Elected Officials’ Familiarity with Smart Growth Policies Insights from the US Eastern States

Abstract

State smart growth programmes (SGPs) attempt to alter local sprawling development patterns through incentives encouraging local governments to apply smart growth policies. This incentive approach makes applications of smart growth policies rely mainly on local government decisions to adopt such policies. Little research investigated elected officials’ familiarity with smart growth policies, especially in small cities/towns. This research paper compares elected officials’ familiarity with smart growth policies across small cities/towns that are located in the US eastern states with and without SGPs. Based on data collected from a mail survey sent to elected officials in 481 small cities/towns, the researcher conducted bivariate and regression analyses to assess elected officials’ familiarity and investigate effects of adopting statewide SGPs on that familiarity. The survey shows that most elected officials are familiar with the term smart growth in general, but their familiarity with smart growth policies varies across cities/towns. Also, the regression analysis explains familiarity by the state adoption of SGPs, and city/town population and regional context (urban/rural). Research findings point to needs to design outreach educational programmes to improve officials’ familiarity with the wide range of smart growth policies, especially in non-coastal cities/towns and rural regions.

Key Words:

• Smart growth
• local elected officials
• land-use policy
• USA

Acknowledgement

I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for their constructive comments.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes

1. The control variables reflect findings of previous research:

• Chapin (2004) pointed to obtaining a college degree as a determinant of citizen familiarity; so this research measures educational attainment as: having a college degree or higher = 1 and having less than college degree = 0.

• Nguyen (2009) indicates that attempts to control development will occur when growth is perceived rapid and is accompanied with negative consequences. Therefore, the research measures elected officials’ perception of their city/town growth as: rapid growth = 1 and slow or about right growth = 0.

• Carr and Karuppusamy (2008) identify mayor–council as the most city governmental form that is recognized by state laws, while Feiock and Kim (2001), Feiock (2004) and Hawkins (2011) point to significant effects of mayor–council governments on land-use policy applications. So, the research measure governmental forms as: mayor–council government = 1 and other governmental forms = 0.

2. The planning literature documents four waves of statewide programs to manage urban growth (see DeGrove, 2005; Godschalk, 2000; Ingram, Carbonell, Hong, & Flint, 2009; Weitz, 1999, among others). The first wave began with the Quiet Revolution in land-use control when the State of Hawaii adopted its land-use law in 1961, then Florida, Vermont, and Oregon initiated their state land use legislation. The second wave of state programs (from the late 1970s to the early 1980s) witnessed the establishment of more comprehensive growth management programs in Florida, Delaware, Maine, Rhode Island, and Vermont. The third wave (from the late 1980s till the early 1990s) included the establishment of growth management statutes in Georgia and Washington and improvements of the programs of Florida and Oregon to enhance governmental coordination, provide better guidance to link transportation and land use planning, and promote compact development. The last wave of state programs (from the late 1990s to present) was marked by the birth of Maryland's remarkable Smart Growth Initiative in 1997, which relies on incentives to direct urban growth into existing communities (Frece, 2005; Freilich, 1999; Knaap & Frece, 2007). Currently, the term smart growth is used loosely to refer to comprehensive programs to manage urban growth, including growth management programs.

Additional information

Funding

This work was supported by Salisbury University Faculty Mini-Grant Program, 2012.