Assessing local planning capacity to promote environmentally sustainable residential development

Abstract

Smart growth and sustainability planning have, in recent years, become central issues in planning discourse. Scholars have argued that planning capacity at the local government level is critical for smart growth planning, and that planners have a fundamental role to play in advancing local and regional sustainability. In this paper, we investigate the extent to which local planning capacity enables communities to promote more sustainable, smart growth residential development. Based on a 2013 survey of 38 county and 53 municipal governments in the state of Wisconsin, USA, this study finds that the majority of the sample communities have permitted residential developments characterized as transit-oriented, New Urbanist, mixed use, infill developments, or conservation subdivisions as alternatives to low-density, automobile-dependent conventional developments. The study also finds that jurisdictions with higher planning capacities are more likely to overcome significant barriers to more sustainable residential development.

Keywords:

• sustainability
• smart growth
• conservation subdivisions
• planning capacity
• environmental impacts of land development

Acknowledgements

Many thanks to Christine Thomson, Andy Meyers, and Amanda Jacobson for research assistance and to Kurt Paulsen, Julie Steiff, Ting-Li Lin, Rachel Kaplan, Brian Ohm, and three anonymous reviewers for useful suggestions.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. In light of the recent emphasis on smart growth planning and sustainability and the state's 1999 Comprehensive Planning Law, we asked the respondents to consider residential developments since 2000. Please note that five county planners and 22 municipal planners came to their positions after 2000.

2. We provided the following definitions in our survey: A ‘conservation subdivision’ is a subdivision where residences are clustered in smaller lots and the remainder of the subdivision land is preserved as shared open space. A ‘neo-traditional development’ provides a range of housing options, complete streets, and amenities within walking distance. A ‘compact development’ uses higher densities and aims to concentrate residential development in, or adjacent to, already developed areas.

3. At the same time, planners with strong environmental values may choose to work in communities that are already engaging in, or are interested in, pursuing planning for sustainability.

4. It is possible that planners and decision-makers perceive CSD to be more tangible than compact development and other smart growth approaches.

5. While our results did not show certification of planners to have a significant association with the permitting of conservation subdivisions or smart growth developments, this finding is perhaps due to absence of regional training on the relationship between ecology and land development.

6. Our respondents’ perceptions of the environmental benefits of alternative development types did not differ statistically according to whether they were trained in planning.

Additional information

Funding

Funding for this research has been provided by the University of Wisconsin - Madison Graduate School [grant number PRJ58KX].