<%BANNER%>

Green Communities

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021042/00001

Material Information

Title: Green Communities What Is the Appeal and Are They Truly Functioning as Sustainable Developments?
Physical Description: 1 online resource (87 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Noiseux, Krystal K
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitude, behavior, development, environmental, green, knowledge, marketing, sustainable
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Green communities are a new form of alternative development, but their appeal to consumers on the real estate market and their ability to function as truly sustainable developments after new owners move in has not been researched. In June 2006, I conducted a mail survey of new homeowners in the green master-planned communities of Lakewood Ranch and Harmony and the conventional master-planned communities of Palmer Ranch and Rock Springs Ridge in Florida. My objectives were to determine if there were differences in new homeowners' green design preferences, perceptions of the term 'green,' environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, and retention of green marketing and environmental education initiatives. New homeowners in the conventional communities, compared to homeowners of green communities, expressed similar interests in many (but not all) of the design features associated with green developments, and most did not have negative connotations with the term 'green.' Green community homeowners reported higher environmental knowledge on a few issues related to development, but knowledge was low overall and attitudes were no more pro-environmental in the green communities compared to the conventional ones. Green community homeowners also reported more engagement in a few pro-environmental behaviors, but pro-environmental behavior was also low overall. Many issues stressed through marketing efforts by the developer were retained by new homeowners in the green communities, as were some issues stressed in education initiatives in one green community. Apart from the marketing efforts, homeowners who reside in the green communities for less than a year and a half indicated little community influence on their environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors. The results suggest that green design features are an important consideration for new homeowners, both in green and conventional master-planned communities, exhibiting that with sufficient advertising and marketing, people would purchase homes in green communities. Sales points used for marketing in the green communities were somewhat absorbed by their new residents; still, marketing practices can be diversified and expanded to reach more consumers on the real estate market. Once new residents move in however, results suggest that they do not come equipped with the environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors to make these communities function as truly sustainable developments. Post-construction management of these developments and programs to educate and engage residents can be implemented or expanded in green communities.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Krystal K Noiseux.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hostetler, Mark E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021042:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021042/00001

Material Information

Title: Green Communities What Is the Appeal and Are They Truly Functioning as Sustainable Developments?
Physical Description: 1 online resource (87 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Noiseux, Krystal K
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: attitude, behavior, development, environmental, green, knowledge, marketing, sustainable
Wildlife Ecology and Conservation -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Green communities are a new form of alternative development, but their appeal to consumers on the real estate market and their ability to function as truly sustainable developments after new owners move in has not been researched. In June 2006, I conducted a mail survey of new homeowners in the green master-planned communities of Lakewood Ranch and Harmony and the conventional master-planned communities of Palmer Ranch and Rock Springs Ridge in Florida. My objectives were to determine if there were differences in new homeowners' green design preferences, perceptions of the term 'green,' environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, and retention of green marketing and environmental education initiatives. New homeowners in the conventional communities, compared to homeowners of green communities, expressed similar interests in many (but not all) of the design features associated with green developments, and most did not have negative connotations with the term 'green.' Green community homeowners reported higher environmental knowledge on a few issues related to development, but knowledge was low overall and attitudes were no more pro-environmental in the green communities compared to the conventional ones. Green community homeowners also reported more engagement in a few pro-environmental behaviors, but pro-environmental behavior was also low overall. Many issues stressed through marketing efforts by the developer were retained by new homeowners in the green communities, as were some issues stressed in education initiatives in one green community. Apart from the marketing efforts, homeowners who reside in the green communities for less than a year and a half indicated little community influence on their environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors. The results suggest that green design features are an important consideration for new homeowners, both in green and conventional master-planned communities, exhibiting that with sufficient advertising and marketing, people would purchase homes in green communities. Sales points used for marketing in the green communities were somewhat absorbed by their new residents; still, marketing practices can be diversified and expanded to reach more consumers on the real estate market. Once new residents move in however, results suggest that they do not come equipped with the environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors to make these communities function as truly sustainable developments. Post-construction management of these developments and programs to educate and engage residents can be implemented or expanded in green communities.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Krystal K Noiseux.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Hostetler, Mark E.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021042:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text
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 E20101113_AAAANU INGEST_TIME 2010-11-13T18:08:59Z PACKAGE UFE0021042_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 118897 DFID F20101113_AACULO ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH noiseux_k_Page_33.jp2 GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
4f3e4229d98afc9b6f886907133060d2
SHA-1
c74537377cf4e57e7b2b41c4b22ed92a8c2371f1
3561 F20101113_AACUGR noiseux_k_Page_37thm.jpg
fa8a5fed838b9fa9607d41b589fd310c
b934959831ea120520ba88caeb164facf1411a90
44305 F20101113_AACUQL noiseux_k_Page_23.pro
995fe203f6c21a4fc1940b421ce26d3a
f1cc35fb61c071134a2fd08aea345c1eb033251c
4903 F20101113_AACUVJ noiseux_k_Page_09.QC.jpg
a1c3cf1f0aa12aada5d57b0bc0f10543
9d48e7f0ba0ebcfb87a47859cfdda40d7f22d7ce
43230 F20101113_AACULP noiseux_k_Page_34.jp2
bcad4573523d3040292c1e4bb22f0461
eab9199fe41489641be0ffd18d096fe5cf7f0556
231483 F20101113_AACUGS noiseux_k_Page_09.jp2
507f98397b55a7c4bf2ff9cb24036167
3549c7a3b2a398eff57ba1f61a18f53f9bd18f38
49658 F20101113_AACUQM noiseux_k_Page_24.pro
916025cd3875903dc7aa2b769a93ee59
e63ea3d31b0614c887021d88d7496c258e5547df
1807 F20101113_AACUVK noiseux_k_Page_09thm.jpg
bc8675fb73118fa13533aa113c7024e6
43914ad7c949f24190733021847471f2a2ab93d4
71361 F20101113_AACULQ noiseux_k_Page_36.jp2
50c88580daa44417c78ea7f6c7fcaed3
0d71becfa30ad2ee8f6cebd9f875fbd026eb0545
1054428 F20101113_AACUGT noiseux_k_Page_66.tif
58d0446de2b26ccf8b3147cccc89b5cb
8b2d65903887bf38e1869991b19f164f37a008b0
50848 F20101113_AACUQN noiseux_k_Page_26.pro
e37ff1fcacd84f6ac942773ffffd91a7
251776c7192e062e1fd28c7c5dae94b3fe5d846b
21821 F20101113_AACUVL noiseux_k_Page_10.QC.jpg
692aa12b7b48bbf471c138580db03e2f
be3825e5d4e0b18e272907773c152613c3c64443
105873 F20101113_AACULR noiseux_k_Page_37.jp2
4faa6698b826b82a7b0650ab7c8677b2
8acc4350ca56c739e8a8c2f3288b004f2016acf9
52077 F20101113_AACUGU noiseux_k_Page_18.pro
f58be30c7567aad5a23ead700ad01cd5
ad356bca0c0a424dcf7c2e9073954a76cb45c52e
54358 F20101113_AACUQO noiseux_k_Page_28.pro
3182c7b15596c1ee292ad7c2876baa83
4e54f9c3feddc6706567a885d343eca65bfb0d1c
6230 F20101113_AACUVM noiseux_k_Page_10thm.jpg
57c34c78438e952cd1dab1d74a04a279
5be94d07286cbcf46539ea81c348a508a18ddf61
289843 F20101113_AACULS noiseux_k_Page_38.jp2
7b239d250677e5a50e50552a05e6af82
44d97a5cab7021ac7fbba3006df7a834c215a1c8
12644 F20101113_AACUGV noiseux_k_Page_37.QC.jpg
b70556c245afd32fc9a78cf9564d5731
7326995937cfa4532244a24f141916693894df57
52633 F20101113_AACUQP noiseux_k_Page_29.pro
b96b7d277b189192d018ab864540447b
6a7c447c54eec73ae9dec2c86f3a1a1254ae2806
17320 F20101113_AACUVN noiseux_k_Page_11.QC.jpg
573362f1ac0bdd5e258979bf18ecc71a
156b5eec4e128b3e1241b79cbb2aecb788739b55
119889 F20101113_AACULT noiseux_k_Page_40.jp2
f0ea861987b33935a8db512f718093f4
fd5b48b8fcc36e49719b97d5a9d5a611bbe03ce4
F20101113_AACUGW noiseux_k_Page_36.tif
53bfaaf918d5a621e060d1e40021df55
f41c3f920230932b50c402c559f9de811659a297
52778 F20101113_AACUQQ noiseux_k_Page_31.pro
e3a227ed18bc009d0666038be2f92b6c
e516e8a06ef6dd84e246f9448db26ea7e75a5d2e
4911 F20101113_AACUVO noiseux_k_Page_11thm.jpg
011bf5a4065797f2d158730cfbe46ba0
35487d2bb295164d513e146d8a79ae31ca4459de
119149 F20101113_AACULU noiseux_k_Page_41.jp2
c76ad348790732dbde5c74f3767e9544
fbc4ac120d69a9f8b4020ad19a0d0640e7d5ff18
84756 F20101113_AACUGX noiseux_k_Page_72.pro
cedf2944382cf08ea1ff46c6fb7a7605
da9fc7638a95b9427752be205b5d8c2462f7ca62
53052 F20101113_AACUQR noiseux_k_Page_32.pro
2993b8eea74cc7a7c4df912c4c67fbda
09df77a316be971cf8e9cd3ceac774b3a4a514f0
25862 F20101113_AACUVP noiseux_k_Page_12.QC.jpg
d6fa5715c057c7e17ad4dec7fdbe9897
75dfc4b3e3ea3ea1c22dae648d4be374c87a1c3e
109210 F20101113_AACULV noiseux_k_Page_42.jp2
ec6f69b933e904b0039544263aa54082
7c6423bcc5ac4d0d22d88bdda7d28c911f55e610
6660 F20101113_AACUGY noiseux_k_Page_51thm.jpg
09c05f8d1532be558349eaecdfe10a78
065debf0cdc8ac20c51804f3e687aa3ae354f99d
55095 F20101113_AACUQS noiseux_k_Page_33.pro
c09d62774b6ec8b8724687cd88b87058
6bde2f3230901d6acf29372c026aeea4a4b01914
25090 F20101113_AACUVQ noiseux_k_Page_13.QC.jpg
84e5cea7f997004aa508f0b10c9b1bff
ca0333e427eb87607e93e20b88b4d6742191fc94
1051974 F20101113_AACULW noiseux_k_Page_43.jp2
379c7a63d1e640ad37ab5dfa071c5b37
582b7d5f7dfbcf2fe90ee6d51dbd0d1bab22d551
73793 F20101113_AACUEA noiseux_k_Page_24.jpg
caab393da7bfe04aa571ffbda1a885fa
1af62cecb461f4a6a1a4823b47a632bbd1ee7274
76969 F20101113_AACUGZ noiseux_k_Page_11.jp2
6f4f319b25e79290d86b1865d35038a8
be50c24908386da6009c38631cc5fa36105053e3
18121 F20101113_AACUQT noiseux_k_Page_34.pro
8cb6800c6bf601c625651584213a3da5
e31db4f194bf26491d8ba805a1a5f5dbcae07909
6768 F20101113_AACUVR noiseux_k_Page_13thm.jpg
35ff73e7c1da86fc33de3c62c55d0c16
5b95114709713dc9b6df9196bf8b7716cd1e1ed2
121167 F20101113_AACULX noiseux_k_Page_44.jp2
572546673705a6e3eb7f335050b78edb
ce96e44511f39d1b08eca76a84dfebe023a53bb5
2306 F20101113_AACUEB noiseux_k_Page_75.txt
eb206da39babf0351a8280bba960044c
f005e37a5aade089fa9fd05d89f6f5f39e9bdffc
60503 F20101113_AACUQU noiseux_k_Page_37.pro
5fc428597ee6135cf664c5bda8b30b91
1c2f472d806a384608c4d2aca438e340cde2a993
24534 F20101113_AACUVS noiseux_k_Page_14.QC.jpg
6062eec11b7a3a07ad2139dd61fc5da1
c19a34092d27d148e9f8160ca0c87e94b021fa65
116119 F20101113_AACULY noiseux_k_Page_45.jp2
b93dbeb4463e1c1339e074bc82b74373
3c939b498da86f81700854581e2531a165ffe369
25993 F20101113_AACUEC noiseux_k_Page_16.QC.jpg
efe7f7a52a9337ffb65d336a89c0d728
d9d0e9ccf8ca76760c36c7cb70db1558df7dcf47
51204 F20101113_AACUQV noiseux_k_Page_39.pro
1ac75121c7ed9d5f9d84dff4b3feb65c
893508d412f729db303ffff59bde9c7226d9abcb
23523 F20101113_AACUVT noiseux_k_Page_15.QC.jpg
578e253769fd8b701cd00179233aa98f
6ae6dc90e32c1fbce86a28b559554bd9d532a328
112298 F20101113_AACULZ noiseux_k_Page_48.jp2
9c041cf7afa9639702208c3e4af1a756
c7ef8f53cbd00985116986c742e06be00ed3e876
2052 F20101113_AACUED noiseux_k_Page_50.txt
50da467e5b3521df7f0c2174d1478ebb
d4504656f1bd5a13955e15f7430925488a05f129
54889 F20101113_AACUQW noiseux_k_Page_40.pro
fa2aa9ed96bea984941b610395814d9a
2ced29b232b2af9ea6071fa375926c048a6af4af
42902 F20101113_AACUJA noiseux_k_Page_37.jpg
add3e00b45b37bacd7a9494d66a68b2c
31c1c0b2c757901a27417095de08e35ba3341139
6454 F20101113_AACUVU noiseux_k_Page_15thm.jpg
27a6c159b336195a19eb681e8b75beeb
1df1382c2c499c73ebc5b4abd3731d5fd04a0b5a
1053954 F20101113_AACUEE noiseux_k_Page_63.tif
eda9f0816bfe54c2cdd2f11ca59ce0e4
d2f2bdc2bb21b242bce1a6652282b27009ee8cca
54603 F20101113_AACUQX noiseux_k_Page_41.pro
a949b4c69bac289ceb6214b1d7f77976
b5dbe39bf29622ca3f3f59e6ea70a34b9ac01497
21922 F20101113_AACUJB noiseux_k_Page_38.jpg
455ab3da885dbf16f33117bede4dc06e
2bdca424f97f680bb3d30ae76033a9b7e2488b1e
6924 F20101113_AACUVV noiseux_k_Page_16thm.jpg
6d172378d23bf8f391bcf5bf24f7d101
2616aeb750b7a1a65509ab5f5aa434fa8ca3c9a0
2538 F20101113_AACUEF noiseux_k_Page_80.txt
4f438216b2c3df0a6215ba883ffc59f6
c84909dfdbc3cf83a83a343099bfc79c2f1d28ac
F20101113_AACUOA noiseux_k_Page_30.tif
1ff9e914cb1e9a1a8dd044f8e1773e59
7f6277b53a90e4eb8e76c7abcf7275a1427f4af0
49977 F20101113_AACUQY noiseux_k_Page_42.pro
decb8f09d03a69f31988bb0f82406061
03822925caf9ce04304f94ebb2078ddc240cff93
77238 F20101113_AACUJC noiseux_k_Page_39.jpg
26bbf9179e49f67b7257cbafc298101b
f5f2f8223866cf686e3c39f05df610c0fbb4118e
6800 F20101113_AACUVW noiseux_k_Page_17thm.jpg
3bb68a80c56870869fd7ed32707d46b0
fefc855b65f4fb8a15c804fb74a5fce7e7ec7c8a
F20101113_AACUEG noiseux_k_Page_28.tif
40cde16fbfda90b19389b20d80d621d4
54bf6ec2f57dcd4938efc109bcd78b1cd03fa85f
F20101113_AACUOB noiseux_k_Page_32.tif
f750feeb2de65c5d1117fe583d9ac695
32c8d8a01372e55959e3611cf5eb22366b297571
47631 F20101113_AACUQZ noiseux_k_Page_43.pro
f8a6061f91eae17c7d706fb5836a05fb
1806db4d4ea1d571eb2bbba3589d97e2b18cecb9
79746 F20101113_AACUJD noiseux_k_Page_40.jpg
393fec06cc26c8d8d65cee59de3c9101
5277d075f2c368674c3ad095dcb612f7912a71b4
25544 F20101113_AACUVX noiseux_k_Page_18.QC.jpg
b457ece37f4f85ee5e7d53e3e4ba403a
5bd5849480fd75d5695fca24f56283314fccf8a4
7030 F20101113_AACUEH noiseux_k_Page_55thm.jpg
03b5cfc9ead25b2603621ce6d5205cbe
858cc58e8629414f77a329059ea87511134bedf8
78334 F20101113_AACUJE noiseux_k_Page_41.jpg
94912839ff670588ce3828404ad77cc3
cb3581a2bd8afb4a61c8f1eedc207ce4c066f79d
25396 F20101113_AACUVY noiseux_k_Page_19.QC.jpg
28b126f7b778bef86a06004011bdee3c
e3ac74922787774980b786a52a9481d0d1ffcd93
2068 F20101113_AACUTA noiseux_k_Page_29.txt
ef7a77d665b6401ecee3d29720095b00
b460c03b5897a4426490aaefdc15f4ba48a60d97
76240 F20101113_AACUEI noiseux_k_Page_32.jpg
c8c097643008a9a39f73439965e352f6
571c769a7f7b1d9f8d0f4e6202fd625901284bf9
F20101113_AACUOC noiseux_k_Page_33.tif
f46f2305c697f0a48bd9576afd363898
3bba550901c7ee1849c8015cca18490f50c29364
75476 F20101113_AACUJF noiseux_k_Page_43.jpg
6d304911af4c9465016019d375289d14
9f497a49a35b364ede44d4a00190b796ec0f1ddb
7251 F20101113_AACUVZ noiseux_k_Page_19thm.jpg
459675bafb5aeea4f120a2138def9c91
6cf2fa75d459e68651124cb70d53557c1a7209e1
2061 F20101113_AACUTB noiseux_k_Page_30.txt
2a4cc953ba833bc4079eaa391af33932
4bbbf730d9621a42764566ef52fff39a8fd66814
25915 F20101113_AACUEJ noiseux_k_Page_59.QC.jpg
cf83196c7c76c37e1b6e44ddfe7252c0
ff1444eb44e6aaa6c437c7fe2c3b6ae33c750e85
F20101113_AACUOD noiseux_k_Page_34.tif
3ea0c087ce823fde1ef686f74651f464
1a6f1e0bf67121e3794bf5b03aa2bd777e576a99
78889 F20101113_AACUJG noiseux_k_Page_44.jpg
83eff752756ccf98e77fcf5b2219c0ef
d9cb40f1889c247180f7d0bb7b2a9b5e185abf89
2075 F20101113_AACUTC noiseux_k_Page_31.txt
6bcd5fa6c749c6443969ac7c3dd1d803
3719d4a4d24aecd7b0c4d578dc0e01e40007fa39
111985 F20101113_AACUEK noiseux_k_Page_47.jp2
7df483f87a97f2f347af047aa34f1940
51aeb274bc984111540628453dd0e858d807135a
25265604 F20101113_AACUOE noiseux_k_Page_38.tif
23229cf3443ae766d9f0992afad5f8f0
780e3adfd6a5ff28e6bff317203eff6fa4bcfa36
74945 F20101113_AACUJH noiseux_k_Page_45.jpg
63aec7309aeb987dcb7d63740780a350
80a91f3fea1c5b91186715f827cdc60e7daca7e3
6986 F20101113_AACVAA noiseux_k_Page_86thm.jpg
dfb052557ce80faaa73500f6c3342fb7
14b9f927195e71b9a4095485714a117d2b100c83
25864 F20101113_AACUYA noiseux_k_Page_55.QC.jpg
b874bf7848627557dcfcac4c664e2998
7adb09ef6f39575f09a5863a7797a6bbd95fccc3
2089 F20101113_AACUTD noiseux_k_Page_32.txt
5ae314318ea91727d8434d11b0b24bbf
315aa79d61ea8c0b1b53977f3e528eb4f7797e43
24206 F20101113_AACUEL noiseux_k_Page_21.QC.jpg
2797eedb18472f8bfdc473eec5b5aa92
3860914d8e9fa44999440369c6d66b67b2cd74e9
F20101113_AACUOF noiseux_k_Page_39.tif
d56175cd8adc2935b6b2b7999b6fa25b
aa005797cac6882c06855910d0f1249dc6679477
79700 F20101113_AACUJI noiseux_k_Page_46.jpg
d32f74c936b5c02f52ee00eb046b0b87
ad492a41582d1b9ec1cf8b8ae06fc8ed2765112d
12646 F20101113_AACVAB noiseux_k_Page_87.QC.jpg
dc8f9e3935b30af601182ebcc0bade95
b36f7bae1ca8f4dc313fe887d90062febb681cc9
25015 F20101113_AACUYB noiseux_k_Page_56.QC.jpg
f0ea70a82d81ec9205a9e4c95f36cd59
95ef8a7ba5896da72c6e080121e4ec4ca6c94e49
2164 F20101113_AACUTE noiseux_k_Page_33.txt
b0daa9e5772f937bc7cead61f453749b
d0d40dee03150fd9b90e44c10672d4428ddbb013
117488 F20101113_AACUEM noiseux_k_Page_60.jp2
17b0c3973ace562fe9ece3e2b4351efd
b5e3c635ba7f6515c7f4eb1e53ad4fb6303ba3d0
F20101113_AACUOG noiseux_k_Page_40.tif
0c767f325d215f4ce54735b1a11a0f91
c96c5c25b56247a49d93e63a5f4aff35e3905f5f
74671 F20101113_AACUJJ noiseux_k_Page_47.jpg
c7dbcc7e15b5049a8f61d7a8c09771b7
6c06d1d28efac6c0368cecfa575e7062b1064721
3694 F20101113_AACVAC noiseux_k_Page_87thm.jpg
5a8f015bb74a5fb0ee652e2c5f9b14e1
83e5f2efcf99b8b8126c15d4bcdbe12610a319fb
6747 F20101113_AACUYC noiseux_k_Page_56thm.jpg
0b639db3dae2e328ecccfd1fe54262a2
bf5f370633c9d5528c2a0bedae97af42800cb8ee
722 F20101113_AACUTF noiseux_k_Page_34.txt
a98b8fc8b66062d0f8bae218b958d1ff
ad9c5ec90ff5a03a75675e1c4149233345ac03b0
2128 F20101113_AACUEN noiseux_k_Page_39.txt
b06daa7aa0df4422b6013d2e5a33d0a6
af3d7fb30ec418270588f9223d8300d4c0b96eb7
F20101113_AACUOH noiseux_k_Page_41.tif
f542b0dc867fff36f3706f1f12f64ed0
79566b90dc8ab2992716de8f21cd729ef337cc69
74407 F20101113_AACUJK noiseux_k_Page_48.jpg
941c695fb71e782ee26a9984842ce30d
a3b610e43f809122c82cf316b8c21247d53a4eb6
102096 F20101113_AACVAD UFE0021042_00001.mets FULL
6db3f9c3c5075abe4bf0020d70bfba6f
741210a72b72153f56af1961c289409bf434da75
25032 F20101113_AACUYD noiseux_k_Page_57.QC.jpg
c0bf97553de50608fb5de46478f00fd4
80fd43c030c057fbcca01c808038009d40484961
1876 F20101113_AACUTG noiseux_k_Page_35.txt
a4a01a3bd0f30fe649b534304e9e6a06
b6bcc975b738ec4bca89527886a3bd15e6751aad
19690 F20101113_AACUEO noiseux_k_Page_71.QC.jpg
06a46bc688d27412c2571f3a9b8f8685
b261ef6aaa1c52fae75d8c4e5cf12da218bf723a
8423998 F20101113_AACUOI noiseux_k_Page_43.tif
bc22ec08c81794f952c7260516ab8682
eef7578df35d628bc581820e86268c29647fe476
74106 F20101113_AACUJL noiseux_k_Page_50.jpg
773852d0da3e85448c0d3b8daa1d2a2e
69d145df89721016e3e5d4deaa988e7dc2ae13d3
6908 F20101113_AACUYE noiseux_k_Page_57thm.jpg
0d3e3321a26344ed4c8efd447dc9fc89
4c3aab9fdd21942e8ebdffe0152f8fd6d4199985
F20101113_AACUOJ noiseux_k_Page_44.tif
dd5a674a59097da5c58390f00894e8ce
d4bef5e10d99f0cfda6ee6b0c3d0cde5d07dc3fc
70574 F20101113_AACUJM noiseux_k_Page_51.jpg
969194f49f80859591d805a5bf885c5a
7f023fbae1c9b84c7e2afb961db255922d2a6dec
70016 F20101113_AACUEP noiseux_k_Page_35.jp2
a06fd0dd871a32d5de256e78d0305f68
f87cb24e3ff03aadf65c9b55ab8c6514ebdb385d
24676 F20101113_AACUYF noiseux_k_Page_58.QC.jpg
91a3505c47430c8738c3ae95eed07b13
05760c2f2e1a10f708623ce268fccb842a7351ea
2060 F20101113_AACUTH noiseux_k_Page_36.txt
86d739d3997f378252e3647f2357926d
596411b777873a0b345dd159042d29d7df26e7fb
F20101113_AACUOK noiseux_k_Page_46.tif
1fe0059b444f85e77751110e496a6822
d7c72815e9938efe0b052d9bd8c0841313a70350
73936 F20101113_AACUJN noiseux_k_Page_52.jpg
d999ca47c114cbc804c9b1650b398bad
c452fb29d50530473d73a958743d11304386e3c1
55014 F20101113_AACUEQ noiseux_k_Page_44.pro
eae7f18fcf092cf54721ecdd47b38f4d
3f5a2676672a563fcee40abfa1c3946afd835b32
6960 F20101113_AACUYG noiseux_k_Page_58thm.jpg
9c2a8050d9e985a104b71a5b1f2800c3
5a3618eae64b898635697424f30d163f2c90cecc
3067 F20101113_AACUTI noiseux_k_Page_37.txt
b345431551fbea9006f3740a521eb15a
0e3fbb85d141f7e869e0c5ea3378f5978ac21999
F20101113_AACUOL noiseux_k_Page_47.tif
2811754ac9beebac34ab50e140dba3df
da6db02a9d35d9ffb2f03f13508e410dccb0d420
74956 F20101113_AACUJO noiseux_k_Page_54.jpg
6eec2ead46872b6de5ff3971f0019536
27078adfac6350f51fd638c8a8efa8fd8a759b1b
88431 F20101113_AACUER noiseux_k_Page_80.jpg
99f9c46432c88d5042ab34e8027fff49
cae1d16545c44d42f1033a2d3887b6a0075b781f
6968 F20101113_AACUYH noiseux_k_Page_59thm.jpg
1519fe950080d684efab8b37209f1517
011c04a8afd4254499eff06fbbddf88ecf40f109
320 F20101113_AACUTJ noiseux_k_Page_38.txt
3d158f891f9b70da40c3e555042422b0
b7fc1fa70f28072c3ab05c8cd312e81bda81f934
F20101113_AACUOM noiseux_k_Page_48.tif
9353c1997685fea842ea705bee54c655
c49f41311ede6e211074bd027ce3191b49d1ccef
77931 F20101113_AACUJP noiseux_k_Page_55.jpg
a22454bf2ee2a38202f32fcb968e673f
ccb6acd689476bf41a100956b731765906fe67a1
86163 F20101113_AACUES noiseux_k_Page_77.jpg
89f2bf245bb19184525f4ba04a26d30a
dff53482c39b93872c0a47e67cf38c6f1f685b0f
25457 F20101113_AACUYI noiseux_k_Page_60.QC.jpg
3b22abf136bad20fa963d23952c0e5c6
ceab310b6116c0da2e59430890ce59da6336527e
2146 F20101113_AACUTK noiseux_k_Page_41.txt
6bab28cc59df050e3445035d94eaf2a1
6877924d77b64737ac4d0782e8f25958ed20fa1d
F20101113_AACUON noiseux_k_Page_49.tif
d84c4e55355e91e5bfd623a5f2ae1089
1434747fab14d13cfa07b8371ae81dc85c5e8091
75192 F20101113_AACUJQ noiseux_k_Page_57.jpg
5bd2f9782feea8d07b76f6840fbce881
8c1520d2c7a2752420207c35a33571ed3491d3e6
6753 F20101113_AACUET noiseux_k_Page_14thm.jpg
937a9452140a7be181c95f8edb665ff0
32f96bfb029fb79cc7bb1ed5a6a70d7b1a3c5bbe
7045 F20101113_AACUYJ noiseux_k_Page_60thm.jpg
035073982607d9d6697e13192ed6e1a4
de78cbde88da89906079342ab5b179d3eee5bbc8
1893 F20101113_AACUTL noiseux_k_Page_43.txt
90ede4546393eaf1fc4c01a9e7f2332b
ba95cfafbcf39db9fce97d98bb5cd2291107e4c5
F20101113_AACUOO noiseux_k_Page_50.tif
788ffdc3b407d1d178b37436c2672f3b
c7749b1434fee1c30e3baf435bf688acdd991bb9
77149 F20101113_AACUJR noiseux_k_Page_60.jpg
04ce2c78ae00af978af06e81d12d07fc
f4b5f4cb00e38f8adb50a9dcb65a76e8c7a181d9
23325 F20101113_AACUEU noiseux_k_Page_84.QC.jpg
f579949096361d679881bb118621e036
f525cfe8dcba037639b3db3db61d9ce35e14c486
24355 F20101113_AACUYK noiseux_k_Page_61.QC.jpg
ca2412b73b7411ddc75a02dc6c2e6573
b1f7c5d0cbadf8456d546d207ab8641c52423602
2165 F20101113_AACUTM noiseux_k_Page_44.txt
1d5a9d30205ff2cf8e7a9f0331e95b3a
2851d1ecbbff38744244a02cdc5003dd9767e444
F20101113_AACUOP noiseux_k_Page_51.tif
fe7b47896de67a843bd0d28f77ff2479
bd4e99ff717c057d8dfe6be49cc5935f81a24b0c
74457 F20101113_AACUJS noiseux_k_Page_61.jpg
fe7e782c53479d2a3c75f27d65b0f35f
528ed417dc7b49fe8a8496f1cdf12d29b3346686
77063 F20101113_AACUEV noiseux_k_Page_13.jpg
dfdfaf9d39c3aac012d6919d7bca9177
c11b3521718c363c642429cfdb36d35fd61b67ec
6727 F20101113_AACUYL noiseux_k_Page_61thm.jpg
20e5cd5076bc3680c6eefe3563bc4ba3
aa04bc961b17f1f0c3fef3c3cab0a1eb2ef5cd97
F20101113_AACUTN noiseux_k_Page_45.txt
4df4fc40ba60c3a79cd1a5a79c8a4ca7
207ce8e5479fda474fbe6ee3ca43e8e1b5cc63a2
F20101113_AACUOQ noiseux_k_Page_52.tif
5a90e69d029f67a3444b901da862ae47
3d67e02fda6f783a9d1c3d3415bed1e0d949e125
75979 F20101113_AACUJT noiseux_k_Page_62.jpg
0b2ff041d20cf47cc94309dd1f918941
743d03e2a21066902822565e3055243732bf788a
6699 F20101113_AACUEW noiseux_k_Page_85thm.jpg
d104ffe138e1b0d100ec3f39b68ff6f2
483f1d0f0474abf7b36b6022ce6fbf0adf90742c
2025 F20101113_AACUTO noiseux_k_Page_47.txt
ff8b6f3d4988ebe5d32949086314edb4
491506ff0af2da85ad21ff8d8f085d3c872ed275
25271604 F20101113_AACUOR noiseux_k_Page_53.tif
723402ce7b6ddd1700384bba76561359
0c7fabcb90dbc23f1a238dfc668ef75a264f0e47
27412 F20101113_AACUJU noiseux_k_Page_63.jpg
c0f0cc213d93f536f7fed7c941ffd6c7
86599954f1da8787aa8aaa05341ba68c4bdf6152
68340 F20101113_AACUEX noiseux_k_Page_71.jpg
c172cd3cc7f082a0858f234281075404
85448fe60f867a0468525590d8dc2c1cbfc23b36
25317 F20101113_AACUYM noiseux_k_Page_62.QC.jpg
e856a32a1f9df1f7372da1fbea3fc989
2ae99d86a4f6c0be8a2242794988e75adec27a45
2036 F20101113_AACUTP noiseux_k_Page_48.txt
1d082e75d7a5b9d1ad43880b0b70cf24
7a34ed7e4db18f9a655bc3be0d6308dd66e65fbe
F20101113_AACUOS noiseux_k_Page_54.tif
f29224466cb56b2ac2dfb60259eb3cdc
57ce89e1e15b44009312de89ec68617c4c788892
29547 F20101113_AACUJV noiseux_k_Page_64.jpg
892304ed5bc86f34aa9f5f9a00dc4eb5
b8ecf4fb902fa9913f02f2001aae0fa5cfc2f240
6953 F20101113_AACUYN noiseux_k_Page_62thm.jpg
916bbba52ab02f055b8fd5f3eb16de40
54c7229ebf172d6a9396b9529805e1220b2c970c
2118 F20101113_AACUTQ noiseux_k_Page_49.txt
1ff9442627b8da76788a6ef462aadf02
0d4fba2f32d6fda3602d7dae350101e3bb70be89
F20101113_AACUOT noiseux_k_Page_56.tif
e797451ba1ab6f403a0839eba600cdc8
c0c75d6187585bd23bb018d2326cc5790b9a6276
33232 F20101113_AACUJW noiseux_k_Page_65.jpg
eb3e629e1c0c3398370ae4855b618b55
b5c84fe3907b437388de8ed742187ddd1508718e
75485 F20101113_AACUEY noiseux_k_Page_29.jpg
9fbab8d3c9d3c9ecde41c03a9c3cb400
838fc5437a5b74ac450c1597db93f41395b10a74
9268 F20101113_AACUYO noiseux_k_Page_63.QC.jpg
7024981ff53a5019488a95b251c5b2fb
1b596d1159e52c9a285af08ac3e19dd0b41cd71c
1890 F20101113_AACUTR noiseux_k_Page_51.txt
d773c7d315b7dac9be1c4d491e940354
5c50d2f16919d45cfb72fead21e3d4701b0ea78c
F20101113_AACUOU noiseux_k_Page_58.tif
16c68cf3bdc248d8bf0deaf7a4103b11
4398508d13b5be6a894a05a1f82b3aaa7f97303e
37474 F20101113_AACUJX noiseux_k_Page_66.jpg
b8acf0e92626976fbcaf02d4a12ad7af
9c80e012fc74c393cb232fc9924eeb85966f8138
6151 F20101113_AACUEZ noiseux_k_Page_27thm.jpg
9f7f48c2e4e4934b1c3c7a2190544db9
b4b8fe7bcce581d79bcd9f4857ccea2ecaa87b87
2784 F20101113_AACUYP noiseux_k_Page_63thm.jpg
0ed60a9b2daade00bf65dae18ac74c82
0963ecef8ee04e517029f0b6594fe04bb687098f
1952 F20101113_AACUTS noiseux_k_Page_52.txt
ea265540044e4ef55cc09e0e0b3b9a61
db5f4ea32ec75306fda6ca5f7a9c813c820c0aec
F20101113_AACUOV noiseux_k_Page_59.tif
1dfbb376fc2a1d89c984fbd43ff1b523
f7ff75da5169a37839da7fba78ca80b9e46ad9d5
37571 F20101113_AACUJY noiseux_k_Page_67.jpg
9fe1b6eb371ba2fbdeed3a273b963b13
577a6d519bf938bfc613245d38bbe1f7dce30032
9009 F20101113_AACUYQ noiseux_k_Page_64.QC.jpg
4abbbfd03a048576ffb6dbd8ece8d708
a02626f557bb2eab5d0705af06e1829fe91188c6
1998 F20101113_AACUTT noiseux_k_Page_53.txt
c9cf8987a852b011b1909c8dd31f4480
84aa3d03aa9719c6dc302c543f9fa2b09040f9d0
F20101113_AACUOW noiseux_k_Page_60.tif
8ffc8c92512729e39c4d3949e9b2f1a5
d14593a3fbf45cd6d908c68862a1d61f646a09b5
1421 F20101113_AACUHA noiseux_k_Page_08.txt
14eaf88ec804060b1eb0a3600a656ca3
a93d15f2f979e69c3a09c6eadaa183bb2cbf988b
107344 F20101113_AACUJZ noiseux_k_Page_69.jpg
2a10144e380e4609f2336aacece8d002
42946ae67c0a0d8318ad4ea871ceeec8de2ffba5
2754 F20101113_AACUYR noiseux_k_Page_64thm.jpg
377d3cd58a1f3457e34436a8a9aedffe
6a5c64de04ea17a859c280921551b30eccf9000a
2176 F20101113_AACUTU noiseux_k_Page_55.txt
9c527ba560666410275ab9a87fb0505c
2269d807747330a7f8eee20e3b9613b60ae7d456
F20101113_AACUOX noiseux_k_Page_61.tif
c72ccc986a383f027225455de21ae2c3
67b2e4ca94b3eef035e761ffefbce4027990089c
52613 F20101113_AACUHB noiseux_k_Page_49.pro
e6abe3cc72d6018121479a5c1d54df72
9793886f69c83d0aedd3de3076a776144388c7df
10206 F20101113_AACUYS noiseux_k_Page_65.QC.jpg
f4c27690fd44b79d257a57ee522de20e
8f21a3dee013b84cf9909a933482244cc11196ca
2041 F20101113_AACUTV noiseux_k_Page_56.txt
77120c946de84f7a61ef22e34bf5832a
43651acfdd1d3ebdf05bd80a2c800c055a8e604b
73078 F20101113_AACUHC noiseux_k_Page_42.jpg
6cd8fa6a0a9bdacc04af40e282b86168
125446505ad5054dc8cb610636bcca21b46ea21c
F20101113_AACUOY noiseux_k_Page_64.tif
69cb84ecc00edc28faa8797cb38f49bd
71566521e283beb306094241a8b315b60a19536d
11317 F20101113_AACUYT noiseux_k_Page_66.QC.jpg
d9d80d056518afb52b49e14a3d43f614
3f187ecb8fd45c182c678f9a99af16df66dd798f
2079 F20101113_AACUTW noiseux_k_Page_57.txt
9c082e83ccb2825b39db527422fe3bdc
cfaaab0318dd3618a04a4b1c32522078f06b4460
F20101113_AACUHD noiseux_k_Page_31.tif
1baede3be16246e29710f0b3b219dbb8
afbca4088bdb2c0859c7b57807749c3f19e90728
115015 F20101113_AACUMA noiseux_k_Page_49.jp2
fe1a0c4897b7ad5542dfa73185c2cc1d
a59bed93f5b7faffb6ddded6c6210a23e743fa4f
F20101113_AACUOZ noiseux_k_Page_67.tif
2d694424365540296cf5b8d2ca0709f0
c069fc0c957be9680639f7aa69df89dbc68dfa27
11348 F20101113_AACUYU noiseux_k_Page_67.QC.jpg
dbcd5cd14043f0ce79260d73268b7dae
413072955dad9486265cb92ceb02c053cd7035f3
2174 F20101113_AACUTX noiseux_k_Page_59.txt
f157ad479145e88753daa2d5f0f1e8d4
8110305d9ec37b286d808c50cae9498c9a8b947b
50783 F20101113_AACUHE noiseux_k_Page_53.pro
ea0bab3d0b4ce1577e93786e6947c373
47261f4c7f3744bc6334d0b22c4815c687a8cb54
107551 F20101113_AACUMB noiseux_k_Page_51.jp2
65d4ee3bd5c05cfd2201e1d133206d8f
f8c1ece947fe9b04739e08bc0b93c0ef26985244
3328 F20101113_AACUYV noiseux_k_Page_67thm.jpg
5f2899776c563c531a5a7c41f9ffda25
5eece2bda76ad7035516ffe714b7a71771e2f524
2100 F20101113_AACUTY noiseux_k_Page_60.txt
b45c2d1eca3459dbffc7487cd53675c3
cb5e6da94367df81fb2f3c0660027b6da51b0920
2000 F20101113_AACUHF noiseux_k_Page_26.txt
4026fc214011e5f958e8b128423e5b89
f111f82d9c8a2510b7b96c5d3e5e93cf67f41f25
56508 F20101113_AACURA noiseux_k_Page_46.pro
42f005ef1e3c71b42ffe6b716b184165
6859c4df5661732502d7761f4df45c3194ac8a38
1051969 F20101113_AACUMC noiseux_k_Page_53.jp2
f14733d57b0f104f5dd114e431186ecc
3b80c7ca4da97a2ac1fd8c84ad42331864523f9c
19178 F20101113_AACUYW noiseux_k_Page_68.QC.jpg
0c0b04467c73cd3fa69c933b90c8fd70
2d64a5b0e0ee2a860a10f0b55dc9d89836fcaecf
2030 F20101113_AACUTZ noiseux_k_Page_61.txt
9249c32e513bc1cd28bb26fb880f1553
f03e1a182d2090f218e6fa064a701a27a6953950
119137 F20101113_AACUHG noiseux_k_Page_55.jp2
c91c922f64441df48c260b4a222759ca
6394aa550101c4be055502d4938efef348360fda
51836 F20101113_AACURB noiseux_k_Page_48.pro
380bb23d1936ec0c966900f6b75b13b0
a19828f558753537a50a2ee52b2c2dbf9bce1729
113309 F20101113_AACUMD noiseux_k_Page_54.jp2
111ae0c3def3e62244056cca30bea1c3
d2074b340c2109dddfe8fe15782ddd14c6936774
5067 F20101113_AACUYX noiseux_k_Page_68thm.jpg
6378a602230fda291e50b93a713c438a
12e4ec1e9bf34f58b09b85ee9b0ac99ab7e67740
37449 F20101113_AACUHH noiseux_k_Page_36.pro
df14871904dd387f24676e4c8e5286fc
49b2b8a0d63ae38576361db8c1107b340d1723e9
50878 F20101113_AACURC noiseux_k_Page_50.pro
c8f3a3417051f329e243eb213bf16fcb
e2bba871650a02143872f2ebfad1236f2e64ddee
114481 F20101113_AACUME noiseux_k_Page_56.jp2
aa4fbe2a1834e27ba8687348f73ecf9b
f01aef7cb4767c722ae78152470b27d92a0bb83b
28900 F20101113_AACUYY noiseux_k_Page_69.QC.jpg
c54ab2eb6448177f5ed441a0206f9dbe
4724a5d9e65eacbc51f146cd91a5b6522436689b
25114 F20101113_AACUWA noiseux_k_Page_20.QC.jpg
1dbb82c87b90e99af641fcb1aba2bced
206f2c843069f10804cf2f9dc28d6f14a8717905
1051962 F20101113_AACUHI noiseux_k_Page_83.jp2
a663b6fcc3a5a70845b3d72428bf2c44
cb1978a1586730fe96676327c86bfd070f7df96f
54265 F20101113_AACURD noiseux_k_Page_55.pro
fa8efdb768a7b6f0c18ac83ff2fef4ac
eb2a4df5bc67c8e7d093d4879f16d8158595983f
115204 F20101113_AACUMF noiseux_k_Page_57.jp2
19ceeb3cf97b9bef2bad55fa18cc3c22
14af5e8d95df41c1dcd399e12b529016881967d2
6957 F20101113_AACUYZ noiseux_k_Page_69thm.jpg
4119ce00dfa27f8faae2d1defc748be6
de9fa20fe274d49ce441f1e407432ed85a2386bc
25598 F20101113_AACUWB noiseux_k_Page_22.QC.jpg
7f204adfb1f73b72e6f179e9d6e6c552
8c6349d94dd21be23ee20bc759dfa0b87ab889be
2207 F20101113_AACUHJ noiseux_k_Page_46.txt
667008aa50b9576c661882d76377c667
48c38dc7ec8c6b9cdf0b2c2b27487c338f228d6b
52830 F20101113_AACURE noiseux_k_Page_57.pro
692d3fcb12b514baf24bb4c71776514a
66c0c4f5ec85c4d42aa46397231771366efa4f5c
114979 F20101113_AACUMG noiseux_k_Page_58.jp2
7dd5a1adf589d2cb3e204bea9e9aa976
4a45a62bcf604841dab2723fff4c5bdcb99ef7e6
6732 F20101113_AACUWC noiseux_k_Page_22thm.jpg
889e24ac72e406bc83578b1cee6a9e2f
2f45799370e99e264491b3363aff270d7804c0c6
F20101113_AACUHK noiseux_k_Page_65.tif
1a2a4bffc4600d7216c7e656860fa134
0aaebfae215fcc52266ab0d74177b6ac08cd57ba
120767 F20101113_AACUMH noiseux_k_Page_59.jp2
b7ee8cff5d1d36bf9bd16037e2cbcfc4
ad8a1658a6c0ac8903bc71b46ab2fb934d646146
21729 F20101113_AACUWD noiseux_k_Page_23.QC.jpg
cc121ff7fa8dca3afb188ea9ca679a6b
64e819c599401e8f7166817771119d61fd060817
53503 F20101113_AACURF noiseux_k_Page_60.pro
a440572656f3cc82231eed8d57abd8e0
414b77dbeadccc030114bd1cbdf79b2ed61075c4
47791 F20101113_AACUCO noiseux_k_Page_51.pro
b68d2f175ec4bce58a9231ffaac48a1a
12a499a61861e4c7e68449c31a6fe7451839d9de
116561 F20101113_AACUMI noiseux_k_Page_62.jp2
622f1e4e59bbc0b0ce37154b5ba1377b
718a26a84a9e836cbbd99cb94382f8b214703d97
F20101113_AACUHL noiseux_k_Page_45.tif
ec3568a6ac618f3c322414cd15f35e64
7d7ad4f8dc3128d73d32f70a60075f9889ce8fa1
5739 F20101113_AACUWE noiseux_k_Page_23thm.jpg
e7f89627e5b37964dc743c6576d2eadf
c4338ab33270ea187b5b45756c441bd9a58dd51e
53682 F20101113_AACURG noiseux_k_Page_62.pro
62bd1a4637a79ccd884ced82f621055b
827ccf4583d6a30f4d76a0c2db294e05eeeaa3ef
418883 F20101113_AACUCP noiseux_k.pdf
8872e98845c4b33531ec998d4680f938
041af986543ce2cc827babd9ec9d5d00c4c1dc3a
35933 F20101113_AACUMJ noiseux_k_Page_63.jp2
1e92c0f668247ff172fbd8cf6a4c195a
ea0d343153ca60e050d3dc8f917dc66c1df4376b
42397 F20101113_AACUHM noiseux_k_Page_27.pro
f3f16fbf6e8c836b3946d001aa7f4a60
11c31f4a1d25a185f5868307ca1d67e15bbede50
24384 F20101113_AACUWF noiseux_k_Page_24.QC.jpg
4281aa875228c6531a9dca1e1c2db67f
735f7c23591ec46da775d051f208f84c034fe79b
30851 F20101113_AACURH noiseux_k_Page_64.pro
d991665f87209551ecb22dca84393c11
e647eef82937185431508bd9f8ba58873dbceeb5
F20101113_AACUCQ noiseux_k_Page_13.tif
3f1fcfea1d20d868e97944ce160160cb
6805d18256f5a29e2b61a0f0a2865df0dcdbb996
59034 F20101113_AACUMK noiseux_k_Page_64.jp2
98ab39af6ca0f3b2102186495553ab9a
a834c848a0d1318aeb81422738d77232c9435a67
7032 F20101113_AACUHN noiseux_k_Page_41thm.jpg
4dbfeb095a333a6c357ffef4156a6306
20e6ec132d24c579c4fe8ca5559a722e888410ba
F20101113_AACUWG noiseux_k_Page_24thm.jpg
9eb2f1d0a84239b1fa3384b1d1a19b4e
d41c4469706b3bdb809c6c96538e31bed51871c8
41755 F20101113_AACURI noiseux_k_Page_65.pro
aa343ed69e7385aab0cac9b5907800f4
743a7276a98b2c94a881375894f45600a02477f8
1051975 F20101113_AACUCR noiseux_k_Page_81.jp2
37e05b707db84f183994fb680b12def5
e7352540afdcca6088f7a73ee0a934797fdcf7b6
85072 F20101113_AACUML noiseux_k_Page_66.jp2
dca5000710c1c9bf8580054b799c29bf
97f12a15bc01e17f72f1b13c88ebf1aa07439146
108328 F20101113_AACUHO noiseux_k_Page_15.jp2
f60a9edeaa5c8e80c8724a0d058dda23
1498aa843f6f7aa8ad445f190364ac17c3b7dcfc
24974 F20101113_AACUWH noiseux_k_Page_25.QC.jpg
c2d57c667fdc02dc03b5502c618b0492
c82b6e7a7fcfcda1abe73e4bce286042b30e7bf5
46348 F20101113_AACURJ noiseux_k_Page_67.pro
e4424838daaa64bdeaf815dbfa7460cd
908bb5f09579bc93ed86433cf9db1b2585016aa8
121962 F20101113_AACUCS noiseux_k_Page_46.jp2
438828e4375f766aa5696a4d5c5eaf46
8445718f7b6682918badde95a1a6d7834fe2819e
83858 F20101113_AACUMM noiseux_k_Page_67.jp2
f119fb56576913b9e47237b93e41745b
34bbedec167797b64db58417d75f39d4b7e4383b
6776 F20101113_AACUHP noiseux_k_Page_20thm.jpg
74aef6453e35f813075a6f45cfc52a94
0bab0b8a1d1be80748e2a2d5380819b9e15c763d
6941 F20101113_AACUWI noiseux_k_Page_25thm.jpg
5094a1c1d67bc917450c86a55eea13f3
36a6b3873c14bec5e0322254658668cd7e49a51b
49107 F20101113_AACURK noiseux_k_Page_68.pro
abeb2fe9d70bf3b0c100c9ac78e04e26
57332a76a2bfcbf9ec976dda5b29aae81b4b5c55
7560 F20101113_AACUCT noiseux_k_Page_38.pro
c043b5df8534ab2cc732d197d311ea03
93936a376ed7cc9c6fa3c69522e1b3d606b22f79
104023 F20101113_AACUMN noiseux_k_Page_68.jp2
9f6064e8568dcf80cf4be276d6f54882
acc5241d42732b623a2595bc9a5545b0aacbaba4
52236 F20101113_AACUHQ noiseux_k_Page_12.pro
1c072889d5a720c2fafb2f64daeb3640
3a2ce63db224790c7ac13222ebe70830073c965d
24607 F20101113_AACUWJ noiseux_k_Page_26.QC.jpg
be98c6f68bac0e12a7be8b240e176b5f
8da56f152b1ff5eb1bb702a1bb5b11a9a7089a5d
78565 F20101113_AACURL noiseux_k_Page_69.pro
eb008a38d392a3fb93dee6195e7b8643
a64ddfc4e8b450f9bc8d0ac3b9a5237ba265d7ce
114533 F20101113_AACUCU noiseux_k_Page_39.jp2
f29491da4de55fdef7f8d8cd4b2a039d
d726009f930bd2c59492bb589d5c1042e55c1a48
158049 F20101113_AACUMO noiseux_k_Page_69.jp2
2c3963384116e847cbcd5135d339d20d
5ff57e37eef386e28278769b697cd504b1aad7b0
51194 F20101113_AACUHR noiseux_k_Page_47.pro
575a1d8b5403b2c466e0acc14521b856
1109141bbd2603b33e7a74b99a8de7aa950c989b
64327 F20101113_AACURM noiseux_k_Page_70.pro
6464bb5a8bdd6f979e50d43a8375e43c
a10e3d4348252568444ca25770da065ef086a4c5
2006 F20101113_AACUCV noiseux_k_Page_42.txt
aec747bbe5a66bf79c680062f0464bff
601878a737f5185a82ecca7cd5fa1e6137bc00a5
134554 F20101113_AACUMP noiseux_k_Page_70.jp2
76755f85191fc7af97b5502c86b1098a
0a73434108984e3be7f84c0ff491df3a14ea713c
131930 F20101113_AACUHS UFE0021042_00001.xml
fd6433135ac34847fbedb6833f060f2f
1af2e80b6f2eb1a8a0be67f9f11676a0f9d5ad1b
6820 F20101113_AACUWK noiseux_k_Page_26thm.jpg
bc334fb202ba47c04c0402000a943042
7e5296636762b9bc6b6fb1119df1619cc8e44987
47489 F20101113_AACURN noiseux_k_Page_71.pro
d0340b2880d52a71bb0a5fab747ba8b5
25b4564945c4598b9ac82bbe3d33eb5c68ccf9f4
100387 F20101113_AACUMQ noiseux_k_Page_71.jp2
9a642835daa8fb602efe51e54a1616f5
5d195649852af473eba779db36a0f938059f7270
21598 F20101113_AACUWL noiseux_k_Page_27.QC.jpg
04df6a13edc47624f70e1ebc01ec93f2
9c7b25eacccc851370cc012ac82d2e8724ed22e4
83653 F20101113_AACURO noiseux_k_Page_73.pro
fd2079b66ac5532b78bddd835b30026d
66f97e308cce4c04419a78ab51bbf4d1db7f86c5
90572 F20101113_AACUCW noiseux_k_Page_79.jpg
fc70c4f11291d6f0e49003aac42f9066
c427d2b5cb612fe4d05affcef8148492d3e7251c
1051937 F20101113_AACUMR noiseux_k_Page_72.jp2
3309ea3014c1b6599b699df4dc012404
de7c5cb0ea8d3a392e1276ce56a60177f38d59b3
25134 F20101113_AACUWM noiseux_k_Page_29.QC.jpg
6113847eec73b2449c9dcb358538a311
49b4650c02209f1ea9b4a6afff52deb332d4e33b
14897 F20101113_AACURP noiseux_k_Page_74.pro
d572ced09e2027249d53dd74f0c33a64
540a0db6b03ac1d58786525e849d31d09b5a3dbe
2523 F20101113_AACUCX noiseux_k_Page_76.txt
b38036d527d5c09b05f3f2e4b0def06b
bf0c1db07cb4e2153ec98361ec7ce0fbc4c97e91
34273 F20101113_AACUMS noiseux_k_Page_74.jp2
8acadbd6bcfb59aa1560a24646352fb4
963b711ad35758f9d24f5ab6e3485f7692307888
23576 F20101113_AACUHV noiseux_k_Page_01.jpg
6350302fda961fb7bf843ce2ac9440a1
ddc00d69c72a758076e1b5bfd0e5328c7da2939b
6874 F20101113_AACUWN noiseux_k_Page_29thm.jpg
1992af0d61f7125297a85885da4874da
c200c26d12398c2417185397a3b4bc3d38fc70cd
57380 F20101113_AACURQ noiseux_k_Page_75.pro
0cb3bdbcad30c11c00e037dbcb08a244
be6f9c97fc09036feb05f2ba0519e050483a9841
6894 F20101113_AACUCY noiseux_k_Page_12thm.jpg
1f1394d84857061bc2a66fbe8617314e
de5b2deb5040ce60b8c21717e53e0d5124c33f25
116436 F20101113_AACUMT noiseux_k_Page_75.jp2
dc1a875f03e764717696ea8d42591c07
9d3941239b5f863f22e90def92dd26b2c871574f
9966 F20101113_AACUHW noiseux_k_Page_02.jpg
35dd41f3f018b7d1dce5246a1758a544
836f56ace3f07f4ab90266ec345381afa36ef49a
25050 F20101113_AACUWO noiseux_k_Page_30.QC.jpg
1d3f67e148a860343367272ce378abe1
d745320b02d57ec67dcbe06f46fcf33b58778ce8
59450 F20101113_AACURR noiseux_k_Page_77.pro
1087e1a292c054f05e87252e0bc36917
47392c4e00672b4eee59001ab46c5a3591333f0b
78850 F20101113_AACUCZ noiseux_k_Page_59.jpg
4ad5b89a7a9955c0388b4765ff4ad4c6
a742170fda9a3add58fe5ef0620f205a8382eda6
137609 F20101113_AACUMU noiseux_k_Page_76.jp2
1b2244321ea7d99e12c7a3bddad8552a
3af6f947329498a38798057e7fc83dc1326711b3
9444 F20101113_AACUHX noiseux_k_Page_03.jpg
8891b310646793ef156941f944112ebd
b496fd09d9aa443c281d210958e7809ea9a702a7
6911 F20101113_AACUWP noiseux_k_Page_30thm.jpg
ccf60e9261c820473d68777f79cbabdc
f2976f8813e0007c7bee280c41bd2edf6808ce2e
62394 F20101113_AACURS noiseux_k_Page_78.pro
733903cab6a06c148731616238dc0f59
e076c94e3cae4e335ecfb5777d9af5a6bc6d5c2c
121977 F20101113_AACUMV noiseux_k_Page_77.jp2
bd1a681af375018706370023db16007c
b735c8f8ed175d6f1ec6556e07dbdb58b0a874f3
27521 F20101113_AACUHY noiseux_k_Page_04.jpg
0121589198b8c88873307426fe538e5e
bbe3c10ada49e475e7bb111d9acf25f6162255e1
24579 F20101113_AACUWQ noiseux_k_Page_31.QC.jpg
1fd0e3d0fa8c570107f8a2cb4eb4c0f3
5d528a64e1313f9eb4f4f568ccabe96084d9697c
58577 F20101113_AACURT noiseux_k_Page_79.pro
11d3968879c02e56885493415e5d6b37
07e1a89f50e86d74c653968a0ceb9ba9bcddc304
1051960 F20101113_AACUMW noiseux_k_Page_79.jp2
be491ed966b124497db673d17dd3aee2
1545365cdb71b63573a26495b4eae8a38941e3c0
75875 F20101113_AACUFA noiseux_k_Page_58.jpg
22da9b40063f410421b52bb8be248c69
faf6401e91e14b3fbd89f2625f2eca7b49a13874
82202 F20101113_AACUHZ noiseux_k_Page_05.jpg
8649908aa7e15f05a0e82d79dc8a57e1
16b096daafdd6fbe90cc16c4564c3bb5e586fbf4
6798 F20101113_AACUWR noiseux_k_Page_31thm.jpg
45b04c7a807787caf9c360fc51fbcd4e
3e015d0d017c771360093e14fff973e5fd9329c2
135307 F20101113_AACUMX noiseux_k_Page_80.jp2
6de92c2846b816011c5829fb5b1f1650
cdf366bf00863e7f71144331abdccb718f8647b5
10298 F20101113_AACUFB noiseux_k_Page_36.QC.jpg
bfbc1f76606d565432de3d50b71defeb
f86a6aac2dcc0680949746356c05bb09420d9170
62066 F20101113_AACURU noiseux_k_Page_80.pro
4139aabce2c1e11c9cc0d9ec2e3f75f7
0581da1b295a2364f6193589933a02da3e6e7e47
25022 F20101113_AACUWS noiseux_k_Page_32.QC.jpg
8ec4b33b658459253aaf0bc3915dab3f
4e1583751fb2b1f6143ccece6b9a1a232a14d15f
121368 F20101113_AACUMY noiseux_k_Page_84.jp2
7d9a65767990009f87a40d6a3f3f362a
1f5566ae25a360d81a8a4c89e61d8a3ddd7502b2
51942 F20101113_AACUFC noiseux_k_Page_56.pro
907f3663ab58357e4231b32ee8053f1d
3d6742cab0924895d7734e161ceae612899a9475
64787 F20101113_AACURV noiseux_k_Page_81.pro
2c062418f6c6dd0862618f66f3c3bf71
16e8ab96c91247684f4859e0ddd5ecd2034dfe1a
6773 F20101113_AACUWT noiseux_k_Page_32thm.jpg
da3b95c6046d3278355ce88539cdff44
427ae1681199d833695e19398baa26923f0b6b90
86911 F20101113_AACUKA noiseux_k_Page_70.jpg
b8ead1de399ea68d75ccab65d76d3c2c
9e386b853c82b95601613246ddde07fcf7a22bb6
125892 F20101113_AACUMZ noiseux_k_Page_85.jp2
5469f7c8eecc6b7405ec34b08668d2eb
0f166cfd0402f100309d22ce2985d9e6d8de273a
71775 F20101113_AACUFD noiseux_k_Page_68.jpg
57f05fb346bc394fc232a003c28a3c88
402afa176f4d534deefe9a5ee00202d62cddc07c
52171 F20101113_AACURW noiseux_k_Page_82.pro
81bc79b81f8328614242ac926e6381af
aa51330a488ff7985f93b13cd2ac1e5ab7fa6059
26115 F20101113_AACUWU noiseux_k_Page_33.QC.jpg
11113dfb3b2e4ed4fd233dbe3bdda1f4
440e267c906adcf84d6342461827b67bf385a95a
81176 F20101113_AACUKB noiseux_k_Page_72.jpg
5ce4c27e521e2be94551747096186066
d15d01efdbfe98b8c4df0fc9c3040dda27a5d0ed
6793 F20101113_AACUFE noiseux_k_Page_21thm.jpg
aededbabd071bb4b8257fd16f0afd6ae
6bce5d160d9f79dc5eab443018301d2d7b6fe7b9
60638 F20101113_AACURX noiseux_k_Page_83.pro
0ee2994ae86e177ea6a2730e21c85e16
42482016bfe2118216b4f5c299bf507dbfa00f96
7081 F20101113_AACUWV noiseux_k_Page_33thm.jpg
2af48e1a4c09870404154e3e571b0e8d
3573d257a2cfabc7d130b5fdcbc3c63641ebfcb0
108224 F20101113_AACUKC noiseux_k_Page_73.jpg
0b9ff57b67702841ed35917fa39c163e
587f930c749750792551f0ac2d2bd353b5244dfe
51454 F20101113_AACUFF noiseux_k_Page_61.pro
fdd6d7ee93d15b979f59f56c625e0512
fc0b2afa8a4f343fe7442c3674239409dc1aa410
F20101113_AACUPA noiseux_k_Page_68.tif
2b14aab689dc860c81547a0c3adb97a9
950647be751fcc42f7ab0f461e11c675126019b0
54107 F20101113_AACURY noiseux_k_Page_84.pro
4a2d77865c765795377d522e866de79d
8875eeb8893b59655aac336cb18d80a6702bf52b
10174 F20101113_AACUWW noiseux_k_Page_34.QC.jpg
f20fc1864843b6a52a327e84bc363bd9
62301664a74c748d2cf2351398d77ae31b4afea6
27127 F20101113_AACUKD noiseux_k_Page_74.jpg
38c0cba4ce0b23ecaf2af82702287b60
8662a2529a324f029959f3f9f5805d818a8f2688
25832 F20101113_AACUFG noiseux_k_Page_28.QC.jpg
6c2f6186132a795126d6d3f7d5c572ee
9486bec873ad2ef1465239ec5c15b02589710cc2
F20101113_AACUPB noiseux_k_Page_69.tif
6f4fb2bc707aebb25b10fe0263741043
337c34691e4104fcdf7bec875767887cf4d8ddb1
57165 F20101113_AACURZ noiseux_k_Page_85.pro
56ac4ea21aa5aeb5982995ca734c5ccb
fd343540cb60b7dd43ad76d10976d86113a9943a
3151 F20101113_AACUWX noiseux_k_Page_34thm.jpg
753ff7ded954af09330f4db82c87646e
f9d5a67f0ca72160087db3cdf697e9dac8f4a671
83211 F20101113_AACUKE noiseux_k_Page_75.jpg
60a154c83b1a2610e1182aee8f667f5f
e503034ba098f2ea81c3827d446091bec0e62850
7586 F20101113_AACUFH noiseux_k_Page_74.QC.jpg
abe21002be0e3a1f50ee07ef837501a3
cbbabbf1678099515cec92300eb85aafa4f83b30
F20101113_AACUPC noiseux_k_Page_70.tif
f042bf58ad8bf9f5f80a2db0dbbf0f32
2fb4b139230ff23d03ec9764de475799b37e00f9
9807 F20101113_AACUWY noiseux_k_Page_35.QC.jpg
bd044ded9f4bc45eae23611d7a37d4a5
dd12978646b97cea032eae98c789872b03a93685
1611 F20101113_AACUUA noiseux_k_Page_64.txt
0cc5217bdba1b3cfe24c7b5149cf2cad
1920b6985a143999eee68b5b492c771f46fd0808
99904 F20101113_AACUKF noiseux_k_Page_76.jpg
5171ce2e66db5baebfd3eada678a7566
daac65974315e502cf4d7a1a0467de94b613f2c9
26541 F20101113_AACUFI noiseux_k_Page_46.QC.jpg
85880fd8687dafdd849cf83595f92890
a38c7c6d9ddc9936b86f3ca74b89686eb88a168d
3061 F20101113_AACUWZ noiseux_k_Page_36thm.jpg
929e72b6a3def729823cb1c8d2e5e3a8
59bcc254261d15a800508f9621d33b2577fa747f
1870 F20101113_AACUUB noiseux_k_Page_65.txt
6bb91d5ef4cdeb3baefbb4cf3f65eda5
06ca74616405f06ecd647f88f0ad2fba236420a4
96241 F20101113_AACUKG noiseux_k_Page_78.jpg
f09ab1fe58b40986b7aa019ee1e68c87
647a9548ec9b53f489508a16373f66a6c4e26fb4
28705 F20101113_AACUFJ noiseux_k_Page_81.QC.jpg
ccc267c6332e85cf36f44eb5236ec396
78951ab2973a6b4c01e89b6dc83096e68ba22fd5
F20101113_AACUPD noiseux_k_Page_71.tif
27d7dbbd0a466d99c5b84d722008db9f
e698e933ae91dae725a19dee530becd5981ab784
2299 F20101113_AACUUC noiseux_k_Page_66.txt
57e9056379bbe3e2f39ed829900251c8
a4366b3a2995bf42033e22eb7d90d578a9004476
F20101113_AACUFK noiseux_k_Page_76.tif
4b602cd17226b98e00bc2bae3507eb14
3bc902fe1cbb992e61925e6108799dabcfd36e11
F20101113_AACUPE noiseux_k_Page_72.tif
f3eb497f62eabb30b866e8fe7f83f04e
bffb9612d2a100096a9c6f5e6a79827212dcaa19
101169 F20101113_AACUKH noiseux_k_Page_81.jpg
0df471f0d3813998423a9f36c2380b72
b3af7e500e8d36fc0823f5eb15abdfebaaf771c0
25101 F20101113_AACUZA noiseux_k_Page_70.QC.jpg
fa917d03fed48d2f62aa8f55b1c70732
fa5c33974f352a4684469a8874718c4fdf8d2cbd
2255 F20101113_AACUUD noiseux_k_Page_67.txt
1e1016d52424620cac77c9bf03a02c43
99d332b6f6dc6cd8bc819760a5fc95beb764a9c6
117894 F20101113_AACUFL noiseux_k_Page_82.jp2
6d538550bfd134a5b2f08da65c22940a
e1835e84730dde4198d061cc0c7f99f543410c4c
F20101113_AACUPF noiseux_k_Page_73.tif
724b982c0389b1dbec5b0ad542ac898d
746089cfbd2e89d0177f9b25f1c37b6481d64e50
94200 F20101113_AACUKI noiseux_k_Page_83.jpg
eccdc9fdd13f81b75edf03c036f9aed6
40b5dc866714a61a83b853ebbcb1ad939eecc2e2
6583 F20101113_AACUZB noiseux_k_Page_70thm.jpg
bae10e85660db741f2e31cba108b8616
cf2140758cf61297d0eb4c9d80abc7b12b018842
2106 F20101113_AACUUE noiseux_k_Page_68.txt
86935751805fbee61444fc6759c88577
4c487a661d25f2dcc999c660b92b53ce93d78591
75274 F20101113_AACUFM noiseux_k_Page_82.jpg
df1d9e8df2cb79a3328be13419cc80bb
abc06b91e5aa9f9a581e48a9727268913aa39e4d
F20101113_AACUPG noiseux_k_Page_74.tif
1777d0330e9c12783b7ea9baf07707fa
cb225dbe05436975fa9b8b28d324d056e05e4f48
74991 F20101113_AACUKJ noiseux_k_Page_84.jpg
aa3040926fd3a44e12ca12c4b5115b7a
a10fc7d8cf561bf5e1bcb1d082df689bf20448aa
5389 F20101113_AACUZC noiseux_k_Page_71thm.jpg
7d114f3c41ebc51072dbf65cc98ca4eb
b023c29e645c326a8e97180c93191c707e6d7c40
3160 F20101113_AACUUF noiseux_k_Page_69.txt
8d6b3aa5733cd6eae0e8290bd1f44518
0a115a228b0c0a4ef25f8e276ed3d1fc0bbba7e6
6659 F20101113_AACUFN noiseux_k_Page_48thm.jpg
c9c8dc854e04dd4816f37b4a263b4617
a667976ada6426b335d205966b0d9acd005a6a26
F20101113_AACUPH noiseux_k_Page_75.tif
f101fa04dbba2ba6675fc24027954a60
771d40f4c896536258654e51c14da479a2adcc30
80708 F20101113_AACUKK noiseux_k_Page_85.jpg
72a09a4824dc97e646e3a5594b41a74f
494a255cca0761ea44acda86dcd5d0d8975f5649
21601 F20101113_AACUZD noiseux_k_Page_72.QC.jpg
6b59f831de99e7accf2eb100daf410bc
38ea759497d47f3dbdae28f81cabd1de29a73acc
2631 F20101113_AACUUG noiseux_k_Page_70.txt
06f176cdfdebd06938d395b729cf28eb
b10a78a0b599d0d618d068861a955de1e2c431f0
2016 F20101113_AACUFO noiseux_k_Page_14.txt
e3130da8059e4deb1e350efa210220fb
a464a9d0928c84b41928fd50c012d8275a58ee1a
F20101113_AACUPI noiseux_k_Page_77.tif
8964effbae5bf3049ebcf67e6a1564ac
3b272739719964668f1e2d03a6514742df313621
88535 F20101113_AACUKL noiseux_k_Page_86.jpg
85b7120dc5922d0c171f1b25ccf7bdad
81d80c9fa72849492bcd9f6b85e9e4257a08a90e
5801 F20101113_AACUZE noiseux_k_Page_72thm.jpg
5e7180b677f142266f0b30eed90365d1
89cd087a6a0e0ceec9c6fac83713f03edf9a74d0
1997 F20101113_AACUUH noiseux_k_Page_71.txt
f6516c987459368c773d892678b0d0a0
47440ab847258351761d691095f577c71d184e27
72604 F20101113_AACUFP noiseux_k_Page_65.jp2
2598d5967697310ec9709cecef51ad4a
9fdf6acf2fa19acdb5fe3b04d263d83ba99c0c64
F20101113_AACUPJ noiseux_k_Page_78.tif
2f0102beb544c62f59857950d4c4a190
9a4308d629b595eef38c022bc1d0397027e81eac
38675 F20101113_AACUKM noiseux_k_Page_87.jpg
20f0a6a85601cbc69239a52d64665865
c3fa34656f23544a8d23bb21db8ad6057ffa070b
7314 F20101113_AACUZF noiseux_k_Page_73thm.jpg
1a0ed7ec86df134257b0ab5708c55822
d47c6274c19193209da3eee0f8d62be9eb15d6d8
52256 F20101113_AACUFQ noiseux_k_Page_25.pro
e5ca9f589ffe705eab702f1c566c4edc
0ed6507614586fb5aab1067100ac51b3dc26bd6a
F20101113_AACUPK noiseux_k_Page_79.tif
aa71c73767e400722a6fcaab40d71ac8
494b35021a082c4464b328a9c8f7014a3d00d778
26022 F20101113_AACUKN noiseux_k_Page_01.jp2
b8ab5fa57762dfc3bd6206ebe02f8226
e53618a12f15e3be81e17fbe5b7aef44c5b976c1
2399 F20101113_AACUZG noiseux_k_Page_74thm.jpg
f016fac83ead55670aed4caf6ff391a0
31cd3577ff460f9cea50d0673f618ff0f13385d9
3959 F20101113_AACUUI noiseux_k_Page_72.txt
f6bfed89b49131f99c513b3a6d224929
e4375610a610b994513934b5cafd3dadda9a1cfb
111285 F20101113_AACUFR noiseux_k_Page_50.jp2
4018db6878994bf2201e0498d5f4b0a2
15d07b5009bdf021447bd8040e1009363ed8f892
F20101113_AACUPL noiseux_k_Page_80.tif
0a2cd55e7c5e161bba53162411681644
707592a9b2ea40ca05d2654dce8c8b8d2b10a3e2
24967 F20101113_AACUKO noiseux_k_Page_02.jp2
55a94bde12575ca7d9df52c951cdb6db
8b3d27b0c6a08071332a484784654d45a80f1052
6769 F20101113_AACUZH noiseux_k_Page_75thm.jpg
f06952be570f1370814351254fd67b3b
1541e3da7b1b189654eab12e7eb300df962d3d98
3448 F20101113_AACUUJ noiseux_k_Page_73.txt
cc753d4c1d6a0ab2a7a4e3be267ce768
75a6b4412c9bbc7b777e1fea94c46eafe957b244
29435 F20101113_AACUFS noiseux_k_Page_73.QC.jpg
b40aa10088af21dc56f23157416b0386
71d010cf37a88fb98ccead2620c0750aefd914a6
F20101113_AACUPM noiseux_k_Page_81.tif
675470b111413e2d7d48a4e3750b655c
c46106049319fe1ae57cf82df975427019833666
4429 F20101113_AACUKP noiseux_k_Page_03.jp2
76db62fbde8bbb69d9a7c02b9b0b32bc
e0f8bead459811c415aadc3322252452a225d0f8
28326 F20101113_AACUZI noiseux_k_Page_76.QC.jpg
1d88b5cde1479c8c2b25f214120ebc49
c3eb2b254b7b3269a7191c537adce19f789cd295
2326 F20101113_AACUUK noiseux_k_Page_77.txt
a66a71f8555675ca7947d2e10766319a
f88d1cdc438ae9783b81b38350faf05b5c93fe96
53247 F20101113_AACUFT noiseux_k_Page_87.jp2
cb7f46415ccd0383b6ccdb7048f048c2
95d02143ab46957d54011adf062418cc785345ef
F20101113_AACUPN noiseux_k_Page_82.tif
6095d3d932188be21195b4045eb9f30f
ed152a48c9fde06b90391ad18f4f6d6bfb963f44
1051959 F20101113_AACUKQ noiseux_k_Page_05.jp2
f0b1859a1c9104da18cf98cf77ec6faa
d159623b72f69cc306f54d06baaa012b8de53fa0
7248 F20101113_AACUZJ noiseux_k_Page_76thm.jpg
6dc45cbf0f987faac1052143407499dc
8dbab003045688fd126c19de55e630a4e0acece1
2547 F20101113_AACUUL noiseux_k_Page_78.txt
20248446b8f4a499fb87b6149eac4c67
d8277ec37b8930aff15c78e36a04adb989f2da38
35698 F20101113_AACUFU noiseux_k_Page_04.jp2
7703aa93f2ae9fe746292ab3feade2b1
b32862563513ee4f29e8de8fc51e3cfc2cff0243
F20101113_AACUPO noiseux_k_Page_83.tif
6a495b82de28adbd7808b20859088f6f
8d83b8b1921fc0f52dc0c2b69efd4614ecfe021f
1051985 F20101113_AACUKR noiseux_k_Page_06.jp2
d38da85e08fe3904be652b821fa1e757
ea1fbd2faa5fe2b0ace23d772da20de728905617
23442 F20101113_AACUZK noiseux_k_Page_77.QC.jpg
e700c2babb37cc04ef47ac14853961ba
a3bf1b600e69bbe01b17b80885cc75aea21c6cef
2392 F20101113_AACUUM noiseux_k_Page_79.txt
79f4210f65896def2be9db4dc9611d22
6b25c082ac938bdf396e1e9264b66f7be43351f4
53178 F20101113_AACUFV noiseux_k_Page_45.pro
47ef90634d94e11b890adc8ed7848e7a
19f9fcfae1f4680e93895ed88bfbe8cef4ef4bbf
F20101113_AACUPP noiseux_k_Page_84.tif
67bb47129d7099a214391eedb61bda9c
989593cb3c2c7e59c1ae1bf5031cfb24d988bd09
497679 F20101113_AACUKS noiseux_k_Page_07.jp2
c76088b85f66c79e7288667d643251e3
af59d38a57a3c4827064e09ca61621ad2604f944
5841 F20101113_AACUZL noiseux_k_Page_77thm.jpg
1007c28a4ede163c09ebd8d708aea531
3a093b373d0389211da72fc94efa9f1fe9d6baac
F20101113_AACUUN noiseux_k_Page_81.txt
8dd18e7f9a6f29bb6a201847dd64c4e1
b3a5cf7c2f475fb20ce9c382cb8623a6c3e615ed
49397 F20101113_AACUFW noiseux_k_Page_52.pro
e4c487cacc608c076e138745d95a95af
76aba6442a36a9d18bbe2e3b0f3a3ab63cabe9b5
F20101113_AACUPQ noiseux_k_Page_85.tif
13111466a4e727d889d7557c7269cdc8
64633fccac0decf41dcc0ef447ba7d79796c7fd2
1051971 F20101113_AACUKT noiseux_k_Page_08.jp2
b5dade296b287a72f574c838a98ac71e
dab1b4fef0095226bb74b670c446c7ebc3b1d0c7
27649 F20101113_AACUZM noiseux_k_Page_78.QC.jpg
983b2f88f497ea4290bfaabfc4e8f85e
77275294d18b96520e99a1af3b54b55da910547f
F20101113_AACUUO noiseux_k_Page_82.txt
c32e69a20c9633346866da26ea29edb0
d16980bd0ebba1422ae495050fffc0a977e3e7c1
593 F20101113_AACUFX noiseux_k_Page_74.txt
6b57ef667c10ca4d19b20035943d3e0c
29403973556344c3432784e52948c903976ede65
F20101113_AACUPR noiseux_k_Page_86.tif
b68fbe754d35663bbee212778794c472
892145aaee9503ee703f4475b70f56209866067a
102013 F20101113_AACUKU noiseux_k_Page_10.jp2
f431477c03d156c402cc9c294bfde6e1
8122460aefbd87e40baf2ab8cb8aa60e8436fe60
2481 F20101113_AACUUP noiseux_k_Page_83.txt
49e3e16f8588c1cf941883f1bafaec60
bd732273439f5b1e99da72716a7b094e7277839b
38472 F20101113_AACUFY noiseux_k_Page_35.pro
20656a55169024e75feff889e50af609
cf7c4841738c016218ca20d91a77f5bde70493f4
F20101113_AACUPS noiseux_k_Page_87.tif
74fecd6981ba5eea539368f96b4d7dc1
1e5f74170f4599b953cfd1465dfe848bb712a943
116202 F20101113_AACUKV noiseux_k_Page_12.jp2
92d8dbcf7bf16c647f4b91c7ba75f4f3
4fa725950a09323279664b35f618471c1b2b274a
7549 F20101113_AACUZN noiseux_k_Page_78thm.jpg
e08c251ffa6e2c8b059ba6bd406246fa
abca8a32209ff2321dd857a4e41e1f351e132585
2231 F20101113_AACUUQ noiseux_k_Page_84.txt
c32f9c25ac819db0761a8b12deee2a9c
dc52b6f4ccfa3cf31f2f369e504abdf0a1dcba1b
8568 F20101113_AACUPT noiseux_k_Page_01.pro
075f10aae21d412b2216a3c2c6f145d5
1f018cff0e8f081547cae79cdf8216ff3d69c7a4
117521 F20101113_AACUKW noiseux_k_Page_13.jp2
c57d745b15431fbbb0f762c5b691a8bb
a090c43a191a3eb5245cdd7c0cc2318ba0b0a406
23706 F20101113_AACUDA noiseux_k_Page_51.QC.jpg
3829c5648c48c967fb3dc30a96dffcd6
3e2c9c393b0d995bdbd6735cc492bbdc1dd3cb04
26581 F20101113_AACUZO noiseux_k_Page_79.QC.jpg
d064f21c349586cb6b6b4c50ddc26d55
135e6ab9fc2c6346b46e1f2dd567b44762dd2196
2342 F20101113_AACUUR noiseux_k_Page_85.txt
ad36f9d1c44eab5f206aa271a6ae6e91
577fe0ba55a27e65e72aa8377064b9782b6a1fe9
111592 F20101113_AACUFZ noiseux_k_Page_52.jp2
85633bf92c02003fe579e4d2eb7225fd
cf3490cc48f3db2bb1ff31411df265d005f9acda
622 F20101113_AACUPU noiseux_k_Page_03.pro
17fc950486ab9753b0dda50e56246ce0
6941cea8bbb8c3726333404c328764bda458cea2
114174 F20101113_AACUKX noiseux_k_Page_14.jp2
690aee953851ee933423cbc045a3da5b
f6adbfecaac6f05e0df1720197db572dfbb7b066
52461 F20101113_AACUDB noiseux_k_Page_58.pro
4b39c4cac580d2f1acebde73490a9ef9
d1e0e2d21913082da67cfc8c73ad3ad0c6e7c278
7389 F20101113_AACUZP noiseux_k_Page_79thm.jpg
6bc70741d291dbc6016309dcacd85b47
a2369892882b654352d0d6c3677c0d0210ef347a
2340 F20101113_AACUUS noiseux_k_Page_86.txt
e0c4560076ab6051f8f115ea09eb1595
65a074d30c5f048de24737a84f2ce1982098df1c
14241 F20101113_AACUPV noiseux_k_Page_04.pro
f594be6500db3f29733b5937a82daa23
8c08555fff5c85d0c44df444476833f1a7229a66
1051952 F20101113_AACUKY noiseux_k_Page_16.jp2
47a38b2e40c7c0264ce988fc7a9f0e69
7467c574068a23f53f7b059fee168ea9740a4d3d
25373 F20101113_AACUDC noiseux_k_Page_17.QC.jpg
2d8ae4982832707fbfa8505a2f3039ff
3dcdc4389f47b97330d58480d1297f47a59dd059
25617 F20101113_AACUZQ noiseux_k_Page_80.QC.jpg
c4b62365d8c0a8fa0cb6535b04f1dc87
0557e7882c83e26814c80489e4a852e8eff6c85e
965 F20101113_AACUUT noiseux_k_Page_87.txt
2151fb064c737f893a1cc9b6df8fd3d4
770d2da9ffff0edec30b274f8b399afaa6f48ed3
65290 F20101113_AACUPW noiseux_k_Page_05.pro
53f4f73eea42f7251d05961ff3ef810f
f095718578edd800a8eac978f11196285ad22cf7
92877 F20101113_AACUIA noiseux_k_Page_06.jpg
6fd3aaf9cba802bdebc763411ec6f033
808a15d8d9dfc24f9ed158e1680136ad37e27102
117807 F20101113_AACUKZ noiseux_k_Page_17.jp2
c377824e4fb323d75252605e131fb871
b75107928c387605579904bfaed9c7a4cdfeb2fc
75850 F20101113_AACUDD noiseux_k_Page_20.jpg
a2677977c0af64bfda1264b94cfb7d99
b9b445f76d76f562c37d904f58a929a17d7bda8f
7257 F20101113_AACUZR noiseux_k_Page_80thm.jpg
96113cf60a6ca059023ef73ab1e927c6
598c944ba7800f54bd9211e7d5d16cb9c3b36342
2285 F20101113_AACUUU noiseux_k_Page_01thm.jpg
cdf8fafd33ddac444881e8b58eb09d22
b69d621b462366c63feac08c270b709359817410
77617 F20101113_AACUPX noiseux_k_Page_06.pro
3c0f5502d2728b8e04785d0efda91bcf
08de0b4c22400448d67733464ea6d69c7a2580a4
23683 F20101113_AACUIB noiseux_k_Page_07.jpg
9e7d74e70d3f98df7af216a2a0466856
7ed2a7a3a6a2be6a91c7070e20c9394852bb1bdc
F20101113_AACUDE noiseux_k_Page_62.tif
5cd147358c56325ae5275f146d0c63cd
6bb078f107006fea8e86fc4cda1d46e423b79e2f
7719 F20101113_AACUZS noiseux_k_Page_81thm.jpg
710b03c388104e4b6fe793dee246ee84
72687f3ea28b2a6684ccb4dd3bad5ac3baf0bde3
7395 F20101113_AACUUV noiseux_k_Page_01.QC.jpg
e3549693ad10228faad29c3901330a6b
ed6482d567b2129533387b5ab96fb2fee0f06ed1
1051970 F20101113_AACUNA noiseux_k_Page_86.jp2
cd9c207868a7e59951d3d0a86ba7858b
d199baf3d9690e5cc1214d79f3c683297dec0e1c
12470 F20101113_AACUPY noiseux_k_Page_07.pro
f38dcb46cd006154dadf845963a285cd
504cb51da27156fbb3f5a82c2a5bd15bc8cdff68
53408 F20101113_AACUIC noiseux_k_Page_08.jpg
73733b2d29f4d34dec881d289b35d750
adef69bbaf30eaa3d827316d8572b3153ec7e63a
855 F20101113_AACUDF noiseux_k_Page_02.pro
c8d8baf7014f2661fa67862daad8bd9c
2180357d642fba1e5d2b5cf724ed52326ab7e46d
22586 F20101113_AACUZT noiseux_k_Page_82.QC.jpg
7d31d734755054d1ec0ac5ef21e3a5c4
96fcd29f555b3208a888d058e576ccf85a25a32d
3087 F20101113_AACUUW noiseux_k_Page_02.QC.jpg
638b561a565f6c09f02f7d881a8405b7
42b98dea755a23fce32f993e35e98033fcbb735b
34346 F20101113_AACUPZ noiseux_k_Page_08.pro
4aa2691e19b0766035e05988dde9dde1
150a2225b2c16b75cdcde42d8cb84ce3c6c5661c
17030 F20101113_AACUID noiseux_k_Page_09.jpg
f0fee21439581b733af3fc134540984c
b0c19f1641a44ca4b01e094bd6b441420dcb2829
7148 F20101113_AACUDG noiseux_k_Page_53thm.jpg
19cc76450000e57f46e98d9f290e2113
a99f4b77980afc059fcf2fd7108cd2a2581168ed
6650 F20101113_AACUZU noiseux_k_Page_82thm.jpg
c2fe81838abb121909adcdeed3269070
7313bf798737167db9a4cf6dacb5d0a4afc7c454
1325 F20101113_AACUUX noiseux_k_Page_02thm.jpg
85419a2eb30f3828a465554291cbe524
399d11573b4a7779bc669f3a6dc24b3580e0b86e
F20101113_AACUNB noiseux_k_Page_01.tif
ff055880ceab9737c0fe1c11d5135c1b
337c3af07b480c41c4a2646b49e24272caa225b9
69037 F20101113_AACUIE noiseux_k_Page_10.jpg
7e232629442aec2b912bb236cdb63da1
d4df4ef8f037b6a8e107d44039d2cb8f40de3044
3028 F20101113_AACUDH noiseux_k_Page_35thm.jpg
244a89af8968464651b7d16e9b6e7c54
9068094840238d6905173000e9e0c89e1037f705
27271 F20101113_AACUZV noiseux_k_Page_83.QC.jpg
bcb02f68fa555c5d69a0025b4371b29b
fc0c9fd6997042a57ba079e3644af80bf695bacf
3049 F20101113_AACUUY noiseux_k_Page_03.QC.jpg
518eceeaf46db9c7092ab0e5cc6c7d56
080287f97d2aaa5bbed4bfc94929124eff3a171d
56957 F20101113_AACUSA noiseux_k_Page_86.pro
0d95a52a4320738b82cdbc4a1e74ae6f
b44f21569255ca43368a08ac114e517e40e67a3a
F20101113_AACUNC noiseux_k_Page_02.tif
8c5a9a83c59dcf7c36e961f1c4767b22
f50832db7f1f0ace1637b6edcfa3d3798b8fe181
51965 F20101113_AACUIF noiseux_k_Page_11.jpg
9a22b0e0ca1fc8b2498f8cca2e78d53c
b5f88d944e280999b668eb3bd0529991ef5eb124
166511 F20101113_AACUDI noiseux_k_Page_73.jp2
454166ce577c01cfa03dddc77d568811
03d2d39856703813cf52c6908e6471c45873512c
7313 F20101113_AACUZW noiseux_k_Page_83thm.jpg
397129b1e35e8df549de4dfa89fb94ee
85c626ba3902fcad5f0215500d59fbbe753bcb38
1303 F20101113_AACUUZ noiseux_k_Page_03thm.jpg
9546b5ec27ddf995e0f42e6627b94ecd
3066cbee071a0391b8b4df0f042abb6b2d550874
23311 F20101113_AACUSB noiseux_k_Page_87.pro
85340148e5aaeace5d4255ff235fd6cd
8f9fa48b4a3965758fe96d40786f56183b077978
78415 F20101113_AACUIG noiseux_k_Page_12.jpg
3d236f5350977daaad0cf7a0e2cd4ab5
1afc3022064407341313ea0945ddc1e98b42bb53
F20101113_AACUDJ noiseux_k_Page_57.tif
883a2047818c083aa2b1970819bb7913
388871ab4dc3c49d8fa1e81004c97b4327c8434d
F20101113_AACUND noiseux_k_Page_04.tif
f397c7266a91ebe441f81706c5d2938b
79e53fe7a9267719b8227ec6b6c818b9625cc402
6862 F20101113_AACUZX noiseux_k_Page_84thm.jpg
4e1f2348f8890dfd9c4b4916c70e99a3
d9bdc9d65b50b9ed5b6e4b6f61de8e414aeac39b
483 F20101113_AACUSC noiseux_k_Page_01.txt
e5564c3555e5f25009ac70c69e70c9b7
487d84d458dfde28d90198475fedbeaf0285653d
75910 F20101113_AACUIH noiseux_k_Page_14.jpg
867cbeec5515d57992a3a70b970c68af
4743c4605d727691824803b8e00fcb424dc5cde1
55470 F20101113_AACUDK noiseux_k_Page_59.pro
eab218afab207568a8eb9db6e549a78f
948fe6e563c52d5ea8c795f3356b2d804dbeeda9
F20101113_AACUNE noiseux_k_Page_05.tif
ad6df5ae2796c246397e19b8d2c1828e
c7c0e85b51aa29f2039a64c880bc79e188b73717
23965 F20101113_AACUZY noiseux_k_Page_85.QC.jpg
78d1298f11b00a425316e8ee4ad5c916
36b7785b12ea35829ec2dbf6ecf4ebd53b37017c
F20101113_AACUXA noiseux_k_Page_38.QC.jpg
1b4bb64604085485179841e286eadf1c
4baec30240094533932414f2bafd316c85ae9c3b
72 F20101113_AACUSD noiseux_k_Page_03.txt
d7f0a45aea0b8f0a3db8a3f4885fec17
24c40fefebc38c04cb0fdae8bc37a79c25372a1d
71924 F20101113_AACUII noiseux_k_Page_15.jpg
f885570e628e053f432b2838bf27f3a4
eb934083693c81d3eced09932dd9b94f224a0b87
53238 F20101113_AACUDL noiseux_k_Page_13.pro
a984bc47611d781b4572d8dc967b9c49
0d209b899447378fb23e149088cf174b1c52b773
F20101113_AACUNF noiseux_k_Page_06.tif
65acb307d93fd9252d267044dcf30b76
0c3a87b02cb6b4fac60c6bbe44bdd6f44dd54928
24881 F20101113_AACUZZ noiseux_k_Page_86.QC.jpg
dc3d1636e3c774e7193ce779342ec587
1fa72d8d6022b3e2586765ca0fd8c14ec87eade3
F20101113_AACUXB noiseux_k_Page_38thm.jpg
8723b6e7fb2ff964f475a14e6569be20
db149939a023752f6ad17a70fbcfa8edeb2e6c32
573 F20101113_AACUSE noiseux_k_Page_04.txt
e6c1046808c6c068f39421b9f51cfb07
252a45e3b243ac60580fdb99f4595d36d6bbd3fe
79481 F20101113_AACUIJ noiseux_k_Page_16.jpg
9896dbf0c8c135d1023406190b5ad8eb
bc2ef009e1c074445987d708affff4b0567db309
63802 F20101113_AACUDM noiseux_k_Page_76.pro
3d4ec0092edb542290f08f00e66c453f
30015d18260fddbd753ecb5015838a866da1065f
F20101113_AACUNG noiseux_k_Page_07.tif
7b9d668866737b0e7421a67239fc0e0d
6e669fd25b031ff809df169f1b8924f5859f5c04
25216 F20101113_AACUXC noiseux_k_Page_39.QC.jpg
cbef2ed0a1a17dc6461687f1d062a906
61a1a1175e44625e0ee0816929b5be657e10edea
3040 F20101113_AACUSF noiseux_k_Page_05.txt
0dc6169164511aca7202c6e5d4626fe1
8354616947e66897162f48c7791834a9149b3f8c
76785 F20101113_AACUIK noiseux_k_Page_17.jpg
da7f69deba8b938f79e39a5d39ce41a6
8c8a6e2aba73669e6caa26dc0bc460579a3f92a4
116585 F20101113_AACUDN noiseux_k_Page_29.jp2
967d3ba11195dff856fb3205223f3aeb
4dc91b04b7e62630a678d38b5f298f77245b8bca
F20101113_AACUNH noiseux_k_Page_08.tif
a07e5d83f5f8b88da2d0866fd7d334cb
d659078c7220824b54549a8337c9ae54616e2d04
6934 F20101113_AACUXD noiseux_k_Page_39thm.jpg
88b1c2e4b5869a9145c2c8bd2a4f3ff5
062c8675bc19f7e8c1257cd43bd7f6e24d8f31bc
75344 F20101113_AACUIL noiseux_k_Page_18.jpg
61044e52433b71405fa7e449b568be19
b86eb50b32a79289e2895cb1a2b5c6bddc1ed4cd
F20101113_AACUDO noiseux_k_Page_35.tif
d2385352e2f299ce0bd56dc52ba52a4c
1157e20805db68c097ed9f3601a68f562e135a86
F20101113_AACUNI noiseux_k_Page_09.tif
a9ed531fccccd2fea453c630043b6081
7f8590cfe99fce993d0b5a0c8b432c6614cd38a3
25968 F20101113_AACUXE noiseux_k_Page_40.QC.jpg
7f75b763049c2d02eb148a41d66071cb
1adc50c069d42d744d12c6c2365b506fcadd6c37
3422 F20101113_AACUSG noiseux_k_Page_06.txt
8251d037b4a89d6df9a8ce2493980ea5
63e2ade367b2457968a780bf3e77d09abb83aa57
77840 F20101113_AACUIM noiseux_k_Page_19.jpg
42a7fe45407486592dfc758ab7e47ca3
8076fad037c5844abe3eea6c1588a7349e36f42b
6822 F20101113_AACUDP noiseux_k_Page_52thm.jpg
85162eeb59ae016197c2257f9759a6fb
671baec6bf0c007748b4ec80e7c1367c56ba32ec
F20101113_AACUNJ noiseux_k_Page_10.tif
bda5a74fef4d87de1ed41908a9e9ed16
c4e5fdda13cb232c26b681fa466c33175d72c61e
F20101113_AACUXF noiseux_k_Page_40thm.jpg
d721652a10b6eba204086eb2857a7221
5c368c547539a03d33bfc204e6df3a8e4e8e050a
522 F20101113_AACUSH noiseux_k_Page_07.txt
f9525afa9e90f0118617329804211fa2
efd090723c483e165c6186ac401519b90093b859
73516 F20101113_AACUIN noiseux_k_Page_21.jpg
b3d5d8508541ae959eb1bb33db24c1c2
a130afd07780bfe9c22849620851d7c7908f087f
2108 F20101113_AACUDQ noiseux_k_Page_62.txt
4cb65ba6b6baca43507720213af6dc79
99f8a37b410b5eb55b15f1af346a08b357cbb5f5
F20101113_AACUNK noiseux_k_Page_11.tif
5b111188da02d56eda1fb1042c43962e
6a983ca78fe110c38e0497eeb54f960112ba6a84
25811 F20101113_AACUXG noiseux_k_Page_41.QC.jpg
de8ae6e4a9082580f74a51417255f85c
dda77c13e848846578d23a983a4132563f603951
241 F20101113_AACUSI noiseux_k_Page_09.txt
908620719e686d657a806092ec626d9a
8320b7c2bd327901b330446bcb362ae48030a8f4
77397 F20101113_AACUIO noiseux_k_Page_22.jpg
dd23bdbab7bc30c6640a986099352055
3ded2e3695fbc941959cb9b1484c1143603865cd
52286 F20101113_AACUDR noiseux_k_Page_30.pro
9b8561e59943a81ed03bfad6d4f04c39
254445ad58cf40bd3058092ca9698a9e134f75c6
F20101113_AACUNL noiseux_k_Page_12.tif
eea1d557e3c0cc16426922daf91e6489
e1c8116e87d615a4ad6a859fc7b9817b427bb402
23966 F20101113_AACUXH noiseux_k_Page_42.QC.jpg
b01028c998cebd429f25bb01074138c3
16f7429c89298f0413db26d905de2c1cf689aa90
1989 F20101113_AACUSJ noiseux_k_Page_10.txt
db2d75183e7a7ed04f1d9e99261c0ac0
4c505677ad1a0fa73ab751e3f4524b591acfc93f
64141 F20101113_AACUIP noiseux_k_Page_23.jpg
0cc9d45e95dba63ba8dd15dc1f77612e
35455dc9a1d3214d93ba147213e380f92d854eab
75900 F20101113_AACUDS noiseux_k_Page_56.jpg
8449afe175dcf60a4d519c95eb7e94f7
0237aab0bd62b6b648f97de26b22f31f4f124e09
F20101113_AACUNM noiseux_k_Page_14.tif
9df92fe2535fa613f71143d1f9e0ba05
cf6302a67d7f0a532324137ddb88d567591393cf
6637 F20101113_AACUXI noiseux_k_Page_42thm.jpg
709a1970543e5fd627882e6ddd274afa
6a2f2ff3172e10aec52098806fe128d10c0c1338
1352 F20101113_AACUSK noiseux_k_Page_11.txt
03caeccc083605059e343e0419fe5fa0
fbf3145a4806dc41b0f744639abdad61614f33f2
76523 F20101113_AACUIQ noiseux_k_Page_25.jpg
88e4f199936afcb21f8473c506043497
433480df9fa60c6bfcc85df785066f99bdbb07a5
F20101113_AACUDT noiseux_k_Page_29.tif
dca97280cdad30f1d358a872dd33ad5b
459c8cbd867fbe00a283d45fb7bd0d75ffa1a5b7
F20101113_AACUNN noiseux_k_Page_15.tif
fca1cefc1151a40dccf3258e2e9ef60d
96049ed969e8228e2cd64d8858aeac52729c6d03
24788 F20101113_AACUXJ noiseux_k_Page_43.QC.jpg
cf9fe7b6d464e108418aee762e2c37ff
085750312bafb2d353801d738df3c1a7bdff807c
2166 F20101113_AACUSL noiseux_k_Page_12.txt
89ab46a140e67fef705a4c01df6bd5fd
f21e65fc30af4bc8e00b87c2503a34a233ba15cb
75262 F20101113_AACUIR noiseux_k_Page_26.jpg
684796d72f3d5988d4b091f23ac15dd7
8732765e64be680738c1eedbb765623441b0207c
25916 F20101113_AACUDU noiseux_k_Page_75.QC.jpg
c0237de2c12f9d75c860ee02c50576fc
db9c8f6a890dc44de79e3243291e4c204cdf3818
F20101113_AACUNO noiseux_k_Page_16.tif
f1a09078348f34db85a91b44fcc4fd09
87bac61d2fc80bf356338b96cc35bc7144aae8d5
F20101113_AACUXK noiseux_k_Page_43thm.jpg
447f7139616e2c725a386c7ba44935ff
d0356e77b262151ce3ec78cee805a80349ff9b42
2094 F20101113_AACUSM noiseux_k_Page_13.txt
640a32ecb6fac9a355fc622cf18c91ad
1766d036fc1640b3c376895283c20ff5929db041
65845 F20101113_AACUIS noiseux_k_Page_27.jpg
f0544feeade120a34fd2d3680421c3cd
12554cc1afe13163713ab714e8b2f409f086d220
6965 F20101113_AACUDV noiseux_k_Page_44thm.jpg
23b0c1d66cab5ff509ed60470059f1e6
fe55cd5132b6c20c29733b25b663c75558a1305a
F20101113_AACUNP noiseux_k_Page_17.tif
452132652b6ca772a8872bb9122b20a2
d30c238f72c6232925cd9960c06335fd7e93727a
1982 F20101113_AACUSN noiseux_k_Page_15.txt
b33f44fa0fda3f05609628d65209e56c
a0153a6248fe3c9ac47e71a156dc4e8d1e6224c8
77994 F20101113_AACUIT noiseux_k_Page_28.jpg
b69d8ccf5154a69ccf48410c62c43b9b
e167ff86554ac6bb66ed7f42d4eaf4899dce9f59
2980 F20101113_AACUDW noiseux_k_Page_65thm.jpg
6c66a318022c6035ad149c432c60da53
981d00b523d08ad57ed454d17822c92756f20319
F20101113_AACUNQ noiseux_k_Page_18.tif
e8e19f49fbca45a5cdbf97a4e582ed64
5d2ac37a753e473dca87e3c5ef5d4b936137c456
26121 F20101113_AACUXL noiseux_k_Page_44.QC.jpg
a0c3f9eee67405f72373be9152a7ec67
6a074a94332a5bcda0d9829760ed318b0c9715e4
2005 F20101113_AACUSO noiseux_k_Page_16.txt
b71eebaac5c133d25724bcab1b103875
9bf68a0041fdfcdd7ffeb8348672a2731b1960b4
76009 F20101113_AACUIU noiseux_k_Page_30.jpg
275f060671dd283275cb37c245186201
a34c0f5d31d4f6c17e37f5b7dea562cb27e0efe8
F20101113_AACUNR noiseux_k_Page_19.tif
ce1e74d40f21b91295fc59ff7384bba9
c486909f423d2c3706903e2a55c3ee4717cf5559
25214 F20101113_AACUXM noiseux_k_Page_45.QC.jpg
58a8a80ffb63714780579608f078855c
26b984cc7ac1ed7b5ebca6677d1c00b0395c4ba8
F20101113_AACUSP noiseux_k_Page_17.txt
3a564ff0ecf22c6a0b5ebbfbec6047d5
9d9cc369ab60f53de41855a3ef1fd6d8e15a4dc0
75914 F20101113_AACUIV noiseux_k_Page_31.jpg
3ec744789fb9f051fa7e6712877aee23
771b0514e787430a818c6448422223a41a802076
1051976 F20101113_AACUDX noiseux_k_Page_78.jp2
ab6f78c97ff70149168ceea4601e25ef
414fed6df13233d2876a6665d46b997222d38605
F20101113_AACUNS noiseux_k_Page_20.tif
69c3d6e22b040e1fb34119b7239f9e31
f43b3188f49b295fc1cfd5a68cffca3c21ec9515
F20101113_AACUXN noiseux_k_Page_45thm.jpg
98f7fd50187911431d933f4c37752614
e700efd706c7ecfc381bc317ba65439b66f01159
F20101113_AACUSQ noiseux_k_Page_18.txt
f05e102dfe0c29bdaab09308063b9aac
b6a79078338fa66051355c9fe84914ef31e364f5
78206 F20101113_AACUIW noiseux_k_Page_33.jpg
acbed5142be4ff4ffa6802ce6504cad4
83149104bdf92995ba2444254f80e24f1d3c493b
14726 F20101113_AACUDY noiseux_k_Page_63.pro
e9585b41f1e4ce40a950f8066fcb44b6
efa1b77c59e48cf422dc76deea4980fb2152eb6e
F20101113_AACUNT noiseux_k_Page_21.tif
2c9c465b8bb3e66a4f975380bf7d49b9
540188e0713cf96bd8024155bf1859d4c117ea05
7076 F20101113_AACUXO noiseux_k_Page_46thm.jpg
6995fac5b8c423348d9b6e1ab1fcbbbc
e259748798fd424d814262850b5a237047ea4674
2180 F20101113_AACUSR noiseux_k_Page_19.txt
77ecb1f9826ac0572fb78197822b7164
817f8398a2de656d5e180d8be3c59e00e36b11e3
30674 F20101113_AACUIX noiseux_k_Page_34.jpg
b4d93abad65df830a6e29bc592395da9
3a519b87331968ced74dc7277ea08088126a1449
7087 F20101113_AACUDZ noiseux_k_Page_18thm.jpg
da103e600b410014e37b4565918aa4bf
884bd07366f764469cf56aa8f318883b40e1bb0b
F20101113_AACUNU noiseux_k_Page_22.tif
2d4b7e6b22ce778c3a5673ba930e36f1
e2166c4168745ede112db02dab1e012d600f2c79
24300 F20101113_AACUXP noiseux_k_Page_47.QC.jpg
1d21538ca3614c57ae7119d20e817de0
405a8c513d990790476d2a5591b5b752afb834b6
2111 F20101113_AACUSS noiseux_k_Page_20.txt
dd6f6966be567746b6c9c2aa7b236d71
f69e680951c18c82e80b7878a951670013c0a4ca
33142 F20101113_AACUIY noiseux_k_Page_35.jpg
ef7121819c011a0c9b824909083c9853
959458b70d3efd966fd85559051f8843cfcd203c
F20101113_AACUNV noiseux_k_Page_23.tif
58a8cb3f147b49e412b98d36201547a6
4ba08314ba32c1e354fbeff109b418061a0293b7
6416 F20101113_AACUXQ noiseux_k_Page_47thm.jpg
19a831d573af4be1a296b9b153652e5e
806d265bff3a50a315a1f79641ed1243ebaedb30
F20101113_AACUST noiseux_k_Page_21.txt
02cdc35d470bc78879aa3ed355592d0d
7524fa98a195a9bd698faedf6d3fb384746ec6a1
33514 F20101113_AACUIZ noiseux_k_Page_36.jpg
020a11d9cd5affc9b7425259737a3ca2
c4c8dd4ab9b9304066340ce792299d72c5967898
F20101113_AACUNW noiseux_k_Page_24.tif
e3a30bff577f68f884559d4249654a8e
2afac6be0a511cfbc09adf027b0c3ab8fca8fbf3
50052 F20101113_AACUGA noiseux_k_Page_54.pro
61057153136f67bda823d17baa13be52
3bf432c2dcf5c9b39e3048fd8e44588e3b2470dc
24142 F20101113_AACUXR noiseux_k_Page_48.QC.jpg
dc7aeece2f907faff3f35a69677e5f94
be20d5604a97646fbbd2c758431a472d514218ea
F20101113_AACUSU noiseux_k_Page_22.txt
68d4347cc5d241ea4f44eac439c1f6d0
0ddf20b23781c3383322bf484a3ff06b09baeae4
F20101113_AACUNX noiseux_k_Page_25.tif
14171128fc7af59513736b98ce036b73
937299ea37b3342409f7f9b293e7b2e909d93d39
84147 F20101113_AACUGB noiseux_k_Page_53.jpg
2ae0f7938af0e128e8c686ddbbdbd00c
b821c47e39e563c57f5a6b84cb25ae06248ec65c
24957 F20101113_AACUXS noiseux_k_Page_49.QC.jpg
27909a0527edac009de26073c3918c63
e9a26cda23784abd14f8a258fd90e7bd353f1870
1801 F20101113_AACUSV noiseux_k_Page_23.txt
27931e20c716044112971817f9d4b091
757d97a600397499ff32745d755ac61fec31787a
F20101113_AACUNY noiseux_k_Page_26.tif
111e43857c2a96b8bba3ec3165d60a5d
f1d4609f2ff7602465ffa1118a8837cf70db2bb1
75866 F20101113_AACUGC noiseux_k_Page_49.jpg
e20f335e2954b107037927ec5a1619fb
e16f0835d28f1464b9e57ee9826f3b6ab8ec871f
7026 F20101113_AACUXT noiseux_k_Page_49thm.jpg
e4ce17736f97b66e2d419b246f53b949
6a6d73270cba47752edabe0a2f909a2e7731560e
1965 F20101113_AACUSW noiseux_k_Page_24.txt
bce2f152bc5a578b28d5f8e779311736
e9f4a6a6fd3f5bd2c7a9c9c3e1eb4bdf13d3fb3b
115036 F20101113_AACULA noiseux_k_Page_18.jp2
a4e312d448b4560052f4859c66b6e639
7e1127ef5228dec6f8f0fe7f836467866383f2f2
F20101113_AACUNZ noiseux_k_Page_27.tif
b9c5735ca6f673a532b1bf938362f96d
f815f01efc8a4aa49d19b1ce1495665fcc5fc826
F20101113_AACUGD noiseux_k_Page_55.tif
48c47c0716390d7e3023b4ebf3bbb617
85566bdd05119759b9b8fbb105789dcd751a94e2
24031 F20101113_AACUXU noiseux_k_Page_50.QC.jpg
c3d4db6c0d072a633f58b1558de0b1fa
90adcf2db1a135c99baaf42a0a07e2c1414dc492
2057 F20101113_AACUSX noiseux_k_Page_25.txt
da5c0531410e0ae7cd59810ddceed9df
487ae8ca0ee80e3dd461aaa817fc26ded8743bc8
118822 F20101113_AACULB noiseux_k_Page_19.jp2
79d7daf714f281276897d98873650a64
5e9014c0cdd7a0d762807eeba4907672cea00e9d
2067 F20101113_AACUGE noiseux_k_Page_58.txt
338d03ecf35e20d5f8e530a1ee3e6d88
af8e00724cb5c7a938f195555652420ec3f296cb
6545 F20101113_AACUXV noiseux_k_Page_50thm.jpg
35f6ef83325072f0f944b7621c363697
082e45f0863621d5e6ba6472fcde07215aee4ad4
1693 F20101113_AACUSY noiseux_k_Page_27.txt
8e9b52347dd37b4a3b2ff61e191403d8
eff025eaee7a50f4fa526f04404137e046fed2ca
115178 F20101113_AACULC noiseux_k_Page_20.jp2
ccbdd78e06b0c0f87eb4039190007642
1238a3e54d07d6685efe00c82c2769b18f05ce69
47173 F20101113_AACUGF noiseux_k_Page_66.pro
cbb9acbfdeb43d5c3e3df6d630ec83e0
6e984a99f66abfddd46a1ad491e4de6d076f8982
5733 F20101113_AACUQA noiseux_k_Page_09.pro
933f8531eca2e8ca5e736ffa649cc8d1
5e3f7bee09c89aa6b569dc069edc29dd44037a56
24537 F20101113_AACUXW noiseux_k_Page_52.QC.jpg
f09ff3fd5f42fca8395be1b34422f8d6
69d9b9b254412525bef4bd7718aba4704654caaa
2132 F20101113_AACUSZ noiseux_k_Page_28.txt
9f2dc9b0b0eabcbcadf6394a414f0916
c8c066f7053f2022e550aeba191774378f800139
112088 F20101113_AACULD noiseux_k_Page_21.jp2
9fbaaac6d15a2c405def8eac4478a28b
d9115f63fc4625fcf3a7f13b0cfdb472dd937ce8
5694 F20101113_AACUGG noiseux_k_Page_06thm.jpg
b41fafc98dd6a0708608ec7a24d494bd
aef7584870fc2c16ab058772389e7571923b8dc0
45746 F20101113_AACUQB noiseux_k_Page_10.pro
f0f8431f17c9d4cade4881bdddc634bf
8b3c3d619d90bf761093a6334b9ddd52961bb14f
26481 F20101113_AACUXX noiseux_k_Page_53.QC.jpg
c1f739cd463a74ce0f865b28c0b77228
5fe83281aa6744f9a78a99ad227d931027aeb397
119443 F20101113_AACULE noiseux_k_Page_22.jp2
ed2a4261d01446798dc82eb3d50a4073
c2984c6b331be8f09e5a4655e3868e4dcf37ced2
81 F20101113_AACUGH noiseux_k_Page_02.txt
5160bda28664e3859843a5128a2e8c46
bbde8537a75a051c2b49108b99bd586a2477222d
33928 F20101113_AACUQC noiseux_k_Page_11.pro
886280a5a1dbc4d02b90f2bce2098cd4
e00c3c094371dea351375f6b5e60994282d7f74c
24254 F20101113_AACUXY noiseux_k_Page_54.QC.jpg
96c1c1639e06e52e87097db7d76bef72
3c650179b454a6ee351ca513aaf5640ca9f34858
8857 F20101113_AACUVA noiseux_k_Page_04.QC.jpg
a2ab1b00f0043136d1b5ef4ae0f1b902
809e9430a9540ee9dd20ca85948f817d8194ae99
96680 F20101113_AACULF noiseux_k_Page_23.jp2
58174095b6ed4240d220f26de877dfae
9e9416fb8f5e1a22da51a96ee1dbceddfbe44b73
F20101113_AACUGI noiseux_k_Page_03.tif
deb772fd6d5fe069d65aab28995f1824
282fc1bec1b1018c4ace6e3be258f6e10be8af17
51270 F20101113_AACUQD noiseux_k_Page_14.pro
7fd59e9d8b8361e10165d041f3228da8
99635ce36b891f7b8de4f8db3579cae764920605
6731 F20101113_AACUXZ noiseux_k_Page_54thm.jpg
c3c438403bcf3c6d220afd204b20c6f0
3bee84e249c426c9ae16bc7074b65f340581ed53
2859 F20101113_AACUVB noiseux_k_Page_04thm.jpg
389fb4a081bcd6d7fec79c11a787e35e
17fb6d53c177450b00378911e3c11d7cc8cb7517
110762 F20101113_AACULG noiseux_k_Page_24.jp2
356fe81e868a386c03c39e7ff1963268
fdedb57ed141afd22a2d5f14dd01efe5accb6aff
589 F20101113_AACUGJ noiseux_k_Page_63.txt
8dca473765879784160bf72d8d3c5060
3dba32c276ca708bb3515d3ebc7df5084c9d420c
20965 F20101113_AACUVC noiseux_k_Page_05.QC.jpg
731281b09b1c0b46975fffc52512203d
79c81d5ee6ad097300220bf5c00921e7140ed275
115171 F20101113_AACULH noiseux_k_Page_25.jp2
bdff6374961d471f14c3e9ce979ec6f0
49230d4de6faccfb6aed3196aa9aea01ba3eb7b7
114399 F20101113_AACUGK noiseux_k_Page_61.jp2
04eebf1d1a4c9b99b69d4f4de85926ac
caf8e15eaa1dacb715b720ec6fd24145da6fcdfc
49345 F20101113_AACUQE noiseux_k_Page_15.pro
e014e00663e003291bd175bbe7d25ed7
4804a248c1193ab6ec533352efc97f74f8f30af6
5409 F20101113_AACUVD noiseux_k_Page_05thm.jpg
86f61b383acdc42ef6d1f8654e260e95
1b8d49b8914a748a01c8539526e191991d74d9d2
112947 F20101113_AACULI noiseux_k_Page_26.jp2
bee8a03c2747b79fa33541c02eab438d
9c3e6cc1e727266fb6d5746846636cbe5c4051f6
F20101113_AACUGL noiseux_k_Page_37.tif
09ae06029eec339a62e19744046058a7
d764d3a0c632df260affe1c4432ea941a10b2bd5
50638 F20101113_AACUQF noiseux_k_Page_16.pro
024d3e2e7b6a5f6b64c6ca9b22bcfcf2
4d82fdff025692e53a6a3cd38e8f21af6c70bde3
23079 F20101113_AACUVE noiseux_k_Page_06.QC.jpg
5f65c48ce85f0be9d398e35c85957cb3
1611ed5d20699e51669c5357574d4046476d587e
97582 F20101113_AACULJ noiseux_k_Page_27.jp2
dd033f36565aa82064de5c8bdf01e4bd
3256d1383cb0991c9caeae644557be48cec26cd2
7085 F20101113_AACUGM noiseux_k_Page_28thm.jpg
8793dc0a6f93ebe664d01c265fefa774
5c0ee83c7228c6b54ab83d37667782be379e19fb
53501 F20101113_AACUQG noiseux_k_Page_17.pro
7fc14ef4a6c87cd74c96cbff8bcc1e2e
88a3b9ef27fb7280d186f4f46eb613a9a99d89f5
7184 F20101113_AACUVF noiseux_k_Page_07.QC.jpg
4c6d1f37bad3aa178659b8252c98ccbe
d4e106085f10feb8ff75d9eca1e8800c57311a4e
118756 F20101113_AACULK noiseux_k_Page_28.jp2
67975dfd377eb1f14ca9f281e6d5b51a
ec32b254c67235a479df8d274b592378ed8f96ab
F20101113_AACUGN noiseux_k_Page_42.tif
19c2a5e52231771a8ac205a3ce54d8e3
d190c5daebb02a890b2dd072ea0af9f9f819433f
55564 F20101113_AACUQH noiseux_k_Page_19.pro
0fcfd1896aaf96f83ece04a7a2baaaf7
625d015960cfe631c72ba2eed23e20354703055d
2367 F20101113_AACUVG noiseux_k_Page_07thm.jpg
9c43231851995f5e1ee28e5090417380
28959f20e2df7e52949c419a59eee24a72325e1a
115209 F20101113_AACULL noiseux_k_Page_30.jp2
097d8985887505188bf13752e65b6f58
097dfdcf59dae532984cbf7110542f1177a3ae6c
1970 F20101113_AACUGO noiseux_k_Page_54.txt
bae7b78059f506fa197cb397f330a4c1
0e46fd0bd0d5fde69b038cc75ce063b8b5e56d6d
53445 F20101113_AACUQI noiseux_k_Page_20.pro
598f452f1a9c97366e62c4b240bd7200
9292877e5721e85ca98f2289abb4f82315b0cbf0
15179 F20101113_AACUVH noiseux_k_Page_08.QC.jpg
68b90e43a2df880ca93e37e05d5d86f1
b70fc34b24baa0f9c401a7f0c86fc28563a1ef3d
114782 F20101113_AACULM noiseux_k_Page_31.jp2
3bce6789e47d019bd964d2da8970d616
cc57e546e3685bfa3037ae60832f68b9eaf30e2a
3385 F20101113_AACUGP noiseux_k_Page_66thm.jpg
19f39d8755cf87e582d596a18822184e
971de182d60fcdeba47aee933511d5af6499e000
51515 F20101113_AACUQJ noiseux_k_Page_21.pro
3a1409c64ac24d12cee823e4ad573688
06d26287916a99dc5133ddf07273dcb3551e7eb3
4219 F20101113_AACUVI noiseux_k_Page_08thm.jpg
7e4cb97512f61f9e17ddef9457ade883
ada8c94d9887dfe35357a6d31c5d4c373f1b1e14
115753 F20101113_AACULN noiseux_k_Page_32.jp2
c302d7e9bc6a42eb8199c25b7594d00c
1c2ffb0d1344d83243345b774a7375697f4a4e4f
2159 F20101113_AACUGQ noiseux_k_Page_40.txt
2e3ef9670436bb1f89466fd4dd5a26af
33fc6555cdaf47599dc66e512620950804467419
55474 F20101113_AACUQK noiseux_k_Page_22.pro
f57e792546720d0c16b99a64afb5a3a2
8930a2d7d082b1afcfa7afe0a7806ad06d0afc9c







GREEN COMMUNITIES: WHAT IS THE APPEAL AND ARE THEY TRULY
FUNTCTIONINTG AS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS?




















By

KRYSTAL KAY NOISEUX


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

2007






























O 2007 Krystal Noiseux






























For my family









ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


I would like to thank Lakewood Ranch, the Town of Harmony, and the University of

Florida Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation for making this study possible. Many

thanks to my fellow graduate students for their advice and encouragement, especially Katy

Garland. Special thanks to Sondra Guffey and Greg Golgowski for their enduring assistance. I

am also deeply appreciative for the support and guidance of my advisor, Dr. Mark Hostetler and

my committee members, Dr. Susan Jacobson and Dr. Pierce Jones.















TABLE OF CONTENTS


page

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT S ........._._.. ...._... ...............4.....


LIST OF TABLES ........._.._.._ ....__. ...............8...


LIST OF FIGURES .............. ...............9.....


AB S TRAC T ............._. .......... ..............._ 10...


CHAPTER


1 DEFINIG, DESIRING, AND RETAINING "GREEN:" A COMPARISON OF NEW
HOMEOWNERS INT CONVENTIONAL AND GREEN MASTER-PLANNED
COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA. ............. ......___ ...............12...


Introducti on ............. ...... ._ ...............12....
M ethods .............. ...............15....

Study Sites ............. _.. ... ...............15....
Lakewood Ranch ............. ...... ._ ...............15....
Palmer Ranch .............. ...............16....
Harm ony ............. ...... ._ ............... 16....
Rock Springs Ridge ............ ..... .._ ...............17...
Participant Selection ............ ..... .._ ...............18...
Survey Instrument .............. ...............18....
Question Design .............. ...............19....
Analyses............... ...............21
Quantitative .............. ...............21....
Qualitative .............. ...............22....
Re sults........._ ....... ...............23....

Demographics.............. ... .. .................2
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ...._. ......_._._ .......__. ...........2
Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....._.___ ...... .___ .....___...........2
Early versus Late Respondents............... ..............2
Green Design Preferences .............. ... ...............24..
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........2
Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........2
Green M arketing................ ................2
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........2
Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........2
Defining "Green"............... .. .. ... .. ..........2
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........2
Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........2












Discussion ............... .. .... ._ ...............28....
Green Design Preferences .............. ...............28....
Green Marketing............... ...............2
Defining "Green"............. ...............32
Conclusion............... ...............3


2 ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIORS OF NEW
HOMEOWNERS IN CONVENTIONAL AND "GREEN" MASTER-PLANNED
COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA................ ...............39


Introducti on ............. ...... ._ ...............39....
M ethod s .............. ...............42....

Study Sites ............. _.. .... ._ ...............42....
Lakewood Ranch ............. ...... ._ ...............42....
Palmer Ranch .............. ...............43....
Harm ony ............. ...... ._ ...............43....
Rock Springs Ridge............... ...............45.
Participant Selection ............. ...... ._ ...............45....
Survey Instrument .............. ...............46....
Question Design .............. ...............47....
Analyses............... ...............49
Re sults........._ ....... ...............50....

Demographics.............. ... .. .................5
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ...._. ......_._._ .......__. ...........5

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....._.___ ...... ...............51_ .....
Early versus Late Respondents ............. ...... .__ ...............51...
Environmental Knowledge ............... .....___ ...............51....
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........5

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....__ ......_____ ..... ...............52
Environmental Attitude .............. ...............52....
Environmental Behavior................. ... .............5
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........5

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....__ ......_____ ..... ...............53
Initial Community Influence .............. .. ...............54...
Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch ....__ ......_____ .......___ ...........5
Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge ....__ ......_____ ..... ...............54
Discussion ................. ......__ .. ..........._. ............5
Environmental Knowledge and Attitude ....__ ......_____ .......___ ............5
Environmental Behavior............... ...............57
Initial Community Influence .............. ...............60....

Going Beyond Design .............. ...............60....
Conclusion............... ...............6


APPENDIX


A SURVEY QUESTIONS .............. ...............68....












B SURVEY COVER LETTER ............ ......__ ...............72...


C CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING CATEGORIES ................. ...............73........... ...


D SCRIPT FOR REMINDER PHONE CALL .............. ...............75....


E UFIRB APPROVED PROPOSAL ............ ..... .__ ...............76..


LIST OF REFERENCES ............ ..... ._ ...............78...


BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH .............. ...............87....










LIST OF TABLES


Table page

1-1 Significant differences in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and
conventional communities in Florida. ......___ ........___ ...._ ............3

1-2 Important green design features indicated by survey respondents from paired green
and conventional communities in Florida............... ...............36

1-3 Significant differences in scores on green marketing questions of survey respondents
from paired green and conventional communities in Florida. ............. .....................3

2-1 Significant differences in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and
conventional communities in Florida. .....___.....__.___ ...... ...............64

2-2 Significant differences in environmental knowledge of survey respondents from
paired green and conventional communities in Florida............... ...............65

2-3 Significant differences in pro-environmental behavior of survey respondents from
paired green and conventional communities in Florida............... ...............66

2-4 Differences in retention of green education efforts and initial influence of community
on knowledge and behavior of survey respondents from paired green and
conventional communities in Florida. .....___.....__.___ ...... ...............67










LIST OF FIGURES


Figure page

1-1. Categories of green definitions indicated by survey respondents for paired green and
conventional communities in Florida ................. ...............38................









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

GREEN COMMUNITIES: WHAT IS THE APPEAL AND ARE THEY TRULY
FUNCTIONING AS SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENTS?

By

Krystal Kay Noiseux

August 2007

Chair: Mark Hostetler
Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation

Green communities are a new form of alternative development, but their appeal to

consumers on the real estate market and their ability to function as truly sustainable

developments after new owners move in has not been researched. In June 2006, I conducted a

mail survey of new homeowners in the green master-planned communities of Lakewood Ranch

and Harmony and the conventional master-planned communities of Palmer Ranch and Rock

Springs Ridge in Florida. My obj ectives were to determine if there were differences in new

homeowners' green design preferences, perceptions of the term "green," environmental

knowledge, attitudes and behaviors, and retention of green marketing and environmental

education initiatives.

New homeowners in the conventional communities, compared to homeowners of green

communities, expressed similar interests in many (but not all) of the design features associated

with green developments, and most did not have negative connotations with the term "green."

Green community homeowners reported higher environmental knowledge on a few issues related

to development, but knowledge was low overall and attitudes were no more pro-environmental in

the green communities compared to the conventional ones. Green community homeowners also

reported more engagement in a few pro-environmental behaviors, but pro-environmental










behavior was also low overall. Many issues stressed through marketing efforts by the developer

were retained by new homeowners in the green communities, as were some issues stressed in

education initiatives in one green community. Apart from the marketing efforts, homeowners

who reside in the green communities for less than a year and a half indicated little community

influence on their environmental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors.

The results suggest that green design features are an important consideration for new

homeowners, both in green and conventional master-planned communities, exhibiting that with

sufficient advertising and marketing, people would purchase homes in green communities. Sales

points used for marketing in the green communities were somewhat absorbed by their new

residents; still, marketing practices can be diversified and expanded to reach more consumers on

the real estate market. Once new residents move in however, results suggest that they do not

come equipped with the environmental knowledge, attitudes and behaviors to make these

communities function as truly sustainable developments. Post-construction management of these

developments and programs to educate and engage residents can be implemented or expanded in

green communities.









CHAPTER 1
DEFINING, DESIRING, AND RETAINING "GREEN:" A COMPARISON OF NEW
HOMEOWNERS IN CONVENTIONAL AND GREEN MASTER-PLANNED
COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA

Introduction

The current development paradigm is increasingly viewed as a significant and growing

problem that entails a wide range of social and environmental costs. Overcrowding, pollution of

land, air and water, loss of public spaces, loss of biodiversity, environmental justice issues,

physical and mental health risks and loss in sense of community are some problems associated

with development (Brown, Burton, & Sweaney, 1998; Haughton, 1999; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, &

Speck, 2000; Frank, 2000; United States Environmental Protection Agency, 2000; Power, 2001;

Frumkin, 2002; Handy et al., 2002; Otto et al., 2002; Weich et al., 2002). This trend is becoming

worse as the amount of land lost to development, both urban and suburban, has increased by 300

% since 1955, while the population has only increased by 75 % (Heinz, 2002). The conversion of

natural areas for development space has become a serious threat to America' s native plant and

animal species, and it is occurring at an alarming rate (Benfield, Raimi, & Chen, 1999; Ewing et

al., 2005).

Americans are beginning to respond to the challenges facing the environment, with more

than half believing the environment in the U. S. is getting worse (Global Strategy Group, 2005),

and over two-thirds considering themselves either active environmentalists or sympathetic to

environmental concerns (Harris Interactive, 2005). An increase in environmental consciousness

can have a substantial effect on consumer behavior (Lawrence, 1993). In a 2003 survey of U.S.

consumers, more than half showed interest in purchasing products like organic food, hybrid

vehicles, renewable power, and energy efficient appliances (Natural Marketing Institute, 2003).

A surge in open space preservation initiatives in the late 1990s indicates a rise in concern about









the impacts of development and interest in making growth more sustainable (Myers, 1999;

Myers & Puentes, 2001). Sustainable development initiatives have the potential to alleviate many

environmental challenges. For example, sustainable construction has much to offer as buildings

account for about one-third of energy, water, and resource consumption in the U.S., and nearly

that proportion of pollution (Smith, 2003).

Green development is one incarnation of the sustainable development movement. Green

development seeks to minimize negative environmental effects associated with building

(Stromberg, 2005). Nationally, the United States Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy

and Environmental Design (LEED) program gives green certification to buildings based on

sustainable site planning, efficient use of water, energy, atmosphere, resources and materials,

indoor environmental quality, and innovation and design processes (United States Green

Building Council, 2005). Green certification at the state level exists as well. For example in

Florida, green certification of homes, developments, commercial buildings, and governments can

be attained through the Florida Green Building Coalition (Florida Green Building Coalition,

2003). Both nationally and locally, another way in which conservation and sustainability are

promoted in developments is through Audubon International's Signature Program, which offers

planning and educational services to assist new developments in protecting natural resources

(Audubon International, 2005).

Residential green development incorporates green buildings with site planning and the

landscapes that support these buildings, attempting to adapt infrastructure to its surrounding

natural setting in a way that encourages healthy interactions between residents and their

neighboring ecosystems (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998; Berke, 2002). Facets of green site

design are diverse, ranging from restoration of damaged sites and connection of landscape









fragments to the fostering of community education through displays and the creation of common

spaces for gathering (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998). Special materials, devices and techniques

can be used to maximize resource efficiency of a green home (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998;

Urban Environmental Institute, 2002), as well as the resource efficiency and habitat value of a

yard (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998; Mizejewski, 2004). Other residential infrastructure, such

as roads, sidewalks and driveways can be ecologically enhanced as well (Booth & Leavitt,

1999).

Consumers may be particularly interested in purchasing homes in communities that are

more sustainable as the possible benefits of doing so include improved health and longevity

(Baum, 2002; Takano, Nakamura, & Watanabe, 2002), increased property values (Nicholls &

Crompton, 2005), heightened aesthetic qualities (United States Environmental Protection

Agency 2005), improved conditions for children's development (Taylor, Wiley, & Kuo, 1998),

promotion of higher levels of physical activity (Frumkin, 2001), higher quality of life (Burgess,

Harrison, & Limb, 1988), and saving money through energy efficiency (Stafford, 2003). If we

consider green homes and developments to be consumer products, then environmental

consciousness may play a role in the purchasing of homes within green communities. A recent

survey by the American Society of Interior Designers (ASID) found that developers may have an

enormous opportunity in tapping into this green consumerism (American Society of Interior

Designers, 2005). With the many solutions that they offer, green communities can provide clean,

healthy, and resource efficient living, which may be appealing to consumers for various

economic, social, health and environmental reasons. Determining what is currently appealing

about green communities and finding ways to tailor marketing efforts to make other facets










equally desirable is crucial for the advancement of green communities in the United States, and

beyond.

In this study, comparing new homeowners' in two pairs of conventional and "green"

master-planned communities in Florida, my obj ectives were to: 1) determine whether green

design features were more important to new homeowners in green communities, 2) determine the

extent to which the green communities' marketing strategies were retained by their new

homeowners, and 3) determine trends in perceptions of the term "green."

Methods

Study Sites

Lakewood Ranch

Lakewood Ranch, an award-winning master-planned golf community situated in Sarasota

and Manatee counties, Florida began residential development in 1995. Master-planned

development has various amenities and conveniences built into the design like parks, lakes, golf

courses, recreational trails, schools and shopping (Jackson & Martin, 2005). It received green

certification for all new phases from the Florida Green Building Coalition in 2004, making it the

largest master-planned community in the state to be certified green. Lakewood Ranch covers

7,000 acres, half of which is set aside and protected from any future development. This master-

planned community is currently partitioned into Hyve villages, which to date hold approximately

6,000 homes. It has won several environmental awards including the 2005 Residential

Environmental Award from the Florida Association of Realtors. Starting in 2005, all new

residential phases of Lakewood Ranch have adhered to sufficient green standards for Florida

Green Building Coalition (FGBC) certification. The phase that I studied, Village of Greenbrook

II, was the first in Lakewood Ranch to be composed entirely of green homes and to obtain

FGBC's green development certification. It contains both single family homes and townhouse









condominiums. At the commencement of this study, Greenbrook II held 226 townhouse

condominiums, and 605 single family homes. Since the building of Greenbrook II, one other

phase has been entirely developed to green standards.

Lakewood Ranch contains over 100 miles of trails connecting lakes, parks and preserves.

Native flora is encouraged and reclaimed and recycled water is used for irrigation. In May of

2006, Lakewood Ranch Golf and Country Club was designated a "Certified Audubon

Cooperative Sanctuary" by the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System. To market the

community and educate potential homebuyers about environmental features and practices,

Lakewood Ranch opened their "Green Gallery," in 2005. Consisting of a model home and yard,

this gallery exhibits green design features available for residents. Lakewood Ranch also uses

educational brochures and sales tours to market its green design elements.

Palmer Ranch

Palmer Ranch, a master-planned golf community in Sarasota County, Florida began

residential development in the late 1980s. Palmer Ranch covers 10,000 acres, with less than 30%

protected from any future development. This master-planned community is partitioned into

eighteen villages, which to date hold approximately 8,000 homes. Palmer Ranch does not put

special emphasis on ecologically responsible development. In 2004, homes began to be built in

Serenade, Palmer Ranch' s newest village, and I surveyed the residents of this village. It is

composed entirely of condominium homes. At the commencement of this study, Serenade held

258 homes. Approximately 13 miles separate Palmer Ranch and Lakewood Ranch.

Harmony

The town of Harmony, located in Osceola County, Florida is an award-winning master-

planned golf community that emphasizes human connection to animals and the natural

environment. Residential development began in Harmony in 2000. Though it has not sought










green community certification, it contains many of the design features of green communities.

Harmony is comprised of 11,000 acres, containing two large 465 and 505 acre lakes; nearly 60%

of open spaces are left as natural areas. All of Harmony's homes are Energy Star compliant.

Homes are of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and inter-connected for convenient foot,

bike or electric cart travel. This master-planned community currently has four villages, which to

date hold 320 homes. Harmony has won several environmental awards including the 2003

Residential Environmental Award from the Florida Association of Realtors and the 2006 Best

Practices Green Building Award from Sustainable Florida.

Harmony labels itself as an "environmentally intelligent community." Habitat protection

is accomplished through open space conservation, a "no build zone" around the lakes, and other

natural areas including a 31-acre gopher tortoise habitat and a 2-acre endangered orchid preserve.

Trees and shrubs native to Florida have been used in Harmony's 280-acre "golf preserve," and

its wetlands, ponds and upland areas are connected to larger natural systems. Harmony is also a

Dark Sky compliant community with specialized lights designed to minimize light pollution, and

its community pool is heated geothermally. Various environmental education displays and

programs are in place in the community. Harmony has a sales center to help market the

community and educate potential homebuyers about environmental features and practices. They

use a multimedia CD-Rom, educational brochures and site tours for marketing purposes as well.

Rock Springs Ridge

Rock Springs Ridge, a master-planned golf community in Orange County, Florida began

residential development in 1997. Rock Springs Ridge covers about 1,000 acres, with no set %

protected from any future development. This master-planned community is currently partitioned

into six villages, which to date hold approximately 1,500 homes. Rock Springs Ridge does not










put special emphasis on ecologically responsible development. Approximately 57 miles separate

Rock Springs Ridge and Harmony.

Participant Selection

I identified potential respondents through online public Property Appraiser's records for

Manatee, Sarasota, and Orange Counties, Florida. Osceola county records were not used, as

Harmony provided a list of its residents. Criteria for control community selection were based on

the conditions present in the two green communities. For Lakewood Ranch, Greenbrook II was

a new phase within the larger master-planned community, thus for Palmer Ranch, the new phase

of Serenade was selected as a control. For the purpose of this paper, these subdivisions will still

be referred to as communities. For Harmony, the entire community is "green," thus for Rock

Springs Ridge, the entire community was selected as well. The controls were the closest master-

planned communities having comparable home values and a sufficient number of new

homeowners. I selected only new homeowners, defined as those listed as owners of a home

with a value between $100,000 and $500,000 and a sales date between August 2004 and May

2006. Selecting only new homeowners was important as I was most interested in their mindset

when last looking for a home, and needed them to recall that earlier time as accurately as

possible. I sent a survey to every new homeowner in the four communities. A total of 21 1, 258,

166, and 304 surveys were sent out to Lakewood Ranch, Palmer Ranch, Harmony and Rock

Springs Ridge, respectively. Of these 73, 87, 59 and 121 surveys were returned, giving response

rates of 34.6%, 33.7%, 35.5% and 39.8%, respectively.

Survey Instrument

This mail survey was conducted in June of 2006. I modified the Dillman (2000) method as

done by Hostetler & Youngentob (2005), formatting the survey booklet and mailing it in a hand

addressed envelope. Also included in the envelope was a cover letter and self-addressed










stamped envelope for survey return. The cover letter provided a general explanation of the

proj ect and guaranteed respondents' confidentiality. A total of 939 survey questionnaires were

sent and respondents were given three weeks from the mailing date to return their surveys. I

matched as many owners as possible with his or her listing in the national White Pages for

follow-up phone call reminders. I used phone call reminders for all potential respondents with

listed numbers who did not respond by the date specified in the cover letter and first page of the

survey. I sent an additional survey packet to those requesting one. I called those for whom I left

a message a second time one week after the initial call. Those without listed numbers and those

reached only through a message were sent a second copy of the survey packet as well.

Question Design

The survey was pre-tested on a group of fifteen homeowners. Due to the small size of

communities used in this study, I did not wish to reduce the possible respondent pool by forming

a pre-test group from these residents. I instead formed the group from a master-planned

community of similar size and characteristics in Gainesville, FL. I adjusted the survey according

to recommendations from this group, in order to enhance the question flow and answerability of

the final instrument.

The questions addressing green design preferences, green marketing initiatives and

demographics were grouped together as part of a larger survey, as was the question on the

definition of "green." Because the time since purchase ranged between one and 15 months, the

survey instructions specified for respondents to answer the green design questions by recalling

their preferences when last looking for a home. Seventeen features associated with green

community design were chosen for the survey. The green design preference questions were 5

point Likert-like (1932) scale questions. To determine factors that were most important overall

regardless of their "green" value, an open-ended question was used asking respondents to list the










top three reasons for choosing the current home that they live in. This home could be either the

one in the study site or another if they had not moved into the study site home yet, were using the

study site home as a second home, or keeping it as an investment property.

Questions on green marketing features were tailored to each community pair, based on the

existing features that were primarily marketed in the green community through the sales center

and sales literature. For Lakewood Ranch, questions were designed after a site visit, where a

sales representative took me through Lakewood Ranch, Greenbrook II, and the Green Gallery.

Marketing materials were collected and an informal interview with the sales representative was

conducted as well. I formed twelve green marketing questions based on the information

acquired during this visit. The same questions were repeated in the Palmer Ranch survey,

substituting the community name where appropriate. This was done for two reasons: first, to

standardize the length and content of the two surveys and second, to control for any information

related to these questions that respondents could have received outside of Lakewood Ranch's

marketing initiatives.

For Harmony, the same procedure was repeated, but due to the amount of green marketing,

an extensive list of questions was formed. This list was provided to the Conservation Manager at

Harmony and he chose six questions best representing the environmental issues he felt were

stressed most at the sales office. For both community pairs, these questions used true, false, and

unsure response choices. Survey questions were balanced by using both correct and incorrect

statements. The information provided by the green communities' marketing materials was the

sole determinant of whether a statement was true or false.

I was also interested in exploring how respondents in the green communities defined

"green," compared to those in the control communities, as this term has been used in various










ways. An open ended question, asking respondents to define "green" in terms of the

environment was used to test this. Finally, the ten questions addressing demographics asked

participants to choose the best response or fill-in-the-blank (See Appendix A for a list of all

survey questions.)

Analyses

Quantitative

To identify possible differences among categorical responses in these two communities for

individual questions, a Chi-square test was used for non-normal distributions, except when cell

frequency (less than 5) made a Fisher' s Exact test more appropriate. For non-categorical

responses a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for non-normal data and ANOVA was used

for normal data. Normality was determined using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

Green preference questions were analyzed both individually and combined, as were green

marketing questions. For individual green preference questions, I was only interested in features

that respondents felt were important and only compared those features with a response mean of 4

or greater, which coincided with "important" or "very important." For green preference

questions, Cronbach's alpha was used to first determine if a scale combining the questions had

an acceptable level of reliability (Cronbach' s alpha of .7 or higher). For marketing questions,

Cronbach's alpha was calculated; however, I was interested in overall index scores regardless of

scale reliability. For analysis of green marketing questions, respondents were only awarded a

score of "1" when they were correct. No points were awarded for incorrect answers or responses

of "unsure." Test index scores from the marketing questions (number correct out of 12) were

also converted to a scale of 100 points for interpretation.

It is possible that differences in demographics between the "green" and conventional

homebuyers could have an effect on differences observed in their question responses. To control









for this, I first examined any potential demographic differences using the same statistical tests

described above. If demographic differences were uncovered by this analysis, Pearson's

correlation matrix was used to determine if these demographic variables significantly correlated

to any specific questions. If a demographic difference did significantly correlate to a specific

question or to a scale, the demographic could be enhancing or masking differences between the

two community types on the response variable. I used an ANCOVA to control for the

correlation between the demographic variable and the response variable. This test is robust to

violations of the normality assumption, so long as the homogeneity of slopes assumption is not

violated when group size is unequal (Levy, 1980). Because the numbers of respondents in my

community pairs were not equal, I first used Levene's test to check for homogeneity of slopes on

non-normal data. The ANCOVA would show whether there was a difference in the response

variable, once the demographic variables were controlled for.

To gauge the answers of nonresponders, I compared the responses of the first 25 % of

surveys returned to the responses of the last 25 % in each community pair. I used the same

statistical procedures as when comparing the two community types. I assumed that if for the

most part, the late responders were not answering significantly differently from the early

responders then the non-responders, if coerced to respond, may not differ from responders. For

all of the above tests, an alpha value of 0.05 was used.

Qualitative

For the open-ended green definition question, I looked for key terms in the responses.

Based on visual analysis, I created five categories: 1) environmental, 2) health and safety, 3)

aesthetic, 4) negative, and 5) other. The other category included any responses I could not fit

into the first four categories. Because respondents could write as much as they desired, multiple

categories were assigned to a single respondent' s definition, when appropriate (see Appendix C










for criteria used to assign answers to categories). I summed the total number of responses falling

in each category.

The same process was used for the open-ended question asking what features (not

necessarily green) were the main reasons respondents chose to purchase their current home. I

looked for key terms in the responses that had a high rate of repetition. Based on visual analysis,

I created nine categories: 1) location, 2) cost and value, 3) home features, 4) natural

environment, 5) neighborhood features, 6) sense of community, 7) safety and privacy, 8) schools,

and 9) other. The other category included any responses I could not fit into the first eight

categories (see Appendix C for criteria used to assign answers to categories). If respondents

listed more than three categories as I defined them, I counted the first three. Regardless of the

order they were listed in, the total number of responses falling in each category was recorded for

the community as a whole.

Results

Demographics

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Significant differences among these two communities existed for four demographic

questions (Table 1-1). Lakewood Ranch homeowners were significantly older and had a higher

level of attachment with relation to their status with their home. Of those residing in the home

full or part time, Palmer Ranch homeowners had resided in the home longer, and were more

likely to rent it out. Correlations existed between three of these demographics and three survey

questions (all P values < 0.05). No correlations were found for the difference in time residing in

the home. All correlations were taken into account with ANCOVA analyses.









Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Significant differences between these two communities existed for three demographic

questions (Table 1-1). Harmony homeowners were more likely to rent their home out. Rock

Springs Ridge homeowners were significantly older and had a higher level of guardianship with

relation to their parental status. Correlations existed between two of these demographics and

eight other individual questions (all P values < 0.05). No correlations were found for the

difference in guardianship. All correlations were taken into account with ANCOVA analyses.

Early versus Late Respondents

When early responders were compared to late responders in the combined pool of

Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch homeowners, early responders resided in their home longer

and placed less importance on having shopping in walking distance when last looking for a home

(P < 0.05). In Harmony and Rocks Springs Ridge, early responders placed less importance on

having energy-efficient appliances when last looking for a home (P < 0.05).

Green Design Preferences

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Of the questions targeting green design features, homeowners in both communities had

six green design features with a survey response mean of four or greater; five of the six were

shared between the two communities (See Table 1-2). A mean of four or greater corresponds to

rating a feature as "somewhat important" and "very important." The five important features

shared between new homeowners in both communities were indoor air quality, open green

spaces nearby, energy efficiency, energy-efficient appliances, and a walkable community.

Palmer Ranch homeowners also ranked water-saving appliances as being important. Of these

important features, new homeowners in Lakewood Ranch were only significantly more

interested in living in a walkable community (Table 1-2).









For both communities only two features had means less than three, indicating that

respondents were leaning to the unimportant side of the neutral point. These two features were

having public transportation nearby and having a community dog park. When all green design

feature questions were collapsed into a scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.90) no significant difference

was found between the two communities (Table 1-2). Beyond features particularly associated

with green development, the top choices for choosing one's current home fell into the same three

categories for new homeowners in both communities. These were in order of importance:

location (Lakewood Ranch = 24.5 %, Palmer Ranch = 33.5%), home features (Lakewood Ranch

= 21.8 %, Palmer Ranch = 18.9%), and cost/value (Lakewood Ranch = 15.4 %, Palmer Ranch =

17.9%).

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Of the questions targeting green design features, homeowners in both communities

preferred at least six green design features, indicated with a survey response mean of four or

greater. The six important features shared between new homeowners in both communities were

indoor air quality, open green spaces nearby, energy efficiency, energy-efficient appliances, a

walkable community, and water-saving appliances. Of these important features, new

homeowners in Harmony were only significantly more interested in living in a walkable

community (Table 1-2).

Only two features had means less than three, indicating respondents were leaning to the

unimportant side of the neutral point. These were having public transportation nearby (in both

communities) and having a community dog park (Rock Springs Ridge only). When all the green

design feature questions were collapsed into a scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.88), Harmony

homeowners placed more importance on green design overall (Table 1-2). Beyond features

particularly associated with green development, the top choices for choosing one's current home









fell into the same category for one of the three choices in both communities. For new

homeowners in Harmony the top three were in order of importance: the natural environment

(20.5%), location (19.2%), and cost/value (14.7%). For Rock Springs Ridge these were home

features (30.7%), location (19.7%), and neighborhood amenities (13.3%), respectively.

Green Marketing

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Of the twelve questions related to green marketing efforts, new homeowners in

Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch differed significantly on eight questions (Table 1-3).

Lakewood Ranch homeowners were more likely to be correct on the questions concerning the

following: the extent of green building in their community; the wildlife-friendly status of their

community's golf course; the appearance of green homes; the cost of green homes; the resale

value of green homes; the durability of low VOC paints; the performance of Energy Star@

appliances and the water conservation associated with the Florida Yards & Neighborhoods

program. When all questions were combined into a test index (Cronbach's alpha = 0.78),

Lakewood Ranch homeowners scored significantly higher overall (Table 1-3); however on a

scale of 100%, this score was a 59.3%.

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Of the six questions related to green marketing efforts, new homeowners in Harmony and

Rock Springs Ridge differed significantly on five (Table 1-3). On four of the five questions,

Harmony homeowners were more likely to be correct. These questions concerned the existence

in their community of the following: Dark-Sky compliance, a town-wide environmental

covenant, prohibitions against planting invasive-exotic plant species, and a community employed

conservation manager. Rock Springs Ridge homeowners were more likely to be correct about the

number of trees left in their community after development. When all questions were combined









into a marketing index (Cronbach's alpha = 0.2), Harmony homeowners scored significantly

higher overall (Table 1-3); however on a scale of 100%, this score was a 61.7%.

Defining "Green"

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Sixty-seven respondents in Lakewood Ranch and 69 in Palmer Ranch gave definitions of

"green." Many definitions contained references to things that fell under more than one category,

resulting in 102 category entries for Lakewood Ranch and 109 for Palmer Ranch (Figure 1).

Definitions classified as "environmental" were the most common in both Lakewood Ranch

(80.4%) and Palmer Ranch (64.2%). In Lakewood Ranch this was followed by definitions

classified as "health & safety" (10.8%) and then "aesthetic" (4.9%) and vice versa for Palmer

Ranch (aesthetic = 17.4%, health & safety = 14.7%). No negative definitions were given by

homeowners in Lakewood Ranch and only two were given in Palmer Ranch.

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Forty-two respondents in Harmony and 56 in Rock Springs Ridge gave definitions of

"green." Many definitions contained references to things that fell under more than one category,

resulting in 73 category entries for Harmony and 128 for Rock Springs Ridge (Figure 1).

Definitions classified as "environmental" were the most common in both Harmony (68.5%) and

Rock Springs Ridge (53.9%). This was followed by "aesthetic" (Harmony = 19.2%, Rock

Springs Ridge = 32.8%) and then "health & safety" (Harmony = 11%, Rock Springs Ridge =

7%) in both communities. Only one negative definition was given by a homeowner in Harmony

and only three in Rock Springs Ridge.









Discussion


Green Design Preferences

In the first community pair (Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch), the combined scale

indicated no overall difference in new homeowners' desire for features associated with green

development. This means when they were last looking for a home, green features were rated

similarly between the green master-planned homeowners versus homeowners who bought into

the conventional one. In fact, residents in both communities rated the same Hyve green features

fairly high and only two features were rated as unimportant. In the second pair (Harmony and

Rock Springs), Harmony homeowners did place more importance on green design features

overall, stemming from the combined scale analysis. However, both green and conventional

community homeowners indicated six green features that they reported were somewhat, or very

important when last looking for a home and only two features were rated as unimportant. In both

community pairs, having public transportation and a dog park nearby were the only features

rated as being unimportant. Features that were important in both pairs were open green spaces, a

walkable community, energy efficient appliances, water efficient appliances, indoor air quality

and overall energy efficiency, which are advantages of a green community.

These results demonstrate that people may prefer development with green features, as long

as the option exists and is well marketed. More and more consumers believe that environmental

conditions are worsening (Banerj ee & McKeage, 1994) and have become more concerned with

how their consumer behaviors effect the environment (Krause, 1993). Identifying the green

consumer is a challenge (LaRoche, 2001), but only targeting those consumers identified as green

would be a mistake (Polonsky & Rosenberger, 2001). Certain individuals will always be

motivated to make environmentally responsible purchases, and others will probably always be

indifferent, at least for now. However these individuals represent the outliers, and up to 50% of










consumers express some environmental concern but need the extra push to reflect that concern in

their purchases (Ottman, 1998). This group of consumers is made up by people like those

surveyed from conventional developments in this study and could be a focus of marketers'

attention.

Developing and marketing green communities can benefit more than the environment.

Businesses addressing environmental stewardship may create a sustainable competitive

advantage (Menon et al., 1999) through enhanced reputation and consumer relations (Arora &

Cason, 1996) and improved marketing and Einancial performance (Miles & Corvin, 2000). In

fact the "green" aspect of a community may serve as a tie-breaker for consumers considering

equal properties (Peattie, 2001). Of course for a home other important features like location,

home features, neighborhood amenities, and cost and value still need to be satisfied, but a home

in a green community can also provide this, as these four features were also top reasons green

community homeowners reported for choosing a home in my study.

Green Marketing

It appears that Harmony's and Lakewood Ranch's green marketing initiatives were

somewhat absorbed by new homeowners. Harmony homeowners scored significantly higher

overall and on 4 of the 6 individual questions. Lakewood Ranch homeowners scored

significantly higher overall and on 8 of the 12 individual questions. Still on a scale of 100%,

Lakewood Ranch homeowners only scored a 59.3% and Harmony homeowners only a 61.7%.

For Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge, a low Cronbach's alpha resulted from combining the 6

marketing questions. Though this means the small number of diverse questions was not

addressing an overlying construct, I was more interested in totaling the individual score to see

not only if they differed between communities, but how they were scoring overall. Results

suggest new homeowners retained some, but not all environmental information as a result of the









combined effect of the sales centers, which contained educational materials addressing

environmental issues, and sales personnel. The green marketing points that were not better

absorbed by Lakewood Ranch homeowners concerned the health threat of indoor air quality, the

functioning ability of Energy Star@ Appliances, the mental health benefits of natural lighting,

and the durability of flooring made from biodegradable materials and those not better absorbed

by Harmony homeowners concerned Harmony's gopher tortoise preserve and number of trees

left after development. Of these, indoor air quality and energy efficiency were important issues

to even conventional homeowners, so better marketing of these issues may be important when

targeting the average homebuyer.

The green marketing issues that were retained by Harmony and Lakewood Ranch

homeowners may very well be the selling points that resonated best with them, however

diversifying marketing techniques can reach even more potential buyers (Peattie, 2001). It is

crucial for green marketers to find a way to reach all audiences (McCarty & Shrum 1994).

Marketers can also play the role of environmental educators through green initiatives

(Mendleson & Polonsky, 1995) and can use campaigns to increase consumer concern about

issues to enhance their future customer base (Schlegelmilch & Bohlen, 1996). Training for real

estate professionals is perhaps one way to reach consumers about sustainable features within a

community, as they usually have the most contact with potential buyers. This can provide

immediate benefit for the developer; for example, the Florida Green Building Coalition awards

points for such things as staff training, and environmental education in marketing materials

(Florida Green Building Coalition, 2003).

Some important determinants of green purchasing behavior are consumers' level of

clarity about the product (Scholsberg, 1993), their perception of the problem the product









attempts to alleviate and their responsibility to solve it (LaRoche, 2001), and the degree of

compromise associated with the purchase, pitted against the degree of confidence in the

product' s ability to make a real difference (Peattie, 2001). One other crucial determinant is the

social norms associated with purchasing the green product (Kalafatis et al., 1999). As people

with various motivations increasingly purchase the green option of a product, others may sense

that doing the same is expected. Purchasing a green product can then create a sense of pride,

especially with positive reinforcement from family, friends, neighbors, etc. As the green option

becomes common, not purchasing it may even create a sense of shame or guilt.

Marketers must be clear about a development's green attributes, advertise the

convenience associated with living in a green community, explain the lasting impact of a large,

one-time decision to buy a green house and find ways to exhibit the difference they would be

making in a way that resonates with them (Brower & Leon, 1999; Bei & Simpson, 1995;

LaRoche, 2001). One technique could be using analogies with vivid imagery to convey the

amount of money and natural resources saved or pollution prevented over time, resulting from

the decision to purchase a green home versus a conventional one. For example, monetary

savings over time can be expressed as how many "free years" of energy a homeowner could

receive; energy savings could be expressed as the number of schools that can be powered with

the community savings a whole; pollution prevention over time can be made equivalent to the

number of cars it could "take off" the road; and water savings from appliances can be equated to

the capacity of a local water body. This technique can put the impact of the purchase in

perspective and demonstrate the large difference this single decision can make, both as an

individual purchase of a green home and as one piece in a larger green community.










To promote green consumerism as a social norm, alliances can be formed with credible

environmental organizations (Mendleson & Polonsky, 1995). Lakewood Ranch has formed one

such alliance with Audubon International for their certified golf course. Forming an alliance with

the media is also critical to keeping green issues as a top priority (Thogersen, 2006). Alliances

with scientists and other professionals can be beneficial as well (Coddington; 1993); for example

Harmony has worked with staff from the United States Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention, the American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals, and with faculty

from nine universities in planning their community. In addition, on site education, beyond the

sales center, is important to engage residents and increase levels of sustainable practices being

adopted (Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005).

Defining "Green"

New homeowners in all four communities predominately defined "green" in the

"environmental" category, meaning pro-environment in one way or another. Other definitions

included references to human-centered concepts (health and safety) and general references to

plant and animal life (aesthetics). If we think of "green" as being synonymous with

"sustainable," defining "green" with human-centered concepts may be equally legitimate.

Sustainability has been depicted as three equal rings representing the environmental, social and

economic sectors with their intersection being the best case scenario (International Council of

Local Environmental Initiative, 1996). People who engage in pro-environmental behaviors like

green purchasing have a variety of motives for doing so, including egoistic, social-altruistic, and

biospheric concerns (Schultz 2000). Finding the best ways to frame environmental issues to

appeal to different people will have a broader effect than using a single angle (Schultz, 2003).

An example of this framing technique is used by Lakewood Ranch during the marketing phase,










where the theme in their Green Gallery is "Save your planet, save your money, save your

health." This marketing technique is one that can be expanded in green communities.

Defining "green" with general references to plant and animal life can be both positive and

negative. Associating the term with native plants and animals, even for an aesthetic reason is

positive, but assuming that any biological life in any place is good for the environment can be

dangerous. Invasive species and high numbers of common species without regard to imperiled

species are two examples of when the simple presence of biological life is not enough for a

healthy environment. Another example is respondents' repeated reference to the traditional

American lawn in their definitions. Further education would be necessary for homeowners who

come into a green community with this pre-conceived notion. The most promising result was that

even for homeowners in the conventional communities, the term "green" was rarely given a

negative definition. This is a legitimate concern as there can be a stigma attached to green

housing, when customers believe there are risks involved like cost, aesthetics, safety and

convenience (Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce, 1991), but in this case new

homeowners did not seem adverse to the concept overall.

Conclusion

Although this research was conducted on four specific communities in Florida, the insights

it provides can still be valuable to the future of green development. Green design features were

an important consideration for new homeowners, both in green and conventional master-planned

communities. Including green elements in the design of more communities, combined with

adequate marketing and education through a sales center, can benefit the environment and

improve sales. In this study, new homeowners' perceptions of "green" were not negative and

many homeowners preferred green features that could be incorporated in master-planned

communities. With a growing concern in the problems caused by the current development










paradigm and a growing interest in solving these problems, green communities represent a way

to build a sustainable relationship with the environment that resonates with consumers. It seems

that a "green" sales center that educates homeowners about environmental features available

within a community can help improve environmental knowledge. However, knowledge is only

one step and the translation to sustainable behaviors was not addressed in this study. Future

research should not only look at consumer green design preferences and evaluating green

marketing efforts on a broader scale, but monitor whether residents translate environmental

understanding into everyday practices.











TABLE 1-1. Significant differences in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in
Florida


Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch
M SD


HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge
M SD


Statistic Statistic
LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR P-Value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR P-Value
71 80 3.87 2.91 1.55 1.82 X' = 24.28
P <.0001
43 36 0.52 1.17 0.97 0.42 Z =1.97
P= .049
70 83 59.41 55.01 12.79 12.97 F =4.45 55 112 63.78 56.54 11.19 11.15X=138
P= .037 P= .0002


Question
Status with home in community

Length of residence

Year of birth, 19 0


Do you ever rent out this home?d 66 85 0.20 0.45 0.40 0.50 X = 10.39 59 118 0.15 0.03 0.36 0.18 FET
P= .0001 P= .011
Parental status 59 116 2.78 2.82 1.38 1.21 X2 = 10.82
P= .013
NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fisher's Exact (FET), Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and ANOVA tests where significant difference was found between at
least one pair of communities: Green community indicated with a G: a. higher mean = higher attachment with home (1 = investment property, 2 = future
secondary residence, 3 = future primary residence, 4 = current secondary residence, 5 = current primary residence): b. In years; c. older = lower mean: d. 1 = yes,
0 = no: e. higher mean = more guardianship (1 = no children, 2 = no children reside with respondent, 3 = some children reside with respondent, 4 = all children
reside with respondent); Actual question wording can be found in Appendix A.











TABLE 1-2. Important green design features indicated by survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in
Florida
Lakewood RanchG VS. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG VS. Rock Springs Ridge
n M SD Statistic n M SD Statistic
Green Design Feature LG PR LG PR LG PR P-Value HMG RSR HGRSR HMG RSR P-Value
Indoor air quality 73 87 4.14 4.40 0.92 1.03 FET 59 121 4.49 4.51 0.77 0.70 F = 2.46c
P = 0.116 P = 0.088
Open greenspaces nearby 72 87 4.52 4.31 0.82 0.96 FET 59 121 4.66 4.34 0.58 0.81 FET
P = 0.341 P = 0.072
Energy efficiency 73 87 4.41 4.16 0.88 0.99 FET 59 121 4.53 4.61 0.68 0.61 FET
P = 0.350 P = 0.414
Energy efficient appliances 73 87 4.25 4.20 0.94 0.95 FET 59 121 4.49 4.55 0.68 0.63 FET
P= 0.915 P = 0.824
Walkable community* 73 87 4.25 4.11 0.91 0.93 F = 2.84c 59 120 4.58 4.29 0.65 0.95 F = 4.15c
P = 0.027 P = 0.018
Water saving appliances 73 87 3.93 4.01 0.98 1.03 FET 59 121 4.39 4.27 0.70 0.85 F = 4.15c
P= 0.831 P = 0.018
Green Preference Scale* 57 111 33.32 39.16 7.82 10.00 F = 14.8
(u = 0.88) P = 0.0002
oNOTE: Results based on Fisher's Exact (FET), ANOVA and ANCOVA tests where means for at least one community were > 4; Green community indicated
with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a c; For all questions, a higher mean expresses a higher level of importance placed on the feature when last looking
for a home; *Indicates green community with significantly more interest.












TABLE 1-3. Significant differences in scores on green marketing questions of survey respondents from paired green and conventional
communities in Florida.


Lakewood Ranch" vs. Palmer Ranch


Harmony" vs. Rock Sorinas Ridae


n M SD Statistic n M SD Statistic
PR LRG PR LRG PR P-Value H RSR HMG RSR H RSR P-Value
87 0.59 0.08 0.49 0.27 F = 23.91C
P < 0.0001
87 0.64 0.05 0.48 0.21 F = 27.090
P < 0.0001
87 0.74 0.34 0.44 0.48 X 60
P < 0.0001
87 0.72 0.34 0.45 0.48 X=2.6
P < 0.0001
87 0.85 0.49 0.36 0.50 X 33
P < 0.0001


Question LRo
Since January 2005 every new village 73
in has been built "green"
has taken steps to make its golf 73
course more wildlife friendly
"Green" homes look different from 73
traditional homes
"Green" homes cost more to maintain 73
than traditional homes
Being "green" decreases a home's 73
resale value
Paints with low Volatile Organic 73
Compounds (low VOC paints) have
less durability than traditional paints
Energy Star appliances can perform as 72
well as traditional appliances
A yard certified by Florida Yards & 73
Neighborhoods can save water
Marketing Test Index 72
(LR/PR a = 0.82, HM/RSR a = 0.62)
There are fewer trees in now than
before it was developed*
is a Dark-Sky compliant
community
residents have a town-wide
environmental covenant to follow
There are at least some prohibitions
against planting invasive-exotic plant
species mn
Employs a full-time conservation


87 0.31 0.17 0.47 0.38 X =41
P = 0.036

87 0.74 0.59 0.44 0.49 X =41
P = 0.041
87 0.5 0.31 0.50 0.46 X =62
P = 0.0122
87 7.12 4.27 3.00 2.97 Z=.1
P < 0.0001


59 120 3.7 1.17 2.27 1.96 Z91
P <.0001
59 120 0.36 0.64 0.49 0.48 X =25
P = 0.0004
59 120 0.85 0.15 0.36 0.36 F = 79.43c
P < 0.0001
59 120 0.73 0.06 0.45 0.24 F = 77.18"
P < 0.0001
59 120 0.83 0.07 0.38 0.26 F = 63.98C
P < 0.0001


manager P <0.0001
NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fisher's Exact (FET), Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, ANOVA and ANCOVA tests where significant difference was found
between at least one pair of communities: Green community indicated with a G: ANCOVA F values indicated with a C: a higher mean expresses a greater number
of correct responses: *Indicates conventional community with higher score.


59 120 0.78 0.17 0.42 0.37 X2 = 65.72
















m Environmental
a Health & Safety
o Aesthetic
o Negative
Other


Lakewood Ranch Palmer Ranch Harmony Rock Springs
(Green) (Green) Ridge


Figure 1-1. Categories of green definitions indicated by survey respondents for paired green and conventional communities in Florida









CHAPTER 2
ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND BEHAVIORS OF NEW
HOMEOWNERS INT CONVENTIONAL AND "GREEN" MASTER-PLANNED
COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA

Introduction

The built environment has changed radically in the United States over the course of the

twentieth century (Southworth & Owens 1993). Sprawl, both urban and suburban, has become

the overwhelming trend and is characterized by a lack of integrative planning resulting in low-

density, auto-oriented, monotypic development (Benfield, Raimi, & Chen, 1999). Though the

intention of development in the U.S. may be to make the "American Dream," a reality, the

problems associated with sprawl are now undermining that dream (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, &

Speck, 2000). Social problems resulting from the current development paradigm are diverse and

include loss of public spaces (Power, 2001), fiscal stress (Burtchell et al., 2005), environmental

justice issues (Haughton, 1999), and loss of sense of community (Brown, Burton, & Sweaney,

1998). Many human health issues, both physical and mental have been tied to sprawl (Handy et

al., 2002; Weich et al., 2002). Degraded air quality (Frank, 2000) and reduced and degraded

water supplies (Otto et al., 2002) are some negative environment effects, and wildlife also suffers

from the loss and fragmentation of their habitats (United States Environmental Protection

Agency, 2000).

While its definition has been the spark of many debates (Jabareen, 2004), sustainable

development seeks to integrate conservation and development, satisfy basic human needs,

achieve equity and social justice, provide cultural diversity, and maintain ecological integrity

without compromising future generations' ability to do the same (Bruntland, 1987). Though

development by its nature will always leave a footprint behind, this footprint can be minimized

through environmentally sensitive development techniques, and such development can also










provide social benefits (Srinivasan, O'Fallon, & Dearry, 2003; Leyden, 2003). In fact there has

been a significant call from the American public for such sustainable development, exhibited in

the form of hundreds of ballot initiatives (Chen, 2000).

New forms of development are aiming to decrease the negative side effects of

conventional development, while simultaneously creating benefits. Some examples of

alternative development forms include neotraditional development, urban containment, compact

cities, and eco-cities (Jabareen, 2006). Master-planned development aims to foster a sense of

community by having various amenities and conveniences built into the design like parks, lakes,

golf courses, recreational trails, schools and shopping (Jackson & Martin, 2005). A fairly new

alternative is green development, which seeks to minimize negative environmental effects

associated with the built environment (Stromberg, 2005). Residential green development

incorporates green buildings with site planning and the landscapes that support these buildings

(Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998). Certification is available for green development on a national

level through the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED)

Program (U. S. Green Building Council, 2005), as well as through state-level organizations such

as the Florida Green Building Coalition (Florida Green Building Coalition, 2003).

While a green development may boast infrastructure that is more sustainable, there is

another piece to the equation. Following the physical design and completed construction of a

green community, challenges can arise when people must manage their neighborhood in a

sustainable manner, utilizing various environmentally-friendly practices on their own

(Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005). Williams and Dair (2006) suggest that there are two types of

sustainability associated with sustainable development. The first is "technical sustainability,"

which is reflected by things like building materials and construction methods used to create









developments and the second is "behavioral sustainability," which is reflected by the behaviors

of residents living in them. Green building and design elements create a community with more

technical sustainability than other conventional developments, but it can only truly become a

functional green community if residents are utilizing these elements correctly and exhibiting

behavioral sustainability (Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005; Williams & Dair 2006).

The reasons for peoples' engagement or lack there of in pro-environmental behaviors has

been the core subj ect matter of many theoretical models (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen &

Fishbein, 1980; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera, 1986-87; Hungerford & Volk 1990; Blake, 1999;

Stern, 2000; Kaplan 2000). Predicting pro-environmental behavior is complex (Kollmus &

Agyeman, 2002), involving a vast amount of variables, however one potential predictor of pro-

environmental behavior that hasn't received much attention is the built environment. Though the

built environment has been shown to affect physical activity in general (Frank & Engelke, 2001),

the effects that it has on behaviors particular to sustainability is still not clearly understood.

Some alternative development types, such as New Urbanism, have been promoted as being able

to foster such behavioral sustainability (Katz & Scully, 1994; Brown & Cropper, 2001; Congress

of New Urbanism, 2001), however evidence exists to the contrary (Till, 2001; Zimmerman,

2001;Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005).

In the case of green development, understanding the level of environmental

consciousness (in terms of knowledge, attitude, and behavior) of people buying into these

communities is important. It can reveal if people attracted to such developments come with pre-

existing behavioral sustainability. If they do not, and assuming that the built environment cannot

alone promote the behavioral sustainability necessary for functional green communities,

knowledge of this can have maj or implications for the future design and management of green










developments. For development to be truly sustainable, organization and management may need

as much attention as physical design (Talen & Ellis, 2002; Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005).

In this study, comparing new homeowners' in two pairs of conventional and "green"

master-planned communities in Florida, my objectives were to: 1) determine whether the

environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors of new homeowners differed between

conventional and green communities and 2) determine the extent to which residents, within their

first year and a half of living in a community, retained any environmental knowledge and

behaviors as a result of community interactions or specific education initiatives present in the

green communities.

Methods

Study Sites

Lakewood Ranch

Lakewood Ranch, an award-winning master-planned golf community situated in Sarasota

and Manatee counties, Florida began residential development in 1995. It received green

certification for all new phases from the Florida Green Building Coalition in 2004, making it the

largest master-planned community in the state to be certified green. Lakewood Ranch covers

7,000 acres, half of which is set aside and protected from any future development. This master-

planned community is currently partitioned into Hyve villages, which to date hold approximately

6,000 homes. It has won several environmental awards including the 2005 Residential

Environmental Award from the Florida Association of Realtors. Starting in 2005, all new

residential development in Lakewood Ranch has adhered to sufficient green standards for Florida

Green Building Coalition (FGBC) certification. The phase that I studied, Village of Greenbrook

II, was the first in Lakewood Ranch to be composed entirely of green homes and to obtain

FGBC's green development certification. It contains both single family homes and townhouse









condominiums. At the commencement of this study, Greenbrook II held 226 townhouse homes,

and 605 single family homes. Since the building of Greenbrook II, one other village has been

entirely developed to green standards.

Lakewood Ranch contains over 100 miles of trails connecting lakes, parks and preserves.

Native flora are encouraged and reclaimed and recycled water is used for irrigation. In May of

2006, Lakewood Ranch Golf and Country Club was designated a "Certified Audubon

Cooperative Sanctuary" by the Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary System. To market the

community to potential residents, Lakewood Ranch opened their "Green Gallery," in 2005.

Consisting of a model home and yard, this gallery exhibits green design features available for

residents. Lakewood Ranch also uses educational brochures and sales tours to market its green

design elements.

Palmer Ranch

Palmer Ranch, a master-planned golf community in Sarasota County, Florida began

residential development in the late 1980s. Palmer Ranch covers 10,000 acres, with less than 30%

protected from any future development. This master-planned community is partitioned into

eighteen villages, which to date hold approximately 8,000 homes. Palmer Ranch does not put

special emphasis on ecologically responsible development. In 2004, Serenade became Palmer

Ranch's newest village. It is composed of entirely of condominium homes. At the

commencement of this study, Serenade held 258 homes. Palmer Ranch and Lakewood Ranch are

separated by approximately 13 miles.

Harmony

The town of Harmony, located in Osceola County, Florida is an award-winning master-

planned golf community that emphasizes human connection to animals and the natural

environment. Residential development began in Harmony in 2002. Though it has not sought










green community certification, it contains many of the design features of green communities.

Harmony is comprised of 11,000 acres, containing two large 465 and 505 acre lakes; nearly 60%

of open spaces are left as natural areas. All of Harmony's homes are Energy Star@ compliant.

Homes are of Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and inter-connected for convenient foot,

bike or electric cart travel. This master-planned community currently has four villages, which to

date hold 320 homes. Harmony has won several environmental awards including the 2003

Residential Environmental Award from the Florida Association of Realtors and the 2006 Best

Practices Green Building Award from Sustainable Florida.

Harmony labels itself as an "environmentally intelligent community." Habitat protection

is accomplished through open space conservation, a "no build zone" around the lakes, and other

natural areas including a 31-acre gopher tortoise habitat and a 2-acre endangered orchid preserve.

Trees and shrubs native to Florida have been used in Harmony's 280-acre "golf preserve," and

its wetlands, ponds and upland areas are connected to larger natural systems. Harmony is also a

Dark Sky@ compliant community with specialized lights designed to minimize light pollution,

and its community pool is heated geothermally. Harmony has a sales center to help market the

community and educate potential homebuyers about environmental features and practices. They

use a multimedia CD-Rom, educational brochures and site tours for marketing purposes as well.

Once a home is purchased, Harmony seeks to further educate residents about the

environment through various programs. Through the Harmony Institute, an independent

foundation created to "promote human health and well-being through the interaction of people,

animals and the environment," educational programming such as Living in Harmony, a Cityfor

People and Animals are offered. Harmony contains a WildSide WalkTM of educational kiosks

and hosts a website (www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/gc/harmony) to help homeowners better









conserve natural resources and abide to Harmony's town-wide environmental covenant.

Residents also have access to a monthly on-site Farmer's Market, a monthly newsletter and an

online resident j journal that promote Harmony's "environmentally intelligent" theme. Resident

participation in environmental programs is encouraged through Conservation Club activities and

through field trips, outdoor laboratories and habitat studies for students of the on-site schools.

Rock Springs Ridge

Rock Springs Ridge, a master-planned golf community in Orange County, Florida began

residential development in 1997. Rock Springs Ridge covers about 1,000 acres, with no set %

protected from any future development. This master-planned community is currently partitioned

into 6 villages, which to date hold approximately 1500 homes. Rock Springs Ridge does not put

special emphasis on ecologically responsible development. Approximately 57 miles separate

Rock Springs Ridge and Harmony.

Participant Selection

I identified potential respondents through online public Property Appraiser's records for

Manatee, Sarasota, and Orange Counties, Florida. Osceola county records were not used, as

Harmony provided a list of its residents. Criteria for control community selection were based on

the conditions present in the two green communities. For Lakewood Ranch, Greenbrook II was

a new subdivision within the larger master-planned community, thus for Palmer Ranch, the new

subdivision of Serenade was selected as a control. For the purpose of this paper, these

subdivisions will still be referred to as communities. For Harmony, the entire community is

"green," thus for Rock Springs Ridge, the entire community was selected as well. The controls

were the closest master-planned communities having comparable home values and a sufficient

number of new homeowners. Due to small community sizes and the potential influence of the

environmental theme of the survey on the response rate of new homeowners in green









communities, control communities with a higher number of new homeowners were selected to

ensure the minimal amount of returned surveys necessary for analysis. New homeowners were

defined as those listed as owners of a home with a value between $100,000 and $500,000 and a

sales date between August 2004 and May 2006. Selecting only new homeowners was important

as I was most interested in their mindset when last looking for a home, and needed them to recall

that earlier time as accurately as possible. I was also interested in the impact of any community

interactions or educational initiatives within the first year and a half of moving into a new

community. I sent a survey to every new homeowner in the four communities. A total of 21 1,

258, 166, and 304 surveys were sent out to Lakewood Ranch, Palmer Ranch, Harmony and Rock

Springs Ridge, respectively. Of these 73, 87, 59 and 121 surveys were returned, giving response

rates of 34.6%, 33.7%, 35.5% and 39.8% respectively.

Survey Instrument

This mail survey was conducted in June of 2006. I modified the Dillman (2000) method as

done by Hostetler & Youngentob (2005), formatting the survey booklet and mailing it in a hand

addressed envelope. Also included in the envelope was a cover letter and self-addressed

stamped envelope for survey return. The cover letter provided a general explanation of the

proj ect and guaranteed respondents' confidentiality. A total of 939 survey questionnaires were

sent and respondents were given three weeks from the mailing date to return their surveys. I

matched as many owners as possible with his or her listing in the national White PagesTM for

follow-up phone call reminders. I used phone call reminders for all potential respondents with

listed numbers who did not respond by the date specified in the cover letter and first page of the

survey. I sent an additional survey packet to those requesting one. I called those for whom I left

a message a second time one week after the initial call. Those without listed numbers and those

reached only through a message were sent a second copy of the survey packet as well.










Question Design

The survey was pre-tested on a group of fifteen homeowners. Due to the small size of

communities used in this study, I did not wish to reduce the possible respondent pool by forming

a pre-test group from these residents. I instead formed the group from a master-planned

community of similar size and characteristics in Gainesville, FL. I adjusted the survey according

to recommendations from this group, in order to enhance the question flow and answerability of

the final instrument.

The questions addressing environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavior as well as

community environmental education and demographics were grouped together as part of a larger

survey. Questions addressing environmental knowledge asked respondents to self-rate their level

of knowledge on thirteen environmental issues related to development using a 5 point Likert-like

(1932) scale. The selection of these issues was based on previous surveys (Roper Worldwide,

Inc. 1997, 1999) with additional questions included that addressed other relevant issues. The

New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) was used to measure environmental attitude, as it has had wide

and diverse use in the past and has been shown to be a reliable scale (Dunlap et al., 2000).

Questions addressing environmental behavior were also based primarily on a previous survey

(Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005), with additional questions included that addressed more

behaviors related to pro-environment lifestyles.

It is possible that through educational materials and programs and/or through

conversation with neighbors, the community itself contributed to the level of environmental

knowledge or participation in pro-environmental behaviors of new homeowners that have lived

in the community for a short period of time. To examine this, I provided respondents with check

boxes coinciding to each question on environmental knowledge and behavior and asked them to









denote which knowledge and/or behaviors were influenced by living in the community (See

wording of instructions in Appendix A).

Questions on community environmental education efforts (beyond the sales center) were

tailored to each community pair, based on the existing features of the green community. At the

time of my visit to Lakewood Ranch, no additional educational materials were provided to

residents after move-in, thus no additional questions were included for this community pair. For

Harmony, questions were drawn from a website (www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/gc/harmony)

Harmony hosts for homeowners to help them incorporate more environmentally friendly

practices in their lives. There are additional environmental education features and programs in

Harmony, however the website was chosen because it is equally accessible to all new

homeowners and was promoted at the sales center, regardless of their living status with their

home in Harmony at the time. Due to the amount of environmental education materials on this

website, a thorough list of questions was formed. This list was provided to the Conservation

Manager at Harmony to choose six questions best representing the environmental issues he felt

were most important. Community environmental education questions used a true, false, or unsure

response scale. Statements that were both correct and incorrect, based on the website's content

were used to remain balanced. The same questions were repeated in the Rock Springs Ridge

survey, substituting the community name where appropriate. This was done for two reasons:

First, to standardize the length and content of the two surveys and second, to control for any

information related to these questions that respondents could have received outside of

Harmony's web site. The information provided by Harmony's website was the sole determinant

of whether a statement was true or false. Finally, the ten questions addressing demographics









asked participants to choose the best response or fill-in-the-blank (See Appendix A for a list of

survey questions.)

Analyses

To identify possible differences among categorical responses in these two communities for

individual questions, a Chi-square test was used for non-normal distributions, except when cell

frequency (less than 5) made a Fisher' s Exact test more appropriate. For non-categorical

responses a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for non-normal data and ANOVA was used

for normally distributed data. Normality was determined using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test.

Environmental knowledge questions were analyzed both individually and combined into

a scale, as were environmental behavior questions and questions coming from Harmony's

website. Attitude was only analyzed as a scale. For environmental knowledge, attitude and

behavior questions Cronbach's alpha was used to first determine if a scale combining the

questions had an acceptable level of reliability (Cronbach' s alpha of .7 or higher). For questions

coming from Harmony's website, Cronbach's alpha was calculated; however, I was interested in

overall scores regardless of scale reliability. For these questions from the website, respondents

were only awarded a score of "1" when they were correct. No points were awarded for incorrect

answers or responses of "unsure." This test score (number correct out of 6) was also converted

to a scale of 100 points for interpretation. The total number of boxes checked by respondents

reporting they currently used the home in question as a primary or secondary residence,

indicating the variables on which living in the community had an influence was counted. The

total was compared between all of these respondents and between only those respondents

checking at least one box.

It is possible that differences in demographics between the green and conventional

homebuyers could have an effect on differences observed in their question responses. To control










for this, I first examined any potential demographic differences using the same statistical tests

described above. If demographic differences were uncovered by this analysis, Pearson's

correlation matrix was used to determine if these demographic variables significantly correlated

to any specific questions. If a demographic difference did significantly correlate to a specific

question or to a scale, the demographic could be enhancing or masking differences between the

two communities on the response variable. I used an ANCOVA to control for the correlation

between the demographic variable and the response variable. This test is robust to violations of

the normality assumption, so long as the homogeneity of slopes assumption is not violated when

group size is unequal (Levy, 1980). Because the numbers of respondents in my community pairs

were not equal, I first used Levene's test to check for homogeneity of slopes on non-normal data.

The ANCOVA would show whether there was a difference in the response variable, once the

demographic variables were controlled for.

To gauge the answers of nonresponders, I compared the responses of the first 25 % of

surveys returned to the responses of the last 25 % in each community pair. I used the same

statistical procedures as when comparing the two community types. I assumed that if for the

most part, the late responders were not answering significantly differently from the early

responders then the non-responders, if coerced to respond, may not differ from responders. For

all of the above tests, an alpha value of 0.05 was used.

Results

Demographics

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Significant differences among these two communities existed for four demographic

questions (Table 2-1). Lakewood Ranch homeowners were significantly older and had a higher

level of attachment with relation to their status with their home. Of those residing in the home









full or part time, Palmer Ranch homeowners had resided in the home longer and were more

likely to rent it out. Correlations existed between demographics and seven survey questions. All

correlations were taken into account with ANCOVA analyses.

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Significant differences among these two communities existed for three demographic

questions (Table 2-1). Harmony homeowners were more likely to rent their home out. Rock

Springs Ridge homeowners were significantly older and had a higher level of guardianship with

relation to their parental status. Correlations existed between demographics and nine other

individual questions as well as one scale. All correlations were taken into account with

ANCOVA analyses.

Early versus Late Respondents

When early responders were compared to late responders in the combined pool of

Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch homeowners, early responders resided in their home longer

and participated in environmental education programs more often (P < 0.05). In Harmony and

Rock Springs Ridge, early responders refused bags at the grocery store less often, and scored

significantly higher on the education test index based on Harmony's website.

Environmental Knowledge

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Of the 13 questions targeting environmental knowledge related to development, new

homeowners in Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch differed significantly in their knowledge on

three issues (Table 2-2). Lakewood Ranch homeowners reported having significantly higher

knowledge about "green" development and water conservation in the yard. Palmer Ranch

homeowners reported having significantly higher knowledge about air pollution resulting from

energy production. When all environmental knowledge questions were collapsed into a scale










(Cronbach's alpha = 0.88) no significant difference was found between the two communities.

No issues had means between 1 and 2 (translating into knowing "a lot" or "a fair amount") for

Lakewood Ranch. The only issue in Palmer Ranch ranked as such was recycling household

items.

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Of the 13 questions targeting environmental knowledge related to development, new

homeowners in Harmony and Rock Spring Ridge differed significantly in five questions (Table

2-2). Harmony homeowners reported having significantly higher knowledge about air pollution

resulting from energy production, biodiversity loss resulting from residential development,

"green" development and problems associated with feeding wildlife. Rock Springs Ridge

homeowners reported having significantly higher knowledge about recycling household items.

When all environmental knowledge questions were collapsed into a scale (Cronbach's alpha =

0.91) Harmony homeowners reported significantly higher knowledge overall. The only issue for

which Harmony homeowners had a mean between 1 and 2 (translating into knowing "a lot" or "a

fair amount") was the problems associated with feeding wildlife. The only issue in Rock Springs

Ridge ranked as such was recycling household items.

Environmental Attitude

No significant differences were found on New Ecological Paradigm scale scores between

Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch, or between Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge (all tests P >

0.05). The NEP score that coincides with the strongest possible pro-environmental attitude is 75.

A score of 15 coincides with the strongest possible anti-environmental attitude, making a score

of 45 neutral. All four communities had very close NEP score means, ranging from 37.58 to

38.59 (Lakewood Ranch = 38.59, Palmer Ranch = 38.019, Harmony = 37.58, Rock Springs

Ridge = 38.21).









Environmental Behavior

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Of the twelve questions targeting pro-environmental behaviors, new homeowners in

Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch differed significantly on five questions (Table 2-3). When

landscaping, Lakewood Ranch homeowners used native plants more often than Palmer Ranch

homeowners and when given the opportunity, they participated in environmental education

programs more often than Palmer Ranch homeowners. When going to work or running errands,

Palmer Ranch homeowners walked, rode a bike, took a bus, or carpooled instead of taking a

personal automobile more often than Lakewood Ranch homeowners. Even when they are more

expensive, Palmer Ranch homeowners more often bought an environmentally friendly version of

a product instead of other brands when given the option and also more often purchased food

labeled "natural" or "organic." When all environmental behavior questions were collapsed into a

scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.75) no significant difference was found between the two

communities. The only behavior for which Lakewood Ranch homeowners had a mean between 1

and 2 (translating into engaging in an action "always" or "often") was switching off the light

when leaving the room. This was also the case in Palmer Ranch, with the addition of recycling

items that can be recycled as well.

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Of the twelve pro-environmental behaviors, new homeowners in Harmony and Rock

Spring Ridge differed significantly on three questions (Table 2-3). Rock Springs Ridge

homeowners recycled trash that can be recycled more regularly. Harmony homeowners walked,

rode a bike, took a bus, or carpooled instead of taking a personal automobile more often and

when replacing a light bulb they more often used a compact fluorescent bulb. When all

environmental behavior questions were collapsed into a scale (Cronbach's alpha = 0.74) no










significant difference was found between the two communities. The only behavior for which

Harmony homeowners had a mean between 1 and 2 (translating into engaging in an action

"always" or "often") was switching off the light when leaving the room. This was also the case

in Rock Springs Ridge, with the addition of recycling items that can be recycled as well.

Initial Community Influence

Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch

Nearly 58% of respondents living in Lakewood Ranch and only 16.2% from Palmer

Ranch checked at least one box out of a possible 25, indicating the issues) on which their

respective community may have contributed to their knowledge or behavior by providing

educational materials/programs or through conversations with neighbors in the community. Of

the 185 checked boxes in Lakewood Ranch, 131 coincided with environmental knowledge issues

and 54 with pro-environmental behaviors. Of the 57 checked boxes in Palmer Ranch, 28

coincided with environmental knowledge issues and 29 with pro-environmental behaviors.

Overall Lakewood Ranch homeowners checked more boxes (Table 2-4); however, when

considering only those respondents who checked at least one box, no significant difference was

found between the two communities. As a whole, Lakewood Ranch homeowners checked only 4

boxes on average.

Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge

Nearly 46% of respondents from Harmony and 34.5% from Rock Springs Ridge checked

at least one box, indicating the issues) on which their respective community may have

contributed to their knowledge or behavior by providing educational materials/programs or

through conversations with neighbors in the community. Of the 91 checked boxes in Harmony,

70 coincided with environmental knowledge issues and 21 with pro-environmental behaviors. Of

the 110 checked boxes in Rock Springs Ridge, 64 coincided with environmental knowledge









issues and 46 with pro-environmental behaviors. Both overall and when considering only those

respondents who checked at least one box, no significant difference was found between the two

communities. As a whole, Harmony homeowners checked less than 2.5 boxes on average.

Of the six questions related to green education efforts associated with the Harmony's

environmental web site, new homeowners in Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge differed

significantly on four questions (Table 2-4). Harmony homeowners were more likely to be correct

on questions concerning the existence of a website to help homeowners incorporate

environmentally friendly practices in their lives, on the effects of outdoor cats on wildlife, and on

the benefit of forest fires. Rock Springs Ridge homeowners were more likely to be correct on

the question concerning yard waste and landfills in Florida. When all questions were combined

into a test index (Cronbach's alpha = 0.35), Harmony homeowners scored significantly higher

overall (Table 2-4); however, on a scale of 100% this score was a 64.7%.

Discussion

Environmental Knowledge and Attitude

In the first community pair (Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch) there was no difference

overall in the amount of reported knowledge of environmental issues related to development, nor

in environmental attitudes. From individual questions, green homeowners reported higher

knowledge about green development and water conservation in the yard. Higher knowledge of

these two issues is not surprising as the Greenbrook II is a certified green development and

promotes the Florida Yards & Neighborhood Program in their Green Gallery. Even with these

few individual differences there was a lack of knowledge overall, as there was not a single issue

on which green community homeowners reported having at least a fair amount of knowledge.

In the other community pair, Harmony residents also did not have significantly different

attitudes, but did report higher knowledge overall. Looking at individual knowledge questions,









Rock Springs Ridge homeowners reported more knowledge about recycling household items.

This is most likely due to the fact that the City of Apopka (where Rock Springs Ridge resides)

has a recycling program in place, while the Town of Harmony does not at the present time. A

large proportion of comments written on the Harmony surveys were homeowners expressing

their desire for a town wide recycling program.

The fact that the green community scored higher overall in this second community pair

may be attributed to Harmony's environmental education efforts (e.g., environmental sales

center, environmental web site, kiosks, Conservation Club, etc.), but it could also be that the

community attracted a more well-informed buyer, as Harmony resident's did not indicate a

greater amount of community influence on knowledge of environmental issues related to

development, as indicated by checked boxes. The results from these check boxes should be

interpreted with caution however. Though directions for checking boxes in the survey

immediately followed the first set of directions, some respondents may have skipped these

directions. At times respondents checking no boxes would write in a comment about learning

something by living in the community, indicating that skipping this portion of the directions did

happen in some instances.

Overall, it may be that Harmony's educational efforts may have reinforced a somewhat

informed section of homebuyers, more so than Lakewood Ranch' s efforts; however more

research is needed to determine how well Harmony's programs are working over time before

exporting them to other developments, and this research is currently underway (Hostetler,

personal communication). Even though Harmony residents were relatively more knowledgeable,

there still remains a paucity of environmental knowledge for Harmony's new homeowners.

There was only a single issue (problems associated with feeding wildlife) that Harmony










homeowners reported having at least a fair amount of knowledge. To add to this paucity of

knowledge, homeowners in both green communities not only lacked stronger pro-environmental

attitudes compared to conventional homeowners, but their overall attitudes tipped toward the

anti-environment side of the scale.

Similar to results found by Youngentob and Hostetler (2005), my results show that people

buying homes in the green communities are not sufficiently equipped with either the knowledge

or attitude necessary to implement sustainable behaviors once they move in. This is not

surprising because though the environmental movement has become very visible to the general

public during the past few decades, the public's level of environmental knowledge has still been

shown to be very low (Coyle, 2005). Alone, increasing environmental literacy and attitudes may

not be able to promote pro-environmental behavior, but environmental education can also be

seen as a tool to change attitudes, values, and motivation levels (Jensen, 2002). Benefiting from

this aspect of environmental education would be crucial in green communities in my study, as

their residents' attitudes were no more pro-environmental than those in the conventional

communities. Environmental education can also respect and tap into pre-existing knowledge,

challenge assumptions, create the opportunity for reflection, reveal areas where people can make

the biggest impacts, develop alternatives, and provide opportunities for hands-on learning

(Clover, 2002).

Environmental Behavior

There were no differences in the level of engagement in pro-environmental behaviors

overall between homeowners in Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch. From individual

questions, Lakewood Ranch homeowners reported more engagement in two (using native plants

when landscaping and participating in environmental education programs) but Palmer Ranch

homeowners also reported more engagement in two other behaviors (using alternative









transportation and purchasing environmentally friendly products). The only behavior that

Lakewood Ranch homeowners reported doing often was switching off the light when leaving the

room. While this is a positive difference for the environment, switching off lights is probably the

easiest of all measured behaviors and in isolation is hardly enough to constitute behavioral

sustainability.

The case is similar in Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge. There was no overall difference

in pro-environmental behavior. Harmony homeowners reported higher engagement in two

behaviors (using alternative transportation and using compact fluorescent light bulbs) but Rock

Spring Ridge homeowners reported recycling more often than Harmony green homeowners.

Overall, the only behavior that Harmony homeowners reported doing often was switching off the

light when leaving the room.

It seems that for both community pairs, even though the green development may have

achieved some level of technical sustainability, it is not attracting new homeowners who are any

more environmentally conscious and so has yet to achieve behavioral sustainability. This

reinforces past research on the inability of other forms of alternative development that seeks to

combat the negative effects of sprawl (like New Urbanist development) to encourage sustainable

behaviors through physical design alone (Bealey, 2000; Kreiger, 1998). This type of research

has been scarce in green developments (but see Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005).

For those new homeowners who were residing in the community at the time of this study,

it could be that they have not lived long enough in their respective communities to absorb the

possible "social norm" of the green community that may be promoting sustainable behaviors. In

addition, barriers may be present that limit the expression of a sustainable behavior (e.g., lack of

curbside pickup in Harmony for recyclables.) While some respondents from Harmony wrote that










they took their recyclables to an off-site facility, this was rare. Lack of convenience is a large

barrier to sustainable behavior (Green-Demers, Pelletier, & Menard, 1997; Pelletier et al., 1999).

This is an example of a barrier that could be removed from the management level to promote

behavioral sustainability. Another barrier may be community policies that discourage or prohibit

some pro-environmental behaviors. For example, a few respondents from Lakewood Ranch

wrote that they were not allowed to compost. It is important that developers (who often form

community covenants in the early stages of a development before homeowner associations

assume the responsibility), set the tone for behavioral sustainability by not restricting pro-

environmental behaviors in community covenants. Under FGBC standards, developments are

currently rewarded points for the absence of language that prohibits green practices in covenants

and deed restriction (Florida Green Building Coalition, 2003).

Specific design features that can promote sustainable behaviors have been suggested

(Holden, 2004; Jabareen 2006). Recently, Williams and Dair, (2006) created a framework for

monitoring the actual behavior of residents who live in neighborhoods displaying such physical

features. This framework provides a thorough reference of physical features with the specific

sustainable behaviors they have been suggested to affect. It can help planners understand the

purported relationships between design and behavior and assist researchers in designing more

empirical studies to investigate them. In many cases, design may not be enough. The "Research

House" in Queensland, Australia, a green house used to learn how people interact with

sustainable housing, has shown certain areas where design alone is not enough to make

sustainable behaviors a reality (Buys et al., 2005). The ecological footprints (Rees &

Wackernagel, 1994) of residents in the Environmental Home Guard, a cooperative of houses in

Norway striving to be more green, were found to be no smaller than their counterparts in non-










green communities when all other factors were taken into account (Holden, 2004). Youngentob

and Hostetler (2005) found that environmental behaviors did not differ between residents of

green residential communities versus conventional residential communities.

Initial Community Influence

Harmony homeowners were more knowledgeable overall of some issues stressed in their

community's environmental web site. They specifically knew of this community website, and

that some forest fires can be beneficial; however Rock Springs Ridge homeowners were more

knowledgeable concerning yard waste going to landfills in Florida. If we think of overall scores

as a test, than Harmony homeowners still received a D score (64.6%). It is important to note,

however, that this survey used a small number of questions for this measure. More in-depth data

on the efficacy of Harmony's environmental education features is needed to see how it affects

residents over time, as these are new residents and may have not explored the web site or

participated in any educational activities available at Harmony. For both green communities,

very few respondents indicated that environmental knowledge or behaviors were enhanced by

living in the community. This last result, based on the number of checked boxes should be

interpreted with caution as discussed earlier.

Going Beyond Design

If the physical environment cannot produce sustainable behaviors on its own, what else can

be done? Sustainable behaviors can be managed through structural change in policies as well as

personal changes for individuals (Holden, 2004a; Williams & Dair, 2006a). For example, land

use policies and how individuals manage their own yards and neighborhoods can have a direct

impact on bird distributions (Hostetler & Knowles-Yanez, 2003). Green development can be

coupled with "smart growth" programs that propose environmental, social, and institutional

policies to manage these areas for sustainability (Jabareen, 2006). Still, even with these









structural changes, some believe a huge paradigm shift is necessary in individual knowledge,

attitudes, and behaviors towards our environment (Hay 2005, 2006).

Recently, there has been increasing attention to psychology's role in promoting

sustainable behaviors (Oskamp et al., 2000; Zelezny & Schultz 2000; Werner 1999; Kurz 2002;

Schmuck & Schultz 2002). Conservation psychology is "the scientific study of the reciprocal

relationships between humans and the rest of nature, with a particular focus on how to encourage

conservation of the natural world" (Saunders, 2003). Community developers can collaborate

with conservation psychologists to consider how the infrastructure will be used after residents

move in (Churchman, 2002).

While traditional environmental education alone may not be enough to foster sustainable

behaviors, much attention is now being given to "education for sustainability" (Bonnet, 2002;

Knapp, 2002; Herremans & Reid, 2002; Elliot, 1999; Tilbury, 1995). Monroe (2003) suggests

that there are two ways to use education for promoting conservation behaviors. The first is to

change specific behaviors in the short term, and the second is to cultivate broad environmental

literacy for the long term.

To change specific behaviors, social participation and engagement are key elements and

are the core features of programs such as the Natural Step for communities (Upham, 2000) and

the community visioning process (Ames, 1994). One of the most popular programs for

promoting pro-environmental behavior change is community-based social marketing. This

technique has been effective in fostering sustainable behavior in communities when it reduces

the barriers and increases the benefits of engaging in such behaviors using tools like

commitment, reminders, effective messaging, incentives and social diffusion of community

norms (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). Community-based social marketing is available to










anyone seeking to change behaviors in their community, and there are dozens of successful case

studies of communities that have implemented it in order to increase behavioral sustainability.

Hiring a social marketer to help implement community-based social marketing in a green

community is one option for community developers to consider (McKenzie-Mohr, personal

communication.)

Promoting environmental literacy means using environmental education to foster a sense

of responsibility, create a sense of urgency for action, empower people, and create a norm that

embraces action (Monroe, 2003). Hay (2005) has suggested that personal involvement in

environmental education through activities ranging from ecotourism, outward bound type

programs, community land care activities, and helping with environmental research can result in

people becoming "ecosynchronous," which is necessary for the creation of truly sustainable

developments. Within a community this type of experiential education can be in the form of

resident participation in local habitat projects (Barton, Grant, & Guise, 2003; Bott, 2003). This

type of education is already underway in Harmony, through the town's Conservation Club and

its involvement in student proj ects, however there is currently a small group of participants.

Both green communities could benefit by encouraging resident participation in experiential

neighborhood proj ects and programs.

Conclusion

Although this research was conducted on four specific communities in Florida, the insights

it provides can still be valuable for the creation of functional green communities that have both

technical and behavioral sustainability. As green development types increase in popularity due

to the current issues associated with the current development paradigm, it is necessary to ensure

that residents are sufficiently educated and empowered to embrace sustainable behaviors in their

everyday lives. While the technical sustainability associated with the physical design and










construction of the development may lay the foundation for environmental literacy and

sustainable behaviors, more must be done. Planners and developers can work more

collaboratively with conservation psychologists and other environmental professionals trained in

the social sciences. Policies can be implemented to manage such developments and communities

can offer comprehensive environmental education programs for sustainability. Only through the

implementation of management and education can these developments become functional green

communities.











TABLE 2-1. Significant differences in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in
Florida.


Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch
M SD


HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge
M SD


Statistic Statistic
LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR P-Value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR P-Value
71 80 3.87 2.91 1.55 1.82 X' = 24.28
P <.0001
43 36 0.52 1.17 0.97 0.42 Z =1.97
P= .049


Question
Status with home in community

Length of residence

Year of birth, 19 0


55 112 63.78 56.54 11.19 11.15 X = 13.83
P= .0002


70 83 59.41 55.01 12.79 12.97 F =4.45
P= .037


Do you ever rent out this home?d 66 85 0.20 0.45 0.40 0.50 X = 10.39 59 118 0.15 0.03 0.36 0.18 FET
P= .0001 P= .011
Parental status 59 116 2.78 2.82 1.38 1.21 X2 = 10.82
P= .013
NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fisher's Exact (FET), Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and ANOVA tests where significant difference was found between at
least one pair of communities: Green community indicated with a G: a. higher attachment with home = higher mean; b. In years c. older = lower mean d. 1 = yes;
0 = no. e. more guardianship = higher mean: Actual question wording can be found in Appendix A.











TABLE 2-2. Significant differences in environmental knowledge of survey respondents from paired green and conventional
communities in Florida


Lakewood RanchG VS. Palmer Ranch
n M SD Statistic
LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Pvle
F = 2.98c
71 86 3.69 3.59 0.92 1.21 P = 0.054


HarmonyG VS. Rock Springs Ridge
n M SD
HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR


Statistic
P-value


Environmental Issue
Water conservation in your yard


Air pollution resulting from F = 3.14c X 11
energy production 71 86 2.96 3.01 1.06 1.11 P =0.046 59 119 3.37 2.90 0.93 1.14 P =0.025
"Green" development X =16.56 X 20
71 85 3.45 2.86 0.94 1.26 P = 0.002 59 117 3.19 2.72 1.06 1.29 P = 0.017
Biodiversity loss resulting fromX2=98
residential development 59 120 3.02 2.68 0.99 1.26 P = 0.044
Recycling household items* F = 7.36c
59 120 3.86 4.12 1.05 0.85 P = 0.0009
Problems associated with feeding F = 7.55c
wildlife 59 118 4.14 3.45 0.85 1.26 P = 0.0007
Environmental Knowledge Scale Z = -1.92
(u = 0.88) 55 111 32.67 35.79 8.28 10.10 P = 0.055
NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and ANCOVA tests where significant difference was found between at least one pair of
communities; Green community indicated with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a c; For all questions, a higher mean expresses a higher level of self-
reported knowledge about the environmental issue; *Indicates environmental issue that conventional community reported higher knowledge about.











TABLE 2-3. Significant differences in pro-environmental behavior of survey respondents from paired green and conventional


communities in Florida


Question
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?*
When given the option, how often do
you purchase food labeled "natural" or
"organic?"*
When landscaping, how often do you use
only native plants?
When given the opportunity, how often
do you participate in environmental
education programs?
When going to work or running errands,
Show frequently do you walk, ride a bike,
take a bus, or carpool instead of taking a
personal automobile?*
How regularly do you recycle trash that
can be recycled?*
When replacing a light bulb, how often
do you use a cormact fluorescent bulb?


Lakewood RanchG VS. Palmer Ranch
n M SD Statistic
LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Pvle
F = 4.01c
P = 0.020


73 88 2.88 2.93 0.97 1.06

F = 3.21c
73 88 2.48 2.83 0.99 1.15 P = 0.043

70 81 3.24 2.60 1.23 1.27 P = 0.008

FET
71 87 2.04 1.86 0.96 1.01 P = 0.0141


FET
73 88 1.56 1.92 0.88 1.15 P = 0.05


HarmonyG VS. Rock Springs Ridge


SD Statistic
HMG RSR P-value


n M
HMG RSR HMG RSR


F = 3.3c
59 121 1.73 1.45 0.98 0.77 P =0.039
F = 22c
59 121 2.76 4.12 1.59 1.18 P <.0001
F = 3.88c
59 119 2.80 2.69 1.44 1.29 P =0.023


NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fisher's Exact (FET) and ANCOVA tests where significant difference was found between at least one pair of
communities; Green community indicated with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a c; For all questions, a higher mean expresses a higher level of
engagement in pro-environmental behaviors; *Indicates pro-environmental behavior that conventional community engages in more.











TABLE 2-4. Differences in retention of green education efforts and initial influence of community on knowledge and behavior of
survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida
Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge
n M SD Statistic n M SD Statistic
Question LG PR LG PR LG PR P-value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR P-value
Community influence (all respondents
using home as primary or secondary Z =3.87 Z = 0.41
residence)* 45 37 4.11 1.54 6.6 4.82 P =0.0001 37 110 2.46 1.55 4.06 4.07 P = 0.49
Community influence (only
respondents checking at least one Z = -0.05 Z = 0.69
box)** 25 6 7.12 9.5 8.11 10.57 P= 0.963 17 38 5.35 4.47 5.48 5.81 P = 0.49
(Community name) has a website to
help homeowners incorporate
environmentally friendly practices in F = 28.28C
their lives 59 120 0.68 0.18 0.50 0.39 P <.0001
In Florida, vard waste is allowed in F = 4.84 C
landfills** 59 120 0.12 0.29 0.32 0.46 P = 0. 009
Outdoor cats are harmless for wildlife F = 3.38C
59 120 0.67 0.54 0.48 0.50 P = 0. 0362
o\All forest fires are detrimental X2 = 6.70
59 120 0.8 0.65 0.40 0.49 P = 0. 0096
Education Test Index F = 6.71"
59 120 3.88 2.84 2.27 1.96 P = 0. 0003
NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitner and ANCOVA tests: Green community indicated with a G: ANCOVA F values indicated with a C
P-values for significant differences are indicated in italics: a higher mean expresses more correct responses:*Measured as total number of checked boxes for
environmental knowledge issues and pro-environmental behaviors:**"Indicates question on which conventional community reported higher level of community
influence, or had more correct responses.









APPENDIX A
SURVEY QUESTIONS


The following are the 17 survey questions addressing green design preferences.
Respondents were asked report how important each was when they were last looking for a home.
All questions used a 5-point Likert-scale. All 17 questions were included in the Green Design
Preference Scale.

1) Energy efficiency
2) Indoor air quality
3) Water-saving appliances
4) Energy-efficient appliances
5) House made from environmentally-friendly materials
6) Environmentally-friendly regulations for the community
7) Open green spaces nearby
8) Ability to see wildlife
9) Preservation of natural habitat
10) Shopping in walking distance
11) Greater sense of community
12) Walkable community
13) Smaller negative environmental impact
14) Reduced yard maintenance
15) Ability to see the stars
16) Public transportation nearby
17) Dog park nearby

The following are the 13 survey questions addressing environmental knowledge.
Respondents were asked report how much they felt they knew about each issue. They were also
provided a box to check for each issue, if they felt the community had contributed to their
knowledge of the issue by providing educational materials/programs and/or through conversation
with neighbors. All questions used a 5-point Likert-scale. All 13 questions were included in the
Environmental Knowledge Scale.

1) Water pollution resulting from residential communities
2) Air pollution resulting from energy production
3) Biodiversity loss due to residential development
4) Problems caused by invasive exotic plants
5) Energy conservation at home
6) "Green" development
7) Recycling household items
8) Problems associated with feeding wildlife
9) Availability of locally grown foods
10) Wildlife native to your area
11)Energy Star Program
12) Water conservation at home
13) Water conservation in the yard











The following are the 15 New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) scale questions addressing
environmental attitude. Respondents were asked report how much they agreed with each
statement. All questions used a 5-point Likert-scale.

1) We are approaching the limit of the number 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 the environment
4) Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable
5) When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences
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 modem industrial
nations
9) Despite our special abilities humans are still subj ect to the 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 delicate and easily upset
14) Humans will eventually learn enough about how nature works to be able to control it
15) If things continue on their present course, we will soon experience a maj or ecological
catastrophe

The following are the 12 survey questions addressing environmental behavior.
Respondents were asked report how often they engaged in each behavior. They were also
provided a box to check for each issue, if they felt their community had contributed to their
engagement in a behavior by providing educational materials/programs and/or through
conversation with neighbors. All questions used a 5-point Likert-scale. All 12 questions were
included in the Environmental Behavior Scale.

1) How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled?
2) How frequently do you tum 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 other brands when given the option?
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?
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 alternatives to using common household (including lawn)
chemicals because you are worried about how they might affect the environment
7) When given the option, how often do you purchase food labeled "natural" or "organic"?
8) How often do you compost organic materials instead of placing them in the trash?
9) When landscaping, how often do you use only native plants?
10) When replacing a light bulb, how often do you use a compact fluorescent bulb?
11) When leaving a room, how often do you switch the light off!










12) When given the opportunity, how often do you participate in environmental education
programs?

The following are the 18 survey questions addressing the marketing initiatives of the
green communities. Respondents were asked to choose true, false, or unsure for each statement.
All questions were included in the Green Marketing Test Index.

Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch

1) Since January, 2005 every new village in Community Namne has been built "green"
2) Community Namne has taken steps to make its golf course more wildlife friendly
3) "Green" homes look different from traditional homes
4) "Green" homes cost more to maintain than traditional homes
5) Being "green" decreases a home's resale value
6) Indoor air quality is the nation's leading environmental health problem
7) Paints with low Volatile Organic Compounds (low VOC paints) have less durability than
traditional paints
8) Energy Star appliances can perform as well as traditional appliances (i.e. wash dishes as
well)
9) Natural lighting has been shown to have greater mental health benefits compared to
electric lighting
10) Flooring made from biodegradable materials cannot be durable
11) A yard certified by Florida YardsYY~~~~~YYYYY~~~~ & Neighborhoods can save water
12)Native plants are better able to attract wildlife than non-native plants

Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge

1) There are fewer trees in Community Namne now than before it was developed
2) Community Namne is a Dark-Skyy compliant community
3) Community Namne residents have a town-wide environmental covenant to follow.
4) There are at least some prohibitions against planting invasive-exotic plant species in
Community Namne
5) Community Namne employs a full-time conservation manager
6) Community Namne has a gopher tortoise preserve

The following are the 6 survey questions addressing the community environmental education
initiatives in Harmony. Respondents were asked to choose true, false, or unsure for each
statement. All questions were included in the Community Education Test Index.

1) Harm ony ha s a web site to help home owners i ncorp orate environm ental ly -fri endly
practices into their lives
2) It is safe for compact fluorescent bulbs be disposed of in the regular trash
3) The color of your roof can affect your energy bills
4) In Florida, yard waste is allowed in landfills
5) Outdoor cats are harmless for wildlife
6) All forest fires are detrimental











The following question addressed reasons for choosing one's current home. Respondents
were asked to write in their top 3 reasons.

1) Please list three reasons why you chose to live in your current home, in the order of their
importance to you.

The following question addressed perceptions of the term "green." Respondents were
asked to write in a definition.

1) In your own words, please write down what you think the term "green" means, in
reference to the environment.

The following are the 15 questions addressing demographics. Respondents were asked to
choose the best response, or fill-in-the-blank.

1) Which statement best represents your status with the home you have purchased in
Community Namne? It is my permanent address and I have been living here for _years
months; It will be my permanent address, but I have not moved in yet; It has been
used as a second home for years months; It will be used as a second home,
but I have not moved in yet; It is strictly income property
2) Which statement best represents your parental status? I have no children; I have a child or
have children, but none reside with me; I have a child or have children, but only some
reside with me; I have child or have children, and they all reside with me
3) Iam: Female; Male
4) I was born in 19
5) My ethnic background is (check all that apply) Caucasian (White); African American;
Latino/Hispanic; Native American; Other
6) Do you ever rent-out your property in Community Name? Yes; No
7) What is your current career field?
8) Do you consider yourself a: Democrat; Republican; Independent; Other
9) 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











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.


.~: UNIVERSITY OF"

.LORIDA

IFAS
215 Newins-Ziegler Hall
Department of Wildlife E;~,log: & Conse~rationPOBx103
Gas :-,,. Illc. FL 32611-0430
(352) 846 -0568
June 1, 2006wawcufed




Hello. My name is Krystal Noiseux, 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 about homneown~er interactions with their environment
as well as homebuyer cormmImity design Ipreferences. You were selected fr-om a group of recent Florida
conununity homebuyers. Reeardless of whether or not you have moved to Comm~unity Name yet, or whether or
not you will move there full or part time in the Ware h~l' e success of this studg dle~pendls on y'our participation!

Enclosed is a questionnaire for you to complete at your leisure. It should only take 15 minutes. Please do not
thrown this away. This is a University study and there are no commercial agencies involved in this research. We
hope to publish the results of this study in widely read academic journals and make use of this information locally
to create programs and opportunities that meet your interests as well as the interests of homebuyers in the fhture..
The benefit of participating in this study is the opportunity to have your voice heard, and the chance to shape
conununities for the better in1 the future!

You do nrot have to answer any question which you do not wish to answer. Your name and address will not appear
in anly public materials or publications relating to this study or provided to any outside sources. Because your
honest participation is valued, all Irsponseps will be kept anonymous, and your identity as a1 pr.n liripl,'nt will be
kept strictly c~onfidential to the full extent of the law. There are no anticipated risks or compensation for
participating in this study. Your participation is completely voluntary and you may withdraw your consent at
anytime without penalty.

Anyone whose name is on the deed of the home within th~e Commudnit Name community in City. Florida can
complete the survey. Please mail only the survey booklet in th~e enclosed, pre-paid envelope by June 21st or as soon
after as possible. If you would like to konow the results of our study, I would be happy to share then with you. As a
graduate student working to make conunumnities better for people and for the envirozunent. I want to II lu). Irn in1
advance for your time and participation!





Krystal K. Noiseux Dr. Mark Hostetler
University of Florida Asst. Professor, Extension Wildlife Specialist
Department of Wildlife Ecology & Conservation Department of Wildlife Ecology &e Conservation
Emnail: knoiseux~iufl.edu. Email: hossman~iufl.edu
Phone: (352) 846-0647 Phonle: (352) 846-0568
Fax: (352) 392-6984

If you have any questions about you r gh~ts as a prartcpant or the confidentiality of the information you provide, you can contact the UF Institutional Revilew
Board (UFIRB), University of Florida, Box 1 12250, Gainesville, FL 3261 1, ph: (352) 392-0433.










APPENDIX C
CRITERIA FOR AS SIGNING CATEGORIES


The following are the eight categories used to classify definitions of "green." Listed for
each are general descriptions of write-in responses that were placed in each category.

1) Environmental: energy efficiency, general efficiency, alternative energy, natural light,
natural ventilation, conservation of a particular resource (water, fossil fuels, etc.), future,
renewables, stewardship, environmentally conscious, environmentally aware, environmental
concern, getting educated about the environment, respect for the environment, balance, co-
existence, ratio of nature to development, build with nature, work with nature, and laws of
nature, environmentally-friendly, ecologically-friendly, ecologically sound, smaller impact,
smaller footprint, less destruction, specific environmentally friendly techniques (recycling,
composting, etc.), less destructive, conservation, preservation, protection, restoration, back to
nature, in natural state, close to natural state
2) Health & Safety*: safer, safe product, health, non-toxic, natural products, organic
products, low emissions, less pollution, no chemicals, no littering, a particular clean resource
(air, water, etc.)
3) Aesthetic: things that are the color green, trees, shrubs, flowers, natural surroundings,
nature, oxygen producing, alive, life, thriving, proliferation, wildlife, animals, parks,
greenspaces, upkept lawn, lawn maintenance
4) Negative: anything anti-environment
5) Other: any responses we could not fit into the first seven categories
*Note: While resources and products that are safer and/or healthier to humans are safer for
the environment as well and can arguably be categorized as such, this category was created
for those things more commonly associated with human health than other things falling in the
environmental category.

The following are the nine categories used to classify respondents' top three reasons for
choosing their current home. Listed for each are general descriptions of write-in responses that
were placed in each category.

1) Location: general location, liked area, and location to or convenience to
work/school/highway/shopping/restaurants/fml/red/te specific area, away from
traffic/noise/urban areas, weather, climate, sunshine, quiet, peaceful
2) Cost/Value: cost, price, value, investment, re-sale value, home market, appreciation,
affordability, taxes, warranty
3) Home Features: home size, floor plan, garage, beautiful home, layout, design, room, lot,
newer, better quality, aesthetics, nicer, pool, storage, comfortable, appearance, acres,
style, features included, cleanliness, view of pool specifically, balcony, yard, meets
needs, condo, space, well-built, builder reputation, name of builder, efficiency
4) Natural Environment: view, greenspace, large trees, beautiful surroundings,
environment, nature, wildlife, lake, parks, trails, plants, countryside, preservation, green
community, woods, river, horses, reserve, setting, organic farm, dark sky,
environmentally-friendly, restricted development, environmental programs, rural, low
impact building, conservation










5) Neighborhood Features: amenities, golf, upkeep, maintenance, recreational facilities,
new, common areas, dog park, upscale, size, attractive, desirable, parks, not cookie-
cutter, wide streets, walking paths, landscaping, sidewalks
6) Community: anything referring to community, neighborhood, atmosphere, subdivision,
neighbors (planned, vision, values, family-oriented, sense of, etc.)
7) Safety & Privacy: safety, security, gated, privacy
8) Schools: good schools, quality schools
9) Other: any responses we could not fit into the first eight categories









APPENDIX D
SCRIPT FOR REMINDER PHONE CALL

Phone call reminders were given to respondents that failed to return their questionnaire
within three weeks. The following script was used for these reminders.

Hello. May I please speak to Mr. or Ms. (insert participants name here)? Hi. My name is
Krystal Noiseux, 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 homeowners
interact with their community and the environment.

You should have received a questionnaire from me in the mail approximately 3 weeks ago.
Your participation is extremely important to the success of our research. 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.

If you have lost or misplaced your booklet I would be happy to send you another copy.

(If this is an answering machine message) You can reach me in my office at The University of
Florida's Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation at 352-846-0647 or at my e-
mail address which is knoiseux@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).









APPENDIX E
UFIRB APPROVED PROPOSAL

The following is the final UFIRB approved research outline.

1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL:
You, the Environment, and Your Community

2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): Krystal Noiseux, Master's Student, Master's Research,
Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Home Address: 519 NE 5th Street,
Gainesville, FL 32601, Phone: (321) 695-1972, E-Mail: knoiseux@ufl.edu

3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT): Dr. Mark Hostetler, Department of Wildlife Ecology
and Conservation, Wildlife Extension Office, Newins-Zeigler Hall, University of Florida, Phone:
(352)846-0568, E-Mail: hossman@ufl.edu, Fax: (352)392-6984

4. DATES OF PROPOSED PROTOCOL: From May 2006 to May 2007

5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL:
Lakewood Ranch, Town of Harmony

6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION:
The purpose of this research is (1) to identify whether or not people purchasing homes in a green
community differ from those purchasing homes in a non-green community in terms of their
environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors as well as preference for green design
elements, and (2) to evaluate the extent to which the green design elements, environmental
education features, and marketing strategies are absorbed and understood by those living in the
green community. It is important to know what works for attracting people to purchase homes in
such communities and how to foster sustainable behaviors and attitudes once people move in.
Such information will help to tailor education and marketing efforts to create functioning
sustainable communities.

7. DESCRIBE THE RESEARCH 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 mail, once they are finished.

8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK.
There are no foreseen physical, psychological, or economic risks involved for the participants
taking part in this survey. The respondents will be assured of the confidentiality of their
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 PARTICIPANTS) WILL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND
AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND 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 more 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 address. The participants will be chosen from property appraiser records of
homes within one of four communities

The neighborhoods will be selected based upon size (200-250 households), type (master-planned
sub-communities), status (green or non-green), price range ($100,000 to $400,000), and location
(Osceola, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties, FL). The participants will be adults, age 18 or older.
The maximum number of participants that I plan to recruit will not exceed 1000. The participants
will not receive any monetary compensation. The survey packet that they receive will provide
them with 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 three weeks may
be contacted by telephone between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm to remind them to please return
their survey booklet. A maximum of two answer machine messages may be left to attempt to
contact the recipient. I will make no more than two attempts to contact the potential participant
by phone. Please review the attached telephone script. The survey will not be administered by
phone. The phone call will only serve to remind the participant to return their mail questionnaire
and let us know if we need to send the participant another copy of the survey and consent form.

10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PROCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE
INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable).
Potential participants will receive the survey booklet in the mail with a cover-letter that informs
them of their rights and the confidentiality agreement. A copy of the cover-letter and the survey
are included as attachments.

Please use attachments sparingly.



Principal Investigator's Signature


Supervisor's Signature

I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB:



Dept. Chair/Center Director Date










LIST OF REFERENCES


Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and predicting social behavior.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.

American Society of Interior Designers. (2005). ASID survey sayssssssssss~ homeowners are ready to go
green: New survey finds substantial interest in sustainable design for the home. Retrieved
October 4, 2005, from http://www.asid.org

Ames, S. (1994). A guide to community visioning: Hands-on information for local communities.
Washington, DC: American Planning Association.

Arora, S. & Cason, T. N. (1996). Why do firms volunteer to exceed environmental regulations?
Understanding participation in EPA' s 33/50 program. Land Economics, 72(4), 413-432.

Audubon International. (2005). Audubon signature program: DIes~ignin building, and managing
aI ithr nature in mind. Retrieved November 9, 2005, from
http://www. audub oninternati onal. org/program s/signature

Banerj ee, B. & McKeage, K. (1994). How green is my value: Exploring the relationship between
environmentalism and materialism. In C. T. Allen & D. R. John (Eds.), Advances in
Consumer Research (pp. 147-152). Provo, VT: Association for Consumer Research.

Barton, H., Grant, M., & Guise, R. (2003). Malring' neighborhoods for health and
sustainability. London: Spon Press.

Baum, F. (2002). Health and greening the city. Journal ofEpidemiology and Community Health,
56, 897-898.

Beatley, Timothy. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities. Washington, DC:
Island Press.

Bei, L. T., Simpson, E. M. (1995). The determinants of consumers' purchase decisions for
recycled products: an application of acqui sition-transaction utility theory. In F. R. Kardes
& M. Suj an (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 257-261). Provo, VT:
Association for Consumer Research.

Benfield, F. K., Raimi, M. D., & Chen, D. D. T. (1999). Once there were greenfields: How
urban sprawl is undermining America 's environment, economy, and social fabric.
Washington, DC: Natural Resource Defense Council.

Berke, P. R. (2002). Does sustainable development offer a new direction for planning?
Challenges for the twenty-first century. Journal ofPlanning Literature, 1 7, 21-36.

Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the 'value-action gap' in environmental policy: Tensions between
national policy and local experience. Local Environment, 4(3), 257-278.










Bonnett, M. (2002). Education for sustainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education
Research, 8(1), 9-20.

Booth, D. B. & Leavitt, J. (1999). Field evaluation of permeable pavement systems for improved
stormwater management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), 3 14-325.

Bott, S. (2003). Place and the promise of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review,
10(2), 100-112.

Brower, M. & Leon, W. (1999). The consumers' guide to effective environmental choices. New
York, NY: Three Rivers Press.

Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New urban and standard suburban subdivisions:
Evaluating psychological and social goals. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 67, 402-419.

Brown, B. B., Burton, J. R., & Sweaney, A. L. (1998). Neighbors, households and front porches:
New urbanist community tool or mere nostalgia? Environment and Behavior, 30(5), 579-
600.

Bruntland, G. H. (1987). Our conanon fieture: The World Conanission on Environment and
Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Limb, M. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: A study of
popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. th ban Studies, 25, 455-473.

Burchell, R., Downs, A., Mukherji, S., & McCann, B. (2005). Sprawl costs: Economic impacts
of unchecked development. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Buys, L., Barnett, K., Miller, E., & Bailey, C. (2005). Smart housing and social sustainability:
Learning from the residents of Queensland' s Research House. Australian Journal of
Emerging Technologies and Society 3(1), 43-57.

Chen, D. (2000). The science of smart growth. Scientific American, 283, 84-91.

Churchman, A. (2002). Environmental psychology and urban planning: Where can the twain
meet? In R. Betchel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook ofEnvironnzental Psychology
(pp.191-200). New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons.

Clover, D. E. (2002). Environmental adult education. Adult Learning, 13(2/3), 2-6.

Coddington, W. (1993). Environmental marketing: Positive strategies for reaching the green
consumer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.

Congress of New Urbanism. (2001). Charter of the new urbanisnt. Retrieved February 1, 2004,
from http://www.cnu.org











Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental literacy in America: What ten years ofNEETF/Roper research
and related studies saysss~~~~~ssss about environmental literacy in the U.S. Washington, DC: The
National Environmental Education and Training Foundation.

Department of Industry, Technology and Commerce. (1991) Attitudes towards housing in
Australia: A summary of findings, market research conducted for the Green Street Joint
Venture; Queensland, AU: Green Street Joint Venture.

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New
York: John Wiley.

Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the
decline of the American dream. New York: North Point Press.

Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G., & Jones R. E. (2000). Measuring endorsement of
the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal of SociallIssues, 56(3),
425-442.

Elliot, J. (1999). Sustainable society and environmental education: Future perspectives and
demands for the educational system. Cambridge Journal ofEducation, 29(3), 325-340.

Ewing, R., Kostyack, J., Chen, D., Stein, B., & Ernst, M. (2005). Endddddddddddddddddddagre by sprawl: How
runaway development thrlieutensll America's wildlife. Washington, DC: National Wildlife
Federation, Smart Growth America, & NatureServe.

Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief~ attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to
theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Florida Green Building Coalition. (2003). Standard~~ddds.ddddd~~~~~ Retrieved October 4, 2005 from
http:.//fl ori dagreenbuil ding. org

Frank, L.D. (2000). Land use and transportation interaction: Implications on public health and
quality of life. Journal ofPlan2ning Education and Research, 20(1), 6-22.

Frank, L. D. & Engelke, P. O. (2001). The built environment and human activity patterns:
Exploring the impacts of urban form on public health. Journal ofPlan2ning Literature,
16(2), 202-218.

Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 1 7, 201-217.

Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond toxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American
Journal of Preventive M~edicine, 20(3), 234-240.

Global Strategy Group. 2005. Survey on American attitudes on the environment: Key findings.
New Haven, CT: Yale University.










Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G. & Menard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioral difficulty on
the saliency of the association between self-determined motivation and environmental
behaviours. Canadian Journal ofBehavioural Science, 29, 3, 157-166.

Handy S. L., Boarnet M. G., Ewing R., & Killingsworth R. E. (2002). How the built environment
affects physical activity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventative
Medicine, 23, 64-73.

Harris Interactive, Inc. (2005). H~arris Poll # 77. Retrieved November 1, 2005 from
http://www.harri interactive. com

Haughton, G. (1999). Environmental justice and the sustainable city. In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.),
Sustainable Cities (pp. 62-79). London: Earthscan.

Hay R. (2006). Becoming ecosynchronous, part 2: Achieving sustainable development via
personal development. Sustainable Development 14(1), 1-15.

Hay R. (2005). Becoming ecosynchronous, part 1: The root causes of our unsustainable way of
life. Sustainable Development 13(5), 311-325.

Heinz, H. J. (2002). Center for science, economics, and the environment: The state of the
nation's ecosystems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University.

Herremans, I. M. & Reid, R. H. (2002). Developing awareness of the sustainability concept.
Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 34(1), 16-20.

Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986-87). Analysis and synthesis of research
on responsible pro-environmental behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal ofEnvironmental
Education, 18(2), 1-8.

Holden, E. (2004). Ecological footprints and sustainable urban form. Journal of Housing and the
Built Environment, 19(1), 91-109.

Holden, E. (2004a). Towards sustainable consumption: Do green households have smaller
ecological footprints? International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7(1), 44-58.

Hostetler, M. E., & Knowles-Yanez, K. (2003). Land use, scale, and bird distributions in the
Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62(2), 55-68.

Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1990). Changing learner behavior through environmental
education. Journal ofEnvironmental Education, 21(3), 8-21.

International Council for Local Environmental Initiative. (1996). The local Agenda 21 planning
guide: an introduction to sustainable development planning. Toronto, Canada: ICLEI.

Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustainable urban forms: Their typologies, models, and concepts.
Journal ofPlan2ning Education andResearch, 26(1), 3 8-52.











Jabareen, Y. R. (2004). A knowledge map for describing variegated and conflict domains of
sustainable development. Journal ofEnvironnzental Planning and Management, 47(4),
632-42.

Jackson, R. & Martin, J. (2005). The evolution of master planned communities. Professional
Builder, 70(1), 183-193.

Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, action and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental
Education Research, 8(3), 325-334.

Kalafatis, S., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzen's theory
of planned behaviour: A cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing,
16(5), 441-460.

Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and environmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social
Issues, 56(3), 491-508.

Katz, P., & Scully V., Jr. (1994). The new urbanisnz: Toward an architecture of conanunity. New
York: McGraw-Hill.

Knapp, D. (2002). The Thessaloniki Declaration: A wake-up call for environmental education?
The Journal ofEnvironnzental Education, (31)3, 32-39.

Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the gap: Why do people act environmental and what
are the barriers to pro-environmental behavior. Environmental Education Research, 8(3),
239-260.

Krause, D. (1993). Environmental consciousness: An empirical study. Environment and
Behavior, 25(1), 126-142.

Kreiger, Alex. (1998). Whose urbanism? Architecture Magazine, Nov., 73-76.

Kurz, T. (2002). The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: Fitting together pieces
of the puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2(1), 257-278.

Laroche, M. (2001). Targeting consumers who are willing to pay more for environmentally
friendly products. Journal of Consunter Marketing, 18(6), 503-520.

Lawrence, J. (1993). Green product sprouting again: More focused efforts avoid controversy.
AdvertisingAge, 10, 12.

Leyden, K. (2003). Social capital and the built environment: The importance of walkable
neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), 1546-1551.










Levy, K.J. (1980). A Monte Carlo study of analysis of covariance under violations of the
assumptions of normality and equal regression slopes. Educational andPsychological
Measurement, 40(4), 835-840.

Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives ofPsychology, 140, 5-
53.

McCarty, J. A. & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recycling of solid wastes: Personal values, value
orientations, and attitudes about recycling as antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal
ofBusiness Research, 30(1), 53-62.

McKenzie-Mohr, D. and W. Smith. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior. British Columbia,
CA: New Society Publishers.

Mendleson, N. & Polonsky, M. J. (1995). Using strategic alliance to develop credible green
marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12(2), 4-18.

Menon, A., Menon, A., Chowdhury, J., & Jankovich, J. (1999). Evolving paradigm for
environmental sensitivity in marketing programs: a synthesis of theory and practice.
Journal of2arketing Theory and Practice, 7(2), 1-15.

Miles, M.P., & Covin, J.G. (2000). Environmental marketing: A source of reputational,
competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23(3), 299-311.

Mizej ewski, D. (2004). National Wildhife Federation: Attracting birds, butterflies & backyard
wildlife. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Creative Homeowner.

Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology
Review, 10(2), 116-125.

Myers, P. (1999). Livability at the ballot box: State and local referenda on parks, conservation,
and starter gain th1 l, election day 1998. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Myers, P. & Puentes, R. (200 1). Giron thrl at the ballot box: Electing the shape of conanunities in
November 2000. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.

Natural Marketing Institute. (2003). Social responsibility drives the purchase decisions of 68
million U.S. consumers. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http:.//www.nmisolutions. com/
press061303.html

Nicholls, S. & Crompton, J. (2005). The impact of greenways on property values: Evidence from
Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research, 37(3), 321-341.

Oskamp, S., Howard, G. S.,Winter, D. N., Stern, P. C. & McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000).
Environmental sustainability. American Psychologist, 55(5), 496-537.










Ottman, J. A. (1998). Green marketing: Opportunity for innovation. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC
Business Books.

Otto, B., Ransel, K., Todd, J., Lovaas D., Stutzman, H. & Bailey, J. (2002). Paving our way to
water shortages: How sprawl aggravates the effects of drought. Washington, DC: Smart
Growth America.

Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 10(4), 187-199.

Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., Tuson, K. & Green-Demers, I. (1999). Why do people fail to adopt
environmental protective behaviors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental motivation.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 12, 248 1-2504.

Polonsky, M.J., & Rosenberger III, P.J. (2001). Reevaluating green marketing: A strategic
approach. Business Horizons, 44(5), 21-30.

Power, A. (2001). Social exclusion and urban sprawl: Is the rescue of cities possible? Regional
Studies, 35(8), 731-742.

Rees, W. & Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprints and appropriate carrying capacity.
Washington DC: Island Press.

Rocky Mountain Institute. (1998). Green development: Integrating ecology and real estate. New
York: John Wiley.

Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. (1997). The first Pennsylvania environmental readiness for the
21st century report. Slippery Rock, PA: Pennsylvania Center for Environmental
Education.

Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. (1999.) The national report card on environmental attitudes,
knowledge and behaviors. Washington, DC: National Environmental Education and
Training Foundation.

Saunders, C.D. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review,
10(2), 137-149.

Schlegelmilch, B. B. & Bohlen, G. M. (1996). The link between green purchasing decisions and
measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of2arketing, 30(5), 35-55.

Schlossberg, H. (1993). Environthon attracts students, corporate sponsors. Marketing News,
27(1), 10.

Schmuck, P. & Schultz, W.P. (2002). Psychology of sustainable development. Boston, MA:
Kluwer Academic Publishers.










Schultz, P.W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: The effects of perspective taking on concern for
environmental i issues. Journal of Social Issues 56, 3 9 1-406.

Schultz, P.W. (2003). Reframing environmental messages to be congruent with American values.
Human Ecology Review, 10(2), 126-136.

Smith, A. (2003). Building nzonentunt: National trends and prospectus for high-perfornzance
green buildings. Washington, DC: United States Green Building Council.

Southworth, M. & Owens, P. (1993). The evolving metropolis: Studies of community,
neighborhood, and street form at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning
Association 59(3), 271-87.

Srinivasan, S., O'Fallon, L. R. & Dearry, A. (2003). Creating healthy communities, healthy
homes, healthy people: Initiating a research agenda on the built environment and public
health. American Journal of Public Health 93(9), 1446-1450.

Stafford, E. R. (2003). Energy efficiency and the new green marketing. Environment, 45(3), 8-
10.

Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal
of Social Issues, 56(3), 407-424.

Stromberg, M. (2005). Green grow the buildings. Planning, 71(7), 16-21.

Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Watanabe, M. (2002). Urban residential environments and senior
citizens' longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable green spaces. Journal
ofEpidentiology and Conanunity Health, 56, 913-918.

Talen, E., & Ellis, C. (2002). Beyond relativism: Reclaiming the search for good city form.
Journal ofPlan2ning Education and Research 22, 36-49.

Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., & Kuo, F. E. (1998). Growing up in the inner city: Green spaces as
places to grow. Environment and Behavior 30(1), 3-27.

Thogersen, J. (2006). Media attention and the market for 'green' consumer products. Business
Strategy and the Environment, 15, 145-156.

Till, K.E. (2001). New Urbanism and nature: Green marketing and the neo-traditional
community. th ban Geography, 22(3), 220-248.

Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education for sustainability: defining the new focus of
environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1(2), 195-
212.










Upham P. (2000). Scientific consensus on sustainability: the case of the natural step. Sustainable
Development 8, 180-190.

Urban Environmental Institute. (2002). Resource guide for sustainable development in an urban
environment. Seattle, WA: Urban Environmental Institute.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Why build green? Retrieved November
10, 2005, from http://www. epa.gov/opptintr/greenbuilding/pubs/whybulht

United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Our built and' natural environments: A
technical review of the interactions between land use, transportation and' environmental
quality. Development, Conanunity, and Environment. Washington DC: US EPA.

United States Green Building Council. (2005). LEED rating systems. Retrieved September 23,
2005, from http://www.usgbc.org

Weich S., Blanchard M., Prince M., Burton E., Erens B., & Sproston K. (2002). Mental health
and the built environment: Cross-sectional survey of individual and contextual risk
factors for depression. British Journal ofPsychiatry, 180, 428-433.

Werner, C.M. (1999). Psychological perspectives on sustainability. In E. Becker and T. Jahn
(Eds.), Sustainability and' the social sciences: A cross-d'isciplinary approach to
integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation (pp. 223-242).
London: Zed Books.

Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2006). A framework of sustainable behaviours that can be enabled
through the design of neighborhood-scale developments. Sustainable Development, in
press.

Williams K, Dair C. (2006a). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Sustainable
Development 14(5), in press.

Wilson, A. (2005). What is green building? Mother Earth News, 211, 96-100.

Youngentob, K. & Hostetler, M. (2005). Is a new urban development model building greener
communities? Environment and Behavior, 37(6), 73 1-759.

Zimmerman, J. (2001). The "nature" of urbanism on the new urbanist frontier: Sustainable
development, or defense of the suburban dream? Th ban Geography, 22(3), 249-267.

Zelezny, L.C. and P.W. Schultz (eds.). (2000). Promoting environmentalism. Journal of Social
Issues 56(3), 365-578.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Krystal Kay Noiseux was born in Providence, Rhode Island on April 9, 1982. She decided

on a career in conservation at the age of 10, when her 5th grade teacher recognized her interests

in the natural world and nurtured them. Krystal received her bachelor' s degree in environmental

science from Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pennsylvania. She has worked as a wildlife

rehabilitator, sea turtle biologist, and environmental educator. She has pursued her strong

interests in sustainability at the University of Florida where she accepted an assistantship to

study for her master' s degree in wildlife ecology and conservation, focusing on the human

dimensions of conservation. This thesis is a product of her two years of research at the

University of Florida. Krystal hopes to pursue a career in experiential education for

sustainability in urban environments.





PAGE 1

1 GREEN COMMUNITIES: WHAT IS TH E APPEAL AND ARE THEY TRULY FUNCTIONING AS SUSTAI NABLE DEVELOPMENTS? By KRYSTAL KAY NOISEUX 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 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Krystal Noiseux

PAGE 3

3 For my family

PAGE 4

4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS I would like to thank Lakewood Ranch, the To wn of Harmony, and the University of Florida Department of Wildlife Ecology and Cons ervation for making this study possible. Many thanks to my fellow graduate students for thei r advice and encouragement, especially Katy Garland. Special thanks to S ondra Guffey and Greg Golgowski for their enduring assistance. I am also deeply appreciative for the support and gu idance of my advisor, Dr. Mark Hostetler and my committee members, Dr. Susan Jacobson and Dr. Pierce Jones.

PAGE 5

5 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS.............................................................................................................4 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........8 LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................ .........9 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ............10 CHAPTER 1 DEFINING, DESIRING, AND RETAINING GREEN: A COMPARISON OF NEW HOMEOWNERS IN CONVENTIONAL AND GREEN MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA.............................................................................................12 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........12 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........15 Study Sites.................................................................................................................... ...15 Lakewood Ranch......................................................................................................15 Palmer Ranch...........................................................................................................16 Harmony...................................................................................................................16 Rock Springs Ridge..................................................................................................17 Participant Selection........................................................................................................18 Survey Instrument...........................................................................................................18 Question Design..............................................................................................................19 Analyses....................................................................................................................... ...........21 Quantitative................................................................................................................... ..21 Qualitative.................................................................................................................... ...22 Results........................................................................................................................ .............23 Demographics..................................................................................................................23 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................23 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................24 Early versus Late Respondents........................................................................................24 Green Design Preferences...............................................................................................24 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................24 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................25 Green Marketing..............................................................................................................26 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................26 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................26 Defining Green.............................................................................................................27 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................27 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................27

PAGE 6

6 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........28 Green Design Preferences...............................................................................................28 Green Marketing..............................................................................................................29 Defining Green.............................................................................................................32 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ..33 2 ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE, ATTIT UDES, AND BEHAVIORS OF NEW HOMEOWNERS IN CONVENTIONAL AND GREEN MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA.............................................................................................39 Introduction................................................................................................................... ..........39 Methods........................................................................................................................ ..........42 Study Sites.................................................................................................................... ...42 Lakewood Ranch......................................................................................................42 Palmer Ranch...........................................................................................................43 Harmony...................................................................................................................43 Rock Springs Ridge..................................................................................................45 Participant Selection........................................................................................................45 Survey Instrument...........................................................................................................46 Question Design..............................................................................................................47 Analyses....................................................................................................................... ...........49 Results........................................................................................................................ .............50 Demographics..................................................................................................................50 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................50 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................51 Early versus Late Respondents........................................................................................51 Environmental Knowledge..............................................................................................51 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................51 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................52 Environmental Attitude...................................................................................................52 Environmental Behavior..................................................................................................53 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................53 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................53 Initial Community Influence...........................................................................................54 Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch.........................................................................54 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge............................................................................54 Discussion..................................................................................................................... ..........55 Environmental Knowledge and Attitude.........................................................................55 Environmental Behavior..................................................................................................57 Initial Community Influence...........................................................................................60 Going Beyond Design.....................................................................................................60 Conclusion..................................................................................................................... ..62 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONS.........................................................................................................68

PAGE 7

7 B SURVEY COVER LETTER..................................................................................................72 C CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING CATEGORIES.....................................................................73 D SCRIPT FOR REMINDER PHONE CALL..........................................................................75 E UFIRB APPROVED PROPOSAL.........................................................................................76 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..78 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................87

PAGE 8

8 LIST OF TABLES Table page 1-1 Significant differences in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida.................................................................................35 1-2 Important green design features indica ted by survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida..........................................................................36 1-3 Significant differences in scores on green marketing que stions of survey respondents from paired green and conven tional communities in Florida............................................37 2-1 Significant differences in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida.................................................................................64 2-2 Significant differences in environm ental knowledge of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida.....................................................65 2-3 Significant differences in pro-environm ental behavior of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida.....................................................66 2-4 Differences in retention of green education efforts and initial influence of community on knowledge and behavior of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida.................................................................................67

PAGE 9

9 LIST OF FIGURES Figure page 1-1. Categories of green definitions indicate d by survey respondents for paired green and conventional communities in Florida.................................................................................38

PAGE 10

10 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Masters of Science GREEN COMMUNITIES: WHAT IS TH E APPEAL AND ARE THEY TRULY FUNCTIONING AS SUSTAI NABLE DEVELOPMENTS? By Krystal Kay Noiseux August 2007 Chair: Mark Hostetler Major: Wildlife Ecology and Conservation Green communities are a new form of altern ative development, but their appeal to consumers on the real estate market and thei r ability to function as truly sustainable developments after new owners move in has no t been researched. In June 2006, I conducted a mail survey of new homeowners in the green master-planned communities of Lakewood Ranch and Harmony and the conventional master-plann ed communities of Palmer Ranch and Rock Springs Ridge in Florida. My objectives were to determine if there were differences in new homeowners green design preferences, percep tions of the term green, environmental knowledge, attitudes and behavior s, and retention of green marketing and environmental education initiatives. New homeowners in the conventional communities, compared to homeowners of green communities, expressed similar interests in many (but not all) of the design features associated with green developments, and most did not have negative connotations with the term green. Green community homeowners reported higher e nvironmental knowledge on a few issues related to development, but knowledge was low overall a nd attitudes were no more pro-environmental in the green communities compared to the conventi onal ones. Green community homeowners also reported more engagement in a few pro-envi ronmental behaviors, but pro-environmental

PAGE 11

11 behavior was also low overall. Many issues stressed through marketing efforts by the developer were retained by new homeowners in the green communities, as were some issues stressed in education initiatives in one gr een community. Apart from the marketing efforts, homeowners who reside in the green communities for less than a year and a half indicated little community influence on their environm ental knowledge and pro-environmental behaviors. The results suggest that green design featur es are an important consideration for new homeowners, both in green and conventional mast er-planned communities, exhibiting that with sufficient advertising and marke ting, people would purchase homes in green communities. Sales points used for marketing in the green communities were somewhat absorbed by their new residents; still, marketing pract ices can be diversified and expa nded to reach more consumers on the real estate market. Once new residents move in however, results suggest that they do not come equipped with the environmental knowledg e, attitudes and behaviors to make these communities function as truly sustainable developments. Post-construction management of these developments and programs to educate and engage residents can be implemented or expanded in green communities.

PAGE 12

12 CHAPTER 1 DEFINING, DESIRING, AND RETAINING GREEN: A COMPARISON OF NEW HOMEOWNERS IN CONVENTIONAL AND GREEN MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA Introduction The current development paradigm is increasi ngly viewed as a si gnificant and growing problem that entails a wide range of social a nd environmental costs. Overcrowding, pollution of land, air and water, loss of public spaces, loss of biodiversity, environmental justice issues, physical and mental health risks and loss in se nse of community are some problems associated with development (Brown, Burton, & Sweaney, 1998; Haughton, 1999; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2000; Frank, 2000; United States Enviro nmental Protection Agency, 2000; Power, 2001; Frumkin, 2002; Handy et al., 2002; O tto et al., 2002; Weich et al., 2002). This trend is becoming worse as the amount of land lost to developm ent, both urban and suburban, has increased by 300 % since 1955, while the population has only increa sed by 75 % (Heinz, 2002) The conversion of natural areas for development space has become a serious threat to Americas native plant and animal species, and it is occurring at an alar ming rate (Benfield, Raimi, & Chen, 1999; Ewing et al., 2005). Americans are beginning to respond to the ch allenges facing the environment, with more than half believing the environment in the U. S. is getting worse (Global Strategy Group, 2005), and over two-thirds considering themselves either active environmentalists or sympathetic to environmental concerns (Harris Interactive, 2005 ). An increase in envi ronmental consciousness can have a substantial effect on consumer behavior (Lawrence, 1993). In a 2003 survey of U.S. consumers, more than half showed interest in purchasing products like organic food, hybrid vehicles, renewable power, and en ergy efficient appliances (Natur al Marketing Institute, 2003). A surge in open space preservation initiatives in the late 1990s i ndicates a rise in concern about

PAGE 13

13 the impacts of development and interest in making growth more sustainable (Myers, 1999; Myers & Puentes, 2001). Sustainable development in itiatives have the potential to alleviate many environmental challenges. For example, sustaina ble construction has much to offer as buildings account for about one-third of energy, water, and resource consumption in the U.S., and nearly that proportion of pollution (Smith, 2003). Green development is one incarnation of the sustainable development movement. Green development seeks to minimize negative environmental effects associated with building (Stromberg, 2005). Nationally, the United States Gr een Building Councils Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) program give s green certification to buildings based on sustainable site planning, efficient use of water, energy, atmosphere, resources and materials, indoor environmental quality, and innovation an d design processes (United States Green Building Council, 2005). Green certif ication at the state level exis ts as well. For example in Florida, green certification of homes, developments, commercial buildings, and governments can be attained through the Florida Green Building Coalition (Florida Gr een Building Coalition, 2003). Both nationally and locally, another way in which conservation and sustainability are promoted in developments is through Audubon In ternationals Signature Program, which offers planning and educational services to assist new developments in protecting na tural resources (Audubon International, 2005). Residential green developmen t incorporates green buildings with site planning and the landscapes that support these buildings, attempti ng to adapt infrastructu re to its surrounding natural setting in a way that encourages heal thy interactions between residents and their neighboring ecosystems (Rocky Mountain Institute 1998; Berke, 2002). Facets of green site design are diverse, ranging from restoration of damaged sites and connection of landscape

PAGE 14

14 fragments to the fostering of community education through displa ys and the creation of common spaces for gathering (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1 998). Special materials, devices and techniques can be used to maximize resource efficiency of a green home (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998; Urban Environmental Institute, 2002), as well as the resource efficiency and habitat value of a yard (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998; Mizejewski 2004). Other residential infrastructure, such as roads, sidewalks and driveways can be ecolo gically enhanced as well (Booth & Leavitt, 1999). Consumers may be particularly interested in purchasing homes in communities that are more sustainable as the possibl e benefits of doing so include improved health and longevity (Baum, 2002; Takano, Nakamura, & Watanabe, 2002) increased property values (Nicholls & Crompton, 2005), heightened aesthetic qualities (United States Environmental Protection Agency 2005), improved conditions for children s development (Taylor, Wiley, & Kuo, 1998), promotion of higher levels of physical activity (Frumkin, 2001), higher quality of life (Burgess, Harrison, & Limb, 1988), and saving money through energy efficiency (Stafford, 2003). If we consider green homes and developments to be consumer products, then environmental consciousness may play a role in the purchasing of homes within green communities. A recent survey by the American Society of Interior Desi gners (ASID) found that de velopers may have an enormous opportunity in tapping into this green consumerism (American Society of Interior Designers, 2005). With the many solutions that th ey offer, green communities can provide clean, healthy, and resource efficien t living, which may be appealing to consumers for various economic, social, health and environmental reason s. Determining what is currently appealing about green communities and finding ways to tail or marketing efforts to make other facets

PAGE 15

15 equally desirable is crucial for the advancemen t of green communities in the United States, and beyond. In this study, comparing new homeowners in two pairs of conve ntional and green master-planned communities in Florida, my obj ectives were to: 1) determine whether green design features were more important to new hom eowners in green communities, 2) determine the extent to which the green communities marke ting strategies were retained by their new homeowners, and 3) determine trends in perceptions of the term green. Methods Study Sites Lakewood Ranch Lakewood Ranch, an award-winning master-pla nned golf community situated in Sarasota and Manatee counties, Florida began resi dential development in 1995. Master-planned development has various amenities and conveniences built into the design like parks, lakes, golf courses, recreational trails, sc hools and shopping (Jackson & Marti n, 2005). It received green certification for all new phases from the Flor ida Green Building Coalit ion in 2004, making it the largest master-planned community in the state to be certified green. Lakewood Ranch covers 7,000 acres, half of which is set as ide and protected from any future development. This masterplanned community is currently pa rtitioned into five villages, wh ich to date hold approximately 6,000 homes. It has won several environmen tal awards including the 2005 Residential Environmental Award from the Florida Associ ation of Realtors. Starting in 2005, all new residential phases of Lakewood Ranch have adhe red to sufficient green standards for Florida Green Building Coalition (FGBC) certification. The phase that I studied, Village of Greenbrook II, was the first in Lakewood Ranch to be com posed entirely of green homes and to obtain FGBCs green development certification. It cont ains both single family homes and townhouse

PAGE 16

16 condominiums. At the commencement of this study, Greenbrook II held 226 townhouse condominiums, and 605 single family homes. Since the building of Greenbrook II, one other phase has been entirely deve loped to green standards. Lakewood Ranch contains over 100 miles of tr ails connecting lakes, parks and preserves. Native flora is encouraged and reclaimed and recy cled water is used fo r irrigation. In May of 2006, Lakewood Ranch Golf and Country Club was designated a "Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary" by the Audubon Cooperativ e Sanctuary System. To market the community and educate potential homebuyers a bout environmental features and practices, Lakewood Ranch opened their Green Gallery, in 2005. Consisting of a model home and yard, this gallery exhibits green desi gn features available for resident s. Lakewood Ranch also uses educational brochures and sales tours to market its green design elements. Palmer Ranch Palmer Ranch, a master-planned golf comm unity in Sarasota County, Florida began residential development in the late 1980s. Palm er Ranch covers 10,000 acres, with less than 30% protected from any future development. This ma ster-planned community is partitioned into eighteen villages, which to da te hold approximately 8,000 homes. Palmer Ranch does not put special emphasis on ecologically responsible deve lopment. In 2004, homes began to be built in Serenade, Palmer Ranchs newest vi llage, and I surveyed the reside nts of this village. It is composed entirely of condominium homes. At the commencement of this study, Serenade held 258 homes. Approximately 13 miles separate Palmer Ranch and Lakewood Ranch. Harmony The town of Harmony, located in Osceola C ounty, Florida is an award-winning masterplanned golf community that emphasizes human connection to animals and the natural environment. Residential development be gan in Harmony in 2000. Though it has not sought

PAGE 17

17 green community certification, it contains many of the design features of green communities. Harmony is comprised of 11,000 acres, containing two large 465 and 505 acre lakes; nearly 60% of open spaces are left as natu ral areas. All of Harmonys home s are Energy Star compliant. Homes are of Traditional Neighbor hood Design (TND) and inter-connected for convenient foot, bike or electric cart travel. This master-planne d community currently has four villages, which to date hold 320 homes. Harmony has won seve ral environmental awards including the 2003 Residential Environmental Award from the Florida Association of Realtors and the 2006 Best Practices Green Building Award from Sustainable Florida. Harmony labels itself as an environmentally intelligent community. Habitat protection is accomplished through open space conservation, a no build zone around the lakes, and other natural areas including a 31-acre gop her tortoise habitat and a 2-acr e endangered orchid preserve. Trees and shrubs native to Florida have been used in Harmonys 280-acre golf preserve, and its wetlands, ponds and upland areas are connected to larger natura l systems. Harmony is also a Dark Sky compliant community with specialized lights designed to minimize light pollution, and its community pool is heated geothermally. Va rious environmental education displays and programs are in place in the community. Ha rmony has a sales center to help market the community and educate potential homebuyers about environmental features and practices. They use a multimedia CD-Rom, educational brochures and site tours for marketing purposes as well. Rock Springs Ridge Rock Springs Ridge, a master-planned golf co mmunity in Orange County, Florida began residential development in 1997. Rock Springs Ridge covers about 1,000 acres, with no set % protected from any future development. This ma ster-planned community is currently partitioned into six villages, which to date hold approxi mately 1,500 homes. Rock Springs Ridge does not

PAGE 18

18 put special emphasis on ecologically responsible development. A pproximately 57 miles separate Rock Springs Ridge and Harmony. Participant Selection I identified potential responde nts through online public Proper ty Appraisers records for Manatee, Sarasota, and Orange Counties, Florid a. Osceola county records were not used, as Harmony provided a list of its residents. Criter ia for control community selection were based on the conditions present in the two green communities. For Lakewood Ranch, Greenbrook II was a new phase within the larger master-planned community, thus fo r Palmer Ranch, the new phase of Serenade was selected as a control. For the purpose of this paper, th ese subdivisions will still be referred to as communities. For Harmony, the entire community is green, thus for Rock Springs Ridge, the entire community was selected as well. The controls were the closest masterplanned communities having comparable home values and a sufficient number of new homeowners. I selected only new homeowners, defined as thos e listed as owners of a home with a value between $100,000 and $500,000 and a sales date between August 2004 and May 2006. Selecting only new homeowners was important as I was most interested in their mindset when last looking for a home, and needed them to recall that earlier time as accurately as possible. I sent a survey to every new home owner in the four communities. A total of 211, 258, 166, and 304 surveys were sent out to Lake wood Ranch, Palmer Ranch, Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge, respectively. Of these 73, 87, 59 and 121 surveys were returned, giving response rates of 34.6%, 33.7%, 35.5% and 39.8%, respectively. Survey Instrument This mail survey was conducted in June of 2006. I modified the Dillman (2000) method as done by Hostetler & Youngentob (2005), formatting the survey booklet and mailing it in a hand addressed envelope. Also included in the envelope was a cover le tter and self-addressed

PAGE 19

19 stamped envelope for survey return. The cove r letter provided a genera l explanation of the project and guaranteed respondents confidentiality. A total of 939 survey questionnaires were sent and respondents were given three weeks from the mailing date to return their surveys. I matched as many owners as possible with his or her listing in the national White Pages for follow-up phone call reminders. I used phone call re minders for all poten tial respondents with listed numbers who did not respond by the date specifi ed in the cover letter and first page of the survey. I sent an additional surv ey packet to those re questing one. I called t hose for whom I left a message a second time one week after the initia l call. Those without li sted numbers and those reached only through a message were sent a se cond copy of the survey packet as well. Question Design The survey was pre-tested on a group of fift een homeowners. Due to the small size of communities used in this study, I did not wish to reduce the possible respondent pool by forming a pre-test group from these residents. I in stead formed the group from a master-planned community of similar size and characteristics in Gainesville, FL. I adjusted the survey according to recommendations from this group, in order to enhance the question flow and answerability of the final instrument. The questions addressing green design pref erences, green marketing initiatives and demographics were grouped together as part of a larger survey, as was the question on the definition of green. Because the time since pu rchase ranged between one and 15 months, the survey instructions specified for respondents to answer the green design questions by recalling their preferences when last looking for a home. Seventeen features associated with green community design were chosen for the survey. The green design preference questions were 5 point Likert-like (1932) scale que stions. To determine factors that were most important overall regardless of their green value, an open-ended question was used asking respondents to list the

PAGE 20

20 top three reasons for choosing the current home that they live in. This home could be either the one in the study site or another if they had not m oved into the study site ho me yet, were using the study site home as a second home, or k eeping it as an investment property. Questions on green marketing features were ta ilored to each community pair, based on the existing features that were primarily marketed in the green community through the sales center and sales literature. For Lakewood Ranch, questi ons were designed after a site visit, where a sales representative took me through Lakewood Ranch, Greenbrook II, and the Green Gallery. Marketing materials were collected and an inform al interview with the sales representative was conducted as well. I formed twelve green marketing questions based on the information acquired during this visit. The same questions were repeated in the Palmer Ranch survey, substituting the community name where appropriate. This was done for two reasons: first, to standardize the length and conten t of the two surveys and second, to control for any information related to these questions that respondents could have receiv ed outside of Lakewood Ranchs marketing initiatives. For Harmony, the same procedure was repeate d, but due to the amount of green marketing, an extensive list of questions was formed. This list was provided to the Conservation Manager at Harmony and he chose six questions best representing the environm ental issues he felt were stressed most at the sales office. For both commun ity pairs, these questions used true, false, and unsure response choices. Survey questions were balanced by using both correct and incorrect statements. The information provided by the green communities marketing materials was the sole determinant of whether a statement was true or false. I was also interested in exploring how respondents in the green communities defined green, compared to those in the control commun ities, as this term has been used in various

PAGE 21

21 ways. An open ended question, asking responde nts to define green in terms of the environment was used to test this. Finally, th e ten questions addressi ng demographics asked participants to choose the best response or fill-in-the-blank (See Appendix A for a list of all survey questions.) Analyses Quantitative To identify possible differences among categor ical responses in these two communities for individual questions, a Chi-squa re test was used for non-normal distributions, except when cell frequency (less than 5) made a Fishers Exac t test more appropriate. For non-categorical responses a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for non-normal data and ANOVA was used for normal data. Normality was determined using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Green preference questions were analyzed bot h individually and combined, as were green marketing questions. For individua l green preference questions, I wa s only interested in features that respondents felt were importa nt and only compared those featur es with a response mean of 4 or greater, which coincided with important or very important. For green preference questions, Cronbachs alpha was used to first de termine if a scale combining the questions had an acceptable level of reliability (Cronbachs alpha of .7 or higher). For marketing questions, Cronbachs alpha was calculated; however, I was inte rested in overall index scores regardless of scale reliability. For analysis of green marketing questions, respondents were only awarded a score of when they were correct. No points were awarded for incorrect answers or responses of unsure. Test index scores from the mark eting questions (number co rrect out of 12) were also converted to a scale of 100 points for interpretation. It is possible that differences in demogr aphics between the green and conventional homebuyers could have an effect on differences observed in thei r question responses. To control

PAGE 22

22 for this, I first examined any potential demogra phic differences using the same statistical tests described above. If demographic differences were uncovered by this analysis, Pearsons correlation matrix was used to determine if th ese demographic variables significantly correlated to any specific questions. If a demographic diffe rence did significantly correlate to a specific question or to a scale, the demographic could be enhancing or masking differences between the two community types on the response variab le. I used an ANCOVA to control for the correlation between the demographic variable and th e response variable. This test is robust to violations of the normality assumption, so long as the homogeneity of slopes assumption is not violated when group size is unequal (Levy, 1980). Because the numbers of respondents in my community pairs were not equal, I first used Leve nes test to check for homogeneity of slopes on non-normal data. The ANCOVA would show whet her there was a difference in the response variable, once the demographic variables were controlled for. To gauge the answers of nonresponders, I co mpared the responses of the first 25 % of surveys returned to the responses of the last 25 % in each community pair. I used the same statistical procedures as when comparing the two community types. I assumed that if for the most part, the late responders were not answering significantly differently from the early responders then the non-responders, if coerced to respond, may not differ from responders. For all of the above tests, an alpha value of 0.05 was used. Qualitative For the open-ended green definition questi on, I looked for key terms in the responses. Based on visual analysis, I create d five categories: 1) environmen tal, 2) health and safety, 3) aesthetic, 4) negative, and 5) ot her. The other category included any responses I could not fit into the first four categories. Because respondent s could write as much as they desired, multiple categories were assigned to a single respondent s definition, when appropriate (see Appendix C

PAGE 23

23 for criteria used to assign answers to categories) I summed the total number of responses falling in each category. The same process was used for the open-e nded question asking what features (not necessarily green) were the main reasons respon dents chose to purchase their current home. I looked for key terms in the responses that had a hi gh rate of repetition. Based on visual analysis, I created nine categories: 1) location, 2) cost and value, 3) home features, 4) natural environment, 5) neighborhood featur es, 6) sense of community, 7) sa fety and privacy, 8) schools, and 9) other. The other category included any responses I could not f it into the first eight categories (see Appendix C for criteria used to assign answers to categories). If respondents listed more than three categories as I defined them I counted the first three. Regardless of the order they were listed in, the total number of responses falling in each category was recorded for the community as a whole. Results Demographics Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Significant differences among these two co mmunities existed for four demographic questions (Table 1-1). Lakewood Ranch homeown ers were significantly older and had a higher level of attachment with relation to their status with their home. Of those residing in the home full or part time, Palmer Ranch homeowners ha d resided in the home longer, and were more likely to rent it out. Correlations existed between three of these demographics and three survey questions (all P values < 0.05). No correlations were found for the difference in time residing in the home. All correlations were take n into account with ANCOVA analyses.

PAGE 24

24 Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Significant differences between these two communities existed for three demographic questions (Table 1-1). Harmony homeowners we re more likely to rent their home out. Rock Springs Ridge homeowners were si gnificantly older and had a highe r level of guardianship with relation to their parental status. Correlations existed betw een two of these demographics and eight other indivi dual questions (all P values < 0.05). No correlations were found for the difference in guardianship. All correlations we re taken into account with ANCOVA analyses. Early versus Late Respondents When early responders were compared to late responders in the combined pool of Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch homeowners, ear ly responders resided in their home longer and placed less importance on having shopping in wa lking distance when last looking for a home ( P < 0.05). In Harmony and Rocks Springs Ridge, early responders placed less importance on having energy-efficient appliances when last looking for a home ( P < 0.05). Green Design Preferences Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Of the questions targeting green design features, homeowners in both communities had six green design features with a su rvey response mean of four or greater; five of the six were shared between the two communitie s (See Table 1-2). A mean of four or greater corresponds to rating a feature as somewhat important and v ery important. The five important features shared between new homeowners in both comm unities were indoor air quality, open green spaces nearby, energy efficiency, energy-effici ent appliances, and a walkable community. Palmer Ranch homeowners also ranked water-savi ng appliances as being important. Of these important features, new homeowners in La kewood Ranch were only significantly more interested in living in a walk able community (Table 1-2).

PAGE 25

25 For both communities only two features had means less than three, indicating that respondents were leaning to the un important side of the neutral point. These two features were having public transportation n earby and having a community dog park. When all green design feature questions were collapsed into a scale (Cronbachs alpha = 0.90) no significant difference was found between the two communiti es (Table 1-2). Beyond featur es particularly associated with green development, the top choices for choo sing ones current home fell into the same three categories for new homeowners in both communiti es. These were in order of importance: location (Lakewood Ranch = 24.5 %, Palmer Ranc h = 33.5%), home features (Lakewood Ranch = 21.8 %, Palmer Ranch = 18.9%), and cost/value (Lakewood Ranch = 15.4 %, Palmer Ranch = 17.9%). Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Of the questions targeting green design features, homeowners in both communities preferred at least six green desi gn features, indicated with a surv ey response mean of four or greater. The six important features shared betw een new homeowners in both communities were indoor air quality, open green spaces nearby, ener gy efficiency, energy-efficient appliances, a walkable community, and water-saving applia nces. Of these important features, new homeowners in Harmony were only significantly more interested in living in a walkable community (Table 1-2). Only two features had means less than three, indicating respondents were leaning to the unimportant side of the neutral point. These we re having public transp ortation nearby (in both communities) and having a community dog park (R ock Springs Ridge only). When all the green design feature questions were collapsed in to a scale (Cronbachs alpha = 0.88), Harmony homeowners placed more importance on green de sign overall (Table 1-2). Beyond features particularly associated with green development, the top choices for choosing ones current home

PAGE 26

26 fell into the same category for one of the three choices in both communities. For new homeowners in Harmony the top three were in order of importance: th e natural environment (20.5%), location (19.2%), and cost/value (14.7 %). For Rock Springs Ridge these were home features (30.7%), location (19.7%), a nd neighborhood amenities (13.3%), respectively. Green Marketing Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Of the twelve questions related to gree n marketing efforts, new homeowners in Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch differed sign ificantly on eight questions (Table 1-3). Lakewood Ranch homeowners were more likely to be correct on the questions concerning the following: the extent of green building in their community; the wildlife-friendly status of their communitys golf course; the appearance of green homes; the cost of gr een homes; the resale value of green homes; the durability of low VOC paints; the performance of Energy Star appliances and the water cons ervation associated with th e Florida Yards & Neighborhoods program. When all questions were combined in to a test index (Cronbachs alpha = 0.78), Lakewood Ranch homeowners scored significantly higher overall (Table 1-3); however on a scale of 100%, this score was a 59.3%. Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Of the six questions related to green mark eting efforts, new homeowners in Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge differed significantly on five (Table 1-3). On four of the five questions, Harmony homeowners were more likely to be corr ect. These questions concerned the existence in their community of the following: Dark -Sky compliance, a town -wide environmental covenant, prohibitions against pl anting invasive-exotic plant sp ecies, and a community employed conservation manager. Rock Springs Ridge homeown ers were more likely to be correct about the number of trees left in their community after development. When all questions were combined

PAGE 27

27 into a marketing index (Cronbachs alpha = 0.2), Harmony homeowners scored significantly higher overall (Table 1-3); however on a scale of 100%, this score was a 61.7%. Defining Green Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Sixty-seven respondents in La kewood Ranch and 69 in Palmer Ranch gave definitions of green. Many definitions containe d references to things that fell under more than one category, resulting in 102 category entries for Lakewood Ranch and 109 for Palmer Ranch (Figure 1). Definitions classified as e nvironmental were the most common in both Lakewood Ranch (80.4%) and Palmer Ranch (64.2%). In Lakew ood Ranch this was followed by definitions classified as health & safety (10.8%) and th en aesthetic (4.9%) and vice versa for Palmer Ranch (aesthetic = 17.4%, health & safety = 14.7%). No nega tive definitions were given by homeowners in Lakewood Ranch and onl y two were given in Palmer Ranch. Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Forty-two respondents in Harmony and 56 in Rock Springs Ridge gave definitions of green. Many definitions containe d references to things that fell under more than one category, resulting in 73 category entries for Harmony a nd 128 for Rock Springs Ridge (Figure 1). Definitions classified as e nvironmental were the most common in both Harmony (68.5%) and Rock Springs Ridge (53.9%). This was followed by aesthetic (Harmony = 19.2%, Rock Springs Ridge = 32.8%) and then health & safe ty (Harmony = 11%, Rock Springs Ridge = 7%) in both communities. Only one negative definition was given by a homeowner in Harmony and only three in Rock Springs Ridge.

PAGE 28

28 Discussion Green Design Preferences In the first community pair (Lakewood Ranc h and Palmer Ranch), the combined scale indicated no overall difference in new homeowners desire for fe atures associated with green development. This means when they were last looking for a home, green features were rated similarly between the green master-planned homeowners versus homeowners who bought into the conventional one. In fact, residents in both communities rated the same five green features fairly high and only two features were rated as unimportant. In the second pair (Harmony and Rock Springs), Harmony homeowners did pla ce more importance on green design features overall, stemming from the combined scale anal ysis. However, both green and conventional community homeowners indicated six green features that they reported were somewhat, or very important when last looking for a home and only tw o features were rated as unimportant. In both community pairs, having public transportation and a dog park nearby were the only features rated as being unimportant. Features that were important in both pairs we re open green spaces, a walkable community, energy efficient appliances, water efficient appliances, indoor air quality and overall energy efficiency, which are advantages of a green community. These results demonstrate that people may pref er development with green features, as long as the option exists and is well marketed. More and more consumers believe that environmental conditions are worsening (Banerjee & McKeage, 1994) and have become more concerned with how their consumer behaviors eff ect the environment (Krause, 1993). Identifying the green consumer is a challenge (LaRoche, 2001) but only targeting those consumers identified as green would be a mistake (Polonsky & Rosenberger, 2 001). Certain individuals will always be motivated to make environmentally responsible pu rchases, and others wi ll probably always be indifferent, at least for now. However these indi viduals represent the outlie rs, and up to 50% of

PAGE 29

29 consumers express some environmental concern but need the extra push to re flect that concern in their purchases (Ottman, 1998). This group of consumers is made up by people like those surveyed from conventional developments in th is study and could be a focus of marketers attention. Developing and marketing green communities ca n benefit more than the environment. Businesses addressing environmental stewar dship may create a sustainable competitive advantage (Menon et al., 1999) through enhanced reputati on and consumer relations (Arora & Cason, 1996) and improved marketing and fina ncial performance (M iles & Corvin, 2000). In fact the green aspect of a community may serve as a tie-breaker for consumers considering equal properties (Peattie, 2001). Of course for a home other im portant features like location, home features, neighborhood amenities, and cost and value still need to be satisfied, but a home in a green community can also provide this, as th ese four features were also top reasons green community homeowners reported fo r choosing a home in my study. Green Marketing It appears that Harmonys and Lakewood Ra nchs green marketing initiatives were somewhat absorbed by new homeowners. Harm ony homeowners scored significantly higher overall and on 4 of the 6 individual ques tions. Lakewood Ranch homeowners scored significantly higher overall and on 8 of the 12 individual questions Still on a scale of 100%, Lakewood Ranch homeowners only scored a 59. 3% and Harmony homeowners only a 61.7%. For Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge, a low Cr onbachs alpha resulted from combining the 6 marketing questions. Though this means the sm all number of diverse questions was not addressing an overlying construct, I was more interested in tota ling the individual score to see not only if they differed between communities, but how they were scoring overall. Results suggest new homeowners retained some, but not a ll environmental information as a result of the

PAGE 30

30 combined effect of the sales centers, whic h contained educational materials addressing environmental issues, and sales personnel. The green marketi ng points that we re not better absorbed by Lakewood Ranch homeowners concerned the health threat of indoor air quality, the functioning ability of Energy Star Appliances, the mental health benefits of natural lighting, and the durability of flooring made from biodegrad able materials and those not better absorbed by Harmony homeowners concer ned Harmonys gopher tortoise pr eserve and number of trees left after development. Of these, indoor air qu ality and energy efficiency were important issues to even conventional homeowners so better marketing of these issues may be important when targeting the average homebuyer. The green marketing issues that were retained by Harmony and Lakewood Ranch homeowners may very well be the selling point s that resonated best with them, however diversifying marketing techniques can reach even more potential buyers (Peattie, 2001). It is crucial for green marketers to find a way to reach all audiences (McCarty & Shrum 1994). Marketers can also play the role of envi ronmental educators through green initiatives (Mendleson & Polonsky, 1995) and can use campa igns to increase consumer concern about issues to enhance their future customer base (Schlegelmilch & Bohlen, 1 996). Training for real estate professionals is perhaps one way to reach consumers about sustainable features within a community, as they usually have the most cont act with potential buyers. This can provide immediate benefit for the devel oper; for example, the Florida Green Building Coalition awards points for such things as sta ff training, and environmental ed ucation in marketing materials (Florida Green Building Coalition, 2003). Some important determinants of green pur chasing behavior are consumers level of clarity about the pr oduct (Scholsberg, 1993) their perception of th e problem the product

PAGE 31

31 attempts to alleviate and thei r responsibility to solve it (LaRoche, 2001), and the degree of compromise associated with the purchase, pi tted against the degree of confidence in the products ability to make a real difference (Peat tie, 2001). One other crucial determinant is the social norms associated with purchasing the green product (Kalafatis et al., 1999). As people with various motivations increa singly purchase the green option of a product, others may sense that doing the same is expected. Purchasing a green product can then create a sense of pride, especially with positive reinforcement from fam ily, friends, neighbors, etc. As the green option becomes common, not purchasing it may ev en create a sense of shame or guilt. Marketers must be clear about a devel opments green attributes, advertise the convenience associated with living in a green comm unity, explain the lasting impact of a large, one-time decision to buy a green house and find wa ys to exhibit the difference they would be making in a way that resonates with them (Brower & Leon, 1999; Bei & Simpson, 1995; LaRoche, 2001). One technique could be using analogies with vivid imagery to convey the amount of money and natural resources saved or pollution prevented over time, resulting from the decision to purchase a green home versus a conventional one. Fo r example, monetary savings over time can be expressed as how ma ny free years of en ergy a homeowner could receive; energy savings could be expressed as the number of schools that can be powered with the community savings a whole; pollution preventi on over time can be made equivalent to the number of cars it could take off the road; and water savings from appliances can be equated to the capacity of a local water body. This techni que can put the impact of the purchase in perspective and demonstrate the large differen ce this single decision can make, both as an individual purchase of a green home and as one piece in a larger green community.

PAGE 32

32 To promote green consumerism as a social nor m, alliances can be formed with credible environmental organizations (Mendleson & Po lonsky, 1995). Lakewood Ranch has formed one such alliance with Audubon International for their ce rtified golf course. Forming an alliance with the media is also critical to keeping gr een issues as a top priority (Thogersen, 2006) Alliances with scientists and other professionals can be beneficial as well (Coddington; 1993); for example Harmony has worked with staff from the Unite d States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the American Society for the Preventi on of Cruelty to Animals, and with faculty from nine universities in planning their comm unity. In addition, on site education, beyond the sales center, is important to enga ge residents and increase levels of sustainable practices being adopted (Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005). Defining Green New homeowners in all four communities predominately defined green in the environmental category, meaning pro-environmen t in one way or another. Other definitions included references to human-cen tered concepts (health and safety) and general references to plant and animal life (aesthet ics). If we think of gr een as being synonymous with sustainable, defining green with human-cen tered concepts may be equally legitimate. Sustainability has been depicted as three equal rings representing the environmental, social and economic sectors with their inte rsection being the best case scen ario (International Council of Local Environmental Initiative, 1996). People who engage in pr o-environmental behaviors like green purchasing have a variety of motives for doing so, including egoistic, social-altruistic, and biospheric concerns (Schultz 2000). Finding the best ways to frame environmental issues to appeal to different people will have a broader e ffect than using a single angle (Schultz, 2003). An example of this framing technique is us ed by Lakewood Ranch during the marketing phase,

PAGE 33

33 where the theme in their Green Gallery is Save your planet save your money, save your health. This marketing technique is one that can be expanded in green communities. Defining green with general references to pl ant and animal life can be both positive and negative. Associating the term with native plants and animals, even for an aesthetic reason is positive, but assuming that any biological life in any place is good for the environment can be dangerous. Invasive species and high numbers of common species without regard to imperiled species are two examples of when the simple presence of biological life is not enough for a healthy environment. Another ex ample is respondents repeated reference to the traditional American lawn in their definitions. Further e ducation would be necessary for homeowners who come into a green community with this pre-conc eived notion. The most promising result was that even for homeowners in the conventional commun ities, the term green was rarely given a negative definition. This is a legitimate concern as there can be a stigma attached to green housing, when customers believe there are risks involved like cost, aesthetics, safety and convenience (Department of Industry, Technolog y and Commerce, 1991), but in this case new homeowners did not seem adve rse to the concept overall. Conclusion Although this research was conducted on four sp ecific communities in Florida, the insights it provides can still be valuable to the future of green development. Green design features were an important consideration for new homeowners both in green and conventional master-planned communities. Including green elements in th e design of more communities, combined with adequate marketing and education through a sa les center, can benef it the environment and improve sales. In this study, new homeowners perceptions of green were not negative and many homeowners preferred green features that could be incorporated in master-planned communities. With a growing concern in the problems caused by the current development

PAGE 34

34 paradigm and a growing interest in solving th ese problems, green communities represent a way to build a sustainable relationship with the environment that resonates with consumers. It seems that a green sales center that educates homeowners about envi ronmental features available within a community can help improve envir onmental knowledge. However, knowledge is only one step and the translation to sustainable beha viors was not addressed in this study. Future research should not only look at consumer green design preferences and evaluating green marketing efforts on a broader scale, but mon itor whether residents translate environmental understanding into everyday practices.

PAGE 35

35TABLE 1-1. Significant differen ces in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge n M SD n M SD Question LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Statistic P -Value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR Statistic P -Value Status with home in communitya 71 80 3.87 2.91 1.55 1.82 X2 = 24.28 P < .0001 Length of residenceb 43 36 0.52 1.17 0.97 0.42 Z = 1.97 P = .049 Year of birth, 19__c 70 83 59.41 55.01 12.79 12.97 F = 4.45 P = .037 55 112 63.78 56.54 11.19 11.15 X2 = 13.83 P = .0002 Do you ever rent out this home?d 66 85 0.20 0.45 0.40 0.50 X2 = 10.39 P = .0001 59 118 0.15 0.03 0.36 0.18 FET P = .011 Parental statuse 59 116 2.78 2.82 1.38 1.21 X2 = 10.82 P = .013 NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fishers Exact (FET), Wilc oxon-Mann-Whitney and ANOVA test s where significant difference w as found between at least one pair of communities; Green community indicated with a G; a. higher mean = higher attachment with home (1 = investment property, 2 = future secondary residence, 3 = future primary residence, 4 = current secondary residence, 5 = current primary residence); b. In year s; c. older = lower mean; d. 1 = yes, 0 = no; e. higher mean = more guardianship (1 = no children, 2 = no children reside with respondent, 3 = some children reside w ith respondent, 4 = all children reside with respondent); Actual question wording can be found in Appendix A.

PAGE 36

36TABLE 1-2. Important green design featur es indicated by survey respondents from pa ired green and conventional communities in Florida Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge n M SD n M SD Green Design Feature LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Statistic P -Value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR Statistic P -Value Indoor air quality 73 87 4.14 4.40 0.92 1.03 FET P = 0.116 59 121 4.49 4.51 0.77 0.70 F = 2.46C P = 0.088 Open greenspaces nearby 72 87 4.52 4.31 0.82 0.96 FET P = 0.341 59 121 4.66 4.34 0.58 0.81 FET P = 0.072 Energy efficiency 73 87 4.41 4.16 0.88 0.99 FET P = 0.350 59 121 4.53 4.61 0.68 0.61 FET P = 0.414 Energy efficient appliances 73 87 4.25 4.20 0.94 0.95 FET P = 0.915 59 121 4.49 4.55 0.68 0.63 FET P = 0.824 Walkable community* 73 87 4.25 4.11 0.91 0.93 F = 2.84C P = 0.027 59 120 4.58 4.29 0.65 0.95 F = 4.15C P = 0.018 Water saving appliances 73 87 3.93 4.01 0.98 1.03 FET P = 0.831 59 121 4.39 4.27 0.70 0.85 F = 4.15C P = 0.018 Green Preference Scale* ( = 0.88) 57 111 33.32 39.16 7.82 10.00 F = 14.8 P = 0.0002 NOTE: Results based on Fishers Exact (FET), ANOVA and ANCOVA tests where means for at least one community were > 4; Green com munity indicated with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a C; For all questions, a higher mean expresses a higher level of importance placed on the f eature when last looking for a home; *Indicates green community with significantly more interest.

PAGE 37

37TABLE 1-3. Significant differences in scores on green marketing questions of survey respondents from paired green and conventi onal communities in Florida. Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge n M SD n M SD Question LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Statistic P -Value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR Statistic P -Value Since January 2005 every new village in __ has been built "green" 73 87 0.59 0.08 0.49 0.27 F = 23.91C P < 0.0001 __ has taken steps to make its golf course more wildlife friendly 73 87 0.64 0.05 0.48 0.21 F = 27.09C P < 0.0001 Green homes look different from traditional homes 73 87 0.74 0.34 0.44 0.48 X2 = 26.09 P < 0.0001 Green homes cost more to maintain than traditional homes 73 87 0.72 0.34 0.45 0.48 X2 = 22.66 P < 0.0001 Being "green" decreases a home's resale value 73 87 0.85 0.49 0.36 0.50 X2 = 23.38 P < 0.0001 Paints with low Volatile Organic Compounds (low VOC paints) have less durability than traditional paints 73 87 0.31 0.17 0.47 0.38 X2 = 4.41 P = 0.036 Energy Star appliances can perform as well as traditional appliances 72 87 0.74 0.59 0.44 0.49 X2 = 4.16 P = 0.041 A yard certified by Florida Yards & Neighborhoods can save water 73 87 0.5 0.31 0.50 0.46 X2= 6.28 P = 0.0122 Marketing Test Index (LR/PR = 0.82, HM/RSR = 0.62) 72 87 7.12 4.27 3.00 2.97 Z = 5.51 P < 0.0001 59 120 3.7 1.17 2.27 1.96 Z = 9.14 P <.0001 There are fewer trees in __ now than before it was developed* 59 120 0.36 0.64 0.49 0.48 X2 =12.53 P = 0.0004 __ is a Dark-Sky compliant community 59 120 0.85 0.15 0.36 0.36 F = 79.43C P < 0.0001 __ residents have a town-wide environmental covenant to follow 59 120 0.73 0.06 0.45 0.24 F = 77.18C P < 0.0001 There are at least some prohibitions against planting invasive-exotic plant species in __ 59 120 0.83 0.07 0.38 0.26 F = 63.98C P < 0.0001 __ employs a full-time conservation manager 59 120 0.78 0.17 0.42 0.37 X2 = 65.72 P < 0.0001 NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fishers Exact (FET), W ilcoxon-Mann-Whitney, ANOVA and ANCOVA tests where significant diff erence was found between at least one pair of communitie s; Green community indicated with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a C; a higher mean expresses a greater number of correct responses; *Indicates conventio nal community with higher score.

PAGE 38

38 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Lakewood Ranch (Green) Palmer RanchHarmony (Green) Rock Springs Ridge# entries into category Environmental Health & Safety Aesthetic Negative Other Figure 1-1. Categories of green definitions indicated by survey respondents for paired green and conventional communities in Fl orida

PAGE 39

39 CHAPTER 2 ENVIRONMENTAL KNOWLEDGE, ATTIT UDES, AND BEHAVIORS OF NEW HOMEOWNERS IN CONVENTIONAL AND GREEN MASTER-PLANNED COMMUNITIES IN FLORIDA Introduction The built environment has changed radically in the United States over the course of the twentieth century (Southworth & Owens 1993). Sprawl, both urban and suburban, has become the overwhelming trend and is characterized by a lack of integrative pl anning resulting in lowdensity, auto-oriented, monotypic developmen t (Benfield, Raimi, & Chen, 1999). Though the intention of development in the U.S. may be to make the American Dream, a reality, the problems associated with sprawl are now unde rmining that dream (Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2000). Social problems resulting from the current development paradigm are diverse and include loss of public spaces (Power, 2001), fiscal stress (Burtchell et al., 2005), environmental justice issues (Haughton, 1999), and loss of sense of community (Brown, Burton, & Sweaney, 1998). Many human health issues, both physical a nd mental have been tied to sprawl (Handy et al., 2002; Weich et al., 2002). Degraded air qu ality (Frank, 2000) and reduced and degraded water supplies (Otto et al., 2002) are some negative environment effects, and wildlife also suffers from the loss and fragmentation of their hab itats (United States E nvironmental Protection Agency, 2000). While its definition has been the spark of many debates (Jabareen, 2004), sustainable development seeks to integrate conservation a nd development, satisfy basic human needs, achieve equity and social justice, provide cult ural diversity, and mainta in ecological integrity without compromising future generations ability to do the same (Bruntland, 1987). Though development by its nature will always leave a foot print behind, this footprint can be minimized through environmentally sensitive development techniques, and such development can also

PAGE 40

40 provide social benefits (Srini vasan, OFallon, & Dearry, 2003; Le yden, 2003). In fact there has been a significant call fr om the American public for such sustainable development, exhibited in the form of hundreds of ballo t initiatives (Chen, 2000). New forms of development are aiming to decrease the negative side effects of conventional development, while simultaneously creating benefits. Some examples of alternative development forms include neotraditi onal development, urban containment, compact cities, and eco-cities (Jabareen, 2006). Master-p lanned development aims to foster a sense of community by having various amenities and convenie nces built into the design like parks, lakes, golf courses, recreational trails, schools and s hopping (Jackson & Martin, 2005). A fairly new alternative is green development, which seek s to minimize negative environmental effects associated with the built environment (Str omberg, 2005). Residential green development incorporates green buildings with site planning and th e landscapes that su pport these buildings (Rocky Mountain Institute, 1998). Certification is available for green development on a national level through the U.S. Green Building Councils Lead ership in Energy Efficient Design (LEED) Program (U.S. Green Building Council, 2005), as well as through state-level organizations such as the Florida Green Building Coalition (Florida Green Building Coalition, 2003). While a green development may boast infrastruc ture that is more sustainable, there is another piece to the equation. Following the ph ysical design and completed construction of a green community, challenges can arise when people must manage their neighborhood in a sustainable manner, utilizing various environm entally-friendly practices on their own (Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005). Williams and Dair (2006) suggest that th ere are two types of sustainability associated with su stainable development. The firs t is technical sustainability, which is reflected by things lik e building materials and construc tion methods used to create

PAGE 41

41 developments and the second is behavioral sust ainability, which is reflected by the behaviors of residents living in them. Green building and design elements create a community with more technical sustainability than other conventional developments, but it can only truly become a functional green community if residents are uti lizing these elements correctly and exhibiting behavioral sustainability (Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005; Williams & Dair 2006). The reasons for peoples engagement or lack there of in pro-environmental behaviors has been the core subject matter of many theoretical models (Fishbein & Ajzen, 1975; Ajzen & Fishbein, 1980; Hines, Hungerford, & Tomera 1986; Hungerford & Volk 1990; Blake, 1999; Stern, 2000; Kaplan 2000). Predicting pro-envi ronmental behavior is complex (Kollmus & Agyeman, 2002), involving a vast am ount of variables, however one potential pred ictor of proenvironmental behavior that hasnt received mu ch attention is the built environment. Though the built environment has been shown to affect physic al activity in general (Frank & Engelke, 2001), the effects that it has on behavi ors particular to sustainability is still not clearly understood. Some alternative development types, such as Ne w Urbanism, have been promoted as being able to foster such behavioral sustainability (K atz & Scully, 1994; Brown & Cropper, 2001; Congress of New Urbanism, 2001), however evidence exists to the cont rary (Till, 2001; Zimmerman, 2001;Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005). In the case of green development, understanding the level of environmental consciousness (in terms of knowledge, attitude and behavior) of people buying into these communities is important. It can reveal if peopl e attracted to such developments come with preexisting behavioral sustainability. If they do not, and assuming that the built environment cannot alone promote the behavioral sustainability necessary for functional green communities, knowledge of this can have major implications for the future design and management of green

PAGE 42

42 developments. For development to be truly sust ainable, organization and management may need as much attention as physical design (Talen & Ellis, 2002; Youngent ob & Hostetler, 2005). In this study, comparing new homeowners in two pairs of conve ntional and green master-planned communities in Florida, my objectives were to: 1) determine whether the environmental knowledge, attitudes, and be haviors of new homeowners differed between conventional and green communities and 2) determine the extent to which re sidents, within their first year and a half of li ving in a community, retained any environmental knowledge and behaviors as a result of commun ity interactions or specific education initiatives present in the green communities. Methods Study Sites Lakewood Ranch Lakewood Ranch, an award-winning master-pla nned golf community situated in Sarasota and Manatee counties, Florida began resident ial development in 1995. It received green certification for all new phases from the Flor ida Green Building Coalit ion in 2004, making it the largest master-planned community in the state to be certified green. Lakewood Ranch covers 7,000 acres, half of which is set as ide and protected from any future development. This masterplanned community is currently pa rtitioned into five villages, wh ich to date hold approximately 6,000 homes. It has won several environmenta l awards including the 2005 Residential Environmental Award from the Florida Associ ation of Realtors. Starting in 2005, all new residential development in Lakewood Ranch has a dhered to sufficient green standards for Florida Green Building Coalition (FGBC) certification. The phase that I studied, Village of Greenbrook II, was the first in Lakewood Ranch to be com posed entirely of green homes and to obtain FGBCs green development certification. It cont ains both single family homes and townhouse

PAGE 43

43 condominiums. At the commencement of this study, Greenbrook II held 226 townhouse homes, and 605 single family homes. Since the building of Gr eenbrook II, one other village has been entirely developed to green standards. Lakewood Ranch contains over 100 miles of tr ails connecting lakes, parks and preserves. Native flora are encouraged and reclaimed and recy cled water is used fo r irrigation. In May of 2006, Lakewood Ranch Golf and Country Club was designated a "Certified Audubon Cooperative Sanctuary" by the Audubon Cooperativ e Sanctuary System. To market the community to potential residents, Lakewood Ranch opened their Green Gallery, in 2005. Consisting of a model home and yard, this gallery exhibits green design features available for residents. Lakewood Ranch also uses educationa l brochures and sales tours to market its green design elements. Palmer Ranch Palmer Ranch, a master-planned golf comm unity in Sarasota County, Florida began residential development in the late 1980s. Palm er Ranch covers 10,000 acres, with less than 30% protected from any future development. This ma ster-planned community is partitioned into eighteen villages, which to da te hold approximately 8,000 homes. Palmer Ranch does not put special emphasis on ecologically responsible de velopment. In 2004, Serenade became Palmer Ranchs newest village. It is composed of entirely of condominium homes. At the commencement of this study, Serenade held 258 homes. Palmer Ranch and Lakewood Ranch are separated by approximately 13 miles. Harmony The town of Harmony, located in Osceola County, Florida is an award-winning masterplanned golf community that emphasizes human connection to animals and the natural environment. Residential development be gan in Harmony in 2002. Though it has not sought

PAGE 44

44 green community certification, it contains many of the design features of green communities. Harmony is comprised of 11,000 acres, containing two large 465 and 505 acre lakes; nearly 60% of open spaces are left as natu ral areas. All of Harmonys home s are Energy Star compliant. Homes are of Traditional Neighbor hood Design (TND) and inter-connected for convenient foot, bike or electric cart travel. This master-planne d community currently has four villages, which to date hold 320 homes. Harmony has won seve ral environmental awards including the 2003 Residential Environmental Award from the Florida Association of Realtors and the 2006 Best Practices Green Building Award from Sustainable Florida. Harmony labels itself as an environmentally intelligent community. Habitat protection is accomplished through open space conservation, a no build zone around the lakes, and other natural areas including a 31-acre gop her tortoise habitat and a 2-acr e endangered orchid preserve. Trees and shrubs native to Florida have been used in Harmonys 280-acre golf preserve, and its wetlands, ponds and upland areas are connected to larger natura l systems. Harmony is also a Dark Sky compliant community with specializ ed lights designed to minimize light pollution, and its community pool is heated geothermally. Harmony has a sales center to help market the community and educate potential homebuyers about environmental features and practices. They use a multimedia CD-Rom, educational brochures and site tours for marketing purposes as well. Once a home is purchased, Harmony seeks to further educate residents about the environment through various programs. Through the Harmony Institute, an independent foundation created to promote human health an d well-being through the interaction of people, animals and the environment, educational programming such as Living in Harmony, a City for People and Animals are offered. Harmony contains a Wild Side Walk of educational kiosks and hosts a website (www.wec.ufl.edu/extensio n/gc/harmony) to help homeowners better

PAGE 45

45 conserve natural resources and abide to Ha rmonys town-wide environmental covenant. Residents also have access to a monthly on-site Farmer's Market, a monthly newsletter and an online resident journal that pr omote Harmonys environmentally in telligent theme. Resident participation in environmental programs is enc ouraged through Conservation Club activities and through field trips, outdoor laborat ories and habitat studies for stude nts of the on-site schools. Rock Springs Ridge Rock Springs Ridge, a master-planned golf community in Orange County, Florida began residential development in 1997. Rock Springs Ridge covers about 1,000 acres, with no set % protected from any future development. This ma ster-planned community is currently partitioned into 6 villages, which to date hold approximate ly 1500 homes. Rock Springs Ridge does not put special emphasis on ecologically responsible de velopment. Approximately 57 miles separate Rock Springs Ridge and Harmony. Participant Selection I identified potential responde nts through online public Proper ty Appraisers records for Manatee, Sarasota, and Orange Counties, Florid a. Osceola county records were not used, as Harmony provided a list of its residents. Criter ia for control community selection were based on the conditions present in the two green communities. For Lakewood Ranch, Greenbrook II was a new subdivision within the larger master-plann ed community, thus for Palmer Ranch, the new subdivision of Serenade was sele cted as a control. For the purpose of this paper, these subdivisions will still be referred to as co mmunities. For Harmony, the entire community is green, thus for Rock Springs Ridge, the entir e community was selected as well. The controls were the closest master-planned communities having comparable home values and a sufficient number of new homeowners. Due to small comm unity sizes and the potential influence of the environmental theme of the survey on the re sponse rate of new homeowners in green

PAGE 46

46 communities, control communities with a higher num ber of new homeowners were selected to ensure the minimal amount of returned surveys necessary for analysis. New homeowners were defined as those listed as owners of a home with a value between $100,000 and $500,000 and a sales date between August 2004 and May 2006. Sel ecting only new homeowners was important as I was most interested in their mindset when la st looking for a home, and needed them to recall that earlier time as accurately as possible. I wa s also interested in the impact of any community interactions or educational initi atives within the first year an d a half of moving into a new community. I sent a survey to every new home owner in the four communities. A total of 211, 258, 166, and 304 surveys were sent out to Lakewood Ranch, Palmer Ranch, Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge, respectively. Of these 73, 87, 59 and 121 surveys were returned, giving response rates of 34.6%, 33.7%, 35.5% and 39.8% respectively. Survey Instrument This mail survey was conducted in June of 2006. I modified the Dillman (2000) method as done by Hostetler & Youngentob (2005), formatting the survey booklet and mailing it in a hand addressed envelope. Also included in the envelope was a cover le tter and self-addressed stamped envelope for survey return. The cove r letter provided a genera l explanation of the project and guaranteed respondents confidentiality. A total of 939 survey questionnaires were sent and respondents were given three weeks from the mailing date to return their surveys. I matched as many owners as possible with his or her listing in the national White Pages for follow-up phone call reminders. I used phone call re minders for all poten tial respondents with listed numbers who did not respond by the date specifi ed in the cover letter and first page of the survey. I sent an additional surv ey packet to those re questing one. I called t hose for whom I left a message a second time one week after the initia l call. Those without li sted numbers and those reached only through a message were sent a se cond copy of the survey packet as well.

PAGE 47

47 Question Design The survey was pre-tested on a group of fift een homeowners. Due to the small size of communities used in this study, I did not wish to reduce the possible respondent pool by forming a pre-test group from these residents. I in stead formed the group from a master-planned community of similar size and characteristics in Gainesville, FL. I adjusted the survey according to recommendations from this group, in order to enhance the question flow and answerability of the final instrument. The questions addressing environmental knowle dge, attitudes, and behavior as well as community environmental education and demographics were grouped together as part of a larger survey. Questions addressing environmental knowl edge asked respondents to self-rate their level of knowledge on thirteen environmen tal issues related to development using a 5 point Likert-like (1932) scale. The selection of these issues wa s based on previous surveys (Roper Worldwide, Inc. 1997, 1999) with additional questions included that addressed other relevant issues. The New Ecological Paradigm (NEP) was used to measur e environmental attitude, as it has had wide and diverse use in the past and has been shown to be a reliabl e scale (Dunlap et al., 2000). Questions addressing environmenta l behavior were also based pr imarily on a previous survey (Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005), with additiona l questions included th at addressed more behaviors related to proenvironment lifestyles. It is possible that through educationa l materials and programs and/or through conversation with neighbors, the community itsel f contributed to the le vel of environmental knowledge or participation in pro-environmental behaviors of new homeow ners that have lived in the community for a short period of time. To examine this, I provide d respondents with check boxes coinciding to each question on environmen tal knowledge and behavior and asked them to

PAGE 48

48 denote which knowledge and/or be haviors were influenced by living in the community (See wording of instructions in Appendix A). Questions on community environmental educa tion efforts (beyond the sales center) were tailored to each community pair, based on the ex isting features of the green community. At the time of my visit to Lakewood Ranch, no additional educationa l materials were provided to residents after move-in, thus no additional questions were included for this community pair. For Harmony, questions were drawn from a website (www.wec.ufl.edu/extension/gc/harmony) Harmony hosts for homeowners to help them in corporate more environmentally friendly practices in their lives. There are additional envi ronmental education features and programs in Harmony, however the website was chosen beca use it is equally accessible to all new homeowners and was promoted at the sales center, regardless of th eir living status with their home in Harmony at the time. Due to the amount of environmental education materials on this website, a thorough list of questi ons was formed. This list was provided to the Conservation Manager at Harmony to choose six questions best representing the environmental issues he felt were most important. Community environmental educ ation questions used a true, false, or unsure response scale. Statements that were both corr ect and incorrect, based on the websites content were used to remain balanced. The same questi ons were repeated in the Rock Springs Ridge survey, substituting the community name where appropriate. This was done for two reasons: First, to standardize the lengt h and content of the two survey s and second, to control for any information related to these questions that respondents could have received outside of Harmonys web site. The information provided by Harmonys website was the sole determinant of whether a statement was true or false. Fi nally, the ten questions addressing demographics

PAGE 49

49 asked participants to choose the best response or fill-in-the-blank (See Appendix A for a list of survey questions.) Analyses To identify possible differences among categor ical responses in these two communities for individual questions, a Chi-squa re test was used for non-normal distributions, except when cell frequency (less than 5) made a Fishers Exac t test more appropriate. For non-categorical responses a Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test was used for non-normal data and ANOVA was used for normally distributed data. Normality was determined using a Kolmogorov-Smirnov test. Environmental knowledge questions were anal yzed both individually and combined into a scale, as were environmental behavior questions and questions coming from Harmonys website. Attitude was only analyzed as a scale. For environmental knowledge, attitude and behavior questions Cronbachs alpha was used to first determine if a scale combining the questions had an acceptable level of reliability (C ronbachs alpha of .7 or higher). For questions coming from Harmonys website, Cronbachs alpha was calculated; however, I was interested in overall scores regardless of scale reliability. For these questions from the website, respondents were only awarded a score of when they were correct. No points were awarded for incorrect answers or responses of unsure. This test score (number correct out of 6) was also converted to a scale of 100 points for interpretation. Th e total number of boxes checked by respondents reporting they currently used the home in que stion as a primary or secondary residence, indicating the variables on which living in the community had an influence was counted. The total was compared between all of these re spondents and between only those respondents checking at least one box. It is possible that differences in demogr aphics between the green and conventional homebuyers could have an effect on differences observed in thei r question responses. To control

PAGE 50

50 for this, I first examined any potential demogra phic differences using the same statistical tests described above. If demographic differences were uncovered by this analysis, Pearsons correlation matrix was used to determine if th ese demographic variables significantly correlated to any specific questions. If a demographic diffe rence did significantly correlate to a specific question or to a scale, the demographic could be enhancing or masking differences between the two communities on the response variable. I us ed an ANCOVA to control for the correlation between the demographic variable an d the response variable. This te st is robust to violations of the normality assumption, so long as the homogeneity of slopes assumption is not violated when group size is unequal (Levy, 1980). Because the numbers of responde nts in my community pairs were not equal, I first used Leve nes test to check for homogene ity of slopes on non-normal data. The ANCOVA would show whether there was a di fference in the response variable, once the demographic variables were controlled for. To gauge the answers of nonresponders, I co mpared the responses of the first 25 % of surveys returned to the responses of the last 25 % in each community pair. I used the same statistical procedures as when comparing the two community type s. I assumed that if for the most part, the late responders were not answering significantly differently from the early responders then the non-responders, if coerced to respond, may not differ from responders. For all of the above tests, an alpha value of 0.05 was used. Results Demographics Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Significant differences among these two co mmunities existed for four demographic questions (Table 2-1). Lakewood Ranch homeown ers were significantly older and had a higher level of attachment with relation to their status with their home. Of those residing in the home

PAGE 51

51 full or part time, Palmer Ranch homeowners ha d resided in the home l onger and were more likely to rent it out. Correlations existed between demographics and seven survey questions. All correlations were taken into account with ANCOVA analyses. Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Significant differences among these two co mmunities existed for three demographic questions (Table 2-1). Harmony ho meowners were more likely to rent their home out. Rock Springs Ridge homeowners were si gnificantly older and had a highe r level of guardianship with relation to their parental stat us. Correlations existed between demographics and nine other individual questions as well as one scale. All correlations were taken into account with ANCOVA analyses. Early versus Late Respondents When early responders were compared to late responders in the combined pool of Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch homeowners, ear ly responders resided in their home longer and participated in environmental education programs more often ( P < 0.05). In Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge, early responders refused bags at the grocery store less often, and scored significantly higher on the e ducation test index based on Harmonys website. Environmental Knowledge Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Of the 13 questions targeting environmen tal knowledge related to development, new homeowners in Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranc h differed significantly in their knowledge on three issues (Table 2-2). Lakewood Ranch hom eowners reported havi ng significantly higher knowledge about green development and wate r conservation in the yard. Palmer Ranch homeowners reported having significantly highe r knowledge about air pollution resulting from energy production. When all envi ronmental knowledge questions were collapsed into a scale

PAGE 52

52 (Cronbachs alpha = 0.88) no significant differe nce was found between th e two communities. No issues had means between 1 and 2 (translatin g into knowing a lot or a fair amount) for Lakewood Ranch. The only issue in Palmer Ra nch ranked as such was recycling household items. Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Of the 13 questions targeting environmen tal knowledge related to development, new homeowners in Harmony and Rock Spring Ridge differed significan tly in five questions (Table 2-2). Harmony homeowners reported having si gnificantly higher knowledge about air pollution resulting from energy production, biodiversity lo ss resulting from residential development, "green" development and problems associated with feeding wildlife. Rock Springs Ridge homeowners reported having significantly hi gher knowledge about recy cling household items. When all environmental knowledge questions were collapsed into a scal e (Cronbachs alpha = 0.91) Harmony homeowners report ed significantly higher knowledge overall. The only issue for which Harmony homeowners had a mean between 1 and 2 (translating into knowing a lot or a fair amount) was the problems associated with f eeding wildlife. The only issue in Rock Springs Ridge ranked as such was recycling household items. Environmental Attitude No significant differences were found on Ne w Ecological Paradigm scale scores between Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch, or between Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge (all tests P > 0.05). The NEP score that coincides with the stronge st possible pro-environmental attitude is 75. A score of 15 coincides with the strongest possi ble anti-environmental attitude, making a score of 45 neutral. All four communities had very close NEP score means, ranging from 37.58 to 38.59 (Lakewood Ranch = 38.59, Palmer Ranc h = 38.019, Harmony = 37.58, Rock Springs Ridge = 38.21).

PAGE 53

53 Environmental Behavior Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Of the twelve questions targeting pro-e nvironmental behaviors, new homeowners in Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch differed signifi cantly on five questions (Table 2-3). When landscaping, Lakewood Ranch homeowners used na tive plants more often than Palmer Ranch homeowners and when given the opportunity, th ey participated in environmental education programs more often than Palmer Ranch homeown ers. When going to work or running errands, Palmer Ranch homeowners walked, rode a bike took a bus, or carpooled instead of taking a personal automobile more often than Lakewood Ranch homeowners Even when they are more expensive, Palmer Ranch homeowners more ofte n bought an environmentally friendly version of a product instead of other brands when given the option and al so more often purchased food labeled "natural" or "organic." When all environm ental behavior questions were collapsed into a scale (Cronbachs alpha = 0.75) no signifi cant difference was found between the two communities. The only behavior for which Lake wood Ranch homeowners had a mean between 1 and 2 (translating into engaging in an action al ways or often) was switching off the light when leaving the room. This was also the case in Palmer Ranch, with th e addition of recycling items that can be recycled as well. Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Of the twelve pro-environmental behavior s, new homeowners in Harmony and Rock Spring Ridge differed significantly on three qu estions (Table 2-3). Rock Springs Ridge homeowners recycled trash that can be recycled more regula rly. Harmony homeowners walked, rode a bike, took a bus, or carpooled instead of taking a personal automobile more often and when replacing a light bulb they more ofte n used a compact fluorescent bulb. When all environmental behavior questions were collaps ed into a scale (Cronb achs alpha = 0.74) no

PAGE 54

54 significant difference was found between the two communities. The only behavior for which Harmony homeowners had a mean between 1 and 2 (translating into engaging in an action always or often) was switching off the light when leaving the room. This was also the case in Rock Springs Ridge, with the addition of re cycling items that can be recycled as well. Initial Community Influence Lakewood Ranch vs. Palmer Ranch Nearly 58% of respondents living in Lakewood Ranch and only 16.2% from Palmer Ranch checked at least one box out of a possi ble 25, indicating the i ssue(s) on which their respective community may have contributed to their knowledge or be havior by providing educational materials/programs or through convers ations with neighbors in the community. Of the 185 checked boxes in Lakewood Ranch, 131 coin cided with environmental knowledge issues and 54 with pro-environmental behaviors. Of the 57 checked boxes in Palmer Ranch, 28 coincided with environmental knowledge issues and 29 with pro-environmental behaviors. Overall Lakewood Ranch homeowners checke d more boxes (Table 2-4); however, when considering only those respondents who checked at least one box, no significant difference was found between the two communities. As a whole, Lakewood Ranch homeowners checked only 4 boxes on average. Harmony vs. Rock Springs Ridge Nearly 46% of respondents from Harmony a nd 34.5% from Rock Springs Ridge checked at least one box, indicating th e issue(s) on which their re spective community may have contributed to their knowledge or behavior by providing educ ational materials/programs or through conversations with neighbors in the co mmunity. Of the 91 checked boxes in Harmony, 70 coincided with environmental knowledge issues and 21 with pro-environmental behaviors. Of the 110 checked boxes in Rock Springs Ridge, 64 coincided with environmental knowledge

PAGE 55

55 issues and 46 with pro-environmental behaviors. Both overall and when considering only those respondents who checked at least one box, no sign ificant difference was found between the two communities. As a whole, Harmony homeowne rs checked less than 2.5 boxes on average. Of the six questions related to green edu cation efforts associated with the Harmonys environmental web site, new homeowners in Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge differed significantly on four questions (T able 2-4). Harmony homeowners we re more likely to be correct on questions concerning the existence of a website to help homeowners incorporate environmentally friendly practices in their lives, on the effects of outdoor cats on wildlife, and on the benefit of forest fires. Rock Springs Ridge homeowners were more likely to be correct on the question concerning yard wast e and landfills in Florida. When all questions were combined into a test index (Cronbachs alpha = 0.35), Harmony homeowners scored significantly higher overall (Table 2-4); however, on a sc ale of 100% this score was a 64.7%. Discussion Environmental Knowledge and Attitude In the first community pair (Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch) there was no difference overall in the amount of reported knowledge of environmental issues related to development, nor in environmental attitudes. From individua l questions, green homeowners reported higher knowledge about green development and water cons ervation in the yard. Higher knowledge of these two issues is not surprising as the Gree nbrook II is a certified green development and promotes the Florida Yards & Neighborhood Program in their Green Gallery. Even with these few individual differences there was a lack of knowledge overall, as there was not a single issue on which green community homeowners reported ha ving at least a fair amount of knowledge. In the other community pair, Harmony resident s also did not have si gnificantly different attitudes, but did report higher knowledge overa ll. Looking at indivi dual knowledge questions,

PAGE 56

56 Rock Springs Ridge homeowners reported more knowledge about recyc ling household items. This is most likely due to the fact that the Ci ty of Apopka (where Rock Springs Ridge resides) has a recycling program in place, while the Town of Harmony does not at the present time. A large proportion of comments written on the Harmony surveys were homeowners expressing their desire for a town wide recycling program. The fact that the green community scored hi gher overall in this second community pair may be attributed to Harmonys environmenta l education efforts (e.g., environmental sales center, environmental web site, kiosks, Conservati on Club, etc.), but it c ould also be that the community attracted a more well-informed buye r, as Harmony residents did not indicate a greater amount of community influence on knowle dge of environmental issues related to development, as indicated by checked boxes. The results from these check boxes should be interpreted with caution how ever. Though directions for checking boxes in the survey immediately followed the first set of directions, some res pondents may have skipped these directions. At times respondents checking no b oxes would write in a comment about learning something by living in the commun ity, indicating that skipping this portion of the directions did happen in some instances. Overall, it may be that Harmonys educationa l efforts may have reinforced a somewhat informed section of homebuyers, more so than Lakewood Ranchs efforts; however more research is needed to determine how well Ha rmonys programs are wo rking over time before exporting them to other developments, and this research is currently underway (Hostetler, personal communication). Even though Harmony residents were re latively more knowledgeable, there still remains a paucity of environmental knowledge fo r Harmonys new homeowners. There was only a single issue (problems asso ciated with feeding wildlife) that Harmony

PAGE 57

57 homeowners reported having at l east a fair amount of knowledge. To add to this paucity of knowledge, homeowners in both green communities not only lacked stronger pro-environmental attitudes compared to conventi onal homeowners, but their overal l attitudes tipped toward the anti-environment side of the scale. Similar to results found by Youngentob and Hoste tler (2005), my results show that people buying homes in the green communities are not su fficiently equipped with either the knowledge or attitude necessary to implement sustainable behaviors once they move in. This is not surprising because though the environmental moveme nt has become very visible to the general public during the past few decades, the publics level of environmental knowledge has still been shown to be very low (Coyle, 2005). Alone, increa sing environmental liter acy and attitudes may not be able to promote pro-environmental beha vior, but environmental education can also be seen as a tool to change attitudes, values, a nd motivation levels (Jensen, 2002). Benefiting from this aspect of environmental education would be crucial in green communities in my study, as their residents attitudes were no more proenvironmental than thos e in the conventional communities. Environmental education can also respect and tap into pre-existing knowledge, challenge assumptions, create the opportunity for reflection, reveal areas where people can make the biggest impacts, develop alternatives, a nd provide opportunities for hands-on learning (Clover, 2002). Environmental Behavior There were no differences in the level of engagement in pro-environmental behaviors overall between homeowners in Lakewood Ra nch and Palmer Ranch. From individual questions, Lakewood Ranch homeowners reported mo re engagement in two (using native plants when landscaping and participating in environm ental education programs) but Palmer Ranch homeowners also reported more engagement in two other behavi ors (using alternative

PAGE 58

58 transportation and purchasing environmentally fri endly products). The only behavior that Lakewood Ranch homeowners reported doing often was switching off the light when leaving the room. While this is a positive difference for the environment, switching off lights is probably the easiest of all measured behaviors and in isol ation is hardly enough to constitute behavioral sustainability. The case is similar in Harmony and Rock Sp rings Ridge. There was no overall difference in pro-environmental behavior. Harmony home owners reported higher engagement in two behaviors (using alternat ive transportation and using compact fluorescent light bulbs) but Rock Spring Ridge homeowners reported recycling more often than Harmony green homeowners. Overall, the only behavior th at Harmony homeowners reported doing often was switching off the light when leaving the room. It seems that for both community pairs, even though the green development may have achieved some level of technical sustainability, it is not attrac ting new homeowners who are any more environmentally conscious and so has yet to achieve behavioral sustainability. This reinforces past research on the inability of othe r forms of alternative development that seeks to combat the negative effects of sprawl (like New Urbanist development) to encourage sustainable behaviors through physical design alone (Bealey, 2000; Kreiger, 1998). This type of research has been scarce in green developments (but see Youngentob & Hostetler, 2005). For those new homeowners who were residing in the community at the time of this study, it could be that they have not lived long enough in their respective communities to absorb the possible social norm of the green community that may be promoting sustai nable behaviors. In addition, barriers may be present that limit the expr ession of a sustainable be havior (e.g., lack of curbside pickup in Harmony for recyclables.) While some respondents from Harmony wrote that

PAGE 59

59 they took their recyclables to an off-site facility, this was rare. Lack of convenience is a large barrier to sustainable behavior (Gre en-Demers, Pelletier, & Me nard, 1997; Pelletier et al., 1999). This is an example of a barrier that could be removed from the management level to promote behavioral sustainability. Another barrier may be community policies that discourage or prohibit some pro-environmental behaviors. For ex ample, a few respondents from Lakewood Ranch wrote that they were not allowed to compost. It is important that developers (who often form community covenants in the early stages of a development before homeowner associations assume the responsibility), set the tone for be havioral sustainability by not restricting proenvironmental behaviors in community covenant s. Under FGBC standards, developments are currently rewarded points for the absence of langua ge that prohibits green practices in covenants and deed restriction (Florida Gr een Building Coalition, 2003). Specific design features that can promote sustainable beha viors have been suggested (Holden, 2004; Jabareen 2006). Recently, Williams and Dair, (2006) created a framework for monitoring the actual behavior of residents who live in neigh borhoods displaying such physical features. This framework provides a thorough refe rence of physical features with the specific sustainable behaviors they have been suggested to affect. It can help planners understand the purported relationships between de sign and behavior and assist re searchers in de signing more empirical studies to investigate them. In ma ny cases, design may not be enough. The Research House in Queensland, Australia, a green house used to learn how people interact with sustainable housing, has shown certain areas where design alone is not enough to make sustainable behaviors a reality (Buys et al., 2005). The eco logical footprints (Rees & Wackernagel, 1994) of residents in the Environmental Home Guar d, a cooperative of houses in Norway striving to be more green, were found to be no smaller than their counterparts in non-

PAGE 60

60 green communities when all other factors were taken into account (Holden, 2004). Youngentob and Hostetler (2005) found that environmental behaviors did not differ between residents of green residential communities versus conventional residential communities. Initial Community Influence Harmony homeowners were more knowledgeable ove rall of some issues stressed in their communitys environmental web site. They sp ecifically knew of this community website, and that some forest fires can be beneficial; how ever Rock Springs Ridge homeowners were more knowledgeable concerning yard waste going to landfills in Florida. If we think of overall scores as a test, than Harmony homeowners still receive d a D score (64.6%). It is important to note, however, that this survey used a small number of questions for this measure. More in-depth data on the efficacy of Harmonys environmental educa tion features is needed to see how it affects residents over time, as these are new resident s and may have not explored the web site or participated in any educational activities ava ilable at Harmony. For both green communities, very few respondents indicated that environmen tal knowledge or behaviors were enhanced by living in the community. This last result, based on the number of checked boxes should be interpreted with caution as discussed earlier. Going Beyond Design If the physical environment cannot produce sust ainable behaviors on it s own, what else can be done? Sustainable behaviors ca n be managed through structural change in policies as well as personal changes for individuals (Holden, 2004a; Williams & Dair, 2006a). For example, land use policies and how individuals manage their own yards and neighborhoods can have a direct impact on bird distributions (Hostetler & Know les-Yanez, 2003). Green development can be coupled with smart growth programs that pr opose environmental, social, and institutional policies to manage these areas fo r sustainability (Jabareen, 2006) Still, even with these

PAGE 61

61 structural changes, some believe a huge para digm shift is necessary in individual knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors toward s our environment (Hay 2005, 2006). Recently, there has been increasing atte ntion to psychologys role in promoting sustainable behaviors (Oskamp et al., 2000; Zelezny & Schultz 2000; Werner 1999; Kurz 2002; Schmuck & Schultz 2002). Conserva tion psychology is the scientif ic study of the reciprocal relationships between humans and the rest of nature, with a particular focus on how to encourage conservation of the natural world (Saunders, 2003). Community develo pers can collaborate with conservation psychologists to consider how the infrastructure will be used after residents move in (Churchman, 2002). While traditional environmental education al one may not be enough to foster sustainable behaviors, much attention is now being give n to education for sustainability (Bonnet, 2002; Knapp, 2002; Herremans & Reid, 20 02; Elliot, 1999; Tilbury, 1995) Monroe (2003) suggests that there are two ways to use education for prom oting conservation behaviors. The first is to change specific behaviors in the short term, a nd the second is to cultiv ate broad environmental literacy for the long term. To change specific behaviors, social participation and enga gement are key elements and are the core features of programs such as th e Natural Step for communities (Upham, 2000) and the community visioning process (Ames, 1994). One of the most popular programs for promoting pro-environmental behavior change is community-based social marketing. This technique has been effective in fostering sustainable behavior in communities when it reduces the barriers and increases the benefits of engaging in such behaviors using tools like commitment, reminders, effective messaging, ince ntives and social diffusion of community norms (McKenzie-Mohr & Smith, 1999). Community -based social marketing is available to

PAGE 62

62 anyone seeking to change behaviors in their co mmunity, and there are do zens of successful case studies of communities that have implemented it in order to increase behavioral sustainability. Hiring a social marketer to help implement community-based social marketing in a green community is one option for community develo pers to consider (McKenzie-Mohr, personal communication.) Promoting environmental literacy means usi ng environmental education to foster a sense of responsibility, create a sense of urgency for action, empower people, and create a norm that embraces action (Monroe, 2003). Hay (2005) has suggested that personal involvement in environmental education thr ough activities rangin g from ecotourism, outward bound type programs, community land care activities, and helpi ng with environmental research can result in people becoming ecosynchronous, which is necessa ry for the creation of truly sustainable developments. Within a community this type of experiential education can be in the form of resident participation in local ha bitat projects (Barton, Grant, & Guise, 2003; Bott, 2003). This type of education is alrea dy underway in Harmony, through the towns Conservation Club and its involvement in student projects, however ther e is currently a small group of participants. Both green communities could benefit by encouraging resident participation in experiential neighborhood projects and programs. Conclusion Although this research was conducted on four sp ecific communities in Florida, the insights it provides can still be valuable for the creati on of functional green communities that have both technical and behavioral sustaina bility. As green development t ypes increase in popularity due to the current issues associated with the curren t development paradigm, it is necessary to ensure that residents are sufficiently educated and empo wered to embrace sustainable behaviors in their everyday lives. While the technical sustainabi lity associated with the physical design and

PAGE 63

63 construction of the development may lay th e foundation for envir onmental literacy and sustainable behaviors, more must be done. Planners and developers can work more collaboratively with conservati on psychologists and other environm ental professionals trained in the social sciences. Policies can be implemented to manage such developments and communities can offer comprehensive environmental education programs for sustainability. Only through the implementation of management and education ca n these developments become functional green communities.

PAGE 64

64TABLE 2-1. Significant differen ces in demographics of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida. Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge n M SD n M SD Question LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Statistic P -Value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR Statistic P -Value Status with home in communitya 71 80 3.87 2.91 1.55 1.82 X2 = 24.28 P < .0001 Length of residenceb 43 36 0.52 1.17 0.97 0.42 Z = 1.97 P = .049 Year of birth, 19__c 70 83 59.41 55.01 12.79 12.97 F = 4.45 P = .037 55 112 63.78 56.54 11.19 11.15 X2 = 13.83 P = .0002 Do you ever rent out this home?d 66 85 0.20 0.45 0.40 0.50 X2 = 10.39 P = .0001 59 118 0.15 0.03 0.36 0.18 FET P = .011 Parental statuse 59 116 2.78 2.82 1.38 1.21 X2 = 10.82 P = .013 NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fishers Exact (FET), W ilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and ANOVA test s where significant difference w as found between at least one pair of communities; Green community indicated with a G; a. higher attachment with home = higher mean; b. In years c. older = lower mean d. 1 = yes; 0 = no. e. more guardianship = higher mean; Actual question wording can be found in Appendix A.

PAGE 65

65TABLE 2-2. Significant differe nces in environmental knowledge of survey re spondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge n M SD n M SD Environmental Issue LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Statistic P -value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR Statistic P -value Water conservation in your yard 71 86 3.69 3.59 0.92 1.21 F = 2.98C P = 0.054 Air pollution resulting from energy production 71 86 2.96 3.01 1.06 1.11 F = 3.14C P = 0.046 59 119 3.37 2.90 0.93 1.14 X2= 11.13 P = 0.025 "Green" development 71 85 3.45 2.86 0.94 1.26 X = 16.56 P = 0.002 59 117 3.19 2.72 1.06 1.29 X2= 12.00 P = 0.017 Biodiversity loss resulting from residential development 59 120 3.02 2.68 0.99 1.26 X2= 9.80 P = 0.044 Recycling household items* 59 120 3.86 4.12 1.05 0.85 F = 7.36C P = 0.0009 Problems associated with feeding wildlife 59 118 4.14 3.45 0.85 1.26 F = 7.55C P = 0.0007 Environmental Knowledge Scale ( = 0.88) 55 111 32.67 35.79 8.28 10.10 Z = -1.92 P = 0.055 NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney and ANCOVA tests where significant di fference was found between at l east one pair of communities; Green community indicated with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a C; For all questions, a higher mean expresses a higher level of selfreported knowledge about the environmental issue; *Indicates environmental issue that conventional community reported higher kn owledge about.

PAGE 66

66TABLE 2-3. Significant differen ces in pro-environmental behavior of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge n M SD n M SD Question LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Statistic P -value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR Statistic P -value 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?* 73 88 2.88 2.93 0.97 1.06 F = 4.01C P = 0.020 When given the option, how often do you purchase food labeled "natural" or "organic?"* 73 88 2.48 2.83 0.99 1.15 F = 3.21C P = 0.043 When landscaping, how often do you use only native plants? 70 81 3.24 2.60 1.23 1.27 X2 = 13.75 P = 0.008 When given the opportunity, how often do you participate in environmental education programs? 71 87 2.04 1.86 0.96 1.01 FET P = 0.0141 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?* 73 88 1.56 1.92 0.88 1.15 FET P = 0.05 59 121 1.73 1.45 0.98 0.77 F = 3.3C P = 0.039 How regularly do you recycle trash that can be recycled?* 59 121 2.76 4.12 1.59 1.18 F = 22C P <.0001 When replacing a light bulb, how often do you use a compact fluorescent bulb? 59 119 2.80 2.69 1.44 1.29 F = 3.88C P = 0.023 NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Fishers Exact (FET) and ANCOVA tests where significant difference was found between at le ast one pair of communities; Green community indicated with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a C; For all questions, a higher mean expresses a higher level of engagement in pro-environmental behaviors; *Indicates pro-environmental behavior that conventional community engages in more.

PAGE 67

67TABLE 2-4. Differences in retention of green education efforts and initial influenc e of community on knowledge and behavior of survey respondents from paired green and conventional communities in Florida Lakewood RanchG vs. Palmer Ranch HarmonyG vs. Rock Springs Ridge n M SD n M SD Question LRG PR LRG PR LRG PR Statistic P -value HMG RSR HMG RSR HMG RSR Statistic P -value Community influence (all respondents using home as primary or secondary residence)* 45 37 4.11 1.54 6.6 4.82 Z = 3.87 P = 0.0001 37 110 2.46 1.55 4.06 4.07 Z = 0.41 P = 0.49 Community influence (only respondents checking at least one box)** 25 6 7.12 9.5 8.11 10.57 Z = -0.05 P = 0.963 17 38 5.35 4.47 5.48 5.81 Z = 0.69 P = 0.49 (Community name) has a website to help homeowners incorporate environmentally friendly practices in their lives 59 120 0.68 0.18 0.50 0.39 F = 28.28C P <.0001 In Florida, yard waste is allowed in landfills** 59 120 0.12 0.29 0.32 0.46 F = 4.84 C P = 0.009 Outdoor cats are harmless for wildlife 59 120 0.67 0.54 0.48 0.50 F = 3.38C P = 0.0362 All forest fires are detrimental 59 120 0.8 0.65 0.40 0.49 X2 = 6.70 P = 0.0096 Education Test Index 59 120 3.88 2.84 2.27 1.96 F = 6.71C P = 0.0003 NOTE: Results based on Chi-squared, Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitn ey and ANCOVA tests; Green community indicated with a G; ANCOVA F values indicated with a C; P-values for significant differences are indicated in italics; a hi gher mean expresses more correct responses;*Measured as tota l number of checked boxes for environmental knowledge issues and pro-environmental behaviors;**Indicates question on which conventional community reported hi gher level of community influence, or had more correct responses.

PAGE 68

68 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONS The following are the 17 survey questi ons addressing green design preferences. Respondents were asked report how important each was when they were la st looking for a home. All questions used a 5-point Like rt-scale. All 17 questions we re included in the Green Design Preference Scale. 1) Energy efficiency 2) Indoor air quality 3) Water-saving appliances 4) Energy-efficient appliances 5) House made from environmentally-friendly materials 6) Environmentally-friendly regulations for the community 7) Open green spaces nearby 8) Ability to see wildlife 9) Preservation of natural habitat 10) Shopping in walking distance 11) Greater sense of community 12) Walkable community 13) Smaller negative environmental impact 14) Reduced yard maintenance 15) Ability to see the stars 16) Public transportation nearby 17) Dog park nearby The following are the 13 survey questi ons addressing environmental knowledge. Respondents were asked report how much they felt they knew about each issue. They were also provided a box to check for each issue, if they felt the community had contributed to their knowledge of the issue by providing educational materials/programs and/ or through conversation with neighbors. All questions used a 5-point Likert-scale. All 13 questions were included in the Environmental Knowledge Scale. 1) Water pollution resulting from residential co mmunities 2) Air pollution resulting from energy production 3) Biodiversity loss due to resi dential development 4) Problems caused by invasive exotic plants 5) Energy conservation at home 6) Green development 7) Recycling household items 8) Problems associated with feeding wildlife 9) Availability of locally grown f oods 10) Wildlife native to your area 11) Energy Star Program 12) Water conservation at home 13) Water conservation in the yard

PAGE 69

69 The following are the 15 New Ecological Pa radigm (NEP) scale questions addressing environmental attitude. Respondents were aske d report how much they agreed with each statement. All questions used a 5-point Likert-scale. 1) We are approaching the limit of the nu mber 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 the environment 4) Human ingenuity will ensure that we do NOT make the earth unlivable 5) When humans interfere with nature it often produces disastrous consequences 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 c ope with the impacts of modern industrial nations 9) Despite our special abilities humans are st ill subject to the laws of nature 10) The so-called ecological cr isis 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 delicate and easily upset 14) Humans will eventually learn enough about 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 The following are the 12 survey questi ons addressing environmental behavior. Respondents were asked report how often they en gaged in each behavior. They were also provided a box to check for each issue, if they felt their community ha d contributed to their engagement in a behavior by providing edu cational materials/progr ams and/or through conversation with neighbors. All questions used a 5-point Likert-scale. All 12 questions were included in the Environmental Behavior Scale. 1) How regularly do you recycle tr ash that can be recycled? 2) How frequently do you turn off the faucet whil e 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 other br ands when given the option? 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? 5) When going to work or running errands, how fr equently do you walk, ride a bike, take a bus, or carpool instead of ta king a personal automobile? 6) How often do you try to find alternatives to using common house hold (including lawn) chemicals because you are worried about how they might affect the environment 7) When given the option, how often do you purchas e food labeled natural or organic? 8) How often do you compost organic materials instead of placing them in the trash? 9) When landscaping, how often do you use only native plants? 10) When replacing a light bulb, how often do you use a compact fluorescent bulb? 11) When leaving a room, how often do you switch the light off?

PAGE 70

70 12) When given the opportunity, how often do you participate in envi ronmental education programs? The following are the 18 survey questions addressing the marketing initiatives of the green communities. Respondents were asked to choose true, false, or unsure for each statement. All questions were included in the Green Marketing Test Index. Lakewood Ranch and Palmer Ranch 1) Since January, 2005 every new village in Community Name has been built green 2) Community Name has taken steps to make its gol f course more wildlife friendly 3) Green homes look different from traditional homes 4) Green homes cost more to maintain than traditional homes 5) Being green decreases a homes resale value 6) Indoor air quality is the nations leading environmental health problem 7) Paints with low Volatile Organic Compounds (l ow VOC paints) have less durability than traditional paints 8) Energy Star appliances can perform as well as trad itional appliances (i.e. wash dishes as well) 9) Natural lighting has been shown to have grea ter mental health be nefits compared to electric lighting 10) Flooring made from biodegradable materials ca nnot be durable 11) A yard certified by Florida Yards & Neighborhoods can save water 12) Native plants are better able to attract wild life than non-native plants Harmony and Rock Springs Ridge 1) There are fewer trees in Community Name now than before it was developed 2) Community Name is a Dark-Sky compliant community 3) Community Name residents have a town-wide envi ronmental covenant to follow. 4) There are at least some prohibitions agains t planting invasive-exotic plant species in Community Name 5) Community Name employs a full-time conservation manager 6) Community Name has a gopher tortoise preserve The following are the 6 survey questions addressing the community environmental education initiatives in Harmony. Respondents were asked to choose true, false, or unsure for each statement. All questions were included in the Community Edu cation Test Index. 1) Harmony has a website to help home owners incorporate envir onmentally-friendly practices into their lives 2) It is safe for compact fluorescent bulbs be disposed of in the regular trash 3) The color of your roof can affect your energy bills 4) In Florida, yard waste is allowe d in landfills 5) Outdoor cats are harmless for wildlife 6) All forest fires are detrimental

PAGE 71

71 The following question addressed reasons fo r choosing ones current home. Respondents were asked to write in their top 3 reasons. 1) Please list three reasons why you chose to live in your current home, in the order of their importance to you. The following question addressed perceptions of the term green. Respondents were asked to write in a definition. 1) In your own words, please write down what you think the term green means, in reference to the environment. The following are the 15 questions addressi ng demographics. Respondents were asked to choose the best response, or fill-in-the-blank. 1) Which statement best represents your stat us with the home you have purchased in Community Name? It is my permanent address and I have been living here for ____ years ____ months; It will be my permanent address, but I have not moved in yet; It has been used as a second home for _____ years _____ mont hs; It will be used as a second home, but I have not moved in yet; It is strictly income property 2) Which statement best represents your parental status? I have no childre n; I have a child or have children, but none reside with me; I ha ve a child or have children, but only some reside with me; I have child or have children, and they al l reside with me 3) I am: Female; Male 4) I was born in 19_______ 5) My ethnic background is (check all that appl y) Caucasian (White); African American; Latino/Hispanic; Native American; Other _______________ 6) Do you ever rent-out your propert y in Community Name? Yes; No 7) What is your current career field? _____________________ 8) Do you consider yourself a: Democrat; Republican; Independent; Other 9) What is the highest level of education that you have completed? High school or less; Some College (including Associates Degree) ; Bachelors Degree; Masters Degree or other professional degree; Doctorate Degree

PAGE 72

72 APPENDIX B SURVEY COVER LETTER The following is a copy of the cover-letter th at was mailed to every selected participant along with the survey questionn aire and a stamped, self-addre ssed return envelope.

PAGE 73

73 APPENDIX C CRITERIA FOR ASSIGNING CATEGORIES The following are the eight categories used to classify definitions of green. Listed for each are general descriptions of write-in re sponses that were placed in each category. 1) Environmental: energy efficiency, general efficien cy, alternative energy, natural light, natural ventilation, conservation of a particular resource (water, fossil fuels, etc.), future, renewables, stewardship, envir onmentally conscious, environmentally aware, environmental concern, getting educated about the environment, respect for the environment, balance, coexistence, ratio of nature to development, build with nature, work with nature, and laws of nature environmentally-friendly, ecol ogically-friendly, ecologically sound, smaller impact, smaller footprint, less destru ction, specific environmentally friendly techniques (recycling, composting, etc.), less destructive, conservation, preservation, prot ection, restoration, back to nature, in natural state, close to natural state 2) Health & Safety*: safer, safe product, health, nontoxic, natural products, organic products, low emissions, less pollu tion, no chemicals, no littering, a particular clean resource (air, water, etc.) 3) Aesthetic: things that are the color green, trees shrubs, flowers, natural surroundings, nature, oxygen producing, alive, life, thriving, proliferation, wildlife, animals, parks, greenspaces, upkept lawn, lawn maintenance 4) Negative: anything anti-environment 5) Other: any responses we could not fit into the first seven categories *Note: While resources and produc ts that are safer and/or hea lthier to humans are safer for the environment as well and can arguably be ca tegorized as such, this category was created for those things more commonly a ssociated with human health than other things falling in the environmental category. The following are the nine categories used to classify respondents top three reasons for choosing their current home. Listed for each are ge neral descriptions of wr ite-in responses that were placed in each category. 1) Location: general location, liked area, and location to or convenience to work/school/highway/shopping/restaurants/family /friends/other specif ic area, away from traffic/noise/urban areas, weather, climate, sunshine, quiet, peaceful 2) Cost/Value: cost, price, value, investment, re-s ale value, home ma rket, appreciation, affordability, taxes, warranty 3) Home Features: home size, floor plan, garage, beau tiful home, layout, design, room, lot, newer, better quality, aesthetics, nicer, pool storage, comfortable, appearance, acres, style, features included, cl eanliness, view of pool speci fically, balcony, yard, meets needs, condo, space, well-built, builder reputation, name of builder, efficiency 4) Natural Environment: view, greenspace, large trees, beautiful surroundings, environment, nature, wildlife, lake, parks, trails, plants, countrysi de, preservation, green community, woods, river, horses, reserv e, setting, organic farm, dark sky, environmentally-friendly, restricted devel opment, environmental programs, rural, low impact building, conservation

PAGE 74

74 5) Neighborhood Features: amenities, golf, upkeep, maintenance, recreational facilities, new, common areas, dog park, upscale, size, attractive, desirable, parks, not cookiecutter, wide streets, walki ng paths, landscaping, sidewalks 6) Community: anything referring to community, neighborhood, atmosphere, subdivision, neighbors (planned, vision, values, family-oriented, sense of, etc.) 7) Safety & Privacy: safety, security, gated, privacy 8) Schools: good schools, quality schools 9) Other: any responses we could not fit into the first eight categories

PAGE 75

75 APPENDIX D SCRIPT FOR REMINDER PHONE CALL Phone call reminders were given to respondent s that failed to return their questionnaire within three 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 Krystal Noiseux, and I am a graduate student at the University of Florida. I am conducting a study in conjunction with the Un iversity of Florida to learn how homeowners interact with their community and the environment. You should have received a questionnaire from me in the mail approximately 3 weeks ago. Your participation is extremely important to the success of our research. 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. If you have lost or misplaced your booklet I would be happy to send you another copy. (If this is an answering machine message) You can reach me in my office at The University of Floridas Department of W ildlife Ecology and Conservatio n at 352-846-0647 or at my email address which is knoiseux@ufl.edu. Feel free to co ntact 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 Ill 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 a re no commercial agencies involved. Your identity as a participant will be kept co mpletely 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 part icipate 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 76

76 APPENDIX E UFIRB APPROVED PROPOSAL The following is the final UFIRB approved research outline. 1. TITLE OF PROTOCOL: You, the Environment, and Your Community 2. PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR(s): Krystal Noiseux, Masters St udent, Masters Research, Department of Wildlife Ecology and C onservation, Home Address: 519 NE 5th Street, Gainesville, FL 32601, Phone: (321) 695-1972, E-Mail: knoiseux@ufl.edu 3. SUPERVISOR (IF PI IS STUDENT): Dr. Mark Hostetler, Depa rtment of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation, Wildlife Extension Office, Newins -Zeigler Hall, University of Florida, Phone: (352)846-0568, E-Mail: hossman@ufl.edu, Fax: (352)392-6984 4. DATES OF PROP OSED PROTOCOL: From May 2006 to May 2007 5. SOURCE OF FUNDING FOR THE PROTOCOL: Lakewood Ranch, Town of Harmony 6. SCIENTIFIC PURPOSE OF THE INVESTIGATION: The purpose of this research is (1) to identify whether or not people purchasing homes in a green community differ from those purchasing homes in a non-green community in terms of their environmental knowledge, attitudes, and behavi ors as well as preference for green design elements, and (2) to evaluate the extent to which the green design elements, environmental education features, and marketi ng strategies are absorbed and understood by those living in the green community. It is important to know what works for attracti ng people to purchase homes in such communities and how to foster sustainable behaviors and attitudes once people move in. Such information will help to tailor educati on and marketing efforts to create functioning sustainable communities. 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 mail, once they are finished. 8. POTENTIAL BENEFITS AND ANTICIPATED RISK. There are no foreseen physical psychological, or economic risks involved for the participants taking part in this survey. The respondents will be assured of the confidentiality of their 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) WI LL BE RECRUITED, THE NUMBER AND AGE OF THE PARTICIPANTS, AND PROPOSED COMPENSATION (if any):

PAGE 77

77 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 selfaddressed, stamped envelope, then two more a ttempts (maximum) will be made to reach the participants by sending them a second and third c opy (if necessary) of the survey packet in the mail to their home address. The participants wi ll be chosen from propert y appraiser records of homes within one of four communities The neighborhoods will be selected based upon size (200-250 households), type (master-planned sub-communities), status (green or non-gr een), price range ($100,000 to $400,000), and location (Osceola, Manatee, and Sarasota Counties, FL). Th e participants will be a dults, age 18 or older. The maximum number of participants that I plan to recruit will not ex ceed 1000. The participants will not receive any monetary compensation. The survey packet that they receive will provide them with the information necessary to find out the re sults of this survey if they are interested. Additionally, survey respondents who do not respond to the first mailing w ithin three weeks may be contacted by telephone between the hours of 9 am and 9 pm to remind them to please return their survey booklet. A maximum of two answer machine messages may be left to attempt to contact the recipient. I will make no more than two attempts to contact the potential participant by phone. Please review the attach ed telephone script. The survey will not be administered by phone. The phone call will only serve to remind the participant to return their mail questionnaire and let us know if we need to se nd the participant anothe r copy of the survey and consent form. 10. DESCRIBE THE INFORMED CONSENT PR OCESS. INCLUDE A COPY OF THE INFORMED CONSENT DOCUMENT (if applicable). Potential participants will receive the survey boo klet in the mail with a cover-letter that informs them of their rights and the conf identiality agreement. A copy of the cover-letter and the survey are included as attachments. Please use attachments sparingly. __________________________ Principal Investigator's Signature _________________________ Supervisor's Signature I approve this protocol for submission to the UFIRB: ____________________________ Dept. Chair/Center Director Date

PAGE 78

78 LIST OF REFERENCES Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1980). Understanding attitudes and pr edicting social behavior. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall. American Society of Inte rior Designers. (2005). ASID survey says homeowners are ready to go green: New survey finds substantial inte rest in sustainable design for the home. Retrieved October 4, 2005, from http://www.asid.org Ames, S. (1994). A guide to community visioning: Hands -on information for local communities Washington, DC: American Planning Association. Arora, S. & Cason, T. N. (1996). Why do firms volunteer to exceed envi ronmental regulations? Understanding participation in EPAs 33/50 program. Land Economics, 72 (4), 413-432. Audubon International. (2005). Audubon signature program: De signing, building, and managing with nature in mind. Retrieved November 9, 2005, from http://www.auduboninternationa l.org/programs/signature Banerjee, B. & McKeage, K. (1994). How green is my value: Exploring the relationship between environmentalism and materialism. In C. T. Allen & D. R. John (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 147-152). Provo, VT: Associa tion for Consumer Research. Barton, H., Grant, M., & Guise, R. (2003). Shaping neighbourhoods for health and sustainability London: Spon Press. Baum, F. (2002). Health and greening the city. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56 897-898. Beatley, Timothy. (2000). Green urbanism: Learning from European cities Washington, DC: Island Press. Bei, L. T., Simpson, E. M. (1995). The determ inants of consumers purchase decisions for recycled products: an application of acquisitiontransaction utility theory. In F. R. Kardes & M. Sujan (Eds.), Advances in Consumer Research (pp. 257-261). Provo, VT: Association for Consumer Research. Benfield, F. K., Raimi, M. D., & Chen, D. D. T. (1999). Once there were greenfields: How urban sprawl is undermining Americas en vironment, economy, and social fabric. Washington, DC: Natural Resource Defense Council. Berke, P. R. (2002). Does sustainable development offe r a new direction for planning? Challenges for the twenty-first century. Journal of Planning Literature 17 21-36. Blake, J. (1999). Overcoming the valueaction ga p in environmental policy: Tensions between national policy and local experience. Local Environment 4 (3), 257.

PAGE 79

79 Bonnett, M. (2002). Education for su stainability as a frame of mind. Environmental Education Research, 8 (1), 9-20. Booth, D. B. & Leavitt, J. (1999). Field evalua tion of permeable pavement systems for improved stormwater management. Journal of the American Planning Association, 65 (3), 314-325. Bott, S. (2003). Place and the promise of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10 (2), 100-112. Brower, M. & Leon, W. (1999). The consumers' guide to effe ctive environmental choices. New York, NY: Three Rivers Press. Brown, B. B., & Cropper, V. L. (2001). New urban and standard suburban subdivisions: Evaluating psychological and social goals. Journal of the American Planning Association 67 402-419. Brown, B. B., Burton, J. R., & Sweaney, A. L. (1998). Neighbors, households and front porches: New urbanist community tool or mere nostalgia? Environment and Behavior, 30 (5), 579600. Bruntland, G. H. (1987). Our common future: The World Commission on Environment and Development. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Burgess, J., Harrison, C. M., & Limb, M. (1988). People, parks and the urban green: A study of popular meanings and values for open spaces in the city. Urban Studies 25 455-473. Burchell, R., Downs, A., Mukherji, S., & McCann, B. (2005). Sprawl costs: Economic impacts of unchecked development. Washington, DC: Island Press. Buys, L., Barnett, K., Miller, E., & Bailey, C. (2005). Smart housing and social sustainability: Learning from the residents of Queenslands Research House. Australian Journal of Emerging Technologies and Society 3 (1), 43-57. Chen, D. (2000). The science of smart growth. Scientific American, 283, 84-91. Churchman, A. (2002). Environm ental psychology and urban pl anning: Where can the twain meet? In R. Betchel & A. Churchman (Eds.), Handbook of Environmental Psychology (pp.191-200). New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons. Clover, D. E. (2002). Environmental adult education. Adult Learning 13 (2/3), 2-6. Coddington, W. (1993). Environmental marketing: Positive strategies for reaching the green consumer. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Congress of New Urbanism. (2001). Charter of the new urbanism Retrieved February 1, 2004, from http://www.cnu.org

PAGE 80

80 Coyle, K. (2005). Environmental literacy in America: W hat ten years of NEETF/Roper research and related studies say about envi ronmental literacy in the U.S. Washington, DC: The National Environmental Educa tion and Training Foundation. Department of Industry, T echnology and Commerce. (1991) Attitudes towards housing in Australia: A summary of findings, market rese arch conducted for the Green Street Joint Venture ; Queensland, AU: Green Street Joint Venture. Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: John Wiley. Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2000). Suburban nation: The rise of sprawl and the decline of the American dream. New York: North Point Press. Dunlap, R. E., Van Liere, K. D., Mertig, A. G ., & Jones R. E. (2000). Me asuring endorsement of the New Ecological Paradigm: A revised NEP Scale. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 425. Elliot, J. (1999). Sustainable society and environmental education: Future perspectives and demands for the educational system. Cambridge Journal of Education 29 (3), 325-340. Ewing, R., Kostyack, J., Chen, D ., Stein, B., & Ernst, M. (2005). Endangered by sprawl: How runaway development threat ens Americas wildlife Washington, DC: National Wildlife Federation, Smart Growth America, & NatureServe. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. (1975). Belief, attitude, intention, and behavior: An introduction to theory and research. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Florida Green Building Coalition. (2003). Standards. Retrieved October 4, 2005 from http://floridagreenbuilding.org Frank, L.D. (2000). Land use and transportation in teraction: Implications on public health and quality of life Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20 (1), 6-22. Frank, L. D. & Engelke, P. O. (2001). The built environment and hum an activity patterns: Exploring the impacts of ur ban form on public health. Journal of Planning Literature, 16(2), 202-218. Frumkin, H. (2002). Urban sp rawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 17 201-217. Frumkin, H. (2001). Beyond t oxicity: Human health and the natural environment. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 20 (3), 234-240. Global Strategy Group. 2005. Survey on American attitudes on th e environment: Key findings. New Haven, CT: Yale University.

PAGE 81

81 Green-Demers, I., Pelletier, L. G. & Menard, S. (1997). The impact of behavioural difficulty on the saliency of the associa tion between self-determined motivation and environmental behaviours. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 29 3, 157-166. Handy S. L., Boarnet M. G., Ewing R., & Killi ngsworth R. E. (2002). How the built environment affects physical ac tivity: Views from urban planning. American Journal of Preventative Medicine, 23 64-73. Harris Interactive, Inc. (2005). Harris Poll #77. Retrieved November 1, 2005 from http://www.harrisinteractive.com Haughton, G. (1999). Environmental justice and the sustainable city. In D. Satterthwaite (Ed.), Sustainable Cities (pp. 62-79). London: Earthscan. Hay R. (2006). Becoming ecosynchronous, part 2: Achieving sustainable development via personal development. Sustainable Development 14 (1), 1-15. Hay R. (2005). Becoming ecosynchronous, part 1: The root causes of our unsustainable way of life. Sustainable Development 13 (5), 311-325. Heinz, H. J. (2002). Center for science, ec onomics, and the environment: The state of the nations ecosystems. Cambridge, MA : Cambridge University. Herremans, I. M. & Reid, R. H. (2002). Develo ping awareness of the su stainability concept Journal of Environmental Education, 34 (1), 16-20. Hines, J. M., Hungerford, H. R., & Tomera, A. N. (1986). Analysis and synthesis of research on responsible pro-environmenta l behavior: A meta-analysis. Journal of Environmental Education, 18 (2), 1. Holden, E. (2004). Ecological footpr ints and sustainable urban form. Journal of Housing and the Built Environment, 19 (1), 91-109. Holden, E. (2004a). Towards sustainable cons umption: Do green households have smaller ecological footprints? International Journal of Sustainable Development, 7 (1), 44-58. Hostetler, M. E., & Knowles-Yanez, K. (2003). La nd use, scale, and bird distributions in the Phoenix metropolitan area. Landscape and Urban Planning, 62 (2), 55-68. Hungerford, H. R. & Volk, T. L. (1990). Ch anging learner behavior through environmental education. Journal of Envir onmental Education 21 (3), 8. International Council for Local E nvironmental Ini tiative. (1996). The local Agenda 21 planning guide: an introduction to sust ainable development planning. Toronto, Canada: ICLEI. Jabareen, Y. R. (2006). Sustai nable urban forms: Their typol ogies, models, and concepts. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 26 (1), 38-52.

PAGE 82

82 Jabareen, Y. R. (2004). A knowledge map for de scribing variegated and conflict domains of sustainable development. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47 (4), 632-42. Jackson, R. & Martin, J. (2005). The evol ution of master pl anned communities. Professional Builder, 70 (1), 183-193. Jensen, B. B. (2002). Knowledge, acti on and pro-environmental behaviour. Environmental Education Research 8 (3), 325-334. Kalafatis, S., Pollard, M., East, R., & Tsogas, M. H. (1999). Green marketing and Ajzens theory of planned behaviour: A cross-market examination. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 16 (5), 441-460. Kaplan, S. (2000). Human nature and e nvironmentally responsible behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 491-508. Katz, P., & Scully V., Jr. (1994). The new urbanism: Toward an architecture of community. New York: McGraw-Hill. Knapp, D. (2002). The Thessaloniki Declaration: A wake-up call for environmental education? The Journal of Environmental Education, (31) 3, 32-39. Kollmuss, A. & Agyeman, J. (2002). Mind the ga p: Why do people act environmental and what are the barriers to proenvironmental behavior. Environmental Educa tion Research, 8(3), 239-260. Krause, D. (1993). Environmental consciousness: An empirical study. Environment and Behavior, 25 (1), 126-142. Kreiger, Alex. (1998). Whose urbanism? Architecture Magazine Nov., 73-76. Kurz, T. (2002). The psychology of environmentally sustainable behavior: F itting together pieces of the puzzle. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 2 (1), 257-278. Laroche, M. (2001). Targeting consumers who ar e willing to pay more for environmentally friendly products. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 18 (6), 503-520. Lawrence, J. (1993). Green produc t sprouting again: More focu sed efforts avoid controversy. Advertising Age, 10, 12. Leyden, K. (2003). Social capital and the bui lt environment: The importance of walkable neighborhoods. American Journal of Public Health, 93 (9), 1546-1551.

PAGE 83

83 Levy, K.J. (1980). A Monte Carlo study of analys is of covariance under violations of the assumptions of normality and equal regression slopes. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 40 (4), 835-840. Likert, R. (1932). A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology 140 553. McCarty, J. A. & Shrum, L. J. (1994). The recy cling of solid wastes: Personal values, value orientations, and attitudes about recycli ng as antecedents of recycling behavior. Journal of Business Research 30 (1), 53-62. McKenzie-Mohr, D. and W. Smith. (1999). Fostering sustainable behavior British Columbia, CA: New Society Publishers. Mendleson, N. & Polonsky, M. J. (1995). Using st rategic alliance to de velop credible green marketing. Journal of Consumer Marketing, 12 (2), 4-18. Menon, A., Menon, A., Chowdhury, J., & Jankovic h, J. (1999). Evolving paradigm for environmental sensitivity in marketing programs: a synthesis of theory and practice. Journal of Marketing Theory and Practice 7(2), 1-15. Miles, M.P., & Covin, J.G. (2000). Environmen tal marketing: A sour ce of reputational, competitive, and financial advantage. Journal of Business Ethics, 23 (3), 299-311. Mizejewski, D. (2004). National Wildlife Federation: Attrac ting birds, butterflies & backyard wildlife. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Creative Homeowner. Monroe, M. C. (2003). Two avenues for encouraging conservation behaviors. Human Ecology Review, 10 (2), 116-125. Myers, P. (1999). Livability at the ballot bo x: State and local referenda on parks, conservation, and smarter growth, election day 1998. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Myers, P. & Puentes, R. (2001). Growth at the ballot box: Electi ng the shape of communities in November 2000 Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution. Natural Marketing Institute. ( 2003). Social responsibility driv es the purchase decisions of 68 million U.S. consumers. Retrieved October 25, 2005, from http://www.nmisolutions.com/ press061303.html Nicholls, S. & Crompton, J. ( 2005). The impact of greenways on property values: Evidence from Austin, Texas. Journal of Leisure Research 37 (3), 321-341. Oskamp, S., Howard, G. S.,Winter, D. N., Stern, P. C. & McKenzie-Mohr, D. (2000). Environmental sustainability. American Psychologist, 55 (5), 496-537.

PAGE 84

84 Ottman, J. A. (1998). Green marketing: Oppor tunity for innovation. Lincolnwood, IL: NTC Business Books. Otto, B., Ransel, K., Todd, J., Lovaas D., Stutzm an, H. & Bailey, J. (2002). Paving our way to water shortages: How sprawl aggravates th e effects of drought. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America. Peattie, K. (2001). Golden goose or wild goose? The hunt for the green consumer. Business Strategy and the Environment, 10 (4), 187-199. Pelletier, L. G., Dion, S., Tuson, K. & Green-D emers, I. (1999). Why do people fail to adopt environmental protective beha viors? Toward a taxonomy of environmental amotivation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 12, 2481-2504. Polonsky, M.J., & Rosenberger III, P.J. (2001). Reevaluating green marketing: A strategic approach. Business Horizons, 44 (5), 21-30. Power, A. (2001). Social exclus ion and urban sprawl: Is the rescue of cities possible? Regional Studies, 35 (8), 731-742. Rees, W. & Wackernagel, M. (1994). Ecological footprints and appropriate carrying capacity. Washington DC: Island Press. Rocky Mountain Institute. (1998). Green development: Integrating ecology and real estate. New York: John Wiley. Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. (1997). The firs t Pennsylvania environmental readiness for the 21st century report. Slippery Rock, PA: Pennsylvania Center for Environmental Education. Roper Starch Worldwide, Inc. (1999.) The nati onal report card on environmental attitudes, knowledge and behaviors. Washington, DC: National Environmen tal Education and Training Foundation. Saunders, C.D. (2003). The emerging field of conservation psychology. Human Ecology Review, 10 (2), 137-149. Schlegelmilch, B. B. & Bohlen, G. M. (1996). The link between green pur chasing decisions and measures of environmental consciousness. European Journal of Marketing, 30 (5), 35-55. Schlossberg, H. (1993). Environthon at tracts students, corporate sponsors. Marketing News, 27 (1), 10. Schmuck, P. & Schultz, W.P. (2002). Psychology of sustainable development Boston, MA: Kluwer Academic Publishers.

PAGE 85

85 Schultz, P.W. (2000). Empathizing with nature: Th e effects of perspective taking on concern for environmental issues. Journal of Social Issues 56 391-406. Schultz, P.W. (2003). Reframing environmental messa ges to be congruent with American values. Human Ecology Review, 10 (2), 126-136. Smith, A. (2003). Building momentum: National trends and prospectus for high-performance green buildings. Washington, DC: United Stat es Green Building Council. Southworth, M. & Owens, P. (1993). The e volving metropolis: St udies of community, neighborhood, and street fo rm at the urban edge. Journal of the American Planning Association 59 (3), 271-87. Srinivasan, S., OFallon, L. R. & Dearry, A. (2003). Creating healthy communities, healthy homes, healthy people: Initiating a research agenda on the built environment and public health. American Journal of Public Health 93 (9), 1446-1450. Stafford, E. R. (2003). Energy effici ency and the new green marketing. Environment 45 (3), 810. Stern, P. C. (2000). Toward a coherent theory of environmentally significant behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 56 (3), 407-424. Stromberg, M. (2005). Green grow the buildings. Planning 71 (7), 16-21. Takano, T., Nakamura, K. & Watanabe, M. (2002) Urban residential environments and senior citizens longevity in megacity areas: The importance of walkable green spaces. Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health, 56 913-918. Talen, E., & Ellis, C. (2002). Beyond relativism: Reclaiming the search for good city form. Journal of Planning Education and Research 22 36-49. Taylor, A. F., Wiley, A., & Kuo, F. E. (1998). Gr owing up in the inner city: Green spaces as places to grow. Environment and Behavior 30 (1), 3-27. Thogersen, J. (2006). Media attention and the market for green consumer products. Business Strategy and the Environment, 15 145-156. Till, K.E. (2001). New Urbanism and nature : Green marketing and the neo-traditional community. Urban Geography, 22 (3), 220-248. Tilbury, D. (1995). Environmental education fo r sustainability: defining the new focus of environmental education in the 1990s. Environmental Education Research, 1 (2), 195212.

PAGE 86

86 Upham P. (2000). Scientific consensus on sust ainability: the case of the natural step. Sustainable Development 8 180. Urban Environmental Institute. (2002). Resource guide for sustainable development in an urban environment. Seattle, WA: Ur ban Environmental Institute. United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2005). Why build green? Retrieved November 10, 2005, from http://www.epa.gov/opptintr/gre enbuilding/pubs/whybuild.htm United States Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Our built and natural environments: A technical review of the inte ractions between land use, transportation and environmental quality. Development, Community, and Environment. Washington DC: US EPA. United States Green Building Council. (2005). LEED rating systems. Retrieved September 23, 2005, from http://www.usgbc.org Weich S., Blanchard M., Prince M., Burton E., Er ens B., & Sproston K. (2002). Mental health and the built environment: Cross-sectional su rvey of individual a nd contextual risk factors for depression. British Journal of Psychiatry, 180, 428-433. Werner, C.M. (1999). Psychological perspectives on sustainability. In E. Becker and T. Jahn (Eds.), Sustainability and the social scienc es: A cross-disciplinary approach to integrating environmental considerations into theoretical reorientation (pp. 223-242). London: Zed Books. Williams, K. and Dair, C. (2006). A framework of sustainable behaviours that can be enabled through the design of nei ghborhood-scale developments. Sustainable Development, in press. Williams K, Dair C. (2006a). What is stopping sustainable building in England? Sustainable Development 14 (5), in press. Wilson, A. (2005). What is green building? Mother Earth News, 211 96-100. Youngentob, K. & Hostetler, M. (2005). Is a new urban development model building greener communities? Environment and Behavior, 37 (6), 731-759. Zimmerman, J. (2001). The natur e of urbanism on the new ur banist frontier: Sustainable development, or defense of the suburban dream? Urban Geography, 22 (3), 249-267. Zelezny, L.C. and P.W. Schultz (eds.) (2000). Promoting environmentalism. Journal of Social Issues 56 (3), 365-578.

PAGE 87

87 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Krystal Kay Noiseux was born in Providence, Rhode Island on April 9, 1982. She decided on a career in conservation at the age of 10, when her 5th grade teacher rec ognized her interests in the natural world and nurtured them. Krystal received her bachelors degree in environmental science from Juniata College in Huntingdon, Pe nnsylvania. She has worked as a wildlife rehabilitator, sea turtle biologist, and envir onmental educator. She has pursued her strong interests in sustainability at the University of Florida where she accepted an assistantship to study for her masters degree in wildlife ecology and conservation, focusing on the human dimensions of conservation. This thesis is a product of her two year s of research at the University of Florida. Krystal hopes to pur sue a career in expe riential education for sustainability in urban environments.