The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Urban Development Patterns and Commuting

Abstract

This research investigates the effects of Portland's urban growth boundary (UGB) on urban development patterns and mobility. Three different methods are adopted for evaluating Portland's UGB: intermetropolitan comparisons; comparisons inside and outside the UGB; and, statistical analyses utilising regression models. Intermetropolitan comparisons do not support the conclusion that Portland's UGB has been effective in slowing down suburbanisation, enhancing infill development and reducing auto use. A significant level of spillover from the counties in Oregon to Clark County of Washington took place during the 1990s, indicating that the UGB diverted population growth into Clark County. Results from the statistical analyses also support the above findings. The UGB dummy variable was not significant during the 1980s and 1990s, indicating that the UGB had little impact on the location of new housing construction during the 1980s and 1990s. Unlike the UGB, the Clark County dummy variable is significant for both models, supporting the spillover effects of the UGB.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bae, C.-H.C. (2001) Cross-border impacts of growth management programs: Portland, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington. Paper presented at 17th Pacific Regional Science Conference, Portland, OR.

Bae, C.-H, C. and Jun, M.-J. (2003) Counterfactual planning: what if there had been no green-belt in Seoul?, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 22, pp. 374-383.

Belsley, D.A. , Kuh, E. and Welsch, R.E. (1980) Regression Diagnostics. New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Brueckner, J.K. (2000) Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies, InternationaL Regional Science Review, 23(2), pp. 160-170.

Cox, W. ( 2001) American dream boundaries: urban containment and its consequences (www.gppf.org/pubs/analyses/2001 ).

Daniels, T. (1999) When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.

Ding, C. , Knaap, G.J. and Hopkins, L.D. (1999) Managing urban growth with urban growth boundaries: a theoretical analysis, Journal of Urban Economics, 46, pp. 53-68.

Kennedy, P. (1985) A Guide to Econometrics, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press .

Kline, J. and Alig, R. (1999) Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farm lands, Growth and Change, 30, pp. 3-22.

10.

Knaap, G.K. (2000) The urban growth boundary in metropolitan Portland, Oregon: research, rhetoric, and reality. Paper presented at the Workshop on Urban Growth Management Policies in the U.S., Japan, and Korea, Seoul National University, Seoul, Korea.

11.

Metro (2002) Urban growth boundary: frequently asked questions (http://topaz.metro-region.org ).

12.

Nelson, A.C. and Duncan, J.B. (1995) Growth Management: Principles and Practice. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association .

13.

Nelson, A.C. and Moore, T. (1993) Assessing urban growth management: the case of portland, Oregon, the USA's largest urban growth boundary, Land Use Policy, 10, pp. 293-302.

14.

One Thousand Friends Of Oregon (1991) Managing growth to promote affordable housing: revisiting Oregon's Goal 10 . Portland, OR: 1000 Friends of Oregon.

15.

Patmrson, J. (1999) Urban growth boundary impacts on sprawl and redevelopment in Portland, Oregon. Working Paper, University of Wisconsin - Whitewater.

16.

Richardson, H.W. and Gordon, P. (2001) Portland and Los Angeles: beauty and the beast Paper presented at the 17th Pacific Regional Science Conference, Portland, OR.

17.

Staley, S.R. , Edgens, J.D. and Mildner, G.C.S. (1999) A line in the land: urban-growth boundaries, smart growth, and housing afford-ability. Policy Study No. 263, Reason Public Policy Institute.

18.

Wooldridge, J.M. (2000) Introductory Econometrics: A Modern Approach. Cincinnati, OH: South-Western College Publishing .