Adventures in Implementation: Mandating Open Space Preservation in a Weak Mandate State

REFERENCES

• Alexander, F. S. (2000). Inherent tensions between home rule and regional planning. Wake Forest Law Review, 35, 539–562.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, R. (1996). Conservation design for subdivisions: A practical guide to creating open space networks. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Arendt, R. G. (1999). Growing greener: Putting conservation into local plans and ordinances. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 271–286.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bolitzer, B., & Netusil, N. R. (2000). The impact of open spaces on property values in Portland, Oregon. Journal of Environmental Management, 59, 185–193.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bowman, T., Thompson, J., & Colletti, J. (2009). Valuation of open space and conservation features in residential subdivisions. Journal of Environmental Management, 90, 321–330.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Brehm, J., & Gates, S. (1997). Working, shirking, and sabotage: Bureaucratic response to a democratic republic. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burby, R. J., & May, P. J. (1997). Making governments plan: State experiments in managing land use. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Burchell, R. W., & Mukherji, S. (2003). Conventional development versus managed growth: The costs of sprawl. American Journal of Public Health, 93, 1534–1540.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Carter, T. (2009). Developing conservation subdivisions: Ecological constraints, regulatory barriers, and market incentives. Landscape and Urban Planning, 92, 117–124.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Daniels, T. L. (1999). When city and country collide: Managing growth in the metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.
   Google Scholar
• David, N. (2008). Why cooperate? An evaluation of the formation and persistence of voluntary regional land use cooperative arrangements in Michigan. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI.
   Google Scholar
• ESRI Developer Network. (2011). Hot spot analysis (Getis-Ord Gi*) (Spatial Statistics). Retrieved August 11, 2011, from http://edndoc.esri.com/arcobjects/9.2/net/shared/geoprocessing/spatial_statistics_tools/hot_spot_analysis_getis_ord_gi_star_spatial_statistics_.htm
   Google Scholar
• Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles–style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 107–126.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Forrest, C. W. (1994). Planned unit development and takings post Dolan. Northern Illinois University Law Review, 15, 571–584.
   Google Scholar
• Getis, A., & Ord, J. K. (1992). The analysis of spatial association by use of distance statistics. Geographical Analysis, 24, 189–206.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hostetler, M., & Drake, D. (2009). Conservation subdivisions: A wildlife perspective. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90(3), 95–101.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Irwin, E. G. (2002). The effects of open space on residential property values. Land Economics, 78, 465–480.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kern, K., & Alber, G. (2008). Governing climate change in cities: Modes of urban climate governance in multi-level systems. Paper presented at the OECD Conference Proceedings, Milan, Italy, (October 9–10, 2008, pp. 171–196).
   Google Scholar
• Loh, C. G. (2011). Assessing and interpreting nonconformance in land use planning implementation. Planning Practice and Research, 26(3), 271–287.
   Google Scholar
• Loh, C. G. (2012). Four potential disconnects in the local planning process. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 32(1), 33–47.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loh, C. G., & Sami, N. (2013). Death of a planning department: Challenges for regionalism in a weak mandate state. Land Use Policy, 32, 39–49.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lupia, A., & McCubbins, M. D. (1994). Learning from oversight: Fire alarms and police patrols reconstructed. Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization, 10(1), 96–125.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• McConnell, V., & Walls, M. A. (2005). The value of open space: Evidence from studies of nonmarket benefits. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
   Google Scholar
• McCubbins, M. D., & Schwartz, T. (1984). Congressional oversight overlooked: Police patrols versus fire alarms. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 165–179.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Meck, S. (Ed.). (2002). Growing smart legislative guidebook: Model statutes for planning and the management of change. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.
   Google Scholar
• Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. (2003). Michigan’s land, Michigan’s future: Final report of the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. Lansing, MI: Author.
   Google Scholar
• Michigan State Legislature (House Legislative Analysis). (2001). House Bill No. 5029. Retrieved September 12, 2002, from http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2001-HB-5029.
   Google Scholar
• Mitnick, B. M. (1975). The theory of agency. Public Choice, 24, 27–42.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Moe, T. (1984). The new economics of organization. American Journal of Political Science, 28, 739–777.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mohamed, R. (2006). The economics of conservation subdivisions: Price premiums, improvement costs, and absorption rates. Urban Affairs Review, 41, 376–399.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pressman, J. L., & Wildavsky, A. (1973). Implementation. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
   Google Scholar
• Rabe, B. (2004). Statehouse and greenhouse: The emerging politics of American climate change policy. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
   Google Scholar
• Ryan, E. M., & Lupher, E. W. (2003). An overview of local government expenditures in Michigan: Patterns and trends, In C. L. Ballard, P. N. Courant, D. C. Drake, R. C. Fisher, & E. R. Gerber (Eds.), Michigan at the millennium (pp. 257–277). East Lansing, MI: Michigan State University Press.
   Google Scholar
• Shapiro, S. P. (2005). Agency theory. Annual Review of Sociology, 31, 263–284.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Shipan, C. R., & Volden, C. (2008). The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science, 52, 840–857.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG). (2004). Land use in Southeast Michigan, regional summary, 1990–2000. Detroit, MI: SEMCOG. Retrieved December 10, 2012, from www.semcog.org/Data/LandUse/assets/region.pdf
   Google Scholar
• Stein, R. M. (1990). The budgetary effects of municipal service contracting: A principal–agent explanation. American Journal of Political Science, 34, 471–502.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Talen, E. (1996). Do plans get implemented? A review of evaluation in planning. Journal of Planning Literature, 10, 248–259.
   Google Scholar
• Towe, C. (2009). A valuation of subdivision open space by type. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 91, 1319–1325.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Visser, J. A. (2004). Townships and nested governance: Spoilers or collaborators in metropolitan services delivery? Public Performance and Management Review, 27(3), 80–101.
   Google Scholar
• Waterman, R. W., & Meier, K. J. (1998). Principal–agent models: An expansion? Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 8(2), 173–202.
   Google Scholar
• Wilson, J. Q. (1989). Bureaucracy: What government agencies do and why they do it. New York: Basic Books.
   Google Scholar