![Sample our Built Environment journals, sign in here to start your access, Latest two full volumes FREE to you for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5926/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Built-Environment.jpg"})
Abstract
Problem: To succeed, the smart growth movement must be active at the local level. However, little is known about the movement's composition and effects.
Purpose: This research aims to identify who pursues smart growth at the local level, what types of smart growth policies are being adopted, and the impact of supporters on the types of policies adopted.
Methods: Using surveys I conducted with planning and development officials in 202 cities and other data, I estimate regression models predicting the effects of local activism and other possible influences on the number of smart growth, land preserving, and inner-city redevelopment policies these cities adopted.
Results and conclusions: I found that (a) as the number of types of groups promoting smart growth increases, cities adopt more smart growth policies; (b) the supporters of smart growth have more impact on the adoption of land preserving policies than on the policies associated with inner-city redevelopment; and (c) cities in states that require comprehensive planning adopt more smart growth policies.
Takeaway for practice: Politics prevents many cities from adopting comprehensive smart growth policies, though state laws that mandate comprehensive planning at the local level appear to encourage them. Planners can build support for smart growth by inviting environmental groups to the table and by devising smart growth policies that encourage both land preservation and inner-city densification.
Research support: None.
Notes
Notes: a. Not listed as a potential opponent on survey.
b. Not listed as a potential supporter on survey.
*p < .05
**p < .01
a. cities could have from 0 to 8 smart growth policies.
b. cities could have from 0 to 5 land preserving policies.
c. cities could have from 0 to 3 inner-city redevelopment policies.
*p < .05
**p < .01
***p < .001
1. These state laws aimed to curb urban sprawl, but most did not call for specific smart growth policies. Oregon's statute calls for urban growth boundaries, the only instance of a state requiring one of the smart growth policies discussed in this article (CitationCarruthers, 2002).
2. This could be because urban containment policies, unlike many other land use policies, do not seek to reduce the supply of multi-unit rental housing. (Knapp, 1985; CitationPendall, 2000; CitationNelson, Dawkins, & Sanchez, 2004).
3. These are: California, Colorado, North Carolina, Oregon, Hawaii, Florida, New Jersey, Maine, Rhode Island, Vermont, Georgia, Washington, and Maryland.
4. These are: Alabama, Arizona, Connecticut, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio, South Dakota, Virginia, and West Virginia.
5. I compared secondary data for the 202 cities that responded to the survey to that for the 138 that did not respond, as well as to a third group of all of the nonresponding cities except Los Angeles. I found that the responding and nonresponding cities are very similar in average income, percent White, and percent of the population with a bachelor's degree, but the mean population of the nonresponding cities (155,105) is substantially larger than that of the responding cities (128,411). This gap is explained by the nonresponse of Los Angeles. Without Los Angeles, the average population for the nonresponding cities drops to 130,617.
6. It also appears that states with comprehensive planning mandates develop less land for each new resident. I used data from the National Resources Inventory (U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2000, 2003), to divide the increase in state population between 1992 and 2003 (U.S. Census Bureau, 1994a, 2007) by the increase in developed land over the same time span. I found that states with comprehensive planning mandates added 2.22 residents per new developed acre compared to 1.27 residents per new developed acre for those states without mandated comprehensive planning. However, a comparison of the mean new residents per new acres developed in the two types of states did not reach significance (t = .996, p = .354).