Saving Open Spaces: Determinants of 1998 and 1999 “Antisprawl” Ballot Measures

Abstract

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

The Geography of Support for Open‐Space Initiatives: A Case Study of New Jersey's 1998 Ballot Measure*

“…As Figure 1 indicates, New Jersey's ''wealth belt'' (i.e., the arc of counties ranging across the north-central region of the state (Hughes and Seneca, 2000)) includes counties experiencing rapid population growth and sprawled patterns of development. But as Romero and Liserio (2002) caution, the use of open-space ballot measures in these types of locales may reflect general dissatisfaction with growth, rather than a specific reaction to sprawl. Indeed, they may reflect self-serving exclusionary tendencies-but this is not a question that our data will allow us to test for or speculate upon.…”

“…In their nationwide analysis of 1998 and 1999 open-space ballot questions, Romero and Liserio (2002) found that income and percent white population are indeed positively associated with the frequency with which open-space questions appear on the ballot (though income fell slightly short of being statistically significant)-and once the measure is on the ballot, the likelihood of approval is fairly high.…”

“…Because of the focus on open-space acquisition, ballot measures should not 1 The ''sprawl'' phenomenon eludes straightforward definition or description. Low-density development-and particularly expanding residential and commercial development at low density-is a central element (Ewing, Pendall, and Chen, 2002;Romero and Liserio, 2002). Based on a comprehensive literature review, Burchell et al (1998) produce a working definition with these elements: low density, unlimited and noncontiguous (leapfrog) development, combination of residential and nonresidential development, segregation of land uses, consumption of exurban agricultural and other sensitive lands, and reliance on the automobile.…”

Explaining the appearance and success of voter referenda for open-space conservation

“…He …nds that the appearance of a referendum is responsive to patterns of land use, whereby low population density and loss of open space increase the probability of a referendum occurring. Howell-Moroney's study is a response to another paper by Romero and Liserio (2002). The latter uses nationwide data on referenda that occurred between 1998 and 1999, and it …nds that only socioeconomic factors motivate open-space referenda, while actual patterns of land use do not play a role.…”

The Implications of Global Priorities for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services Associated with Protected Areas

“…Again, some of the best information about decision making is available for the United States, and where public spending on land protection has been significantly related to measures of class, race, education, wealth, and population density (Romero andLiserio 2002, HowellMoroney 2004). Internationally, only the most general relationships between economic activity and land protection have been explored, such as considering land protection with respect to expectations from an Environmental Kuznet Curve (EKC).…”