Do State Growth Management Regulations Reduce Sprawl?

Anthony, Jerry

doi:10.1177/1078087403257798

Cited by 129 publications

(84 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The first figure This simple indicator (i.e., aggregate population density or its inverse) is often used as a barometer for determining the effectiveness of smart growth initiatives or growth management policies (see e.g., Nelson, 1999;Carruthers, 2002b;Anthony, 2004).…”

Section: Density Improvement and Growth Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The Growing Smart Legislative Guidebook (Meck, 2002) Although the growth management vs. non-growth management dichotomy is not ideal, this approach is well described and used in the literature for quantitative studies assessing policy outcomes (Carruthers, 2002b;Dawkins and Nelson, 2003;Anthony, 2004 Our regression analysis framework (Figure 2) is designed to measure the effects of statelevel initiatives that take place in combination with local land use regulations by controlling for other factors. More specifically, we employ a log-linear formulation: Index (WRLURI) (Gyourko et al, 2008).…”

Section: State Level Growth Management Characterizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The types of outcomes measured (at least to date) has varied widely to include: effects on property market systems (Carruthers, 2002a); state 3 expenditures and building permit approval rates -before and after program implementation (Lewis et al, 2009); changes in travel behavior (Rodriguez et al, 2006); and many others. The most common criterion for measuring the success of a growth management program however, has been the policy's impact on sprawl (see e.g., Nelson, 1999;Galster et al, 2001;Anthony, 2004), and the most widely used measure of sprawl has been density.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Parsing density changes: an outcome-oriented growth management policy analysis

Kim

Deal

Chakraborty

2012

J Hous and the Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although a considerable number of studies have examined the effectiveness of growth management programs in curbing sprawl and increasing aggregate densities, less attention has been paid to understanding how these noted density improvements are realized. In this paper, we assess the mechanisms that underlie changes in aggregate population densities and empirically examine detailed density changes under various growth management regimes in the U.S. Our county-level statistical analysis using recent U.S. Census products and land use change data sets, finds that: a) states with proactive growth management programs do tend to experience relative density gains, but not in jurisdictions with restrictive local land use regulations and b) the marginal density gains appear to be attributable in large part to smaller housing vacancy rates and housing price escalations. Not surprisingly, our findings suggest that local structures are critical for achieving desired outcomes. Given the critical role of local action, the realization of compact development requires a tightly woven and integrated policy that not only makes logical sense at state levels, but can be followed and implemented at the local level.

show abstract

Section: Density Improvement and Growth Managementmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: State Level Growth Management Characterizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Parsing density changes: an outcome-oriented growth management policy analysis

Kim

Deal

Chakraborty

2012

J Hous and the Built Environ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The wide literature on rural development (e.g. Antony, 2004;Bryant & Russwurm, 1999;Conyers, 1985;Terluin, 2003) points out that the heterogeneous character of the rural areas dictates a differential and flexible policy allowing its implementation according to the individual various physical, demographic, institutional, cultural, and geo-political conditions. Therefore, the settling authorities in Israel were looking to update the national rural development policy, regardless of the large population absorption capacity, and to base it on the individual needs and situations of the rural settlements.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Demographic sustainability and rural development policy

Stern

2013

Journal of Maps

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper develops the notion, and demonstrates the use, of 'demographic sustainability' in updating the national policy for rural development in northern Israel. The current national master plan defines a maximum growth size allowed for each settlement in both the urban and the rural sectors. The growth size policy is solely based on geo-political considerations. Although, aggregatively, the northern rural periphery still has a large population absorption capacity, the overall policy does not fit to the local potential and the individual needs and wills of many settlements. The wide literature on rural development points out that the heterogeneous character of the rural areas dictates a differential and flexible policy allowing its implementation according to the individual various physical, demographic, institutional, cultural, and geo-political conditions. Israel's northern rural periphery is not excluded in that regard and therefore, its settling authorities were looking to update the rural development policy. A GIS-based spatial search and mapping procedure was developed to identify and map the settlements in rank order of intervening needs in population policy. The procedure is focusing around three pivots: accelerators, limitations, and opportunities. Accelerators are the main reason for policy update and include the individual levels of demographic sustainability and relative free absorption capacity of each settlement. Demographic sustainability is defined by the type and the size of the local 'dependency ratio' in order to ensure a multi-age structure and generational continuity of rural settlements in the national periphery. Limitations include environmental sensitivity to development and large absorption capacities. Opportunities include small absorption capacities and favorite conditions for settlement clustering. A three-stage sieving procedure, according to the three pivots, enabled to produce a final map showing, in a descending-order, the need for policy intervention of each settlement. Practically, the map exhibits the role of demographic sustainability in directing the development policy in a, most frequently, losing-population rural region.

show abstract

“…Dawkins and Nelson have identified eight states they believe meet the criteria-Florida, Maine, Maryland, New Jersey, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington (Dawkins et al 2003). Porter includes Georgia (Porter 1996), and Anthony expands the list to include California and Hawaii (Anthony 2004). In this work, we used the eight states identified by Dawkins and Nelson (Dawkins et al 2003), mainly because consistency requirements were included directly in the identification process.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%