Who Would Pay for Rural Open Space Preservation and Inner-city Redevelopment? Identifying Support for Policies that Can Contribute to Regional Land Use Governance
Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online December, 2008
Who Would Pay for Rural Open Space Preservation and Inner-city Redevelopment? Identifying Support for Policies that Can Contribute to Regional Land Use Governance
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.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baldassare, M. (1984) Predicting local concern about growth: the roots of citizen discontent, Journal of Urban Affairs, 6(1), pp. 39-49.
2.
Baldassare, M. (1989) Citizen support for regional government in the new suburbia, Urban Affairs Quarterly, 24(3), pp. 460-469.
3.
Baldassare, M. (1991) Is there room for regionalism in the suburbs? Orange County reactions to the air-quality plan, Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 8(3), pp. 222-234.
4.
Baldassare, M. (1994) Regional variations in support for regional governance , Urban Affairs Review, 30(2), pp. 275-284.
5.
Baldassare, M. (2004) PPIC statewide survey: special survey of Orange County. Public Policy Institute of California, San Francisco, CA, December.
6.
Baldassare, M. and Wilson, G. (1996) Changing sources of suburban support for local growth controls, Urban Studies, 33(3), pp. 459-471.
7.
Barnes, W.R. and Ledebur, L.C. (1998) The New Regional Economies: the U.S. Common Market and the Global Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
8.
Basolo, V. (2003) US regionalism and rationality, Urban Studies, 40(3), pp. 447-462.
9.
Bollens, S.A. (1990) Constituencies for limitation and regionalism: approaches to growth management, Urban Affairs Review, 26(1), pp. 46-67.
10.
Boyle, R. and Mohamed, R. (2007) State growth management, smart growth and urban containment: a review of the US and a study of the heartland, Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 50(5), pp. 677-697.
11.
Buttel, F.H. (1987) New directions in environmental sociology, Annual Review of Sociology, 13, pp. 465-488.
12.
Calthorpe, P. and Fulton, W.B. (2001) The Regional City: Planningfor the End of Sprawl . Washington, DC: Island Press .
13.
Chapin, T. (2004) Variations in citizen familiarity with growth management processes: evidence from Florida, Urban Affairs Review, 39(4), pp. 441-460.
14.
Chapin, T.S. and Connerly, C.E. (2004) Attitudes towards growth management in Florida: comparing resident support in 1985 and 2001, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), pp. 443-452.
15.
Clark, T.N., Hoffmann-Martinot, V. and Gromala, M. (1998) The New Political Culture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
16.
Connerly, C.E. and Frank, J.E. (1986) Predicting support for local growth controls, Social Science Quarterly, 67(3), pp. 572-586.
17.
Correll, M.R., Lillydahl, J.H. and Singell, L.D. (1978) The effects of greenbelts on residential property values: some findings on the political economy of open space, Land Economics, 54(2), pp. 207-217.
18.
Daniels, T. (1999) When City and Country Collide: Managing Growth in the Metropolitan Fringe. Washington, DC: Island Press.
19.
Danielson, M.N. (1976) The Politics of Exclusion. New York: Columbia University Press.
20.
DeGrove, J.M. (2005) Planning policy and politics: smart growth and the states. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
21.
Downs, A. (2005) Smart growth: why we discuss it more than we do it, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), pp. 367-378.
22.
Dreier, P., Mollenkopf, J.H. and Swanstrom, T. (2004) Place Matters: Metropolitics for the Twenty-first Century, 2nd edn. Lawrence, KS : University Press of Kansas.
23.
Dunlap, R.E., Xiao, C. and McCright, A. (2001) Politics and environment in America: partisan and ideological cleavages in public support for environmentalism, Environmental Politics, 10(4), pp. 23-48.
24.
Frieden, B.J. (1979) The Environmental Protection Hustle. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
25.
Fulton, W., Pendall, R., Nguyen, M. and Harrison, A. (2001) Who sprawls most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. The Brookings Institution, Washington, DC.
26.
Gainsborough, J.F. (2002) Slow growth and urban sprawl: support for a new regional agenda?, Urban Affairs Review, 37(5), pp. 728-744.
27.
Gale, D.E. and Hart, S. (1992) Public support for local comprehensive planning under statewide growth management: insights from Maine, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 11(3), pp. 192-205.
28.
Gerhart, A. (1999) David Rusk's message: sprawl and race shaping the land, Planning and Zoning News, 17(7), pp. 5-12.
29.
Gottdiener, M. and Neiman, M. (1981) Characteristics of support for local growth control , Urban Affairs Review, 17(1), pp. 55-73.
30.
Greer, S.A. (1962) Governing the Metropolis. New York: John Wiley.
31.
Hosmer, D.W. jr and Lemeshow, S. (1989) Applied Logistic Regression, 2nd edn. New York: Wiley.
32.
IPPSR (Institute for Public Policy and Social Research) (2003) State of the state survey. IPPSR-SOSS Bulletin 03-03. IPPSR, Michigan State University (http://www.ippsr.msu.edu/publications/b0303.pdf).
33.
Kaufmann, K.M. and Petrocik, J.R. (1999) The changing politics of American men: understanding the sources of the gender gap, American Journal of Political Science, 43(3), pp. 864-887.
34.
Knaap, G.J. (1987) Self-interest and voter support for Oregon land use controls, Journal of the American Planning Association , 53(1), pp. 92-97.
35.
Landis, J.D. (2006) Growth management revisited, Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(4), pp. 411-430.
36.
Land Trust Alliance (2002) Land vote 2001: Americans invest in parks and open space. Land Trust Alliance, Washington, DC.
37.
Lindsey, G. and Knaap, G. (1999) Willingness to pay for urban greenway projects , Journal of the American Planning Association, 65(3), pp. 297-313.
38.
Logan, J.R. and Semyonov, M. (1980) Growth and succession in suburban communities, Sociological Quarterly, 21(1), pp. 93-105.
39.
MLULC (Michigan Land Use Leadership Council) ( 2003) Michigan's land, Michigan's future: final report of the Michigan Land Use Leadership Council. MLULC, Lansing, MI.
40.
Mohamed, R. (2006) The economics of conservation subdivisions: price premiums, improvement costs, and absorption rates, Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), pp. 376-399.
41.
MSPO (Michigan Society of Planning Officials) ( 1995) Land use views and priorities of Michigan residents: results of the trend future surveys, 1994-1995, Planning and Zoning News.
42.
Nelson,A.C. (1985) A unifying view of greenbelt influences on regional land values and implications for regional planning policy, Growth and Change, 16(2), pp. 43-48.
43.
Nelson,A.C. and Milgroom, J.H. (1995) Central city revitalization through regional growth management, in: F. W. Wagner, A. Mumphrey and T. Joder (Eds) Central City Revitalization, pp. 1-37. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
44.
Nelson, A.C., Burby, R.J., Feser, E. et al. (2004) Urban containment and central city revitalization , Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), pp. 411-425.
45.
Norris, D.F. (2001a) Prospects for regional governance under the new regionalism: economic imperatives versus political impediments, Journal of Urban Affairs, 23(5), pp. 557-571.
Orfield, M. (2002) American Metropolitics: The New Suburban Reality . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.
48.
Parks, R.B. and Oakerson, R.J. (1989) Metropolitan organization and governance: a local public economy approach, Urban Affairs Review, 25(1), pp. 18-29.
49.
Pastor, M., Dreier, P.J., Grigsby, E. et al. (2000) Regions That Work: How Cities and Suburbs Can Grow Together. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press.
50.
Peirce, N.R., Johnson, C.W. and Hall, J.S. (1993) Citistates: How Urban America Can Prosper in a Competitive World. Washington, DC: Seven Locks Press.
51.
Porter, M.E. (1997) New strategies for inner-city economic development , Economic Development Quarterly, 11(1), pp. 11-27.
52.
Protash, W. and Baldassare, M. (1983) Growth policies and community status: a test and modification of Logan theory, Urban Affairs Review, 18(3), pp. 397-412.
53.
PSC (Public Sector Consultants) (1997) 1997 Statewide land use survey, Planning and Zoning News, 16(2).
54.
PSC (2001) Michigan land resource project. Prepared for the Frey Foundation and the W. K. Kellogg Foundation on behalf of the Michigan Economic and Environmental Roundtable, Public Sector Consultants, Lansing, MI .
55.
Ross, B.H. and Levine, M.A. (2005) Urban Politics: Power in Metropolitan America, 7th edn. Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
56.
Rothblatt, D.N. (1994) North American metropolitan planning: Canadian and United States perspectives, Journal of the American Planning Association, 60(4), pp. 501-520.
57.
Rusk, D. (1999) Inside Game/Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
58.
Savitch, H.V. and Vogel, R.K. (2000) Introduction: paths to a new regionalism, State and Local Government Review, 32(3), pp. 158-168.
59.
Savitch, H.V., Collins, D., Sanders, D. and Markham, J.P. (1993) Ties that bind: central cities, suburbs, and the new metropolitan region, Economic Development Quarterly, 7(4), pp. 341-357.
60.
Scott, J.W. (2007) Smart growth as urban reform: a pragmatic `recoding' of the new regionalism, Urban Studies, 44(1), pp. 15-35.
61.
Shrestha, L.B. (2006) The changing demographic profile of the United States. Congressional Research Service report for Congress, Washington, DC.
62.
Silverstein, M., Parrott, T., Angelelli, J.J. and Cook, F.L. (2000) Solidarity and tension between age-groups in the United States: challenge for an aging America in the 21st century, International Journal of Social Welfare, 9(4), pp. 270-284.
63.
Visser, J. (2004) Voluntary regional councils and the new regionalism: effective governance in the smaller metropolis, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24(1), pp. 51-63.
64.
Wassmer, R.W. and Lascher, E.L. (2006) Who supports local growth and regional planning to deal with its consequences?, Urban Affairs Review, 41(5), pp. 621-645.
65.
Wheeler, S.M. (2002) The new regionalism: key characteristics of an emerging movement, Journal of the American Planning Association , 68(3), pp. 267-278.
66.
White, S.B., Bingham, R.D. and Hill, E.W. (2003) Financing Economic Development in the 21st Century . Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe.
