Although citizen support for growth controls has received ample attention from researchers, little attention has been paid to citizen familiarity with growth management systems. This article investigates citizen familiarity with Florida’s growth management system, testing many of the same hypotheses that have previously shaped research into citizen support for growth controls. Using results from a survey of state residents, six hypotheses concerning familiarity are tested, and a regression model is developed to predict familiarity with the state system. Results reflect previous research into attitudes toward growth controls, and educated individuals, those living in urbanized areas, and those that perceive growth and environmental issues as requiring government attention are found to have greater familiarity with the state’s system. Results indicate that citizen familiarity is perhaps best explained by heightened interest in local, state, and national politics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anglin, R. 1990. Diminishing utility: The effect on citizen preferences for local growth. Urban Affairs Quarterly25 (4): 684-696.
2.
Arnstein, S. R. 1969. Aladder of citizen participation. Journal of the American Institute of Planners35 (4): 216-224.
3.
Baldassare, M. 1984. Predicting local concern about growth: The roots of citizen discontent. Journal of Urban Affairs6:39-49.
4.
Baldassare, M. 1994. Regional variations in support for regional governance. Urban Affairs Quarterly30 (2): 275-284.
5.
Baldassare, M., J. Hassol, W. Hoffman, and A. Kanarck. 1996. Possible planning roles for regional government: A survey of city planning directors in California. Journal of the American Planning Association62 (1): 17-29.
6.
Bollens, S. 1990. Constituencies for limitation and regionalism: Approaches to growth management. Urban Affairs Quarterly26 (1): 46-67.
7.
Burby, R. 2003. Making plans that matter: Citizen involvement and government action. Journal of the American Planning Association69 (1): 33-49.
8.
Buttel, F., and W. Flinn. 1978. Social class and environmental beliefs: A reconsideration. Environment and Behavior10 (3): 433-450.
9.
Chapin, T., and C. Connerly. In press. Attitudes towards growth management in Florida: Comparing resident support in 1985 and 2001. Journal of the American Planning Association.
10.
Connerly, C., and J. Frank. 1986. Predicting support for local growth controls. Social Sciences Quarterly67 (3): 572-586.
11.
Deakin, E. 1989. Growth control: A summary and review of empirical research. Urban Land48 (7): 16-21.
12.
DeGrove, J. 1992. Planning and growth management in the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
13.
Dowall, D. 1980. An examination of population-growth-managing communities. Policy Studies Journal9 (3): 414-427.
Forester, J. 1999. The deliberative practitioner: Encouraging participatory planning processes. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
17.
Gale, D., and S. Hart. 1992. Public support for local comprehensive planning under statewide growth management: Insights from Maine. Journal of Planning Education and Research11:192-205.
18.
Gottdiener, M., and M. Neiman. 1981. Characteristics of support for local growth controls. Urban Affairs Quarterly17 (1): 55-73.
Healy, P. 1993. The communicative work of development plans. Environment and Planning A: Planning and Design20:83-104.
21.
Innes, J. 1995. Planning theory’s emerging paradigm: Communicative action and interactive practice. Journal of Planning Education and Research14:183-188.
22.
Klein, W. 2000. Building consensus. In The practice of local government planning, edited by C. Hoch, L. Dalton, and F. So, 423-438. Washington, DC: International City/County Management Association.
23.
Knaap, G. 1987. Self-interest and voter support for Oregon’s land use controls. Journal of the American Planning Association53 (1): 92-97.
24.
Logan, J. 1978. Growth, politics, and the stratification of places. American Journal of Sociology84 (2): 404-416.
25.
Medler, J., and A. Mushkatel. 1979. Urban-rural class conflict in Oregon land use planning. Western Political Quarterly3:343-349.
26.
Porter, D. 1998. The states: Growing smarter? In Smart growth: Economy, community, environment, edited by the Urban Land Institute, 28-35. Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute.
27.
Protash, W., and M. Baldassare. 1983. Growth policies and community status: A test and modification of Logan’s theory. Urban Affairs Quarterly18 (3): 397-412.
28.
Seibert, S. 1999. DCA chief calls for growth management reforms. Florida Planning1:6.
29.
Smutny, G. 1998. Legislative support for growth management in the Rocky Mountains. Journal of the American Planning Association64 (3): 311-323.
30.
VanLiere, K., and R. Dunlap. 1980. The social bases of environmental concern: A review of hypotheses, explanations, and empirical evidence. Public Opinion Quarterly44:181-197.
31.
Weitz, J. 1999. Sprawl busting: State programs to guide growth. Chicago: American Planning Association.
