Browse > Article

The Impact of the Smart Growth Incentive Policies on the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Investment in and outside the Priority Funding Area in Maryland  

Sohn, Jung-Yul (Department of Geography, College of Social Sciences, Seoul National University)
Publication Information
Journal of the Korean Geographical Society / v.43, no.5, 2008 , pp. 743-760 More about this Journal
Abstract
This paper attempts to examine how Maryland's Priority Funding Area (PFA) designation and incentive program has influenced the location of infrastructure investment. Is Maryland's PFA program reducing sprawl? In order to answer this question, data on the water and sewer infrastructure investments between 1997 and 2003 are collected from each county in the state. Empirical works are composed of two parts. The first part of the empirical analysis examines the pattern of water and sewer investment that has gone in and outside the PFAs between 1997 and 2003 at the county level. The second part of the empirical study shows at a county level the conditions that influence decisions to go in and outside the PFA. Regression models with various specifications are used for the analysis. The findings reveal that state fund has worked as designed. The coefficients of state fund in all estimations are significant and have expected signs implying that a county with more state fund tends to invest more in PFA as less outside.
Keywords
Smart Growth; water and sewer infrastructure; Priority Funding Area; Maryland;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 American Planning Association, 2002, Planning for Smart Growth, Chicago
2 Downs, A., 2005, Smart growth: why we discuss it more than we do it?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378   DOI   ScienceOn
3 Maryland Office of Planning, 1997, The Smart Growth Areas Act of 1997, State of Maryland. Baltimore
4 Ewing, R., 1997, Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 107-126   DOI   ScienceOn
5 Sohn, J. and Knaap, G., 2007, The characteristics of housing markets and urban development trends in the Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan Area in the U.S., Journal of the Korean Urban Geographical Society, 10(3), 27-40
6 Burge, G. and Ihlanfeldt, K., 2006, The effect of impact fees on multifamily housing construction, Journal of Regional Science, 46, 5-23   DOI   ScienceOn
7 Gordon, P. and Richardson, H. W., 1997, Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 95-106   DOI   ScienceOn
8 Daniels, T., 2001, Smart growth: a new American approach to regional planning, Planning Practice and Research, 16(3/4), 271-279   DOI
9 Newburn, D. A. and Berck, P., 2006, Modeling suburban and rural-residential development beyond the urban fringe, Land Economics, 82, 481-499   DOI
10 Burge, G. and Ihlanfeldt, K., 2006, Impact fees and single-family home construction, Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 284-306   DOI   ScienceOn
11 Whipple, M. D., 2000, Smart Growth's Weak Link? An Analytical Evaluation of Water and Sewer Planning in Maryland, Unpublished Master's Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg
12 Knaap, G.-J. and Frece J. W., 2007, Smart Growth in Maryland: looking forward and looking back, Idaho Law Review, 43, 445-473
13 Lee, W., 2006, Directions of urban development for smart growth, Planning and Policy, 299, 6-14
14 Alexander, D. and Tomalty, R., 2002, Smart growth and sustainable development: challenges, solutions and policy directions, Local Environment, 7(4), 397-409   DOI   ScienceOn
15 Downs, A., 1999, Some realities about urban sprawl and urban decline, Housing Policy Debate, 10(4), 955-974
16 Howland, M. and Sohn, J., 2007, Has Maryland's priority funding areas initiative constrained the expansion of water and sewer investments?, Land Use Policy, 24, 175-186   DOI   ScienceOn
17 Cho, C., 2006, Backgrounds and implementation of smart growth in the U.S., Planning and Policy 299, 42-51