plantation, the Neo-traditional community, felt that their developers were concerned a bout the environment significantly more than the homeowners from the other communities re ported. There are several factors that could have influenced Haile homeowners in their response to this question. Haile Plantation planners did make an effort to pres erve trees when they developed the area and they do use reclaimed water for their public grounds and golf course. Haile homeowners also reported a lower percenta ge of their lawn that was mo wed grass than either of the other two communities. Preserving trees, using reclaimed water and reducing mowed lawn area are all visible conservation effort s that people within this community could probably observe for themselves. In addi tion, there is an on-site Gopher Tortoise

PAGE 48

38 conservation program that the other developm ents did not have, which may have helped promote the idea that the developers were c oncerned with the environment. Residents within Haile were sent information about th is conservation program so they would have been aware of the development’s efforts. Haile Plantation also provided potenti al homebuyers with a brochure, which advertises that the developm ent’s planners were dedicated to protecting wildlife and preserving the natural environment. Haile was the only development in my survey, that I am aware of, which has an advertising campai gn that specifically addresses protecting the natural environment. Whether or not Haile actually protects the natural ecology through its design is another question, but it does make this claim clearly known to potential residents. This advertisement possibl y had an influence on Haile Plantations homeowners’ likelihood to report th at they felt like the deve lopers of their neighborhoods were concerned with protecting the envir onment. Although it was not their top reason, the natural environment was listed 11.9% of the time as the first or second reason residents choose to live in Ha ile Plantation. Haile reported the strongest sense of community according to the Sense of Community scale than either of the other two development type s and less car traffic than the Duck Pond area. It is not surprising that Haile Plantation homeowners reported a stronger sense of community on average than homeowners in the other developments. Haile Plantation does follow many of th e design components of New Urbanism communities. Though there are critics who argu e that New Urbanism has failed to prove its claim to promote community or conserve the environment (Talen 1999; Beauregard 2002), there are still many suppor ters who insist that New Ur banism’s architecture does

PAGE 49

39 play a role in building stronger communitie s (Musser 2000; Hall and Porterfield 2001). The results from this study cannot definitivel y resolve this question but they do provide more support for the latter claim regarding th e promotion of community. It seems, at least for Haile Plantation, that there are Neo-traditional de sign components that probably do promote a sense of community or at least attract people who feel that community is important. Some of the design features wh ich Haile has in common with New Urbanism designs that are proposed to improve sense of community include: common green spaces and the preservation of trees (Kuo et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1998; Talen 1999); homes in some of the neighborhoods have been moved cl oser to the street to promote interaction between residents and pedestrians (Audirac 1999); and homes near the Village Center feature front porches and provide nearby, pe destrian-friendly comme rce areas (Calthrop and Fulton 1994; Brown et al. 1998). There is no known educational program th at Haile could have been unevenly exposed to which could explai n the difference between sense of community for Haile and the other developments. The data for this st udy is not able to disc riminate whether the strong sense of community reported by Haile is a product of the development design promoting these attitudes and behaviors, or whether the design played some role in attracting people who were alr eady inclined towards a part icular set of values and behaviors pertaining to being involved with a community. It seems likely that both are related because people who feel that community is a priority in their choice of residence would not choose a place to live that they fe lt would hinder their pract ice or experience of those values. Homeowners in Haile Planta tion reported that a sense of community was the most important factor in determining why they chose the home that they bought. Past

PAGE 50

40 research has attributed people’ s choice of environment to thei r desire to maintain various socio-cultural influences in th eir lives, these incl ude; religious ideology, family structure, social organization, way of earning a living, and interactio ns with other individuals (Rapoport 1969, cited in Mazzumdar and Mazzumdar 1997). Despite reporting the highest sense of co mmunity of any of the developments and being the most likely to believe that their de velopers were concerne d with protecting the environment, overall, Haile Plantation re sidents were the least likely to report environmentally friendly attitudes, behavi ors and knowledge about local wildlife and conservation issues when compared to the other two communities. The exception was knowledge about the legal status of the Gophe r Tortoise. Gopher Tortoise awareness can probably be attributed to Ha ile’s residents being exposed to a conservation program relating specifically to onsite conservation of th e Gopher Tortoise. I propose that though Haile Plantation app ears to have successfully designed a residential development that either attracts or promotes people having a strong sense of community; it does not do a good job in promoting environmental awareness through natural landscaping or environment friendly design. I do not rule out that design could influence people’s attitudes and behavior towards the environment. Modeling appropriate behavior is an important tena nt in the accepted formula for encouraging environmentally friendly activities (McK enzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). Haile does express a desire for environmental conservati on in its advertisement, through its Gopher Tortoise conservation efforts, and in the deve lopers’ intentional pres ervation of trees. However, by-in-large, the overall environmen t that Haile homeowners experience may not go far enough to reinforce environmental beha viors and attitudes of its residents. For

PAGE 51

41 example, most of the homes and businesses in Haile were not built to modern energy conservation standards (e.g., Energystar). Interestingly, whereas Haile does incorporate common green spaces into its design to encourage residents to spend time out doors in their neighborhood, there were no significant differences among residents in th e amount of time they spent outdoors or the amount of time that they spent outdoors in their own neighborhood. Gainesville residents reported spending approximately 15 hours outdoor s per week. The city of Gainesville itself offers numerous outdoor recreational outlets Several large parks are situated in and around the city, including Lake Walberg, Palm Point, Paynes Prairie, Newnan’s Lake, and Austin Cary. Gainesville features extens ive bike trails that wind through the city and Hawthorn Park. The city is also close to fr eshwater springs that attract visitors year round. Having easy access to these facilities might have had a positive influence on the amount of time that the random draw of Gain esville residents spent outdoors. However, even if Haile had reported th at its residents spent more tim e outdoors, past research has shown that simply encouraging residents to spend time outdoors in their community is not enough to influence environmental attitude or behavior (Sandell 1991; Nord et al. 1998). Sandell (1991) suggests th at it is how individuals are spending their time outdoor and in what sort of settings that could have the most infl uence on how they perceive and respond to their natural environment (Sandell 1991). However, one study showed that, at least for children, more outdoor exposure in general can have a positive influence on environmentalism (Floyd 2002). One of Neo-Traditional and New Urbanism ’s primary goals is to provide an alternative to sprawl developments through a design that is more ecologically conscious

PAGE 52

42 and promotes “natural communities” (Till 2001) Haile Plantation does not appear to be the only Neo-Traditional community to fall shor t of this goal however Critics of these urban models claim that Neo-traditional de signs, particularly Ne w Urbanism, does not really constitute a more sustainable form of development (Till 2001; Zimmerman 2001; Beauregard 2002). Further, the argument ha s been made that New Urbanism designers can not succeed in their desire to promot e environmentalism and conservation because they, themselves, have a limited understandi ng of nature and natural processes (Till 2001). It is important for ur ban design professionals to ha ve a better understanding of environmental and ecological issues if they hope to create communities that are truly sustainable. The Gopher Tortoise conservation program at Haile Plantation supports the idea that active environmental education at the neighborhood level can have a positive influence on environmental awareness in homeowners. The Gopher Tortoise conservation program at Haile Plantation included informational newsletters about Gopher Tortoises and onsite conservation efforts that were sent to residents within Haile neighborhoods. Grassroots neighborhood educationa l efforts such as this have been cited as an important area to focus attention in the struggle to conser ve natural resources (Collin et al. 1995; Byers 1996). Had Haile Plantation offered education in other conservation areas, its homeowners’ responses to related survey question may have shown more environmentalism in those area s as well. Ideally, some combination of education and “truly” eco-friendly design s hould be blended into “green” development strategies because both of these elements toge ther are probably more effective than either one on its own.

PAGE 53

43 Environmentalism and Sense of Communi ty in a Traditional Development The Duck Pond area, a Traditional comm unity, generally had higher levels of environmental attitudes and behavior than Ha ile Plantation but it was bit of a mixed bag when compared to the random draw of Gaines ville residents. Duck Pond residents were higher in NEP and Environmental Action scales, but they were only higher in 4 out of the 12 individual questions. Th e reasons for the more environmentally friendly NEP and Environmental Action levels reported in this development type are not entirely clear. There are no known educationa l programs that the Duck Pond was disproportionately exposed to when compared to Gainesville. Demographic differences also could not account for all of the differences. Duck P ond residents listed the Natural Environment less frequently on their priorities for choosi ng their place of residence when compared to Gainesville and Haile. Additionally, they were equally as likely to express the desire that if they moved tomorrow, they would sele ct an environmental friendly community. Therefore, it would seem that Duck P ond homeowners were not predisposed to environmentalism either. The Duck Pond is the oldest established collection of neighborhoods within a city that itself is relatively green—in that a majo rity of residents from all three development types reported higher than av erage levels of environmentalism according to the NEP and Environmental Action scales (Chapter 3). The city also provides recycling bins and pickup to all residents. The Duck Pond area is within walking distance to Downtown Gainesville, which is a popular arena for arts fa irs, concerts, and this is also the location of the weekly farmers market. Despite a de sign that supposedly discourages automobile use, homeowners in the Duck Pond reported sign ificantly higher levels of car traffic than both of the other development types. This s uggests that this is a very active area of the

PAGE 54

44 city. The close proximity of the Duck P ond residential area to the original downtown business district of the city is a typical “T raditional” design element. Though Duck Pond residents do not report a si gnificantly stronger sense of community within their neighborhood, they may receive more exposure to the larger community outside of their neighborhoods. Interactions between th e Duck Pond and other members of the Gainesville community might help to reinforce the social norms of the city, which appear to promote environmentalism. Social norms have been shown to exert a strong influence over people’s behavior (Cialdini 1996). It is somewhat surprising that the Duck Pond did not re port a significa ntly stronger sense of community than Gainesville, since Haile and other Neo-trad itional developments attribute their strong community orientation to the fact that they model themselves after the design of Traditional communities like th e Duck Pond. Duck Pond homeowners did report a stronger sense of community on averag e than Gainesville but this difference was not significant. Additional Results I found no significant differences in hard data on water and energy use among the three communities despite numerous signifi cant differences in levels of reported environmentally friendly attit udes and behaviors—several of which related to water and energy conservation. Poortinga et al. (2002), reports that for reasons related to perceived environmental risk factors, personal ener gy and water use are often overlooked as avenues for conservation, even in people who are environmentally conscious and conserve in other ways. It seems that many people feel that some environmental protection measures, including the conservation of energy and water, are better handled at the governmental rather than the individual level (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Shrivastava

PAGE 55

45 1995; Poortinga et al. 2002). The low sample sizes that I had for this issue could also play a role in why I was not able to see a significant difference even though the means suggested that there might actually be some differences among the communities, particularly in respect to Gainesville’s la rger average water consumption measurements when compared to the Duck Pond. Gainesville reported the largest perc entage of grass in their yard, so this could be related. The Du ck Pond means indicated that they might use the most energy of all three communities. The Duck Pond also has the oldest homes in all of Gainesville and these may be less energy efficient. Several studies, in addition to this one, report that religi osity might have a negative relationship with environmentalism (Hand & Van Liere 1984; Guth et al. 1995). It should be noted; however, that I did not fi nd the same negative co rrelations between a similar question that asked respondents how th ey would rank their le vel of spirituality on a 1 to 5 Likert-scale. In fact, spirituality correlated positively with environmentalism. Some possible explanations as to why religions particularly Judeo-Ch ristian sects, have been reported to interact negatively with environmentalism have been proposed. The concept of “mastery over nature” as interpre ted from biblical text referencing Genesis where God gave man dominion over nature, has been offered by Hand and Van Liere (1984) as one possible source fo r conflict between religious and environmental ideology. Guth et al. (1995) found that there were strong bivariate as sociations between environmentalism and conservative eschat ology, religious activi ties, and religious commitment—with conservatism being the st rongest of religious predictors for nonenvironmentalism. My study did not expl ore reasons for the negative relationship

PAGE 56

46 between religion and environmentalism, but re ligiosity seemed to have some negative correlations to environmentalism in this study. Gainesville participants did not fare well in the environment and conservation knowledge category. More than 50 percent of residents in all three communities did not know that water going into a street drain does not go into a water trea tment facility; they did not know which plastics could be recycled in the city; they were not familiar with the term invasive exotic (except Duck Pond); and most were not familiar with a common state law pertaining to feeding local wildlife. On average, respondent s reported that they could identify between 6 and 10 species of lo cal plants and local birds each. Though past research has seen a similar pattern in lack of knowledge concerning environmental issues despite other environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors (for a review see, Furman 1998), this trend is still somewh at alarming. In particular, efforts should be made to educate the public on the water dr ain and invasive exotic issues, since both of these have such a significant impact on the environment in and ar ound Central Florida. The majority of respondents from all thr ee communities reported that they would like to see more information on local wildlife and environmental issues. The majority of respondents in all communities (except Haile), also felt like the Federal government should provide more monetary support to wi ldlife and environmental issues. These findings mirror the results of a survey of Floridians, which found that environmental issues were ranked fourth among perceived local problems following community development crime, and social problems such as health care, discrimination, and immigration (Parker and Oppenhe im 1986, cited in Duda 1986).

PAGE 57

47 A majority of respondents, 68.4 percent, agreed or strongly agreed with the statement that it would be important for them to move into an environmentally friendly neighborhood, if they were to move tomorrow. One of the argumen ts against building more sustainable communities has traditionally been that it could cost more initially, and homebuyers would not be willing to pay more money to live in an ecologically conscious or more sustainable community. Past research into this issue does not support this claim. At least in terms of New Urbanism el ements, middle-class and upper-middle class homeowners appear to be willing to pay more for features in their community that they feel are importan t (Audirac 1999; Song and Knaap 2003). The Future for “Green” Development The Neo-traditional community (Haile Plantation) was not more “green” when compared to other developments in Gaines ville, Florida. However, Neo-traditional community homeowners did report a stronger sense of community than homeowners in the other two development types. Neo-traditional residents we re also significantly more likely to report that community appeal was one of their top two reasons for choosing their home than were homeowners from the ot her developments. This bent towards community expressed by Neo-traditional reside nts plus some design features within the community probably played a role in this stronger sense of community reported by Neotraditional residents. Only when Haile Plantation residents we re locally exposed to an environmental issue (Gopher Tortoise conservation) did they score higher than the other communities. The developers instigated a Gopher Tort oise conservation program within the development and residents received inform ation pertaining to Gopher Tortoises. Consequently, despite having the lowest le vels of overall environmentalism among the

PAGE 58

48 three communities, Neo-traditional homeowners were most likely to be aware of Gopher Tortoise conservation status. Developers and communities that are interested in increasing environmental awareness should incl ude proactive environmental education at the neighborhood level. Though more passive influence on environmentalism through sustainable urban design should not be ruled out, the direct educa tion strategy was more effective here. In order for architecture to have the opportunity to positively impact environmentalism, the design f eatures must be “truly” a ddressing the conservation of natural resources. To build “green” communities, a combination of proactive education and passive design influence is probably the best model for increas ing environmentalism among middle-class homeowners. Despite numerous theories that relate to the interaction between architecture, community and environmentalism, this is an area that has been explored surprisingly little. Neo-traditional designs are a relati vely new concept in urban development and there is a real need for further research on thei r potential ecological a nd social influence. People desire greener communities and working towards achieving this goal appears to be in the best interests of all involve d—developers, community residents and the environment.

PAGE 59

49 CHAPTER 3 THE NEW ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM SC ALE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS AND KNOWLEDGE Introduction Environmental concern has been grow ing among Floridians and the U.S. population as a whole from the early seventies until the past decade (Florida Defenders of the Environment 1974; Parker and Oppenhe im 1986; Dunlap et al. 2000; Sadd and Dunlap 2000). Though concern has waned some what in recent times for undetermined reasons, Americans still consis tently rank wildlife and the en vironment as a top priority for protection and government spending, and governmental policymakers have tended to greatly underestimate the importance of th e environment to Americans (Duda 1987; Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Sadd and Dunlap 2000). Despite high levels of reported concern, it is generally understood that the majority of the mainstream public does not have a re al understanding of the interrelated and interdependent working of natural ecology. For this reason, some modern surveys of attitudes and opinions on envi ronmental issues are focusing more on attitude concepts such as “ecological consciousne ss, anthropocentrism, and ecoce ntrism,” rather than just environmental knowledge or awar eness (Dunlap et al. 2000). One of the most widely accepted of these survey instruments is calle d the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dietz et al. 1998). The findings of this survey, implemented in multiple countries over the past fourteen years, are consistent with most other environmental po lls, showing a general increase in public awareness and concern across the board.

PAGE 60

50 Environmental degradation is not alone in the field of social concerns. Americans, particularly in urban areas, are concerned over what th ey perceive as a loss of “community” in their towns and cities (Coontz 1992). Brown et al. (1998) report that many sociologists believe that a sense of community has been declining for several decades in the United States. Most cities across the United States have also reported higher overall crime rates in the past ten year s than ever before (POPIN 2000). Further, Mesch et al. (1998), report th at people today are less likel y to know and interact with their neighbors than they were in past generations. Various reasons are cited for this report ed decline in sense of community, among those are the advent of urban sprawl and th e spreading out of residential and commerce centers; the increased use of the automob ile over pedestrian or communal modes of transportation; a change in the design of neighborhoods which is thought to increase isolation from neighbors; technology which ha s led to a faster paced society; television and internet; governmental and economic market-driven opposition to communalistic lifestyles; and possibly even the degrada tion of the surrounding natural environment (Brown et al. 1998). To help promote a sense of community, several studies have reported that the presence of trees and green spaces can encourage community interaction and even promote a feeling of safety and self -satisfaction (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997; Kuo et al. 1998; Kwoen et al.1998; Taylor et al. 1998). Despite a general increase in reported e nvironmentally conscious attitudes over the past 30 years (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dunlap et al. 2000), we are still facing ecologi cal crises such as pollution, species extinction, and resource depletion (Platt et al.1994; Dunlap et al. 2000). Could our supposed loss of community

PAGE 61

51 be having a negative impact on the actual implementation and social diffusion of environmentally friendly behavi ors and conservation practices? Numerous studies report higher levels of environmental conscious ness than actual cons ervation minded action (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Schuktz and Oskamp 1996). The ease of carrying out those activities definitely plays a ro le in whether or not people pa rticipate in them (Schuktz and Oskamp 1996); however, sense of community a nd the expression of social norms within a community can also be influential (Byers 1996; Cialdini 1996; Leung et al. 2002). Maslowean theory can be interpreted as suggesting that environmental conservation and environmentalism reflect behaviors and mindsets that can only be accomplished once basic needs for food, shelter, safety, a nd community have been met (Byers 1996; Hungerford 1996; Dietz et al. 1998). In this vein, a perceived loss of community could be hindering the adoption of environmentally minded behaviors. Community is also an important channel for the dispersal of knowledge and behaviors relevant to the environment (Byers 1996; Jacobson 1999). W ithout community interaction, the social diffusion of environmental knowledge and behavi ors, as well as the influence of other social norms, could be inhibited. Past rese arch has indicated th at society and obvious social norms were better predictors of recy cling than environmenta l attitude (Hormuth 1999). Social norms have been shown to have a strong influence on motivating behaviors in people and this could work both for and against environmental conservation (Cialdini 1996; Seguin 1998). If a community exhibits en vironmentally friendly social norms, then this could help promote environmentally fr iendly behaviors in all members of the population (Cialdini 1996; Hormuth 1999; Leung et al. 2002). However, even if a

PAGE 62

52 majority of people show environmental concer n, they are more likely to follow what they perceive that the majority is doing, even if the majority appears to be acting in environmentally irresponsible ways (Ciald ini 1996). The pervasiveness of negative publicity on environmentally harmful activities could be strengthening the perception that the majority are not environmentally friendl y, even when the majority in fact report environmentally friendly attit udes and concern overall. Ci aldini (1996) explains that social norms are influential whether they are real or merely perceived. This study explored the possible link betw een sense of community and NEP, to environmental attitudes, knowledge and behavi ors. The information for this study was collected from a survey of middle-class hom eowners in Gainesville, Florida. The objectives of this study were 1) to determin e whether people with more environmentally friendly NEP scores have higher environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors, 2) to determine whether people with a stronger sens e of community are more environmentally friendly according to NEP scores and other measures of environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors, and 3) to determin e overall NEP scores, sense of community, and environmental behaviors of middle-class ho meowners in Gainesville, Florida in order to explore the possible relationship between so cial norms, environmentalism and sense of community. Methods Gainesville, Florida was selected as the i nvestigation site to conduct a mail survey of middle-class homeowners. I chose mi ddle-class homeowners because I wanted a population in which I could be fairly certain was not struggling to secure the most basic of Maslowean needs, food and shelter. The population used for this study represents a sub sample of a larger, randomly selected population who were used for a separate

PAGE 63

53 investigation (see chapter 2). The larger surv ey was comprised of respondents from three development types; a Neo-traditional co mmunity, a Traditional community, and all remaining developments within Gainesville. Those three development types combined, represented a stratified random sample of all middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida—but not in the necessary proportions to provide a tr uly representative sample of the city. To obtain a repres entative sample from these three unevenly represented populations, I randomly selected the appropr iate number of respondents from each development type based on the proportion of the entire city’s population that each development encompassed. The resultant sub-sample was 440 homeowners, comprised of 403 respondents from the Gainesville sample, 31 from the Neo-traditional development, and 9 from the traditional development. Analysis The survey questions were designed to investigate five issues; 1) sense of community, 2) environmental attitude, 3) e nvironmental behaviors, 4) environmental knowledge, and 5) population demographics (see Appendix A for a list of all questions). Several of the questions in each category were grouped into scales and accepted as such if their reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach ’s alpha of .6 or higher. Cronbach’s alpha is a measure of internal consistency, which is based on the average inter-item correlation (SPSS 2000). I use the New Ecological Paradigm (N EP), developed by Dunlap and Van Liere (1978, 2000) as my primary measures of environmental attitude. The NEP scale is one of the most widely used scales of this ty pe and arguably one of th e best (Dietz et al. 1998). This collection of 15 questions, re vised from the original 1978 version, is designed to measure ecologica l consciousness (Dunlap 1992). (See Appendix E for a list

PAGE 64

54 of all scale questions). NEP scale reliabil ity has proven to be consistently high and scored a (Cronbach’s alpha = .88) in this study. Sense of community (SOC) was measured by a scale comprised of 8 questions (Cronbach’s alpha = .80). Two question were co mbined into an ID Plants and Birds scale (Cronbach’s alpha = .79). Scales were crea ted by adding response va lues for particular sets of questions. For example, the SOC s cale was comprised of eight, five-item Likertscale questions. The respondent was asked to circle a value from one to five for each question that corresponded to how they felt. The circled number responses to the eight questions were added together to give a total scale score. The minimum SOC score would be 8, if the responde nt chose all ones, and the maximum would be 40 if the respondent chose all fives. Most of the survey was comprised of 1-5 Likert scale questions. In addition to Li kert scale questions, the surv ey also contained Yes, No, Unsure questions, open-ended questions, and pa rticularly in the demographics section, several questions that asked the respondent to choose the be st response from a list of possible answers. NEP and Sense of Community Using reported cumulative frequencies for the NEP and SOC scales. I divided the sample into two SOC groups, and two NEP groups. The 50 percent who reported the highest levels of environmentalism as measured by the NEP became the “more environmental” group. The other 50 percent wa s given the title, “less environmental”. For the SOC scale, the 50 percent with the stronger sense of community scores became the “stronger” group and the 50 percent repo rting a weaker sense of community in comparison became the “weaker” group. Some questions were not answered by every respondent and this influenced the sample size for each group. The ID scale, and

PAGE 65

55 individual questions relating to environmental attitudes, behaviors and knowledge were compared between the “more environmental” group and the “less environmental” group. The NEP scale, ID scale, and individual que stions relating to environmental attitudes, behaviors and knowledge were compared be tween the “stronger” and “weaker” SOC groups. I also explored whether demographic diffe rences existed between my comparisons (see appendix F for list of questions). It is possible that more and less environmentally friendly respondents and those who reported a stronger or weaker sense of community might differ significantly in some demographic f actor(s) that could also have an influence on differences observed in their question respons es. I explored demographics to establish whether or not there were significant differe nces in demographics that might offer a possible explanation to observed differences between NEP and SOC group responses. If no demographic differences were observed, then I would assume that demographic differences are not primarily re sponsible for observed differen ces between the groups. If differences are observed, dependi ng on what those differences are, it is likely that I would not be able to rule out the influence of demographics. Depending on the scale or question and whether the answers were normally distributed (and did not respond to transformation), I used two statistical analyses. Mostly, I used a contingency, Chi-squared te st to compare response frequencies between groups because most data were not normally distributed ( = .05). Where possible, I used a T-test for normally distributed data ( = .05).

PAGE 66

56 Environmentalism, Sense of Community, and Social Norms Studies have shown that even individuals with low leve ls of environmentalism can be influenced to behave in environmentally fr iendly ways if the social norms that they observe in their community promote environm entalism (Cialdini 1996). The influence of social norms could potent ially be heightened or reduc ed depending on how connected an individual was with his or her communit y. Therefore, sense of community could potentially impact the degree of influence that so cial norms could have on an individual. In order to further explore this hypot hesized relationship between sense of community, social norms, and environmen talism, I further divided the “more environmental” group and a “less environm ental” group, according to stronger and weaker sense of community scores. I performe d either Chi-square or T-test analyses on these new divisions ( = .05). Finally, I estimated the social norms of middle-class homeowners in Gainesville pertaining to sense of community, environmen tal attitude, environm ental knowledge, and environmental behaviors, by looking at overall scores for four scales. I compared the median value, where 50% of the respondents scored below and 50% scored above, to the midpoint value of the scale. Three of the scales have been discusse d already, the SOC (sense of community), NEP (attitude), and ID (familiarity with local plants and birds). An Environmental Action Scale comprised of 12 questions was al so created to provide an indication of environmentalism as measured by respondents’ self-reported likelihood to participate in conservation related behaviors (Cronb ach’s alpha = .68, Appendix E). The Environmental Action scale combined both Li kert scale questions and yes, no, unsure

PAGE 67

57 questions. In order to combine these questi on types, I assigned ‘Yes’ a 1 (strongly agree on the Likert scale) and ‘No’ a 5 (strongly di sagree). ‘Unsure’ was recoded into 3, which paralleled the number assignment for the “unsur e” option in the 1-5 Likert-scale. All the other scales were comprised of onl y questions of the same type. If the results of the social norms analyses revealed that middle-class Gainesville homeowners reported low levels of environm entalism, then I would expect to see a negative relationship between a strong sense of community and environmental action and this might be most pronounced in the environm entally friendly group. If the social norms analyses revealed that Gainesville appeared to be a more “green” community, then I would expect to see more pro-environment behaviors and this might be particularly apparent in those who were not as envir onmentally friendly, but had a strong sense of community. Once again, if I found previous relationships between demographics and either SOC or NEP, I would not be able to rule out the possibility that responses were influenced by this difference rather than the interaction between SOC and environmentalism. Results NEP Having a more environmentally friendly score on the NEP was positively associated with 21 out of the 29 questions pe rtaining to environmental attitude, behavior and knowledge about local issues (Table 3-1). NEP score did not seem to be related to responses for total hours outdoors, percen t of time outdoors in own yard or neighborhood, participation in an environmen tal education program, total watering of lawn, percent of yard that is mowed grass, percent of time watching wildlife spent in own

PAGE 68

58 yard, knowing if it is legal to feed a wild raccoon, and know ing that water going into a street drain does not go to a wate r treatment facility (All tests: P > 0.05). There were no significant di fferences in demographic question responses between the more and less environmental NEP groups (All tests: P > 0.05). Table 3-1. Averages and Chi-squared resu lts from reported environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors and demogra phics between more (lower NEP scores) and less (higher NEP scores) e nvironmental groups. Survey responses come from middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, FL. Only significant or near significant values ar e reported. See Appendix F fo r a list of all questions analyzed. Significant values are in bold ( P < 0.05). Near significant values are italicized ( P < 0.1). Question* Less Env Means More Env Means df X2 Sig Watch wildlife 1.62 1.37 1 23.93 P < 0.0001 n = 206 n = 187 Practice water conservation 1.70 1.48 2 8.71 P = 0.013 n = 192 n = 173 Attract wildlife to yard 1.86 1.53 2 13.01 P = 0.001 n = 210 n = 190 Belong to environmental organization 2.70 2.12 2 42.91 P < 0.0001 n = 210 n = 190 There is nothing that I can do t 3.88 4.44 4 39.99 P < 0.0001 n = 209 n = 190 More Federal support 1.79 1.16 2 84.34 P = 0.001 n = 168 n = 173 Do you compost 2.26 1.98 2 9.55 P = 0.008 n = 209 n = 191 Do you recycle 1.46 1.20 4 17.81 P = 0.001 n = 210 n = 191 Do you turn off water 2.30 1.89 4 18.50 P = 0.001 n = 210 n = 191 Do you buy green 3.26 2.54 4 56.70 P < 0.0001 n = 207 n = 189 Do you refuse bags 3.54 2.77 4 32.79 P < 0.0001 n = 209 n = 191 Do you carpool 4.51 4.28 4 12.92 P = 0.01 n = 209 n = 190 Do you avoid chemicals 3.72 2.76 4 70.39 P < 0.0001 n = 209 n = 189 ID Plants and Birds scale t, s 3.83 4.95 11 41.01 P < 0.0001 n = 207 n = 189 Is it legal to feed wild raccoons 1.58 1.45 2 5.01 P = 0.08 n = 211 n = 188 Gopher Tortoise conservation status 1.47 1.29 2 11.21 P = 0.004 n = 210 n = 191 Do you know what plastics 1.85 1.52 2 13.14 P = 0.001 n = 210 n = 192 Do you know invasive exotics 1.75 1.32 2 26.82 P < 0.0001 n = 210 n = 191

PAGE 69

59 Table 3-1 continued… Question* Less Env Means More Env Means df X2 Sig More information 1.63 1.17 2 68.74 P < 0.0001 n = 193 n = 179 Since I moved 2.78 2.67 4 13.52 P = 0.009 n = 211 n = 192 If I moved tomorrow 2.57 1.73 4 66.52 P < 0.0001 n = 211 n = 191 s = see Appendix E for a list of scale questions. t = high mean is more environmentally friendly. For all other questions, a low mean is more environmentally friendly. *Question wording: 1 Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity? 2 Do you use any water conservation techniques when watering your yard? 3 Do you do anything to intentionally attract wildlife to your property? 4 Do you belong to any wildlife or environment-related organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others? 5 There is nothing that I can do to impact the environment, for better or worse, because I am only one person….. 6 Do you feel that the federal government should pr ovide more or less monetary support for wildlife and environmental issues? 7 Do you compost any of your yard waste or food waste? 8 How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled? 9 How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water? 10 Even when they are more expensive, how often do you buy an environmentally friendly version of a product instead of other brands when given the option? 11 When checking-out at a grocery store, how often do you refuse a paper or plastic bag when you only have a few items? 12 When going to work or running errands, how frequently do you walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or carpool instead of taking a personal automobile? 13 How often do you try to find alternatives to using common household (including lawn) chemicals because you are worried about how they migh t affect the environment? 14 Is it legal to feed wild raccoons? 15 Is the Gopher Tortoise a “Species of Special Concern” in Florida?

PAGE 70

60 16 Do you know what plastic numbers (the number found on the bottom or side of a plastic container) can be recycled in Gainesville? 17 Are you familiar with the term invasive exotic when referring to plants or animals? 18 Would you like to see/hear more or less information about wildlife and the environment that is relevant to your neighborhood? 19 Since I moved into my current neighborhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally conscious….. 20 If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move into an environmentally conscious neighborhood….. Sense of Community Significant or near-significant differences between stronger a nd weaker sense of community groups were found in 10 out of th e 30 questions analyzed (Table 3-2). Stronger sense of community appeared to have a positive relationship to watching wildlife, disagreeing with the statement that there is nothing that they can do to help protect the environment because they are only one person, recycling, turning off the water when brushing teeth, identifying plants and birds, knowing about the status of Gopher Tortoises, feeling like they had become more environmentally conscious since moving into their neighbor hood, feeling like it would be important to live in an environmentally friendly neighborhood if they were to move tomorrow, hours outdoors, and percent of hours outdoors spent in own neighborhood (Table 3-2). The only demographic response that differed significan tly between the stronge r and weaker sense of community groups was year s in neighborhood (t = -1.97, P = 0.05). It appears that the longer a respondent has lived in their neighborhood, the stronger their reported sense of community (Table 3-2).

PAGE 71

61 Table 3-2. Averages and results from Chi-squared and T-tests from reported environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors and demographics between stronger (lower SOC scores) a nd weaker (higher SOC scores) sense of community groups. Survey responses come from middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, FL. Only significant or near significant values are reported. See Appendix F for a list of all questions analyzed. Significant values ( P < 0.05) are in bold. Near significant valu es are italicized ( P < 0.1). Question* Weaker SOC Means Stronger SOC Means df X2 Sig Watch wildlife 1.58 1.45 1 7.30 P = 0.007 n = 223 n = 193 Nothing I can do t 4.14 4.19 4 14.40 P = 0.006 n = 223 n = 197 Do you recycle 1.34 1.28 4 8.10 P = 0.09 n = 226 n = 199 Do you turn off water 2.18 2.01 4 10.69 P = 0.03 n = 226 n = 199 ID Plants and Birds scale s, t 3.88 4.79 11 23.33 P = 0.01 n = 224 n = 194 Gopher Tortoise conservation status 1.44 1.32 2 7.43 P = 0.02 n = 225 n = 195 Since I moved 2.95 2.45 4 20.23 P < 0.0001 n = 223 n = 196 If I moved tomorrow 2.35 1.94 4 18.80 P = 0.001 n = 225 n = 196 % hours outdoors, outdoors in yard3.41 3.80 4 16.58 P = 0.002 n = 226 n = 198 Total hours outdoors/week t 14.08 16.36 420 t = -1.80 P = 0.07 n = 223 n = 199 Years in neighborhood* 10.40 12.22 418 t = -1.97 P = 0.05 n = 222 n = 198 s = see Appendix E for a list of scale questions. t = high mean is more environmentally friendly. For all other questions, a low mean is more environmentally friendly. *Question wording: 1 Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity? 2 There is nothing that I can do to impact the environment, for better or worse, because I am only one person….. 3 How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled? 4 How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water? 5 Is the Gopher Tortoise a “Species of Special Concern” in Florida? 6 Since I moved into my current neighborhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally conscious…..

PAGE 72

62 7 If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move into an environmentally conscious neighborhood….. 8 Of those hours spent outdoors per week, what percentage of them is spent outdoors in your yard or neighborhood? 9 On average, how many hours per week do you spend outdoors? 10 What year did you move into your current neighborhood? NEP and SOC When the “more” and “less” environmenta lly friendly groups were further divided into “stronger” and “weaker” sense of community sub-groups, a strong sense of community appeared to have a greater relati onship to pro-environm ental behavior when the respondents were less environmentally friendly. Significant or near-significant difference was shown for five environmenta l behavior questions between stronger and weaker groups for the less environmental gr oup (Table 3-3). Ther e were no significant differences in knowledge responses for the less environmental group (Table 3-3). The more environmental group showed no significan t differences in environmental behavior or knowledge between stronger and weaker sens e of community sub-groups (Table 3-3). The more environmental groups showed si gnificant difference between stronger and weaker SOC groups for one attitude questi on, and the less envir onmental group did not show any difference in attitude between the stronger and weaker SOC sub-groups (Table 3-3). The only significant demographic for this analysis was years in neighborhood. More environmentally friendly respondents, who had lived in their neighborhood longer, were more likely to report a stronger sense of community (Table 3-3). However, the actual difference was about 3 years. Ther e was no difference in this demographic between stronger and weaker community fo r the “less” environmental group.

PAGE 73

63 Table 3-3. Averages and results from se nse of community Chi-squared and T-test analyses for more and less environmenta lly friendly groups. Survey responses come from middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, FL. Only significant or near significant values are reporte d. Significant values are in bold ( P < 0.05). Near-significant values are italicized ( P < 0.1). Less Environmentally Friendly More Environmentally Friendly Question* Sense of Community Sense of Community Weaker Means Strong Means X2 P Weaker Means Strong Means X2 P Watch wildlife 1.68 1.53 4.40 0.04 1.43 1.32 2.35 0.13 112 90 95 90 Practice water conservation 1.83 1.54 5.72 0.06 1.49 1.48 0.61 9.07 103 85 85 85 Belong to an environmental org 2.81 2.58 6.55 0.04 2.11 2.17 0.61 0.74 114 90 95 92 Do you recycle 1.50 1.40 9.91 0.04 1.20 1.18 0.08 0.96 114 91 96 92 Do you turn off water 2.46 2.05 13.86 0.01 1.85 1.92 3.10 0.54 114 91 96 92 Do you refuse bags 3.66 3.35 8.85 0.07 2.56 2.97 9.19 0.06 113 91 96 92 Do you carpool 4.61 4.36 8.61 0.07 4.29 4.25 3.77 0.44 114 90 95 92 Gopher Tortoise conservation 1.54 1.39 5.74 0.06 1.34 1.24 2.45 0.29 114 90 95 93 If I moved tomorrow 2.76 2.36 8.16 0.09 1.86 1.60 11.45 0.01 114 91 96 93 Since I moved 2.97 2.52 2.83 0.01 2.92 2.40 8.49 0.08 114 91 96 92 More Federal support 1.75 1.82 5.10 0.08 1.16 1.15 0.05 0.98 93 72 85 85 Years in neighborhood1 11.88 12.39 t = -0.35 0.73 8.76 12.13 t = -2.78 0.01 111 90 95 92 *The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording which can be found in Appendix E (scale questions) and Appendix F (all other questions). 1 = environmentally friendliness is not applicable For all other questions, a low mean is more environmentally friendly. Gainesville Scores Middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida reported a re latively strong sense of community according to the relationship of their median responses to the midpoint of the SOC scale (Table 3-4). These residents also scored on the environmentally friendly

PAGE 74

64 side of the midpoint for the NEP and the E nvironmental Action scales (Table 3-4). However, middle-class Gainesville homeowne rs indicated that they could identify between 6 and 10 species of native plants a nd birds on average vs. the midpoint of the scale which would be between 11 and 20 species for each (Table 3-4). Table 3-4. Results from Gainesville’s overall environmental attitude, behavior, knowledge and sense of community analysis. Scale Midpoint of scale Median N NEP 45 36 336 SOC 24 13 336 Environmental Action 36 31 336 ID Plants and Birds 6 4 336 Discussion NEP The NEP scale proved to be a good measure of environmentalism as indicated by a high degree of positive associations with numerous self-reported environmental behaviors, knowledge and attitudes. Co mparing homeowners with low and high NEP scores, homeowners with relatively low NEP scores (i.e., pro-environment) generally reported more environmentally friendly attitu des, knowledge, and behaviors. It is not surprising that pro-environment NEP scor es were positively associated with environmentalism since this mirrors the findings of other studies that have tested the NEP in relation to other environmental attit udes and actions (Tarrant and Cordell 1997; Schultz and Zelezny 1998; Dunlap et al. 2000). NEP and behavior The NEP showed a relationship to most survey questions of environmental behavior but not all. Additionally, all of the behaviors measured in this survey were selfreported behaviors by the respondent. I do not know how strong of a relationship, if any,

PAGE 75

65 the NEP would have shown to an actual measur e of the behaviors. It was particularly interesting that NEP did not show a relations hip to the amount of time that people spent outdoors. Floyd (2002) has shown that spen ding more time outdoors is related to environmentalism in some instances. Other st udies, however, have also shown that the amount of time that a person spends out doors in not necessarily correlated to environmentalism (Sandell 1991; Nord et al. 199 8). Sandell (1991) pr oposes that it is how the person is spending their time outdoors an d in what kind of environment that is more related to environmental attitude. Participation in an environmental educa tion or extension program was also not associated with NEP scores in this study. Past research has shown that the NEP, and attitude in general, are not always the best predictors of environmentally friendly behaviors (Schultz and Oskamp 1996; Widegr en 1998). In addition to environmental attitude, studies have shown that the level of difficulty in carrying out an environmentally friendly behavior can be a stronger predicto r of that behavior than environmentalism (Schultz and Oskamp 1996). Most of the beha viors analyzed in this study did not take a considerable amount of effort. For example, the city of Gainesvill e provides recycling bins and curbside pick-up. This probably also influenced the likelihood that a strong positive relationship would be observed between these behaviors and the NEP. Participating in an environmental educati on program is one behavior, however, that would take relatively more effort. Th is might be remedied, however, if the environmental education program could be brought to the homeowner’s neighborhood instead of the homeowner having to make an e ffort to find and attend such programs.

PAGE 76

66 Watering grass and mowed lawn were al so not related to the NEP even though reducing both is an important conservation meas ure. Poortinga et al. (2002) report that personal consumption of energy and water are often disregarded as avenues for conservation, even in people that repo rt numerous other environmentally friendly behaviors and attitudes. Wate r is seemingly such an abundant resource in all but desert environments that people might have difficulty understandi ng that usable water in many areas is very limited. Additio nally, it has been proposed--in the case of electricity and gasoline conservation, as well as other area s of resource management--that people may see these as issues where conservation efforts should ha ppen on a technological and material use level and not as much on a personal action level (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Shrivastava 1995; Poortinga et al. 2002). Ra ther than reduce personal consumption of these resources, some people think that th e government or manufact ures should find and provide alternative energy sources that are more environmentally friendly. NEP and knowledge The NEP was associated with the ID scale and two out of four of the other local environment knowledge questions. Past rese arch has shown that pro-environmental attitude does not necessarily mean more environmental knowledge (Furman 1998). One of the reasons that the NEP uses attitude ba sed questions to measure environmentalism is because it was understood that most people rea lly have very little actual knowledge about the workings of the environment and ecology (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978). Therefore, environmental knowledge is not always an accurate measure of environmentalism. Furman (1998) found that survey respondents were more likely to know and relate to local environmental issues than environmental questions that were on a global scale. The knowledge questions in this su rvey all pertained to local issues and this might have

PAGE 77

67 influenced the modest relationship between NEP and environmental knowledge in this study. NEP and demographics In other studies involvin g the NEP, younger populations have consistently shown higher levels of environmentalism than older generations (Dietz et al. 1998). The reason that age did not appear as a f actor in this study as well is mo st likely related to the natural homogeneity of the populations selecte d. This study focused on middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida. This se lection showed relativel y little variation in age. The average age of responde nts in this study was 55. Sense of Community Sense of Community (SOC) was positively associated with less than half of the measured environmental attitudes, beha vior, and knowledge between homeowners reporting stronger and weaker sense of community. Overal l sense of community was high for middle class homeowners in Gaines ville. Both the stronger and the weaker sense of community groups actually had an av erage response to the SOC scale that was higher than the scale midpoint. Gainesvill e respondents also re ported relatively high levels of environmental attitudes and beha viors. From these results, it seems that environmentalism would also be the social norm of this community. A stronger relationship between sense of community and environmental attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge might have appeared if the weaker SOC group really had a low sense of community as measured by the midpoint of the scale. For example, differences may have been more pronounced for NEP scores if the groups compared had more differences between their senses of communit y. Maslow’s theory ( 1954) explains that a lack of a sense of community can interfere with the adop tion of “extraneous” behaviors

PAGE 78

68 like conservation because people need to focus their energies on secu ring that basic need first. Despite the majority of respondent s claiming that they had a strong sense of community, I did still find a few positive associations betwee n stronger SOC and environmental attitude, be havior, and knowledge. SOC and behavior Interestingly, SOC was related to time spent outdoors and time spent outdoors in own neighborhood. The city of Gainesville offers numerous outlets for outdoor recreation including nearby fres hwater springs, state parks, and extensive bike and walking trails at Hawthorn and around Payne s Prairie. A national sample of urban residents revealed that people’ s proximity to natural environments was the best predictor, after marital satisfaction, of “residential satisfaction and general life satisfaction” (Fried 1984). Numerous studies have shown that the prevalence of parks and green spaces can increase interactions between people in a community, thereby potentially having a positive influence on sense of community (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997; Kuo et al. 1998; Kweon et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1998). Thos e with a stronger sense of community may be spending more time outdoors to interact with ot her people in their community also. Additionally, this time outdoors might be re lated to why people who have a stronger sense of community report that they can identify more species of local plants and birds. Floyd (2002) found that time outdoors can lead to an increased interest in and knowledge of nature. Spending more time outdoors woul d expose people to outdoor elements such as plants and animals more often, and this may also explain in part why the stronger sense of community group watched wildlife more often. SOC was related to turning off the faucet while brushing teeth to conserve water too. Household water conservation and even this specific behavior have received

PAGE 79

69 publicity in this community because Gainesville sometimes experiences water shortages. A 3-year drought, from 1990 to 1993, was well reported in Gainesville. Hormuth (1999) showed that social norms can be as signifi cant a factor as environmental attitude in determining these types of behaviors. Howe ver, the amount of water used on the lawn did not have a similar relationship to SOC. Gi ving up watering the lawn is a more costly environmental behavior as the grass could wilt and die. Im aginably, it might take quite a few neighbors to let their grass turn brown fo r this behavior to catch on. In addition, though recycling efforts are also highly vi sible through out the community (households are provided with recy cling bins and free pick-up), this study did not show a significant relationship between SOC and this behavior. The results did indica te a trend towards a positive relationship between SOC and recyc ling though. The results from this SOCbehavior analysis only lend very limited suppo rt to the argument that sense of community has some relationship to environmental behavi ors. However, as mentioned above, this may be related to the high sense of community in Gainesville. SOC and knowledge Increasing opportunities for in teraction between people in a community can help to disperse information through a proce ss called social diffusion (Byers 1996; Jacobson 1999; McKenzie-Mohr 1999). This might re late to why the group reporting a stronger sense of community was more likely to know about gopher tortoise conservation status. I am not clear why other measures of local knowledge did not show a similar pattern though. It is possible that thes e other issues did not receive the same levels of publicity within the community.

PAGE 80

70 SOC and attitude Although SOC was not associated with NE P, several attitude questions were associated. Respondents with a higher sense of community were more likely to disagree with the statement that there is nothing that they can do to help protect the environment because they are only one person. These “str onger” community respondents also were also more likely to report that they had become more environmentally conscious since moving into their neighborhood, and that they felt like it would be important to live in an environmentally conscious neighborhood if they were to move tomorrow. A strong sense of community has been shown to relate to feelings of empowerment (Hungerford 1996). Empowerment is the personal f eeling that you have the ability to influence something. Empowerment relates to the idea that some thing is within your “locus of control” (Hungerford 1996; Schultz and Oskamp 1996). People who feel connected to their community are more likely to feel like they have an influence on it and other things around them too. It seems to follow then that homeowner’s who reported a stronger sense of community were more likely to disagr ee with the nothing I can do statement. Additionally, it is not too surprising that the ma jority of Gainesville residents said that they would want to live in an environmen tally conscious neighborhood if they were to move tomorrow, given the somewhat environmen tally friendly bent of respondents in this survey. The relationship between SOC and respondents feeling like they had become more environmentally conscious since movi ng into their community supports both the idea that environmentalism is the social norm in this city and that social norm and sense of community are related.

PAGE 81

71 Sense of Community, Social No rms, and Environmentalism People with a less environmentally frie ndly attitude (measured by NEP) and a stronger sense of community reported slightly more environmental behaviors than those with a weaker sense of community. People in the more environmen tally friendly group did not differ as much in their behavi or, attitude, and knowledge scores between “stronger” and “weaker” sense of community groups. Intuitively, the stronger someone’s sense of community, the more likely they are to be exposed to perc eived social norms. Environmental attitudes, knowledge, and be haviors in Gainesville on average were environmentally friendly. Thus, these hi gh environmental social norms are most influential in groups that have a strong sens e of community but have low environmental attitudes as measured by NEP, as reflected by this analysis. If a social norm in a community is proenvironmental, then increasing sense of community may be a good step to increasing pro-en vironmental behaviors. Despite Gainesville’s seemingly “green” soci al atmosphere, it is important to stress that I did not compare the results of the NE P or Environmental Action scales in this population to populations in other cities. Ther efore, I cannot say with confidence that Gainesville is any more “green” than any other city. The vast majority of past research has shown relatively high levels of pro-envi ronmental attitude and concern in Floridians and Americans across the board (Florida Defenders of the Environment 1974; Parker and Oppenheim 1986; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dunl ap et al. 2000; Sadd and Dunlap 2000). Implications for Creating Green Communities The NEP results from this and other studies reveal that having an environmentally friendly attitude has a positive relationship with the practice of environmentally friendly behaviors (Schultz and Oskamp 1996; Tarran t and Cordell 1997; Schultz and Zelezny

PAGE 82

72 1998; Dunlap et. al 2000; Rauwald and Moore 2002). Numerous other sources suggest that promoting environmental understanding and knowledge increases peoples desire to protect their natura l resources also (Arcury 1990; Seguin et al. 1998; Floyd 2002). However, it does not always follow that envi ronmental attitude leads to behavior, as empowerment and social norms also play a role (Cialdini 1996; Hungerford 1996; Seguin et al. 1998; Hormuth 1999). Le ung et al. (2002) found in thei r study that an increase in environmentally friendly behavior was rela ted to how long respondents had lived near other people who practiced these behaviors a nd whether or not they identified with this new group. Interestingly, though environmenta l behaviors in this newly acculturated population increased with time, environmenta l concern did not (Leung et al. 2002). Strengthening a sense of community may he lp to diffuse social norms and amplify their impact, particularly in people who would otherwise be indifferent to the adoption of those behaviors (Byers 1996; Cialdini 1996; Hungerford 1996). In this study, homeowners with low environmental attitude s and stronger sense of community did show more of likelihood to adopt a few environm ental behaviors than homeowners with a weaker sense of community. This is presum ably because the social norm in Gainesville is in favor of those environmentally friendly behaviors. The pervasively strong sense of community in Gainesville might have cont ributed to why sense of community only showed a relationship to a minority of envir onmental behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge in this study. A combination of measur es to strengthen sense of community and conservation strategies that work towards es tablishing environmental friendly behavioral “norms,” could help in creating “green” co mmunities. Hostetler (1999) has suggested such a program for conserving avian hab itat in residential developments.

PAGE 83

73 The positive relationship in this surv ey between time outdoors and sense of community lends modest support to other rese arch which claims that trees, parks, and green spaces can increase social interaction, feelings of safe ty and even self-satisfaction (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997; Kweon et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1998). This exposure may also help to familiarize people with the environment around them. There is conflicting information on whether ti me outdoors alone can help promote environmentalism, but it does seem that certai n outdoor activities and environments could have a positive effect on both environmentalism and sense of community (Fried 1984; Sandell 1991; Floyd 2002). Environments and activities that expre ss a respect for the natural ecosystem are probably the most likely to have a positive influence on environmentalism. Modeling appropriate be haviors has been cited as one way to promote social norms, and consequently, the adoption of those behaviors (McKenzieMohr and Smith 1999). Ecologically sustainable environments and activities are in effect modeling desired behaviors and relationships between people and the environment. The majority of middle class homeowners in Gainesville appear to value environmentally friendly neighborhoods. 70.2% of the respondents in this survey reported that it would be important for them to move into an environmentally friendly development if they were to move tomorrow. The preservation of natural areas within and around urban developments has consiste ntly been shown to increase people’s preference for those spaces (Coley et al 1997). This should be an important consideration for developers looking to attract homebuye rs. Developments that incorporate environmentally friendly construction and design strategies will be more attractive to potential homebuye rs, at least for this socio-economic group. In terms of

PAGE 84

74 community friendly design, several studies ha ve found that middle class homeowners are willing and able to pay more money for featur es in their neighborhood that they feel are important to them (Audirac 1999; Song and Knaap 2003). In new or established communities, I propose that a good recipe for promoting green behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge i nvolves; 1) incorporat ing a community design that helps encourage community interaction, possibly throug h the preservation of more natural (low maintenance) green spaces or parks that are also s upportive of the natural environment; and 2) implementing an educat ional program directed at the neighborhood level, which not only educates about the e nvironment but also fosters more social interaction and, importantly, promotes a so cial norm of environmentally friendly behaviors and attitudes. Furt her, educational efforts should involve minimal effort on the part of the participant (similar to marketing influence); however, it may be beneficial to provide ways in which active participati on in the program could increase community involvement and recognition.

PAGE 85

75 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE The questionnaire sent to all selected pa rticipants. The actual questionnaire was printed in a 9 ” by 7” booklet. The booklet contained 6 pages with type on front and back. The question spacing in this copy of the questionnai re is only approximated since it did not fit the scale of this document.

PAGE 86

76 YOU, YOUR COMMUNITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT Please follow the directions provided in this booklet to complete the questionnaire. It should only take about 15 minutes. Please mail the completed questionnaire in the enclosed, pre-paid envelope by October 31st The last page has been left blank in case you want to include any addi tional comments. The success of our study depends on your participation. Thank you in advance for your time! University of Florida Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Cooperative Extension Services 102 Newins-Ziegler Hall Gainesville, Florida 32611-0430 Phone: (352) 846-0554

PAGE 87

77 Listed below are statements about your relationship with your community and the environment. For each one, please indicate whether you STRONGLY AGREE, MILDLY AGREE, are UNSURE, MILD LY DISAGREE, or STRONGLY DISAGREE with the stat ement. Please circle your response. Strongly Mildly Unsure Mildly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Q-1 I feel safe in my neighborhood….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-2 I know my neighbors….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-3 I feel like there is a strong sense of community in my neighborhood ….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-4 I frequently take walks, ride a bike, cart, or wheelchair in my neighborhood….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-5 When I am out in my neighborhood community, I often interact with my neighbors….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-6 My neighborhood is walker/ bicycler friendly….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-7 There is a lot of car traffic in my neighborhood….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-8 It seems like the people in my neighborhood are concerned about the well-being of the environment….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-9 I believe that the developer(s) of my neighborhood were concerned with protecting the environment by the way they developed the land….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-10 I like where I live….. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 88

78 The following questions have to do with your intera ctions with the environment. Please estimate the following and fill-in the blank when blanks are provided. Also, for some questions in this section you will be asked to circle or rank your response. Please follow the directions provided for those questions. Q-1 On average, how many hours per week do you spend outdoors? ___________Hours per week Q-2 Of those hours spent outdoors per week, what percentage of them is spent outdoors in your yard or neighborhood? ( Please circle your response) 0%-10% 10%-30% 30%-50% 50%-70% 70%-100% Q-3 What percentage of your yard is mowed grass? 0%-10% 10%-30% 30%-50% 50%-70% 70%-100% Q-4 On average, for this September 2002, how many times per week did you water your yard, and how long did you leave the water running when you watered? ___________ Times per week ___________ Minutes Q-5 Do you use any water conservation techniques when watering your yard? (Please circle your response). Yes No Unsure If yes, please briefly describe what conservation techniques you use. __________________________________________________________________ __________________________________________________________________ Q-6 How many native Florida plants can you identify? (Please circle your response) None 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 more than 30

PAGE 89

79 Q-7 How many birds in Florida can you identify? None 1-5 6-10 11-20 21-30 more than 3 0 Q-8 Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity? Yes No If No, skip the next question Q-9 What percentage of your time watchi ng wildlife is spent watching wildlife in your neighborhood (not includ ing television)? 0%-10% 10%-30% 30%-50% 50%-70% 70%-100% Q-10 Where would you say that you get most of your information pertaining to wildlife and the environment? ( Please rank your top three by placing a number next to the responses. Please give a 1 to the source that provides you with the most information, 2 for the second most, and a 3 for the third most. You can include ties by giving the same number to more than one choice.) ____TV/Radio ____Newspaper ____Books ____Magazines/Journals ____Park Kiosks (displays and bulletin boards) ____Zoos and/or Museums ____School ____Neighborhood Paper or Newsletter ____Friends and Family ____Internet ____Other _____________________________ Q-11 Would you like to see/hear more or less information about wildlife and the environment that is rele vant to your neighborhood? (Please circle your response). More Less The same Unsure Q-12 Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary support for wildlife and e nvironmental issues? More Less The same Unsure

PAGE 90

80 The following questions are about personal actions that relate to the environment and resource usage. For each one, please indicate whether you do these actions ALWAYS, OFTEN, SOMETIMES, RARELY, or NEVER. Please circle the response that comes closest to your own estimate. Always Often Sometimes Rarely Never 100% of 75% of 50% of 25% of 0% of the time the time the time the time the time Q-1 How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled? 1 2 3 4 5 Q-2 How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water? 1 2 3 4 5 Q-3 Even when they are more expensive, how often do you buy an environmentally friendly version of a product instead of other brands when given the option? 1 2 3 4 5 Q-4 When checking-out at a grocery store, how often do you refuse a paper or plastic bag when you only have a few items? 1 2 3 4 5 Q-5 When going to work or running errands, how frequently do you walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or carpool instead of taking a personal automobile? 1 2 3 4 5 Q-6 How often do you try to find alternatives to using common household (including lawn) chemicals because you are worried about how they might affect the environment? 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 91

81 Most of the following questions are from a widely distributed national survey called the New Environmental Paradigm. We included these questions so that we could compare your feelings on these issues to a broader audience. Listed below are statements about the relationship between humans and the environment. For each one, please indicate whether you ST RONGLY AGREE, MI LDLY AGREE, are UNSURE, MILDLY DISAGREE, or STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement. Please circle your response. Strongly Mildly Unsu re Mildly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Q-1 We are approaching the limit of the number of people the earth can support…... 1 2 3 4 5 Q-2 Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-3 Humans are severely abusing the environment….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-4 Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-5 When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-6 The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-7 Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist…… 1 2 3 4 5 Q-8 The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations….. 1 2 3 4 5

PAGE 92

82 Strongly Mildly Unsu re Mildly Strongly Agree Agree Disagree Disagree Q-9 Despite our special abilities humans are still subject to the laws of nature….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-10 The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-11 The earth is like a spaceship with limited room and resources….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-12 Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-13 The balance of nature is very delicate and easily upset….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-14 Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-15 If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-16 I am a religious person….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-17 I am a spiritual person….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-18 There is nothing that I can do to impact the environment, for better or worse, because I am only one person….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-19 Since I moved into my current neighborhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally conscious….. 1 2 3 4 5 Q-20 If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move

PAGE 93

83 into an environmentally conscious neighborhood….. 1 2 3 4 5 The following questions are here to help us gain a better understanding of your awareness of environmental policy, conservat ion issues and actions. There are three possible responses: YES, NO and UNSURE. Please circle your response. Yes No Unsure Q-1 Is it legal to feed w ild raccoons? 1 2 3 Q-2 Are you familiar with the term “invasive exotic” when referring to plants or animals? 1 2 3 Q-3 Do you know what plastic numbers (the number found on the bottom or side of a plastic container) can be recycled in Gainesville? 1 2 3 Q-4 Do you compost any of your yard waste or food waste? 1 2 3 Q-5 Do you have any Energy-Star (energy efficient) appliances in your home? 1 2 3 Q-6 Does water flowing into street drains go to a water treatment facility? 1 2 3 Q-7 Is the Gopher Tortoise a “Species of Special Concern” in Florida? 1 2 3 Q-8(a) Do you belong to any wildlife or environment-related organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others? 1 2 3 (b) If yes, approximately what year did you first join or make a donation? _____________________

PAGE 94

84 Yes No Unsure Q-9(a) Do you do anyt hing to intentionally attract wildlife to your property? 1 2 3 (b) If yes, please briefly describe what you do (e.g., landscape with native plants, butterfly gardens, bird feeders, birdhouses, birdbaths, bat houses, ponds, leave dead trees standing, leave brushpiles, etc.) ____________________________________________________________________________ ________________________________________________________________ Q-10(a) Have you participated in any environmental education programs or classes such as a University Extension program, a workshop from an environmental agency, a neighborhood or developmentsponsored program, or a school/ university class, or others? 1 2 3 (b) If possible, please list the program(s) and the year(s) that you attended: _____________________________________________________________________________ _________________________________________________________________ These final questions are here for demographic purposes. Your responses will tell us how Gainesville resid ents compare to other communities. Your answers here are also important because they will help us understand the relationships between your responses to these questions and your res ponses to questions in other sections. As with the rest of the survey, all your responses will remain confidential. Please check the appropriate answer or fill-in the blanks if they are provided Q-1 I am Female Male Q-2 I was born in 19_______

PAGE 95

85 Q-3 My ethnic background is (check all that apply) Caucasian (White) African Latino/Hispanic Asian Native American Other _________________________ Q-4 I am Married Single Divorced Widowed Q-5 How long have you lived in Florida? ____________ Year(s) ____________ Month(s) Q-6 How long have you lived in Gainesville? ____________ Year(s) ____________ Month(s) Q-7 What year did you move into your current neighborhood? ____________ Q-8 Do you own or rent this property? Own Rent Other (Please specify)_________________________________

PAGE 96

86 Q-9 Please list three reasons why you chose to live in your current home, in the order of their importance to you. 1)__________________________________________________________________________ 2)__________________________________________________________________________ 3)__________________________________________________________________________ Q-10 What is your curren t occupation (job)? __________________________________________________________________________ Q-11 On average how many miles away from your home do you travel for the following? (Please fill-in the bla nk. Write N/A if not applicable.) Work _____________mile(s) Daily Errands _____________mile(s) Q-12 How long do you plan on liv ing in your current home? Less than one year One to four years Four to ten years More than ten years Unsure Q-13 How many people live in your hous ehold the majority of the year? One Two Three Four More than Four __________ (How many? Please fill-in the blank.)

PAGE 97

87 Q-14 What was the population of the area wh ere you grew up (spent the majority of your grade-school years)? Less than 5,000 5,000 to 10,000 10,000 to 250,000 250,000 to One Million Greater than One Million Q-15 Do you consider yourself a Democrat Republican Independent Other Q-16 What is the highest level of education that you have completed? High school or less Some College (including Associates Degree) Bachelor’s Degree Master’s Degree or other professional degree Doctorate Degree

PAGE 98

88 If desired, please write any a dditional comments on this page. Thank you for your participation!

PAGE 99

89 APPENDIX B SURVEY COVER-LETTER The following is a copy of the cover-lett er that was mailed to every selected participant along with the su rvey questionnaire and a stam ped, self-addressed return envelope.

PAGE 100

90

PAGE 101

91 APPENDIX C SCRIPT FOR REMINDER PHONE CALL Phone call reminders were given to respondents that failed to return their questionnaire within four weeks. The following scri pt was used for these reminders. Hello. May I please speak to Mr. or Ms. (insert participants name here ) ? Hi. My name is Kara Youngentob, and I am a graduate student at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study in conjunction with the University of Florida to learn how residents of Gainesville interact with their community and the environment. You should have received a questionnaire from me in the mail approximately (insert number of weeks) ago. According to my records, I have not received your response, and I am calling to request that you please return your completed booklet as soon as possible. Your participation is extremely important to the success of our research. If you have lost or misplaced your book let I would be happy to send you another copy. (If this is an answering machine message) You can reach me at The University of Florida’s Cooperative Extension Services number which is 352-846-0554 or at my email address which is kny@ufl.edu. Feel free to contact me for a replacement survey or to answer any questions that you might have. If you have already returned your survey, thank you and please disregard this message. (If this is a live conservation and the participant responds that they need another survey) I will mail you a replacement questionnaire this week and I’ll look forward to receiving your response. (Skip to end remark.) (If respondent seems hesitant) Are there any questions that I can answer for you? (If response is no, skip next. If yes or hesitant, continue to next.) (If appropriate) This is a University study and there are no commercial agencies involved. Your identity as a participant will be kept completely confidential and you do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. (If they have not expressed an unwillingness to participate and they tell me that they do not need another survey) Can I look forward to receiving your response? Thank you very much (for your participation). Have a wonderful (morning, afternoon, evening).

PAGE 102

92 APPENDIX D UFIRB APPROVED PROPOSAL The following is the final UFIRB approved research outline. Revisions from the originally submitted document are highlight ed. The revised proposal was submitted on October 2, 2002. 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: Interactions: You, the Environment, and Your Community 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): Kara Youngentob, Master’s Student, Master’s Research, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Home Address: 2220 SW 34th St. Apt. 177 Gainesville, FL 32608, P hone: (352)846-0554, E-Mail: kny@ufl.edu 3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT): Dr. Mark Hostetler, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Wildlife Extension Office, Newlins-Zeigler Hall, University of Florida, Phone: (352)846-0568, E-Mail: hostetlerm@wec.ufl.e du, Fax: (352)392-6984 4. DATES OF PROP OSED PROTOCOL: From May 2002 to May 2003 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: (Jenning’s Scholarship, Gr aduate Assistantship) 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: The purpose of this research is to determine if a specific demographic of Gainesville, FL residents living in different housing development types (new urbanism (neo-traditional), traditional, and urban sprawl) differ in their respective knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors pertaining to the environment a nd wildlife, and to investigate possible explanations for those differences if they occu r. This is the first step towards gaining a better understanding of how community desi gn may or may not influence peoples’ knowledge, attitudes, and beha viors relating to the envir onment and wildlife. 7. DESCRIBE THE RESE ARCH METHODOLOGY IN NON-TECHNICAL LANGUAGE. This research will require participants to take part in a written mail survey that will be sent to the home of each potential respondent to be filled out in the privacy of their home and returned to the researcher, via ma il, once they are finished.

PAGE 103

93 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK. There are no foreseen physical, psychologi cal, or economic risks involved for the participants taking part in this survey. The respondent s will be assured of the confidentiality of thei r responses in the cover letter that will accompany the survey and they will not be required to pay for any postage to mail or receive the survey. 9. DESCRIBE HOW PARTICIPANT(S) WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, A ND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if any): Potential respondents (participants) will be sent a survey packet to their home address in the mail. If the potential respondent does not return the completed survey in the included self-addressed, stamped envelope, then two mo re attempts (maximum) will be made to reach the participants by sending them a second and third copy (if necessary) of the survey packet in the mail to their home addr ess. The participants will be chosen at random from a pool. The pool will be co mprised of every address in selected neighborhoods within 15 miles of Gainesville (FL), includ ing Gainesville (FL). The neighborhoods will be selected based upon wh ether or not the average home in the development falls within a particular pr ice range (still to be determined—around 80,000 to 250,000). The number of participants will depend on the number of acceptable housing developments (which have yet to be identified) and the number of homes within those developments. The maximum number of pa rticipants that I plan to recruit will not exceed 1700. The participants will not receive any monetary compensation. The survey packet that they receive will provide them w ith the information necessary to find out the results of this survey if they are interested. Additionally, survey respondents who do not respond to the first mailing within four weeks may be contacted by telephone between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm to remind them to please return thei r survey booklet. A maximum of two answer machine messages may be left to attempt to contact th e recipient. We will make no more than two attempts to contact the potential particip ant by phone. Please review the attached telephone script. The survey wi ll not be administered by phone The phone call will only serve to remind the participant to return th eir mail questionnaire a nd let us know if we need to sent the participant another c opy of the survey and consent form. 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUM ENT (if applicable). Potential participants will receive the survey booklet in the mail wi th a cover-letter that informs them of their rights a nd the confidentiality agreement. A copy of the cover-letter and the survey are included as attachments. Please use attachments sparingly. __________________________ Principal Investigator's Signature

PAGE 104

94 _________________________ Supervisor's Signature I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB: ____________________________ Dept. Chair/Center Director Date

PAGE 105

95 APPENDIX E LIST OF SCALE QUESTIONS Questions that comprised each of the four scales from chapters 2 and 3 are listed individually under their appropria te scale titles. All questions were Likert-scale unless otherwise specified. 8 question Sense of Community scale (SOC) 1) I feel safe in my neighborhood….. 2) I know my neighbors….. 3) I feel like there is a strong se nse of community in my neighborhood ….. 4) I frequently take walks, ride a bike, cart, or wh eelchair in my neighborhood….. 5) When I am out in my neighborhood community, I often interact with my neighbors….. 6) My neighborhood is walker/bicyc ler friendly….. 7) It seems like the people in my nei ghborhood are concerned about the well-being of the environment….. 8) I like where I live….. 15 question New Ecological Paradigm scale (NEP) 1) We are approaching the limit of the num ber of people the earth can support…... 2) Humans have the right to modify the natural environment to suit their needs….. 3) Humans are severely abusing th e environment….. 4) Human ingenuity will insure that we do NOT make the eart h unlivable….. 5) When humans interfere with na ture it often produces disastrous consequences…..

PAGE 106

96 6) The earth has plenty of natural resources if we just learn how to develop them….. 7) Plants and animals have as much right as humans to exist…… 8) The balance of nature is strong enough to cope with the impacts of modern industrial nations….. 9) Despite our special abilities humans ar e still subject to th e laws of nature….. 10) The so-called “ecological crisis” facing humankind has been greatly exaggerated….. 11) The earth is like a spaceship with limited room and resources….. 12) Humans were meant to rule over the rest of nature….. 13) The balance of nature is very de licate and easily upset….. 14) Humans will eventually learn enough a bout how nature works to be able to control it….. 15) If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a major ecological catastrophe….. 12 question Environmental Action scale 1) How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled? 2) How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water? 3) Even when they are more expensive, how often do you buy an environmentally friendly version of a product instead of ot her brands when given the option? 4) When checking-out at a gr ocery store, how often do you refuse a paper or plastic bag when you only have a few items? 5) When going to work or running errands, how frequently do you walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or carpool instead of taking a personal automobile? 6) How often do you try to find alternativ es to using common household (including lawn) chemicals because you are worrie d about how they might affect the environment? 7) There is nothing that I can do to imp act the environment, for better or worse, because I am only one person…..

PAGE 107

97 8) Do you use any water conservation techniques when watering your yard? t 9) Do you compost any of your yard waste or food waste? t 10) Do you have any Energy-Star (energ y efficient) appliances in your home? t 11) Do you do anything to intentionall y attract wildlife to your property? t 12) Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity? t tQuestions 8-12 were not originally 5-item Li kert-scale questions and had to be recoded (described in methods) in order to be scaled with the other questions 2-item ID Plants and Birds scale 1) How many native Florida plants can you identify? 2) How many birds in Florida can you identify?

PAGE 108

98 APPENDIX F ALL QUESTIONS USED IN CHAPTER 2 AND 3 ANALYSES A complete list of questions that were analyzed in each chapter. Only questions with significant results were presented in the table. The questions are listed under the appropriate chapter a nd table headings. Questions for Chapter 2 Table 2-1 –Sense of Community and Environmental Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Attitude Questions 1) I believe that the developer(s) of my neighborhood were concerned with protecting the environment by the way th ey developed the land….. 2) There is a lot of car traffic in my neighborhood….. 3) Would you like to see/hear more or less information about wildlife and the environment that is rele vant to your neighborhood? 4) Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary support for wildlife and e nvironmental issues? Behavior Questions 5) On average, for this September 2002, how many times per week did you water you yard, and how long did you leave the water running when you watered? 6) What percentage of your yard is mowed grass? 7) On average, how many hour s per week do you spend outdoors? 8) Of those hours spent outdoors per wee k, what percentage of them is spent outdoors in your yard or neighborhood? 9) If you answered “yes” to the watch w ildlife question… What percentage of your time watching wildlife is spent watchi ng wildlife in your neighborhood (not

PAGE 109

99 including television)? 10) Do you belong to any wildlife or environm ent-related organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others? Knowledge Questions 11) Do you know what plastic numbers (the number found on the bottom or side of a plastic container) can be recycled in Gainesville? 12) Does water flowing into street dr ains go to a water treatment facility? 13) Is the Gopher Tortoise a “Species of Special Concern” in Florida? 14) Is it legal to feed wild raccoons? 15) Are you familiar with the term invasive exotic when referr ing to plants or animals? Scale Questions 16) NEP scale 17) SOC scale 18) ID scale 19) Environmental Action scale Education Question 20) Have you participated in any environmen tal education programs or classes such as a University Extension program, a wo rkshop from an environmental agency, a neighborhood or development sponsored progr am, or a school/university class, or other? Design Influence Questions 21) If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move into an environmentally conscious neighborhood…..

PAGE 110

100 22) Since I moved into my current neigh borhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally conscious….. Table 2-3 –Demographics Check Answer from Box 1) I am… genders listed 2) My ethnic background is 3) How long do you plan on liv ing in your current home? 4) What was the population of the area wh ere you grew up (spent the majority of your grade-school years)? 5) Do you consider yourself a … political parties listed 6) What is the highest level of education that you have completed? Fill-in the Blank 7) How long have you lived in Florida? 8) How long have you lived in Gainesville? 9) What year did you move in to your current neighborhood? 5-item Likert-scale 10) I am a religious person 11) I am a spiritual person Table in Appendix-G—Reasons for choosing home Fill in the blank 1) Please list three reasons w hy you chose to live in your current home, in the order of their importance to you.t t Only the top two responses were analyzed for this study due to a loss of variation between communities when the third res ponse was considered equally as well.

PAGE 111

101 Questions for Chapter 3 = Responses to the two parts of this question were multiplied together for analysis Table 3-1 –NEP and relationships to oth er environmental attitude, behavior, and knowledge questions Attitude Questions 1) Would you like to see/hear more or less information about wildlife and the environment that is rele vant to your neighborhood? 2) Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary support for wildlife and e nvironmental issues? 3) If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move into an environmentally conscious neighborhood….. 4) Since I moved into my current neigh borhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally conscious….. 5) There is nothing that I can do to imp act the environment, for better or worse, because I am only one person….. Behavior Questions 6) How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled? 7) How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water? 8) Even when they are more expensive, how often do you buy an environmentally friendly version of a product instead of ot her brands when given the option? 9) When checking-out at a gr ocery store, how often do you refuse a paper or plastic bag when you only have a few items? 10) When going to work or running errands, how frequently do you walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or carpool instead of taking a personal automobile? 11) How often do you try to find alternativ es to using common household (including lawn) chemicals because you are worrie d about how they might affect the environment? 12) Do you use any water conservation tec hniques when watering your yard?

PAGE 112

102 13) Do you compost any of your yard waste or food wast e? 14) Do you have any Energy-Star (e nergy efficient) appliances in your home? 15) Do you do anything to intentiona lly attract wildlife to your property? 16) Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity? 17) If you answered “yes” to the watch w ildlife question… What percentage of your time watching wildlife is spent watchi ng wildlife in your neighborhood (not including television)? 18) On average, how many hours per week do you spend outdoors? 19) Of those hours spent outdoors per wee k, what percentage of them is spent outdoors in your yard or neighborhood? 20) Do you belong to any wildlife or environm ent-related organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others? 21) Have you participated in any environmen tal education programs or classes such as a University Extension program, a wo rkshop from an environmental agency, a neighborhood or development sponsored progr am, or a school/university class, or other? 22) On average, for this September 2002, how many times per week did you water you yard, and how long did you leave the water running when you watered? 23) What percentage of your yard is mowed grass? Knowledge Questions 24) Do you know what plastic numbers (the number found on the bottom or side of a plastic container) can be recycled in Gainesville? 25) Does water flowing into street dr ains go to a water treatment facility? 26) Is the Gopher Tortoise a “Species of Special Concern” in Florida? 27) Is it legal to feed wild raccoons? 28) Are you familiar with the term invasive exotic when referr ing to plants or animals?

PAGE 113

103 Scale Question—Knowledge related 29) ID scale Demographic Questions 30) I am… genders listed 31) My ethnic background is 32) How long do you plan on liv ing in your current home? 33) What was the population of the area wh ere you grew up (spent the majority of your grade-school years)? 34) Do you consider yourself a … political parties listed 35) What is the highest level of education that you have completed? 36) How long have you lived in Florida? 37) How long have you lived in Gainesville? 38) What year did you move in to your current neighborhood? 39) I am a religious person….. 40) I am a spiritual person..... Table 3-2 –SOC and relationships to oth er environmental attitude, behavior, and knowledge questions Attitude Questions 1) Would you like to see/hear more or less information about wildlife and the environment that is rele vant to your neighborhood? 2) Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary support for wildlife and e nvironmental issues? 3) If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move into an environmentally conscious neighborhood….. 4) Since I moved into my current neigh borhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally conscious…..

PAGE 114

104 5) There is nothing that I can do to imp act the environment, for better or worse, because I am only one person….. Behavior Questions 6) How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled? 7) How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water? 8) Even when they are more expensive, how often do you buy an environmentally friendly version of a product instead of ot her brands when given the option? 9) When checking-out at a gr ocery store, how often do you refuse a paper or plastic bag when you only have a few items? 10) When going to work or running errands, how frequently do you walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or carpool instead of taking a personal automobile? 11) How often do you try to find alternativ es to using common household (including lawn) chemicals because you are worrie d about how they might affect the environment? 12) Do you use any water conservation tec hniques when watering your yard? 13) Do you compost any of your yard waste or food wast e? 14) Do you have any Energy-Star (e nergy efficient) appliances in your home? 15) Do you do anything to intentiona lly attract wildlife to your property? 16) Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity? 17) If you answered “yes” to the watch w ildlife question… What percentage of your time watching wildlife is spent watchi ng wildlife in your neighborhood (not including television)? 18) On average, how many hour s per week do you spend outdoors? 19) Of those hours spent outdoors per wee k, what percentage of them is spent outdoors in your yard or neighborhood? 20) Do you belong to any wildlife or environm ent-related organizations such as The Nature Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others?

PAGE 115

105 21) Have you participated in any environmen tal education programs or classes such as a University Extension program, a wo rkshop from an environmental agency, a neighborhood or development sponsored progr am, or a school/university class, or other? 22) On average, for this September 2002, how many times per week did you water you yard, and how long did you leave the water running when you watered?* 23) What percentage of your yard is mowed grass? Knowledge Questions 24) Do you know what plastic numbers (the number found on the bottom or side of a plastic container) can be recycled in Gainesville? 25) Does water flowing into street dr ains go to a water treatment facility? 26) Is the Gopher Tortoise a “Species of Special Concern” in Florida? 27) Is it legal to feed wild raccoons? 28) Are you familiar with the term invasive exotic when referr ing to plants or animals? Scale Questions—Knowledge (ID) and Attitude (NEP) 29) ID scale 30) NEP scale Demographic Questions 31) I am… genders listed 32) My ethnic background is 33) How long do you plan on liv ing in your current home? 34) What was the population of the area wh ere you grew up (spent the majority of your grade-school years)? 35) Do you consider yourself a … political parties listed

PAGE 116

106 36) What is the highest level of education that you have completed? 37) How long have you lived in Florida? 38) How long have you lived in Gainesville? 39) What year did you move in to your current neighborhood? 40) I am a religious person… 41) I am a spiritual person… Table 3-3 –NEP more and less groups furt her divided by stronger and weaker SOC Table 3-3 questions were those questions that showed significance in either Table 3-1 or Table 3-2 above.

PAGE 117

107 APPENDIX G ADDITIONAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 2 Table G-1. Number of observed responses from the “top two reasons for choosing your home” over the expected number of responses. Category Traditional Observed/ Expected Post-war Observed/ Expected Neo-traditional Observed/ Expected Totals Community 31 39 89 180 172 121 292 Nature 7 23 89 79 78 72 174 House Features 48 34 120 116 89 107 257 Walkability 14 6 5 19 23 17 42 Historic Appeal 35 5 0 17 3 16 38 Location 37 45 200 153 100 140 337 Price/value 13 17 68 58 46 53 127 Quiet 2 4 14 13 12 12 28 Other 22 37 129 128 131 117 282 Totals 209 714 654 1577

PAGE 118

108 LIST OF REFERENCES Adams, L.W. 1994. Urban wildlife habitats: A landscape perspective. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis. Alachua County Property Appraiser’s web site. 2003. http://acpafl.or g/ (last accessed: 06/01/02) Audirac, I. 1999. Stated pref erences for pedestrian proximity: An assessment of new urbanist sense of community. Journal of Planning Education and Research 19 (1): 53-66 (Fall). Beauregard, R.A. 2002. New Urba nism: Ambiguous certainties. Journal of Architectural Planning and Research, 19 (3): 181-194 (Fall). Benfield, Kaid F.; Glendening, Parris N. and Vorsanger, Nancy 2001. Solving sprawl: Models of smart growth in communities across America Natural Resource Defense Council. Benfield, Kaid F.; Chen, Donald D. and Raimi, Matthew D. 1999. Once there were greenfields: How urban sprawl is underm ining America’s environment, economy, and social fabric. Natural Resource Defense Council. Bormann, H.; Balmori D., and Geballe, G. 1993. Redesigning the American lawn Yale University Press, New Haven and London. Brown, Barbara B.; Burton, John R., and Sweaney, Anne L. 1998. Neighbors, households and front porches: New ur banist community toll or mere nostaligia? Environment and Behavior, 30 (5): 579-601 (Sept). Byers, Bruce A. 1996. Understanding and infl uencing behaviors in conservation and natural resource management. African Biodiversity Series No. 4. Washington, D.C.: Biodiversity Support Program. Calthorpe, Peter and Fulton, William 2001. The regional city: planning for the end of sprawl Island Press, Washington, D.C. Cialdini, Robert B. 1996. Activating and alig ning two kinds of norms in persuasive communications. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1 (1): 3-10 (Winter). City of Gainesville. 2003. www.cityofgain esville.org/ (last accessed: 11/01/03)

PAGE 119

109 Coley, Rebekah Levine; Kuo, Frances E. and Sullivan, William C. 1997. Where does community grow? The social context crea ted by nature in urban public housing. Environment and Behavior, 29 (5): 618-638 (Sept). Coontz, Stephanie 1992. The way we never were: American families and the nostalgia trap HarperCollins Publishers, New York. Crawley, M. J. 2002. Statistical computing: An intr oduction to data analysis using Splus. Wiley&Sons. Crow, D. ed. 1990. Philosophical streets. Maisonneuve Press, New York. Dietz, Thomas; Stern, Paul C. and Gua gnano 1998. Social structural and social psychological bases of environmental concern. Environment and Behavior 30 (4): 450-472 (July). Dillman, D. A. 1978. Mail and telephone surveys, Wiley Interscience, New York. Dillman, Don A. 2000. Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method 2nd Ed J. Wiley, New York. Duda, M. 1987. Floridians and wildlife: Social implications for wildlife conservation in Florida. Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission Nongame Wildlife Program Technical Report No. 2. Dunlap, Riley E. and Scarce, Rik 1991. Poll trends: Environmental problems and protection. Public Opinion Quarterly 55 (4): 651-672 (Winter). Dunlap, R. E., and Van Liere, K. D. 1978. The "new environmental paradigm": A proposed measuring instrument and preliminary results. Journal of Environmental Education, 9: 10-19. Dunlap, Riley E.; Van Liere, Kent D.; Mer tig, Angela G. and Jones, Robert Emmet. 2000. Measuring endorsement of the new ecological paradigm: A revised NEP scale. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3): 425 (Fall). Ellis, R. J., and Thompson, F. 1997. Culture and the environment in the Pacific Northwest. American Political Science Review, 91: 885-897. Florida Defenders of the Environment.1974. Environment and Florida voters: Their concerns on growth, energy, pollution, la nd use controls, in-migration taxes, politics, and the future of the state. Urban and Regional Development Center Survey. Cambridge Survey Research, Cambridge, MA. Floyd 2002. UF research shows kids need to be where wild things are. www.napa.ufl.edu/2002new s/naturechild.htm

PAGE 120

110 Fried, M. 1984. The structure and sign ificance of community satisfaction. Population and Behavior (7): 61-86. Furman, A. 1998. A note on environmental con cern in a developing country: Results from an Istanbul survey. Environment and Behavior 30: 520-534. Gilbert, O.L. 1989. The ecology of urban habitats. Chapman and Hall, London and New York. Gottdiener, M 1993. A Marx for our time: Henr i Lefebvre and the production of space. Social Theory 11 (1): 129-134 (March). Guth, James L.; Green, John C.; Kellstedt, Lyman A. and Smidt, Corwin, E. 1995. Faith and the environment: Religious beliefs and attitudes on environmental policy. American Journal of Political Science, 39 (2): 364-382 (May). Hall, Kenneth B. and Porterfield, Gerald A. 2001. Community by design: New Urbanism for suburbs and small communities McGraw-Hill Professional, New York. Hand, Carl M. and Van Liere, Kent D. 1984. Religion, mastery-over-nature, and environmental concern. Social Forces 63 (2): 555-570. Hormuth, S. E. 1999. Social meaning and social context of environmentally – relevant behaviour: Shopping, wrapping, and disposing. Journal of Environmental Psychology 19 (3): 277-286 (Sept). Hostetler, Mark 1999. Scale, birds, and hu man decisions: A potential for integrative research in urban ecosystems. Landscape and Urban Planning 45: 15-19. Hostetler, Mark and Holling, C. S. 2000. Det ecting the scales at which birds respond to structure in urban landscapes. Urban Ecosystems 4: 25-54. Hungerford, Harold R. 1996. The development of responsible environmental citizenship: A critical challenge. Journal of Interpretation Research, 1 (1): 25-37 (Winter). Jacobson, S. 1999. Communication skills for conservation professionals Island Press, Washington, D.C. Jones, R. E., and Dunlap, R. E. 1992. The so cial bases of environm ental concern: Have they changed over time? Rural Sociology 57: 28-47. Katz, P., Scully, V. Jr. 1994. The New Urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. McGraw-Hill Professional Publishing, New York. Klem, D. 1991. Glass and bird kills: An ove rview and suggested planning and design methods of preventing fatal hazards. In L.W. Adams and D.L. Leedy, eds.1991. Wildlife Conservation in Metropolitan Environments. National Institute for Urban Wildlife Symposium. NIUW, Columbia, MD.

PAGE 121

111 Kuo, FE; Bacaicoa, M. and Sullivan, W. C. 1998. Transforming inner-city landscapes – trees, sense of safety, and preference. Environment and Behavior 30 (1): 28-59 (Jan). Kweon, Suk; Sullivan, William C. and W iley, Angela R. 1998. Green common spaces and the social integration of inner-city older adults. Environment and Behavior, 30 (8): 832-859 (Nov). Leung, C and Rice, J. 2002. Comparison of Ch inese-Australian and Anglo-Australian environmental attitudes and behaviors. Social Behavior and Personality 30 (3): 251-262. Lockette, Tim 2002. Newspaper. Urban planners converge on Haile. The Gainesville Sun, June 12: 1-2B (Local and State Section). Maslow, A. H. 1954. Motivation and personality. Harper and Row, New York Mazzumdar, Sanjoy and Massumdar, Shampa 1997. Intergroup social relations and architecture: Vernacular arch itecture and issues of st atus, power, and conflict. Environment and Behavior 29 (3): 374-422 (May). McKenzie-Mohr, D. and W. Smith. 1999. Fostering sustainable behavior. New Society Publishers, Canada. Mesch, Gustavo S. and Manor, Orit 1998. Soci al ties, environmental perception, and local attachment. Environment and Behavior, 30 (4): 504-520 (July). Musser, G. 2000. Between burb and burg – the fath er of new urbanism, Andres Duany, is reshaping suburbia – and the practice of architecture. Scientific American 282 (3): 28 (March). Myers, R. and Ewel, J. 1990. Ecosystems of Florida. University of Central Florida Press, Orlando. Nord, Mark; Luloff, A. E. and Bridger, Jeffrey C. 1998. The association of forest recreation with environmentalism. Environment and Behavior 30 (2): 23-45 (March). Obara, H. 1995. Animals and man in the process of urbanization. In H. Sukopp, M. Numata, and A. Huber, eds. 1995. Urban ecology as the bas is of urban planning SPB Academic Publishing, Hague, The Netherlands. Parker, S. and A. Oppenheim, 1986. The 1986 Florida policy survey: Policy preferences of the Florida public. Fla. State Univ., Tallahassee. Platt, Rutherford H.; Rowntree, Rowan A. and Muick, Pamela C., eds. 1994. The ecological city. The University of Massachusetts Press, Amherst, MA.

PAGE 122

112 POPIN. 2000. United Nations Population Information Network http://www.undp.org/popin (last accessed: 05/01/02) Poortinga, W.; Steg, L. and Vlek, C. 2002 Envi ronmental risk concern and preference for energy-saving measures. Environment and Behavior 34 (4): 455-478 (July). Powell, Ken 2000. City transformed: Urban architecture at the beginning of the 21st century. te Neues Publishing, New York Premier Marketing Group. Brochure. Haile Plantation: Discover community. Rauwald, KS and Moore, CF 2002. Environmen tal attitudes as pr edictors of policy support across three countries. Environment and Behavior. 34 (6): 709-739 (Nov). Sadd, Lydia and Dunlap, Riley E. 2000. The Gallup Poll monthly 12 (7): 415 (April). Sandell, Klas 1991. “Ecostrategies” and enviro nmentalism: The case of outdoor life and Friluftsliv. Human Geography (Geografiska Annaler) 73, Series B (2): 33-141. Seguin, Chantal 1998. Toward a model of environmental activism. Environment and Behavior 30 (5): 628-653 (Sept). Schultz, P. W., & Oskamp, S. 1996. Effort as a moderator of th e attitude-behavior relationship: General environm ental concern and recycling. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59: 375-383. Schultz, P. W., and Zelezny, L. C. 1998. Valu es and proenvironmental behavior: A fivecountry survey. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology 29: 540-558. Shrivastava, Paul 1995. The role of corporati ons in achieving ecological sustainability. The Academy of Management Review 20 (4): 936-960 (October). Song, Y and Knapp, G. J. 2003. New Urbani sm and housing values: A disaggregate assessment. Journal of Urban Economics 54 (2): 218-238 (Sept). SPSS for Windows. (2000). statis tical software. SPSS inc. Talen, E. 1999. Sense of community and nei ghborhood form: An assessm ent of the social doctrine of new urbanism. Urban Studies 36 (8): 1361-1379 (July) Tarrant, M. A., and Cordell, H. K. 1997. The effect of respondent characteristics on general environmental attitude-behavior correspondence. Environment and Behavior, 29: 618-637. Taylor, A. F.; Wiley, A; Kuo, F. E. and Sulliv an, W. C. (1998). Growing up in the inner city–Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior 30 (1): 3-27 (Jan). Till, KE 2001. New Urbanism and nature: Green marketing and the neo-traditional community. Urban Geography 22 (3): 220-248 (April-May).

PAGE 123

113 UNSD. 2000. United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs. http://www.un.org/Depts/unsd (last accessed: 05/01/02) US Census. 2002. http://www.census .gov/ (last accessed: 11/01/03) Van Liere, Kent D. and Dunlap, Riley E. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, ex planations and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly, 44 (2): 181-197 (Summer). Widegren, O. 1998. The new environmental paradigm and personal norms. Environment and Behavior, 30: 75-100. Zimmerman, J. 2001. The “nature” of urbanism on the new urbanist frontier: Sustainable development, or defense of the suburban dream? Urban Geography 22 (3): 249267 (April-May).

PAGE 124

114 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Kara Nicole Youngentob was born in Topeka Kansas. From a young age, she held a fascination for wildlife and the outdoors. Kara attended undergraduate school at Guilford College, North Carolina, where she studied anthropology with a focus on primatology. She worked at the Duke Universi ty Primate Research Center and assisted with new world monkey research in Costa Ri ca after completing her degree. Kara first became interested in the human dimensions of ecology and conservation while working as an animal control officer for the city of Topeka. She accepted an assistantship at the University of Florida to study for her master’s degree in wildlife ecology and conservation with an emphasis on human dimensi ons. This thesis is a product of her two and a half years of graduate research. Kara hopes to have the opportunity to combine her background in the social and the biological sciences thr ough education and resource management planning.


Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0003222/00001

Material Information

Title: Is a New Urban Development Model Really Building Greener Communities? A Comparative Study of Homeowners from Three Development Types
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0003222:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0003222/00001

Material Information

Title: Is a New Urban Development Model Really Building Greener Communities? A Comparative Study of Homeowners from Three Development Types
Physical Description: Mixed Material
Copyright Date: 2008

Record Information

Source Institution: University of Florida
Holding Location: University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
System ID: UFE0003222:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text











IS A NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL REALLY BUILDING GREENER
COMMUNITIES? A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HOMEOWNERS FROM THREE
DEVELOPMENT TYPES.














By

KARA NICOLE YOUNGENTOB


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA


2004
































Copyright 2004

by

Kara Youngentob

































This thesis is dedicated to my friends.
















ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank the people of Gainesville, Florida and the University of Florida, Department

of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation for making this study possible. Thank you to my

parents for making me possible. Many thanks are also due to my advisor, Dr. Mark

Hostetler, for his support and encouragement.




















TABLE OF CONTENTS


IM Le

ACKNOWLEDGMENT S .............. ...............v.....


LI ST OF T ABLE S ................. ............... ix..._... ....


AB STRAC T ................ .............. vii


CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ................. ...............1.......... ......


Background ................. ...............1.......... ......
Urban Landscapes .............. ...............1.....
Urban Sprawl .................... .. ........... ........... .............
Traditional and Neo-traditional Communities..................... ................8
Past Research on Peoples' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Pertaining to
Environmental and Wildlife Issues ......_.._............... ........__. ........0
Research Design .............. ............... 12....
Obj ectives ........._.._.. ...._... ...............12....
The Study Site .............. ...............13....


2 SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES,
KNOWLEDGE, AND BEHAVIORS INT HOMEOWNERS FROM THREE
COMMUNITY TYPE S ................. ...............16.......... .....


Introducti on ................. ...............16.................
Methods ..................... ...............20.
Participant Selection ................. ...............20.................
Question Design .............. ...............22....
A analysis .............. ... ....... .... ... .......... .. .............2
Differences in Environmental Attitude, Behavior, Knowledge and Sense of
Com m unity .................... ....... ....... .. ... ..........2
Do Demographics Partially Explain the Patterns Observed? .............. ...............25
Are observed differences attributed to exposure to educational programs or
the design of the development?............. ...............2
Water and Energy Use ................. ...............28................
Re sults............... .... ........... ........... .... ... .... ....... ........2
Sense of Community and Environmental Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior..28
W ater and Energy Use ................. ...............31................












Differences in Demographics ................ ...............32........... ....
Identifying Correlations............... ..............3
General Linear M odel ............... ... ........... ...............34......
Development Design and Education Programs ................. ........................35
Discussion ............... ... ........... ............ ..... .... .. .......3
Environmentalism and Sense of Community in a Neo-traditional
Developm ent ............ ... ...... ._ ...... .. .._.. ..... ... .......3
Environmentalism and Sense of Community in a Traditional Development......43
Additional Results .............. ..... ... ..............4
The Future for "Green" Development ........._.._........_. .........__.........4


3 THE NEW ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM SCALE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY
IN RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS AND
KNOWLEDGE ................. ...............49.................


Introducti on ................. ...............49.................
M ethods .............. ...............52....

Analysis .............. ........... ..............5
NEP and Sense of Community ............... .. ....._ ......__ ...........5
Environmentalism, Sense of Community, and Social Norms .............................56
Re sults............. ...... ._ ...............57...
NEP ................. ............ ...............57.......
Sense of Community .............. ...............60....
NEP and SOC ............. ...... ...............62...
Gainesville Scores .............. ...............63....
Discussion ...._ .. ................ ...............64 .....
N EP ............... .. ...... ...............64...
NEP and behavior. ............ _. ..... ...............64...
NEP and knowled ge ................. ......... ...............66......
NEP and demographics .............. ...............67....
Sense of Community .............. ...............67....
SOC and behavior .............. ...............68....
SOC and knowled ge ................. ...............69........... ....
SOC and attitude .............. ........ ...............7
Sense of Community, Social Norms, and Environmentalism .............................71
Implications for Creating Green Communities .............. ....................7


APPENDIX


A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE ................. ......... ...............75......


B SURVEY COVER-LETTER ................. ...............89........... ....


C SCRIPT FOR REMINDER PHONE CALL .............. ...............91....


D UFIRB APPROVED PROPOSAL .....__.....___ ..........__ ...........9












E LIST OF SCALE QUESTIONS ............ .....__ ...............95.


F ALL QUESTIONS USED INT CHAPTER 2 AND 3 ANALYSES ................... .........98

G ADDITIONAL TABLE FOR CHAPTER 2 ................. ..............................107


LIST OF REFERENCES ................. ...............108................


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH ................. ...............114......... ......

















LIST OF TABLES


Table pg

1-1 Features of New Urbanism compared to those offered in Haile Plantation.............15

2-1 Survey question results from homeowners that live in a Neo-traditional (Haile
Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville)... .29

2-2 Energy and water use from utility data for homeowners in a Neo-traditional
(Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments
(G ville). ........... ...............32......

2-3 Demographic question results from homeowners that live in a Neo-traditional
(Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments
(Gville).. ............ ...............32

2-4 Results from Pearson's correlation analyses between demographics and questions
asked on a survey for homeowners in a Neo-traditional (Haile Plantation), a
Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville)...........................34

2-5 Results from the General Linear Model analysis where significant interactions
between question type and demographics were taken into account. ................... .....35

3-1 Averages and Chi-squared results from reported environmental attitudes,
knowledge, and behaviors and demographics between more (lower NEP scores)
and less (higher NEP scores) environmental groups. ......____ ...... ....__..........58

3-2 Averages and results from Chi-squared and T-tests from reported environmental
attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors and demographics between stronger (lower
SOC scores) and weaker (higher SOC scores) sense of community groups............6 1

3-3 Averages and results from sense of community Chi-squared and T-test analyses
for more and less environmentally friendly groups. ............. .....................6

3-4 Results from Gainesville's overall environmental attitude, behavior, knowledge
and sense of community analysis. ............. ...............64.....

G-1 Number of observed responses from the "top two reasons for choosing your
home" over the expected number of responses. .....__. ..........._.. ................107
















Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

IS A NEW URBAN DEVELOPMENT MODEL REALLY BUILDING GREENER
COMMUNITIES? A COMPARATIVE STUDY OF HOMEOWNERS FROM THREE
DEVELOPMENT TYPES.

By

Kara Nicole Youngentob

May 2004

Chair: Mark E. Hostetler
Major Department: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Neo-traditional communities are hypothesized to promote environmentalism among

residents, but this claim has not been well researched. In October 2002, I conducted a

mail survey of middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida, to determine if there

were differences in sense of community and environmental attitudes, behavior, and

knowledge among homeowners from three development types (Traditional, Post-war, and

Neo-traditional). I also analyzed survey responses from a representative sample of

middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida, to explore whether sense of community

and New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale scores had a relationship to other measures of

environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors.

The Neo-traditional community had the strongest sense of community between all

three development types. In terms of environmental attitudes, behavior, and most

knowledge, however, the Neo-traditional community was not more environmentally

friendly than the Post-war communities, and it was considerably less environmentally









friendly than the Traditional community. Although Neo-traditional homeowners had the

lowest levels of environmentalism overall, they did have greater knowledge about the

legal status of the Gopher Tortoise when compared to respondents from Post-war

communities. This may have been due to education efforts directed at residents of the

Neo-traditional development as part of an on-site Gopher Tortoise conservation program.

Homeowners with greater environmentally friendly NEP scores were more likely to

report environmentally friendly attitudes, behaviors, and knowledge. Homeowners who

reported a stronger sense of community also reported more environmentally friendly

attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors in response to some of the survey questions. One

reason for the connection between a sense of community and environmentalism is that

people with a stronger relationship to their community may be more likely to respond to

social norms of the community. Social norms have been shown to have a strong

influence on motivating behaviors, including conservation type behaviors such as

recycling. Overall, survey respondents generally had environmental friendly scores and

thus people with a greater sense of community may be responding to this "green" social

norm of the city.

The results suggest that a Neo-traditional community design can play a role in

influencing a homeowner' s sense of community, but it may not go far enough in terms of

promoting environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors. To build "green"

communities, design and management plans should not only promote a sense of

community, but plans should also encourage a social norm of environmentalism by

including both proactive education at the neighborhood level and a development design

that truly addresses the conservation of natural resources.















CHAPTER 1
INTTRODUCTION

Background

Urban Landscapes

Nearly 80 percent of the world' s human population lives in cities and over 2 billion

more are expected to j oin this urbanization trend by 2030, the same number of

individuals proj ected to be added to the entire world' s population during the same period

of time (United Nations Population Information Network (POPINT) 2000). Urban

populations are the fastest growing populations in the world (POPIN 2000) and have a

large impact on global environmental conditions, particularly in highly industrialized

nations. The United States clearly illustrates this impact as a highly industrialized and

urbanized country that contributes 1/25th of the world' s population yet consumes 1/4th Of

the world' s energy (United Nations Department of Economics and Social Affairs

(UNSD) 2000). Alarmingly, many urban populations have access to resources from all

over the globe and seemingly little appreciation or understanding of how their

consumption of those resources affects the environment around them. Residents'

decisions regarding their land and resources have a large collective impact on the

environment, and it is in these growing urban areas where attention should be focused on

learning about peoples' knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors pertaining to environmental

issues (Bormann et al. 1993; Dunlap et al. 2000; Hostetler and Holling 2000).

Florida has a larger than average urban population at around 85 percent and

growing (Duda 1987). Florida' s biodiversity is also higher than most other states, due in










part to the largely subtropical climate (Myers and Ewel 1990). Not surprisingly, Florida

also has its share of environmental concerns from the spread of exotics to dwindling fresh

water resources and endangered species such as the Florida panther and manatee (Myers

and Ewel 1990). These factors combine to make Florida an ideal place to study the

environmental knowledge base of urban homeowners.

In the process of creating an urban area, the cost to the immediate environment is

high because landscapes and natural processes are usually completely disrupted. For

example, roads disrupt animal movements; cars pollute the environment with their

emissions; natural watercourses and systems are often altered or rerouted; and urban

runoff, stemming from industrial, commercial, and residential waste, pollutes waters

downstream (Gilbert 1989). Further, natural vegetation is usually destroyed to make

room for new homogenous landscapes (e.g., lawn grasses) which can not sustain most

wildlife and require vast amounts of energy to maintain. Even the glass windows on

buildings can present a threat to bird populations (Gilbert 1989; Klem 1991; Bormann et

al. 1993). Urban areas are also ideal places for exotic and introduced species of flora and

fauna to gain footing because of created, artificial landscapes and because of urban

inhabitants' desire to landscape with exotic plants (Obara 1995).

It is important to note that the effects of urban environments are not only localized

to the immediate area. The behaviors and choices of people residing within these

populations result in landscape impacts and resource strains near and far (Gilbert 1989).

Bormann et al. (1993) explains how actions as simple as fertilizing our yard or using

aerosol sprays can snowball into global warming, acid rain, and the depletion of the

ozone layer. Hostetler and Holling (2000) illustrate how decisions by homeowners,









developers, and city planners impact the distribution of birds from a neighborhood to a

national scale. Clearly, we cannot expect our individual actions multiplied millions and

even billions of times over not to have consequences greater than the effects they have on

our immediate surroundings. Ecosystems are connected and interrelated pieces of a

global environment and our actions in one area inevitably result in far reaching

consequences (Myers and Ewel 1990).

The study of human ecology, now called the new human ecology (Ellis and

Thompson 1997) explains that rather than living in a sustainable manner with the natural

environment, modern societies tend to rely on growth strategies that intensify resource

consumption and environmental degradation. The urban sprawl that typifies the majority

of development radiating from modern urban centers began as a way to provide

affordable individual space to an increasingly individualistic society and promote

automobile use and the increased consumption and consumerism that followed (Brown et

al. 1998). However, this type of unbridled growth is arguably counterproductive to

environmental welfare and an individual's need to experience community (Brown et al.

1998; Benfield et al. 1999; Calthorpe and Fulton 2001). In general, not only is the

natural environment at risk from urban developments but human communities can also

experience this modernization as a disruptive force (Benfield 1999). Some of the

common criticisms regarding urbanization's impact on human welfare include loss of

community, increased crime rate, increased mental health disorders, and higher rates of

suicide (Benfield et al. 1999).

Public awareness of resource depletion, pollution and environmental degradation

sprouted from Rachael Carson's influential book, The Silent Spring, and grew into the









environmental movement of the early 1970s. Despite this increased realization about the

limited nature of our natural resources, and a growing consensus that there might be

problems inherent with modern development practices, thirty years later we are still

trying to devise ways to work ourselves out of an environmentally harmful design and

culture that continues to mechanistically reproduce itself. Lefebvre explains in his well

known work, The Production of Space, that "every mode of social organization produces

an environment that is a consequence of the social relations it possesses. In addition, by

producing a space according to its own nature, a society not only materializes into

distinctive built forms, but also reproduces itself. The concept 'production of space' [is

also a] duality of structure. That is, space is both a medium of social relations and a

material product that can affect social relations" (Lefebvre as cited in Gottdiener 1993).

In order to understand how people relate to their communities and the environment, it is

important to consider how their surroundings are designed and managed. What thoughts

and intentions lead to the design strategies of particular developments, and what activities

and behaviors does that design promulgate?

Urban Sprawl

The resolution of the Second World War brought the end of a massive economic

depression that affected nearly the entire industrialized world. The dream of owning

one's own home and maybe even a little slice of lawn was becoming a reality for many

families. Americans began leaving the cities in large numbers in the 1950's and 1960's

to set up homes in a new environment called the suburbs (Hall and Porterfield 2001).

This city flight was instigated by high property costs in the cities and the rapidly

increasing development of roads and highway systems for personal automobiles that










provided access to more affordable land and housing outside the cities. This dynamic also

introduced a new economy and dependence on cars and gasoline.

Many of the cities themselves went through massive redevelopment to add more

and larger roads to accommodate growing traffic and to provide affordable middle-class

housing. This redevelopment leveled old buildings and neighborhoods that were

comprised of mostly poor, working class citizens--some of which, nevertheless, were

thriving communities (Hall and Porterfield 2001). Many of these inner-city

neighborhoods were destroyed to make way for new or wider roads and more efficient

and often higher-class housing (Powell 2000).

In the suburbs, the introduction of new roads, highways, and interstate systems

made it possible to live far from work, the grocery, school, and religious centers, even in

the absence of public transportation. New suburbanites had their little plot of land, and

now the dream of a car in every garage had also become a reality. This was an era of

increased prosperity for the middle-class and upper-middle-class, and the consumption of

land and fuel resources was reaching new highs. Government subsidies for roads and

tract housing encouraged this consumption which in turn fueled a growing consumer

economy (Powell 2000). It was a boom that paid little attention to the limited nature of

many of the natural resources upon which it depended. People did not really begin to

consider urban sprawl's impact on the environment or culture for more than two decades

after this new form of development began.

Following on the heels of WWII was a new war--a war against communism, the

cold war. At the same time that American neighborhoods and commerce centers were

becoming more and more spread out, our government was touting the virtues of









individualism. The family was increasingly becoming the definition of community rather

than the society of people that lived in close proximity to one another or shared a

common ideology. A study that illustrates this trend explains that neighborhood social

interactions today, such as visiting and helping out with small tasks, are best predicted by

the number of family neighbors (i.e., parents and children) living in the neighborhood

(Logan & Spitze 1994 cited in Mesch and Manor 1998). Neighborhoods no longer offer

the same opportunities for interpersonal relationships. Brown et al. (1998) relate that

modern economic survival has grown to depend more on individual education and work

than in establishing interdependencies in the areas of apprenticeships, mentoring, trade,

neighborly obligations or friendships. The individualism embraced by this new era has

also increased resource consumption, since the degree to which resources are shared has

diminished, and this in turn provides more fuel to the American economy which depends

on large scale consumerism. Some have gone as far to say that suburbia stands as the

economic, technological, and social "triumph" of individualism (Brown et al. 1998).

Suburban growth took off during this boom period between the 1950s and 1970s,

and continues growing at speeds that outpace even population growth today (Benfield et

al. 2001). From 1960 to 1990, developed land around urban areas more than doubled,

while the actual population increased by less than half (Benfield et al. 2001). From the

1960s to the late 90s, vehicle use more than tripled to over 2.4 trillion miles per year

(Benfield et al. 2001). Urban sprawl continued to eat up land as if it were in endless

supply. New commerce centers, known as strip malls, developed to accommodate the

new car culture. These malls were essentially shops organized around huge parking-lots,

which further illustrated America's new dependence on the personal automobile--also









visible in the drive-in and drive-through phenomenon that began in the 1950s and 60s.

Even the homes of this new era were designed around the automobile.

Traditional housing pre-WWII was typically stationed close to the sidewalk (this

facilitated interaction with people walking by) and had one front-facing entrance, often

on a porch which doubled as an outdoor gathering area (Brown et al. 1998; Hall and

Porterfield 2001). As access to the inside of the home became available through the

garage, front porches began to disappear (Brown et al. 1998). House placement was

pushed back from the street to accommodate driveways. Suburban tract housing as we

know it today--rows of houses, spaced apart from one another and the street by squares of

lawn, and often sharing similar designs--was born. Tract housing is not the only form of

urban sprawl, but it is arguably the most extreme.

Urban sprawl is recognizable by its homogonous nature. Residential and

commercial zones are not intermixed and are typically spaced far apart. Individual

homes generally have yard space in the front and on either the sides and/or the back of

the residence. Houses are set back from wide streets that are designed to accommodate

car traffic. The distance between housing clusters or tracts, stores, and offices are

designed to be transverse via automobile. Additionally, there is usually poor access to

public transportation. Generally, businesses are arranged in clusters or strips around

large, often rectangular, parking areas that are either in front of, or central to, the stores or

offices. Urban sprawl typically ignores the inclusion of common spaces, such as

community parks or gathering places in its design. Often a city will have a central area or

a downtown that was built before WWII, and the post-war sprawl will radiate outwards

from that "traditional" space.









Traditional and Neo-traditional Communities

Neo-traditional communities attempt to recapture the "old-time" community design

found in most developments built pre-WWII. These "Traditional" developments have

narrow streets, houses close to the sidewalk, numerous community parks, commercial

areas within walking distance of residential homes, and front porches on houses are

common. Post-WWII developments generally do not follow this same lay-out, but

instead opt for a more sprawling design that is adapted to automobile use (see above).

One of the first Neo-traditional development models to gain widespread recognition is

New Urbanism. New Urbanism was introduced specifically to combat urban sprawl and

its perceived negative effects on the social and environmental community (Katz 1994).

New Urbanism grew from the idea that community architects are also agents of social

change (Collin et al. 1995). Peter Calthorpe (2001) explains that this model for

development is guided by the idea that cities and the natural environment should be

treated as a whole. New Urbanism architecture claims to achieve this by creating defined

edges (Urban Growth Boundaries), having a circulation system that is focused on the

pedestrian (i.e., wide sidewalks, front access to stores and homes, and a regional transit

system), maintaining large preserves of public space as a primary feature of the

development, forming a "complementary hierarchy" of civic and private domains that

group together commercial, cultural, and residential centers, and through fostering a

diverse population by providing a range of jobs and housing. The design of New

Urbanism is thought to encourage residents to spend more time outdoors by incorporating

common "green" spaces into the development and encouraging walking rather than

automobile traffic along with "walkable" streets and town centers within walking

distance from residents' homes (Katz 1994).









New Urbanism aims to renew a feeling of community among urbanites, and some

theorists feel that a sense of community is necessary before an individual can begin to

address issues like environmental protection and conservation (Maslow 1954).

Proponents of Neo-traditional designs claim that not only do these building styles

increase community, but they also promote a pro-environmental ethic through their

complementary integration of the natural and built environments (Crow 1990; Katz

1994).

Collin et al. (1995) propose that environmentally conscious planning at the

neighborhood, grassroots level will become an important area for environmental justice

as our society continues to adapt to the realization of our limited resources. Whether or

not Neo-traditional models provide the kind of framework necessary to propagate social

change in the areas of community and environment remains to be seen. This is relatively

new community architecture but so far things are looking promising (Benfield et al. 2001;

Hall and Porterfield 2001). Possibly the most influential aspect ofNeo-traditional design,

is that through its architecture, it is one of the first modern development models to

attempt to express a cultural respect for the environment, the community, and a desire for

sustainability. It is still unclear, however, whether Neo-traditional communities really

succeed in creating a strong sense of community for residents and whether these

homeowners have different environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors than

homeowners that do not live in Neo-traditional communities.









Past Research on Peoples' Attitudes, Knowledge, and Behavior Pertaining to
Environmental and Wildlife Issues

There have been numerous studies conducted to investigate peoples' knowledge

attitudes and behaviors pertaining to wildlife and environmental issues. A survey of

Floridians in 1986 found that environmental issues were ranked fourth among perceived

local problems following community development, crime, and social problems such as

health care, discrimination, and immigration (Parker and Oppenheim 1986). "Floridians

and Wildlife," an in-depth technical report by Mark Duda (1987), found that a maj ority of

Floridians support increased spending to protect the environment and support laws to

protect the environment and wildlife, regardless of age, education level, income, party

affiliation, or gender. Typically, however, a willingness to support environmental issues

and spending is positively correlated with youth, middle-class, and liberalism and

negatively correlated with post middle-age, low income, and conservatism (for a review

see, Van Liere and Dunlap 1980; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dietz et al. 1998).

Research has shown that environmental concern has been growing among

Floridians and the general population as a whole since the early seventies (Florida

Defenders of the Environment 1974; Parker and Oppenheim 1986; Sadd and Dunlap

2000). Though concern waned somewhat in the early 1990s for unidentified reasons,

Americans still consistently rank wildlife and the environment as a top priority for

protection and government spending, and governmental policymakers have tended to

greatly underestimate the importance of the environment to Americans (Duda 1987;

Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Sadd and Dunlap 2000).

Interestingly, but not surprisingly, the knowledge that Americans have about

wildlife, ecology and natural resources appears to be greatly limited. One of the most in-










depth national opinion surveys on wildlife and natural resources cited in Duda' s

"Floridians and Wildlife" (1987) conducted by Kellert in 1980 reported that there are six

key influences in determining public support for wildlife conservation: "aesthetics,

phylogenetic relatedness to human beings, direct versus indirect causes of endangerment,

economic value of the species, socioeconomic impact of protection, and cultural and

historical relationship to the species." For example, while a majority of those surveyed

were willing to vote against measures that would provide extra j obs in an area with high

unemployment but at the cost of further threatening endangered panthers, the maj ority

were not willing to give the same support to an endangered species of spider (Duda

1987).

It is generally understood that the mainstream public does not have a real

understanding of the interrelated and interdependent working of natural ecology and for

this reason, modern surveys of attitudes and opinions of environmental issues have begun

to focus more on "ecological consciousness, anthropocentrism, and ecocentrism" rather

than just environmental knowledge or awareness (Dunlap et al. 2000). One of the most

widely accepted of these new survey instruments is called the New Ecological Paradigm

Scale (NEP). This scale was created with the understanding that human behaviors are

affecting the ecosystem on which all of our survival is dependent and that it is imperative

that we find more sustainable forms of development (Dunlap et al. 2000). The findings

of this survey, implemented in multiple countries over the past fourteen years, are

consistent with most other environmental polls, showing a general increase in public

awareness and concern across the board. Though awareness does not necessarily equal









action (Wildegren 1998) it possibly represents a willingness, or even a desire, to see

changing policy and regulations pertaining to the environment and wildlife.

Research Design

Objectives

In Chapter 2, the primary obj ective was to determine whether differences exist in

sense of community and environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors among

homeowners in a Neo-traditional community, a Traditional community, and a random

draw of homeowners from developments with similar housing values that do not fit the

criteria for Neo-traditional or traditional classification. Where differences occur, three

hypotheses could explain these differences in attitudes, knowledge, and behavior: 1) The

design of the development played some role (either in attracting individuals with a

particular community and/or environmental mindset or in shaping peoples' attitudes after

they moved in), 2) The developments' populations differ in demographic characteristics

that have been shown to influence community or environmental dispositions, or 3) The

homeowners in a particular area were exposed to some interpretive or outreach

program/materials that the other developments did not receive. A secondary objective

was to include questions in the survey to help identify the role that each of these factors

may have played in influencing observed differences among communities.

Chapter 3 provides a more in-depth focus on the relationship between sense of

community and environmentalism. The objectives in Chapter 3 are as follows:

1. to determine whether people with more pro-environment NEP scores indeed report
more environmentally friendly attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors

2. to determine whether people with a stronger sense of community have more
environmentally friendly NEP scores and other environmental attitudes,
knowledge, and behaviors









3. to determine the environmental norms of Gainesville middle-class homeowners in
terms of overall NEP scores, sense of community, and environmentally friendly
behaviors

The Study Site

Gainesville, Florida is located in North Central Florida about an hour and a half

from the Gulf and Atlantic coasts. The temperate climate and near daily rain showers

during spring and summer provide an ideal environment for plant growth. Undeveloped

areas around Gainesville support pine-flatlands and numerous freshwater springs that

attract visitors year round. Paynes Prairie, a state preserve near Gainesville is also a

primary natural feature of the area and contains a large, wet prairie. The city of

Gainesville was founded in 1869. The state of Florida's oldest and largest university,

The University of Florida, is situated near the city center. Covering 45.5 square miles,

Gainesville is also home to 111,224 residents. Nearly 50,000 of those residents are

involved in some way with the University, either as students or faculty/staff (City of

Gainesville web site 2003). There are 87,509 households (inclusive of any type of

residential dwelling) in Gainesville with an average income level of just over 30,000 ibidd

2003). The city of Gainesville provided an acceptable study cite in which to conduct this

survey because it contains a Traditional, pre-WWII development built around a central

downtown business district, a Neo-traditional development, and a large number of post-

WWII developments that do not fit into either of the first two development styles.

The Duck Pond, a Traditional community, is Gainesville's oldest collection of

neighborhoods. It is comprised of 8 subdivisions, packed into a mere 292 acres. Located

in the heart of downtown Gainesville, the roughly 400 homes within the Duck Pond were

originally built between the 1880s and 1930s. The narrow streets of the neighborhoods

follow a grid pattern and all streets have sidewalks on both sides. Sweetwater Branch









creek flows through the development. The creek includes a water retention basin that

local ducks have claimed as their home. This 'duck pond' is the neighborhoods'

namesake. In addition to the linear park along the banks of the creek, the development

also includes Roper Park and the Thomas Center Gardens, and Duck Pond residents have

nearby access to the large communal center in downtown Gainesville.

Haile Plantation, the Neo-traditional community, comprised of roughly 1,500

houses in 34 subdivisions, sits on the South, West edge of Gainesville. Haile fits a

majority of the characteristics of a New Urbanism development. However, since it does

not conform to all of the requirements of New Urbanism architectural models, it will be

referred to from here forward as Neo-traditional (Table 1-1). Haile Plantation has won

several environmental awards. In particular, Haile Plantation is one of the seven

exemplary communities cited in Best Development Practices published by the Joint

Center for Environmental and Urban Problems for the Florida Department of Community

Affairs. Haile was selected as the 1996 winner of the Successful Community Award by

the 1000 Friends of Florida, based on Neo-traditional design incorporating greenways

and a functional village center. Haile Plantation was also recently included as part of a

tour of developments for the Tenth Congress of New Urbanism in Miami, 2002. Though

Haile Plantation does not have all the features of New Urbanism, it incorporates enough

of them to be considered a Neo-traditional community by many architects (Lockette

2002). The biggest criticism of Haile by the New Urbanism architectural community

appears to be that it is too spread out to be considered truly "walkable" (Lockette 2002).







15



Table 1-1. Features of New Urbanism compared to those offered in Haile Plantation*
Grouping Wide Range in Store Preservation Growth Good
of Side- Housing to fronts near of "Green Boundary public
commercial walks Foster a pedestrian Spaces" as a transit
and And diverse areas and primary system
residential Narrow population rear feature
domains Streets parking for
houses and
businesses
New Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

Urbanism
Haile Yes Partial Partial Partial Yes Yes Partial

Plantation

*Information based on literature provided by Haile Plantation and a site visit to the various communities that comprise
the Haile Plantation development complex.















CHAPTER 2
SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, KNOWLEDGE,
AND BEHAVIORS IN HOMEOWNERS FROM THREE COMMUNITY TYPES

Introduction

It is appears that many factors can play a role in influencing environmental

awareness and action. There are numerous studies that explore people's attitudes,

knowledge, and behavior relating to the environment, (for a review see, Van Liere and

Dunlap 1980; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dietz et al. 1998). Many of these studies report

links between environmentalism various demographic factors including; gender,

education, liberal vs. conservative, income, age, and religiosity. However, the results

from these studies are often conflicting and the only generally agreed upon demographic

variable that has proven to be consistent across the board is age (Dietz et al. 1998).

Younger people consistently tend to be more environmentalists than people born in

earlier cohorts. Additionally, environmental attitude and knowledge can be important

predictors of environmentally friendly behaviors (Hungerford 1996; Tarrant and Cordell

1997). However, environmental awareness and attitudes are not always the best or only

predictors of pro-environmental behavior (Shultz and Oskamp 1996; Dietz et al. 1998;

Hormuth 1999). A person' s perception of how the maj ority is behaving can have a strong

influence on their behavior as well (Cialdini 1996). For example, past research has

shown that the social norms of the community can be more influential in predicting

recycling than a person' s attitude towards environmentalism (Hormuth 1999).










Not only do people influence people, but our built environment is also thought to

have an influence on our behaviors and even our values. Mazzumdar and Mazzumdar

(1997) report that indeed, architecture can be a form of nonverbal communication,

conveying the ideas and attitudes of people in a culture. Lefebvre explains in his well

know work, The Production of Space, that "every mode of social organization produces

an environment that is a consequence of the social relations it possesses. In addition, by

producing a space according to its own nature, a society not only materializes into

distinctive built forms, but also reproduces itself.... space is both a medium of social

relations and a material product that can affect social relations" (Lefebvre as cited in

Gottdiener 1993).

Unfortunately, it appears that the culture that we are reproducing now is one that

uses resources at unsustainable levels (Platt et al. 1994; Shrivastava 1995), and one in

which we are increasingly concerned with a perceived loss of community (Coontz 1992;

Brown et al. 1998). Ecologists report that the need for environmental awareness and

action is multiplying as our populations are spreading out and consuming more resources

(Myers and Ewel 1990; Platt et al. 1994). Human decisions, even at the level of our own

backyards, are impacting wildlife on small and large scales (Hostetler and Holling 2000).

Despite a generally steady rise in environmental concern in most populations since

the 1970's (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Dunlap et al. 2000), we are continuing to behave in

ways that are compromising the security of our natural resources for future generations.

Maslow' s Hierachy of Needs Theory (1954) has been interpreted to suggest that

environmental conservation and environmentalism reflect behaviors and mindsets that

can only be accomplished once basic needs for food, safety and community have been










met (Byers 1996; Hungerford 1996; Dietz et al. 1998). Therefore, this perceived loss of

community could be impeding the adoption and dispersal of environmentally minded

behaviors. The degradation of our natural environment and its disappearance as a result

of rapid urbanization have also been linked to a decrease in social interaction and overall

life satisfaction (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997).

Middle-class urbanites are no longer concerned with basic survival needs such as

food and shelter, but it is argued that what impoverishes these modern populations today

is a sense of community (Coontz 1992; Brown et al. 1998). Numerous explanations for

this change in community sense have been offered and range from the political promotion

of individualism to the impact of new technologies such as television (Brown et al. 1998).

Another reason that has been proposed is the advent of urban sprawl (Benfield et al.

1999; Talen 1999). After WWII, the automotive boom meant that residential and

commercial areas could be spread farther apart. People had a new means for traveling

quickly and across greater distances. Brown et al. (1998) make the connection that the

distance the suburbs create means that an exorbitant amount of time is spent traveling

from place to place and not as much time is left for cultivating neighborly ties at home.

What role automobile dependence has played in community loss is only speculation.

What is known is that Americans today are increasingly complaining of a loss of this

sense of community (Coontz 1992).

In an attempt to reclaim a sense of community in the neighborhood, a new model

for development has emerged called New Urbanism, a Neo-traditional design. This fairly

recent trend in urban development styles attempts to recreate the close-knit, neighborly

feel associated with "Traditional" neighborhoods that were built before WWII (Calthorpe









and Fulton 2001). Some of the design elements common in Neo-traditional communities

include a circulation system that is focused on the pedestrian, (i.e., wide sidewalks and

front access to stores and houses), the preservation of green spaces as a primary feature of

the development, houses that are built closer to the street, front porches, rear driveways,

and a "complementary hierarchy" of civic and private domains that group together

commercial, cultural, and residential centers (Calthorpe and Fulton 2001).

Proponents of Neo-traditional development models claim that not only do they

increase a sense of community, but they also promote a pro-environmental ethic through

their complementary integration of the natural and built environments (Crow 1990; Katz

1994). Neo-traditional and New Urbanism supporters claim that their developments are

designed to exist in harmony with the natural environment. Further they make the

connection that by incorporating common green spaces as a primary feature of their

developments, they are helping to creating opportunities for socialization (Crow 1990;

Katz 1994). The presence of nature elements such as trees and parks have been shown to

be an important factor in urban residential satisfaction, and even interaction among

residents in a community (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997; Kweon et al. 1998).

However, little research has explored whether Neo-traditional designs increase a

sense of community and environmentalism among residents. In this study, I compared

the sense of community and environmental attitudes, behavior, and knowledge of middle-

class homeowners from three different development types; a Traditional (pre-WWII)

development, a Neo-traditional development, and other post-WWII developments in

Gainesville, FL. Where differences exist, I explored three hypotheses that may explain

any observed differences: 1) the observed differences are attributed to the design of the









devel opm ent (either in attracting individuals with a particular community/environm ental

mindset or in promoting that ideology once they moved there), 2) the three development

populations differ in demographic characteristics that have been shown to influence

community or environmental dispositions, or 3) the homeowners in a particular area were

exposed to some interpretive or outreach program/materials that the other developments

did not receive.

Methods

Participant Selection

Gainesville, Florida was selected as the investigation site to conduct a mail survey

of middle-class homeowners living in one of three different community types: Neo-

traditional (Haile Plantation), Pre-WWII Traditional (Duck Pond), and the remainder of

the suburban community comprised of unspecified, post-WWII developments that did not

conform to either Traditional or Neo-traditional development models. In October 2002, a

mail survey was conducted of randomly selected respondents who live in each of the

three development types in Gainesville, Florida.

A mail survey design, modified from the Dillman method (1978), was use for data

collection. A total of 1611 survey questionnaires were sent to potential respondents. The

number of surveys mailed was determined by the response rate necessary for proper

statistical analysis given the total population of the communities (Dillman 2000). The

survey was printed in a 9%3/" by 7" booklet. Surveys were mailed to all the selected

participants in a hand-addressed envelope. The name of the respondent was written on

the envelope as it appeared in their phonebook listing. In addition to the survey booklet,

participants were sent a cover-letter and a pre-addressed, stamped return envelope. The

cover letter provided a brief but generic description of the proj ect and guaranteed the










participants' confidentiality. Respondents were given approximately four weeks from the

mailing date to respond. The response deadline was written on the cover page of the

survey booklet and in the cover-letter. Instead of follow-up mailings, I used follow-up

phone reminders. I called nearly all of the selected participants who did not responded by

this date, in random order. The survey booklet, selection method, cover letter, and

reminder phone call script were all approved by the University of Florida Institutional

Review Board (see appendices A-D for copies).

Potential respondents were identified through public Alachua County Property

Appraisers records available on-line (ACPAFL web site 2003). Only homes that fell

within the total taxable value range of 80,000 to 350,000 dollars were selected. I selected

properties with values between 80,000 and 350,000 for three reasons. First, in order to

compare Haile Plantation to other neighborhoods, this value range is necessitated because

the cost of homes in Haile and other Neo-traditional communities are typically above

80,000 dollars. Secondly, people who are at least moderately financially secure are

usually able and willing to focus attention on issues beyond their immediate survival,

such as conservation, as explained by Maslow's "Hierarchy of Needs" model (Maslow

1954). Third, middle-class and upper middle-class homeowners make up a large

percentage of the population in the United States and due to their financial standing; they

have access to many resources and the monetary backing to consume large amounts of

energy (UNSD 2000). Therefore, this group is an important population on which to

gather information for environmental conservation efforts. Middle-class residents will be

defined for the purpose of this research as homeowners living within greater Gainesville,









Florida whose taxable house values are between the ranges of 80,000 US to 350,000 US

dollars.

A random sample of homeowners from these records was matched with their listing

in the local phone book for follow-up phone-call reminders. Matching names from the

appraiser records to the phone book listings also helped to insure that the taxpayer was

also the person living in the household. This was important because renters and

homeowners might feel differently towards their community, and I wanted to exclude any

potential "renter effect." Homeowners that did not have listings in the phone book were

excluded. There are approximately 37,000 houses in all of Gainesville. Of those,

approximately 1/3 met the criteria to be included in this survey. Haile Plantation contains

roughly 1,700 homes, with 1,500 comprising the selection pool for this development.

Approximately 400 homes make up the Duck Pond area. Only half of those met the

necessary requirements to be selected. 643 surveys were sent to the Neo-traditional

residents (Haile), 193 to the Traditional (Duck Pond), and 775 to the remaining

Gainesville population (Gville). 349 answered questionnaires were returned from Haile,

113 from the Duck Pond, and 403 from the random draw of Gainesville, giving response

rates of 54.3, 58.5, and 52 percent respectively.

Question Design

The survey included questions designed to address five topics: sense of

community, environmental action (behaviors), environmental attitude, environmental

knowledge, and demographics. Most of these question types were located together

within the survey (see Appendix A for the complete list and order of questions).

Question flow and answerability were tested in a focus group consisting of a sample of









11 middle-class Gainesville homeowners. The questionnaire contained a total of 74

questions. Not all of these questions were analyzed in this study.

As part of the survey, The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) was used in its entirety

to assess environmental attitude. The NEP (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978; Dunlap et al.

2000) consists of 15 questions designed to provide an indication of environmentalism

based on ecological consciousness, anthropocentrism, and ecocentrism (see Appendix E

for list of questions). The NEP is a widely tested survey and has been used in many

studies of environmental attitude across a broad spectrum of respondents and in both

developed and developing countries (Dunlap et al. 2000). Supporters of this survey make

the claim that the New Ecological Paradigm Scale is one of the best measures of

environmental concern that exists today (Dietz et al. 1998). NEP scale reliability has

proven to be consistently high and scored a (Cronbach's alpha = .85) in this study. Also,

I had 6 additional questions that addressed environmental attitudes that were not part of

the NEP (Appendix F).

Based on survey results, several of the questions were also grouped into scales and

accepted as such if their reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach' s alpha of .6 or higher.

Cronbach's alpha is a measure of internal consistency, which is based on the average

inter-item correlation (SPSS 2000). Cronbach's alpha can be used as an acceptable

indicator of scale reliability (Dunlap et al. 2000).

Combining questions that are highly correlated with one another also helps reduce

multicollinarity issues (Wald 2003 personal communication). Eight of the ten sense of

community questions were collapsed into a Sense of Community scale (Cronbach's alpha

=.80) (see Appendix E). Of the 14 questions relating to environmental behavior, 12









were collapsed into the Environmental Action scale (Cronbach's alpha = .66). This scale

was intended to provide an indication of environmentalism based on respondents' self-

reported likelihood to participate in certain environment and conservation related

behaviors (Appendix E). For environmental knowledge, two questions were combined

into an ID Plants and Birds scale (Cronbach's alpha = .80) (Appendix E). The remainder

of the environmental knowledge questions and all the demographic questions were

analyzed independently (Appendix F). In addition to the questionnaire, I collected data

on water and energy use from a random sample of the respondents using public records

available through the Gainesville Regional Utility Company. This was done to have an

actual measure of natural resource consumption not based on homeowner responses.

Most of the survey is comprised of 1-5 Likert-scale questions. In addition to

Likert-scale questions, the survey also contained Yes, No, Unsure questions, open-ended

questions, and particularly in the demographics section, several questions that asked the

respondent to choose the best response from a list of possible answers. The

Environmental Action scale combined both Likert-scale questions and yes, no, unsure

questions (Appendix E). In order to combine these question types, I assigned 'Yes' a 1

(strongly agree on the Likert-scale) and 'No' a 5 (strongly disagree). 'Unsure' was

recorded into 3, which paralleled the number assignment for the "unsure" option in the 1-5

Likert-scale. All the other scales were comprised of only questions of the same type.

Analysis

Differences in Environmental Attitude, Behavior, Knowledge and Sense of
Community

I separated the communities into pairs that represented all possible combinations

(Duck Pond-Gainesville, Gainesville-Haile, and Haile-Duck Pond). This pair-wise










analysis was conducted because I was not interested in three-way interactions. I

identified differences among responses in the communities using a Chi-squared test (a =


.05) that would account for non-normal distributions and ANOVAs (a = .05) for scale

data. I felt that important variation would be lost if I were to compress scale data into

categories for the Chi-square. A General Linear Model (GLM) was performed on all

non-normal scale data. A GLM provides a P-value based on an F score that does not

require a normal distribution for validity (Crawley 2002).

Do Demographics Partially Explain the Patterns Observed?

It is possible that the three community types incorporated into this study might

differ significantly in some demographic factors) that could also have an influence on

differences observed in their question responses. To control for this, I first determined

whether demographic variables differed between the paired communities (Duck-

Gainesville, Gainesville-Haile, Haile-Duck). Separate ANOVAs were performed for

demographic variables between paired communities (a = .05). Again, with non-normal

data, Chi-squared and GLM tests were used. If demographic differences occurred, I then

explored with a Pearson' s correlation matrix to determine if these demographic variables

significantly correlated (a = .05) to a specific question. If a demographic variable was

significantly correlated with a question and both this demographic and the question

differed significantly between communities, I needed to account for this. I conducted a

GLM for that community pair to control for the correlation between the demographic

variable and the response variable. From this last test, I could determine whether a

response value still differed among communities when the demographic variable was

taken into account.









If significant differences still existed among the communities even when relevant

demographic factors were considered, then I was left with the two remaining hypothesis

1) that the community itself played some role in either attracting residents with a

particular bent towards community or environmentalism or in promoting that ideology

after the homeowner moved into the development; or 2) homeowners in one development

had been exposed to some educational program that the others did not receive.

Are observed differences attributed to exposure to educational programs or the
design of the development?

To get at the education exposure issue, I asked respondents whether or not they had

participated in an environmental education or extension program since they moved into

their neighborhood. Again, I used an ANOVA or Chi-square test depending on the

normalcy of the distribution. Respondents were also asked to write in the specific

program and date, if they answered "yes." However, there were not enough write-ins to

consider analyzing this portion for statistical differences.

The Neo-traditional community (Haile) had a management plan to conserve Gopher

Tortoises on the property and subsequently exposed local residents to Gopher Tortoise

conservation. The other two development types did not have any known, on-site Gopher

Tortoise conservation efforts. A question pertaining to Gopher Tortoises was

intentionally included in the environmental knowledge portion of this survey. This was

done in order to determine whether the Neo-traditional community's conservation efforts

in this one area (Gopher Tortoise conservation) might have resulted in a significant

difference in responses to this question between Haile and the other two development

types.









In order to look at the influence of the community design in either attracting

residents with a particular mindset or in shaping environmental

knowledge/attitude/b behavior after they had moved in, I asked the respondent whether or

not it would be important for them to move into an environmentally friendly community

if they were to move tomorrow and whether or not they felt like they had become more

environmentally friendly since moving into their current neighborhood. These questions

were analyzed using the same methods described above.

I also asked the participants to list the top two reasons why they chose their home.

This question was an open-ended question in the survey to determine if there was

something about the design of the community that attracted a homeowner. This might

also help to elucidate whether or not the design of the community selected for certain

types of homeowners. Respondents were asked to write-in whatever answer they wanted.

I looked for similar responses that had a high rate of repetition in the surveys. I created

nine categories based on this visual analysis and the potential category's relevance to the

scope of this study. These nine categories included: 1) Community Oriented, 2) Natural

Environment, 3) House Features, 4) Value/Price, 5) Location (to work, school, or

unspecified), 6) Historic Appeal, 7) Walkability, 8) Quiet, and 9) Other. I did not know

which development type the respondent belonged to when I assigned their response to a

category. "Other" included all other responses that I could not place into any of the

previous categories. I counted the total number of responses in each category for all three

communities. The responses were weighted evenly regardless of their ranking (first or

second). For each of the categories, I performed a Chi-squared test among all three

communities (u = .05).









Water and Energy Use

I collected hard data on water and energy use from a random sample of survey

respondents from each community. These records were provided by Gainesville

Regional Utility Company. For the selected properties, I was provided with data on

household consumption of water and energy from May through August, 2002 based on

monthly meter readings. Energy is assessed by units of kilowatt/hours and water is

measured in thousands of gallons.

I added together each month's energy consumption reading and then divided that

figure by the number of people in the household and the total area of the home

(energy/number of people/total area). I also added together each month' s water

consumption reading, and I divided that figure by the number of people in the household

(water/number of people). I did not divide the water usage by the total area of the home

because I did not feel that the area of the house in this instance would have a significant

influence on water consumption. I performed an ANOVA (a = .05) with these final

figures to determine if differences existed between pairs of communities.

Results

Sense of Community and Environmental Knowledge, Attitude, and Behavior

Responses to all four of the scales showed significant differences among

communities, and out of the 18 questions analyzed individually, 9 differed significantly

between at least one of the three paired communities (Table 2-1). The other 9 questions

analyzed showed no difference among communities (all tests P > 0.05, see Appendix F

for a list of all questions analyzed).





N
32.79 106
35.89 370
37.35 331
29.58 97
31.68 329
33.34 305
13.90 110
14.19 390
12.29 345
13.90 111
14.19 393
12.29 345
2.82 107
2.26 396
1.69 348
3.08 112
2.60 398
2.62 349
1.28 101
1.47 335
1.56 279
2.31 112
2.41 399
2.54 346
1.38 112
1.40 395
1.31 344
1.58 111
1.67 396
1.78 343
1.40 113
1.53 396
1.51 345
3.02 112
3.53 400
2.45 348
42.21 106
63.26 380
70.01 329


Question* Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck


Table 2-1. Survey question results from homeowners that live in a Neo-traditional
(Haile), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments (Gville).
Based on Chi-squared and ANOVA tests where significance was found
between at least one paired community for community and environment
related questions. Significant P-values are in bold (P < 0.05).


Means
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile
Duck
G-ville
Haile


NEP "


F = 6.64
P= 0.01


F = 3.18
P = 0.08

F = 7.33
P= 0.01

F = 34.45
P < 0.0001

F = 5.43
P- 0.02

X2 = 67.11
P < 0.0001

X2 = 0.61
P = 0.96

X2 = 3.32
P = 0.19

X2 = 8.92
P= 0.01

X2 = 6.10
P= 0.047

X2 = 4.82
P = 0.09

X2 = 1.92
P = 0.38


F =14.50
P< 0.0001

F =18.77
P< 0.0001

F =13.22
P < 0.0001

F =1.67
P= 0.20

X2=128.24
P < 0.0001

X2 = 11.74
P= 0.02

X2 = 14.54
P= 0.001

X2 = 6.35
P= 0.04

X2 = 1.46
P = 0.48

X2 = 8.98
P= 0.01

X2 = 10.42
P= 0.005


Environmental
Action"

Sense of
Community "

ID Plants and
Birds st

I believe the
developer...

Amount of car
traffic

More Federal
support

Belong to org



Gopher Tortoise


Water in a street
drain
Do you know
invasive exo...



% Mowed grass


Amount water
yard


F = 5.00
P= 0.03

F = 0.33
P = 0.57

F = 0.08
P= 0.78

X2 = 33.20
P < 0.0001

X2 = 13.40
P= 0.01

X2 = 7.28
P= 0.03

X2 = 1.99
P = 0.37

X2 = 1.37
P = 0.50

X2 = 3.69
P = 0.16

X2 = 6.35
P= 0.04

X2 = 19.12
P= 0.001


X2 = 126.15 X2 = 23.64
P< 0.0001 P< 0.0001


F =3.32
P = 0.07


F = 0.63
P = 0.43


F = 5.60
P= 0.02


= see Appendix E for a list of all questions used in each scale


t = high mean is more environmentally friendly for only ID Plants and Birds scale; for all other questions, a

low mean is more environmentally friendly or a stronger sense of community

*The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording,


which can be found in the numbered list below in the order of their appearance.












Question wording:

1 I believe that the developers) of my neighborhood were concerned with protecting the
environment by the way they developed the land....

2 There is a lot of car traffic in my neighborhood....

3 Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary support for
wildlife and environmental issues?

4 Do you belong to any wildlife or environment-related organizations such as The Nature
Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others?

5 Is the Gopher Tortoise a "Species of Special Concern" in Florida?

6 Does water flowing into street drains go to a water treatment facility?

7 Are you familiar with the term invasive exotic when referring to plants or animals?

8 What percentage of your yard is mowed grass?

9 On average, for this September 2002, how many times per week did you water you yard, and how
long did you leave the water running when you watered?

Neo-traditional residents were more likely than Gainesville and Traditional

residents to agree with the statement that the developers of their neighborhood appeared

to be concerned with protecting the environment and Gainesville residents were more

likely than Traditional residents to agree with this statement (Table 2-1). Gainesville

residents had a significantly higher percentage of their yard that was mowed grass than

both Neo-traditional and Traditional residents. Traditional residents reported that a

higher percentage of their yard was mowed grass than Neo-traditional residents(Table 2-

1) Neo-traditional residents reported watering their yards significantly more than

Traditional residents (Table 2-1).

Traditional neighborhood residents felt that the federal government should provide

more support to wildlife and environmental issues than either the Neo-traditional

residents or the Gainesville residents (Table 2-1). Traditional residents were significantly









more likely than Neo-traditional residents to know that water flowing into a street drain

does not go to a water treatment facility (Table 2-1). Traditional homeowners were more

likely than Neo-traditional homeowners and Gainesville homeowners to know the term

"invasive exotic" (Table 2-1).

Both the Traditional and the Gainesville residents were more likely than the Neo-

traditional residents to report that they belonged to an environmental or wildlife related

organization (P = 0.04 and P = 0.01). Neo-traditional residents were more likely than

Gainesville residents to know that the Gopher Tortoise is a species of special concern in

Florida (Table 2-1).

The Traditional residents were more likely to score pro-environment on the NEP

scale than both Gainesville and the Neo-traditional homeowners (Table 2-1). The Neo-

traditional residents were more likely to have more sense of community than either the

Traditional or Gainesville residents (Table 2-1). Gainesville residents on average could

identify more plants and birds than Neo-traditional residents (Table 2-1). On the

environmental action scale, both Gainesville and Traditional residents reported more

environmentally friendly behaviors than Neo-traditional homeowners (Table 2-1).

Traditional residents also reported more environmentally friendly behaviors than

Gainesville residents (Table 2-1).

In addition, although it did not differ among communities (all tests: P > 0.05), a

maj ority of the respondents indicated that they wanted more information about their local

environment: 57.8% of Gainesville, 58% of Haile Plantation, and 68.8% of Duck Pond.

Water and Energy Use

There were no significant differences among communities in water or energy

consumption for the four months over which this data was collected (Table 2-2).




















































Duck-Gville
X' =34.20
P< 0.0001

X2 = 3.16
P = 0.53

X2 = 7.63
P= 0.006

X2 = 4.88
P = 0.30

X2 = 7.07
P = 0.13

X2 = 0.06
P = 0.82


Gville-Haile
X' = 7.96
P = 0.09

X2 = 9.72
P= 0.045

X2 = 0.32
P = 0.57

X2 = 9.94
P= 0.04

X2 = 2.70
P = 0.61

X2 = 0.35
P = 0.55


Haile-Duck
X' = 16.22
P= 0.003

X2 = 1.67
P = 0.80

X2 = 9.56
P= 0.002

X2 = 1.63
P = 0.80

X2 = 4.86
P = 0.30

X2 = 0.41
P = 0.52


Means
Duck 3.07
G-ville 2.37
Haile 2.49
Duck 2.03
G-ville 1.93
Haile 1.97
Duck 1.37
G-ville 1.52
Haile 1.54
Duck 3.00
G-ville 3.00
Haile 2.88
Duck 3.23
G-ville 3.51
Haile 3.45
Duck 1.39
G-ville 1.40
Haile 1.43


Table 2-2. Energy and water use from utility data for homeowners in a Neo-traditional
(Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments
(Gville). Based on ANOVA tests. Means represent average household
consumption of water and energy over four months from May through August
in a particular community. Energy use is kilowatt/hours per person per square
foot of heated area of the household. Water use is thousands of gallons per
person in the household.
Question Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Means N
Duck 1.4561 35
Energy Use F = 0.43 F = 0.03 F = 0.71 Gville 1.2903 33
P = 0.51 P = 0.86 P = 0.40 Haile 1.2605 34
Duck 15.34 35
Water Use F =3.07 F = 0.100 F = 1.75 Gville 21.39 33
P = 0.08 P = 0.75 P = 0.19 Haile 20.05 34


Differences in Demographics

Significant differences among some of the communities were found for six


demographic questions (Table 2-3). The other questions analyzed showed no difference

between communities (all tests: P > 0.05, see Appendix F for a complete list of questions


and question wording).

Table 2-3. Demographic question results from homeowners that live in a Neo-traditional
(Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments
(Gville). Based on Chi-squared and ANOVA tests where significance was
found between at least one paired community for demographic questions.
Significant P-values are in bold.


Demographic
Religiosity"


Spirituality"


Gender
female = 1
male = 2
Pop. of area where
you grew up*

How many years of
education

Political Aff.
dem = 1
repulb = 2










Table 2-3 continued
Demographic Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck Means N
Ethnicity X2 = 0.51 X2 = 1.70 X2 = 2.80 Duck 1.10 111
Caucasian = 1 P = 0.48 P = 0.19 P = 0.10 G-ville 1.08 397
Minority = 2 Haile 1.05 334
How long do you X2 = 7.35 X2 = 1.23 X2 = 3.71 Duck 3.68 112
plan to stay in P = 0.12 P = 0.87 P = 0.45 G-ville 3.68 397
Gainesvillet Haile 3.65 335
Age of respondent t F = 0.04 F = 0.85 F = 0.69 Duck 55.54 111
P = 0.84 P = 0.36 P = 0.41 G-ville 55.85 396
Haile 56.86 340
How long have you F = 9.41 F = .24 F = 7.12 Duck 31.35 109
lived in Florida t P = 0.002 P = 0.63 P = 0.01 G-ville 25.30 404
Haile 25.94 341
How long have you F = 6.28 F = 0.66 F = 2.90 Duck 21.29 107
lived in Gville t P= 0.01 P = 0.42 P = 0.09 G-ville 17.56 399
Haile 18.40 333
How many years F = 2.68 F = 0.001 F = 2.30 Duck 12.20 112
have you lived in P = 0.10 P = 0.98 P = 0.13 G-ville 11.30 399
the neighborhood t Haile 11.28 337

= high mean is less religious or less spiritual

= high mean is larger population

t = high mean is more years

Traditional neighborhoods had a significantly higher proportion of female

respondents than both Gainesville and Neo-traditional neighborhoods. The Traditional

neighborhood respondents reported being less religious than both Gainesville and Neo-

traditional residents (Table 2-3). Gainesville residents reported higher levels of

spirituality than Haile residents. Traditional residents also reported living in Florida

approximately 6 years longer, on average, than either Gainesville or Neo-traditional

homeowners (Table 2-3). Traditional neighborhood homeowners also reported living in

Gainesville significantly longer than Gainesville residents. Haile homeowners tended to

grow up in cities with slightly smaller populations than Gainesville homeowners (Table

2-3 ).










Identifying Correlations

Based on the above results, there were ten relevant correlations between

demographics and responses to survey questions in at least one of the three community

pairs. Religion showed the highest number of correlations to the other question

responses. (Table 2-4).

Table 2-4. Results from Pearson's correlation analyses between demographics and
questions asked on a survey for homeowners in a Neo-traditional (Haile
Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments
(Gville). Significant P-values are in bold.
Demographics vs Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck
Question* Direction of relationship
Religion vs. 0.14 0.11 0.26 More religious more likely
Believe that P= 0.002 P= 0.003 P< 0.0001 to agree with statement
developers...
Religion vs. More -0.20 -0.18 -0.21 More religious less likely want
Support P < 0.000 P < 0.000 P < 0.0001 more Federal support for enviro
Religion vs. % -0.14 -0.11 -0.02 More religious higher percent of
Mowed grass P= 0.001 P= 0.004 P = 0.64 lawn that is mowed grass
Religion vs. -0.11 -0.09 -0.09 More religious, less likely to
Belong to org P= 0.01 P= 0.02 P= 0.05 belong to an environmental org
Religion vs. NEP -0.17 -0.13 -0.22 More religious less
P < 0.0001 P= 0.001 P < 0.0001 environmentally friendly attitude
Religion vs. Sense 0.09 0.12 0.12 More religious higher sense of
of Community P = 0.06 P = 0.001 P = 0.01 community
Religion vs. -0.01 -0.02 -0.11 More religious less likely behave
Enviro Action P = 0.79 P = 0.68 P= 0.03 in environmentally friendly ways
Spirituality vs. 0.17 0.13 0.03 More spiritual more likely to
Enviro Action P< 0.0001 P= 0.001 P = 0.53 behave in environmentally friendly
ways
Gender vs. Know 0.09 0.05 0.07 Females more likely to know about
invasive exo P= 0.03 P = 0.20 P = 0.15 invasive exotics
Time in Gville vs. 0.11 0.08 0.06 Less time in Gville more likely to
Believe that P= 0.01 P= 0.03 P = 0.23 agree with statement
developers...
*The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording,

which can be found in Appendix E (scale questions) and Appendix F (all other questions).

General Linear Model

Based on a General Linear Model where significant interactions between

demographics and other survey questions were taken into account, Community-type

differences remained significant in a majority of models (Table 2-5). The exceptions










were Spirituality in relation to the Environmental Action scale and Gender in relation to

knowing about invasive exotics. For the Gainesville-Haile comparison, differences in the

Environmental Action scale disappeared when Spirituality was considered. For the

Haile-Duck Pond comparison, differences in the invasive exotic question disappeared

when Gender was considered.

Table 2-5. Results from the General Linear Model analysis where significant interactions
between question type and demographics were taken into account. Significant
P-values (P < 0.05) indicate that when the demographic variable was taken
into account, differences still existed between respondents in a Neo-traditional
(Haile Plantation), a Traditional (Duck Pond), and post-WWII developments
(Gville). Some paired communities were not analyzed (N/A) because
demographic differences did not exist or there was not a significant interaction
between the response and the demographic.
Question* Duck-Gville Gville-Haile Haile-Duck
Demographic
Believe that P < 0.0001 N/A P < 0.0001
developers... Religion F= 17.33 F = 95.83
More Federal P =0.03 N/A P = 0.001
support Religion F = 4.82 F =11.83
Belong to org N/A N/A P =0.02
Religion F= 5.58
% Mowed lawn P = 0.003 N/A N/A
Religion F = 8.84
NEP P = 0.03 N/A P = 0.001
Religion F = 4.90 F = 4.08
Sense of Com N/A N/A P =0.02
Religion F = 5.83
Enviro Action N/A N/A P < 0.0001
Religion F =18.33
Enviro Action N/A P = 0.78 N/A
Spirituality F = 0.08
Know invasive P = 0.11 N/A N/A
exotic Gender F = 2.59
Believe that P < 0.0001 N/A N/A
developers... Time in Gville F = 18.96
*The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording

which can be found in Appendix E (scale questions) and Appendix F (all other questions).

Development Design and Education Programs

The influence of development design: Out of the 9 variables analyzed for choosing

a home, Haile Plantation homeowners' first variable was a Community Oriented

neighborhood with 172 out of 654 responses (26.3%) listing this as their primary reason









for buying a home. This was significantly more than Gainesville (89/714 12.5%) and

Duck Pond homeowners (31/209 14.8%) (both tests: P < 0.0001). Duck Pond

homeowners' first variable was House Features (48/209 23.0%) which was

Gainesville' s' third variable (120/714 16.0%) and Haile Plantation's fourth variable

(89/654 13.6 %). Gainesville homeowners' first variable was Location (200/714 -

28%), which was Haile Plantation's third variable (100/654 15.3 %) and Duck Pond' s

second variable (37/209 17.7%). Interestingly, Natural Environment was Duck Pond's

eighth variable (7/209 3.3%), Gainesville's fourth variable (89/714 12.5%, tied with

Community Oriented), and Haile Plantation's fifth variable (78/654 11.9%). (See

Appendix G for a table with observed and expected frequency of responses.)

There were no significant differences among communities for the "Since I moved

into my current neighborhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally

conscious" question (X2 = 12. 13, P = 0. 15) or for the "If I moved tomorrow it would be

important for me to move into an environmentally conscious neighborhood" question (X2

= 9.98, P = 0.34). However, the majority of homeowners from all three communities

responded that if they moved tomorrow it would be important for them to move to an

environmentally conscious neighborhood (65.5% from the Duck Pond, 69.5% from

Gainesville, 68.1% from Haile). A high percent, though not a majority (except

Gainesville), agreed or strongly agreed with the "since I moved" statement (48.2% from

the Duck Pond, 53.2% from Gainesville, and 48.6 from Haile).

The influence of environmental education: There were no significant differences

among communities for the question asking if respondents had participated in an

environmental education program since moving into their neighborhood (X2 = 4.46, P =










0.35). However, Haile Plantation, the only community with the Gopher Tortoise

conservation program, did show significantly higher homeowner knowledge about this

issue than homeowners in Gainesville (Table 2-1).

Discussion

Overall, Haile Plantation (the Neo-traditional community) had the greatest sense of

community. However, Haile Plantation is billed as a "green" community but the

residents tended to score the lowest on environmental attitudes, behaviors, and

knowledge. Duck Pond, the traditional community, tended to score consistently higher

than Haile Plantation in environmental attitude, behavior, and knowledge questions and

was slightly more environmentally friendly than the random draw from Gainesville.

Below, I discuss the results of the Traditional and Neo-traditional communities'

responses to environmental and sense of community questions and propose whether

observed differences could be explained by the design of the community.

Environmentalism and Sense of Community in a Neo-traditional Development

It was clear that homeowners in Haile Plantation, the Neo-traditional community,

felt that their developers were concerned about the environment significantly more than

the homeowners from the other communities reported. There are several factors that

could have influenced Haile homeowners in their response to this question. Haile

Plantation planners did make an effort to preserve trees when they developed the area and

they do use reclaimed water for their public grounds and golf course. Haile homeowners

also reported a lower percentage of their lawn that was mowed grass than either of the

other two communities. Preserving trees, using reclaimed water and reducing mowed

lawn area are all visible conservation efforts that people within this community could

probably observe for themselves. In addition, there is an on-site Gopher Tortoise










conservation program that the other developments did not have, which may have helped

promote the idea that the developers were concerned with the environment. Residents

within Haile were sent information about this conservation program so they would have

been aware of the development' s efforts.

Haile Plantation also provided potential homebuyers with a brochure, which

advertises that the development's planners were dedicated to protecting wildlife and

preserving the natural environment. Haile was the only development in my survey, that I

am aware of, which has an advertising campaign that specifically addresses protecting the

natural environment. Whether or not Haile actually protects the natural ecology through

its design is another question, but it does make this claim clearly known to potential

residents. This advertisement possibly had an influence on Haile Plantations

homeowners' likelihood to report that they felt like the developers of their neighborhoods

were concerned with protecting the environment. Although it was not their top reason,

the natural environment was listed 1 1.9% of the time as the first or second reason

residents choose to live in Haile Plantation.

Haile reported the strongest sense of community according to the Sense of

Community scale than either of the other two development types and less car traffic than

the Duck Pond area. It is not surprising that Haile Plantation homeowners reported a

stronger sense of community on average than homeowners in the other developments.

Haile Plantation does follow many of the design components of New Urbanism

communities. Though there are critics who argue that New Urbanism has failed to prove

its claim to promote community or conserve the environment (Talen 1999; Beauregard

2002), there are still many supporters who insist that New Urbanism' s architecture does










play a role in building stronger communities (Musser 2000; Hall and Porterfield 2001).

The results from this study cannot definitively resolve this question but they do provide

more support for the latter claim regarding the promotion of community. It seems, at

least for Haile Plantation, that there are Neo-traditional design components that probably

do promote a sense of community or at least attract people who feel that community is

important. Some of the design features which Haile has in common with New Urbanism

designs that are proposed to improve sense of community include: common green spaces

and the preservation of trees (Kuo et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1998; Talen 1999); homes in

some of the neighborhoods have been moved closer to the street to promote interaction

between residents and pedestrians (Audirac 1999); and homes near the Village Center

feature front porches and provide nearby, pedestrian-friendly commerce areas (Calthrop

and Fulton 1994; Brown et al. 1998).

There is no known educational program that Haile could have been unevenly

exposed to which could explain the difference between sense of community for Haile and

the other developments. The data for this study is not able to discriminate whether the

strong sense of community reported by Haile is a product of the development design

promoting these attitudes and behaviors, or whether the design played some role in

attracting people who were already inclined towards a particular set of values and

behaviors pertaining to being involved with a community. It seems likely that both are

related because people who feel that community is a priority in their choice of residence

would not choose a place to live that they felt would hinder their practice or experience of

those values. Homeowners in Haile Plantation reported that a sense of community was

the most important factor in determining why they chose the home that they bought. Past









research has attributed people's choice of environment to their desire to maintain various

socio-cultural influences in their lives, these include; religious ideology, family structure,

social organization, way of earning a living, and interactions with other individuals

(Rapoport 1969, cited in Mazzumdar and Mazzumdar 1997).

Despite reporting the highest sense of community of any of the developments and

being the most likely to believe that their developers were concerned with protecting the

environment, overall, Haile Plantation residents were the least likely to report

environmentally friendly attitudes, behaviors and knowledge about local wildlife and

conservation issues when compared to the other two communities. The exception was

knowledge about the legal status of the Gopher Tortoise. Gopher Tortoise awareness can

probably be attributed to Haile's residents being exposed to a conservation program

relating specifically to onsite conservation of the Gopher Tortoise.

I propose that though Haile Plantation appears to have successfully designed a

residential development that either attracts or promotes people having a strong sense of

community; it does not do a good j ob in promoting environmental awareness through

natural landscaping or environment friendly design. I do not rule out that design could

influence people's attitudes and behavior towards the environment. Modeling

appropriate behavior is an important tenant in the accepted formula for encouraging

environmentally friendly activities (McKenzie-Mohr and Smith 1999). Haile does

express a desire for environmental conservation in its advertisement, through its Gopher

Tortoise conservation efforts, and in the developers' intentional preservation of trees.

However, by-in-large, the overall environment that Haile homeowners experience may

not go far enough to reinforce environmental behaviors and attitudes of its residents. For










example, most of the homes and businesses in Haile were not built to modern energy

conservation standards (e.g., Energystar@).

Interestingly, whereas Haile does incorporate common green spaces into its design

to encourage residents to spend time outdoors in their neighborhood, there were no

significant differences among residents in the amount of time they spent outdoors or the

amount of time that they spent outdoors in their own neighborhood. Gainesville residents

reported spending approximately 15 hours outdoors per week. The city of Gainesville

itself offers numerous outdoor recreational outlets. Several large parks are situated in and

around the city, including Lake Walberg, Palm Point, Paynes Prairie, Newnan's Lake,

and Austin Cary. Gainesville features extensive bike trails that wind through the city and

Hawthorn Park. The city is also close to freshwater springs that attract visitors year

round. Having easy access to these facilities might have had a positive influence on the

amount of time that the random draw of Gainesville residents spent outdoors. However,

even if Haile had reported that its residents spent more time outdoors, past research has

shown that simply encouraging residents to spend time outdoors in their community is

not enough to influence environmental attitude or behavior (Sandell 1991; Nord et al.

1998). Sandell (1991) suggests that it is how individuals are spending their time outdoor

and in what sort of settings that could have the most influence on how they perceive and

respond to their natural environment (Sandell 1991). However, one study showed that, at

least for children, more outdoor exposure in general can have a positive influence on

environmentalism (Floyd 2002).

One of Neo-Traditional and New Urbanism's primary goals is to provide an

alternative to sprawl developments through a design that is more ecologically conscious










and promotes "natural communities" (Till 2001). Haile Plantation does not appear to be

the only Neo-Traditional community to fall short of this goal however. Critics of these

urban models claim that Neo-traditional designs, particularly New Urbanism, does not

really constitute a more sustainable form of development (Till 2001; Zimmerman 2001;

Beauregard 2002). Further, the argument has been made that New Urbanism designers

can not succeed in their desire to promote environmentalism and conservation because

they, themselves, have a limited understanding of nature and natural processes (Till

2001). It is important for urban design professionals to have a better understanding of

environmental and ecological issues if they hope to create communities that are truly

sustainable.

The Gopher Tortoise conservation program at Haile Plantation supports the idea

that active environmental education at the neighborhood level can have a positive

influence on environmental awareness in homeowners. The Gopher Tortoise

conservation program at Haile Plantation included informational newsletters about

Gopher Tortoises and onsite conservation efforts that were sent to residents within Haile

neighborhoods. Grassroots neighborhood educational efforts such as this have been cited

as an important area to focus attention in the struggle to conserve natural resources

(Collin et al. 1995; Byers 1996). Had Haile Plantation offered education in other

conservation areas, its homeowners' responses to related survey question may have

shown more environmentalism in those areas as well. Ideally, some combination of

education and "truly" eco-friendly design should be blended into "green" development

strategies because both of these elements together are probably more effective than either

one on its own.









Environmentalism and Sense of Community in a Traditional Development

The Duck Pond area, a Traditional community, generally had higher levels of

environmental attitudes and behavior than Haile Plantation but it was bit of a mixed bag

when compared to the random draw of Gainesville residents. Duck Pond residents were

higher in NEP and Environmental Action scales, but they were only higher in 4 out of the

12 individual questions. The reasons for the more environmentally friendly NEP and

Environmental Action levels reported in this development type are not entirely clear.

There are no known educational programs that the Duck Pond was disproportionately

exposed to when compared to Gainesville. Demographic differences also could not

account for all of the differences. Duck Pond residents listed the Natural Environment

less frequently on their priorities for choosing their place of residence when compared to

Gainesville and Haile. Additionally, they were equally as likely to express the desire that

if they moved tomorrow, they would select an environmental friendly community.

Therefore, it would seem that Duck Pond homeowners were not predisposed to

environmentalism either.

The Duck Pond is the oldest established collection of neighborhoods within a city

that itself is relatively green--in that a maj ority of residents from all three development

types reported higher than average levels of environmentalism according to the NEP and

Environmental Action scales (Chapter 3). The city also provides recycling bins and pick-

up to all residents. The Duck Pond area is within walking distance to Downtown

Gainesville, which is a popular arena for arts fairs, concerts, and this is also the location

of the weekly farmers market. Despite a design that supposedly discourages automobile

use, homeowners in the Duck Pond reported significantly higher levels of car traffic than

both of the other development types. This suggests that this is a very active area of the










city. The close proximity of the Duck Pond residential area to the original downtown

business district of the city is a typical "Traditional" design element. Though Duck Pond

residents do not report a significantly stronger sense of community within their

neighborhood, they may receive more exposure to the larger community outside of their

neighborhoods. Interactions between the Duck Pond and other members of the

Gainesville community might help to reinforce the social norms of the city, which appear

to promote environmentalism. Social norms have been shown to exert a strong influence

over people' s behavior (Cialdini 1996).

It is somewhat surprising that the Duck Pond did not report a significantly stronger

sense of community than Gainesville, since Haile and other Neo-traditional developments

attribute their strong community orientation to the fact that they model themselves after

the design of Traditional communities like the Duck Pond. Duck Pond homeowners did

report a stronger sense of community on average than Gainesville but this difference was

not significant.

Additional Results

I found no significant differences in hard data on water and energy use among the

three communities despite numerous significant differences in levels of reported

environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors--several of which related to water and

energy conservation. Poortinga et al. (2002), reports that for reasons related to perceived

environmental risk factors, personal energy and water use are often overlooked as

avenues for conservation, even in people who are environmentally conscious and

conserve in other ways. It seems that many people feel that some environmental

protection measures, including the conservation of energy and water, are better handled at

the governmental rather than the individual level (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Shrivastava










1995; Poortinga et al. 2002). The low sample sizes that I had for this issue could also

play a role in why I was not able to see a significant difference even though the means

suggested that there might actually be some differences among the communities,

particularly in respect to Gainesville's larger average water consumption measurements

when compared to the Duck Pond. Gainesville reported the largest percentage of grass in

their yard, so this could be related. The Duck Pond means indicated that they might use

the most energy of all three communities. The Duck Pond also has the oldest homes in

all of Gainesville and these may be less energy efficient.

Several studies, in addition to this one, report that religiosity might have a negative

relationship with environmentalism (Hand & Van Liere 1984; Guth et al. 1995). It

should be noted; however, that I did not find the same negative correlations between a

similar question that asked respondents how they would rank their level of spirituality on

a 1 to 5 Likert-scale. In fact, spirituality correlated positively with environmentalism.

Some possible explanations as to why religions, particularly Judeo-Christian sects, have

been reported to interact negatively with environmentalism have been proposed. The

concept of "mastery over nature" as interpreted from biblical text referencing Genesis

where God gave man dominion over nature, has been offered by Hand and Van Liere

(1984) as one possible source for conflict between religious and environmental ideology.

Guth et al. (1995) found that there were strong bivariate associations between

environmentalism and conservative eschatology, religious activities, and religious

commitment--with conservatism being the strongest of religious predictors for non-

environmentalism. My study did not explore reasons for the negative relationship









between religion and environmentalism, but religiosity seemed to have some negative

correlations to environmentalism in this study.

Gainesville participants did not fare well in the environment and conservation

knowledge category. More than 50 percent of residents in all three communities did not

know that water going into a street drain does not go into a water treatment facility; they

did not know which plastics could be recycled in the city; they were not familiar with the

term invasive exotic (except Duck Pond); and most were not familiar with a common

state law pertaining to feeding local wildlife. On average, respondents reported that they

could identify between 6 and 10 species of local plants and local birds each. Though past

research has seen a similar pattern in lack of knowledge concerning environmental issues

despite other environmentally friendly attitudes and behaviors (for a review see, Furman

1998), this trend is still somewhat alarming. In particular, efforts should be made to

educate the public on the water drain and invasive exotic issues, since both of these have

such a significant impact on the environment in and around Central Florida.

The maj ority of respondents from all three communities reported that they would

like to see more information on local wildlife and environmental issues. The majority of

respondents in all communities (except Haile), also felt like the Federal government

should provide more monetary support to wildlife and environmental issues. These

findings mirror the results of a survey of Floridians, which found that environmental

issues were ranked fourth among perceived local problems following community

development, crime, and social problems such as health care, discrimination, and

immigration (Parker and Oppenheim 1986, cited in Duda 1986).










A maj ority of respondents, 68.4 percent, agreed or strongly agreed with the

statement that it would be important for them to move into an environmentally friendly

neighborhood, if they were to move tomorrow. One of the arguments against building

more sustainable communities has traditionally been that it could cost more initially, and

homebuyers would not be willing to pay more money to live in an ecologically conscious

or more sustainable community. Past research into this issue does not support this claim.

At least in terms of New Urbanism elements, middle-class and upper-middle class

homeowners appear to be willing to pay more for features in their community that they

feel are important (Audirac 1999; Song and Knaap 2003).

The Future for "Green" Development

The Neo-traditional community (Haile Plantation) was not more "green" when

compared to other developments in Gainesville, Florida. However, Neo-traditional

community homeowners did report a stronger sense of community than homeowners in

the other two development types. Neo-traditional residents were also significantly more

likely to report that community appeal was one of their top two reasons for choosing their

home than were homeowners from the other developments. This bent towards

community expressed by Neo-traditional residents plus some design features within the

community probably played a role in this stronger sense of community reported by Neo-

traditional residents.

Only when Haile Plantation residents were locally exposed to an environmental

issue (Gopher Tortoise conservation) did they score higher than the other communities.

The developers instigated a Gopher Tortoise conservation program within the

development and residents received information pertaining to Gopher Tortoises.

Consequently, despite having the lowest levels of overall environmentalism among the










three communities, Neo-traditional homeowners were most likely to be aware of Gopher

Tortoise conservation status. Developers and communities that are interested in

increasing environmental awareness should include proactive environmental education at

the neighborhood level. Though more passive influence on environmentalism through

sustainable urban design should not be ruled out, the direct education strategy was more

effective here. In order for architecture to have the opportunity to positively impact

environmentalism, the design features must be "truly" addressing the conservation of

natural resources. To build "green" communities, a combination of proactive education

and passive design influence is probably the best model for increasing environmentalism

among middle-class homeowners.

Despite numerous theories that relate to the interaction between architecture,

community and environmentalism, this is an area that has been explored surprisingly

little. Neo-traditional designs are a relatively new concept in urban development and

there is a real need for further research on their potential ecological and social influence.

People desire greener communities and working towards achieving this goal appears to

be in the best interests of all involved-developers, community residents and the

environment.















CHAPTER 3
THE NEW ECOLOGICAL PARADIGM SCALE AND SENSE OF COMMUNITY INT
RELATION TO ENVIRONMENTAL ATTITUDES, BEHAVIORS AND
KNOWLEDGE

Introduction

Environmental concern has been growing among Floridians and the U.S.

population as a whole from the early seventies until the past decade (Florida Defenders of

the Environment 1974; Parker and Oppenheim 1986; Dunlap et al. 2000; Sadd and

Dunlap 2000). Though concern has waned somewhat in recent times for undetermined

reasons, Americans still consistently rank wildlife and the environment as a top priority

for protection and government spending, and governmental policymakers have tended to

greatly underestimate the importance of the environment to Americans (Duda 1987;

Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Sadd and Dunlap 2000).

Despite high levels of reported concern, it is generally understood that the maj ority

of the mainstream public does not have a real understanding of the interrelated and

interdependent working of natural ecology. For this reason, some modern surveys of

attitudes and opinions on environmental issues are focusing more on attitude concepts

such as "ecological consciousness, anthropocentrism, and ecocentrism," rather than just

environmental knowledge or awareness (Dunlap et al. 2000). One of the most widely

accepted of these survey instruments is called the New Ecological Paradigm Scale (Dietz

et al. 1998). The findings of this survey, implemented in multiple countries over the past

fourteen years, are consistent with most other environmental polls, showing a general

increase in public awareness and concern across the board.









Environmental degradation is not alone in the field of social concerns. Americans,

particularly in urban areas, are concerned over what they perceive as a loss of

"community" in their towns and cities (Coontz 1992). Brown et al. (1998) report that

many sociologists believe that a sense of community has been declining for several

decades in the United States. Most cities across the United States have also reported

higher overall crime rates in the past ten years than ever before (POPIN 2000). Further,

Mesch et al. (1998), report that people today are less likely to know and interact with

their neighbors than they were in past generations.

Various reasons are cited for this reported decline in sense of community, among

those are the advent of urban sprawl and the spreading out of residential and commerce

centers; the increased use of the automobile over pedestrian or communal modes of

transportation; a change in the design of neighborhoods which is thought to increase

isolation from neighbors; technology which has led to a faster paced society; television

and internet; governmental and economic market-driven opposition to communalistic

lifestyles; and possibly even the degradation of the surrounding natural environment

(Brown et al. 1998). To help promote a sense of community, several studies have

reported that the presence of trees and green spaces can encourage community interaction

and even promote a feeling of safety and self-satisfaction (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997;

Kuo et al. 1998; Kwoen et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1998).

Despite a general increase in reported environmentally conscious attitudes over the

past 30 years (Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dunlap et al. 2000), we

are still facing ecological crises such as pollution, species extinction, and resource

depletion (Platt et al. 1994; Dunlap et al. 2000). Could our supposed loss of community









be having a negative impact on the actual implementation and social diffusion of

environmentally friendly behaviors and conservation practices? Numerous studies report

higher levels of environmental consciousness than actual conservation minded action

(Dunlap and Scarce 1991; Schuktz and Oskamp 1996). The ease of carrying out those

activities definitely plays a role in whether or not people participate in them (Schuktz and

Oskamp 1996); however, sense of community and the expression of social norms within

a community can also be influential (Byers 1996; Cialdini 1996; Leung et al. 2002).

Maslowean theory can be interpreted as suggesting that environmental conservation

and environmentalism reflect behaviors and mindsets that can only be accomplished once

basic needs for food, shelter, safety, and community have been met (Byers 1996;

Hungerford 1996; Dietz et al. 1998). In this vein, a perceived loss of community could

be hindering the adoption of environmentally minded behaviors. Community is also an

important channel for the dispersal of knowledge and behaviors relevant to the

environment (Byers 1996; Jacobson 1999). Without community interaction, the social

diffusion of environmental knowledge and behaviors, as well as the influence of other

social norms, could be inhibited. Past research has indicated that society and obvious

social norms were better predictors of recycling than environmental attitude (Hormuth

1999).

Social norms have been shown to have a strong influence on motivating behaviors

in people and this could work both for and against environmental conservation (Cialdini

1996; Seguin 1998). If a community exhibits environmentally friendly social norms, then

this could help promote environmentally friendly behaviors in all members of the

population (Cialdini 1996; Hormuth 1999; Leung et al. 2002). However, even if a










maj ority of people show environmental concern, they are more likely to follow what they

perceive that the maj ority is doing, even if the maj ority appears to be acting in

environmentally irresponsible ways (Cialdini 1996). The pervasiveness of negative

publicity on environmentally harmful activities could be strengthening the perception that

the maj ority are not environmentally friendly, even when the maj ority in fact report

environmentally friendly attitudes and concern overall. Cialdini (1996) explains that

social norms are influential whether they are real or merely perceived.

This study explored the possible link between sense of community and NEP, to

environmental attitudes, knowledge and behaviors. The information for this study was

collected from a survey of middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida. The

obj ectives of this study were 1) to determine whether people with more environmentally

friendly NEP scores have higher environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors, 2) to

determine whether people with a stronger sense of community are more environmentally

friendly according to NEP scores and other measures of environmental attitudes,

knowledge, and behaviors, and 3) to determine overall NEP scores, sense of community,

and environmental behaviors of middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida in order

to explore the possible relationship between social norms, environmentalism and sense of

community .

Methods

Gainesville, Florida was selected as the investigation site to conduct a mail survey

of middle-class homeowners. I chose middle-class homeowners because I wanted a

population in which I could be fairly certain was not struggling to secure the most basic

of Maslowean needs, food and shelter. The population used for this study represents a

sub sample of a larger, randomly selected population who were used for a separate









investigation (see chapter 2). The larger survey was comprised of respondents from three

development types; a Neo-traditional community, a Traditional community, and all

remaining developments within Gainesville. Those three development types combined,

represented a stratified random sample of all middle-class homeowners in Gainesville,

Florida--but not in the necessary proportions to provide a truly representative sample of

the city. To obtain a representative sample from these three unevenly represented

populations, I randomly selected the appropriate number of respondents from each

development type based on the proportion of the entire city's population that each

development encompassed. The resultant sub-sample was 440 homeowners, comprised

of 403 respondents from the Gainesville sample, 3 1 from the Neo-traditional

development, and 9 from the traditional development.

Analysis

The survey questions were designed to investigate five issues; 1) sense of

community, 2) environmental attitude, 3) environmental behaviors, 4) environmental

knowledge, and 5) population demographics (see Appendix A for a list of all questions).

Several of the questions in each category were grouped into scales and accepted as such

if their reliability analysis yielded a Cronbach' s alpha of .6 or higher. Cronbach' s alpha is

a measure of internal consistency, which is based on the average inter-item correlation

(SPSS 2000). l use the New Ecological Paradigm (NEP), developed by Dunlap and Van

Liere (1978, 2000) as my primary measures of environmental attitude. The NEP scale is

one of the most widely used scales of this type and arguably one of the best (Dietz et al.

1998). This collection of 15 questions, revised from the original 1978 version, is

designed to measure ecological consciousness (Dunlap 1992). (See Appendix E for a list









of all scale questions). NEP scale reliability has proven to be consistently high and

scored a (Cronbach's alpha = .88) in this study.

Sense of community (SOC) was measured by a scale comprised of 8 questions

(Cronbach's alpha = .80). Two question were combined into an ID Plants and Birds scale

(Cronbach's alpha = .79). Scales were created by adding response values for particular

sets of questions. For example, the SOC scale was comprised of eight, five-item Likert-

scale questions. The respondent was asked to circle a value from one to five for each

question that corresponded to how they felt. The circled number responses to the eight

questions were added together to give a total scale score. The minimum SOC score

would be 8, if the respondent chose all ones, and the maximum would be 40 if the

respondent chose all fives. Most of the survey was comprised of 1-5 Likert scale

questions. In addition to Likert scale questions, the survey also contained Yes, No,

Unsure questions, open-ended questions, and particularly in the demographics section,

several questions that asked the respondent to choose the best response from a list of

possible answers.

NEP and Sense of Community

Using reported cumulative frequencies for the NEP and SOC scales. I divided the

sample into two SOC groups, and two NEP groups. The 50 percent who reported the

highest levels of environmentalism as measured by the NEP became the "more

environmental" group. The other 50 percent was given the title, "less environmental".

For the SOC scale, the 50 percent with the stronger sense of community scores became

the "stronger" group and the 50 percent reporting a weaker sense of community in

comparison became the "weaker" group. Some questions were not answered by every

respondent and this influenced the sample size for each group. The ID scale, and










individual questions relating to environmental attitudes, behaviors and knowledge were

compared between the "more environmental" group and the "less environmental" group.

The NEP scale, ID scale, and individual questions relating to environmental attitudes,

behaviors and knowledge were compared between the "stronger" and "weaker" SOC

groups.

I also explored whether demographic differences existed between my comparisons

(see appendix F for list of questions). It is possible that more and less environmentally

friendly respondents and those who reported a stronger or weaker sense of community

might differ significantly in some demographic factors) that could also have an influence

on differences observed in their question responses. I explored demographics to establish

whether or not there were significant differences in demographics that might offer a

possible explanation to observed differences between NEP and SOC group responses. If

no demographic differences were observed, then I would assume that demographic

differences are not primarily responsible for observed differences between the groups. If

differences are observed, depending on what those differences are, it is likely that I would

not be able to rule out the influence of demographics.

Depending on the scale or question and whether the answers were normally

distributed (and did not respond to transformation), I used two statistical analyses.

Mostly, I used a contingency, Chi-squared test to compare response frequencies between

groups because most data were not normally distributed (a = .05). Where possible, I

used a T-test for normally distributed data (a = .05).









Environmentalism, Sense of Community, and Social Norms

Studies have shown that even individuals with low levels of environmentalism can

be influenced to behave in environmentally friendly ways if the social norms that they

observe in their community promote environmentalism (Cialdini 1996). The influence

of social norms could potentially be heightened or reduced depending on how connected

an individual was with his or her community. Therefore, sense of community could

potentially impact the degree of influence that social norms could have on an individual.

In order to further explore this hypothesized relationship between sense of

community, social norms, and environmentalism, I further divided the "more

environmental" group and a "less environmental" group, according to stronger and

weaker sense of community scores. I performed either Chi-square or T-test analyses on

these new divisions (a = .05).

Finally, I estimated the social norms of middle-class homeowners in Gainesville

pertaining to sense of community, environmental attitude, environmental knowledge, and

environmental behaviors, by looking at overall scores for four scales. I compared the

median value, where 50% of the respondents scored below and 50% scored above, to the

midpoint value of the scale.

Three of the scales have been discussed already, the SOC (sense of community),

NEP (attitude), and ID (familiarity with local plants and birds). An Environmental

Action Scale comprised of 12 questions was also created to provide an indication of

environmentalism as measured by respondents' self-reported likelihood to participate in

conservation related behaviors (Cronbach's alpha = .68, Appendix E). The

Environmental Action scale combined both Likert scale questions and yes, no, unsure










questions. In order to combine these question types, I assigned 'Yes' a 1 (strongly agree

on the Likert scale) and 'No' a 5 (strongly disagree). 'Unsure' was recorded into 3, which

paralleled the number assignment for the "unsure" option in the 1-5 Likert-scale. All the

other scales were comprised of only questions of the same type.

If the results of the social norms analyses revealed that middle-class Gainesville

homeowners reported low levels of environmentalism, then I would expect to see a

negative relationship between a strong sense of community and environmental action and

this might be most pronounced in the environmentally friendly group. If the social norms

analyses revealed that Gainesville appeared to be a more "green" community, then I

would expect to see more pro-environment behaviors and this might be particularly

apparent in those who were not as environmentally friendly, but had a strong sense of

community. Once again, if I found previous relationships between demographics and

either SOC or NEP, I would not be able to rule out the possibility that responses were

influenced by this difference rather than the interaction between SOC and

environmentalism.

Results

NEP

Having a more environmentally friendly score on the NEP was positively

associated with 21 out of the 29 questions pertaining to environmental attitude, behavior

and knowledge about local issues (Table 3-1). NEP score did not seem to be related to

responses for total hours outdoors, percent of time outdoors in own yard or

neighborhood, participation in an environmental education program, total watering of

lawn, percent of yard that is mowed grass, percent of time watching wildlife spent in own











yard, knowing if it is legal to feed a wild raccoon, and knowing that water going into a

street drain does not go to a water treatment facility (All tests: P > 0.05).


There were no significant differences in demographic question responses between


the more and less environmental NEP groups (All tests: P > 0.05).


Table 3-1. Averages and Chi-squared results from reported environmental attitudes,
knowledge, and behaviors and demographics between more (lower NEP
scores) and less (higher NEP scores) environmental groups. Survey responses
come from middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, FL. Only significant or
near significant values are reported. See Appendix F for a list of all questions
analyzed. Significant values are in bold (P < 0.05). Near significant values
are italicized (P < 0.1).
Question* Less Eny More Eny df X' Sig
Means Means
Watch wildlife 1.62 1.37 1 23.93 P < 0.0001
n = 206 n= 187
Practice water conservation 1.70 1.48 2 8.71 P = 0.013
n= 192 n= 173
Attract wildlife to yard 1.86 1.53 2 13.01 P = 0.001
n = 210 n= 190
Belong to environmental organization 2.70 2.12 2 42.91 P< 0.0001
n = 210 n= 190
There is nothing that I can do t 3.88 4.44 4 39.99 P < 0.0001
n = 209 n= 190
More Federal support 1.79 1.16 2 84.34 P = 0.001
n= 168 n= 173
Do you compost 2.26 1.98 2 9.55 P = 0.008
n = 209 n= 191
Do you recycle 1.46 1.20 4 17.81 P = 0.001
n = 210 n= 191
Do you turn off water 2.30 1.89 4 18.50 P = 0.001
n = 210 n= 191
Do you buy green 3.26 2.54 4 56.70 P < 0.0001
n = 207 n= 189
Do you refuse bags 3.54 2.77 4 32.79 P< 0.0001
n = 209 n= 191
Do you carpool 4.51 4.28 4 12.92 P = 0.01
n = 209 n= 190
Do you avoid chemicals 3.72 2.76 4 70.39 P< 0.0001
n = 209 n= 189
ID Plants and Birds scale t 3.83 4.95 11 41.01 P <0.0001
n = 207 n= 189
Is it legal to feed wild raccoons 1.58 1.45 2 5.01 P = 0. 08
n= 211 n= 188
Gopher Tortoise conservation status 1.47 1.29 2 11.21 P = 0.004
n = 210 n= 191
Do you know what plastics 1.85 1.52 2 13.14 P = 0.001
n = 210 n= 192
Do you know invasive exotics 1.75 1.32 2 26.82 P< 0.0001
n = 210 n= 191











Table 3-1 continued...
Question* Less Emv More Emv df X2 Sig
Means Means
More information 1.63 1.17 2 68.74 P< 0.0001
n= 193 n= 179
Since I moved 2.78 2.67 4 13.52 P = 0.009
n= 211 n= 192
If I moved tomorrow 2.57 1.73 4 66.52 P < 0.0001
n= 211 n= 191
S= see Appendix E for a list of scale questions.

t = high mean is more environmentally friendly. For all other questions, a low mean is more

environmentally friendly.

*Question wording:

1 Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity?

2 Do you use any water conservation techniques when watering your yard?

3 Do you do anything to intentionally attract wildlife to your property?

4 Do you belong to any wildlife or environment-related organizations such as The Nature
Conservancy, The Audubon Society, Florida Native Plant Society, or others?

5 There is nothing that I can do to impact the environment, for better or worse, because I am only
one person....

6 Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary support for wildlife
and environmental issues?

7 Do you compost any of your yard waste or food waste?

8 How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled?

9 How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water?

10 Even when they are more expensive, how often do you buy an environmentally friendly version of
a product instead of other brands when given the option?

11 When checking-out at a grocery store, how often do you refuse a paper or plastic bag when you
only have a few items?

12 When going to work or running errands, how frequently do you walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or
carpool instead of taking a personal automobile?

13 How often do you try to find alternatives to using common household (including lawn) chemicals
because you are worried about how they might affect the environment?

14 Is it legal to feed wild raccoons?

15 Is the Gopher Tortoise a "Species of Special Concern" in Florida?










16 Do you know what plastic numbers (the number found on the bottom or side of a plastic container)
can be recycled in Gainesville?

17 Are you familiar with the term invasive exotic when referring to plants or animals?

18 Would you like to see/hear more or less information about wildlife and the environment that is
relevant to your neighlborhoaodD
19 Since I moved into my current neighborhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally
conscious ....

20 If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move into an environmentally conscious
neighborhood ....

Sense of Community

Significant or near-significant differences between stronger and weaker sense of

community groups were found in 10 out of the 30 questions analyzed (Table 3-2).

Stronger sense of community appeared to have a positive relationship to watching

wildlife, disagreeing with the statement that there is nothing that they can do to help

protect the environment because they are only one person, recycling, turning off the

water when brushing teeth, identifying plants and birds, knowing about the status of

Gopher Tortoises, feeling like they had become more environmentally conscious since

moving into their neighborhood, feeling like it would be important to live in an

environmentally friendly neighborhood if they were to move tomorrow, hours outdoors,

and percent of hours outdoors spent in own neighborhood (Table 3-2). The only

demographic response that differed significantly between the stronger and weaker sense

of community groups was years in neighborhood (t = -1.97, P = 0.05). It appears that the

longer a respondent has lived in their neighborhood, the stronger their reported sense of

community (Table 3-2).











Table 3-2. Averages and results from Chi-squared and T-tests from reported
environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors and demographics
between stronger (lower SOC scores) and weaker (higher SOC scores) sense
of community groups. Survey responses come from middle-class
homeowners in Gainesville, FL. Only significant or near significant values
are reported. See Appendix F for a list of all questions analyzed. Significant
values (P < 0.05)are in bold. Near significant values are italicized (P < 0.1).
Question* Weaker SOC Stronger SOC df X- Sig
Means Means
Watch wildlife 1.58 1.45 1 7.30 P = 0.007
n= 223 n = 193
Nothing I can do t 4.14 4.19 4 14.40 P = 0.006
n= 223 n = 197
Do you recycle 1.34 1.28 4 8.10 P = 0. 09
n= 226 n = 199
Do you turn off water 2.18 2.01 4 10.69 P = 0.03
n= 226 n = 199
ID Plants and Birds scale s, t 3.88 4.79 11 23.33 P= 0.01
n= 224 n = 194
Gopher Tortoise conservation 1.44 1.32 2 7.43 P= 0.02
status
n= 225 n = 195
Since I moved 2.95 2.45 4 20.23 P < 0.0001
n= 223 n = 196
If I moved tomorrow 2.35 1.94 4 18.80 P= 0.001
n= 225 n = 196
% hours outdoors, outdoors in vard 3.41 3.80 4 16.58 P = 0.002
n= 226 n = 198
Total hours outdoors/week t 14.08 16.36 420 t = -1.80 P= 0.07
n= 223 n = 199
Years in neighborhood* 10.40 12.22 418 t = -1.97 P= 0.05
n= 222 n = 198
= see Appendix E for a list of scale questions.

t = high mean is more environmentally friendly. For all other questions, a low mean is more

environmentally friendly.

*Question wording:

1 Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity?

2 There is nothing that I can do to impact the environment, for better or worse, because I am only
one person....

3 How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled?

4 How frequently do you turn off the faucet while brushing your teeth to conserve water?

5 Is the Gopher Tortoise a "Species of Special Concern" in Florida?

6 Since I moved into my current neighborhood, I feel like I have become more environmentally
conscious ....










7 If I moved tomorrow, it would be important for me to move into an environmentally conscious
neighborhood ....

8 Of those hours spent outdoors per week, what percentage of them is spent outdoors in your yard or
neighborhood?

9 On average, how many hours per week do you spend outdoors?

10 What year did you move into your current neighborhood?

NEP and SOC

When the "more" and "less" environmentally friendly groups were further divided

into "stronger" and "weaker" sense of community sub-groups, a strong sense of

community appeared to have a greater relationship to pro-environmental behavior when

the respondents were less environmentally friendly. Significant or near-signifieant

difference was shown for fiye environmental behavior questions between stronger and

weaker groups for the less environmental group (Table 3-3). There were no significant

differences in knowledge responses for the less environmental group (Table 3-3). The

more environmental group showed no significant differences in environmental behavior

or knowledge between stronger and weaker sense of community sub-groups (Table 3-3).

The more environmental groups showed significant difference between stronger and

weaker SOC groups for one attitude question, and the less environmental group did not

show any difference in attitude between the stronger and weaker SOC sub-groups (Table

3-3).

The only significant demographic for this analysis was years in neighborhood.

More environmentally friendly respondents, who had lived in their neighborhood longer,

were more likely to report a stronger sense of community (Table 3-3). However, the

actual difference was about 3 years. There was no difference in this demographic

between stronger and weaker community for the "less" environmental group.











Table 3-3. Averages and results from sense of community Chi-squared and T-test
analyses for more and less environmentally friendly groups. Survey responses
come from middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, FL. Only significant or
near significant values are reported. Significant values are in bold (P < 0.05).
Near-significant values are italicized (P < 0.1)
Less Environmentally More Environmentally Friendly
Friendly
Question* Sense of Sense of
Community Community
Weaker Strong X2 P Weaker Strong X2 P
Means Means Means Means
Watch wildlife 1.68 1.53 4.40 0.04 1.43 1.32 2.35 0.13
112 90 95 90
Practice water conservation 1.83 1.54 5.72 0. 06 1.49 1.48 0.61 9.07
103 85 85 85
Belong to an environmental 2.81 2.58 6.55 0.04 2.11 2.17 0.61 0.74
org
114 90 95 92
Do you recycle 1.50 1.40 9.91 0.04 1.20 1.18 0.08 0.96
114 91 96 92
Do you turn off water 2.46 2.05 13.86 0.01 1.85 1.92 3.10 0.54
114 91 96 92
Do you refuse bags 3.66 3.35 8.85 0.07 2.56 2.97 9.19 0. 06
113 91 96 92
Do you carpool 4.61 4.36 8.61 0.07 4.29 4.25 3.77 0.44
114 90 95 92
Gopher Tortoise 1.54 1.39 5.74 0. 06 1.34 1.24 2.45 0.29
conservation
114 90 95 93
If I moved tomorrow 2.76 2.36 8.16 0. 09 1.86 1.60 11.45 0.01
114 91 96 93
Since I moved 2.97 2.52 2.83 0.01 2.92 2.40 8.49 0. 08
114 91 96 92
More Federal support 1.75 1.82 5.10 0. 08 1.16 1.15 0.05 0.98
93 72 85 85
Years in neighborhood' 11.88 12.39 t = 0.73 8.76 12.13 t = 0.01
-0.35 -2.78
111 90 95 92
*The question wordings in the first column of this table are abbreviations of the actual question wording

which can be found in Appendix E (scale questions) and Appendix F (all other questions).

S= environmentally friendliness is not applicable. For all other questions, a low mean is more

environmentally friendly.

Gainesville Scores

Middle-class homeowners in Gainesville, Florida reported a relatively strong sense

of community according to the relationship of their median responses to the midpoint of

the SOC scale (Table 3-4). These residents also scored on the environmentally friendly










side of the midpoint for the NEP and the Environmental Action scales (Table 3-4).

However, middle-class Gainesville homeowners indicated that they could identify

between 6 and 10 species of native plants and birds on average vs. the midpoint of the

scale which would be between 11 and 20 species for each (Table 3-4).

Table 3-4. Results from Gainesville's overall environmental attitude, behavior,
knowledge and sense of community analysis.
Scale Midpoint Median N
ofscale
NEP 45 36 336
SOC 24 13 336
Environmental Action 36 31 336
ID Plants and Birds 6 4 336


Discussion

NEP

The NEP scale proved to be a good measure of environmentalism as indicated by a

high degree of positive associations with numerous self-reported environmental

behaviors, knowledge and attitudes. Comparing homeowners with low and high NEP

scores, homeowners with relatively low NEP scores (i.e., pro-environment) generally

reported more environmentally friendly attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors. It is not

surprising that pro-environment NEP scores were positively associated with

environmentalism since this mirrors the findings of other studies that have tested the NEP

in relation to other environmental attitudes and actions (Tarrant and Cordell 1997;

Schultz and Zelezny 1998; Dunlap et al. 2000).

NEP and behavior

The NEP showed a relationship to most survey questions of environmental

behavior but not all. Additionally, all of the behaviors measured in this survey were self-

reported behaviors by the respondent. I do not know how strong of a relationship, if any,









the NEP would have shown to an actual measure of the behaviors. It was particularly

interesting that NEP did not show a relationship to the amount of time that people spent

outdoors. Floyd (2002) has shown that spending more time outdoors is related to

environmentalism in some instances. Other studies, however, have also shown that the

amount of time that a person spends out doors in not necessarily correlated to

environmentalism (Sandell 1991; Nord et al. 1998). Sandell (1991) proposes that it is

how the person is spending their time outdoors and in what kind of environment that is

more related to environmental attitude.

Participation in an environmental education or extension program was also not

associated with NEP scores in this study. Past research has shown that the NEP, and

attitude in general, are not always the best predictors of environmentally friendly

behaviors (Schultz and Oskamp 1996; Widegren 1998). In addition to environmental

attitude, studies have shown that the level of difficulty in carrying out an environmentally

friendly behavior can be a stronger predictor of that behavior than environmentalism

(Schultz and Oskamp 1996). Most of the behaviors analyzed in this study did not take a

considerable amount of effort. For example, the city of Gainesville provides recycling

bins and curbside pick-up. This probably also influenced the likelihood that a strong

positive relationship would be observed between these behaviors and the NEP.

Participating in an environmental education program is one behavior, however, that

would take relatively more effort. This might be remedied, however, if the

environmental education program could be brought to the homeowner's neighborhood

instead of the homeowner having to make an effort to find and attend such programs.









Watering grass and mowed lawn were also not related to the NEP even though

reducing both is an important conservation measure. Poortinga et al. (2002) report that

personal consumption of energy and water are often disregarded as avenues for

conservation, even in people that report numerous other environmentally friendly

behaviors and attitudes. Water is seemingly such an abundant resource in all but desert

environments that people might have difficulty understanding that usable water in many

areas is very limited. Additionally, it has been proposed--in the case of electricity and

gasoline conservation, as well as other areas of resource management--that people may

see these as issues where conservation efforts should happen on a technological and

material use level and not as much on a personal action level (Dunlap and Scarce 1991;

Shrivastava 1995; Poortinga et al. 2002). Rather than reduce personal consumption of

these resources, some people think that the government or manufactures should find and

provide alternative energy sources that are more environmentally friendly.

NEP and knowledge

The NEP was associated with the ID scale and two out of four of the other local

environment knowledge questions. Past research has shown that pro-environmental

attitude does not necessarily mean more environmental knowledge (Furman 1998). One

of the reasons that the NEP uses attitude based questions to measure environmentalism is

because it was understood that most people really have very little actual knowledge about

the workings of the environment and ecology (Dunlap and Van Liere 1978). Therefore,

environmental knowledge is not always an accurate measure of environmentalism.

Furman (1998) found that survey respondents were more likely to know and relate to

local environmental issues than environmental questions that were on a global scale. The

knowledge questions in this survey all pertained to local issues and this might have









influenced the modest relationship between NEP and environmental knowledge in this

study .

NEP and demographics

In other studies involving the NEP, younger populations have consistently shown

higher levels of environmentalism than older generations (Dietz et al. 1998). The reason

that age did not appear as a factor in this study as well is most likely related to the natural

homogeneity of the populations selected. This study focused on middle-class

homeowners in Gainesville, Florida. This selection showed relatively little variation in

age. The average age of respondents in this study was 55.

Sense of Community

Sense of Community (SOC) was positively associated with less than half of the

measured environmental attitudes, behavior, and knowledge between homeowners

reporting stronger and weaker sense of community. Overall sense of community was

high for middle class homeowners in Gainesville. Both the stronger and the weaker

sense of community groups actually had an average response to the SOC scale that was

higher than the scale midpoint. Gainesville respondents also reported relatively high

levels of environmental attitudes and behaviors. From these results, it seems that

environmentalism would also be the social norm of this community.

A stronger relationship between sense of community and environmental attitudes,

behaviors, and knowledge might have appeared if the weaker SOC group really had a low

sense of community as measured by the midpoint of the scale. For example, differences

may have been more pronounced for NEP scores if the groups compared had more

differences between their senses of community. Maslow' s theory (1954) explains that a

lack of a sense of community can interfere with the adoption of "extraneous" behaviors









like conservation because people need to focus their energies on securing that basic need

first. Despite the maj ority of respondents claiming that they had a strong sense of

community, I did still find a few positive associations between stronger SOC and

environmental attitude, behavior, and knowledge.

SOC and behavior

Interestingly, SOC was related to time spent outdoors and time spent outdoors in

own neighborhood. The city of Gainesville offers numerous outlets for outdoor

recreation including nearby freshwater springs, state parks, and extensive bike and

walking trails at Hawthorn and around Paynes Prairie. A national sample of urban

residents revealed that people's proximity to natural environments was the best predictor,

after marital satisfaction, of "residential satisfaction and general life satisfaction" (Fried

1984). Numerous studies have shown that the prevalence of parks and green spaces can

increase interactions between people in a community, thereby potentially having a

positive influence on sense of community (Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997; Kuo et al. 1998;

Kweon et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1998). Those with a stronger sense of community may

be spending more time outdoors to interact with other people in their community also.

Additionally, this time outdoors might be related to why people who have a stronger

sense of community report that they can identify more species of local plants and birds.

Floyd (2002) found that time outdoors can lead to an increased interest in and knowledge

of nature. Spending more time outdoors would expose people to outdoor elements such

as plants and animals more often, and this may also explain in part why the stronger

sense of community group watched wildlife more often.

SOC was related to turning off the faucet while brushing teeth to conserve water

too. Household water conservation and even this specific behavior have received









publicity in this community because Gainesville sometimes experiences water shortages.

A 3-year drought, from 1990 to 1993, was well reported in Gainesville. Hormuth (1999)

showed that social norms can be as significant a factor as environmental attitude in

determining these types of behaviors. However, the amount of water used on the lawn

did not have a similar relationship to SOC. Giving up watering the lawn is a more costly

environmental behavior as the grass could wilt and die. Imaginably, it might take quite a

few neighbors to let their grass turn brown for this behavior to catch on. In addition,

though recycling efforts are also highly visible through out the community (households

are provided with recycling bins and free pick-up), this study did not show a significant

relationship between SOC and this behavior. The results did indicate a trend towards a

positive relationship between SOC and recycling though. The results from this SOC-

behavior analysis only lend very limited support to the argument that sense of community

has some relationship to environmental behaviors. However, as mentioned above, this

may be related to the high sense of community in Gainesville.

SOC and knowledge

Increasing opportunities. for interaction between people in a community can help to

disperse information through a process called social diffusion (Byers 1996; Jacobson

1999; McKenzie-Mohr 1999). This might relate to why the group reporting a stronger

sense of community was more likely to know about gopher tortoise conservation status. I

am not clear why other measures of local knowledge did not show a similar pattern

though. It is possible that these other issues did not receive the same levels of publicity

within the community.









SOC and attitude

Although SOC was not associated with NEP, several attitude questions were

associated. Respondents with a higher sense of community were more likely to disagree

with the statement that there is nothing that they can do to help protect the environment

because they are only one person. These "stronger" community respondents also were

also more likely to report that they had become more environmentally conscious since

moving into their neighborhood, and that they felt like it would be important to live in an

environmentally conscious neighborhood if they were to move tomorrow. A strong sense

of community has been shown to relate to feelings of empowerment (Hungerford 1996).

Empowerment is the personal feeling that you have the ability to influence something.

Empowerment relates to the idea that something is within your "locus of control"

(Hungerford 1996; Schultz and Oskamp 1996). People who feel connected to their

community are more likely to feel like they have an influence on it and other things

around them too. It seems to follow then that homeowner' s who reported a stronger

sense of community were more likely to disagree with the nothing I can do statement.

Additionally, it is not too surprising that the majority of Gainesville residents said that

they would want to live in an environmentally conscious neighborhood if they were to

move tomorrow, given the somewhat environmentally friendly bent of respondents in this

survey. The relationship between SOC and respondents feeling like they had become

more environmentally conscious since moving into their community supports both the

idea that environmentalism is the social norm in this city and that social norm and sense

of community are related.









Sense of Community, Social Norms, and Environmentalism

People with a less environmentally friendly attitude (measured by NEP) and a

stronger sense of community reported slightly more environmental behaviors than those

with a weaker sense of community. People in the more environmentally friendly group

did not differ as much in their behavior, attitude, and knowledge scores between

"stronger" and "weaker" sense of community groups. Intuitively, the stronger someone's

sense of community, the more likely they are to be exposed to perceived social norms.

Environmental attitudes, knowledge, and behaviors in Gainesville on average were

environmentally friendly. Thus, these high environmental social norms are most

influential in groups that have a strong sense of community but have low environmental

attitudes as measured by NEP, as reflected by this analysis. If a social norm in a

community is pro- environmental, then increasing sense of community may be a good

step to increasing pro-environmental behaviors.

Despite Gainesville's seemingly "green" social atmosphere, it is important to stress

that I did not compare the results of the NEP or Environmental Action scales in this

population to populations in other cities. Therefore, I cannot say with confidence that

Gainesville is any more "green" than any other city. The vast maj ority of past research

has shown relatively high levels of pro-environmental attitude and concern in Floridians

and Americans across the board (Florida Defenders of the Environment 1974; Parker and

Oppenheim 1986; Jones and Dunlap 1992; Dunlap et al. 2000; Sadd and Dunlap 2000).

Implications for Creating Green Communities

The NEP results from this and other studies reveal that having an environmentally

friendly attitude has a positive relationship with the practice of environmentally friendly

behaviors (Schultz and Oskamp 1996; Tarrant and Cordell 1997; Schultz and Zelezny









1998; Dunlap et. al 2000; Rauwald and Moore 2002). Numerous other sources suggest

that promoting environmental understanding and knowledge increases peoples desire to

protect their natural resources also (Arcury 1990; Seguin et al. 1998; Floyd 2002).

However, it does not always follow that environmental attitude leads to behavior, as

empowerment and social norms also play a role (Cialdini 1996; Hungerford 1996; Seguin

et al. 1998; Hormuth 1999). Leung et al. (2002) found in their study that an increase in

environmentally friendly behavior was related to how long respondents had lived near

other people who practiced these behaviors and whether or not they identified with this

new group. Interestingly, though environmental behaviors in this newly acculturated

population increased with time, environmental concern did not (Leung et al. 2002).

Strengthening a sense of community may help to diffuse social norms and amplify

their impact, particularly in people who would otherwise be indifferent to the adoption of

those behaviors (Byers 1996; Cialdini 1996; Hungerford 1996). In this study,

homeowners with low environmental attitudes and stronger sense of community did show

more of likelihood to adopt a few environmental behaviors than homeowners with a

weaker sense of community. This is presumably because the social norm in Gainesville

is in favor of those environmentally friendly behaviors. The pervasively strong sense of

community in Gainesville might have contributed to why sense of community only

showed a relationship to a minority of environmental behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge

in this study. A combination of measures to strengthen sense of community and

conservation strategies that work towards establishing environmental friendly behavioral

"norms," could help in creating "green" communities. Hostetler (1999) has suggested

such a program for conserving avian habitat in residential developments.










The positive relationship in this survey between time outdoors and sense of

community lends modest support to other research which claims that trees, parks, and

green spaces can increase social interaction, feelings of safety and even self-satisfaction

(Fried 1984; Coley et al. 1997; Kweon et al. 1998; Taylor et al. 1998). This exposure

may also help to familiarize people with the environment around them. There is

conflicting information on whether time outdoors alone can help promote

environmentalism, but it does seem that certain outdoor activities and environments could

have a positive effect on both environmentalism and sense of community (Fried 1984;

Sandell 1991; Floyd 2002). Environments and activities that express a respect for the

natural ecosystem are probably the most likely to have a positive influence on

environmentalism. Modeling appropriate behaviors has been cited as one way to

promote social norms, and consequently, the adoption of those behaviors (McKenzie-

Mohr and Smith 1999). Ecologically sustainable environments and activities are in effect

modeling desired behaviors and relationships between people and the environment.

The maj ority of middle class homeowners in Gainesville appear to value

environmentally friendly neighborhoods. 70.2% of the respondents in this survey

reported that it would be important for them to move into an environmentally friendly

development if they were to move tomorrow. The preservation of natural areas within

and around urban developments has consistently been shown to increase people's

preference for those spaces (Coley et al. 1997). This should be an important

consideration for developers looking to attract homebuyers. Developments that

incorporate environmentally friendly construction and design strategies will be more

attractive to potential homebuyers, at least for this socio-economic group. In terms of









community friendly design, several studies have found that middle class homeowners are

willing and able to pay more money for features in their neighborhood that they feel are

important to them (Audirac 1999; Song and Knaap 2003).

In new or established communities, I propose that a good recipe for promoting

green behaviors, attitudes, and knowledge involves; 1) incorporating a community design

that helps encourage community interaction, possibly through the preservation of more

natural (low maintenance) green spaces or parks that are also supportive of the natural

environment; and 2) implementing an educational program directed at the neighborhood

level, which not only educates about the environment but also fosters more social

interaction and, importantly, promotes a social norm of environmentally friendly

behaviors and attitudes. Further, educational efforts should involve minimal effort on the

part of the participant (similar to marketing influence); however, it may be beneficial to

provide ways in which active participation in the program could increase community

involvement and recognition.















APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE

The questionnaire sent to all selected participants. The actual questionnaire was

printed in a 9 %/" by 7" booklet. The booklet contained 6 pages with type on front and

back. The question spacing in this copy of the questionnaire is only approximated since

it did not fit the scale of this document.









YOU, YOUR COMMUNITY, AND THE ENVIRONMENT


Please follow the directions provided in this booklet to complete the questionnaire. It
should only take about 15 minutes. Please mail the completed questionnaire in the
enclosed, pre-paid envelope by October 31st. The last page has been left blank in case
you want to include any additional comments. The success of our study depends on your
participation. Thank you in advance for your time!


University of Florida
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation
Cooperative Extension Services
102 Newins-Ziegler Hall
Gainesville, Florida 3261 1-0430O
Phone: (352) 846-0554






77


Listed below are statements about your relationship with your community and the
environment. For each one, please indicate whether you STRONGLY AGREE,
MILDLY AGREE, are UNSURE, MILDLY DISAGREE, or STRONGLY
DISAGREE with the statement. Please circle your response.



IStrongly Mildly Unsure Mildly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree


Q-1 I feel safe in my
neighb orhood ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-2 I know my neighbors..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-3 I feel like there is a strong
sense of community in
my neighborhood ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-4 I frequently take walks, ride a
bike, cart, or wheelchair in my
neighb orhood ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-5 When I am out in my
neighborhood community,
I often interact with my
neighb ors ..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-6 My neighborhood is walker/
bicycle friendly..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-7 There is a lot of car traffic in
my neighborhood..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-8 It seems like the people in my
neighborhood are concerned
about the well-being of the
environment..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-9 I believe that the developers)
of my neighborhood were
concerned with protecting the
environment by the way they
developed the land..... 1 2 3 4 5


Q-10 I like where I live.....


1 2


4 5











The following questions have to do with your interactions with the environment.
Please estimate the following and fill-in the blank when blanks are provided. Also,
for some questions in this section you will be asked to circle or rank your response.
Please follow the directions provided for those questions.



Q-1 On average, how many hours per week do you spend outdoors?


Hours per week


Q-2 Of those hours spent outdoors per week, what percentage of them is spent
outdoors in your yard or nei hborhood? (Please circle your re ponse)


0%-10%


10%-30%


30%-50%


50%-70%


70%-100%


Q-3 What percentage of your yard is mowed grass?


0%-10%


10%-30%


30%-50%


50%-70%


70%-100%


Q-4 On average, for this September 2002, how many times per week did you water
your yard, and how lonn did you leave the water running when you watered?


Times per week


Minutes


Q-5 Do you use any water conservation techniques when watering your yard?
(Please circle your response).


Unsure


If yes, please briefly describe what conservation techniques you use.


Q-6 How many native Florida plants can you identify?
(Please circle your response).


None 1-5


6-10 11-20


21-30 more than 30











Q-7 How many birds in Florida can you identify?


None


6-10


11-20


21-30


more than 30


Q-8 Do you watch wildlife as a recreational activity?


No If No, shi the next question


Q-9 What percentage of your time watching wildlife is spent watching wildlife in your
neighborhood (not including television)?


0%-10%


10%-30%


30%-50%


50%-70%


70%-100%


Q-10 Where would you say that you get most of your information pertaining to wildlife
and the environment? (Please rank your top three by placing a number next
to the responses. Please give a 1 to the source that provides you with the
most information, 2 for the second most, and a 3 for the third most. You can
include ties by giving the same number to more than one choice.)

TV/Radio

Newspaper
Books

Magazines/Journals
Park Kiosks (displays and bulletin boards)
Zoos and/or Museums
School

Neighborhood Paper or Newsletter
Friends and Family
Internet
Other



Q-11 Would you like to see/hear more or less information about wildlife and the
environment that is relevant to your neighborhood
(Please circle your response).


More


Less


The same


Unsure


Q-12 Do you feel that the federal government should provide more or less monetary
support for wildlife and environmental issues?
More Less The same Unsure






80


The following questions are about personal actions that relate to the
environment and resource usage. For each one, please indicate whether you do
these actions ALWAYS, OFTEN, SOMETIMES, RARELY, or NEVER. Please
circle the response that comes closest to your own estimate.




IAlways Often Sometimes Rarely Never
100% of 75% of 50% of 25% of 0% of
the time the time the time the time the time


Q-1 How regularly do you recycle
trash that can be recycled? 1 2 3 4 5

Q-2 How frequently do you turn
off the faucet while brushing
your teeth to conserve water? 1 2 3 4 5

Q-3 Even when they are more
expensive, how often do you
buy an environmentally
friendly version of a product
instead of other brands when
given the option? 1 2 3 4 5

Q-4 When checking-out at a grocery
store, how often do you refuse
a paper or plastic bag when you
only have a few items? 1 2 3 4 5

Q-5 When going to work or running
errands, how frequently do you
walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or
carpool instead of taking a
personal automobile? 1 2 3 4 5

Q-6 How often do you try to find
alternatives to using common
household (including
lawn) chemicals because you
are worried about how they
might affect the environment? 1 2 3 4 5






81


Most of the following questions are from a widely distributed national survey
called the New Environmental Paradigm. We included these questions so that we
could compare your feelings on these issues to a broader audience. Listed below are
statements about the relationship between humans and the environment. For each
one, please indicate whether you STRONGLY AGREE, MILDLY AGREE, are
UNSURE, MILDLY DISAGREE, or STRONGLY DISAGREE with the statement.
Please circle your res onse.



IStrongly Mildly Unsure Mildly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree


Q-1 We are approaching the limit
of the number of people
the earth can support...... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-2 Humans have the right to
modify the natural environment
to suit their needs..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-3 Humans are severely abusing
the environment..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-4 Human ingenuity will insure
that we do NOT make the
earth unlivable..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-5 When humans interfere with
nature it often produces
disastrous consequences..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-6 The earth has plenty of natural
resources if we just learn how
to develop them..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-7 Plants and animals have as
much right as humans to
exist...... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-8 The balance of nature is strong
enough to cope with the impacts
of modern industrial nations..... 1 2 3 4 5







82



IStrongly Mildly Unsure Mildly Strongly
Agree Agree Disagree Disagree

Q-9 Despite our special abilities
humans are still subj ect to the
laws of nature..... 1 2 3 4 5


Q-10 The so-called "ecological
crisis" facing humankind has
been greatly exaggerated..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-11 The earth is like a spaceship
with limited room and
resources..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-12 Humans were meant to rule
over the rest of nature..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-13 The balance of nature is very
delicate and easily upset..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-14 Humans will eventually learn
enough about how nature works
to be able to control it..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-15 If things continue on their
present course, we will soon
experience a maj or ecological
catastrophe..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-16 I am a religious person..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-17 I am a spiritual person..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-18 There is nothing that I can do
to impact the environment, for
better or worse, because I am
only one person..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-19 Since I moved into my current
neighborhood, I feel like I have
become more environmentally
conscious..... 1 2 3 4 5

Q-20 If I moved tomorrow, it would
be important for me to move






83


into an environmentally
conscious neighborhood..... 1 2 3 4 5




The following questions are here to help us gain a better understanding of your
awareness of environmental policy, conservation issues and actions. There are three
possible responses: YES, NO, and UNSURE. Please circle your response.


SYes No Unsure


Q-1 Is it legal to feed wild raccoons? 1 2 3

Q-2 Are you familiar with the term
"invasive exotic" when referring
to plants or animals? 1 2 3

Q-3 Do you know what plastic numbers
(the number found on the bottom or
side of a plastic container)
can be recycled in Gainesville? 1 2 3

Q-4 Do you compost any of your yard
waste or food waste? 1 2 3

Q-5 Do you have any Energy-Star (energy
efficient) appliances in your home? 1 2 3

Q-6 Does water flowing into street drains
go to a water treatment facility? 1 2 3

Q-7 Is the Gopher Tortoise a "Species of
Special Concern" in Florida? 1 2 3

Q-8(a) Do you belong to any wildlife or
environment-related organizations
such as The Nature Conservancy, The
Audubon Society, Florida Native
Plant Society, or others? 1 2 3


(b) If yes, approximately what year did you first join or make a donation?





These final questions are here for demographic purposes. Your responses will
tell us how Gainesville residents compare to other communities. Your answers here
are also important because they will help us understand the relationships between
your responses to these questions and your responses to questions in other sections.
As with the rest of the survey, all your responses will remain confidential. Please
check the appropriate answer or fill-in the blanks if they are provided.


Unsure


Q-9(a) Do you do anything to intentionally
attract wildlife to your property?


(b) If yes, please briefiv describe what you do (e.g., landscape with native plants, butterfly gardens,
bird feeders, birdhouses, birdbaths, bat houses, ponds, leave dead trees standing, leave brush-
piles, etc.)


Q-10(a) Have you participated in any
environmental education programs
or classes such as a University
Extension program, a workshop
from an environmental agency, a
neighborhood or development-
sponsored program, or a school/
university class, or others?


(b) If possible, please list the program(s) and the year(s) that you attended:


Q-1 I am

O Female
0 Male


Q-2 I was born in 19


SYes










Q-3 My ethnic background is (check all that apply)


Caucasian (White)

Afnican

Latino/Hispanic

Asian

Native American

Other


Q-4 I am


Married

Single
Divorced

Widowed


Q-5 How long have you lived in Florida?


Year(s)


Months)


Q-6 How long have you lived in Gainesville?


Year(s)


Months)


Q-7 What year did you move into your current neighborhood?


Q-8 Do you own or rent this property?

O own

0 Rent

0 Other (Please specify)









Q-9 Please list three reasons why ou chose to live in your current home, in the order
of their importance to you.

1)





Q-10 What is your current occupation (j ob)?


Q-11 On average, how many miles away from your home do you travel for the
following? (Please fill-in the blank. Write N/A if not applicable.)


Work


miles()
miles()


Daily Errands


Q-12 How long do you plan on living in your current home?

O Less than one year
O One to four years
O Four to ten years
O More than ten years
O Unsure

Q-13 How many people live in your household the maj ority of the year?

O one
0 Two
O Three
0 Four


0 More than Four


(How manv? Please fill-in the blank.)









Q-14 What was the population of the area where you grew up (spent the maj ority of
your grade-school years)?

O Less than 5,000
0 5,000 to 10,000
0 10,000 to 250,000
0 250,000 to One Million
0 Greater than One Million

Q-15 Do you consider yourself a

0 Democrat

0 Republican
0 Independent
0 Other

Q-16 What is the highest level of education that you have completed?

O High school or less
O some College (including Associates Degree)
O Bachelor's Degree
0 Master's Degree or other professional degree
0 Doctorate Degree









If desired, please write any additional comments on this page.


Thank you for your participation!















APPENDIX B
SURVEY COVER-LETTER

The following is a copy of the cover-letter that was mailed to every selected

participant along with the survey questionnaire and a stamped, self-addressed return

envelope.















2 15 N ewins-Zi egler Hall
P.O. Box 110430
Gainesville Fl. 32611-0430
Tel.(352) g84-0554
Fax (352) 392-6984


Date

Particpants Name
Address


Dear Sir or Madam,


Hello. My name is Kara Youngentob, and I am a graduate student at the University of Florida. I am
conducting a study in c conjunction with the University of Florida to learn how residents of Gainesville
interact with their community and the environm ent. Your household was one of the few selected from a
lottery of all Gailnesville re sidenc es to take part In this important research. The success of our study
depends on your participationI

Enclosed is a questionnaire for you to complete at your leisure. It should only take 15 minutes. Please do
not throw this away. This is a University study and there are no commercial agencies involved with this
research. All funding is coming solely from me and my department. We hope to publish the results of this
study in wi dely read academic j ournals and make use of the information that we gather loc ally by creating
Extension programs to address your nee ds and interests. Thi s is your opportunity to be heard

You do not have to answer any question that you do not wish to answer. Your name and address will not
appear in any public materials or publications relating to thi s study or provi ded to any outside sourc es. All
responses will be kept anonymous s, and your i identity as a parti cipant will be kept confidential to the full
extent of the law. There are no anticipated risks to you for participating in this stu~dy.

Any adult 21 or older, living in this household can complete the survey. Please mail only the survey
booklet in the enclosed, pre-pai d envelope by October 31s't or as soon after as possible. If you would like to
know the results of our study, I woul d be happy to share them with you. As a member of this community
too, I want to thank you in advance for your time and parti cipation I

Sincerely,


Kara Youngentob
University of Florida
D epartmnent of Wildlife Ecol ogy
Conservation
&~ Conservation
E-mail: kny(iufl edu
Phone: (352) 846-0554


Dr. Mark Hostetler (Supervisor)
Asst. Profess or, Extension Wildlife Speci ahlst
Department of Wildhife Ecology &L

E-mail: hostetlerm~wec.ufl.edu
Phone: 352-846-0568
Fax: 352-392-6984


If you have any questions about your trghts as a participant or the confidentiality of the information that you provi de,
you can contact the UF Institutional Review Board (UFIRB), University o fFlorida, Box 1 1225 0, Gainesville, FL
32611 ph (352) 392-0433.


.UNIVERSITY OF

FLOR DA
Institute of Food and Agricultural S sciences
D epartm ent of Wildlife Ecology and C conservation
Cooperative ExtenstonServices. Room 215