Who Would Pay for Rural Open Space Preservation and Inner-city Redevelopment? Identifying Support for Policies that Can Contribute to Regional Land Use Governance

Abstract

A growing literature has made the case for preserving rural open space and redeveloping inner cities. Together, these polices can contribute to the inside—outside strategy of `new regionalism'. However, it is unclear whether citizens are willing to pay for these two polices. Using data from a survey of Michigan's citizens, statistical analyses were employed to ascertain who would pay for both policies. Of the respondents, 37 per cent would pay for both policies. The coalition of support is centred on younger people, liberals and Whites, and people who are generally satisfied with their communities but are concerned about sprawl. When compared with the results for those who would pay only for one policy, the findings suggest that policy-makers may be able to broaden the coalition of support for policies that can contribute to regional land use governance if measures are taken to ensure that benefits are widely spread.

The individual determinants of support for open space bond referendums

“…We find both similarities and differences between our nationally-representative study and those that focus on a limited geographic area. Our finding that opinion on environmental issues is an important determinant of open space and development preferences reinforces the findings by Smutny (1998) as well as Mohamed (2008). Our results also agree with studies that show that age, race, and ideology are important determinants of open space and development preferences (e.g.…”

“…Our results also agree with studies that show that age, race, and ideology are important determinants of open space and development preferences (e.g. Kline and Wichelns 1998;Mcleod, Woirhaye, and Menkhaus 1999;Gainsborough 2002;Mohamed 2008). Not all of our results agree with case studies that are conducted in limited geographic ranges, however.…”

“…2 While a handful of studies rely on individual level data to capture the importance of perceptions and opinions on support for environmental policies, each of these studies rely on data from a small geographic unit, sometimes a state but usually a city or metropolitan area. For example, studies investigate how support for open space initiatives and growth management policies correlate with satisfaction with municipality provided services and thinking urban sprawl is a problem (Mohamed 2008), attitudes toward environmental protection and economic growth (Chong and Druckman 2007), residential growth issues (Gerber and Phillips 2005), opinions regarding the importance of water pollution and affordable housing problems (Smutny 1998), and the role of wanting to "escape urban ills" (Gainsborough 2002). These studies typically find that people's perceptions of the consequences of development add explanatory power to their support for open space and growth management policies above and beyond their socioeconomic characteristics.…”

“…However, these studies rely on surveys of specific locales (e.g. Smutny 1998;Gainsborough 2002;Gerber and Philips 2005;Mohamed 2008) or states or metropolitan areas that have held referenda or implemented "smart growth" policies (e.g. Kline and Wichelns 1994;Howell-Moroney 2004;Solecki, Mason, and Martin 2004;Kline 2006;Kotchen and Powers 2006;Coan and Holman 2008;Schmidt and Paulsen 2009), so it is unclear how generalizable their findings are to individuals across states and communities.…”

Planning and competing interests: testing the mediating influence of planning capacity on smart growth policy adoption

“…Homeowners have a clear interest in policies that maintain home values (Fischel 2001). As suggested by some studies, communities with a larger white population tend to favourably endorse a more slow and managed approach towards growth (Feiock 2004;Mohamed 2008). Moreover, individuals with high economic status are shown to place a high value on protecting the natural environment and are generally supportive of slow and more managed growth (Chapin and Connerly 2004).…”