Characteristics of Support for Local Growth Control

Abstract

It is often contended that support for local limitations on residential development results from the demands of the affluent, who wish to ensure limited access to their communities. This contention, along with alternative explanations of local growth-control support, are examined. The article explores empirical dimensions of support for elect orally induced control of residential development. A major finding, which utilizes a discriminant function analysis of a random sample survey of registered voters, is that under some circumstances there may be no relationship between measures of affluence or socioeconomic status and support for limiting residential development. In addition, the findings reveal the possible existence of substantial, wide-based support for protection of the local environment that is related to a commitment to the role of government in maintaining local amenities and services. The article concludes with an analysis of local growth control as an issue that significantly defines the agenda of suburban politics and the concerns of a broad spectrum of American citizens.

Attitudes toward policies to protect open space: A comparative study of government planning officials and the general public

“…This research supports the quality of life hypothesis, which posits that a lower quality of life is associated with greater willingness to control growth (Johnston, 1980;Gottdiener and Neiman, 1981;Connerly and Frank, 1986;Anglin, 1990;Bollens, 1990;Baldassare and Wilson, 1996). As resident's quality of life decreases so did their belief that current policies to protect natural resources are adequate.…”

“…Quality of life theory implies that residents dissatisfied with their present quality of life or who predict a negative perceived change in their current quality of life would be more likely to support growth control policies (Johnston, 1980;Gottdiener and Neiman, 1981;Connerly and Frank, 1986;Anglin, 1990;Bollens, 1990;Baldassare and Wilson, 1996). From a theoretical point of view, the concept of "quality of life" is very useful in relation to land use planning.…”

Who Would Pay for Rural Open Space Preservation and Inner-city Redevelopment? Identifying Support for Policies that Can Contribute to Regional Land Use Governance

“…This was indeed the case found by Knaap (1987) in terms of support for land use controls in Oregon and by Wassmer and Lascher (2006) in terms of support for regional planning in California. Other research has not found a link between level of education and support for land use policies (Gottdiener and Neiman, 1981;Protash and Baldassare, 1983;Chapin and Connerly, 2004), suggesting that this issue is not resolved. Wassmer and Lascher (2006) found that conservatives were less likely to support regional planning.…”

“…On the other hand, when people are satisfi ed with their community, they may support land use policies in order to keep it that way (Wassmer and Lascher, 2006). In addition, those who believe that sprawl is an important problem in their community also tend to support land use policies (Gottdiener and Neiman, 1981;Connerly and Frank, 1986;Wassmer and Lascher, 2006). In general, fi ndings suggest that people support land use policies when they feel that circumstances in their community warrant government intervention.…”

Public Attitudes Toward Local Farmland Protection Programs

“…An alternative explanation, advanced by Gottdiener and Neiman (1981), suggests that the impetus to control land use and coordinate growth using local land use controls is broadly based within a community. This sociospatial hypothesis asserts that all residents share concern over the negative externalities of rapid growth and are motivated by economic selfinterest to exercise control over "undesirable" residential development.…”