CarruthersRegulatory Growth Management Programs Evaluating the Effectiveness of Regulatory Growth Management Programs An Analytic Framework John I. Carruthers Abstract This article develops an analytic frame- ecent years have witnessed widespread expansion of state and regional growth work for evaluating the effectiveness of Rmanagement programs in the United States (Godschalk and Brower 1989; Kelly regulatory growth management pro- 1993; Nelson et al. 1995; Burby and May 1997; Porter 1997). By 1999, there were four- grams. First, the literature review assem- bles a large body of recent research teen states with substantive land use legislation, and regional planning, spurred for- examining the evolution of growth man- ward by federal transportation policy, now plays a significant role in most metropolitan agement programs, the role of govern- areas. But while the realization of comprehensive land use policies is widely viewed as a ment institutions, and evidence of major step forward by members of the planning discipline, much progress remains to policies’ effectiveness. Second, working from the findings of the literature review, be made because program evaluation has not kept pace with implementation. As a con- the article inductively develops a concep- sequence, there is little evidence that growth management fulfils its intended objec- tual model identifying the relationships tives and even less evidence to counter criticisms suggesting that strict regulation may between program implementation, land seriously disrupt local and regional land markets (see, e.g., Fischel 1990; Richardson market processes, and land use outcomes. Finally, the conceptual model is used to and Gordon 1993). In short, growth management remains surrounded by uncertainty derive a set of principles that may be used even as it continues to gain momentum and political support. to inform future research. This dilemma is compounded by the disembodied structure of scholarly research on the topic. Within the planning literature, there is an overall lack of systematic analy- ses and agreed-upon measures for evaluating the outcome of growth management pro- grams (Blanco 1998). Moreover, few studies have produced results that are generalizable to other cases (Bollens 1993), leaving little in the way of established the- ory for new research to build upon. Each of these issues is tied to the multilayered struc- ture of planning in the United States, which has led researchers to investigate “growth management” variously at the local, regional, and state levels of implementation. Knowledge of program effects has been built in a piecemeal way, often without explicit recognition of the relevant institutional setting. For example, local and regional urban growth boundaries may fulfill similar functions, but from a political standpoint, the two represent very different policies—in this case, scale clearly makes a difference. Without a clear understanding of this relationship, supporters are left to defend against criti- cisms that are more a problem of political organization than of specific growth manage- ment policies. Responding to the need for a more unified research strategy, this article develops an John I. Carruthers is an assistant professor integrated framework for evaluating the effectiveness of regulatory growth manage- in the School of Planning at the University ment programs. The core argument is that analyses should take a more holistic of Arizona, in Tucson. His research inter- ests include land use, growth manage- ment, and regional development; jcarruth@ Journal of Planning Education and Research 21:391-405 u.arizona.edu. © 2002 Association of Collegiate Schools of Planning 391 392 Carruthers approach to examining the effects of land use policies. In par- State Land Use ticular, the organization of government institutions, which Local Growth Legislation: Control: Late 1960s - 1970s affects the type of policies that get implemented and the con- “Quiet “Slow Growth” sistency of regulation across metropolitan regions, often Revolution” remains unrecognized. Working from this premise, the objec- tives of the article are threefold. First, the literature review Early 1980s: Subsidence brings together a large body of recent research examining the evolution of growth management programs and evidence of Late 1980s: Expansion of State Planning Frameworks policies’ effectiveness. Second, the review inductively develops an analytic framework establishing linkages between program implementation, land market processes, and land use out- 1990s: Expansion of Regional Planning Organizations comes. Third, the framework is used to derive a set of princi- ples that may be used to inform future research. In addition to “Second Generation:” taking a more integrated approach, these principles suggest State and Regional Growth Management that future evaluations should draw on a consistent set of out- come measures, account for the determinants of metropolitan Figure 1. The evolution of regulatory growth management in the United growth, and recognize the complex set of factors that lead to States. the adoption of growth management policies. Following the introduction, the article is organized into Second, emerging at the same time, the so-called quiet rev- five sections. The first provides an overview of regulatory olution in land use policy initiated state involvement in local growth management in the United States. The second exam- and regional planning efforts. With its roots in environmental- ines the role of government institutions. The third section ism, this movement sought extensive land use reform through identifies the rationale for growth management and reviews a sharing of regulatory authority between state and local gov- empirical evaluations of land use regulation. The fourth pres- ernments. This redistribution of power was targeted primarily ents the analytic framework and outlines its implications for at critical environmental areas and developments of regional future research. Finally, the article concludes with a summary impact, leading some to criticize state intervention as being of the research findings. unbalanced and overly restrictive of regionally beneficial growth (Fischel 1989). Even still, early land use reform efforts succeeded in establishing a strong foundation for state-level ᭤ Regulatory Growth Management involvement in regional planning and growth management in the United States (Popper 1988). And by the end of the 1970s, several states had adopted comprehensive land use legislation, and many others had enacted more narrow mandates aimed at specific regions The Evolution of Practice and environmental concerns (Healy and Rosenberg 1979; Popper 1981; DeGrove 1984). Two parallel paths trace the evolution of regulatory growth More recently, local growth control and state land use plan- management programs in the United States (see Figure 1). ning legislation have converged in the form of state-based First, during the late 1960s and early 1970s, individual commu- growth management programs and regional planning organi- nities began developing policies in direct response to the pres- zations. After subsiding briefly in the early 1980s, state-level sures of rapid population growth and land development. land use reforms went through a period of rapid expansion Examples of early programs include the adequate-public- and have since been broadened to include a wide range of facilities requirement of Ramapo, New York (1969) and the quality-of-life issues. As an extension, regional planning orga- rate of growth programs implemented in Petaluma, California nizations have also expanded during the past decade. (1972) and Boulder, Colorado (1976). Centered on quality-of- Although the actual degree of authority varies, federal policy life issues, the emphasis of these and other local programs was (especially the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency on growth control or slow growth; they reflect the desire of individ- Act [ISTEA] and subsequent Transportation Equity Act ual communities to limit their participation in regional devel- [TEA21]) and renewed state interest have served to broaden opment patterns (Glickfield and Levine 1992; Landis 1992; the powers of regional planning organizations considerably. Kelly 1993; Porter 1997). The growth management programs implemented through Regulatory Growth Management Programs 393 these frameworks emphasize the links between local and adequate-public-facilities requirements, development permit- regional concerns and are aimed at achieving a balance ting caps, development phasing programs, minimum and between the competing land use objectives of individual juris- maximum density requirements, and urban growth bound- dictions (Bollens 1992, 1993; Porter 1992; Orfield 1997). In aries (Godschalk and Brower 1989; Glickfield and Levine this way, contemporary growth management programs are 1992; Knaap and Nelson 1992; Kelly 1993; Nelson et al. 1995, qualitatively distinct from more narrowly conceived local Porter 1986, 1997). More flexible nonregulatory techniques growth control efforts. Most state and regional planning pro- include development impact fees, open-space acquisition, per- grams focus on containing urban sprawl but recognize the formance standards, and the transfer of development rights need to accommodate growth through coordinated, well- (Mantell, Harper, and Propst 1990; DeGrove and Metzger planned land use (DeGrove 1992; Gale 1992; Nelson et al. 1991; Nelson et al. 1995; Porter 1996). Most of