How well has land-use planning worked under different governance regimes? A case study in the Portland, OR-Vancouver, WA metropolitan area, USA

被引:35
作者
Kline, Jeffrey D. [1 ]
Thiers, Paul [2 ]
Ozawa, Connie P. [3 ]
Yeakley, J. Alan [4 ]
Gordon, Sean N. [5 ]
机构
[1] US Forest Serv, USDA, Pacific NW Res Stn, Corvallis, OR 97330 USA
[2] Washington State Univ, Sch Polit Philosophy & Publ Affairs, Vancouver, WA 98686 USA
[3] Portland State Univ, Toulan Sch Urban Studies & Planning, Portland, OR 97201 USA
[4] Portland State Univ, Sch Environm, Portland, OR 97201 USA
[5] Portland State Univ, Inst Sustainable Solut, Portland, OR 97201 USA
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Sustainable development; Growth control; Urban sprawl; Oregon land use planning; Zoning; GROWTH MANAGEMENT; URBAN-GROWTH; COMPARING STATES; OPEN SPACE; FARMLAND; INDICATORS; PROTECTION; LESSONS; PROGRAM; FOREST;
D O I
10.1016/j.landurbplan.2014.07.013
中图分类号
Q14 [生态学(生物生态学)];
学科分类号
071012 ; 0713 ;
摘要
We examine land use planning outcomes over a 30-year period in the Portland, OR-Vancouver, WA (USA) metropolitan area. The four-county study region enables comparisons between three Oregon counties subject to Oregon's 1973 Land Use Act (Senate Bill 100) and Clark County, WA which implemented land use planning under Washington's 1990 Growth Management Act. We describe county-level historical land uses from the mid-1970s to the mid-2000s, including low-density residential and urban development, both outside and inside of current urban growth boundaries. We use difference-in-differences models to test whether differences in the proportions of developed land resulting from implementation of urban growth boundaries are statistically significant and whether they vary between Oregon and Washington. Our results suggest that land use planning and urban growth boundaries now mandated both in Oregon and Washington portions of the study area have had a measurable and statistically significant effect in containing development and conserving forest and agricultural lands in the Portland-Vancouver metropolitan area. Our results also suggest, however, that these effects differ across the four study-area counties, likely owing in part to differences in counties' initial levels of development, distinctly different land use planning histories, and how restrictive their urban growth boundaries were drawn. Published by Elsevier B.V.
引用
收藏
页码:51 / 63
页数:13
相关论文
共 41 条
[1]  
1000 Friends of Oregon, 1985, 1000 FRIENDS OREGON, V10, P1
[2]  
[Anonymous], 2005, PNWGTR636 USDA FOR S
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, 20 YEAR COMPREHENSIV
[4]   Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States [J].
Bengston, DN ;
Fletcher, JO ;
Nelson, KC .
LANDSCAPE AND URBAN PLANNING, 2004, 69 (2-3) :271-286
[5]  
Callahan Loretta, 1994, COLUMBIAN SEP, pA2
[6]  
Callahan Loretta, 1994, COLUMBIAN NOV, pA1
[7]   Relationships between environmental governance and water quality in a growing metropolitan area of the Pacific Northwest, USA [J].
Chang, H. ;
Thiers, P. ;
Netusil, N. R. ;
Yeakley, J. A. ;
Rollwagen-Bollens, G. ;
Bollens, S. M. ;
Singh, S. .
HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES, 2014, 18 (04) :1383-1395
[8]   An integrated conceptual framework for long-term social-ecological research [J].
Collins, Scott L. ;
Carpenter, Stephen R. ;
Swinton, Scott M. ;
Orenstein, Daniel E. ;
Childers, Daniel L. ;
Gragson, Ted L. ;
Grimm, Nancy B. ;
Grove, Morgan ;
Harlan, Sharon L. ;
Kaye, Jason P. ;
Knapp, Alan K. ;
Kofinas, Gary P. ;
Magnuson, John J. ;
McDowell, William H. ;
Melack, John M. ;
Ogden, Laura A. ;
Robertson, G. Philip ;
Smith, Melinda D. ;
Whitmer, Ali C. .
FRONTIERS IN ECOLOGY AND THE ENVIRONMENT, 2011, 9 (06) :351-357
[9]   IS OREGON FARMLAND PRESERVATION PROGRAM WORKING [J].
DANIELS, TL ;
NELSON, AC .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCIATION, 1986, 52 (01) :22-32
[10]   How well do urban growth boundaries contain development? Results for Oregon using a difference-in-difference estimator [J].
Dempsey, Judith A. ;
Plantinga, Andrew J. .
REGIONAL SCIENCE AND URBAN ECONOMICS, 2013, 43 (06) :996-1007