The Impacts of State Growth Management Programmes: A Comparative Analysis

This paper examines the impact that alternative state planning frameworks have on five dimensions of urban development: density, the spatial extent of urbanised land area, property value, public expenditures on infrastructure and population change. The objectives of the analysis are threefold. First, the background discussion provides a brief overview of urban sprawl as a public policy problem and outlines how state growth management programmes attempt to respond to it. Secondly, the empirical analysis examines the effects of growth management in a cross-section of metropolitan counties during the 1982-97 time-period. The five outcome measures are modelled in a simultaneous equations framework in order to test several specific hypotheses about how state land-use policies affect the character of urban growth. Thirdly, the results of the empirical analysis are described within the context of previous research on the effectiveness of growth management. The findings suggest that state growth management programmes with strong consistency requirements and enforcement mechanisms hold much promise for reducing urban sprawl, while programmes that do not require consistency and/or have weak enforcement mechanisms may inadvertently contribute to it.

[1]  Gerrit Knaap,et al.  The Determinants of Residential Property Values: Implications for Metropolitan Planning , 1998 .

[2]  Terry Moore,et al.  Development inside Urban Growth Boundaries: Oregon's Empirical Evidence of Contiguous Urban Form , 1998 .

[3]  Lewis D. Hopkins,et al.  The Inventory Approach to Urban Growth Boundaries , 2001 .

[4]  M. Gottdiener,et al.  Characteristics of Support for Local Growth Control , 1981 .

[5]  A. Downs Some Realities about Sprawl and Urban Decline , 1999 .

[6]  J. Landis,et al.  Do Growth Controls Work?: A New Assessment , 1992 .

[7]  Rolf Joseph Pendall,et al.  Local Land Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion , 2000 .

[8]  J. Brueckner Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies , 2000 .

[9]  Gudmundur F. Ulfarsson,et al.  Fragmentation and Sprawl: Evidence from Interregional Analysis , 2002 .

[10]  Rolf Joseph Pendall,et al.  Do Land-Use Controls Cause Sprawl? , 1999 .

[11]  Q. Shen Spatial Impacts of Locally Enacted Growth Controls: The San Francisco Bay Region in the 1980s , 1996 .

[12]  J. Phillips,et al.  Growth management and housing prices: the case of Portland, Oregon , 2000 .

[13]  Jeffrey D. Kline,et al.  Does Land Use Planning Slow the Conversion of Forest and FarmLands , 1999 .

[14]  Arthur Christian Nelson,et al.  Does Growth Management Matter? The Effect of Growth Management on Economic Performance , 2000 .

[15]  Scott A. Bollens,et al.  State Growth Management: Intergovernmental Frameworks and Policy Objectives , 1992 .

[16]  Scott A. Bollens,et al.  Restructuring Land Use Governance , 1993 .

[17]  D. Gale Eight State-Sponsored Growth Management Programs: A Comparative Analysis , 1992 .

[18]  R. Deyle,et al.  Local Government Compliance with State Planning Mandates: The Effects of State Implementation in Florida , 1998 .

[19]  John I. Carruthers,et al.  Evaluating the Effectiveness of Regulatory Growth Management Programs , 2002 .

[20]  R. Ewing Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable? , 1997 .