Objective. Although such measures received media attention as indicative of a nationwide rebellion against sprawl, determinants of the appearance and success of 1998 and 1999 open-space preservation ballot measures have not been investigated. We suspect that, contrary to assumptions, these are not triggered by sprawled development and represent a response limited to small, wealthy communities. Methods. The influence of population density, total population, percentage of Anglos, and median income on these initiatives is estimated through regression. Results. Low population density is not the trigger for the appearance and passage of these measures; however, demographic factors determinant of limits on growth in general do exhibit significant influence. Conclusions. The 1998 and 1999 open-space measures are better explained by the broad "growth machine" approach than they are by popular assumptions of what prompted these policies. In short, the existence of sprawl lacks a positive empirical link to its putative solution.As the sight of bulldozers razing trees and leveling ground for new construction becomes more commonplace, the rapid loss of open space to development has achieved prominent agenda status. Since most activists recognize that development cannot be stopped (given increasing population levels and a relatively strong economy), efforts have focused on means by which it might at least be slowed or shaped. But although there is a broad, established scholarly literature on the determinants of growth (and, by extension, limits on growth), it is not clear how it applies to one subset of the topic: recent attempts to combat sprawled development through local ballot proposals-more precisely, the extent to which the appearance and success of these measures reflect communities' rational response to sprawled development or are in fact triggered by some other factor(s), is not apparent. This

No abstract

While most U.S. cities have a tree protection policy, the subsequent impact on the reduction of canopy loss is unclear. To rectify this, I utilize a theoretically grounded framework of influence comprised of clear identification of the problem/public support, adequate resources, and sound policy logic. This is then tested in a comparative case study of Charlotte, North Carolina, and San Antonio, Texas. While Charlotte benefits from public recognition of the problem and adequate resources, its regulations are weak, lacking a logical connection to aspirational outcomes. San Antonio's regulations are stronger, but combined with weaker problem identification and resources. Through quantitative and qualitative assessments, I find that San Antonio's strict regulations may have stabilized loss rates, while Charlotte's weaker rules have not. Results highlight the importance of policy logic over other commonly suggested determinants of natural resource protection.

This inquiry provides a basic assessment of the impact of three potential determinants of racial discrimination cases in the U.S. Supreme Court since 1954. The research design provides two improved methods of explicating this issue. First, the model allows for a comparison of basic Hamiltonian institutionalism (i.e., the bulwark thesis), majoritarianism, and attitudinalism in a single test, as opposed to previous studies that tended to examine only two theoretical approaches at a time. Second, the majoritarian approach is given more careful consideration through the use of theoretical and empirical evidence, which allows the subtleties of public opinion in this area to be assessed. The findings show some support for the basic bulwark prediction over majoritarianism—decisions fail to reflect majority opinion trends. The bulwark thesis fails to receive full support, however, since the ideologies of the Justices also display a significant influence on outcomes.

No abstract