Planning and competing interests: testing the mediating influence of planning capacity on smart growth policy adoption

Abstract

Land use policy can generate substantial conflict between pro-growth and slow-growth interests. Based on the collaborative planning model, one of the many roles of the professional planner is to mediate conflict and generate support among fragmented interests in policy aimed at mitigating the effects from sprawl. The analysis uses original data collected from cities and towns in the state of Massachusetts. This study empirically tests the effect a divergence between local interest groups in the support for planning efforts has on the adoption of smart growth policy. Methodologically, interaction terms are used to test the hypothesis that local planning capacity, in the form of professional planning staff and formal planning mechanisms, mediates this divergence. The results provide insight into how communities can overcome the challenges of interest group divergence in planning for ‘smarter’ growth and more sustainable environmental land use practices.

Keywords:

• planning capacity
• local interest groups
• smart growth policy
• local institutions

Notes

1. Based on mean t-tests, cities and towns that submitted a CCS application have on average a larger population, are more densely populated, have less household income and have fewer owner occupied housing units than municipalities that did not submit a CCS application. Hawkins (2011) found that resource constraints motivated cities and towns to submit a CCS application.

2. Only household income (0.06) was significantly different between cities in the final sample of 139 and the 52 cities that submitted a CCS application, but were not included in the analysis due to missing survey data.

3. In addition to these zoning tools, policies in the CCS include planning and financing brownfield redevelopment, expanding housing opportunities such as having a state approved affordable housing plan, planning for liveable communities through a community development or open space plan, promoting liveable communities by adopting the Community Preservation Act and protecting land through fee-simple acquisition, advancing sound water policy by adopting a water conservation or management plan and implementing water conservation measures, and preserving natural landscapes through right-to-farm bylaws and protecting agricultural and forestry uses with zoning regulations.

4. Because little reliable data exists on the number of local environmental organisations in a community, this study created a standardised index comprised of percent registered democrat voters, household income and percent owner occupied housing units in each community in 2000 (see Lubell, Feiock, and Ramirez 2005; Lubell, Feiock and Handy 2009). Its correlation with environmental organisations’ support of local land conservation efforts is (0.03) and environmental organisations’ support of growth promotion efforts is (−0.07). These results are not surprising because environmental organisations are portrayed in the literature as a diffuse and unorganised constituency that may operate at a geographic scale that an aggregate indicator of community characteristics may not fully capture.