Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Landscape and Urban Planning

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan

Research Paper

Are suburbs perceived as rural villages? Landscape-related residential

preferences in Switzerland
Maarit Ströbele ∗ , Marcel Hunziker
Swiss Federal Institute WSL, Switzerland

h i g h l i g h t s

• The Swiss population has a high preference for rural villages.

• Many people also state that their place of residence is a village.
• At the same time, most Swiss live in places statistically classified as urbanised.
• The population’s and experts’ discourses on urbanisation diverge.
• Because of this, urban densification might very well face political opposition.

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: The current land use planning discourse in Switzerland highlights the need for urban redensification and
Received 15 January 2016 the limitation of sprawl. However, little is known of the population’s residential choice and preference
Received in revised form 18 February 2017 related to urban or rural surroundings and how sub- and peri-urban residential environments are judged.
Accepted 22 February 2017
We therefore analyse preferred and perceived residence, focusing on the urban-rural dimension and
Available online 27 March 2017
related urban-rural residential preference to landscape features, amenities, and the availability of public
services in the immediate living environment, controlling for socio-economic, lifestyle, and life stage
Keywords:
characteristics.
Urban sprawl
Land use planning
The analyses of a 2014 representative online survey (N = 1208) show that a majority of the population
Residential preference prefers living in “rural villages”, even though, from a more functional point of view, most of the places in
Urban-rural conflict which these people live could be considered suburbs at the fringes of metropolitan regions. “Suburbs”,
Landscape preference however, are among the least preferred residential environments. Moreover, an additional expert survey
Switzerland (N = 53) reveals a discrepancy between planning professionals and the population: experts in the fields of
urban planning, nature conservancy, and monument preservation show a higher urban preference. The
findings of our analyses are discussed in light of the literature on landscape and residential preferences
and lead to conclusions regarding spatial planning practice.
© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction is considered damaging to social cohesion (Putnam, 2000). There-

Urban sprawl, particularly low density urban sprawl in peri-
urban areas at the fringes of metropolitan regions, is widely
considered to be a negative trend in the development of the built
environment. Sprawl is described as wasteful with regard to natu-
ral resources (Johnson, 2001; Kahn, 2000). It changes and fragments
landscapes not yet affected by housing development and transport
infrastructure (Burchell, Downs, McCann, & Mukherji, 2005) and
∗ Corresponding author at: Economic and Social Sciences, Swiss Federal Institute
WSL, Zürcherstrasse 111, 8903, Birmensdorf, Switzerland.
E-mail address: maarit.stroebele@wsl.ch (M. Ströbele).
fore, planners and politicians in many countries seek to limit urban
sprawl.
One concept that is widely discussed and implemented to curtail
sprawl is densification, a way of limiting urban sprawl by allowing
settlement growth only inside already built places with relatively
low building density. Frequently, densification is related to ideas
aimed at a more urban character of the built environment, using
concepts such as the closed block city (e.g., Sulzer & Desax, 2015).
The aim of densification is not only to reduce sprawl and min-
imise its negative effects, but also to create attractive residential
surroundings that offer many opportunities for informal contact
and bringing together work, leisure, and habitations (Castrignanò
& Landi, 2013; Jacobs, 1984; Putnam, 2000).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.015
0169-2046/© 2017 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
68 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
However, notwithstanding considerable planning efforts,
sprawl continues in many places (Couch, Leontidou, & Petschel-
Held, 2007; Kasanko et al., 2006; Schwick, Jaeger, & Kienast,
2011; Schwick, Jaeger, Bertiller, & Kienast, 2012), which raises the
question of the reasons for this persistence despite its negative
impacts on landscape and residential quality. Such reasons might
include (1) many people’s residential preferences towards rural
environments, as well as (2) their perception of peri-urban, but
not yet densified, areas as rural or “rural-like”. The first reason
explains that the ongoing demand for not densified (rural) areas
leads to sprawl; the second explains why peri-urban areas remain
satisfactory and attractive places of residence for many people,
and hence why residential preferences contribute to increasing
sprawl instead of decreasing it. At least in the Swiss case – which
is in the focus of this paper – the following observation can be
made: rurality is evidentially important to the housing market
as there is a considerable demand for rural or at least rural-like,
low-density peri-urban residential environments in the housing
market, at least for particular groups of the public (Rérat, 2012;
Salomon Cavin & Marchand, 2010; Thomas, 2011). Moreover,
media reports on local referenda in not yet densified, and thus still
rural-like peri-urban, municipalities show that policies to densify
less densely built and populated peri-urban municipalities face
opposition by the local inhabitants (e.g., Neue Luzerner Zeitung,
2015; Salzmann, 2014; Signorell, 2011).
Thus, the overarching aim of this paper is to examine the
assumption that residential preferences for rural environments,
as well as the perception of not yet densified peri-urban areas as
“rural-like”, lead to respective choices of rural – or at least rural-like,
not densified peri-urban – residential areas, and hence contribute
to the (further) sprawl of these areas and, thus, hinder the imple-
mentation of urban concepts for the densification of peri-urban
areas. Moreover, we aim to explain this phenomenon and show
possible new approaches towards resolving the sprawl problem in
rural and peri-urban areas.
2. State of research
Residential choice and preference are studied in many dis-
ciplines and fields, ranging from economics, housing studies,
sociology, and psychology to architecture and urban planning, with
topics ranging from analysing the influence of specific factors on
housing choice to discrepancies between different preferences or
mathematical models describing housing choice as an interaction of
different influences (see e.g., Timmermans, Molin, & van Noortwijk,
1993). As both literature and common knowledge show, residen-
tial choice and preference depend on a wide range of factors that
are discussed in the following sections, beginning with the main
topic, the urban-rural divide, and then elaborating on other factors
influencing housing choice.
2.1. Residential preferences and the urban-rural divide
Scholars have analysed people’s opinions and preferences
regarding urban or rural residential environments and associated
these with landscape and nature (Cadieux & Taylor, 2013). Peo-
ple diverge in their preference for different settlement types, as
well as in the subjective perception of these settlement types (e.g.,
Herzog, 1989; Matsuoka & Kaplan, 2007). Moreover, independent
of individual urban or rural residential preference, people associate
different landscape elements and settlement structures with these
residential categories (e.g., Feijten, Hooimeijer, & Mulder, 2008;
Hocevar, 2012; Jones, 1995; Lyons, 1983; Otte & Baur, 2008; van
Dam, Heins, & Elbersen, 2002). In these empirical studies on both
residential preference and the individual associations of particular
residential environments with the concepts of “urban” or “rural”
(and also partly “suburban”), ideas and concepts play an impor-
tant rule, as explained by (Bunce, 1994; Halfacree, 2007). Thus, not
only the preferences regarding rural and urban residential areas are
important, but also what people perceive as a rural or urban area.
Correspondingly, a second part of the literature on the urban
and rural analyses historical discourses concerning ideas associated
with urbanity or rurality, and anti-urbanist traditions (Cloke, 2006;
Jetzkowitz, Schneider, & Brunzel, 2007; Rennie, 1991; Salomon
Cavin, 2007; Walter, 2004 Williams, 1973). Anti-urbanist traditions
emphasise the attractiveness of the rural as a residential environ-
ment, and associate the development of suburban areas with the
longing for more rural residential surroundings (Salomon Cavin &
Marchand, 2010). Studies on rurality can be divided into five fields.
First, some studies analyse the concept itself (Cloke, 2006; Marco
& Tironi, 1997) and discuss it with regard to planning at the urban
fringe (Daniels, 1999; Qviström, 2007; Scott et al., 2013; Taylor,
2011). Second, scholars are concerned with different concepts of
rurality found among the inhabitants and potential inhabitants
of rural and suburban regions (Howley, 2011; Munkejord, 2006;
Urbain, 2002; van Dam et al., 2002). Third, rurality is studied as a
commodity in the housing market (Baylina & Berg, 2010). Fourth,
studies examine which kinds of landscapes are considered impor-
tant among inhabitants of rural regions (Kaplan & Austin, 2004).
Fifth, there is growing literature on counter-urbanisation; i.e.,
migration to rural regions outside metropolitan regions (Halfacree,
2007, 2012; Mahon, 2007; Mitchell, 2004).
As already discussed in the introduction, ascriptions of urban
or rural are of particular interest in the Swiss context, where dis-
courses of anti-urbanism are important in spatial planning (Marco
& Tironi, 1997; Salomon Cavin, 2007; Walter, 1994). Nevertheless,
more recently the professional view on Swiss spatial planning has
evolved towards conceptualising the entire country as a “network
city” (Corboz, 1990; Diener, Herzog, Meili, de Meuron, & Schmid,
2006; Eisinger & Schneider, 2003) and with the most recent plan-
ning policies, urban densification has become one of the central
guidelines of spatial planning (UVEK, KdK, BPUK, SSV, & SGV, 2012).
However, as political studies on electoral behaviour and residence
show, regarding political worldviews there is still a divide between
the core cities on the one hand and suburbs and rural regions on
the other (Hermann & Leuthold, 2005; Kübler, Scheuss, & Rochat,
2013; Ströbele, 2012).
2.2. Factors influencing residential preferences
2.2.1. Socio-economic influences
Residential preference is influenced by socio-economic factors.
First, housing price and household income play an important role,
as people with low incomes are more restricted in housing choice
(Shlay, 1985; van Ham, 2012). Moreover, housing prices are higher
in areas with better services and natural amenities; thus, these
places are preferred by higher income groups and less accessible to
lower income groups (Friedman, 1981; Gosnell & Abrams, 2011).
Second, life stage (i.e., the position in life trajectory) is an impor-
tant determinant of actual residence and residential preference
(McHugh, Hogan, & Happel, 1995). Younger people and perhaps
also the elderly have a tendency to live in cities, while families with
children tend to prefer suburban residence. This has been espe-
cially true in the second half of the 20th century (McAuley & Nutty,
1982; Mulder & Hooimeijer, 1999). Yet, these life stage-related
differences are counteracted by family lifestyles; i.e., household
employment structure and daily life organisation among household
members, as studies from different countries have shown (Ernst
Stähli, Le Goff, Levy, & Widmer, 2009; Howley, 2009; Karsten, 2003;
Miller, 1995). Besides income, wealth, and the location of residence,
life stage is also an important influence on the size of housing
 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
(Bühlmann, Barbey, Kaufmann, Levy, & Widmer, 2005; Ernst Stähli
et al., 2009; Heye & Leuthold, 2006; Hocevar, 2012; Kim, Horner, &
Marans, 2005; Miller, 1995; Thomas, 2011).
A third socio-economic factor determining residence is ethno-
cultural preference. In many places, there is more or less ethnic
segregation in housing (Butler & Hamnett, 2012). Concerning the
urban-rural divide, ethnic segregation is analysed in several studies
and plays a role in suburbanisation. (For early analyses see Burgess,
1925/2007; for newer studies on the European context see e.g.,
Feijten et al., 2008; Scheiner & Kasper, 2003.) Moreover, discourses
on the urban or the rural are also different from country to country,
so national traditions in conceptualising the urban or rural have
to be taken into account (Baubérot & Bourillon, 2010; Luginbühl,
2007).
2.2.2. Dwelling preferences
Preferences regarding the dwelling also include individual hous-
ing needs, such as the size of the housing (number of rooms),
building standards, exposition (sunny or shady), and availabil-
ity of outdoor spaces, like gardens or terraces (Gram-Hanssen
& Bech-Danielsen, 2004; Harth & Scheller, 2012; Kauko, 2006).
Moreover, demands towards the immediate surroundings of the
dwelling can also be subsumed under individual housing needs
(e.g., Barrios Garcia & Rodriguez Hernandez, 2008; Kauko, 2006),
as they are closely related with the predominant type of dwellings
found at different places. In (European) city centres and inner
suburban municipalities, multi-family housing is predominant,
whereas in rural, suburban, and peri-urban settings, there are more
single-family homes, larger gardens, and therefore lower build-
ing densities (Couch et al., 2007; Lampugnani, Keller, & Buser,
2007; Panebianco & Kiehl, 2003). Another argument regarding the
habitation is tenancy or ownership. Whereas the former provides
flexibility in residential choice and is more prevalent in cities, the
latter is more prevalent in rural regions and offers the stability of
one’s own home. In Switzerland, the majority of the population
consists of renters (63.2%), not of home owners (37.8%). The per-
centage of renters in cities is higher than in suburban and rural
municipalities (BFS, 2013).
2.2.3. Infrastructure preferences
Infrastructure preferences play an important role in residential
choice and preference. First, transport behaviour is related to hous-
ing in two ways: people choose their place of residence according
to their choice and preference regarding daily mobility (car, pub-
lic transport, bicycle, walking), and, in turn, the place of residence
has an influence on mobility behaviour and preferences, as certain
means of transport are more available than others at particular
places (e.g., Feijten et al., 2008; Sheller & Urry, 2006). The sec-
ond important infrastructure argument with respect to residential
choice and preference is the proximity of everyday services such as
groceries, schools, workplaces, medical services, and facilities such
restaurants and, more generally, the availability of public spaces for
meeting other people (e.g., Prillwitz, Harms, & Lanzendorf, 2007;
Scheiner & Kasper, 2003; van Vught, van Lange, & Meertens, 1996).
The preferences regarding these everyday public services, as well as
the frequency of use, depend much on the preferred mode of trans-
port (Haefeli, 2008; Sheller & Urry, 2006; Walks, 2008). Preferences
and use of public or private services and transport also depend on
lifestyle and life-stage arguments, as discussed in the above sec-
tion on socio-economic factors. Third, leisure infrastructure, such
as sports facilities, public green areas, or bodies of water, also
play a role concerning residential preferences, since the residen-
tial environment is the place where most local recreation happens
(Dirksmeier, 2012; Halseth, 2004; Pitkanen, Adamiak, & Halseth,
2014). Leisure infrastructure is likewise studied in the amenity
migration literature, which is also important in the context of land-
69
scape preferences, as discussed below (e.g., Bartos, Kusova, Tesitel,
Kopp, & Novotna, 2008; Cadieux & Hurley, 2011; McGranahan,
2008; Waltert, Schulz, & Schläpfer, 2011).
2.2.4. Landscape preferences
Research in many fields (psychology, biology, aesthetics) shows
that people’s preferences regarding landscape follows certain
rules and are not at all arbitrary. Related theories and empir-
ical studies have been summarized several times, in particular
by Bourassa (1991) and Friedman (1981), and further developed
e.g., by Hunziker, Buchecker, and Hartig (2007). A large body of
literature attributes landscape preferences to more or less natu-
ral landscape elements and structures such as meadows, forests,
bodies of water, etc. (Hunziker et al., 2008; Lindemann-Matthies,
Briegel, Schüpbach, & Junge, 2010). Other studies have also been
conducted regarding landscape preferences in urban surroundings,
taking into account the particularities of the built environment
(Gehring, 2006; Howley, 2011; Howley, Donoghue, & Hynes, 2012;
Lyons, 1983). In this context, it is also important to consider the lit-
erature on “landscape self-identification”; i.e., how and why people
identify with different landscape types. This self-identification is
related to questions of income, social milieu, and individual lifestyle
choices (Feldman, 1990; Proshansky, 1978; Proshansky, Fabian, &
Kaminoff, 1983; Rapoport, 1980).
The importance of landscape in housing is also studied in the
amenity migration literature. This concept is used to grasp the
importance of landscape and leisure amenities in residential choice
(Gosnell & Abrams, 2011). Studies in different national contexts
show that landscape amenities are particularly important among
more affluent home seekers in rural or suburban areas (Bartos et al.,
2008; Cadieux & Hurley, 2011; Moss, 2006; Osbaldiston, 2011;
Urbain, 2002). For the Swiss context, Waltert et al. (2011) find
that landscape amenities, in particular lakes and abundant open
space, have a positive influence on regional development; i.e., on
population and settlement growth.
3. Research gaps and research questions
As the literature shows, the urban-rural divide is very important
regarding residential preferences. Different groups of the popula-
tion are looking for either a rural or an urban residence (e.g., Berger,
2007; Feijten et al., 2008; Hocevar, 2012; van Dam et al., 2002).
Moreover, there is evidence for a connection between sprawl and a
desire for rural residence. However, the literature also shows that
concepts of rurality and urbanity can differ between social groups.
This might not only influence individual rural-urban preferences,
but also the perception of the place of residence as either rural or
urban (or something in-between such as sub- or peri-urban) and
the respective satisfaction with the place of residence. Moreover,
given that the literature review also reveals that urban-rural pref-
erences and concepts play an important role in national planning
discourses dealing with metropolitan development and sprawl, the
question of differing preferences and perceptions might also be
relevant regarding an existing or lacking congruence between the
public’s and the planners’ view. That is, does the general public per-
ceive rurality and urbanity similarly to planners and authorities,
who usually refer to well-defined categories such as the munici-
pality types in Switzerland (Schuler & Joye, 2009)?
Thorough knowledge about such issues is crucial to under-
standing how urban-rural preferences and perceptions of different
population groups, including planners and authorities, interact.
Understanding these interactions is necessary for reaching the
above-mentioned overarching aim of investigating whether or not
rural residential preferences and perceptions of peri-urban areas
as “rural-like” hinder the implementation of urban concepts for the
70 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
Table 1
Preferred and Perceived Residence. Data: WSL-Survey 2014.
Residential categories
City Suburb
Preferred residence (1–5 scale)
N 1155 1150
Missing values 53 58
Mean value 2.92 3.16
Standard deviation 1.314 1.164
Median 3 3
Perceived residence (0–1 scale)
N 906 880
Missing values 302 328
Mean value 0.26 0.36
Standard deviation 0.441 0.481
Median 0 0
Mean residential satisfaction 8.09 7.66
re-densification of peri-urban areas. However, knowledge from the
literature about these issues is not yet sufficient to enable reach-
ing this aim. In particular, deeper insights are necessary about
the significance of the earlier mentioned predictors of residential
preferences (socio-economics, dwelling and landscape preferences,
etc.) on rural-urban preferences of different social groups, includ-
ing the planners. To accomplish this aim, we answer the following
research questions:
1. (a) What are the preferences of the general public regarding
urban or rural residential areas? (b) How are the actual places
of residence perceived regarding the rural-urban gradient? And
(c) does this correspond with official (“objective”) settlement
categories?
2. What is the degree of satisfaction with the actual place of resi-
dence?
3. Are there differences between experts and the general popula-
tion regarding urban-rural residential preferences?
4. How are urban-rural residential preferences related to predic-
tors taken from the literature, such as socio-economic factors
and preferences regarding dwelling, infrastructure (transport,
leisure, public services, etc.), and landscape?
4. Methods
Research questions 1, 2, and 4 are analysed with data from a pub-
lic survey (based on a representative online-panel), while research
question 3 is analysed with a comparison of the data of the pub-
lic survey and an expert survey. These surveys, both conducted in
2014, are described in the following section.
4.1. Survey design and sample quality
The public survey was conducted nation-wide on-line. Partici-
pants were members of a (randomly selected) representative online
household panel in Switzerland, who were recruited off-line using
the phone directory. (For the representativeness of on-line surveys
see LINK Institute, 2015; Nulty, 2008; Van Selm & Jankowski, 2006).
The link to the on-line questionnaire (in four languages: German,
French, Italian, and English) was sent to randomly sampled panel
members until given quotas regarding language, region, age, and
gender, based on the Swiss census, were filled (4916 invitations
sent, 1877 began to fill in, 1208 completed the questionnaires,
small incentives for participation in the survey). For the quotas see
the tables in the “additional material” online. The response rate
within the panel was about 25%, but it depends on the filling of
quotas, and is therefore less relevant than in a random population
sample. We examined the representativeness of our online-panel
Small town Country village Rural outside settlement
1159 1177 1157
49 31 51
3.84 3.98 3.3
0.944 1.076 1.32
4 4 3
867 975 822
341 233 386
0.3 0.63 0.19
0.459 0.483 0.396
0 1 0
7.85 8.18 7.94
sample; regarding education, a t-test showed that the groups were
significantly similar at the 0.05-level (0.026 significance). Regard-
ing civil status (marital status), a t-test showed similarity between
the sample and census data (0.000). The sample was representative
regarding the number of people per household; a t-test showed a
significance of 0.008. Regarding the representation of the popu-
lation in the Cantons, the sample was also representative (0.000
significance in a t-test with national statistical data). Regarding
income, the categorisations used by the census and the panel were
different, and more than 21.9% of the survey respondents did not
indicate their household income. Hence, this variable could only be
qualitatively compared (see additional material). This comparison
with national statistical data shows that the database is compara-
ble to the Swiss public regarding income. Put briefly, the analysed
sample is representative for the Swiss population regarding core
socio-demographic indicators.
The survey questionnaire was also sent to a sample of experts in
the fields of spatial planning, nature conservancy, and monument
preservation, with an additional page asking for professional and
socio-demographic information (9 questions). The expert question-
naire was sent through professional associations as well as directly
to cantonal experts in all 26 Swiss cantons. It was answered by 53
persons working in different fields (13 in spatial planning, 19 in
nature conservancy, 3 in monument preservation, 13 in land use
and urban planning, 6 in landscape architecture, 6 in agriculture,
5 in economic development, and 8 in other fields). Many of the
experts stated that they work in more than one of the mentioned
fields. Most experts work in the cantonal administration (24), 3
work in municipal administrations, 8 work in private companies,
and 3 work in research. The average age of the respondents was 50
years, most were male (45% male, 23% female, and 32% no answer),
and most had a post-secondary education (95%).
4.2. Questionnaire
4.2.1. General characteristics
Based on the aims and research questions, the literature anal-
yses, and eight piloting face-to-face in-depth interviews with
inhabitants of sub- and peri-urban regions, we developed the ques-
tionnaire that was used in the surveys (on-line panel representing
the general public, and an expert sample) described above. This
questionnaire (45 questions in total) contained questions on resi-
dential preferences, perception of and satisfaction with the actual
place of residence (research questions 1 and 2), as well as prefer-
ences regarding dwelling, infrastructure (transport, leisure, etc.),
and landscape, and socio-economic and political issues (research
question 4). Research question 3 was answered through compari-
son with the expert sample.
 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79 71

Fig. 1. Preferred residence vs. objective residence in Switzerland. Data: 2014 WSL-Survey.

4.2.2. Operationalization of research question 1 Table 2

Objective residence. Data: WSL 2014.
To answer research question 1 we had to know (a) in what
kind of place people prefer to live (in the following called ‘pre- Swiss municipality categorisation (9 types) N Percent
ferred residence’), (b) in what settlement type people think they Centres 364 30.1
live (’perceived residence’), and (c) how the different places in which Suburban Municipalities 322 26.7
people live are officially categorized by national statistical boards High income municipalities 37 3.1
and other institutions that take part in urban and land use planning Peri-urban municipalities 144 11.9
Touristic sector municipalities 18 1.5
categorise (’objective residence’).
Industrial and tertiary sector municipalities 167 13.8
The five categories (city, suburb, small town, country village, Rural commuter municipalities 75 6.2
rural outside settlements) used to measure preferred and perceived Agrarian-mixed sector municipalities 74 6.1
actual residence are used in many social science surveys, such as Agrarian sector municipalities 7 0.6
the European Social Survey (ESS) or the American National Election Total 1208 100
Survey (NES). The respondents were only offered the five categories
without any description or pictures.
Preferred residence was measured with the rating of each of the does not include a measure of the prevailing building typology in a
five residential settlement types on a 1–5 scale (low preference- municipality (e.g., dense building blocks vs. single family homes).
high preference). The separate questioning of every residential The typology has either 22 or 9 categories. In this study, the 9-type
category allows for the analysis of multiple preferences from the categorisation was used.
same person. For example, someone might prefer both city and vil-
lage for different reasons, while another person might prefer only 4.3. Data analysis
one residence category and not others. This possibility is impor-
tant in the comparisons below. Most respondents expressed their 4.3.1. Factor analyses to reduce residential preference to one
opinion on all five residential categories. dimension
Perceived residence was measured with the same categories as The descriptive analysis of preferred and perceived residence
preferred residence. The respondents were asked to allocate their (see Tables 1 and 2 and comparison below) shows an urban-
municipality of residence to one or more of the five types of resi- rural divide: both preferred and perceived residence differ among
dential settings. A municipality can have multiple ratings; e.g., as a inhabitants of urban cores as opposed to all other municipality cat-
village and as a suburb. egories (with the exception of the suburban municipalities that are
For measuring objective residence, we used the Swiss munici- in-between). This suggests that it is possible to reduce the five cat-
pality typology developed with census data from 2000 (Schuler & egories of residence to a single dimension. In order to test this idea
Joye, 2009). This typology categorises municipalities according to and, hence, obtain a single dependent variable for the regression
an urban-rural axis and contains information on the prevalent local analyses explaining residential preference, we conducted a factor
economic sector. Individual municipalities are categorised in differ- analysis in which we obtained a clear urban-rural distinction factor
ent municipality types according to commuter ratios, the structure (tables in the additional online material). In addition, small towns
of the local economy, as well as building and population density. It seem to be a category that does not fit the urban-rural dichotomy
72 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
Fig. 2. Perceived residence vs. objective residence in Switzerland. Data: 2014 WSL-Survey.
as neatly as the other four residence types. This is seen in (a) the
factor loadings for “small town” in the (first) urban-rural factor,
as well as (b) in the result that there is a second factor distin-
guishing small town (and partly also suburban and city) preferred
residence from the other four types. However, as the urban-rural
factor has the highest explanatory power in the factor analysis and
is the core interest of this paper, we decided to concentrate on the
urban-rural distinction as a dependent variable in the regressions
and commented on the small town variable in the discussion and
conclusions.
4.3.2. Regression analyses to explain residential preferences
We examined residential preferences in an ordinary least square
regression. Predictors were socio-economic, landscape, infrastruc-
ture, and recreation variables and factors. Regarding landscape and
infrastructure, we looked at both the respective preferences and
the stated actual situation of these two factors. This twofold inclu-
sion of landscape and infrastructure variables enables us to analyse
whether or not there are discrepancies between the preferences
and the current state of the landscape and infrastructure
5. Findings
5.1. Comparing preferred, perceived, and objective residence
5.1.1. Preferred vs. perceived residence
As the two graphs (Fig. 1 and 2) show, there seems to be a rather
high degree of coincidence between preferred and perceived res-
idence. Apparently, most people state that they live where they
would like to live (see also the section on residential satisfaction
below). This is also evidenced in the positive correlation coefficient
of 0.466 between the preferred and perceived residence (signif-
icant at the 0.01-level). We assume that residential choice does
not just depend on residential preference, as seen from a bivari-
ate regression analysis explaining subjective perceived residence
with residential preference (R2 = 0.217, b coefficient = 0.468***). The
regression analyses below explain preferred residence in greater
detail.
5.1.2. Preferred residence vs. objective residence
Table 1 shows the mean values for all five place categories used
to measure preferred residence on the y axis compared to objec-
tive residence, shown by the nine municipality types on the x axis.
It shows that villages are the most preferred category of residen-
tial environment for inhabitants of almost all municipality types
(Fig. 1). Even inhabitants of urban centres predominantly prefer
small towns or villages, but city preference is also highest among
the inhabitants of urban centres (first column in Fig. 1). Inhabi-
tants of suburban municipalities (second column in Fig. 1) show the
highest mean value for suburban preference, but the mean values
for small town and village preference are even higher. Inhabitants
of high income and peri-urban municipalities prefer villages and
the countryside (third and fourth column of Fig. 1). This finding is
remarkable since both high income and peri-urban municipalities
are rated as part of metropolitan regions (Schuler & Joye, 2009).
Among the inhabitants of the remaining municipality categories,
which are all more or less rural (Schuler & Joye, 2009), villages
remain the most preferred residential location.
5.1.3. Perceived residence vs. objective residence
Perceived residence (i.e., the urban-rural factor calculated with
the five perceived residence variables) is also compared to objective
residence. As seen in Fig. 2, there is a clear urban-rural difference
in the way people perceive their place of residence. Inhabitants of
urban centres consider their place of residence to be urban, whereas
inhabitants of all other municipal categories consider their place of
 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
Fig. 3. Comparison of residential preference: Swiss population and experts.
residence to be rural. The results also show that inhabitants of sub-
urban municipalities perceive their residential municipality mainly
as a suburban municipality, with villages as second. People living
in municipalities at the outer fringe of metropolitan regions (rural
commuter, peri-urban), as well as inhabitants of the high-income
municipalities that are almost all part of metropolitan regions, per-
ceive their place of residence as rural. There is a clear discrepancy
between objective residence, which is categorised as urbanised,
and perceived residence, which, in most cases (particularly regard-
ing peri-urban and wealthy suburban municipalities) is indicated
as rural.
5.2. Residential satisfaction
The overall satisfaction with the place of residence is high in
all perceived residence categories, with mean values ranging from
7.66 (suburb) to 8.18 (village) on a 0–10 scale. Similar results are
obtained with regard to the satisfaction with the inhabited building
(mean values between 7.87 (suburb) and 8.38 (village)) and the sat-
isfaction with the landscape at the place of residence (mean values
between 7.57 (city) and 8.26 (village)). The differences in landscape
satisfaction for people who state they live in villages as compared
to people not stating they live in villages are statistically significant
at the 0.001 level. Differences in general residential satisfaction, as
well as dwelling and landscape satisfaction between people stat-
ing to live in the suburbs as compared to people who do not live
in the suburbs, are significant at the 0.05 level, with lower satisfac-
tion values for people categorising their place of residence as the
suburbs. However, many people consider their place of residence
both a suburb and a village.
5.3. Comparison of experts’ and general public’s preferred and
perceived residence
The expert data are also analysed for preferred, perceived, and
objective residence. Among the expert sample, cities have the high-
est average value for preferred residence, followed by villages and
small towns; suburban municipalities are the least popular (Fig. 3).
Perceived residence is different from preferred residence. Many
experts state a preference towards cities (mean value of 4.00), but
73
the mean value for perceived preference is around 0.5 in all place
categories except “rural outside settlements”, which suggests that
many experts live in villages or suburbs, and still have higher city
preference than the general public. The most striking difference
between the expert and general public samples concerns preferred
residence. The expert group has a much higher city preference
(4.00) than the population sample (2.9, see Fig. 3).
5.4. Predicting preferred residence
In order to understand the different influences on residential
preference, we conduct regression analyses and thereby follow
a theory-based blockwise variable introduction design with five
model steps introducing the four different thematic fields deter-
mining residential preference as found in the literature, as well as
objective residence. Model 1 – resulting from step 1 – only includes
socio-economic variables; model 2 includes the transport habits and
current state of housing; model 3 includes the demands towards and
the actual state of the landscape and services in the immediate resi-
dential surroundings; model step 4 further includes local recreation;
and model step 5 finally considers all predictors, including objec-
tive residence. A multicollinearity test is conducted for all models
and reports no problems (no variables with Tolerance values below
0.1 and VIF values above 10, see detailed regression tables in the
additional material). In the following, we refer mainly to model 4
and point out differences to the other modelling steps when nec-
essary (Table 3). The blockwise addition of variables on different
thematic fields provided a more precise view on the importance of
the different variables in our analysis.
The comparison of the five modelling steps shows an increase
in explained variance among all model steps, with the high-
est increase through the introduction of the landscape variables
(increase of R2 from 0.130 to 0.272 (+0.147)). Model 4 explains
0.323 of the variance in urban-rural preferred residence (adjusted
R2 ), and model 5 has an adjusted R2 of 0.350. We choose to refer to
model 4 because it best shows the influences of the socio-economic,
residential, landscape, and recreation variables. The introduction
of objective residence in model 5 weakens all these predictors, and
only weakly increases the explained variance.
74 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79

Table 3
Explanation of urban-rural preferred residence. N = 1075. *p ≤ 0.05, **p ≤ 0.01, ***p ≤ 0.001.

Changes in Explained variance (Models 1–5)

Model R R2 adj. R2 standard error Change in R2 Change in F df1 df1 Sig. change in F

1 ,275 ,075 ,062 ,96327950 ,075 5,760 15 1059 ,000

2 ,381 ,145 ,130 ,92785482 ,070 21,602 4 1055 ,000
3 ,541 ,292 ,272 ,84880206 ,147 19,697 11 1044 ,000
4 ,587 ,345 ,323 ,81836077 ,052 20,778 4 1040 ,000
5 ,613 ,375 ,350 ,80217881 ,031 6,298 8 1032 ,000

Model 4 B Standard error Beta t Sig.

(Constant) ,249 ,213 1,171 ,242

Socio-economic variables
Education −,075*** ,021 −,098 −3,640 ,000
Age −,009*** ,002 −,130 −3,654 ,000
Female −,055 ,052 −,028 −1,051 ,294
Swiss National ,361** ,136 ,081 2,659 ,008
Foreigner −,108 ,092 −,037 −1,176 ,240
Suisse romande ,007 ,071 ,003 ,101 ,920
Svizzera italiana ,216 ,141 ,042 1,526 ,127
Household type
1 full-time, 1 part-time −,065 ,072 −,026 −,896 ,371
Shared flat −,205 ,096 −,059 −2,128 ,034
2 part-time −,194 ,110 −,049 −1,768 ,077
2 full-time −,083 ,093 −,026 −,899 ,369
Single parent −,050 ,125 −,011 −,395 ,693
Retired couple −,058 ,124 −,015 −,470 ,639
Single ,127 ,090 ,045 1,409 ,159
Family ,001 ,066 ,001 ,018 ,986

Transport and Housing

Car owner ,245** ,071 ,102 3,435 ,001
Public transport card owner −,089 ,061 −,041 −1,463 ,144
Detached house ,203** ,068 ,102 2,970 ,003
Home owner −,088 ,067 −,044 −1,310 ,191

Landscape and infrastructure

Preference factors:
Settlement infrastructure and amenities −,101*** ,027 −,098 −3,708 ,000
Noise disturbancy −,121*** ,027 −,121 −4,428 ,000
Landscape elements ,162*** ,027 ,165 6,056 ,000
Panoramic views and wide landscape ,152*** ,027 ,153 5,737 ,000
Current state of res. environment factors
Quietness ,023 ,026 ,023 ,862 ,389
Individual transport infrastructure −,017 ,027 −,017 −,641 ,522
Amount of settlement infrasctructure and amenities ,002 ,027 ,002 ,056 ,955
Panoramic views and low disturbancy ,111*** ,026 ,112 4,325 ,000
Clear settlement structure ,050 ,027 ,049 1,872 ,062
Safety ,105*** ,027 ,106 3,824 ,000
Presence of public green spaces −,010 ,026 −,010 −,399 ,690

Local recreation factors

Landscape −,175*** ,029 −,178 −6,108 ,000
City and Lakes ,209*** ,029 ,209 7,138 ,000
Sports facilities ,065* ,026 ,065 2,497 ,013
Home and garden ,013 ,027 ,013 ,472 ,637

Among the socio-economic variables, education and age are sig-
nificant at the 0.001-level, but relatively weak indicators that push
preferred residence towards the urban side. In contrast, Swiss
nationality is related to rural residential preference. Mobility habits
also play a role, particularly car ownership, which is strongly asso-
ciated with rural preferred residence. Mobility habits are measured
with two variables: car ownership and ownership of a public trans-
port travel card or train pass. Dwelling preferences are measured
through housing type (single family housing or not) and home own-
ership (owner or renter). Only housing type is significantly related
to rural residential preference. Renting, however, is not signifi-
cantly associated with residential preference on the urban-rural
spectrum.
Landscape and infrastructure are included in the model in two
ways. On the one hand, we use the individual preferences for land-
scape and infrastructure. The six factors included in the model are
obtained by a factor analysis of 23 single items measuring different
types of landscape and infrastructure preference on a 1–5 scale. On
the other hand, we also hypothesise that the landscape and infras-
tructure at the current place of residence might influence preferred
residence. The five factors are obtained similar to the preference
variables by a factor analysis of 27 items on the landscape and
infrastructure at the current place of residence. Regarding land-
scape and infrastructure preferences, urban preference is strongly
associated with a preference for the amenities of urban places
with a high density of typically urban infrastructure and a certain
tolerance towards noise (high value in the noise disturbance fac-
tor). Rural preference is related to the preference for having single
landscape elements such as lakes, forests, forest edges, or single
trees and hedges close to the home, as well as to a preference
 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
for panoramic views. Looking at the current state of the residen-
tial environment, there are fewer significant variables. Two of the
variables that refer to the amenity migration literature are related
to more rural residential preference. These variables are: a) fac-
tor related to the quietness of the residential environment (i.e., a
low level of industrial and traffic noise at the current residential
location), and b) a variable indicating the presence of panoramic
views. The third “amenity migration” variable, the presence of pub-
lic green spaces close to the place of residence, does not have a
significant influence on the urban-rural preference.
Further, we assess local recreation habits in relation to residen-
tial preference. The first factor that measures the propensity for
outdoor recreation is significant and related to more rural residen-
tial preferences. The second local recreation factor that measures
the propensity for recreation in cities (and near lakes) pushes res-
idential preference to the urban side and is also significant, and
much stronger than the first. The other two recreational factors –
“use of sports facilities” and “recreation at home” – do not have a
significant influence on urban-rural residential preference.
Finally, the nine municipality categories used as a measure for
objective residence are introduced to the analysis. Apparently, peo-
ple who already live in suburban, peri-urban, and rural places are
much more likely to prefer a rural residence, while inhabitants
of the core cities (the reference categories) also prefer an urban
residence.
6. Discussion
The descriptive analyses as well as the regressions show a clear
urban-rural difference, which is discussed first, followed by the dis-
cussion of the other variables included in the regressions. We then
discuss the limitations of our analyses, followed by a conclusion.
6.1. Urban-rural differences
Concerning the characteristics of the place of residence, both
the descriptive analyses and the regressions show a discrep-
ancy between subjectively perceived rural residence and objective
categorisation of the municipality of residence. Put briefly, res-
idential self-identification does not coincide with the objective
place categorisations used by urban and land use planners. The
“urbanised” Swiss population actually seems to identify more with
rurality. Most people living in “affluent suburban municipalities”,
“peri-urban municipalities”, and other municipality types within
the suburban spectrum, and also many inhabitants of “suburban
municipalities”, score high on the urban-rural factor. That is, they
describe their municipality of residence as rural while it is con-
sidered urbanised by the Swiss Federal Statistical Office and many
planners, most prominently by Diener et al. (2006). Moreover, the
preferred residence of a majority of the population (but not the
expert sample!) is also rural.
Rurality is therefore a very important explanatory factor for res-
idential preference, particularly in the outer parts of metropolitan
regions where more single family homes are found. According to
the literature, concepts of the urban and the rural are related to
the structure of the built environments (population and building
density as measured, e.g., by national statistics), and derive from
historic backgrounds (Cloke, 2006), as well as from people’s ideal
images about good places to live (e.g., Bell, 1992; Rennie, 1991;
Urbain, 2002; van Dam et al., 2002). Even though the continental
European preference for an urban residence might be higher than
in the Anglo-American context (Couch et al., 2007; Strauss, 1976),
according to our data, urban preference only concerns about 30%
of the population, which might still be enough to put pressure on
urban housing markets. Nevertheless, the majority of the people
75
living in Switzerland are oriented towards rural residence. We find
a relationship between preferred residence and the structure of the
actual residential environment. Rural preferred residence is asso-
ciated with green surroundings, quietness, a “nice landscape”, and
pleasant recreation surroundings. However, it is negatively associ-
ated with settlement infrastructure amenities, a finding consistent
with the findings by van Dam et al. (2002), Hocevar (2012), and Otte
and Baur (2008). Similar to our results, inhabitants of (peri-urban)
single family homes relate their residential environment to “rural
villages” and not necessarily to suburban or even urban lifestyles.
Yet, our analyses also suggest that the meaning of what the
respondents considered as “a rural village” is very broad; we find
that preferred and perceived preference for rural villages also
coincides in many places “objectively” categorised as suburban
or peri-urban. Consequently, we conclude that, people apparently
perceive these places as rural even though they have substantially
changed over the past 20–40 years. Therefore, from the population
perspective, the rural connotation has not changed as a result of
development since the 1960s, and it does not necessarily depend
on the present spatial structure of a place that is more suburban.
The correlation between preferred and perceived rural residence
points in this direction, at least as long as the amenities associated
with rural living are still found. Moreover, the high values of res-
idential and landscape satisfaction, particularly for “villages”, also
suggest that people are happy to live where they live, and even
more so, that they consider their place of residence a “village”.
A closer look at the data also shows that the development of
formerly rural villages towards “more anonymous” suburbs has
a downside. The analyses reveal that small shops, meeting places
such as restaurants, and public spaces are important for (perceived)
rural residents, but at the same time people report that these places
are lacking. Apparently, there is a need for these places and plan-
ning has to address this question. This finding is also consistent
with the observation that the suburbanisation of formerly rural
villages with a tight social network and meeting places has led to
places that are characterised by the more individualised lifestyles of
their inhabitants (Buchecker, 2009), an argument following Putnam
(2000).
Moreover, the literature review shows that rural residential
preference is associated with anti-urbanist ideas. Urban-rural dif-
ferences as a system of identity, as laid out in the literature review
above (see e.g., Ryan, 2002) are still important in many places. Our
findings sustain the view that people still identify with urban or
rural residence, as shown by the low values for urban preference
among those who have a high rural preference. According to these
results, rural ideals and rural self-identification seem to persist
among large parts of the Swiss population. This finding suggests the
interpretation that the overwhelming rural preference of the pop-
ulation is still rooted in anti-urban discourses that are connected
to Swiss national identity debates, as laid out by Salomon Cavin
(2007) and Walter (1994). The political preference for conservative
parties among a majority of people living in rural, peri-urban, and
suburban municipalities (Hermann & Leuthold, 2003; Kübler et al.,
2013; Ströbele, 2012) also points to the relationship between the
rural identity discourse and conservatism.
In contrast to the high rural residential preference of the gen-
eral public sample, we find a higher preference for denser urban
surroundings in the expert sample. We attribute this divergence
between planning experts and the broad population not only to
the high level of education of the experts (see socio-economic
influences below), but also to the current planning debate in
Switzerland. Apparently, this debate affects the experts’ personal
preferences more than those of the population. As a consequence
of (sub)urban sprawl, the current Swiss planning debate promotes
denser and more urban residential environments, as shown by
76 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
national planning guidelines (UVEK et al., 2012) and research pro-
grammes (Sulzer & Desax, 2015; Wehrli-Schindler, 2015).
6.2. Further explanatory variables
6.2.1. Socio-economic influences
Among the socio-economic influences, education is the most
significant variable with the highest coefficient. The higher the level
of education, the more preferred residence tends towards the urban
side, even when controlling for landscape, services, and recreation
factors. This finding might very likely be a consequence of the
fact that high-skilled employment possibilities and cultural enter-
tainment are predominantly found in cities (Jeanneret & Goebel,
2012). Similar urban preferences of the highly educated can be
found in many countries and are related to the phenomena of
reurbanisation and gentrification (Champion, 2000; Karsten, 2006;
Smith, 2002). Household type is not significant, even though in
preliminary analyses we find a concentration of dual earner and
two part-time job households in urban cores, which confirms the
findings on urban-rural residential preference and family lifestyle
listed in the literature review. Swiss nationality proves to be sig-
nificant as a predictor of rural preference, a finding that could be
related to the importance of rurality in the national identity dis-
course, an argument discussed in greater detail above. The very
small, but significant coefficient relating age and urban preference
does not necessarily suggest a clear preference for urban resi-
dence among the elderly. More likely, there are different preference
groups regarding urban or rural residence among the elderly, as the
literature also shows. On the one hand, there is a trend towards not
moving out of cities or moving back there (reurbanisation) among
some of the elderly (Feijten et al., 2008). On the other hand, rural
regions with natural amenities are also very popular as retirement
destinations (Jetzkowitz et al., 2007), and both trends occur at the
same time (Kramer & Pfaffenbach, 2015).
6.2.2. Dwelling preferences
The type of dwelling inhabited is significant in model 2, a find-
ing that is consistent with the literature associating single family
homes with rural or suburban residential preference (Berger, 2007;
Schmitt, Dombrowski, Seifert, Geyer, & Murat, 2006). However,
once the municipality typologies are included, the type of dwelling
inhabited – detached house or non-detached – ceases to be signif-
icant. Hence, it seems that the surroundings are more important
than the dwelling itself for preferred residence on the urban-rural
scale, a finding consistent with Shlay (1985). Home ownership
is not significant in analyses including landscape and recreation.
Therefore, we conclude that different residential preference on the
urban-rural axis is not related to present home ownership. How-
ever, given the fact that in Switzerland, owner-occupied housing is
mostly found in the suburbs and rural areas (BFS, 2013), aspiring
home ownership might be an influential factor for moving out of a
city.
6.2.3. Infrastructure
Concerning mobility, the association between car ownership
and rural residence confirms the findings of many studies that asso-
ciate public transport preference, and therefore a preference for
more public services with urban residence (van Vught et al., 1996;
Walks, 2008). There are two explanations for this phenomenon:
first, people who prefer better public transport tend to move to
more densely populated places, and second, people living in rural
areas with poor public transport infrastructure have no other viable
option than to rely on private transport. Concerning recreation,
similar to the literature examining local recreation as a determin-
ing factor for residential preference (Halseth, 2004; Pitkanen et al.,
2014), our analyses show that people who frequently recreate in
wide landscapes tend to prefer rural residence, whereas people
who prefer the city as a recreational environment also prefer it
as a place of residence. The urban recreation factor has, however,
also a component of recreation at the lakeshore, deriving from
the list of variables that are fed into the factor analysis. This con-
nection between urban recreation and recreation at the lakeshore
could very well be a Swiss peculiarity related to the fact that major
cities are situated at lakeshores, and that these lakes are clean
and equipped with recreational facilities from public beaches to
lakeshore parks. More generally, this result points at the popularity
of lakes and water in the residential (and recreational) environment
(Völker & Kistemann, 2011). The recreation argument is not easily
separated from the landscape arguments discussed below.
6.2.4. Landscape
The regression analysis show that landscape aspects matter for
preferred residence on the urban-rural scale. Preferred residence
is related to local recreation activities, preferences, and environ-
ments. These findings are consistent with the amenity migration
literature that highlights the link between landscape amenities
(green surroundings, panoramic views, and quietness) and rural
residence and rural residential preferences (Cadieux & Hurley,
2011; McGranahan, 2008; Waltert et al., 2011). We also find a
general preference for green landscape elements and water for
both urban and rural preferred residence, a finding consistent with
the literature on landscape preferences (Kaplan, 1987; Völker &
Kistemann, 2011).
6.3. Limitations
The explanatory power of the analyses on preferred residence,
however, has some limitations. First, people tend to like their place
of residence over time and therefore prefer their own place cate-
gory more than others (Speare, 1974), an argument more generally
known as “status quo bias” (Samuelson & Zeckhauser, 1988). We
do not control for this effect. Second, there is the argument of cog-
nitive dissonance (Festinger, 1957). For our study this means that if
the desire for rural residence is high, there might be an additional
incentive to define the actual place of residence as a rural village,
even though by “objective” criteria this might not be the case. We
did not test for this argument. Third, we exclude income from our
analyses, since the data have many missing values on this vari-
able. Missing values analyses show that imputation is not viable
(Arcos, del Mar Rueda, Trujillo, & Molina, 2014). Moreover, prelim-
inary analyses that include income show that it is not significant
in any of the models. In our sample, income and education are cor-
related (0.318**). Hence, education could be used as a weak proxy
for income. Fourth, the indicator for objective residence (the nine
municipality types) does not include information on the quality of
the immediate residential environment. With this indicator, it is
therefore not possible to distinguish different types of settlement
such as old village cores from newer developments or industrial
neighbourhoods that occur within the same municipality. Fifth,
the dependent variable is an urban-rural indicator derived from
a factor analysis of the five residential preference variables “city”,
“suburb”, “small town”, “country village”, and “rural outside set-
tlements”. The result of the factor analyses provides one strong
urban-rural factor, but also a second factor distinguishing small
town preference from all others. Taking only urban-rural prefer-
ence as the dependent variable is therefore a simplification and
does not account for the large small town preference.
Finally, the urban-rural gradient is only one dimension, and it
is a simplification of many possible categories of places of resi-
dence. Residential areas are not only different according to their
ascribed rurality or urbanity, but also different in terms of build-
ing density, liveliness, use (residential, mixed, industrial, offices),
 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
socio-economic composition of the population, or historical and
cultural background.
7. Conclusions
The core finding of our analyses is the paradoxical discrepancy
between preferred and perceived residence in “a rural village”,
on the one hand, and the mostly sub- and peri-urban “objective
residence” on the other hand; i.e., the fact that according to sta-
tistical definitions and expert planning discourses, the majority of
the Swiss population lives in urbanised surroundings. A closer look
at this outcome, however, shows that it is less paradoxical than
it may appear. Apparently, there is something that makes people
think they are living in a rural environment. From a historical point
of view, we can find a rural element in most suburban municipali-
ties because many of them are indeed former agricultural villages.
Moreover, the discourse of the rural and demands for quiet rural
residential environments also suggest an interpretation of many
places as being rural, even though from many other perspectives,
such as regarding the availability of services, the local economy,
the socio-economic background of the population, or the number
of commuters, these places have become more urban (or better,
suburban).
From our results, future planning in the peri-urban regions must
therefore be conscious of the rural preference of the population and
seek ways to reconcile the demand for rurality with the demands
for densification. One possible way to attain this could be the con-
cept of small towns. In our study, the preference for small towns
is almost equally high to the preference for villages. Small towns
usually have a denser building layout than rural villages, are asso-
ciated with more urban (higher) buildings and meeting squares,
and have a mixed economic structure. Particularly for regional
centres, the concept of small towns with high functional diversity
and free spaces in the immediate proximity of the settlement core
could serve as a planning guideline towards densification. The pre-
existing settlement structure could serve as a point of departure for
future development without the need to adhere to former images
of rurality.
From a scientific and practical point of view, further analyses
on the topic of residential preference could therefore concentrate
on small towns. Another question that arose during the analyses is
concerned with residential satisfaction. Apparently, not all people
live in their preferred location on the urban-rural gradient. Further
analyses could be directed at residential and landscape satisfaction
related to both residential demands and actual places of residence,
as well as to the acceptance of changes in the residential environ-
ment in the context of settlement densification.
Acknowledgements
This study was part of the WSL research program Room for
People and Nature (http://www.wsl.ch/raumanspruch). We would
like to thank Silvia Tobias for her support and ideas. We gratefully
acknowledge the financial support from the Swiss Federal Office for
the Environment FOEN, the Cantonal authorities of Aargau, Lucerne,
St Gallen, and Zug, and the municipality of Glarus Nord.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data associated with this article can be found,
in the online version, at http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.
2017.02.015.
77
References
Arcos, A., del Mar Rueda, M., Trujillo, M., & Molina, D. (2014). Review of estimation
methods for landline and cell phone surveys. Sociological Methods & Research,
44(3), 458–485.
Bühlmann, F., Barbey, J., Kaufmann, V., Levy, R., & Widmer, E. (2005). Entre
métropolisation et périurbanisation: Dynamiques contextuelles des rôles
conjugaux. Schweizerische Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 31(2), 321–342.
BFS. (2013). Bau-und Wohnungswesen 2012 (Building and Housing statistics 2012).
Neuchâtel: BFS Bundesamt für Statistik Swiss Federal Statistical Office.
Barrios Garcia, J. A., & Rodriguez Hernandez, J. E. (2008). Housing demand in Spain
according to dwelling type: Microeconometric evidence. Regional Science and
Urban Economics, 38(4), 363–377.
Bartos, M., Kusova, D., Tesitel, J., Kopp, J., & Novotna, M. (2008). Amenity migration
in the context of landscape-ecology research. Journal of Landscape Ecology, 1(2),
5–21.
Baubérot, A., & Bourillon, F. (Eds.). (2010). Urbaphobie. La détestation de la ville aux
XIXe et XXe siècles. Paris: Editions Bière.
Baylina, M., & Berg, N. G. (2010). Selling the countryside: Representations of
rurality in Norway and Spain. European Urban and Regional Studies, 17(3),
277–292.
Bell, M. M. (1992). The fruit of difference: The urban-rural continuum as a system
of identity. Rural Sociology, 57(1), 65–82.
Berger, M. (2007). Pavillonnaires des villes, pavillonnaires des champs. In Y.
Luginbühl (Ed.), Nouvelles urbanités, nouvelles ruralités en Europe (pp. 67–78).
Bruxelles: P.I.E. Peter Lang.
Bourassa, S. C. (1991). The aesthetics of landscape london. New York: Belhaven Press.
Buchecker, M. (2009). Withdrawal from the local public place: Understanding the
process of spatial alienation. Landscape Research, 34(3), 279–297. http://dx.doi.
org/10.1080/01426390902867968
Bunce, M. F. (1994). The countryside ideal: Anglo-American images of landscape.
London: Routledge.
Burchell, R. W., Downs, A., McCann, B., & Mukherji, S. (2005). Sprawl costs: Economic
impacts of unchecked development. Washington, Covelo, London: Island Press.
Burgess, E. W. (1925/2007). The growth of the city: An introduction to a research
project, from Robert Park et al., The City (1925). In: R. T. LeGates & F. Stout
(Eds.), The city reader, Vol. Reprint 2007. Routledge, London, New York,
150–157.
Butler, T., & Hamnett, C. (2012). Social geographic interpretations of housing
spaces. In D. F. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark, & K. Gibb (Eds.), The SAGE handbook of
housing studies (pp. 147–162). London: Sage.
Cadieux, K. V., & Hurley, P. T. (2011). Amenity migration, exurbia, and emerging
rural landscapes: global natural amenity as place and as process. GeoJournal,
76, 297–302.
Cadieux, K. V., & Taylor, L. (Eds.). (2013). Landscape and the ideology of nature in
exurbia: Green sprawl. New York: Routledge.
Castrignanò, M., & Landi, A. (2013). Sustainable city and new neighbourhood
approach. Spaces & Flows: An International Journal of Urban & Extra Urban
Studies, 3(2), 15–21.
Champion, A. (2000). Urbanization, suburbanizaion, counterurbanization and
reurbanization. In R. Paddison, & W. Lever (Eds.), Handbook of urban studies.
London: Sage.
Cloke, P. (2006). Conceptualising rurality. In P. Cloke, T. Marsden, & P. Mooney
(Eds.), Handbook of rural studies (pp. 18–28). London, Thousand Oaks, New
Delhi: Sage.
Corboz, A. (1990). La Suisse, fragment de la galaxie urbaine européenne.
Architecture et comportement, 10(2), 143–150.
Couch, C., Leontidou, L., & Petschel-Held, G. (Eds.). (2007). Urban sprawl in Europe.
Oxford, Malden, MA, Victoria: Blackwell.
Daniels, T. L. (1999). When city and country collide: Managing growth in the
metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Diener, R., Herzog, J., Meili, M., de Meuron, P., & Schmid, C. (Eds.). (2006). Die
Schweiz, Ein städtebauliches Portrait. Einführung (Vol. 1). Basel, Boston, Berlin:
Birkhäuser.
Dirksmeier, P. (2012). The wish to live in areas with ‘people like us’: Metropolitan
habitus habitual urbanity and the visibility of urban-rural differences in South
Bavaria, Germany. Visual Studies, 27(1), 76–89.
Eisinger, A., & Schneider, M. (Eds.). (2003). Stadtland schweiz. Basel: Birkhäuser.
Ernst Stähli, M., Le Goff, J.-M., Levy, R., & Widmer, E. (2009). Wishes or constraints?
Mothers’ labour force participation and its motivation in Switzerland.
European Sociological Review, 25(3), 333–348.
Feijten, P., Hooimeijer, P., & Mulder, C. H. (2008). Residential experience and
residential environment choice over the life-course. Urban Studies, 45(1),
141–162. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0042098007085105
Feldman, R. M. (1990). Settlement-identity: Psychological bonds with home places
in a mobile society. Environment and Behavior, 22(2), 183–229.
Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford
University Press.
Friedman, J. (1981). A conditional logit model of the role of local public services in
residential choice. Urban Studies, 18(3), 347–358. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/
00420988120080641
Gehring, K. (2006). Landscape needs and notions. Preferences, expectations, leisure
motivation, and the concept of landscape from a cross-cultural perspective.
Birmensdorf: Swiss Federal Research Institute WSL.
78 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
Gosnell, H., & Abrams, J. (2011). Amenity migration: Diverse conceptualizations of
drivers, socioeconomic dimensions, and emerging challenges. GeoJournal,
76(4), 303–322.
Gram-Hanssen, K., & Bech-Danielsen, C. (2004). House, home and identity from a
consumption perspective Housing. Theory and Society, 21(1), 17–26. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1080/14036090410025816
Haefeli, U. (2008). Verkehrspolitik und urbane Mobilität.
Halfacree, K. (2007). Back-to-the-land in the twenty-first century—Making
connections with rurality. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie,
98(1), 3–8.
Halfacree, K. (2012). Heterolocal identities? Counter-urbanisation, second homes,
and rural consumption in the era of mobilities. Population, Space and Place, 18,
209–224.
Halseth, G. (2004). The ‘cottage’ privilege: Increasingly elite landscapes of second
homes in Canada. In C. M. Hall, & D. K. Müller (Eds.), Tourism, mobility, and
second homes: Between elite landscapes and common ground. Clevedon: Channel
View Publications.
Harth, A., & Scheller, G. (2012). Das Wohnerlebnis in Deutschland: Eine
Wiederholungsstudie nach 20 Jahren. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.
Hermann, M., & Leuthold, H. (2003). Atlas der politischen Landschaften: Ein
weltanschauliches Porträt der Schweiz. Zürich: vdf Hochschulverlag an der ETH
Zürich.
Hermann, M., & Leuthold, H. (2005, 14 September 2005). Der doppelte Gegensatz
zwischen Stadt und Land: Wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Dimension einer
politischen Konfliktlinie. Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
Herzog, T. R. (1989). A cognitive analysis of preference for urban nature. Journal of
Environmental Psychology, 12(3), 237–248.
Heye, C., & Leuthold, H. (2006). Sozialräumlicher Wandel in der Agglomeration
Zürich, Konsequenzen von Suburbanisierung und Reurbanisierung. disP,
164(1), 16–29.
Hocevar, M. (2012). Dispersed settlement in detached houses: Attitudes over the
residential space consumption in Slovenia. Sociologija, 54(1), 123–152.
Howley, P., Donoghue, C. O., & Hynes, S. (2012). Exploring public preferences for
traditional farming landscapes. Landscape and Urban Planning, 104(1), 66–74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2011.09.006
Howley, P. (2009). Attitudes towards compact city living: Towards a greater
understanding of residential behaviour. Land Use Policy, 26, 792–798.
Howley, P. (2011). Landscape aesthetics: Assessing the general publics’
preferences towards rural landscapes. Ecological Economics, 72(0), 161–169.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.09.026
Hunziker, M., Buchecker, M., & Hartig, T. (2007). Space and Place – Two Aspects of
the Human-landscape Relationship. In F. Kienast, O. Wildi, & S. Ghosh (Eds.), A
Changing World. Challenges for Landscape Research (pp. 47–62). Springer.
Hunziker, M., Felber, P., Gehring, K., Buchecker, M., Bauer, N., & Kienast, F. (2008).
Evaluation of landscape change by different social groups. Mountain Research
and Development, 28(2), 140–147. http://dx.doi.org/10.1659/mrd.0952
Jacobs, J. (1984). Cities and the wealth of nations. New York: Random House.
Jeanneret, B., & Goebel, V. (2012). Regionale disparitäten in der schweiz (Regional
disparities in Switzerland). Neuchâtel: BFS Bundesamt für Statistik Swiss
Federal Statistical Office, Sektion Bevölkerung, Sektion Konjunkturerhebungen.
Jetzkowitz, J., Schneider, J., & Brunzel, S. (2007). Suburbanisation, mobility and the
‘Good Life in the Country’: A lifestyle approach to the sociology of urban
sprawl in Germany. Sociologia Ruralis, 47(2), 148–171.
Johnson, M. P. (2001). Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: A survey of the
literature and proposed research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 33,
717–735.
Jones, O. (1995). Lay discourses of the rural. Journal of Rural Studies, 11(1), 35–49.
Kübler, D., Scheuss, U., & Rochat, P. (2013). The metropolitan bases of political
cleavage in Switzerland. In J. Sellers, D. Kübler, M. Walter-Rogg, & A. Walks
(Eds.), The political ecology of the metropolis. ECPR Press: Colchester.
Kahn, M. E. (2000). The environmental impact of suburbanization. Journal of Policy
Analysis and Management, 19(4), 569–586.
Kaplan, R., & Austin, M. E. (2004). Out in the country: Sprawl and the request for
the nature nearby. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 235–243.
Kaplan, S. (1987). Aesthetics, affect, and cognition. Environmental preference from
an evolutionary perspective. Environment and Behavior, 19(1), 3–32.
Karsten, L. (2003). Family gentrifiers: Challenging the city as place simultaneously
to build a career and to raise children. Urban Studies, 40(12), 2573–2584.
Karsten, L. (2006). Housing as a way of life: Towards an understanding of
middle-class families’ preference for an urban residential location. Housing
Studies, 22(1), 83–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02673030601024630
Kasanko, M., Barredo, J. I., Lavalle, C., McCormick, N., Demicheli, L., Sagris, V., &
Brezger, A. (2006). Are European cities becoming dispersed? A comparative
analysis of 15 European urban areas. Landscape and Urban Planning, 77,
111–130.
Kauko, T. (2006). Expressions of housing consumer preferences: Proposition for a
research agenda housing. Theory and Society, 23(2), 92–108.
Kim, T.-K., Horner, M. W., & Marans, R. W. (2005). Life cycle and environmental
factors in selecting residential and job locations. Housing Studies, 20(3),
457–473.
Kramer, C., & Pfaffenbach, C. (2015). Should I stay or should I go? Housing
preferences upon retirement in Germany. Journal of Housing and the Built
Environment, 1–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10901-015-9454-5
LINK Institute. (2015). ESOMAR 28 questions to help research buyers of online
samples. Zurich: LINK Institute.
Lampugnani, V. M., Keller, T. K., & Buser, B. (Eds.). (2007). Städtische Dichte. Zürich:
Verlag Neue Zürcher Zeitung.
Lindemann-Matthies, P., Briegel, R., Schüpbach, B., & Junge, X. (2010). Aesthetic
preference for a Swiss alpine landscape: The impact of different agricultural
land-use with different biodiversity. Landscape and Urban Planning, 98(2),
99–109. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2010.07.015
Luginbühl, Y. (Ed.). (2007). Nouvelles urbanités, nouvelles ruralités en Europe.
Bruxelles: P.I.E. Peter Lang.
Lyons, E. (1983). Demographic correlates of landscape preference. Environment and
Behavior, 15(4), 487–511. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0013916583154005
Mahon, M. (2007). New populations; shifting expectations: The changing
experience of Irish rural space and place. Journal of Rural Studies, 23, 345–356.
Marco, D., & Tironi, G. (1997). The territory versus the city: Origins of an anti-urban
condition. In P. Lang (Ed.), Suburban discipline (pp. 122–126). New York:
Princeton Architectural Press.
Matsuoka, R. H., & Kaplan, R. (2007). People needs in the urban landscape: Analysis
of landscape and urban planning contributions. Landscape and Urban Planning,
84, 7–19.
McAuley, W. J., & Nutty, C. L. (1982). Residential preferences and moving behavior:
A family life-cycle analysis. Journal of Marriage and Family, 44(2), 301–309.
McGranahan, D. A. (2008). Landscape influence on recent rural migration in the
U.S. Landscape and Urban Planning, 85, 228–240.
McHugh, K. E., Hogan, T. D., & Happel, S. K. (1995). Multiple residence and cyclical
migration: A life course perspective. The Professional Geographer, 47(3),
251–267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j. 0033-0124.1995.251 q.x
Miller, L. J. (1995). Family togetherness and the suburban ideal. Sociological Forum,
10(3), 393–418.
Mitchell, C. J. A. (2004). Making sense of counterurbanization. Journal of Rural
Studies, 20(1), 15–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0743-0167(03)00031-7
Moss, L. A. G. (Ed.). (2006). The amenity migrants. In Seeking and sustaining
mountains and their cultures. Wallingford, Cambridge, MA: CABI.
Mulder, C. H., & Hooimeijer, P. (1999). Residential relocations in the life course. In
L. J. G. van Wissen, & P. A. Dykstra (Eds.), Population issues (pp. 159–186).
Netherlands: Springer.
Munkejord, M. C. (2006). Challenging discourses on rurality: Women and men
in-migrants’ constructions of the good life in a rural town in Northern Norway.
Sociologia Ruralis, 46(3), 241–257.
Neue Luzerner Zeitung (2015, 8.3.). Hochdorf schränkt Wachstum ein. NLZ.
Nulty, D. D. (2008). The adequacy of response rates to online and paper surveys:
What can be done? Assessment & Evaluation in Higher Education, 33(3),
301–314. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02602930701293231
Osbaldiston, N. (2011). The authentic place in the amenity migration discourse.
Space and Culture, 14(2), 214–226.
Otte, G., & Baur, N. (2008). Urbanism as a way of life? Räumliche Variationen der
Lebensführung in Deutschland. Zeitschrift für Soziologie, 37(2), 93–116.
Panebianco, S., & Kiehl, M. (2003). Suburbanisation, Counterurbanisation,
Reurbanisation? An empirical analysis of recent employment and population
trends in Western Europe. Paper presented at the ERSA conference Jyväskylä.
Pitkanen, K., Adamiak, C., & Halseth, G. (2014). Leisure activities and rural
community change: Valuation and use of rural space among permanent
residents and second home owners. Sociologia Ruralis, 54(2), 143–166. http://
dx.doi.org/10.1111/soru.12023
Prillwitz, J., Harms, S., & Lanzendorf, M. (2007). Interactions between residential
relocations, life course events, and daily commute distances. Transportation
Research Record, 2021, 64–69.
Proshansky, H. M., Fabian, A. K., & Kaminoff, R. (1983). Place-identity: Physical
world socialization of the self. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 3(1), 57–83.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0272-4944(83)80021-8
Proshansky, H. M. (1978). The city and self-identity. Environment and Behavior,
10(2), 147–169.
Putnam, R. (2000). Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of american community.
New York: Simon & Schuster.
Qviström, M. (2007). Landscapes out of order: Studying the inner urban fringe
beyond the rural-urban divide. Geografiska Annaler: Series B Human Geography,
89(3), 269–282. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0467.2007.00253.x
Rérat, P. (2012). The new demographic growth of cities: The case of reurbanisation
in Switzerland. Urban Studies, 49(5), 1107–1125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0042098011408935
Rapoport, A. (1980). Environmental preference, habitat selection and urban
housing. Journal of Social Issues, 36(3), 118–134. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.
1540-4560.1980. tb02039.x
Rennie, J. (1991). Imagnied country. In Environment, culture and society. London,
New York: Routledge.
Ryan, R. L. (2002). Preserving rural character in New England: Local residents’
perceptions of alternative residential development. Landscape and Urban
Planning, 61(1), 19–35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(02)00066-X
Salomon Cavin, J., & Marchand, B. (Eds.). (2010). Antiurbain: Origines et conséquences
de l’urbaphobie. Lausanne: Presses polytechniques et universitaires romandes.
Salomon Cavin, J. (2007). Modes d’habiter, modes de planifier en Suisse: la ville
mal-aimée? In Nouvelles urbanités, nouvelles ruralités en Europe. pp. 59–65.
Salzmann, D. (2014, 6.10). Widerstand gegen Überbauen. Schweizer Bauer.
Samuelson, W., & Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal
of Risk and Uncertainty, 1(1), 7–59. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF00055564
Scheiner, J., & Kasper, B. (2003). Lifestyles, choice of housing location and daily
mobility: The lifestyle approach in the context of spatial mobility and
planning. International Social Science Journal, 176, 319–332.
 M. Ströbele, M. Hunziker / Landscape and Urban Planning 163 (2017) 67–79
Schmitt, J., Dombrowski, J., Seifert, J., Geyer, T., & Murat, F. (2006). . Einfamilienhaus
oder city? wohnorientierungen im vergleich (Vol. 106) Opladen: VS Verlag für
Sozialwissenschaften.
Schuler, M., & Joye, D. (2009). Typologie der gemeinden der schweiz: 1980–2000 im
auftrag des bundesamtes für statistik, neuchâtel. Neuchâtel: Bundesamt für
Statistik.
Schwick, C., Jaeger, J., & Kienast, F. (2011). Zersiedelung messen und vermeiden.
Retrieved from Birmensdorf.
Schwick, C., Jaeger, J. A. G., Bertiller, R., & Kienast, F. (2012). L’étalement urbain en
Suisse: impossible à freiner? Analyse quantitative de 1935 à 2002 et conséquences
pour l’aménagement du territoire. Zurich: Bristol-Stiftung.
Scott, A. J., Carter, C., Reed, M. R., Larkham, P., Adams, D., Morton, N., . . . & Coles, R.
(2013). Disintegrated development at the rural-urban fringe: Re-connecting
spatial planning theory and practice. Progress in Planning, 83, 1–52. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2012.09.001
Sheller, M., & Urry, J. (2006). The new mobilities paradigm. Environment and
Planning A, 38, 207–226.
Shlay, A. B. (1985). Castles in the sky: Measuring housing and neighborhood
ideology. Environment and Behavior, 17(5), 593–626.
Signorell, G. (2011, 3). Nachbarn, die ewigen Bremser. Beobachter, pp. 12–13.
Smith, N. (2002). New globalism, new urbanism: Gentrification as global urban
strategy. Antipode, 34(3), 427–450.
Speare, A. (1974). Residential satisfaction as an intervening variable in residential
mobility. Demography, 11(2), 173–188. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2060556
Ströbele, M. F. (2012). How do people vote in suburbia? Political preference and
suburbanisation in Europe. Urban Research and Practice, 5(1), 95–117.
Strauss, A. L. (1976). Images of the American city. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction
books.
Sulzer, J., & Desax, M. (2015). Stadtwerdung der agglomeration. die suche nach einer
neuen urbanen qualität. synthese des nationalen forschungsprogramms neue
urbane qualität (NFP 65). Bern: Scheidegger & Spiess.
Taylor, L. (2011). No boundaries: Exurbia and the study of contemporary urban
dispersion. GeoJournal, 76(4), 323–339. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10708-009-
9300-y
Thomas, M.-P. (2011). Differentiation in lifestyles and residential choices of
families in Switzerland. In Paper presented at the ENHR conference.
Timmermans, H., Molin, E., & van Noortwijk, L. (1993). Housing choice processes.
Stated versus revealed modelling approaches. Netherlands Journal of Housing
and the Built Environment, 9(3), 215–227.
UVEK, KdK, BPUK, SSV, & SGV. (2012). Raumkonzept schweiz. Überarbeitete fassung.
Bern: UVEK (Eidgenössisches Departement für Umwelt, Verkehr, Energie und
Kommunikation), KdK (Konferenz der Kantonsregierungen), BPUK
(Schweizerische Bau-, Planungs-, und Umweltdirektoren-Konferenz), SSV
(Schweizerischer Städteverband), SGV (Schweizerischer Gemeindeverband).
Urbain, J.-D. (2002). Paradis verts Désirs de campagne et passions résidentielles. Paris:
Payot.
79
van Dam, F., Heins, S., & Elbersen, B. S. (2002). Lay discourses of the rural and stated
and revealed preferences for rural living: Some evidence of the existence of a
rural idyll in the Netherlands. Journal of Rural Studies, 18, 461–476.
van Ham, M. (2012). Housing behaviour. In D. F. Clapham, W. A. V. Clark, & K. Gibb
(Eds.), The SAGE handbook of housing studies (pp. 47–65). London: Sage.
Van Selm, M., & Jankowski, N. (2006). Conducting online surveys. Quality and
Quantity, 40(3), 435–456. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-005-8081-8
van Vught, M., van Lange, P. M., & Meertens, R. M. (1996). Commuting by car or
public transportation? A social dilemma analysis to travel mode judgments.
European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 373–395.
Völker, S., & Kistemann, T. (2011). The impact of blue space on human health and
well-being-salutogenetic health effects of inland surface waters: A review.
International Journal of Hygiene and Environmental Health, 214(6), 449–460.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijheh.2011.05.001
Walks, A. (2008). Urban form, everyday life, and ideology: Support for privatization
in three Toronto neighbourhoods. Environment and Planning A, 40, 258–282.
Walter, F. (1994). La Suisse urbaine 1750–1950. Carouge-Genève: Editions Zoé.
Walter, F. (2004). Les figures paysagères de la nation. In Territoire et paysage en
Europe (16e-20e siècle). Paris: Éditions de l’École des hautes études en sciences
sociales.
Waltert, F., Schulz, T., & Schläpfer, F. (2011). The role of landscape amenities in
regional development: Evidence from Swiss municipality data. Land Use Policy,
28, 748–761.
Wehrli-Schindler, B. (2015). Urbane Qualität für Stadt und Umland. Zürich:
Scheidegger & Spiess.
Williams, R. (1973). The country and the city. New York: Oxford University Press.
Maarit Ströbele is a post-doctoral researcher at the Swiss Federal Institute of Forest,
Snow and Landscape Research WSL (since 2012) and works on residential choice and
preference, suburbanisation, political preference, and land use planning. 2013, she
defended her PhD at the European University Institute EUI: “What does suburbia
vote for? Changed settlement patterns and political preference in three European
countries”. After having studied in political science, international law, and history
of art and architecture at the University of Zurich (Switzerland) and the Università
degli Studi di Torino (Italy), she received a Master of Arts 2007 at the University of
Zurich in political science.
Marcel Hunziker is head of the research group “Social Sciences in Landscape
Research” at the Swiss Federal Institute for Forest, Snow and Landscape Research
since 1999. He has conducted and led several national and international research
projects on, e.g., landscape preferences, human-nature relationship, acceptance
of nature conservation, participation in landscape development, and the effect of
interventions measures on (recreation) behaviour. He holds a Masters degree in
Geography, Sociology and Tourism Research from University of Berne (1991), and a
PhD in Geography from the University of Zurich (2000).