The counties of the US Capital Region represent unique case studies of urban areas that face tremendous development pressures resulting from their proximity to Washington, DC. They cross two states: Maryland with a statewide smart growth programme and Virginia without such a programme. This unique location raises two questions: do statewide smart growth programmes lead counties to adopt smart growth policies?; and what are the local factors contributing to county decisions to apply these policies? Case study analysis was applied to examine these questions in the Capital Region based on three sources of evidence: state and county regulations and plans; interviews with county planners; and secondary data. The analysis indicates that state mandates shape county land use planning. While statewide incentive programmes/policies help Maryland’s counties to preserve their farmlands, they seem insufficient to change sprawling development patterns. County applications of smart growth policies are mainly driven by local needs and priorities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
APA (American Planning Association) (2002) Planning for smart growth: 2002 state of the states. APA, Washington, DC.
2.
BaldassareM.WilsonG. (1996) Changing sources of suburban support for local growth controls, Urban Studies, 33(1), pp. 459–471.
3.
BoarnetM. G.McLaughlinR. B.CarruthersJ. I. (2011) Does state growth management change the pattern of urban growth? Evidence from Florida, Regional Science and Urban Economics, 41, pp. 236–252.
4.
BrodyS. D.CarrascoV.HighfieldW. E. (2006) Measuring the adoption of local sprawl: reduction planning policies in Florida, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 25, pp. 294–310.
5.
BurbyR. J.MayP. J.BerkeP. R.DaltonL. C.. (1997) Making Governments Plan: State Experiments in Managing Land Use. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
6.
CarruthersJ. (2002) The impacts of state growth management programs: a comparative analysis, Urban Studies, 39(11), pp. 1959–1982.
7.
ChapinT. S.ConnerlyC. E. (2004) Attitudes toward growth management in Florida: comparing resident support in 1985 and 2001, Journal of the American Planning Association, 70(4), pp. 443-452.
CohenJ. R. (2002) Maryland’s smart growth: using incentives to combat sprawl, in: SquiresG. (Ed.) Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses, pp. 293–324. Washington, DC: Urban Institute Press.
DownsA. (2005) Smart growth: why we discuss it more than we do it, Journal of the Planning Association, 71(4), pp. 367–378.
13.
EdwardsM. M.HainesA. (2007) Evaluating smart growth: implications for small communities, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 27(1), pp. 49–64.
14.
EwingR.PendallR.ChenD. (2002) Measuring sprawl and its impact. Smart Growth America, Washington, DC.
15.
FarmerW. P. (2007) America’s future and federal smart growth policies, in: BarnettJ. (Ed.) Smart Growth in a Changing World, pp. 125–132. Chicago, IL: Planners Press.
16.
FlintA. (2006) This Land: The Battle over Sprawl and the Future of America. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.
17.
Greater Washington 2050 Coalition (2010) Region forward: a comprehensive guide for regional planning and measuring progress in the 21st century. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, DC (www.mwcog.org/uploads/pub-documents/p15fX1g20100407104951.pdf).
HawkinsC. V. (2011) Smart growth policy choice: a resource dependency and local governance explanation, The Policy Studies Journal, 39(4), pp. 679–707.
20.
IngramG. K.CarbonellA.HongY.FlintA. (Eds) (2009) Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
21.
KnaapG. (2004) An inquiry into the promise and prospects of smart growth, in: SorensenA.MarcotullioP. J.GrantJ. (Eds) Towards Sustainable Cities: East Asian, North American and European Perspectives on Managing Urban Regions, pp. 61–79. Aldershot: Ashgate Publishing.
22.
KopitsE.McConnellV.MilesD. (2009) Lot size, zoning, and household preferences: impediments to smart growth?Resources for the Future, Washington, DC (www.rff.org/rff/documents/RFF-DP-09-15.pdf).
23.
McCannB. A.EwingR. (2003) Measuring the health effects of sprawl: a national analysis of physical activity, obesity, and chronic disease. Smart Growth America, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC.
24.
MeckS. (Ed.) (2002) Growing smart legislative guidebook: model statutes for planning and the management of change. American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.
25.
NguyenM. T. (2009) Why do communities mobilize against growth: growth pressures, community status, metropolitan hierarchy, or strategic interaction?, Journal of Urban Affairs, 31(1), pp. 25–43.
26.
O’ConnellL. (2009) The impact of local supporters on smart growth policy adoption, Journal of the American Planning Association, 75(3), pp. 281–291.
27.
PendallR. (2001) Municipal plans, state mandates, and property rights: lessons from Maine, Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, pp. 154–165.
28.
PorterD. R. (2002) Making Smart Growth Work. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
29.
WassmerR. (2001) An Economist’s Perspective on Urban Sprawl: Influences of the ‘Fiscalization of Land Use’ and Urban Growth Boundaries. Sacramento, CA: Senate Publications.
30.
WassmerR.LascherE. (2006) Who supports local growth and regional planning to deal with its consequences?, Urban Affairs Review, 41(5), pp. 621–645.
31.
WilmerR. (2006) Planning framework: a planning framework for managing sprawl, in: SouleD. C. (Ed.) Urban Sprawl: A Comprehensive Reference Guide, pp. 61–78. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
32.
YeL.MandpeS.MeyerP. B. (2005) What is smart growth—really?, Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), pp. 301–315.
33.
YinR. K. (1994) Case Study Research: Design and Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
