Economic Implementation Constraints on Preserving Land from Sprawl: The Case of the Delaware Valley

Abstract

Urban sprawl is one of the most pressing policy issues facing today's county governments. Most of the policy analysis in this area is limited to international comparisons, focusing on differences in national political structure as determinants of policy success. This paper explores determinants of land preservation outcomes at the sub-national level and hones in on a specific area, examining the implementation of land preservation efforts taken by several counties in the Greater Philadelphia Area. A simultaneous equation model is used to examine the impact of various factors on land preservation outcomes. Findings suggest that differences in the price of land, population growth and funding for land acquisition are all key dimensions of implementation constraint that explain variation in policy outcomes. The model predicts that given population projections, seven of the eight counties will face significant shortfalls in the funds necessary to preserve the amounts of open space prescribed by the local Metropolitan Planning Organization. Given these findings, it is likely that efforts to preserve land will fail without significant increases in funding and more effective controls on land use.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bates

Laurie

, and Rexford

Santerre

(2001). “The Public Demand for Open Space: The Case of Connecticut Communities.” Journal of Urban Economics 50 (1) 97–111.

Cohen

James

(2002). “Maryland's ‘Smart Growth': Using Incentives to Combat Sprawl.” In Gregory

Squires

(ed). Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses. Washington, D.C., The Urban Insitute Press: 293–324.

Dawkins

Casey

, and Arthur

Nelson

(2002). “Urban Containment Policies and Housing Prices: An International Comparison with Implications for Future Research.” Land Use Policy 19 (1) 1–12.

Fox

Kenneth

(1985). Metropolitan America: Urban Life and Urban Policy in the United States, 1940–1980. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Geoghegan

Jacqueline

(2002). “The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use.” Land Use Policy 19 (1) 91–98.

Greenspace

Alliance

(2001). “News Release-'A' for Effort, 'D' for Achievement of Land Conservation Goals in Southeastern PA, Says Greenspace Alliance.” Philadelphia, PA, 2001.

Mazmanian

Daniel

, and Paul

Sabatier

(1989). Implementation and Public Policy. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

Razin

Eran

(2000). “The Impact of Local Government Organization on Development and Disparities- A Comparative Perspective.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 18 (1) 17–31.

Rome

Adam

(2001). The Bulldozer in the Countryside: Suburban Sprawl and the Rise of American Environmentalism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.

10.

Rusk

David

(1993). Cities Without Suburbs. Washington, D.C.: Woodrow Wilson Center Press.

11.

Rusk

David

(1999). Inside Game Outside Game: Winning Strategies for Saving Urban America. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution.

12.

Sellers

Jefferey

(2002). “Federalism and Metropolitan Governance in Cross-National Perspective: The Case of Urban Sprawl.” Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy 20 (1) 95–112.

13.

Squires

Gregory

(2002). “Urban Sprawl and the Uneven Development of Metropolitan America.” In Gregory

Squires

(ed). Urban Sprawl: Causes, Consequences and Policy Responses. Washington, D.C.: The Urban Institute Press.

14.

Stone

Clarence

(1993). “Urban Regimes and the Capacity to Govern: A Political Economy Approach.” Journal of Urban Affairs 15 (1) 1–28.