Rebecca Lewis

Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas: A Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come

Problem: In 1997, the State of Maryland adopted a bold new approach to growth management based on a novel instrument: priority funding areas (PFAs). PFAs contain growth by directing state spending to areas designated by local governments and reviewed by the state government. Despite widespread acclaim and subsequent imitation, little is known about whether PFAs effectively contain urban growth. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the adoption, implementation, and performance of PFAs in Maryland in order to provide planners and policymakers with insights into their efficacy as instruments for managing growth. Methods: First, we describe the statutory definition and mandated role of PFAs in state funding. Then, we describe the process used to create PFAs, the resulting pattern of targeted growth areas, the relationship between PFAs and local comprehensive plans, and the extent to which PFAs altered state spending. Finally, we examine the effects of PFAs on residential development patterns. Results and conclusions: We find that PFAs have fallen short of expectations. The criteria used to establish PFAs produced boundary configurations that vary widely and are in many cases not ideally suited to managing urban growth. Ten years after their official designation, PFAs are not well integrated in land use decision making processes in many local jurisdictions. Finally, state agencies have not altered budgetary systems to monitor and guide the spatial allocation of funds and there is little evidence that after 10 years they have had any effect on development patterns. Takeaway for practice: Targeting state funds to promote compact growth is a conceptually sound approach to urban growth containment, as land is less likely to be developed if it is not served by public infrastructure. But, as with other planning tools, the key is effective implementation. If states want to contain growth by targeting state spending, they must change budgeting processes to ensure that funds are spent appropriately and that the level of state spending is large enough to make a difference. Research support: None.

Targeting Spending for Land Conservation

Problem: In 1997, Maryland burst into the national spotlight with a package of legislation collectively referred to as smart growth. At its core, the innovative Maryland approach relied on directing state investments in urban infrastructure to Priority Funding Areas while directing state investments in land preservation to rural legacy areas. This article examines the performance of Rural Legacy Areas. Although smart growth in Maryland and the performance of Priority Funding Areas have received considerable attention at the national level, there have been few analyses of the performance of the Rural Legacy Program. Purpose: The purpose of this article is to evaluate the process, implementation, and outcomes of rural legacy areas in Maryland to provide insights about the efficacy of targeted preservation as a means to stop or slow sprawl development in rural areas. Methods: Using documents and data obtained from the Maryland Department of Natural Resources and other state agencies, we examine the implementation and outcomes of Rural Legacy Areas. First, we review the process through which Rural Legacy Areas were approved and the pattern of state spending in these areas. Then we evaluate three performance measures over time: preservation, parcelization, and development. Finally, using difference in means t tests, we examine the impacts of Rural Legacy Areas on development patterns over time. Results and conclusions: The performance of Rural Legacy Areas has been mixed. The level of state funding has varied tremendously, and few areas have received consistent funding over time. However, in areas where the state has targeted high levels of funding for several years, development in Rural Legacy Areas has been tempered. Overall the share of development in Rural Legacy Areas measured in parcels has increased slightly, but the share of development measured in acres has decreased slightly. Takeaway for practice: Targeting spending on land conservation to protect large, contiguous spatial areas makes sense, but the Rural Legacy approach as used in Maryland has significant limitations. Allowing Rural Legacy Areas to be designated by local governments and nonprofit organizations can result in poor coordination between land conservation and urban containment strategies. Spending limitations and lack of commitment over political cycles can limit the extent of conservation within designated areas. Designating conservation areas that lack supportive zoning can stimulate development precisely where it is not desired.

Peak Oil, Urban Form, and Public Health: Exploring the Connections

We assessed the relationships between peak oil and urban form, travel behavior, and public health. Peak oil will affect the general economy, travel behavior, and urban form through income and substitution effects; however, because of the wide range of substitution possibilities, the impacts are likely to be gradual and relatively small. Furthermore, we suggest that changes in travel behavior and increases in urban density will have both favorable and unfavorable effects on public health. To mitigate the adverse impacts and to maximize the positive effects of peak oil, we recommend that careful attention should be paid to urban design and public health responses for a range of urbanization patterns.

Institutional Structures for State Growth Management An Examination of State Development Plans

State attempts to influence land use and development patterns have waxed and waned over the years and vary extensively from state to state. Among the approaches, states have taken toward these ends are the construction, adoption, and implementation of state development plans (SDPs). This article examines SDPs in five states: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, New Jersey, and Rhode Island with a particular focus on their institutional structure. Unlike the institutional structure of local planning, where the participants and their roles are relatively well established and uniform nationwide, there exist considerable differences in the development, adoption, and implementation of state plans. Each of the five states thus offers unique insights for addressing intergovernmental relationships in land-use planning.

Two decades of smart growth in Maryland (U.S.A): impact assessment and future directions of a national leader

Abstract In the context of land use planning, Maryland has attracted significant attention at the national scale for innovative planning efforts. In 1997, Maryland passed a package of legislation collectively referred to as ‘smart growth’. Distinct from earlier regulatory state level attempts to alter development patterns in states like Oregon and Florida, this approach relied on incentives to influence development patterns. This innovative ‘inside/outside’ approach to managing growth relies on targeting state funding to encourage growth and investment in existing urbanized areas and areas planned for development (Priority Funding Areas [PFAs]) while discouraging growth and encouraging the preservation of rural areas (Rural Legacy Areas). Transportation funding for new projects or increased capacity must be directed into PFAs, constituting 85% of total funding on average from 1999 to 2008. Though the statute restricts the expenditure of state funds for transportation outside areas targeted for development, the statutes offer little explicit guidance regarding integrating transportation and land use policies. This article proposes that Smart Growth efforts could be even stronger if land-use policies were integrated more closely with transportation policies. The Maryland Statewide Transportation Model is applied to test the impact of various Smart Growth policies and transportation policies. The paper concludes that Smart Growth could have a bigger impact if transportation policies played a larger role.

Conservation Land-Use Policy Toolkit

This Conservation Land-Use Policy Toolkit provides local governments in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed with information about land-use policy tools they can use to slow the conversion of farmland, forestland, and wetlands.