\L

22:; ‘Mmmmw

 

THESIS

200%

This is to certify that the
thesis entitled

ROLE OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL FEATURES IN
DEFINING RURAL CHARACTER IN SOUTH CENTRAL
MICHIGAN

 

presented by

Dori M. Pynnonen-Valdez

u niversitY____

. -———-—‘- n . y-v.

LIBRARY
Michigan State

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for the

 

MS. degree in Forestry

 

 

MAM/u W/&/)/yb/LC¢/

’ "' Major Profes’sor’s Sigrfiture
\sf/gfi /08

Date

MSU is an afl‘innative—action, equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

0131162009
101409

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 K'lProlecc&PresIClRC/DateDue‘indd

ROLE OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL FEATURES IN DEFINING RURAL
CHARACTER IN SOUTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN

By

Dori M. Pynnonen-Valdez

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
In partial fulfillment of the requirements
For the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Forestry

2008

ABSTRACT

ROLE OF NATURAL AND CULTURAL FEATURES IN DEFINING
RURAL CHARACTER IN SOUTH CENTRAL MICHIGAN

By

Dori M. Pynnonen-Valdez

The problem of incompatible land use decisions has been surfacing in
multiple regions as many families have recently migrated from city and suburbs to
rural areas. Residents have repeatedly voiced a desire to protect “rural character,”
yet there have been few systematic attempts to have residents describe exactly
what rural character means to them.

The purpose of this study was to discover the salient features that
residents’ use to describe rural character so that policy-relevant criteria can be
developed at the local level to protect the qualities of rural landscapes that are
important to people. This thesis examined areas that will soon face development
challenges.

Twelve roving focus groups were conducted in six rural areas in south
central Michigan. Focus group data revealed the natural and cultural features that
residents use to describe rural character, including trees and forests, wildlife,
fields, farm features, wetlands and certain types of housing. Participants also
discussed salient features that detract from rural character, including housing type
and characteristics. Some features could be considered rural if certain conditions
were met, for example, subdivisions hidden by vegetation. The data are specific

enough to be used as a planning tool at the local level.

This thesis is dedicated to my dear friend Jessica Edel for her persistent

encouragement to simply “trust the process.”

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

“It takes a village to write a thesis” is what my friend and mentor Professor
Dennis Propst said a few weeks back. This statement was quite appropriate for my thesis
research in particular. I have had a great support network along the way. First and
foremost I would like to thank my committee members, Professors Maureen
McDonough, Dennis Propst and Craig Harris. Each one has their own special flare in
academia and serve not only as excellent mentors, but have been an inspiration to me in
more ways than I can express. Thanks also Dennis and Maureen, for giving me many
opportunities to learn in an applied manner. This is much appreciated!

Other professors here at MSU have influenced and inspired me including Allen
Schmid, Tracy Dobson, Anne Ferguson, and Don Dickmann. I thank them for their
enthusiasm and passion. Patricia Pennell offered her services and helped provide some of
the photos appearing in this thesis. Jeff Schmidt graciously offered his creativity and
skills in making the beautiful township maps. Alex Brasil taught me about pagination in
Microsofi Word. Dr. Georgia Peterson, Qing Xiang, Juli Kerr, Carol Graysmith, Melanie
Barbier and Kendra Tabor offered unique support in times of need.

I want to thank my family, especially my sister, for being brave and believing in
me on this journey. Thanks and love to my husband Edward, a country away, yet always
there to make me laugh, and remind me to be “tranquila.” I send gratitude many miles to
my friend Brandon Rivera, an acknowledgement that he will never read. Additionally I
thank my dear friends for sticking around. And lastly, but definitely not least, thanks to
Karma, my wonderful canine companion, eternally optimistic and who still loves me

even though we missed a few walks so that I could finally finish writing.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ................................................................................... vii
LIST OF FIGURES ................................................................................. viii
CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION .................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE ..................................................... 4
Research Questions .......................................................................... 9
CHAPTER 3: METHODS ........................................................................ 10
Selecting Routes ............................................ _ ................................ 12
Conducting Focus Groups ................................................................. 14
Background of Participants ............................................................... 15
Analysis of Data ............................................................................ 16
Code Development ......................................................................... 17
Reliability and Validity .................................................................... 18
CHAPTER 4: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION ................................................ 20
Main Themes ............................................................................... 20
Summary of Results ........................................................................ 40
CHAPTER 5: CONCLUSONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................ 43
Conclusions .................................................................................. 43
Implications ................................................................................. 45
Study Limitation ............................................................................. 45
Recommendations .......................................................................... 46
Current and Future Research ............................................................. 46
Additional Distributive Mechanisms .................................................... 47
APPENDIX A: TOWNSHIP MAPS AND ROUTES ......................................... 51
APPENDIX B: CONFIRMATION LETTER .................................................. 56
APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT .................................... 57
APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP SCRIPT ...................................................... 59
APPENDIX E: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE ....................................... 61

APPENDIX F : CODE DISPLAY TABLES ................................................... 64

BIBLIOGRAPHY .................................................................................. 66

vi

Table 1:

Table 2:

Table 3:

Table 4:

Table 5:

LIST OF TABLES

Themes mentioned in at least 75% of all focus groups, at leastIO times .......... 18
Main Themes ..................................................................................................... 20
Original RURAL codes across all focus groups ................................................ 64
Original DETRACT codes across all focus groups ........................................... 65
Original CONDITIONAL RURAL codes across all focus groups ................... 65

vii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Roving Focus Group Study Area ..................................................................... 14
Figure 2: Pre-focus group photograph ............................................................................. 15
Figure 3: “subdivisions” .................................................................................................. 21
Figure 4: "houses built in farm fields" ............................................................................. 22
Figure 5: “houses built in a row” ..................................................................................... 23
Figure 6: "houses built in natural settings" ...................................................................... 26
Figure 7: "houses set back from the road” ....................................................................... 27
Figure 8: “bales of hay” ................................................................................................... 28
Figure 9: “farm fields” ..................................................................................................... 29
Figure 10: "big red barns" ................................................................................................ 30
Figure 11: “old churches” ................................................................................................ 31
Figure 12: “big old Oak trees” ......................................................................................... 32
Figure 13: “mature trees” ................................................................................................. 33
Figure 14: “trees alongside the road” ............................................................................... 33
Figure 15: “wildlife” ........................................................................................................ 36
Figure 16: "farm animals" ................................................................................................ 37
Figure 17: “wetlands” ...................................................................................................... 38
Figure 18: “water features” .............................................................................................. 39
Figure 19: "water spaces providing animal habitat" ........................................................ 40
Figure 20: Roving Focus Group Study Area .................................................................... 49
Figure 21: Eagle Township Roving Focus Group Route ................................................. 50
Figure 22: Iosco Township Roving Focus Group Route ................................................. 51

viii

Figure 23: Onondaga Township Roving Focus Group Route ......................................... 52

Figure 24: Unadilla Township Roving Focus Group Route ............................................ 53
Figure 25: Vevay Township Roving Focus Group Route .............................................. 54
Figure 26: Victor Township Roving Focus Group Route ................................................ 55

ix

CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
Recently, many families have migrated from city and suburbs to rural areas
(Arendt 1999). With this change in location, the problem of land use surfaces. Once the
landscape is altered, there is limited chance of it ever returning to the original state
(Henderson 1997). Furthermore, forest and ecosystem fragmentation have impacts that
extend to songbird species and forest-based economies (Gobster and Haight 2004).
Many Michigan residents are deeply concerned with these changes. The following entry
appeared on the top of a list of websites after an intemet search of the phrase, “defining
rural character”:
“Everyone agrees — we love our “Rural Character.” But what exactly does
rural character look like? It might look different to everyone, but I would
guess that there would be some basic similarities. So I am proposing a
contest. Put your thinking caps on, get your creative juices flowing, and
send in your interpretation. You could take a photo, write a poem or an
essay, draw or paint a picture, create a sculpture. Anything that expresses
your concept of what rural character is.
The Open Space Citizen’s Committee is hosting a workshop on March 17,
2004 at the Wittenbach Center across from the High School. We will
display the entries there, and ask attendees to vote for their favorites. I’m
not sure what the prize will be at this point, but we’ll come up with
something. It will be fun just to see what everyone comes up with.”
(source: http://www.vergennestwp.org/definingrural.htm, 2/10/04).The

presence of this website in Michigan emphasizes that defining rural character is a

meaningful need for the population. Residents in rural areas are asking planning

officials and local units of government to preserve rural character throughout

landscape changes due to development and increased population (Heyer 1990).

However, there is no clear definition for this term. For example, local

govermnent can develop zoning regulations. These can include landscaping, lot

size, and setback regulations that protect rural character, thus meeting the desires
of local residents. But the critical problem still remains. There is a poor
understanding of how local residents actually perceive and define “rural
character.” Without a sound definition of what precisely “rural character” is,
planning officials do not know what they are protecting and how to go about it.

Additionally, planning guidelines call for a consensus on the meaning of rural

character at the community level before tackling this problem (Balash 1999;

Corser 1994; Yaro et a1. 1998).

Previous studies of rural character were conducted in rapidly growing areas at the
urban-rural fringe (Ryan 2002; Vogt and Marans 2004). Current policies that attempt to
limit the negative impacts of such development are often reactive, late in the planning
process, and may not be influencing home buying behavior (Vogt and Marans 2004).
Little research has focused on areas where the opportunity still exists to implement
policies that are proactive in terms of managing the growth that may occur. This is an
important gap because there is some evidence that multiple family housing dwellers
exhibit somewhat more tolerance for higher density types of developments than do single
family dwellers, demonstrating a difference in perceptions between urban/ suburban and

rural people (Sullivan 1994; Ryan 2002). In addition, consumer support for cluster or

conservation subdivisions is somewhat limited. in rapidly growing fringe areas (Vogt and
Marans 2004).

Since research has demonstrated that perceptions of rural character vary between
different groups in the same community (Sullivan 1994; Ryan 1998, 2002; Jones et al.
2003), achieving consensus will likely involve accepting a range of definitions. Planners
disagree concerning the benefits of such rural preservation techniques as cluster
developments and conservation subdivisions (Arendt 1996; Corser 1994). Planners and
local residents display divergent preferences for landscape design standards (Clare
Cooper Marcus 1990; Hester 1984; Hubbard 1997; Ryan 2006; Stamps 1999). The
patterns of similarities and differences among these groups need to be studied
systematically as the results from such studies can inform decisionmakers who are
interested in protecting rural character.

The purpose of this study, therefore, is to gain a better understanding of how local
residents perceive and define rural character. With this information, policy-relevant
criteria can be developed at the local level to protect the qualities of rural landscapes that

are important to people.

CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF LITERATURE

“Although we are accustomed to separate nature and human perception into two

realms, they are, in fact indivisible. ...landscape is the work of the mind. Its

scenery is built as much from strata of memory as from layers of rock.”

(Simon Schama, Baker 2006)

The vast rural landscape of the United States has been an attractive and unique
asset of this country’s cultural heritage for centuries (Henderson 1997). The rural
landscape may include large tracts of farmland and forests, rolling hills, and various
water sources. The rural economy was based on subsistence in the distant past; then,
with the coming of increasingly modern technology, people began moving to cities.
People are now free to reach out and explore other areas to live away from the city.
Rural images are quickly becoming part of history, tied to nostalgic memories of what
our landscape used to be, as the urban encroaches upon the rural.

When assessing landscape change in rural areas, housing is one of the most
significant factors. People move to rural areas to have more space; yet simultaneously
they are compromising their own agenda by bringing more houses to the rural area
(Arendt 1994). Henderson (1997) suggests learning from the past. If people know and
understand their own history, they may not have to relive the undesirable pieces. By
planning intelligently, communities can avoid making past mistakes, in this case making
wise land use and housing decisions. Landscape tends to be treated as separate from the
life and demands of people, yet in fact people are a part of the landscape, interconnected.

Landscape perception study results are consistent in that people appear to have a

preference for natural settings over built environments (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989, Kahn

1999). Natural settings directly affect quality of life. Aesthetic reactions can be an
indicator of a suitable environment for effective human fimctioning as people are
sensitive to the way human influence is positioned in the milieu of a natural setting
(Schroeder 1990). Restorative environment theories suggest that people’s preference for
natural settings may even reflect an evolutionary heritage (van den Berg et al 2007).
People find a certain comfort in what they perceive as a natural environment. Spatial
relationships influence a person’s cognitive maps and contribute to “wayfinding”
behavior. This offers a sense of stability in the environment (Golledge 1999).

Nature has therapeutic benefits and can reduce stress or bring forth positive
feelings thus enhancing cognitive function, creativity, and performance (Ulrich 1983;
Ulrich et al., 1995; Kaplan et al., 1998). Even the briefest glimpse of the passing
landscape can provide information imperative to effective functioning (Bell 1999). The
more natural features in a rural setting, the more the setting should be preferred. With the
high degree of universality in preference for natural landscapes, it is necessary to uncover
the salient features that contribute to this multi-dirnensional construct called “rural
character,” and find a way to balance community needs with approaching development
challenges.

Studies conducted during the past 13 years have linked perceptions of rural
character to specific land use criteria that can be used by policy makers to guide design
and zoning policies at the local level. Using a photo-questionnaire, individual
preferences for physical characteristics at the rural-urban fringe have been studied
(Sullivan 1994). These were areas where farms and forests were being overcome by

development at a fairly rapid pace. Photos depicted a range of housing types, including

older farmhouses, multiple family cluster developments and single family housing on
large and small lots. Photos also included scenes with varying amounts of farmland and
woods as these features were in jeopardy of being lost due to development. Results
demonstrated that rural-urban fringe residents preferred landscapes that contained both
farms and forested lands. They also preferred subdivisions and clusters of homes with
mature trees instead of a few trees and single family housing over multiple family
housing. These findings suggest that, where rural character preservation is a goal, new
developments should be built near or in forest settings and either maintain existing trees
or plant new ones to take their place. By far, the most preferred photos contained no built
elements. The highest ratings were given to forested areas and farmland scenes
containing open fields that were bordered on two or more sides by woods in the
background. Photos of multiple family housing, nearly devoid of plant materials received
the lowest ratings. Sullivan (1994) concluded that preserving rural character means
protecting agricultural land, open space, hedgerows and woodlots. Additionally, housing
and other developments perceived as possessing rural character should be built in close
proximity to these features.

Another photo-questionnaire study examined residents near Amherst in western
Massachusetts (Ryan 2002). This study focused on residents at the rural-urban fiinge,
with the purpose to identify the elements of rural landscape that the locals value, but was
also focused on residents’ reactions to various types of new cluster subdivision designs
that attempt to address urban sprawl. Survey results showed that for subdivisions, the
visibility of protected open space along roads and other public viewpoints was an element

that was perceived to be compatible with the rural landscape. Conversely, those

subdivisions with no visible open space from public viewpoints were considered
incompatible with rural character. Though cultural features such as old homes and stone
walls were deemed important to rural character, natural features including farm fields,
were perceived to be more important. The lack of new development was perceived to be
almost equal to cultural elements in defining rural character. Rural New England
residents rated nature and nature-related activities to be the most positive features of rural
living. Having nearby places to walk or hike, room to garden, being able to see the stars
at night and feelings safe in one’s neighborhood were the most highly regarded features.
As opposed to residents of larger rural lots, residents who lived on small lots were more
likely to say that subdivision scenes were compatible with rural character. Higher density
new developments tended to be more acceptable to those already living in these types of
subdivisions. The author concluded that new rural subdivisions should be screened from
public view. The impacts of development were not spread evenly among rural residents
in the study. Negative impacts were felt more strongly by those living on small parcels
along country roads than by cluster or conservation subdivision residents. This is likely
because the homes of cluster subdivision residents typically face interior roads and are
buffered from surrounding impacts by vegetation and permanently protected open space.
Another Michigan study examined the differences between individuals who
purchased a single-family home within the last 7 years with less recent homebuyers in
terms of how home, lot, neighborhood and community features affected their purchase
decisions (Vogt and Marans 2004). Naturalness and open space were not consistently the
most important features for homeowners in rapidly growing urban fringe areas that still

have a large proportion of land area in open space (the southeastern Michigan, Detroit

metropolitan area). Instead, homeowners favored neighborhood, housing design, schools
and access. It was concluded that in rapidly growing urban fringe areas, land use policies
that attempt to preserve naturalness and other rural features may not have sufficient
support from consumers, planners and legislators to be pervasive.

It is no secret that regions all across the country are increasingly facing
development and land use challenges. Developed land area in Pennsylvania increased by
80 percent between 1960 and 1990. The same is true for Florida, with the exception that
it occurred between 1974 and 1984 (Arendt 1999). Massachusetts and Michigan face
similar problems as well. The scale and rate of development may vary according to
region; still, the same obstacles are being faced. Planning officials need to deal with
growth, while simultaneously conserving important natural resources hence saving them
from being irreversibly converted to streets, parking lots, stores, lawns and home. The
mentioned studies demonstrate that this is not a simple endeavor, yet is necessary in order
to protect the landscape.

“I got into planning because I thought I could make a difference in stopping the

destruction of wetlands. But regulations decide how development should take

place, not whether it should happen at all”

(Jack Wright, Larmer 1994)

Zoning can be compared to a ‘genetic code’ for shaping new growth. Many
residents find the current gene pool to be lacking acceptable traits for new growth. New
growth in rural areas has resembled its traditional family less and less as the special
qualities of the area are being eroded by development (Arendt 1994). There is no single

solution or planning design. However, many agree that planning at the community level

is the single most important strategy in landscape conservation (MI Planner 2003,
Henderson 1997). In order for local planners to make informed land use decisions, local
residents perceptions of rural character need to be assessed.
Research Questions
The broad goal of this study is to examine how local residents in rural areas

define the term “rural character.” Specific objectives are to determine:

0 What are the natural, culture, or other features that people think add to

“rural character” in south central Michigan?
0 What are the features that people think detract from “rural character?”

0 Why do these features add to or detract from “rural character?”

CHAPTER THREE: METHODS

Previous research has found visual preference to be usefitl in determining the
public’s opinion (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989). Dynamic displays, such as videos, have
been more effective in measuring environmental preferences than static, such as still
frames (Heft and Nassar 2000). In the study reported here, it was decided that taking
people out and driving them around may provide the visual stimulus they needed to
discuss the salient features of rural character. This idea formed the foundation for a
roving focus group methodology in which the focus group traveled by van through the
township on a pre-determined route. South-central Michigan has a diverse landscape
with forests, farmland, wetlands and more. The researchers explored several townships
and based the roving focus group route on the townships with a suitable balance of
diverse landscape features. Routes were also considered for an appropriate length of time
that would reduce the burden on respondents (less than one hour). Additionally, these
areas were chosen because of their proximity to Michigan State University. Researchers
were unable to travel far due to funding limitations and the chosen townships provided a
context thought to represent the diversity of rural character.

Based on previous research and literature in this area, it was hypothesized that a
few salient features would emerge including natural features, such as trees and large
woodlots, water in the form of lakes and rivers without housing, large fields, and
farmland. Cultural features that were hypothesized to emerge included specific types of
buildings; for example, old barns, farmhouses, general stores, and the absence of any

built development. Since there had not been any significant research conducted in this

10

particular area of Michigan, it was hypothesized that other features might also be
revealed.

Policy-makers contend that communities must define their own sense of “rural
character” (Michigan Planner 2003; Henderson 1994). Focus groups are a successful
tool used in collecting peoples’ perceptions on a certain topic, in this case, rural character
(Patton 2002). This method of inquiry offers an environment where people feel safe to
self-disclose their true feelings while interacting with and considering their own views in
the circumstance of the other participants’ views (Krueger 1994). They are especially
useful in exploratory research because researchers can gain depth in the interpersonal
atmosphere that focus groups provide (Krueger & Casey 2000). Researchers can quickly
determine if there is a consistency, shared view, or extreme difference within and
between focus groups. Participants often share a common experience, in this case, living
in a rural area. Also, focus groups tend to be appreciated by participants because humans
are social creatures. Some limitations of focus groups include the problem of keeping the
discussion focused on the study topic, especially if participants are familiar with one
another. Also, confidentiality cannot be assured and those with a minority viewpoint
may not feel comfortable to share in the discussion. This method is good for identifying
major themes; however, it is often unsuccessful at uncovering subtle differences (Stewart
et a1 2007). For the purposes of this study, identifying major themes was appropriate.
The researchers decided that having a dynamic visual stimulus would help reveal themes

related to rural character.

11

Selecting Routes

This study focused on the landscape and residents of six townships in south
central Michigan in the fall of 2004 and the spring of 2005. The townships included
Eagle and Victor (Clinton County), Unadilla and Iosco (Livingston County), and Vevay
and Onondaga (Ingham County), and ranged in size from 1,500-4,000 residents (Figure
1). These areas have experienced some population growth in the last decade; however,
much of the private land is still undeveloped. This is one of the primary reasons that
these areas were included. The researchers wanted to focus on communities that are just
beyond the urban-rural fringe. Additionally, the routes all included some areas with
newer housing developments (for individual maps, see Appendix A).
Selecting Participants

Two focus groups were constructed in each township resulting in a total of 12
groups. One group in each township was conducted in the fall and the other in the spring
to account for seasonal biases. Researchers did not want participants to be affected by
trees without leaves, or with fall colors. The researchers first contacted the Township
Supervisor to a) alert him/her of the research, and b) ask for suggestions for potential
participants. The Supervisor would typically suggest 2 to 3 people that may participate,
and/or help locate other potential participants. This “snowball” pattern continued until
twelve focus groups were formed. One week prior to the focus groups, each participant
was sent a confirmation letter (Appendix B).

Many township residents work locally, while many more commute to work in
nearby cities such as Lansing, Grand Rapids, Jackson, and even Ann Arbor. Farming has

historically been a large contributor to the local economy but has decreased or evolved

12

over the past two decades into more of a “large farm” with few owners atmosphere rather
than many small farms and owners. This phenomenon was also a point of interest
because as farming has decreased, more land is being transformed to housing

developments.

l3

Figure l: Roving Focus Group Study Area

 

Roving Focus Group Three-County
Study Area

 

—— Major Road . < -_:'. 1
Township used in Study

Minor Civil Divison 51...- 1

 

 

       
    
 

I I To Flint To Flint

To Grand Rapids

 

Eagle ‘Twlp.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Battle Creek
Vevay Twp.
I
Onc “idaga TNpl.‘
To Jackson To Ann Arbor

 

 

 

Conducting Focus Groups
Focus groups varied in size from 4-5 people (Figure 2). One group from each

township was conducted in the fall, while the other was conducted in the spring due to

time constraints. The researchers did not want participants to be influenced by the
autumn change in foliage color, thus decided to conduct half of the focus groups in the
spring when the leaves returned. Each group lasted approximately 45-60 minutes in
duration. After giving consent (Appendix C), the moderator used a script to guide the
discussion (Appendix D). Participants were asked to point out features of the landscape
that represent “rural character.” They were also asked to point out features that detract
from the notion of rural character. These features were discussed among the group, and
each session was digitally recorded with two Sony Memory Stick digital voice recorders

(ICD-MSS 15).

Figure 2: Pre-focus group photograph

  

Background of Participants

Participants also were asked to fill out a brief questionnaire for demographic
information (see Appendix E). The average age of the 50 focus group participants was
53 years, with a range of 23 to 84. The majority owned land in the townships and had

lived there for 19 years on average, ranging overall between 1 and 84 years. Most had

lived in a rural area in southern Michigan for a good number if not all of their lives.

Gender was similarly divided with 23 males (46%), and 27 females (54%).

 

Analysis of Data

Focus group transcripts were professionally transcribed at Michigan State
University. Each transcript was then analyzed with the assistance of Atlas.ti software.
Each transcript was first reviewed by one researcher, which consisted of carefully reading
the transcript and highlighting text with possible codes. Then a second researcher
reviewed for consistency. After several reviews and dicussions, emerging themes were
examined within and between each transcript. Then codes and sub-codes were attached
to each theme. For example, a code such as “rural: landscape: rolling hills” was assigned
to a section of the text discussing the importance of rolling hills. Emphasis on certain
codes helped determine relevance to the term “rural character.” Additionally, quotes

were extracted from the text to highlight themes in analysis.

Code Development

Three main code categories were used to separate the content: “Rural,” meant
anything that definitely represented rural character; “Detract,” meant anything that took
away from the ruralness of the landscape; and “Conditional Rural,” meant something
that the residents could accept as not detracting from the rural landscape if certain
conditions were met. The subjects commented on many different natural and cultural
features, which were incorporated into the code scheme as categories. For example,
housing was discussed frequently across all groups. When coding something related to
housing, the main code would be “rural,” “detract,” or “conditional rural,” and the
category would be “housing.” A complete list of codes can be found in Appendix F.

In order to uncover the most important themes, the complete code list was sorted
according to total frequency. Any code that was mentioned at least thirty times was
separated for further analysis. Then, the separated codes were analyzed across the focus
groups. If the code was discussed in at least eight of the twelve groups (75 percent), it

was set aside as a possible main theme (Table l).

17

Table 1: Themes mentioned in at least 75% of all focus groups, at leasth times

 

 

 

 

 

Themes mentioned in at least 75 % of all focus groups, at least 10
times.

Code Total times mentioned Total Number of Groups
Housing 171 12
Fanns 86 12
Buildings 62 12
Other 59 12
Trees 50 12
Sensory 42 8
Wildlife 33 12
Livestock 30 1O
Roads 28 10
Water 30 12
Landscaping 26 1O
Vegetation 21 9

 

 

 

Reliability and Validity

Questions were pre-tested and adjusted to ensure quality dialogue among
participants. Moderators were selected based on experience with the topic, and then
trained to facilitate an open dialogue. Participants were asked to clarify ambiguous
statements in the focus group discussion and moderators repeated key ideas in order to
verify their accuracy with participants.

In focus group research, the discussions are generally continued until new ideas
have stopped emerging (Krueger & Casey 2000). The researchers followed this guideline
and stopped conducting focus groups at the original planned twelve as new ideas stopped
surfacing. The same themes were emerging in all of the groups. If new themes would
have surfaced, the researchers would have conducted more focus groups. New themes
stopped emerging after the first six groups were conducted in the fall; however, the
researchers wanted to be confident that they captured everything, so they conducted six

more in the spring.

18

Though the focus group literature encourages groups ranging in size from 8-12
participants in general, researchers also encourage smaller groups of 4-6 people when the
goal of the discussion is to gain in-depth insights (Krueger & Casey 2000). Moreover,
smaller groups are advantageous when the participants have lengthy experiences with the

topic and/or have a lot to say (Morgan 1997).

19

CHAPTER FOUR: RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Nine main themes were apparent based on frequency of occurrence between and
within all the focus groups. These included housing, farms, buildings, trees, wildlife,

farms animals, roads, water and multi-sensory features (Table 2).

Table 2: Main Themes

 

 

Theme Total times mentioned Total No. Groups
Housing 171 12
Farms 86 12
Buildings 62 12
Trees 50 12
Multi-Sensory 43 9
Wildlife 33 12
Livestock 3O 12
Water 30 12

 

 

 

 

 

Main themes:
mg

Of all the features discussed, either positively or negatively, housing surfaced
most frequently at 171 times. Across all twelve groups, housing was important to rural
character because it can easily detract from the rural landscape.

Subdivisions in agricultural areas were initially viewed negatively. As the drive
continued, residents pointed out or described examples of subdivisions that they
considered to be somewhat more acceptable. The following quotes highlight the
negativity discussed in accordance with the housing theme:

“Subdivisions are not rural... ” (Unadilla resident)

“Here is our new subdivision, well fairly new that used to be all one farm, and so

that does take away, having your subdivision, but takes away part of your rural

20

character when you start building homes that are closer together. ” (Victor

resident)

“A good share of it is rural until you get to the subdivisions... ” (Onondaga
resident)

Figure 3: “subdivisions”

    

BLANCIH RI) ‘
"/J'IMYI/iny

”A 130, we have many people who will come out to the country and they’ll buy a

30 acre plot because they want to get out into the country, good old country

living... .then the next thing you know their big beautiful home has a for sale sign

on it. Along with the for sale sign, they are plotting of of that 30 acres and they

are in effect developing it into a rural subdivision. ” (Eagle resident)

Most residents found cleared lots with new houses built close to the road to be a
threat to rural character and preferred housing with vegetative screening. Subjects were
disappointed about houses being built in the middle of fields with no surrounding

vegetation, especially if that land had previously served for agricultural purposes.

21

Modern style housing, groomed yards, and housing on small acreage all were considered

to detract from the rural landscape.
“And then there is a new house going in that looks kind of out of place. Because

you’ve got all the manicured spotted lawns here on the built up part and then with

fewer and fewer, very few trees.... " (Vevay resident)

"New house stuck out in the middle of nowhere with no trees, nothing around

it.... ” (Vevay resident)

Figure 4: "houses built in farm fields"

 

“This on my right used to be a big orchard which is not anymore and then up
here to the left down this road used to be a big orchard, which is no longer. It is
all filled up with houses and I don ’t care for that. ” (Victor resident)

“Too bad this farm here got split up. " (Victor resident)

“Over on our lefi is another place where they are scattered housing all over the
fields over here. And this used to be a big farm, all this land was a big farm. "

(Onondaga resident)

22

"And I think ungroomed, because when you get like all those houses, did you see
how groomed that whole area looked? I don ’t know, it loses the country feel.... ”
(Onondaga resident)

“Chopping up farmland for residential use is not rural ” (Unadilla resident)

”I ’d rather see larger lots... ” (Unadilla resident)

“Well that idle field we just passed, you could see the weeds and the perk holes

all over it, it is waiting to get developed, so not very rural. ” (Iosco resident)

“Dividing in all little pieces is not rural. ” (Iosco resident)

Participants did not like the modern identical-looking houses. They frequently
referred to these as “cookie-cutter homes.” Building houses in a row, or close together,
was also considered a major detraction from the rural landscape.

“You know, why in here, where the houses have been built in a row and kind of

clumped together is I think detracts from the rural atmosphere on this side of the

road. ” (Vevay resident)

Figure 5: “houses built in a row”

 

23

“That single house back there, it is taking up the road flontage. There are two of

them side by side, they look exactly alike. ” (Onondaga resident)

“Those are all new over there too. This is all getting developed, and we are

talking carbon-copy houses. ” (Iosco residents)

“It is becoming more and more of a detraction all the time, crowded conditions,

that’s what you get in a non-rural setting. ” (Eagle resident)

Some features were not particularly favored by participants, but were deemed
acceptable in the rural landscape if certain conditions were met. The rural residents that
participated in the focus groups were not overly romantic or naive about the rural
condition. A participant from Iosco Township admitted:

“I guess to me it has just been so gradual and you know I’ve lived here all my life

so, everything changes a little bit each year, so it doesn 't afiect you as much as

you know, like, say I hadn ’t been here for 20 years and come back, it is going to

affect you more than if you ’ve actually lived here and it is just gradual and, you

know, you get used to it. You know what is happening, why it is happening... ”
A few other participants also said:

“Coming out here and having a small, little bit of farm where your kids can ride a

bike and be safe and where you didn’t have to listen to the conversations of like

people next door. I don ’t resent people coming out here and buying, you know,
an half acre. 1 really don ’t. ” (Eagle resident)
“Ah, I have mixed feelings. I mean just look at myself I ’m selling out some

property, but I’m selling two acre parcels. These have their place. I mean it is

24

not really, it is not a city, it is not like a city, but still you hate to see it coming.

There is nothing you can do about it. ” (Iosco resident)

Participants recognized that some growth was inevitable but were relatively clear
about the nature of developments that would and would not detract from rural character.
For example, while they felt that subdivisions per se would detract from rural character, a
well-designed subdivision with some open space and ample vegetative screening from
the road would be acceptable. Subdivisions were considered more acceptable as an
alternative to having several houses built along the road. Building on larger lots, set back
from the road was more acceptable than houses built close to the road. New housing
hidden by vegetation or topography was more acceptable. Vegetation surrounding single
family homes seemed to make the newer housing fit in to the rural landscape. Vegetation
was the “condition” in this instance. Trees were important in landscaping and screening
of development. Subjects stressed their preference for leaving the natural vegetation and
wild growth both in landscaping and along the roadside.

“The other unique thing about the subdivision that you are now just kind of going

around the corner of you almost don’t even know it’s there, but there is

approximately 500 homes in there. ” (Victor resident)

“If I were doing it, I would do like this where you put a road back in and put all

the houses in one spot and then you don ’t have to look at all of those houses every

time you drive down the road. You can look at trees. ” (Onondaga resident)

“Although, I prefer them putting the houses all in a wad like that than stringing

them out along the roadfrontage ” (Onondaga resident)

25

“Now this little residential area is a little dijferent, it has the woods around it, the

trees ..... they 've left it to be more natural... ” (Onondaga resident)

Figure 6: "houses built in natural settings"

is

  

"And then on the left there is an example of some newer homes in the last, I
believe, five years. But still set way back fi'om the road. Still kind of rural, big
lots, at least five acres, maybe more. ” (Unadilla resident)

"Those houses set back fiom the road are kind of rural, I think They still have

some land around them, but there are trees, and it is far back. " (Iosco resident)

26

Figure 7: "houses set back from the road”

        

 

“I thought it was a newer house back there, but at least they have a lot of trees
and things to help, the first house on the left is just right there in the middle of the
cornfield ” (Vevay resident)

Manufactured and modular homes were frequently discussed. Most often they
were labeled as a detraction, but some residents felt that if they were newer and less
“trailer-like,” and set on a larger lot with trees or other vegetation, they may fit in to the
rural landscape.

“ We are seeing a lot of the manufactures, modular homes, and some of them

aren 't very pretty. Some of them are, they are doing a much better job than they

used to... ” (Onondaga resident)

"Here, they have jammed trailers on one acre parcels, and they are set back fiom

the road. It is as rural as a trailer park can be. " (Unadilla resident)

27

Em

Agricultural features were discussed in each of the focus groups. Some of the
prominent features were farmland and fields, animal pastures, farm equipment, silos, and
bales of hay lying in the field. Farm-related features were discussed a total of 86 times
across all twelve groups. The following quotes highlight this theme:

“... bales of hay. ” (Onondaga resident)

Figure 8: “bales of hay”

    

”Cornfields and soybean fields, that is definitely rural. Going between
cornfields. ” (Onondaga resident)

“Corn fields on either side of the road, that ’s rural. ” (Unadilla resident)
”...I think silos are rural... ” (Iosco resident)

“Yeah, very rural, Dairy F arms... ” (Iosco resident)

“People have a lot of wooded areas, alfalfa fields, you have a lot of corn... ”

(Eagle resident)

28

Figure 9: “farm fields”

 

    

“This is rural character, ‘cause look at that, now right here you probably got 500
or 600 acres under cultivations. ” (Eagle resident)
“Like a hayfield over here, and a cornfield over there... ” (Victor resident)
“ ..you ’ll seefarm equipment on the road... ” (Victor resident)
“Old farm equipment, stacked up in a pile, covered in weeds, that ’s rural. ”
(Victor resident)
“It looks like a pasture here on the right. ” (Vevay resident)
“One of the other things that you see a lot is the cornfield, you know, within six
feet or so fiom the house... ’cause it is right there, you got to use every quarter
inch to make it profitable. ” (Vevay resident)
Buildings
Buildings were mentioned a total of 62 times across all twelve focus groups. This
category covers a plethora of buildings, ranging from farmhouses to churches; however,

the most popular discussed building type was big, red barns. Buildings types seemed to

29

be a strong cultural example of rural character. New, “modem” buildings including strip
and commercial development were deemed incompatible with rural character. The

following quotes highlight this theme:
"...we ’ve got a beautiful old church coming up on the Iefi, and a beautiful old red

barn on the right... " (Onondaga resident)

Figure 10: "big red barns"

 

“And this old building on the right, maybe some of you guys know, I don ’t know
what used to be there or what that was for, but that building has rural character,
there is no doubt. ” (Victor resident)

“And this is our big red barn right here, very rural. ” (Eagle resident)

driving by and seeing centennial farms r these barns, you know, these old
barns and stufif I mean that ’s a lot of character. " (Iosco resident)

"See that’s rural character right there, honest to God, little Mom and Pop ’s
things, you know, now the little store down there.... ” (Iosco resident)

“Few remaining barns like the one we just passed. ” (Unadilla resident)

30

“There, that barn. See that barn over to the left down there, the round top?

That ’s definitely rural. ” (Vevay resident)

Figure 11: “old churches”

 

“That church has been here forever. ” (Unadilla resident)
“Got some old churches in the township, that’s a characteristic... " (Onondaga resident)
Deg

In all groups, many different forms of vegetation were discussed including
wildflowers, wetland plants, and vines. However, trees were the main vegetative focus,
and were mentioned 50 times across all 12 groups. Trees were extremely important to all
of the residents in this study, and in a variety of ways. For example, forests and woodlots
were depicted as significant to the rural landscape. There was a strong preference for
housing built among the natural features. Building among the trees, instead of cutting
them out, was favorable. Trees growing alongside of the road, in yards, and in fields
arching over crops, or with wildflowers and grasses, were also mentioned. The following

quotes highlight this theme:

31

“The big old Oak trees... ” (Vevay resident)

Figure 12: “big old Oak trees”

1

 

“And a stand of trees and the woods where wildflowers still grow. " (Vevay

resident)

"Another unique thing about this township is in the rural there is a lot of wooded

areas. ” (Victor resident)

“But, ah, they kept the woods... ” (Victor resident)

32

Figure 13: “mature trees”

 

“I like it when you are going down these country roads too, a lot of them have the

trees that are arching over the crops. ” (Onondaga resident)

Figure 14: “trees alongside the road”

is

    

“There an the right I like too, I mean you can see the field, but yet you ’ve got all
the trees still surrounding and it just feels more country and you still have nature

there. " (Onondaga resident)

33

“Older trees alongside the road. ” (Unadilla resident)

“Well this is a classic, rural scene in the winding road, ah, vegetation on the left,
the woods and the farm and the fence, and mature trees... ” (Unadilla resident)
“These big pieces of woods are still rural. ” (Iosco resident)

“ We are just driving down this road, the way the trees kind of landscape this
road, it is really nice to drive through here. ” (Iosco resident)

“I love the small areas like that one right over there where there are small trees
and just a natural look... ” (Eagle resident)

“And I appreciate when people do have property that borders the rivers and
things and they leave the natural, they leave the trees and the things that make it
up because these trees have been growing for years and year and years and you

can ’t just put them back up. ” (Eagle resident)

Multi—Sensory

The participants revealed many features that were not necessarily a physical part
of the rural landscape but were features that appealed to the senses. Different sensory
features discusses included hearing, seeing, and smelling the animals, both livestock and
wildlife; the lack of sounds, the sounds of nature, being able to see the stars, the vivid
colors, open space, natural views, rolling hills, and the pattern and order of the farm
fields. These types of features were mentioned 43 times.

“It ’s so quiet out here....and the stars... . you can always see the stars at night.

It ’s much different than living in the city. ” (Vevay resident)

34

“There is not a lot of light pollution at night so we can actually see the stars! ”
(Unadilla resident)

“Seeing and smelling the animals is something that is country... ” (Onondaga
resident)

“T he patchwork quilt of the farm fields is very rural. ” (Eagle resident)

“The patterns of the fields become part of your drive home for many months.
Then in the fall all the corn gets cut and it makes you feel really disoriented not

having it there! This is a very rural thing. ” (Vevay resident)

WM
Deer, waterfowl, wild turkey, woodchucks, vultures, and many other forms of
wildlife were also mentioned 33 times. Subjects commented that with the coming of
development they have noticed less wildlife in these areas. This was considered a major
detraction from the rural character. The following quotes highlight the wildlife theme:
“You’re always excited to see the wildlife. No matter how many times you see
them, you’re always excited. Even if they are eating your crops, and you ’re mad
at them, you’re still excited to see them. ” (Victor resident)
“T here are plenty of deer, or let ’s just say, wildlife... ” (Iosco resident)
“You can drive down any of these roads and you ’11 see wild turkeys here and

there. ” (Iosco resident)

35

Figure 15: “wildlife”

....“

 

"...hearing the flags and streams at night. " (Iosco resident)

”Oh yeah, I had to brake for turkeys on the way over to this thing. ” (Unadilla

resident)
”Sandhill cranes like to rest in this field. ” (Unadilla resident)

“We have a lot of wildlife in this area. This field here, usually in the fall is nice

and fill of deer. ” (Onondaga resident)

36

Livestock

Livestock was considered an important feature of rural character and was
mentioned 30 times. Seeing and smelling livestock such as chickens, cows, hogs,
working horses, and other farm animals was important to the concept of “rural character.”
The following quotes highlight this theme:

“There is some livestock that looks delightfully rural... ” (Unadilla resident)

"Right here is definitely rural too, that herd of herfords.... ” (Vevay resident)

” We keep our own livestock, that’s rural. “ (Victor resident)

”You will see pastures where the cattle are " (Iosco resident)

“Cows... especially when they are in the middle of the road. " (Onondaga

resident)

“Smelling the manure is definitely a sign of rural. ” (Onondaga resident)

Figure 16: "farm animals"

 

37

3%

Southern Michigan has many riparian areas, and these were mentioned 30 times.
Water features, including marshes, wetlands, swamps, ponds, and rivers were
consistently indicated as significant features in the rural landscape. Not only were these
features mentioned for aesthetic purposes, but they were also deemed ecologically
important for specific vegetation that provide wildlife habitat. Focus group participants
expressed disapproval for the filling in or draining of wetland areas.

“..our wetlands are unique, and really set us apart from other areas... ” (Unadilla

resident)

Figure 17: “wetlands”

  

4‘."

s . ' ~_
‘1 O.‘ {‘.‘f‘e * :x- '.
~‘ ‘ T‘ I“ ‘ ,m

"Thank God for wetland. " (Unadilla resident)
“I like this marshy area. We have a lot of wetland, wet areas in our township. "

(Victor resident)

38

”0n down there is the river, it is definitely beautiful down there. And the ponds,
it is very rural too because you get to see wildlife and, you know, the birds and

other animals that come to it. " (Onondaga resident)

 

“Swamps, lots and lots of ” (Onondaga resident)

“The pond looks rural, I like the pond. ” (Iosco resident)
“I love that. I love when there are water spaces like that, because then there is

always ducks or heron. ” (Eagle resident)

39

Figure 19: "water spaces providing animal habitat"

 

Summary of Results

The natural and cultural features that were important to “rural character”
included farms, animals, specific building types, trees, and things that appeal to multiple
senses. These features were strongly recognized as salient features supporting the term
“rural character.” Many modern housing styles and developments were deemed to
detract from “rural character.” Some types of housing and development could be
considered compatible with the rural landscape if certain conditions were met. These
results were consistent across all twelve focus groups.

Farm features such as farm fields, buildings, and bales of hay, were one of the
most frequently discussed features. Farms are an integral part of south-central
Michigan’s rural character. Another popular feature, livestock, corresponds with the
farm features. The researchers coded farms and livestock as different features, but

traditionally the two go together. Farm features were hypothesized to be a key

40

dimension of rural character. This finding is consistent with previous research conducted
by Sullivan (1994) and Ryan (2002).

Along with livestock, the focus groups described wildlife to be an important
defining feature of rural character. As residents face development challenges in the
future, they would like to keep their wildlife as part of the rural character. This demands
a certain amount of forested areas and other wildlife habitat types.

Buildings were a strong example of cultural features defining rural character.
These results are compatible with previous research as Sullivan (1994) who found these
to be important features in areas at the rural-urban fringe. Buildings are important
cultural features also because they represent uniqueness in their community. Residents
are not excited about the potential coming of strip malls and corporate businesses that can
be found in any other city in America. The barns were particularly popular because they
represent a rural tradition. Residents are dismayed to see barns coming down because
their owners can no longer afford to maintain them.

Trees were a very popular symbol of rural character. According to the residents,
the more mature, the better. The importance of trees was peppered in other features as
well, such as landscaping and housing features. Trees take a long time to grow.
Residents prefer to keep large and mature trees instead of removing them, clearing the
land, and planting new. They also frame the context of rural scenes, as in the farm field
with trees in the background (Sullivan 1994).

Water surfaced in each focus group discussion and is a unique natural and cultural
feature of Michigan. Water also coincides with some other frequently discussed features

such as forests, wildlife, and even farms.

41

. The subjects went beyond mentioning only physical and cultural characteristics
and discussed additional features that accompany life in a rural area involving auditory
and olfactory senses. Simple things such as being able to see the stars as night were
discussed in most of the focus groups, along with the odor of manure coming from farms.

Residents were very passionate about what they considered unacceptable housing
in their rural atmosphere. To most, modern housing was too “identical,” too close
together, too big, too close to the road, or too visible. At first sight, subdivisions were
considered a detraction. Upon further discussion, subdivisions were acceptable in some
instances, provided they met certain criteria. This is consistent with Sullivan (1994) and
Ryan (2002, 2006) who found that subdivisions with vegetative screening were

compatible with rural character.

42

CHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Conclusions

Local residents were very enthusiastic about their rural setting. They were also
enthusiastic about preserving their “rural character.” Participants were also quite
comfortable with the roving focus group methodology. By deconstructing the salient
features representative of rural character, these data provide what was important to the
focus group participants based on the visual stimuli the roving focus group provided.
Their discussions were not based on virtual representations of landscapes, such as in
surveys or photos, but rather the geo-physical environment in a constantly changing
manner.

In some ways, these data coincide with results of earlier studies. Many of the
previously studied natural and cultural features were confirmed in the roving focus
groups, such as farm features, forests, old buildings, which were very clearly
representative of rural character. However, as these townships are located beyond the
rural-urban fringe, there were some key differences. In previous studies, there was
inclusion of multiple-family housing. The townships in this study primarily have single-
family housing so there was little discussion about multiple-family housing.

Discussions on housing and development were not always consistent. The data
suggest that new housing in rural areas needs to be carefully planned and guided. There
was consensus that new housing threatens rural character; the discrepancy developed
when participants tried to explain what types of housing were more acceptable than

others.

43

The exploratory nature of this study uncovered natural and cultural features that
were not found in the supporting literature: the presence of animals in the form of both
wildlife and livestock. Without the forest and farmland, another feature supporting rural
character would be lost. Additionally, the data suggests that there are multiple-sensory
aspects to rural character as participants described specific sights, sounds, and smells that

were present in their home environment.

44

Implications:

As rural townships are facing dramatic population and development changes,
planning officials can use methods to guide this development, thus preserving important
characteristics of their landscape and heritage. This study lends a qualitative approach
with data that are meaningful and realistic. The data are based on in-depth discussions of
rural character as the participants were experiencing it in the roving focus groups.
Results from the roving focus groups are specific enough to provide guidance at the local
level in revising master plans or zoning ordinances in order to protect rural character.
Furthermore, this study may act as an impetus to address highly pragmatic planning
needs at the local level (specific and legally-defensible definitions of rural character
based on the local residents’ desires). For example, this study suggests that where
protection of rural character is a goal, land use plans should stress the importance of farm
land, natural vegetation, water features, and old buildings. Additionally, rules for new
housing developments should be in place to define what is acceptable, such as, screening
of subdivisions, spacing of housing, and minimal identical housing units. Zoning
ordinances can be based on community input regarding setback requirements, and lots
sizes to name a few. By understanding shared perceptions of rural character, planners
and policy makers can plan for and maintain rural landscapes more proactively than in
the past. These data are, in fact, based on what people perceive that they want kept.
Study Limitations

These results should be interpreted with some caution. The data can only be
extrapolated to townships with similar demographic, historical, and landscape criteria (for

example, based on US Census Data, other townships in the northem-lower peninsula, or

45

the western coastal regions of Michigan). In addition, the participant sample may not be
completely representative of all area residents. Most subjects have lived in the township
for the majority, if not all, of their lives. The sample included mostly home/landowners,
middle- to senior-aged. Younger persons were underrepresented. Furthermore, all
participants volunteered their time for this study, which may add some bias as people
who volunteer for studies tend to be more interested in the subject matter and may answer
differently than those not willing to talk about it (Gray et a1 2007). The roving focus
posed challenges because at times it was difficult to clearly understand the audio
recordings due to road conditions, or the sound of the air conditioner, though researchers
recovered the majority of transcription errors. Also the roving focus group allowed for a
maximum of 6 participants in each group which is less than recommended in the focus
group literature. Finally, the term “natural” in this study refers to landscape features that
the participants perceive as being natural.
Recommendations

Current and Future Research

The data collected in this study have been used to develop a photo-survey
instrument that was distributed to a larger sample. The results from the photo-survey are
very similar to the focus group data. Survey respondents rated a variety of “natural”
features to be representative of rural character (Propst et al, in review).
Additional Research Directions

It would be useful to replicate this study in other parts of the United States and

internationally to see if features of rural character are universal, similar, or different.

46

Housing in the rural setting evoked unclear responses from focus group participants.
This feature needs a more in—depth analysis.
Additional Distributive Mechanisms

The roving focus group results will also be shared with each of the participating
townships for their own use and benefit. Moreover, a website could be constructed with
an interactive blog discussing the focus group results, and offering a place for dialogue
on developing planning methods and protecting rural character. In addition to the
website, a brochure could be made, detailing the opportunities community input can offer
the protection of rural character. Possibly, a collaborative project could be developed
with interested parties to develop an action plan to pursue what the resident’s desire: to
preserve their townships’ “rural character.”

As Heyer (1990) recommends, the first step in protecting rural character is to very
specifically define the most desirable landscape elements. These may vary by
community which is what keep communities unique (Balash 1999, Corser 1994). After
defining the elements, community leaders can then focus on methods to preserve them.
This study supports the human preference for natural settings (Kaplan and Kaplan 1989;
Kaplan et al 1998; Kahn 1999) and provided specific landscape and cultural features that
impede rural character by studying rural community residents, in situ.

Participants clearly spoke about features that they felt were important to rural
character. These results are very similar to those of earlier studies and highlight features
that may be used as land use planning criteria. Communities concerned with preserving

rural character may find it useful to assess residents’ perceptions in order to protect

47

important features in the face of development. Residents will then be able to further

enjoy that which is “rural character.”

48

APPENDIX A: TOWNSHIP MAPS AND ROUTES
Figure 20: Roving Focus Group Study Area

 

Study Area

Roving Focus Group Three-County

 

 

 

 

 

 

To Grand Rapids '

 

 

(It,
_ Major Road . ..x
Township used in Study ‘ h 2 5*; ... ~
Minor Civil Divison {a j
‘2; L 7.; 7...}: ,
it» j _ “L931,
I h“
j xii. l '3}: 1.7
. r, 'I'
I I} Victor Twp. To Flint To Flint
I

 

Eagle Twig: f “"1.

L
i
_ . 9 I
. ' . .1 r
. : I
.' ‘ , I .
.7 I t' I ..
,7. it“ ‘ . ‘2'..
=. :. ______.,‘.,_- .‘-_ ..,_.V,...-,..~ .--—.--.-.
.-. ...- -._ ,3
‘ - f 1.
1
. v
‘1 .
v . ,
i

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

    
 

 

 

 

To BattIeCreek _. m-
Vevay Twp, Iosco Twp.
I j _ j
Onc nda a Tw L f, 5 Unadilla Twp. 3
L g I pt” ‘1 a I I \
To Jackson

To Ann Arbor

 

 

49

Figure 21: Eagle Township Roving Focus Group Route

 

Roving Focus Group Route in Eagle Township,
Clinton County, Michigan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-1:’,>— Travelled Route Forest Land
Rivers and Lakes
— Road Cities and Villages
Howe

 

 

 

 

 

 

\l‘, )okiggfi/asqu.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

50

Figure 22: Iosco Township Roving Focus Group Route

 

Roving Focus Group Route in Iosco Township,
Livingston County, Michigan
—:>— Travelled Route Forest Land
__ Road Rivers and Lakes

. — ~- Road outside Township Cities and Villages

 

 

 

Iosco

 

Bradley

ma ””8

 

 

i’ K Wasson
=. d- - .,... .:

 

 

51

Figure 23: Onondaga Township Roving Focus Group Route

 

Roving Focus Group Route in Onondaga Township,
lngham County, Michigan .

—C>— Travelled Route Forest Land
Rivers and Lakes
— Road Cities and Villages

 

 

 

 

  

Edgar

  

Stimson

‘ Covert

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Fri " Kinneville

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

_L
Onondaga
i

 

 

 

 

Bellevue 1' .....\

 

 

 

 

 

 

J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

L

 

 

 

 

52

Figure 24: Unadilla Township Roving Focus Group Route

 

Roving Focus Group Route in Unadilla Township,
Livingston County, Michigan

—::>— Travelled Route Forest Land
5 Rivers and Lakes
— Road Cities and \fillages

 

 

 

i Lg

 
 
  

 

 

 

‘ L M/36 1
/——7

$9157
s’ “3’
00$e 5’: 1
q—

 

 

 

 

 

Rein

‘ Willmmsvtllc -L. WOOdeHI L1
5’» ', } EL: til/y
mi: ~
'f-‘i/ - ' :7

..\

 

 

53

 

Figure 25: Vevay Township Rov ing Focus Group Route

 

Roving Focus Group Route in Vevay Township,
lngham County, Michigan

—d>— Travelled Route Forest Land
" Rivers and Lakes
— Road Cities and Villages

 

 

 

 

 

54

 

Figure 26: Victor Township Roving Focus Group Route

 

Roving Focus Group Route in Victor Township,
Clinton County, Michigan

 

 

 

—r:(>— Travelled Route Forest Land
Rivers and Lakes
— Road Cities and Villages
1: Lnkt’
Ovid
4'

  
        

Price

 

 

 

P Lrikt
Vii. in: in

“.!t / ‘

 

 

55

 

APPENDIX B: CONFIRMATION LETTER
May 4, 2005

Dear ,

Recently you received a phone call from Dori Pynnonen during which you agreed to be a
volunteer in our research investigating how local residents perceive and define rural
character. Thank you for taking the time to participate in our research! Your thoughts
and ideas are valuable and worthwhile in evaluating the future of rural communities.

Your participation will involve taking a designated drive around your township with the
research team and other volunteers. You will be asked to point out features that represent
rural character and discuss it to some extent.

We estimate that total participation will not exceed one and one half hours. All aspects
of this process are voluntary so you may stop at any time. We will digitally audio record
the discussion so that valuable comments are not lost or misinterpreted. The recording
will be transcribed without names so that all comments will remain confidential. As
required by law, you will have to read and sign an informed consent before our journey
around the township may begin.

We have decided to meet with the Iosco Township focus group on at
6:30 pm. We will meet at the township hall, , at which point we will
discuss the instructions in detail. Please arrive 15 minutes prior if possible.

 

 

Please contact Dori Pynnonen or Dennis Propst if you cannot make it. If there are
schedule conflicts, we may try and arrange another time. Thanks again for participating!
See you on Thursday the 30th!

Sincerely,

Dennis Propst and Dori Pynnonen

Contact information:

Dennis Propst, Professor Dori Pynnonen, Graduate Assistant
Department of Forestry, MSU Department of Forestry, MSU
(517) 353-5190 x.119 (269) 352-3223 (cell)

(517) 243-6319 (cell) pvnnone1@msu.edu

 

Dropst@msu.edu

56

APPENDIX C: INFORMED CONSENT STATEMENT

Consent to Participate In A Focus Group Study
Title: Defining Rural Character in a Midwest Landscape

Description

The objective of this study is to learn more about how people define rural character. We
feel the best way to accomplish this objective is to drive with you through the countryside
and record your discussion about scenes or features that come to mind when you think of
the term “rural character”.

Risks and Benefits:

There are minimal risks to you from participating in this discussion. We are using drivers
with good driving records and making sure that the driver is not distracted by the
conversation. We will cancel or postpone the drive in case of hazardous driving
conditions.

A major benefit is that what we learn from you will help guide township officials in
townships where preserving rural character is a major goal. An added benefit is more
personal. By listening to how other residents define rural character, you may develop a
fuller appreciation of the similarities and differences between your views and those of
others. This awareness may prove valuable as you continue your involvement in
community development and well-being.

Time Commitment, Cost and Payments:

The trip and the discussion will take about 45 minutes to an hour to complete. There are
no other costs to you for helping us with this study. The grant for this study does not
permit us to offer you any payment for your participation.

Confidentiality:

Although we will record our discussion, we will not put your name on the tape or
transcript. The only information that will be on the tape will be a code number, which
will be stored in a separate location from the interview material. Therefore, we do not
believe that you can be identified. Your privacy will be protected to the maximum extent
allowable by law.

Right to Withdraw:

57

Participation in this study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate at all.
Furthermore, you may refuse to answer certain questions. If you begin, you may
discontinue your participation at any time.

Contact Information:

If you have questions about the study, contact Dennis Propst at 131 Natural Resources
Building, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824, ph (517)353-5190 (ext.
119), e-mail propst@msu.edu. If you have questions or concerns about your rights as a
research participant, please feel free to contact - anonymously, if you wish - Peter
Vasilenko, Ph.D., Michigan State University's Chair of University Committee on
Research Involving Human Subjects by phone: (517) 355-2180, fax: (517) 432-4503,
email: <ucrihs@msu.edu>, or regular mail: 202 Olds Hall, East Lansing, MI 48824.

Statement of Consent:

I voluntarily agree to participate in the study.

 

Signature ........................................................................................ Date

I also consent to be recorded for this study:

 

Signature ........................................................................................ Date

 

Signature of Investigator: ............................................................ Date

58

APPENDIX D: FOCUS GROUP SCRIPT

Script for Roving Focus Groups (Sept, 2004)
Greet everyone and do introductions.

Thank you for agreeing to participate in a focus group discussion
about what rural character means to you. As you know, many rural
townships are interested in protecting rural character, yet there have been
few attempts to get residents to describe what rural character means to them.
So, the information we receive from you will be very useful to township
officials and residents. The study is funded by the U.S. Department of
Agriculture.

Before we begin, I need to have you read and sign a form giving your
consent to participate and be recorded. The consent form describes the
purpose of the focus groups, risks and benefits to you, time commitment, how
we maintain confidentiality and your right to withdraw at any time. Your
signed consent is required by law and enforced by Michigan State University.

Collect signed consent forms.
Give them their dairy store gift cards.

Ice breaker to get them talking to each other: “why do you like living in
this township? ” (“what are some of the features that attracted you to this area;
what do you think are some of this area’s greatest assets? ")

We have a preset route that we are going to drive today and as soon as
we get to the beginning point, we will turn on the recorders and Dori (or
whoever the lead facilitator is) will ask you a question to get the conversation
started.

When we start recording, it is important for you to speak up and try
to avoid having everyone talking at once — one at a time is best because that
helps us hear what you are saying clearly when we playback the recordings.
We will make sure that everyone gets ample opportunities to speak.

If you want to stop somewhere along the route, just tell us and we will
stop if it safe and continue the conversation. We will likely stop briefly at
certain points to take photos of some of the scenes or features that you point
out.

59

The driver will drive slowly to avoid any discomfort related to going
around curves, etc. If you are prone to motion sickness, we suggest you sit in
the middle row of the vehicle.

Any questions or concerns before we begin?
Load the vehicle and proceed

At designated beginning point, turn on both the Sony and the
Olympus recorders.

Dori (or lead facilitator) then says:

“As we drive along, please point out and discuss the scenes or features
(buildings, vegetation, water, etc.) that come to mind when you think about
the term ‘rural character’. Feel free also to point out things that you feel
detract from or are not representative of rural character. If the driver is
going too fast or if you want the driver to stop so we can discuss something,
just ask.”

Possible facilitator probes:

. Participant says: “that house (or other feature) is a poor example of rural
character.” If necessary, facilitator may have to ask for specifics as to why
the person feels this way.

. If conversation bogs down, “Do you see any other features or scenes that add
to or detract from rural character?” (may have to repeat this probe several
times depending on how much they want to talk)

When we are stopped at the pickup point, ask them to take 5 minutes to
fill out the' questionnaire (yellow form) and to provide additional names for

future focus groups (blue form).

Thank them for their time.

60

APPENDIX E: FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE
Questionnaire for Rural Character Focus Groups

Please complete the following questions. This questionnaire is
voluntary and you may stop at any time. It is also anonymous, so please do

not sign your name. This should take 5 minutes or less to complete.

The first set of questions asks about where you have lived during your lifetime.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1. How long have you lived in the following places? (fill in number of years)
Current NUMBER OF
house YEARS
This County NUMBER or
YEARS
Southern NUMBER OF
Michigan YEARS
2. Where were you born and raised? ( / appropriate box for each column)
Primar Other places
y place lived {/all
raised that apply)
( /
one)
CITY Cl C]
SUBURB El El
SMALL El El
TOWN
RURAL El El
AREA

 

 

 

 

 

The next set of questions asks about your house and commute to work.

_61

Please describe your current house in terms of lot Size, square feet, description of
terrain and approximate value. (Fill in a number or / box)

 

Lot size Square feet of your house
(number of acres or portion of an acre)

 

 

 

Description of lot: ( / all that Approximate current value of home:
apply) ( / one)

D ROLLING El $150,000 OR LESS

E] WOODED OR HAS El $150,001 To $250,000
WOODLOT(S) El $250,001 To $350,000

El FARM El $350,001 To $450,000

El FIELDS FOR CROPS OR El $450,001 OR MORE

PASTURE

El INCLUDES WETLANDS
E] HAS A POND OR PONDS
El ON LAKE, RIVER OR STREAM

 

 

What is your household’s employment status? Where do you drive to work each
day? (Fill in a number or / one)

 

Employment status: El EMPLOYED

( / all that apply) El SELF-EMPLOYED/FARMER
El SELF-EMPLOYED/OTHER
El RETIRED

El STAY AT HOME

El OTHER

 

Where is your
primary place of
work? (Name
city/town)

 

 

How many miles is it MILES
between your home
and your primary
place of work? (one-

 

 

 

 

 

way)

How often do you El NEVER

work from home? (/ El ONCE A MONTH

one) El EVERY OTHER WEEK
El ONCE A WEEK
El FEW TIMES A WEEK
El EVERYDAY

 

62

 

The next set of questions asks for a little more information about you.

5. What is your age?
6. Are you MALE ( ) or FEMALE ( ) ? (/ one)

7. Have you recently or do you currently hold any positions of leadership in
your township? YES ( ) NO( ) (/ one)

 

If “yes”, please describe the position or positions that you hold:

 

 

8. Finally, please take a moment to reflect on the trip that we just took. Ag
there any other aspects of rural character that you’d like to comment on? Maybe
there are some good or bad features that we did not see that you would like to list or
any other comments that you would like to make.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

(Feel free to use the back Side of this page if you need more room).

Thank you for completing this survey.

63

APPENDIX F: CODE DISPLAY TABLES

Table 3: Original RURAL codes across all focus groups

 

Codes across all focus groups

 

 

 

 

RURAL Code Total times mentioned
farms 86
buildings 62
other 59
trees 50
housing 34
animals (nature) 33
animals (farm) 30
water 30
roads 27
landscaping 26
vegetation 21
sensory-visual 20
sensory-auditory 1 3
social behaviors 12
sensory-olfactory 9
cemetaries 8
fences 7
land use 6
managerial 5
bndges 4
driveways 2
humor 1
residents 1

 

64

 

Table 4: Original DETRACT codes across all focus groups

 

DETRACT

Total times mentioned

 

housing

other

residents

roads
landscaping
trees

water

buildings

land use
animals (nature)
farms

fences
vegetation
bndges
driveways
managerial
sensory-auditory
social behaviors
animals (farm)

 

 

o—s—r-s—s-smmwwhmoooocoaagg

 

Table 5: Original CONDITIONAL RURAL codes across all focus groups

 

CONDITIONAL RURAL

Total times mentioned

 

 

housing

roads

land use

other

animals (farm)
animals (nature)
buildings

farms
landscaping
new houses

 

53

oggaagmmm

 

65

 

 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arendt, R. (1999). Growing Green: Putting conservation into local plans and ordinances.
Washington, DC: Island Press.

Arendt, R. (1994). Rural by design: Maintaining small town character. Chicago, IL:
American Planning Association.

Arendt, R. (1996). Conservation design for subdivisions: A practical guide to creating
open Space networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Baker, Ian. (2006). The Heart of the World: A Journey to Tibet’s Lost Paradise. New
York: Penguin Group Publishing. 544 p.

Balash, H. (1999). Keeping the rural vision: Protecting rural character and planning rural
development. Olympia, WA: State of Washington, Department of Community,
Trade and Economic Development. Available online:

http://wwwmrscorgZSubjects/Planninngural/ctedrural.aspx

Bell, Simon. (1999). Landscape: Pattern, perception and process. New York, NY:
Routledge.

Clare Cooper Marcus, C. A. F. (1990). People Places: Design guidelines for urban open
space. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold.

Corser, S.E. (1994). Preserving rural character through cluster development. PAS Memo,
July: 7pp. (American Planning Association).

Gobster, RH, and Haight, R.G. (2004). From Landscapes to Lots: Understanding and
Managing Midwestern Landscape Change. Gen. Tech. Rep. NC-245. St. Paul,
MN: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, North Central Research
Station. 60 p.

Golledge, R.G. (1999). Wayfinding Behavior: Cognitive Mapping and Other Spatial
Processes. Baltimore, MD: JHU Press. 448p.

Gray, P.S., Williamson, J .B., Karp, DA, and J .R. Dalphin. (2007). The Research
Imagination: An Introduction to Qualitative and Quantitative Methods.
Cambridge University Press: New York.

Heft, H., and Nasar, J .L. (2000). Evaluating Environmental Scenes Using Dynamic
Versus Static Displays. Environment and Behavior. Vol. 32(3), pp. 301-322.

Henderson, Donald. (1997). Urbanization of Rural American. Commack, NY: Nova
Science Publishers, Inc.

66

Hester, R. T. (1984). Planning neighborhood space with people. New York: Van
Nostrand Reinhold.

Heyer, F. (1990). Preserving rural character (PAS 429). Chicago, IL: American Planning
Association, Planning Advisory Service.

Hubbard, P. (1997). Diverging attitudes of planners and the public: An examination of
architectural interpretation. Journal of Architectural Planning Research, 14(4):
317-328.

Jones, R.E., Fly, J .M., Talley, J ., and Cordell, H.K. (2003). Green migration into rural
America: The new frontier of environmentalism? Society and Natural Resources,
16: 221-238.

Kaplan, R. and Kaplan, S. (1989). The experience of nature: A psychological perspective.
New York: Cambridge University Press.

Kline, J. and Wichelns, D. (1996). Public preferences regarding the goals of farmland
preservation programs. Land Economics. 72(4), 538-549/

Krome, M., LeVan, S., and Zodrow, D. (2004). Building Better Rural Places: Federal
Programs for Sustainable Agriculture, Forestry, Entrepreneurship, Conservation,
and Community Development. USDA publication.

Krueger, Richard A. (1994). Focus Group Interviews: A Practical Guide for Applied
Research, 2nd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Krueger, Richard A., and Mary Anne Casey. (2000). Focus Group Interviews: A Practical
Guide for Applied Research, 3rd Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Larmer, Paul. (1994). A soft-path approach to land conservation. High Country News,
Paonia, CO. Volume 26 (16).

Michigan Planner (2003). Planning Q & A: Defining Rural Character. Volume 7 (11).

Morgan, D.L. (1997). Focus Groups as Qualitative Research. Thousand Oaks, CA:
Sage.

Patton, Michael Quinn. (2002). Qualitative Research and Evaluation Methods, 3rd
Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Potts, R., Gustafson, E., Stewart S.I., Thompson, F .R., Bergen, K., Brown D.G.,

Hammer, R., Radeloff, V., Bengston, D., Sauer, J ., and Sturtevant, B. (2004). The
Changing Midwest Assessment: land cover, natural resources, and people. Gen.

67

Tech. Rep. NC-250. St. Paul, MN: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service,
North Central Research Station. 87p.

Propst, D.B., Vogt, C.A., McDonough, M.H., and Pynnonen-Valdez, D.M. (in review).
Toward Quantifying the Salient Features of Rural Character. Landscape and
Urban Planning.

Propst, D. B. & Buhyoff, G. H. (1980). Policy capturing and landscape preference
quantification: a methodological study. Journal of Environmental Management, -
11, 45-59.

Ryan, R.L. (2006). Comparing the attitudes of local residents, planners, and developers
about preserving rural character in New England. Landscape and Urban Planning.
75, 5-22.

Ryan, R.L. (2002) Preserving rural character in New England: Local residents’
perceptions of alternative residential development. Landscape & Urban Planning,
61, 19-35.

Ryan, R.L. (1998). Local perceptions and values for a Midwestern river corridor.
Landscape and Urban Planning, 42: 225-237.

Schroeder, H.W. (1990). The Felt Sense of Natural Environments. Proceedings of the
2lst Annual Conference of the Environmental Design Research Association.
Champaign-Urbana, IL. pp. 192-195.

Southeastern Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2003). Land use tools and
techniques: A handbook for local communities. Detroit, MI: SEMCOG.

Stamps, A.E. III. (1999). Demographic Effects in Environmental Aesthetics: A Meta-
Analysis. Journal of Planning Literature. Vol. 14 (2), pp. 155-175.

Stedman, R., Beckley, T., Wallace, 8., and Ambard, M. (2003). A Picture and 1000
Words: Using Resident-Employed Photography to Understand Attachment to
High Amenity Places. Journal of Leisure Research. 36 (4), 580-606.

Stewart, D.W., Shamdasani, RN, and Rook, D.W. (2007). Focus Groups: Theory and
Practice, 2"d Edition. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sullivan, W.C. III (1994). Perceptions of the rural-urban fringe: Citizen preferences for
natural and developed settings. Landscape & Urban Planning, 29, 85-101.

Ulrich, RS, (1983). Natural versus urban scenes, some psychophysiological effects. Env.
and Behav. 13, 523-556.

68

Ulrich, R.S., Simons, R.F., Losito, B.D., Fiorito, E., Miles, M.A., and Zelson, M., (1995).
Stress recovery during exposure to natural and urban environments, in: Sinha, A.
(Rd), Readings in Environmental Psychology, Academic Press, London, 149-178.

Van den Berg, A.E., Hartig, T., and Staats, H. (2007). Preference for Nature in Urbanized
Societies: Stress, Restoration, and the Pursuit of Sustainability. Journal of Social
Issues. 63 (1), 79-96.

Vogt, CA. and Marans, R.W. (2004). Natural resources and open space in the residential
decision process: A study of recent movers to fringe counties in southeast
Michigan. Landscape & Urban Planning, 69, 255-269.

Yaro, R., Arendt, R., Dodson, H. and Brabec, E. (1988). Dealing with change in the

Connecticut River Valley: A design manual for conservation and development.
Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute for Land Policy.

69

 

 

SIIV LIBRARIE

ll

STA IE UNWE

-'l

AlCHIG

ill 1
will

l

1293 02956 5102

ll lllllll

l

 

 

 

:5. pr.“ r. .
2...;

K