Growth Management Priority and Land-Use Regulation in Local Government: Employing a Full Structural Equation Model

Abstract

Growth management is a rational means of controlling local land use and development patterns in terms of regulatory policy. The authors expand the scope of previous research by addressing the causal relationship between the land-use policy-making process and its consequences. In terms of the political market perspective, this research examines direct and indirect causalities among interest groups, government, land-use policy choice, and the policy outcome. On the basis of the theoretical and analytical setting, the authors conclude that local governments are positively influenced by growth management-oriented interest groups, and they are more likely to devise smart growth land-use tools, but less likely to choose direct land-use regulation. Within governmental regulatory actions, however, direct regulations such as urban growth restrictions, greenbelts, and rural protection lines are regarded as more effective instruments to identify the stringency of land-use regulation for reducing urban sprawl rather than smart growth land-use policy tools. Finally, the causal relationships found in this research imply that, rather than using one direct effect measurement in the study of land-use regulation, the different dimensions have various causalities on land-use regulation and regulatory performances.

Planning for Sustainability in Small Municipalities: The Influence of Interest Groups, Growth Patterns, and Institutional Characteristics

“…Policy emerges from dynamic negotiations between policy suppliers (i.e., local officials) looking for their own gains and policy demanders (e.g., residents) pursuing their own interests (Lee 2010). The institutional structural setting in which municipal officials act influences their reaction to demands, such that different interests will have more or less sway in different governmental structures (Feiock, Tavares, and Lubell 2008;Krause 2011;Park, Park, and Lee 2012). Political market research reveals mixed results on the relative influence of legislative and executive structures on policy outcomes (Krause, Feiock, and Hawkins 2016;Lee 2010;Lubell, Feiock, and de la Cruz 2009).…”

Can Cities Attract Affordable Housing for Economic Development? The Roles of Growth Management Policies and Urban Political Institutions

“…Second-generation growth management policies incorporate effective tools such as impact fees, urban service boundaries, and incentive zoning that allow local governments to pursue a more balanced approach toward preservation and development rather than limiting developmental activities (Feiock et al, 2008). Many studies have examined growth management and its effects on local governments' decision-making in the areas of land use policy patterns, the stringency of land use regulation, green and open space conservation, the adoption of land use policy incentives, affordable housing and land value (Anthony, 2004;Downs, 1994;Feiock et al, 2008;Nelson et al, 2002;Park, Kwak, & Kwon, 2012;Park, Park, & Lee, 2010;Park, Park, & Lee, 2012). However, the effects of the state growth management policy on mutually inclusive land use plans as an application to the production of affordable housing for economic development has not been sufficiently dealt with.…”