ArticlePDF Available

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

September 2009
Journal of the American Planning Association 75(4):457-478

DOI:10.1080/01944360903192560

Authors:

Rebecca Lewis

University of Oregon

Gerrit-Jan Knaap

University of Maryland, College Park

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.

Maryland counties and their PFAs. Source: MDP, 2002.

…

. Average annual number of acres developed for single-family units before and after PFAs.

…

Average percent of growth-related funds, FY 1999–2007. Note: All Department of General Services appropriations are part of the operating budget, and thus are omitted here. Sources: MDOT, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007; Maryland Department of Budget and Management, 2007; Maryland State Archives, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

…

. Average annual parcel size a for single-family units before and after PFAs..

…

Figures - uploaded by Gerrit-Jan Knaap

Content may be subject to copyright.

Content uploaded by Gerrit-Jan Knaap

Content may be subject to copyright.

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=rjpa20

Download by: [61.246.9.75] Date: 29 January 2016, At: 15:05

Journal of the American Planning Association

ISSN: 0194-4363 (Print) 1939-0130 (Online) Journal homepage: http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjpa20

Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas: A

Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come

Rebecca Lewis PhD , Gerrit-Jan Knaap & Jungyul Sohn

To cite this article: Rebecca Lewis PhD , Gerrit-Jan Knaap & Jungyul Sohn (2009) Managing

Growth With Priority Funding Areas: A Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come, Journal of the

American Planning Association, 75:4, 457-478, DOI: 10.1080/01944360903192560

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944360903192560

Published online: 01 Oct 2009.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 1055

View related articles

Citing articles: 8 View citing articles

457

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.

Managing Growth With

Priority Funding Areas

A Good Idea Whose Time Has Yet to Come

Rebecca Lewis, Gerrit-Jan Knaap, and Jungyul Sohn

In 1997, Maryland burst into the national spotlight on smart growth when

its general assembly passed a package of bills called the Smart Growth and

Neighborhood Conservation Initiative. Almost immediately, the state

gained national recognition and earned several awards.1By creating a system

for concentrating state spending in urban areas as well as using other economic

incentives to contain urban growth, it seemed the state had found a way to

promote smarter growth without usurping local land use control. It has now

been over 10 years since Maryland’s smart growth legislation was passed, but

to date there have been very few analyses of the extent to which Maryland’s

acclaimed program actually works.

In this article, we examine in some detail the centerpiece of Maryland’s

approach to growth management: priority funding areas (PFAs).2These areas

are designated by local governments and reviewed by the state and serve as

target areas for spending by state agencies. PFAs have been the subject of

much criticism and praise but little careful analysis. Toward that end, we

Takeaway for practice: Targeting state

funds to promote compact growth is a con-

ceptually sound approach to urban growth

containment, as land is less likely to be

developed if it is not served by public infra-

structure. 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.

Keywords:priority funding areas, urban

containment, targeted state spending, growth

management, Maryland

Research support:None.

About the authors:

Rebecca Lewis (rclewis@umd.edu) is a PhD

student at the University of Maryland and a

research assistant at the National Center

for Smart Growth Research and Education.

Gerrit-Jan Knaap (gknaap@umd.edu) is

a professor at the University of Maryland

and the executive director of the National

Center for Smart Growth Research and

Education. He has served on the Smart

Growth Subcabinets of three successive

Maryland governors and serves on the

Science and Technical Advisory Committee

to the Chesapeake Bay Program. Jungyul

Sohn (jsohn@snu.ac.kr) is an associate

professor of geography at Seoul National

University.

Journal of the American Planning Association,

Vol. 75, No. 4, Autumn 2009

DOI 10.1080/01944360903192560

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 457

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

proceed as follows: First, we describe the statutory deﬁni-

tion and mandated role of PFAs in state funding allocation.

Then, we describe the process by which PFAs were created,

the resulting pattern of targeted growth areas, the relation-

ship 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. We conclude by identifying the weaknesses in the

PFA approach and offer suggestions for reform.

Previous Research

Maryland’s smart growth initiative occupies a promi-

nent position in the literature on state land use programs

(DeGrove, 2005). The era ushered in by Maryland’s smart

growth program has been dubbed the third wave of growth

management, following the quiet revolution of the 1960s

and the growth management era of the 1980s (Weitz, 1999).

The Maryland program received numerous awards even

before its various provisions took effect and became the

principal legacy of its primary architect, former Governor

Parris N. Glendening. Governors in New Jersey, Michigan,

Maine, and Massachusetts instituted their own smart

growth proposals modeled after portions of the Maryland

program (Frece, 2008). Even the popularity and wide

usage of the phrase smart growth can be attributed in part

to the Maryland program. Key to its acclaim and wide-

spread popularity was its reliance on economic incentives

in place of regulations (Cohen, 2002). While the growth

management programs in Oregon, Florida, and New Jersey

relied heavily on regulations, concurrency requirements,

and cross-acceptance procedures, respectively, Maryland

seemed to have found a way to shape local land use policy

without the state intervening extensively or usurping local

land use control.3

Research on Smart Growth in Maryland

While the package of smart growth bills passed in

Maryland’s 1997 legislative session contained a number of

new tools, the Smart Growth Areas Act, which required

the designation of PFAs, was clearly the central element

(Frece, 2008). Shen, Liao, and Zhang (2005) and Shen

and Zhang (2007) examined the effects of PFAs and rural

legacy areas (designated for agricultural preservation and

conservation) on land use conversion in Maryland from

1992 to 1997 and 1997 to 2002. Examining land conver-

sions with two logit models to compare the two periods,

the authors found that urban development was more likely

inside PFAs and less likely in rural legacy areas after 1997,

though the effects varied by county. Howland and Sohn

(2007) examined the effects of PFAs on investments in

wastewater infrastructure and concluded that investments

in water and sewer infrastructure were more likely inside

PFAs than outside of them between 1997 and 2002. They

also found that counties receiving more state funding were

more likely to invest in water and sewer infrastructure

projects inside PFAs than outside of PFAs. However, they

also found that investments in wastewater infrastructure

continued outside PFAs, and even included some using funds

provided by the Maryland Department of the Environment.

Sohn and Knaap (2005) examined the effects of PFAs

on job growth in Maryland. Although job creation tax

credits are available throughout the state, more credits have

been available inside PFAs than outside of PFAs since 1997,

and eligibility for tax credits requires creating fewer jobs

inside PFAs than outside of PFAs. Using three different

econometric models, Sohn and Knaap found that more

jobs were created inside PFAs than outside of PFAs after

1997, holding all other things constant. The differentials

in job growth between areas inside and outside PFAs was

small, however, and occurred only in a few selected in-

dustries. More recently, Hanlon, Howland, and McGuire

(2009) examined the effects of PFAs on the probability

of land development in Frederick County from 2000 to

2004. They concluded that parcels inside PFAs were more

likely to be developed, all else equal.4

Research on Similar Instruments

Although PFAs originated in Maryland, they share

characteristics with three more widely used policy instru-

ments. Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) separate areas

where urban growth is allowed to occur from areas where

it is not allowed. UGBs have been extensively analyzed,

although most of this research focused on their effects on

land and housing prices (Bae, 2006; Knaap, 2001; Nelson

& Dawkins, 2004). While the debate is far from over,

there seems to be some consensus that the effects of UGBs

depend on how tightly they contain urban growth and

how frequently they are expanded (Knaap, 2001; Pendall,

Martin, & Fulton, 2002). Like UGBs, PFAs are intended

to contain urban growth. However, development is not

prohibited outside of PFAs. Instead, the PFAs are areas

targeted for public investment.

PFAs most resemble urban service areas (USAs), which

bound the expansion of public services like water and roads

rather than limiting development of housing units. While

there have been few empirical studies of USAs, Gleeson

(1979) found that a USA in Brooklyn Park, MN, created

differential land values inside and outside the boundary.

As targeted investment areas, PFAs resemble enterprise

zones (EZs), areas where taxes are lower and regulations are

458 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 458

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

relaxed to encourage economic development (Green, 1991).

The purpose of EZs is less urban containment than eco-

nomic development (Wilder & Rubin, 1996), but like

PFAs, they use incentives to concentrate private capital

investment. Analyses of EZs’ effects are also mixed, but

there is growing support for the conclusion that they can

alter the location of economic development activity even

if they cannot increase the total amount of such activity

(Boarnet, 2001; Sohn & Knaap, 2005). Thus, PFAs

combine some attributes of UGBs, USAs, and EZs, giving

some reason to believe they could succeed at containing

urban growth.

Research on the Effects of Infrastructure

Spending on Urban Growth and Development

The logic behind PFAs presumes that the state pays

a signiﬁcant portion of the cost of infrastructure and that

investment in infrastructure, particularly in sewers and

roads, shapes the rate and location of urban growth (see

Appendix). Yet, the voluminous literature on the effect

of infrastructure investment on urban development is less

than deﬁnitive. Research strongly indicates that invest-

ments in sewer capacity shape urban growth, but also that

these relationships are indirect and vary across space and

over time (Hanley & Hopkins, 2007; Tabors, Shapiro, &

Rogers, 1976).

Research on how transportation infrastructure affects

urban form is even more voluminous and complex. Both

economic theory and common sense strongly support

the proposition that extending highways leads to urban

decentralization and low-density development patterns.

According to economic theory, land rent gradients, and

thus urban structure, are largely determined by the tradeoff

between accessibility and transportation costs. Based on

this logic, highway investments lower transportation costs,

ﬂatten land rent gradients, and cause urban expansion.

Common sense suggests that development will take place

where roads provide access. Almost no one disputes these

general propositions. The disagreements center on issues

of causality, elasticity, and signiﬁcance.

Guiliano (1989) argued that the effects of highway

investments on land use have diminished, and that, “trans-

port cost is a much less important factor than location

theory predicts” (p. 151). This is supported by Sen, Sööt,

& Thakuriah (1998), who found that the decentralization

of the Chicago metropolitan area began long before the

construction of the metropolitan highway system and

would have occurred even without the highways. On the

other hand, following a detailed review of the literature,

Boarnet and Haughwout (2000) concluded that “the

evidence suggests that highways inﬂuence land prices,

population, and employment changes near the [highway]

project, and that land use . . . [changes occur as a result]

of losses elsewhere” (p. 9). Studying the effect of highways

on suburbanization between 1950 and 1990 for all 2000

metropolitan statistical areas in the United States that had

populations over 100,000 in 1990 and central city popula-

tions over 50,000 in 1950, Baum-Snow (2007) concluded

that central city population in 1990 would have been 8%

greater had the interstate highway system not been built.

Additional research also supports that highways affect

growth patterns (Duranton & Turner, 2007; Funderburg,

Nixon, Boarnet, & Ferguson, 2008), and in a comprehen-

sive review, Handy (2002) stated:

It is reasonable to conclude that new highway building

will enable or encourage additional sprawl to some

degree, although to exactly what degree is uncertain

and depends on local conditions. However, the con-

verse of this proposition is probably not true: not

building more highways will probably not slow the

rate of sprawl, at least not much. (p. 152)

In sum, it is not clear that limiting infrastructure

expansion will contain urban growth. Further, while it is

clear that state governments play a major role in infrastruc-

ture ﬁnance (U.S. Census Bureau, 2005), the effect of state

infrastructure spending on urban growth remains highly

uncertain. Persky, Kurban, and Lester (2000) found only

very small impacts of state and federal spending on land

absorption in the Chicago metropolitan area. Knaap and

Talen (2003) found state spending on wastewater infra-

structure also had only a minor impact on urban develop-

ment patterns in Illinois. Thus, while the logic of limiting

state spending on urban infrastructure to limit urban growth

is sound (see Appendix), there is very little evidence from

previous studies that this approach actually works.

In sum, the research to date suggests that policy

instruments designed to concentrate growth in spatially

designated areas can be inﬂuential. The extent of the

inﬂuence, however, depends critically on the strength of

the incentives or regulations and their institutional context.

The limited research on the effects of PFAs is similarly

mixed. There is some evidence that PFAs do serve to con-

centrate urban development, job growth, and investments

in wastewater infrastructure. The extent of concentration,

however, varies by county, by industry, and by the extent

to which local governments rely on state funds.

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 459

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 459

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Defining PFAs

PFAs are the centerpiece of the Maryland program and

the most innovative of the Maryland smart growth tools.5

Unlike UGBs in Oregon, which impose direct restrictions

on urban development, the 1997 Smart Growth Areas

Act merely restricts state spending on statutorily deﬁned

growth-related programs to areas designated for urban

growth. According to the Maryland Department of Planning

(MDP, 2009a):6

The 1997 Priority Funding Areas Act [sic] capitalizes

on the inﬂuence of state expenditures on economic

growth and development. This legislation directs state

spending to Priority Funding Areas. Priority Funding

Areas are existing communities and places where local

governments want state investment to support future

growth.

Geographic Scope

By statute, PFAs automatically include Baltimore City,

incorporated municipalities, areas within the Baltimore and

Washington Beltways, areas designated by the Maryland

Department of Housing and Community Development

for revitalization, EZs, and heritage areas. In addition to

areas designated as PFAs by statute, local governments can

designate additional areas as PFAs if they meet certain

criteria (PFA, 2009).

Counties may designate additional areas as PFAs based

on land use, developed density, zoned density, and water

and sewer service criteria. Speciﬁcally, counties may include:

• areas inside locally designated growth areas zoned

for industrial use by January 1, 1997, or served by

public sewer;

• employment areas inside locally designated growth

areas served by or planned for water and sewer;

• communities existing prior to 1997 that are located

within locally designated growth areas served by

public/community sewer or water systems, and

having allowed, average residential densities greater

than or equal to 2 units per net acre;7

• areas outside the developed portion of existing

communities if they have allowed, average, build-

out densities greater than or equal to 3.5 units per

net acre;

• areas beyond the periphery of existing development

that are scheduled for public water and sewer service,

and have permitted residential densities greater than

or equal to 3.5 units per net acre; and

•rural villages included in the local comprehensive

plan before July 1, 1998.8

Counties may designate areas other than existing

communities as PFAs based on analyses of supply and

demand; that is, counties must analyze land capacity and

present and future demand, and PFAs must match the

amount of land needed for a clearly deﬁned planning

horizon (MDP, 1997). While the statute did not specify

a particular planning horizon, MDP used a 20-year horizon

as a standard benchmark.

Criteria for delineating PFAs are based on both actual

and permitted densities. The density criteria established in

the 1997 bill were the subject of much debate and criticism

(Cohen, 2002; Knaap & Frece, 2007). The original version

of the bill established the threshold for permitted density

at 5.0 units per net acre, but this was amended to 3.5 units

per net acre with urging from the Maryland Association of

Counties. The smart growth advocacy organization 1000

Friends of Maryland argued that the revised threshold was

too low, given that actual densities are often lower than

permitted densities (Cohen, 2002; Knaap & Frece, 2007).

Although the legislation contains language stating that land

can be designated for inclusion in PFAs if “the designation

represents a long-term development policy for promoting

the orderly expansion of urban growth and an efﬁcient use

of land and public services” (PFA, 2009), the primary

criteria for designating PFAs are existing or zoned densities

and infrastructure capacity, rather than orderly plans for

future urban growth. Figure 1 shows the locations of

Maryland counties and their PFAs.

Growth-Related Expenditures

As mentioned previously, the Smart Growth Areas

Act aimed to affect development patterns by concentrating

state spending on growth-related projects within PFAs.

This growth-related spending consists of speciﬁc programs

of the Maryland Department of Environment, the Maryland

Department of Housing and Community Development,

the Maryland Department of Business and Economic

Development, and the Maryland Department of Trans-

portation (MDOT) and is listed in Table 1. By statute,

a growth-related expenditure is “any form of assurance,

guarantee, grant payment, credit, tax credit, or other

assistance, including a loan, loan guarantee, or reduction

in the principal obligation of, or rate of interest payable on,

a loan or a portion of a loan” (PFA, 2009).

Reporting Requirements

According to the Smart Growth Areas Act, agencies

are required to report annually to MDP regarding imple-

460 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 460

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

mentation of the act (PFA, 2009). An executive order by

former Governor Parris N. Glendening (Smart Growth

and Neighborhood Conservation Policy, 1998) bolstered

this reporting requirement by outlining speciﬁcally what

annual reports were to contain.9In 2001, when the Ofﬁce

of Smart Growth and the Smart Growth Subcabinet were

established, responsibility for receiving reports from state

agencies and issuing an annual report was assigned to the

Smart Growth Subcabinet.

Managing Growth With PFAs

To analyze the process of managing growth with PFAs,

we employed several strategies. First, we examined the

spatial conﬁguration of each PFA using GIS data provided

by MDP for each county and reviewed the ﬁles on PFA

adoption maintained in the Baltimore ofﬁce of MDP. Sec-

ond, we conducted a content analysis of the comprehensive

plan of each Maryland county, focusing on whether and

how they addressed PFAs.10 Third, we carefully examined

the rules that restrict state spending to PFAs and analyzed

budgets of pertinent state agencies over the last 10 years.

We studied capital and transportation11 budgets to obtain

information about how much money was subject to and

spent in congruence with the law. To supplement this

analysis, we conducted unstructured interviews with relevant

state and local planners about certain aspects of the process

to obtain their views on the implementation and efﬁcacy of

PFAs.

The Creation and Configuration of PFAs

According to the 1997 legislation, local governments

were required to submit PFA boundaries to MDP by Octo-

ber 1, 1998. Some counties’ PFAs were uncomplicated and

raised few issues; some counties submitted their PFAs in a

piecemeal fashion; and some submitted PFAs only following

extensive dialogue with MDP. Although the process varied

for each of Maryland’s 23 counties, the certiﬁcation process

generally went one of three ways: Some counties based PFAs

on existing growth areas, which yielded a relatively contigu-

ous pattern; some counties submitted all qualifying areas,

resulting in a pattern in which the conﬁguration of PFAs

was not contiguous; and some counties drew PFAs much

larger than necessary to accommodate growth projections,

according to MDP comments.

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 461

Figure 1. Maryland counties and their PFAs.

Source: MDP, 2002.

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 461

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

462 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

Table 1. “Growth related” projects and exceptions by agency.

Agency

Description of

agency

Projects subject to

the PFA law

Speciﬁcally exempt

from the PFA law

Board of Public

Works exceptions

Exceptions

permitted without

review by the Board

of Public Works

MD Dept. of

Transportation

Includes five modal

agencies: State Highway

Administration, Mary-

land Transit Authority,

Maryland Transporta-

tion Authority, Mary-

land Port Authority,

and Maryland Aviation

Authority.

All major projects in

the construction

program.

Projects administered by the

Maryland Transportation

Authority, which adminis-

ters all toll facilities. PFA

status need not be a consid-

eration for system preser-

vation, minor projects, and

projects in the development

and evaluation phase.

Exceptions can be granted

by the Board of Public

Works when a project

connects PFAs, maintains

the current transportation

system without increasing

capacity, has the purpose

of giving the MD Dept. of

Transportation control or

access along an existing

corridor, or operational

characteristics require that

the project be located

outside of a PFA. No

exceptions without review.

MD Dept. of

Housing and

Community

Development

Administers a wide

range of programs

generally focused on

the health and vitality

of communities and

neighborhoods

Programs and projects

related to the construc-

tion, purchase, and

loans for new single-

family homes, new

multi-family homes,

and the funding of

neighborhood

revitalization projects.

Funding for any project

financed with federal moneys

used to purchase or rehabili-

tate existing single- or multi-

family housing or project

financed with the proceeds

of revenue bonds issued by

the U.S. Community

Development Administration.

In all cases, the Board of

Public Works can grant

exceptions for “extraor-

dinary circumstances”

defined as extreme

inequity, hardship or

disadvantages outweigh-

ing the benefits from

locating a project in a

PFA and for which there

is no reasonable alterna-

tive for a project in a

PFA in another location

within the county or an

adjacent county.

In all cases, exceptions

are granted for health

and safety, to permit

adherence with federal

laws, and for projects

which demand location

outside of PFAs because

of operational or

physical characteristics,

including: natural

resource based

industries; agriculture,

forestry and mining;

industries proximate to

airports, ports, railroads,

transit, major highway

interchanges, and

tourism facilities.

MD Dept. of

Business and

Economic

Development

Involved in attracting

new businesses to the

state, creating jobs, and

retaining existing

businesses.

Grants and loans to

industrial development,

small businesses, and a

revolving “sunny day”

fund providing assis-

tance for economic

development projects.

No special exemptions.

MD Dept. of

Environment

Enforces drinking and

wastewater regulations

and administers several

grant and loan pro-

grams that fund water

and wastewater

infrastructure.

Water quality and

water supply revolving

funds, in addition to a

supplemental assistance

grant program for fail-

ing sewage and waste-

water infrastructure.

Funding for sewer systems in

existing communities beyond

the periphery of the developed

portion of the community if

the expansion has a permitted

average density of at least 3.5

units per acre.

MD Dept. of

General

Services

Responsible for

construction

management, facilities

maintenance, property

acquisition, and real

estate services for state

government.

Land acquisition, real

estate, and public

improvements.

Projects related to mainte-

nance, repair, additions, or

renovations to existing

facilities, acquiring land for

telecommunications towers,

parks, conservation and open

space, and agricultural,

conservation, and historic

easements.

Source: PFA (2009).

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 462

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Some counties with strong growth management pro-

grams, particularly those in the highly developed central

corridor from Baltimore to Washington, DC, simply

submitted PFAs based on existing growth areas and implicit

urban growth boundaries. For example, one of the counties

shown in Figure 2 is Howard County, which submitted a

single PFA based on existing growth areas that MDP

certiﬁed without comment in 1997. The PFAs for these

counties were sometimes drawn to accommodate less growth

than forecasted for a 20-year period, but MDP accepted

the proposed designations.12The resulting conﬁguration is

logical and relatively contiguous, reﬂecting long-standing

plans (Knaap & Frece, 2007).

Some more rural or exurban counties in western Mary-

land included within the locally designated PFAs almost all

areas meeting the statutory criteria, including qualiﬁed

industrial or employment parcels, rural villages, and all areas

with existing or planned sewer. Small rural villages are more

prevalent in the western portion of the state than elsewhere.

The resulting pattern of PFAs is not contiguous, with small

PFA islands dotting the landscape. The prevalence of rural

villages in Frederick County is evident in Figure 2.

Some counties on the Eastern Shore submitted large

PFAs around cities anticipating extensive growth. MDP

determined that many of these PFAs accommodated over

20 years of growth and requested that the counties resubmit

smaller PFAs. Because the counties did not comply, MDP

called portions of the PFAs comment areas, which meant

they would not receive funding from state agencies for

growth-related projects, at least throughout the Glendening

administration (Knaap & Frece, 2007). Examples of such

areas are shown in Wicomico County in Figure 2, labeled

as “County Certiﬁed Areas; Areas Not Meeting Criteria.”

PFAs in these counties are in contiguous clusters, but the

size of some of these areas exceeds the amount of land area

that the counties determined, and MDP conﬁrmed, is

needed for 20 years of growth.13

With minor exceptions, the delineation of PFAs was

completed relatively quickly and without extensive political

conﬂict. However, it was also completed without much

public participation. Some counties held local hearings, but

only three interest groups with statewide membership (the

Sierra Club, the Chesapeake Bay Foundation, and 1000

Friends of Maryland) participated in the certiﬁcation process.

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 463

Figure 2: PFAs in select counties.

Note: Rural Villages are also state certified areas.

Source: MDP, 2002.

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 463

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Although developers and local civic organizations were

extensively involved in crafting the legislation, they were

distinctly less involved in the process of designating PFAs.14

Given the notably contentious legislative process it took to

pass the Smart Growth Areas Act, the lack of participation

by developers and other housing interest groups is surprising.

Since ﬁrst drawn, PFAs have changed little over time.

According to MDP data (2002, 2007), total area within

PFAs grew approximately 2% from 2000 to 2005. The

only major expansions occurred in St. Mary’s, Somerset,

Anne Arundel, Queen Anne’s, and Dorchester Counties,

and most involved municipal annexations. The single

largest addition to PFAs was the Naval Air Station in St.

Mary’s County, which was added in 2004.

PFAs and Comprehensive Plans

Because the PFA law is directed at spending by state

agencies, all of the provisions that govern PFAs are found

in the State Finance and Procurement Article of the Mary-

land Code: State Planning–Priority Funding Areas (5-7B).

The statutes that govern planning and zoning are found in

Article 66B: Land Use. Thus, there is no explicit require-

ment that PFAs appear in comprehensive plans. This

separation of the state and local planning statutes epitomizes

the lack of connection between state and local planning.

Thus, the extent to which PFAs inﬂuence planning and

zoning at the local level depends entirely on local discretion.

According to Article 66B, counties and municipalities

must update their comprehensive plans every six years and

submit the plans to MDP for review. Although the com-

prehensive plans of most jurisdictions have been updated

since 1998, by the fall of 2007 at least ﬁve counties had

not updated their comprehensive plans since the adoption

of the PFA statute despite the legal requirement to do so

(MDP, 2009b). Some counties update comprehensive

plans by geographic sector and have not updated their

countywide plans in over 10 years.

To determine how local governments have incorporated

PFAs in their comprehensive plans, we conducted a content

analysis of each of Maryland’s 23 counties’ comprehensive

plans and the plans of the 10 largest municipalities in the

state. Most county comprehensive plans reference PFAs

somewhere, although eight counties who have PFAs and

have updated their plans since 1998 do not show the PFA

boundaries on plan designation or zoning maps. At least

three counties fail to mention PFAs in their comprehensive

plans at all. It is clear that PFAs are not consistently incor-

porated in local land use plans, and as a result are not an

integral part of the statutory framework that governs land

use planning, zoning, subdivision regulations, and appeals

processes in the state.

PFAs and State Agency Spending

To evaluate the implementation of PFAs at the state

level, we ﬁrst looked at the extent to which state agencies

complied with the reporting requirements speciﬁed by

statute and executive order. Then, we estimated how

much funding is deﬁned as growth-related, and thus by

law required to be spent within PFAs. Then we looked

at how much of this funding was in fact spent within

PFAs as prescribed by the law for MDOT, which is the

only agency for which project-level spending data were

available.

Compliance With Reporting Requirements

As discussed above, state agencies were required by law

to submit annual reports to MDP on the implementation

of PFAs. Compliance with reporting requirements under

the act and subsequent executive order varied extensively

over time, but was consistently incomplete. During the

Glendening Administration (1995–2003) several agencies

attempted to provide the required information to MDP,

and MDP attempted to compile the information in a

comprehensive report. Agency reports were ﬁled with

MDP in 1999 and 2000. The most complete report was

prepared for ﬁscal year 2002 by the Ofﬁce of Smart

Growth on behalf of the Smart Growth Subcabinet. Even

this report, however, did not contain a full accounting of

how much spending was growth-related and how much

was actually spent inside PFAs. During the Ehrlich Admin-

istration (2003–2006), the Ofﬁce of Smart Growth annual

reports contained no data on agency funding and little data

on exceptions. Because reporting requirements were never

fully met, it is difﬁcult to assess whether or how much state

agencies restricted their spending in conformance with the

Smart Growth Areas Act or the extent to which state

agency spending serves to contain urban growth.

State Spending Under the Smart Growth Act15

Lacking the mandated reports by state agencies and

the Smart Growth Subcabinet, we estimate total growth-

related appropriations in the capital and transportation

budgets each year and thus gain some insights regarding

how much spending by state agencies is growth-related

as deﬁned by statute. Data was used from the Maryland

Department of Budget and Management Capital improve-

ments authorized by the General Assembly 1998 through 2007

(2007), MDOT Consolidated Transportation Program

(1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006),

and the Budget of State Government Appropriations Summary

(Maryland State Archives (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002,

2003, 2004, 2005, 2006).

464 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 464

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

The state money earmarked for spending on projects

within PFAs is a relatively small portion of overall state

budget appropriations, and consists mostly of spending

on transportation projects. The appropriated funds state

agencies spent on growth-related capital and transportation

projects from 1998 (FY 1999) to 2006 (FY 2007) averaged

approximately $1.1 billion per year, or approximately 5%

of annual state budgets over the same period. Spending

by MDOT constituted approximately 85% of all growth-

related capital and transportation appropriations, and has

been rising over time, while the spending of all other agen-

cies has remained relatively constant (see Figures 3 and 4).

Of the total growth-related spending by MDOT,

approximately 60% was for speciﬁc projects inside PFAs

over the nine-year period. The remaining appropriations

were for projects grandfathered when the legislation went

into effect in 1998, projects in the transportation budget

that had no single speciﬁc location, or projects that were

granted exceptions. Less than 3% of this funding was for

projects outside PFAs or excepted projects.

Spending by the Maryland Transportation Authority,

which oversees the state’s toll facilities, has increased over

time relative to other entities within MDOT, but is spe-

ciﬁcally exempt from PFA review. Spending by the Mary-

land Transportation Authority was equal to 6% of all

growth-related MDOT spending in 1998 and 50% of all

growth-related MDOT spending in 2007. This represents

a potentially large omission from the Smart Growth Areas

Act, particularly considering recent trends toward tolling.

Since 1998, at least 62 projects were granted exceptions

to PFA restrictions by the Smart Growth Coordinating

Committee. Funding data were not available for some

exceptions, making it difﬁcult to evaluate the signiﬁcance

of these projects. At least four projects were granted excep-

tions by the Board of Public Works at the last stage of the

exception process. Three of these were MDOT projects

during the Ehrlich Administration. The fourth excepted

project was also from MDOT (the Manchester Bypass),

but did not receive funding in Governor Glendening’s

budget.

In sum, Maryland’s process for using PFAs to manage

urban growth has signiﬁcant weaknesses. The criteria used

to establish PFAs produced boundary conﬁgurations that

vary widely across the state 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 jurisdictions.

Finally, state agencies have not established budgetary

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 465

Figure 3. Total growth-related capital and transportation appropriations by Maryland state agency, FY1999–2007.

Note:

All Department of General Services appropriations are part of the operating budget, and thus are omitted here. Housing and Community Development

appropriations here do not reflect tax-exempt mortgage revenue bonds in the Maryland Mortgage Program, which totaled $1.4 billion, 2003–2007.

Sources: MDOT, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007; Maryland Department of Budget and Management, 2007.

$200

$400

$600

$800

$1,000

$1,200

$1,400

FY1999 FY2000 FY2001 FY2002 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 FY2006 FY2007

Funding ($ millions)

Transportation

Housing and Community Development

Business and Economic Development

Environment

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 465

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

systems designed to monitor and guide the spatial allocation

of funds. Thus, if PFAs have not served to manage urban

growth effectively, there are several potential explanations

for why that might be the case.

The Effects of PFAs on Residential

Development Patterns

Above, we analyzed the implementation of PFAs and

found it imperfect. But that is not surprising. The imple-

mentation of land use programs of any signiﬁcance can

always be improved. The ultimate question, however, is

whether a program achieves its intended inﬂuence on

development patterns. Maryland’s 1997 smart growth

initiative may have had other objectives, but it is clear that

one of its principal objectives was to direct growth from

outside PFAs to inside PFAs. According to Knaap and

Frece (2007):

Although there were ﬁve pieces of legislation in that

initial package, the thrust of Maryland’s new growth

management effort was really embodied in only two—

the Smart Growth Areas Act and the Rural Legacy

Program. Together, they represented Governor Glen-

dening’s “inside/outside” strategy to encourage growth

and revitalization inside existing cities and towns where

development was already present; and, simultaneously,

to identify and protect the best farmland, forests and

other natural areas outside the urban envelope that

should be protected from encroaching development.

All the other programs that ﬁrst year that were grouped

under the state’s smart growth banner, as well as those

that were added in succeeding years, were harnessed in

one way or another to support those two principal

approaches. (p. 449)

There are several ways to measure whether the Mary-

land program has redirected growth from outside PFAs to

inside PFAs. In our analysis, we measure development

patterns using the number of parcels and acres developed

inside and outside PFAs, the share of parcels and acres

developed outside PFAs, and the average size of parcels

inside and outside PFAs. Although they were not explicit

policy objectives, it is reasonable to infer that increasing

466 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

Figure 4. Average percent of growth-related funds, FY 1999–2007.

Note:

All Department of General Services appropriations are part of the operating budget, and thus are omitted here.

Sources: MDOT, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007; Maryland Department of Budget and Management, 2007;

Maryland State Archives, 1998, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006.

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

State budget Capital and

transportation

budgets

Transportation

budget

Capital budget

Not subject to PFA review Capital funds subject to PFA review Transportation funds subject to PFA review

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 466

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

urban densities (reducing urban lot sizes in the case of single-

family residences), and increasing lot sizes outside urban areas

to mitigate agricultural and habitat fragmentation, were

among the reasons for diverting growth to inside PFAs.

We test for changes in these variables using ttests of

differences in means before and after the adoption of the

state smart growth program. In the literature on program

evaluation differences in means, tests are sometimes viewed

as weak indicators of program impact because they fail to

control for the inﬂuence of countervailing factors (Felbinger

& Langbein, 2006). For example, PFAs might have no

apparent effect on development patterns because growth

pressure increased after their adoption or because land

available for development inside PFAs became depleted

over time. Under these conditions, we might not observe

PFAs’ slowing of growth outside PFAs if it was offset by

these other factors.

For a number of reasons, however, we argue that a

difference in means or proportion of growth occurring

inside or outside PFAs is an appropriate test of program

success. First, by statute, PFAs were drawn to accommodate

anticipated growth; thus, if growth overwhelmed develop-

ment capacity it indicates that the PFAs were poorly drawn.

Second, according to MDP estimates, every PFA in the

state contained approximately 20 years of development

capacity in 2006, more than enough to accommodate

growth over the study period (Development Capacity Task

Force, 2004). Third, the important policy question facing

Maryland decision makers today is not whether to eliminate

PFAs, but whether they are strong enough to achieve their

intended purpose. Regardless of changes in external factors,

a test for a difference in development patterns is thus the

best test of programmatic success. Finally, the results are

the same even when we control for changes in external

factors (see Appendix). Because county-speciﬁc data are

not available for all external factors, we present ttests

below. These simple tests are clear and understandable at

the county level.

Data produced by MDP provide an opportunity for

closely examining development trends before and after the

enactment of Maryland’s smart growth laws. They include

information on every parcel developed for attached or

detached single-family housing from 1990 to 2006 and less

than 20 acres in size after development. Using these data,

we compare the period before PFAs (1990–1998) with that

after PFAs (1999–2006).16 While these data offer many

useful insights, they offer little or no information on

multifamily development, nonresidential development,

or developments on parcels greater than 20 acres in size.17

For these reasons, the data cannot be used to analyze

trends in the commercial sectors of urban areas or most of

the agricultural sectors of rural areas. Still, the insights they

provide are quite revealing.

Figures 5, 6, and 7 show trends in numbers of parcels

developed for residential use, acres of land developed for

residential use, and size of parcels developed for residential

use. Figure 5 shows that the annual percentage of parcels

developed outside PFAs rises from approximately 24% in

1990 to 26% in 2004. Figure 6 shows that the acres of

land developed for residential use outside PFAs rose from

approximately 75% in 1990 to 77% in 2004. Finally, as

displayed in Figure 7, the average size of parcels outside

PFAs fell from approximately 2.4 acres in 1990 to approxi-

mately 2.1 acres in 2004, and the average size of parcels

inside PFAs rose from 0.25 acres in 1990 to 0.28 acres in

2004. If the intent of PFAs is to concentrate development

and raise densities inside PFAs, and to prevent development

on large parcels outside PFAs, then all of these trends are

going in the wrong direction.

Numbers of Parcels Developed

Table 2 shows the number of parcels developed for

single-family residential use in each Maryland county and

their four regions. This totaled about 23,000 per year both

before and after PFAs for the state as a whole, however, the

average increased in some counties and decreased in others.

Total growth in residential parcels over the entire period

increased most in the outlying counties of Dorchester,

Talbot, and Washington.

At the state level, the number of such parcels developed

inside PFAs fell by a statistically insigniﬁcant amount.

However, the number of parcels developed per year inside

PFAs fell by a statistically signiﬁcant amount in Allegany,

Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Howard, and Prince

George’s Counties, and increased by a statistically signiﬁ-

cant amount in Cecil, Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Talbot, and

Worcester Counties. Similarly, the average number of

parcels developed per year outside PFAs in the entire state

rose by a statistically insigniﬁcant amount, but the average

increase after 1998 was signiﬁcant in Anne Arundel, Charles,

Harford, and Montgomery Counties.

The share of parcels developed for residential use inside

PFAs over the entire state fell from 76% to 71% after PFAs

were adopted, although the share of parcels developed

inside PFAs continued to vary widely, from only 14% in

outlying Garrett County to 93% in central corridor Prince

George’s County. The share of parcels developed inside

PFAs increased by a statistically signiﬁcant amount in

outlying Cecil, Talbot, and Worcester Counties, but

decreased in many of the central and southern counties,

including Anne Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Charles,

Howard, Harford, and Montgomery. The share of parcels

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 467

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 467

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

468 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

Figure 5. Improved single-family residential parcelsaoutside PFAs as a percentage of such parcels both inside and outside PFAs in Maryland,

1990–2004.

Note:

a. Defined as parcels of 20 acres or less with improvements worth $1,000 or more.

Source: MDP, 2006.

21%

22%

23%

24%

25%

26%

27%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Before PFAs After PFAs

Figure 6. Acres of improved single-family residential landaoutside PFAs as a percentage of such land both inside and outside PFAs in Maryland,

1990–2004.

Note:

a. Defined as parcels of 20 acres or less having improvements worth $1,000 or more.

Source: MDP, 2006.

70%

71%

72%

73%

74%

75%

76%

77%

78%

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Before PFAs After PFAs

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 468

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

inside PFAs also decreased by a statistically signiﬁcant

amount in Allegany County in western Maryland.

In sum, there were no signiﬁcant changes in the number

of parcels developed for residential use inside or outside

PFAs after the PFA law went into effect. There was also

no signiﬁcant change in the share of parcels developed for

residential use inside PFAs. In many of the largest counties,

however, the number of parcels and the share of parcels

developed for residential use outside PFAs went up after

the PFA law went into effect; and in many of these counties,

the number of parcels developed for residential use outside

PFAs continued to average 500 parcels per year or more

after the PFA law.

Acres Developed

Table 3 presents trends in acres of land developed for

single-family use in each Maryland county. As shown, the

total number of acres developed per year was about 16,945

before 1998 and 18,108 after 1998; however, the average

number of acres developed increased in some counties but

decreased in others.

At the state level, the average number of acres developed

inside PFAs per year before 1998 fell by an insigniﬁcant

amount in the period after 1998. However, the drop was

statistically signiﬁcant in Allegany, Anne Arundel, Baltimore,

Calvert, and Howard Counties, and there was a statistically

signiﬁcant increase in Cecil, Dorchester, St. Mary’s, and

Worcester Counties. Similarly, the average number of acres

developed per year outside PFAs in the entire state rose

from 12,569 over the period before 1998 to 13,889 over

the period after 1998, a statistically signiﬁcant amount.

Meanwhile, the average number of acres developed after

1998 was signiﬁcantly higher in Anne Arundel, Charles,

and St. Mary’s counties. Finally, the share of acres inside

PFAs in the entire state fell by a statistically insigniﬁcant

amount after 1998. However, the share fell by a statistically

signiﬁcant amount in Allegany, Anne Arundel, Calvert,

and Montgomery Counties and increased by a statistically

signiﬁcant amount in Cecil, Talbot, and Worcester

Counties.

It is notable that the total acres developed for residen-

tial use outside PFAs increased for over half of the state’s

counties after the PFA law went into effect. Further, several

central corridor counties, including some with nationally

prominent growth management programs like Baltimore

County and Montgomery County, continue to develop

over 900 acres per year for residential uses outside PFAs.

Parcel Size

Finally, Table 4 uses ratios to compare the size of

single-family residential parcels developed before and after

PFAs, showing that parcels developed before 1998 averaged

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 469

Figure 7. Average acres per parcel for improved single-family residential landainside and outside PFAs in Maryland, 1990–2004.

Note:

a. Defined as parcels of 20 acres or less having improvements worth $1,000 or more.

Source: MDP, 2006.

0.0

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004

Inside PFAs Outside PFAs

Before PFAs After PFAs

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 469

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

about 0.73 acres, and those developed after 1998 averaged

about 0.79 acres, though this varied across counties. Aver-

age parcel size inside PFAs rose from the ﬁrst to the second

period, but the change was statistically insigniﬁcant. Parcel

size inside PFAs fell by a statistically signiﬁcant amount in

outlying Talbot and Wicomico Counties, but increased by

a statistically signiﬁcant amount in central corridor Harford

and Prince George’s counties. The average size of parcels

developed for residential use outside PFAs in the entire

state fell from 2.23 acres over the period before 1998 to

2.07 acres over the period after 1998. This decrease was

statistically signiﬁcant. The average parcel size developed

470 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

Table 2. Average annual parcels developed in new single-family units before and after PFAs.

Total Inside PFA Outside PFA % Inside PFA

Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio

Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/

County PFA PFA preaPFA PFA preaPFA PFA preaPFA PFA prea

Allegany 134 96 0.71* 95 57 0.60* 40 38 0.96 70% 60% 0.85*

Frederick 1,573 1,767 1.12 1,295 1,471 1.14 277 296 1.07 82% 83% 1.01

Garrett 221 243 1.10 30 34 1.12 190 209 1.10 14% 14% 1.01

Washington 570 717 1.26 374 480 1.28 195 236 1.21 66% 67% 1.02

Western Marylandb2,498 2,823 1.13 1,794 2,042 1.14 702 779 1.11 72% 72% 1.01

Anne Arundel 2,781 2,412 0.87 2,187 1,662 0.76* 594 750 1.26* 79% 69% 0.88*

Baltimore 2,571 1,955 0.76* 2,170 1,539 0.71* 400 416 1.04 84% 79% 0.93*

Carroll 1,036 1,084 1.05 632 688 1.09 403 396 0.98 61% 63% 1.04

Harford 1,610 1,559 0.97 1,360 1,218 0.89 249 341 1.37* 85% 78% 0.92*

Howard 1,769 1,440 0.81* 1,478 1,084 0.73* 291 356 1.22 84% 75% 0.90*

Montgomery 2,422 2,708 1.12 2,027 2,161 1.07 395 547 1.39* 84% 80% 0.95*

Prince George’s 3,209 2,900 0.90 2,971 2,487 0.84* 238 413 1.73 93% 86% 0.93

Central Marylandb15,398 14,058 0.91 12,825 10,839 0.85 2,570 3,219 1.25 83% 77% 0.93

Calvert 830 802 0.97 434 321 0.74* 396 481 1.21 52% 40% 0.77*

Charles 977 1,199 1.23* 654 691 1.06 323 509 1.58* 67% 58% 0.86*

St. Mary’s 645 757 1.17 252 310 1.23* 393 447 1.14 39% 41% 1.05

Southern Marylandb2,452 2,758 1.12 1,340 1,322 0.99 1,112 1,437 1.29 55% 48% 0.88

Caroline 157 167 1.06 38 55 1.43 119 113 0.95 24% 33% 1.34

Cecil 599 746 1.25* 221 335 1.52* 378 411 1.09 37% 45% 1.22*

Dorchester 120 162 1.35 26 57 2.21 94 105 1.11 22% 35% 1.63

Kent 98 117 1.20 47 58 1.25 51 59 1.16 48% 50% 1.04

Queen Anne’s 334 380 1.14 163 211 1.29 171 168 0.98 49% 56% 1.14

Somerset 92 97 1.05 41 59 1.43 51 38 0.74* 45% 61% 1.36

Talbot 236 350 1.48* 144 256 1.77* 92 94 1.02 61% 73% 1.20*

Wicomico 437 510 1.17 312 370 1.19 125 140 1.12 71% 73% 1.02

Worcester 581 634 1.09* 414 490 1.18* 167 144 0.86* 71% 77% 1.08*

Eastern Shoreb2,654 3,163 1.19 1,406 1,891 1.34 1,248 1,272 1.02 53% 60% 1.13

State totalb23,094 23,013 1.00 17,462 16,308 0.93 5,632 6,705 1.19 76% 71% 0.94

Note:

a. An asterisk indicates that the number or percentage of parcels recorded before the Smart Growth Areas Act was significantly different from the same

measure after the Smart Growth Areas Act, based on a difference-in-means t test.

b. Values in bold are totals or subtotals.

*p< .05

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 470

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

after 1998 was signiﬁcantly higher in Carroll, St. Mary’s,

and Worcester Counties but lower in Baltimore, Calvert,

Charles, Harford, Howard, Montgomery, and Prince

George’s Counties.

Overall, the trends in parcels, acres, and size of parcels

developed for residential use are not consistent with PFA

objectives. While development patterns may have changed in

some areas and along dimensions not captured in the MDP

data, in the period after the enactment of Maryland smart

growth laws the number of parcels developed for residen-

tial use inside PFAs fell and parcels increased in size while

the number of parcels developed outside PFAs increased

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 471

Table 3. Average annual number of acres developed for single-family units before and after PFAs.

Total Inside PFA Outside PFA % Inside PFA

Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio

Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/

County or region PFA PFA preaPFA PFA preaPFA PFA preaPFA PFA prea

Allegany 254 217 0.85* 81 51 0.63* 173 166 0.96 32% 24% 0.74*

Frederick 1,073 1,139 1.06 325 335 1.03 748 805 1.08 30% 29% 0.97

Garrett 507 546 1.08 19 21 1.09 488 525 1.08 4% 4% 1.01

Washington 700 811 1.16 161 198 1.23 539 613 1.14 23% 24% 1.06

Western Marylandb2,534 2,713 1.07 586 605 1.03 1,948 2,109 1.08 23% 22% 0.96

Anne Arundel 1,072 1,189 1.11 372 289 0.78* 700 900 1.29* 35% 24% 0.70*

Baltimore 1,387 1,250 0.90 374 314 0.84* 1,013 935 0.92 27% 25% 0.93

Carroll 1,250 1,259 1.01 257 244 0.95 993 1,015 1.02 21% 19% 0.95

Harford 1,076 1,205 1.12* 274 274 1 .00 802 930 1.16 25% 23% 0.89

Howard 1,150 958 0.83 357 278 0.78* 794 680 0.86 31% 29% 0.94

Montgomery 1,118 1,285 1.15 383 370 0.97 735 915 1.24 34% 29% 0.84*

Prince George’s 1,012 1,120 1.11 642 635 0.99 370 486 1.31 63% 57% 0.89

Central Marylandb8,065 8,266 1.02 2,659 2,404 0.90 5,407 5,861 1.08 33% 29% 0.88

Calvert 976 931 0.95 216 137 0.63* 759 794 1.05 22% 15% 0.66*

Charles 1,095 1,447 1.32* 141 161 1.14 954 1,286 1.35* 13% 11% 0.87

St. Mary’s 1,044 1,322 1.27* 108 153 1.42* 936 1,169 1.25* 10% 12% 1.12

Southern Maryland 3,115 3,700 1.19 465 451 0.97 2,649 3,249 1.23 15% 12% 0.82

Caroline 357 351 0.99 18 16 0.89 339 336 0.99 5% 4% 0.91

Cecil 756 835 1.10 53 78 1.48* 704 757 1.08 7% 9% 1.34*

Dorchester 249 257 1.03 15 34 2.31* 234 223 0.95 6% 13% 2.24

Kent 132 168 1.27* 29 38 1.32 103 130 1.26 22% 23% 1.04

Queen Anne’s 359 362 1.01 50 65 1.30 309 297 0.96 14% 18% 1.29

Somerset 167 170 1.02 46 61 1.34 122 109 0.89 27% 36% 1.32

Talbot 394 430 1.09 96 109 1.14 299 321 1.08 24% 25% 1.04*

Wicomico 487 474 0.97 237 220 0.93 250 253 1.01 49% 47% 0.96

Worcester 306 369 1.21* 99 123 1.24* 207 246 1.19 32% 33% 1.03*

Eastern Shoreb3,207 3,416 1.07 643 744 1.16 2,567 2,672 1.04 20% 22% 1.09

State totalb16,945 18,108 1.07* 4,376 4,219 0.96 12,569 13,889 1.11 26% 23% .90

Note:

a. An asterisk indicates that the number or percentage of acres recorded before the Smart Growth Areas Act was significantly different from the same

measure after the Smart Growth Areas Act, based on a difference-in-means t test.

b. Values in bold are totals or subtotals.

*p< .05

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 471

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

and the parcels decreased in size. Statewide, and in most

counties, these changes are quite small; but in general,

trends in the number of parcels developed, the acres of

land developed, and the average size of parcels are all

moving in the wrong direction.

Interestingly, the development trends were most

adverse for the central Maryland counties including Anne

Arundel, Baltimore, Calvert, Harford, Howard, Mont-

gomery, and Prince George’s, and most favorable for the

outlying counties of Cecil, Dorchester, St. Mary’s, Talbot,

472 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

Table 4. Average annual parcel sizeafor single-family units before and after PFAs..

Total Inside PFA Outside PFA

Ratio Ratio Ratio

Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/ Pre- Post- post/

County PFA PFA prebPFA PFA prebPFA PFA preb

Allegany 1.89 2.27 1.20 0.86 0.89 1.04 4.35 4.32 0.99

Frederick 0.68 0.64 0.95 0.25 0.23 0.91 2.70 2.72 1.01

Garrett 2.30 2.25 0.98 0.64 0.63 0.98 2.57 2.51 0.98

Washington 1.23 1.13 0.92 0.43 0.41 0.96 2.76 2.59 0.94

Western Marylandc1.53 1.57 1.03 0.55 0.54 0.99 3.10 3.04 0.98

Anne Arundel 0.39 0.49 1.28 0.17 0.17 1.02 1.18 1.20 1.02

Baltimore 0.54 0.64 1.18 0.17 0.20 1.18 2.53 2.25 0.89*

Carroll 1.21 1.16 0.96 0.41 0.36 0.87 2.46 2.57 1.04*

Harford 0.67 0.77 1.16 0.20 0.23 1.12* 3.21 2.73 0.85*

Howard 0.65 0.67 1.02 0.24 0.26 1.06 2.73 1.91 0.70*

Montgomery 0.46 0.47 1.03 0.19 0.17 0.91 1.86 1.67 0.90*

Prince George’s 0.32 0.39 1.23 0.22 0.26 1.18* 1.55 1.18 0.76*

Central Marylandc0.61 0.66 1.08 0.23 0.24 1.03 2.22 1.93 0.87

Calvert 1.18 1.16 0.99 0.50 0.43 0.85 1.92 1.65 0.86*

Charles 1.12 1.21 1.08 0.22 0.23 1.08 2.95 2.53 0.86*

St. Mary’s 1.62 1.75 1.08 0.43 0.49 1.15 2.38 2.62 1.10*

Southern Marylandc1.31 1.37 1.05 0.38 0.38 1.00 2.42 2.27 0.94

Caroline 2.27 2.10 0.93 0.46 0.29 0.63 2.85 2.98 1.04

Cecil 1.26 1.12 0.89 0.24 0.23 0.97 1.86 1.84 0.99

Dorchester 2.07 1.58 0.76 0.57 0.60 1.05 2.49 2.12 0.85

Kent 1.35 1.43 1.06 0.62 0.65 1.06 2.02 2.20 1.09

Queen Anne’s 1.07 0.95 0.89 0.31 0.31 1.01 1.81 1.76 0.98

Somerset 1.81 1.76 0.97 1.11 1.04 0.94 2.38 2.86 1.20

Talbot 1.67 1.23 0.74 0.66 0.42 0.64* 3.25 3.43 1.05

Wicomico 1.11 0.93 0.83 0.76 0.60 0.79* 2.00 1.81 0.90

Worcester 0.53 0.58 1.10 0.24 0.25 1.05 1.24 1.71 1.37*

Eastern Shorec1.46 1.30 0.89 0.55 0.49 0.88 2.21 2.30 1.04

State totalc0.73 0.79 1.07 0.25 0.26 1.03 2.23 2.07 0.93

Note:

a. Average parcel size calculated as acres (Table 3) divided by total parcels (Table 2).

b. An asterisk indicates that the number or percentage of acres recorded before the Smart Growth Areas Act was signiﬁcantly different from the same

measure after the Smart Growth Areas Act, based on a difference-in-means ttest.

c. Values in bold are totals or subtotals.

*p< .05

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 472

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

and Worcester, although outlying counties are some of the

fastest growing. Whether these general differences in

development trends across regions of the state are the result

of state policy, however, is unclear. In the outlying coun-

ties, there is less opposition to growth, more room to grow

in PFAs, and more frequent expansions of PFAs. These are

the more likely causes of such differences. The statistically

signiﬁcant increase in parcels and acreage inside PFAs in

Eastern Shore counties is not surprising given housing

market trends in these areas after 1999, which resulted in

construction of more dense development in PFAs. Addi-

tionally, as mentioned above, Eastern Shore counties often

had large comment areas around PFAs. In our data and

analyses here, we considered comment areas to be part of

PFAs.

Summary and Conclusions

Given the above trends in residential development

patterns, it is easy to be critical of the PFA approach, but

it is important to note the limitations of the evidence to

date: Ten years is not a long time to wait before evaluating

a policy, the data are incomplete, and it is difﬁcult to

ascertain what would have happened had the Maryland

smart growth policies not been adopted. That said, it is

clear that PFAs have not produced the intended effects

over the last 10 years.

As discussed above, and further analyzed in the

Appendix, the logic of restricting growth-related funds to

designated growth areas is conceptually sound, but PFAs as

they are used in Maryland have both conceptual and practical

limitations. On a practical level, the implementation of

PFAs has had a number of problems. Speciﬁcally, the

deﬁnition of which programs are growth-related is vague

and not carefully monitored as programs change and new

programs are created; the process for reviewing programs

for consistency with PFAs is poorly designed; and state

agencies have been lax in meeting reporting requirements.

Despite these limitations, PFAs have had some

important, if ephemeral, beneﬁts. Speciﬁcally, PFAs have

provided a framework for discussion between the state and

local governments. After 10 years, PFAs have become well

understood elements of the Maryland landscape; despite

differences in approaches to PFAs across the state, there is

no confusion about what PFAs are intended to achieve or

where they are located. As a corollary, measures of how

much growth is occurring inside and outside PFAs, as

reported here, are useful benchmarks of whether growth

patterns are changing. For these reasons it makes little

sense to do away with PFAs entirely. Nonetheless, PFAs as

currently used in Maryland have the following limitations

that will require more extensive change.

• The statutory criteria for drawing PFAs are based

on existing densities, infrastructure capacities, and

municipal boundaries, not on careful plans that

consider where future growth should occur.

• The process through which the existing PFAs were

constructed was completed extremely quickly and

without public participation.

• MDP can do no more than comment on PFAs it

deems too large.

• PFAs are not well integrated with local plans. PFAs

are not required elements in local comprehensive

plans, and in some existing comprehensive plans,

PFAs are not even mentioned.

• The funds allocated for spending in PFAs may

be too small to make a signiﬁcant difference in

development trends.

• There is no requirement that PFAs be reviewed

periodically and updated as needed.

Recognizing these limitations should allow Maryland

to further reﬁne the PFA concept and its implementation.

Statutory changes that require local governments to

include PFAs in local comprehensive plans and review

PFAs together with comprehensive plans on a regular basis

are now being considered (Task Force on the Future for

Growth and Development in Maryland, 2008). In addition,

the Smart Growth Subcabinet is now working to improve

reporting procedures by state agencies. Finally, there is

ongoing discussion of how PFAs might be revised in the

context of the state’s impending State Development Plan.

For other states considering the PFA approach to

growth management, however, the lessons are perhaps

more fundamental. First, it is important that PFAs be fully

embedded in state planning law. As the Maryland experi-

ence suggests, without statutory requirements, tools that

matter to the state are not always those that matter to local

governments. Second, a targeted state spending approach

requires a careful reconsideration of the state’s budgeting

processes. Without developing an allocation process that

considers how funds are allocated spatially, it is unlikely

state agencies will take the steps needed to make the target-

ing strategy meaningful. Finally, it is unclear that a targeted

state spending strategy alone will be sufﬁcient to alter state

growth patterns. There is widespread evidence that incen-

tives can serve as effective policy instruments in certain

policy contexts. Yet, it is unclear whether any state will

ever have enough resources to signiﬁcantly contain urban

growth.

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 473

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 473

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to several individuals for useful comments on earlier

versions: John Frece, Mark Goldstein, Jason Sartori, ﬁve anonymous

reviewers, and the JAPA editorial staff. We would also like to acknowledge

the research assistance of Cathy Dowd and Allen Lo. Any remaining

errors or omissions are our own.

Notes

1. For reviews, see Cohen (2002) and Knaap and Frece (2007).

2. As of 2008, only Connecticut had adopted a PFA program similar to

Maryland’s (General Statutes of Connecticut, 2008). The Connecticut

law passed in 2005, and the language of the statute is nearly identical to

Maryland’s, but the PFAs were not established and implemented until

July of 2009.

3. For more on state land use programs, see Ingram, Carbonell, Hong,

and Flint (2009); Porter (2008); and Weitz (1999).

4. For more evaluations of Maryland’s smart growth initiative, see

materials from the Smart Growth at 10 conference (National Center for

Smart Growth Research and Education and Resources for the Future,

2007).

5. For a review of the additional smart growth tools in Maryland, see

Knaap and Frece (2007) and Frece (2008).

6. The Maryland Office of Planning was renamed the Maryland

Department of Planning in 2000. We use the latter name throughout.

7. Average density, both allowable and existing, is calculated excluding

public land, recreational land, land in agricultural easements, cemeteries,

streams and buffers, land in 100-year floodplains, habitats for endangered

and threatened species, steep slopes, and nontidal wetlands.

8. A rural village is “any rural village, village center, or other unincorpo-

rated area that is primarily residential, including an area with historic

qualities, that is located in an otherwise rural or agricultural area and for

which new growth, if any, would derive primarily from in-fill development

or limited peripheral expansion” (PFA, 2009).

9. Specifically, Executive Order 01.01.1998.04 states that, “Agencies

will provide an annual report to the Office of Planning on the imple-

mentation of the Smart Growth Areas Act. The Annual Report should

include the following: (a) A description of projects/programs and costs

of activities in Priority Funding Areas; (b) A description of projects/

programs and costs of activities funded under the exceptions allowed in

§5-7B-06 of the State Finance and Procurement Article; (c) Projects

submitted to the Board of Public Works for funding outside Priority

Funding Areas under the extraordinary circumstances exception in

accordance with §5-7B-05 of the State Finance and Procurement

Article and the impact of these projects upon this policy; (d) A list of

programs and policies reviewed and changed to ensure compliance with

Policy.”

10. Unlike other states, land use planning in Maryland is dominated by

county governments.

11. The MDOT maintains a separate budget from the state’s capital

budget entitled the Consolidated Transportation Program, which includes

both capital and operating expenses for the department.

12. We obtained this information from MDP PFA certification files.

13. We obtained this information from MDP PFA certification files.

14. We obtained this information from MDP PFA certification files and

email (J. Noonan, personal communication, October, 2007).

15. For further details on state spending, see Knaap and Lewis (2007).

16. Because PFAs were required to be submitted to MDP by October

1998, we treat 1990–1998 as the period before PFAs and 1999–2006 as

the period after PFAs.

17. MDP defined development as an increase in improved value

exceeding $1,000. These data do not capture developments on parcels

greater than 20 acres unless and until improvements are made on parcels,

which are subdivided to a size smaller than 20 acres.

References

Bae, C. (2006). Searching for solutions to sprawl. In G. J. Knaap, H.

Haccou, K. Clifton, & J. Frece (Eds.), Incentives, regulations, and plans:

The role of states and nation-states in land use planning (pp. 36–53).

London: Edward Elgar.

Baum-Snow, N. (2007). Did highways cause suburbanization? The

Quarterly Journal of Economics, 122 (2), 775–805.

Boarnet, M. G. (2001). Enterprise zones and job creation: Linking

evaluation and practice. Economic Development Quarterly,15(3), 242–254.

Boarnet, M. G., & Haughwout, A. (2000). Do highways matter?

Evidence and policy implications of highways’ inﬂuence on metropolitan

development. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Cohen, J. R. (2002). Maryland’s “smart growth”: Using incentives to

combat sprawl. In G. D. Squires (Ed.), Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences,

and policy responses (pp. 293–324).Washington, DC: Urban Institute.

DeGrove, J. M. (2005). Planning policy and politics: Smart growth and

the states. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Development Capacity Task Force. (2004). Final report of the Develop-

ment Capacity Task Force. Retrieved July 16, 2009 from http://www

.mdp.state.md.us/pdf/dctf/DCTF-Final.pdf

Duranton, G., & Turner, M. (2007). Urban growth and transportation

(Working Paper 305). Toronto, CA: University of Toronto Department

of Economics.

Felbinger, C. L., & Langbein, L. (2006). Public program evaluation:

A statistical guide. Armonk, NY: M.E. Sharpe.

Frece, J. (2008). Sprawl and politics: The inside story of smart growth in

Maryland. Albany, NY: SUNY Press.

Funderburg, R. G., Nixon, H., Boarnet, M. G. & Ferguson, G. (2008).

New highways and land use change: Results from a quasi-experimental

research design (Unpublished working paper). Retrieved April 6, 2009,

from https://xythos.uiowa.edu/rfunderb/Public/WP2008c.pdf

General Statutes of Connecticut, Chapter 297A (2008). Retrieved July

23, 2008, from http://search.cga.state.ct.us/surs/Chap297a.htm

Gleeson, M. (1979). Effect of urban growth management system on

land values. Land Economics, 55 (3), 350–365.

Green, R. E. (1991). Enterprise zones: New directions in economic

development. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Guiliano, G. (1989). New directions for understanding transportation

and land use. Environment and Planning A, 21 (2), 145–159.

Handy, S. (2002). Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection:

What does the research tell us? Paper presented at New Urbanism and

Smart Growth: A Research Symposium, College Park, MD. Retrieved

July 7, 2009, from http://www.smartgrowth.umd.edu/events/pdf/

HandyPaper2.pdf

Hanley, P. F., & Hopkins, L. D. (2007). Do sewer extension plans

affect urban development? Environment and Planning B,34 (1), 6–27.

Hanlon, B., Howland, M., & McGuire, M. (2009). Hotspots for growth:

Land use change in a transitional county in the U.S. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Maryland.

Howland, M., & Sohn, J. (2007). Will Maryland’s priority funding

areas initiative contain urban sprawl? Land Use Policy, 24 (1), 175–186.

Ingram, G. K., Carbonell, A., Hong, Y. H., & Flint, A. (Eds.).(2009).

Smart growth policies: An evaluation of programs and outcomes. Cambridge,

MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

474 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 474

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Knaap, G. J. (2001). The urban growth boundary in Metropolitan

Portland, Oregon: Research, rhetoric, and reality (PAS Memo 2000).

Chicago, IL: American Planning Association.

Knaap, G. J., & Frece, J. (2007).Smart growth in Maryland: Looking

forward and looking back. Idaho Law Review, 43 (2), 445–473.

Knaap, G. J. & Lewis, R. (2007). State agency spending under Maryland’s

Smart Growth Areas Act: Who’s tracking, who’s spending how much, and

where? College Park, MD: National Center for Smart Growth Research

and Education.

Knaap, G. J., & Talen, E. (2003). Infrastructure ﬁnance and urban

development in Illinois: Does negotiation exacerbate sprawl? In F. Ennis

(Eds.), Infrastructure provision and the negotiating process (pp.155–174).

Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Maryland Department of Budget and Management. (2007). Capital

improvements authorized by the General Assembly 1998 through 2007.

Baltimore, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Planning. (1997). Managing Maryland’s

growth: Models and guidelines: Smart growth: Designating Priority

Funding Areas. Retrieved January 31, 2009, from http://www.mdp.state

.md.us/smartgrowth/pdf/PFA.PDF

Maryland Department of Planning. (2002). Priority funding areas

boundaries data. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Planning. (2006). Tracking residential growth:

Priority funding areas (PFAs) and residential single-family development in

Maryland, 1987–2006. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved July 16,

2009, from http://www.mdp.state.md.us/msdc/PFA/Resid_Growth/

dw_PFA_resid_growth_idx.htm

Maryland Department of Planning. (2007). Priority funding areas

boundaries data. Baltimore, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Planning. (2008). Where do we grow from

here? A report of the Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development

in Maryland. Baltimore, MD: Author. Retrieved January 29, 2009,

from http://www.mdp.state.md.us/pdf/TFReport.pdf

Maryland Department of Planning. (2009a). Smart Growth Priority

Funding Areas Act of 1997. Retrieved January 5, 2009, from

http://www.mdp.state.md.us/fundingact.htm

Maryland Department of Planning. (2009b). Maryland comprehensive

plans. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.mdp.state.md.us/

comp_plans/web/towns.htm

Maryland Department of Transportation. (1998). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 1999. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (1999). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2000. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2000). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2001. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2001). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2002. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2002). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2003. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2003). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2004. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2004). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2005. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2005). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2006. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2006). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2007. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland Department of Transportation. (2007). Consolidated

transportation program, FY 2008. Hanover, MD: Author.

Maryland State Archives. (1998). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (1999). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (2000). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (2001). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (2002). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (2003). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (2004). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (2005). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

Maryland State Archives. (2006). Budget of state government appropria-

tions summary. Annapolis, MD: Author. Retrieved July 20, 2009, from

http://www.msa.md.gov/msa/mdmanual/34bud/html/00list.html#

appropriations

National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education and

Resources for the Future.(2007) Smart Growth at 10: A critical

examination of Maryland’s landmark land use program (Conference

webpage). Retrieved August 18, 2009, from http://www.rff.org/Events/

Pages/Smart-Growth-at-10.aspx

Nelson, A. C., & Dawkins, C. J. (2004). Urban containment in the

United States: History, models, and techniques for regional and metropolitan

growth management (PAS Report Number 520). Chicago, IL: American

Planning Association.

Pendall, R., Martin, J., & Fulton, W. (2002). Holding the line: Urban

containment in the United States. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

Persky, J., Kurban, J., & Lester, T. (2000). The impact of federal and

state expenditures on residential land absorption: A quantitative case

study—Chicago. Unpublished manuscript, University of Illinois at

Chicago.

Porter, D. R. (2008). Managing growth in America’s communities (2nd

ed.). Washington, DC: Island Press.

Priority Funding Areas. State Finance and Procurement Article,

Maryland State Code Ann., Title 5 State Planning, Subtitle 7B (2009).

Retrieved July 16, 2009, from http://www.dsd.state.md.us/comar/

Annot_Code_Idx/StateFinProcIndex.htm

Sen, A., Sööt, S., & Thakuriah, V.(1998). Highways and urban decen-

tralization. Chicago: University of Illinois at Chicago.

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 475

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 475

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Shen, Q., Liao, J., & Zhang, F. (2005). Changing urban growth patterns

in a pro-smart growth state: The case of Maryland, 1973–2000. Unpublished

manuscript, University of Maryland.

Shen, Q., & Zhang, F. (2007). Land use changes in a pro-smart growth

state: Maryland, USA. Environment and Planning A,39 (6), 457–477.

Smart Growth and Neighborhood Conservation Policy. Maryland

Executive Order No. 01.01.1998.04 (January 23, 1998). Retrieved

May, 30, 2008, from http://www.dnr.state.md.us/education/

growfromhere/LESSON15/MDP/EXECORDER.HTM

Sohn, J., & Knaap, G. J. (2005). Does the job creation tax credit

program in Maryland help concentrate employment growth? Economic

Development Quarterly, 19 (4), 313–326.

Tabors, R. D., Shapiro, M. H., & Rogers, P. P. (1976). Land use and

the pipe. Lexington, MA: D.C. Health.

Task Force on the Future for Growth and Development in Maryland.

(2008). Where do we grow from here? Retrieved July 9, 2009, from

http://www.mdp.state.md.us/pdf/TFReport.pdf

U.S. Census Bureau. (2005). 2002 Census of governments, Vol. 1, No. 2:

Individual state descriptions (2002 GC02(1)-2). Washington, DC: U.S.

Government Printing Office.

Weitz, J. (1999). From quiet revolution to smart growth: State growth

management programs, 1960 to 1999. Journal of Planning Literature

14 (2), 266–337.

Wilder, M. G., & Rubin, B. M. (1996). Rhetoric versus reality: A

review of studies on state enterprise zone programs. Journal of the

American Planning Association, 62 (4), 473–491.

476 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

Appendix: Theoretical Model and Regression Analysis of PFAs

The effects of a PFA boundary on urban development

patterns can be illustrated with a simple model. Suppose,

following standard economic theory, that land rents are a

decreasing function of distance to the urban core. That is:

r=r(d)

where

r= rents

d= distance to the central business district (CBD), and

␦

r /

␦

d< 0.

Suppose further that the level of private investment in

residential capital per acre (or structural density) is an

increasing function of rand public infrastructure. That is:

k=k(r(d), I)

where

k= private residential capital

I= public infrastructure per acre, and

␦

k /

␦

rand

␦

k /

␦

I> 0.

Finally, suppose that the level of public infrastructure

inside the PFA is greater than outside the PFA. That is:

Ii>Io

where

Ii= public infrastructure inside a PFA, and

Io= public infrastructure outside a PFA.

Under these conditions private residential capital will

be greater inside PFAs than outside PFAs as long as Ii>I0

and

␦

k /

␦

I> 0.

This simple model is illustrated in Figure A1, where

structural density falls continuously with distance from the

CBD if there is no PFA. The introduction of a PFA causes

a kink in the structural density gradients because there is a

discontinuous gap in the level of public infrastructure.

To further explore the effect of PFAs on development

patterns, we estimated four regression models using counties

as units of analysis and controlled for potential counter-

vailing factors. Our analysis includes four dependent

variables: the number of parcels developed outside PFAs,

the share of parcels developed outside PFAs, the number

of acres developed outside PFAs, and the share of acres

developed outside PFAs. The models all include ﬁve inde-

pendent variables: real gas prices at the national level, real

income in thousands of dollars at the county level, time

measured in years, and the total number of parcels devel-

oped at the county level. Using panel data by county for

each year from 1990 to 2006, we also controlled for

county-speciﬁc ﬁxed effects by including dummy variables

for each of the 23 counties. We omitted Baltimore City

from this analysis because 100% of the city is a PFA. Our

variable of interest (PFA in effect) is a dummy variable equal

to 1 for observations after 1999, when the Smart Growth

Areas Act went into effect. If PFAs have had the intended

results, residential development outside PFAs should have

fallen after the law went into effect.

As shown in Table A1, the regression models produced

plausible and robust results. The results suggest that the

share and number of both acres and parcels developed

outside PFAs increased consistently over time and with real

county income levels. This might reﬂect the effects of

dwindling development capacity inside PFAs and a positive

income elasticity of demand for rural residency. The share

and number of acres developed outside PFAs decreased

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 476

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Lewis et al.: Managing Growth With Priority Funding Areas 477

consistently with real gas prices, which probably reﬂects

standard assumptions about tradeoffs between accessibility

and housing demand. Finally, the number of acres and

parcels developed outside PFAs increased with total parcels

developed, but the share of areas and parcels developed

outside PFAs fell with total parcels developed. This implies

that in the years in which there was much development

activity in a county, development outside PFAs went up,

but because development inside PFAs went up faster than

development outside PFAs, the share of development

outside PFAs declined.

These results are robust, consistent with expectations,

and conform to results presented earlier in the article. The

effect of the PFA variables is insigniﬁcant in every regression.

Most importantly, they suggest that the Smart Growth

Areas Act and the other set of policies adopted in 1997

have not signiﬁcantly served to redirect growth inside

PFAs, even after controlling for countervailing factors.

Figure A1. The effects of PFAs in an urban economic model.

PFA

Distance (d)

k=f(I,r(d))

k=f(Ii,r(d))

k=f(Io,r(d))

Structural density (

)

Structural density (

)

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 477

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

478 Journal of the American Planning Association, Autumn 2009, Vol. 75, No. 4

Table A1. Models predicting the percentages and numbers of parcels and acres developed in single-family housing outside PFAs for a panel of 23

Maryland counties, 1990–2006.

Model 1: Model 2: Model 3: Model 4:

Predicting % Predicting number Predicting % of Predicting number of

of parcels outside PFA of parcels outside PFA acres outside PFA acres outside PFA

Coeff. tCoeff. tCoeff. tCoeff. t

Constant 2.052 5.07*** 1631.700 4.21*** 1.550 5.27*** 3450.742 5.72***

PFA in effect (0,1) 0.017 1.05 4.570 0.29 0.012 1.02 26.482 1.09

Year 0.044 3.30*** 51.143 3.96*** 0.022 2.27** 99.399 4.95***

County real income

($1,000) 0.000 3.83*** 0.004 5.13*** 0.000 3.26*** 0.005 3.45***

National real gas price −1.586 −3.93*** −1568.613 −4.06*** −0.775 −2.64*** −3193.246 −5.31***

Number of developed

parcels in the county

(thousands) −0.054 −3.38*** 160.872 10.57*** −0.016 −1.41 290.012 12.26***

n391 391 391 391

Adjusted R20.874 0.829 0.843 0.886

**p< .01 ***p< .001

75-4 06 419429 Lewis p:JAPA 70-1-8 Laurian 9/23/09 12:16 PM Page 478

Downloaded by [61.246.9.75] at 15:05 29 January 2016

Farmland and forest conservation: evaluation of smart growth policies and tools

Chapter

Jul 2022

The preservation of open space, farmland, and critical environmental areas is one of the main smart growth principles. Although the majority of people reside in urban and suburban areas, exurban large-lot development has been a greater cause of farmland and forest loss in the United States. We discuss four policy approaches used to manage growth and aid in land conservation: regulatory techniques, incentive-based policies, participatory preservation programs, and transfer of development rights programs. We then draw several policy implications to reframe urban-rural planning and describe synergistic policies for improving land preservation. We conclude with several research challenges in policy evaluation and future research needs to develop a new smart growth agenda for land conservation.

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

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2017

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.

Suburban revalorization: Residential infill and rehabilitation in Baltimore County’s older suburbs

Article

Full-text available

Mar 2018

This paper is a critical examination of redevelopment in the older suburbs of Baltimore County, Maryland between 2000 and 2014. Using exploratory spatial analysis techniques and qualitative methods, we identify the location of concentrated forms of suburban redevelopment, capturing incremental changes to single-family suburban homes in the form of residential rehabilitation, and new construction as well as larger-scale infill in the form of single-family subdivisions and apartments. We find that redevelopment among older suburbs is multifaceted, encompassing reinvestment in single-family housing in old elite residential suburban neighborhoods; the replacement of publicly subsidized apartment complexes with market rate, single-family dwellings in formerly industrial suburbs; the replacement of waterfront postwar housing with more expensive structures in formerly industrial suburbs; and the densification of older edge suburban core areas. The local planning regime has been instrumental in the redevelopment process across suburban types. Based on our findings, we suggest that suburban planners take a more active role in considering the potential direct and indirect displacement of low-income residents from redeveloped suburban spaces. This is imperative as inner-ring suburban devalorization occurs and suburban poverty grows.

Achieving one-planet living through transitions in social practice: a case study of Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage

Article

Full-text available

Apr 2016

Robert Boyer

The per capita resource consumption for inhabitants of Dancing Rabbit Ecovillage (DR) is less than ten percent of the average American in most major categories, approximating “one planet” living in a nation that contributes disproportionately to global resource consumption. This article examines DR’s extraordinary energy and resource savings through the lens of social practice theory, which focuses on the meanings, competencies, and materials that individuals combine to form everyday practices. Participant observation and interviews with DR community members reveals how this rural ecovillage achieves remarkable energy and resource savings by transitioning away from the exclusive ownership of capital goods, investing in skills that facilitate the collective management of resources, and eliminating waste by taking advantage of locally available resources. Results suggest that local governments interested in sustainability and climate mitigation should encourage systems of collective resource management rather than maintaining a traditional focus on influencing changes in individual consumption choices.

A Wrench in the Machine: How Subsidy Removal Alters the Politics of Coastal Development

Article

Nov 2022
J AM PLANN ASSOC

Problem, research strategy, and findings Federal, state, and local government funding helps stimulate urban development, with growth machine politics playing an important role in determining where subsidies are allocated. The U.S. Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) was enacted to curb the role of federal subsidies in fostering development along hazardous coastal barriers, providing an opportunity to explore how local growth politics are influenced by the removal of one source of government funding. In this study, we used a series of interview-based case studies to investigate why certain areas in the CBRA developed while most did not. In most cases, the CBRA obstructed local growth coalitions, isolating landowners from the resources necessary to improve the growth potential of their land interests. However, in cases where development occurred within the CBRA, we often found evidence that powerful growth machines were able to acquire replacement subsidies from state and local governments, suggesting these actions are a key driver in overcoming the financial barriers posed by the CBRA. Takeaway for practice This study revealed how growth machines could be hampered by removing access to the financial resources of one level of government, despite the potential to be undermined by intervention at other levels. In an era of increasing coastal risks, subsidy removal can be an effective tool for managing coastal growth, even when authority over land use decisions is limited.

Beyond Plans: Scenario Planning as a Tool for Regional Capacity Building

Article

Apr 2022
J AM PLANN ASSOC

Problem, research strategy, and findings Previous studies of the impact of scenario usage in regional planning have shown limited results: Municipalities may not follow recommendations of the regional plan, and regional agencies themselves may ignore unpopular contingent futures. Though helpful, studies on scenarios and their direct impact on local plans may overlook important but less noticeable ways in which scenario planning can shape local and regional planning practice. To address this gap, we investigated scenario planning processes in three U.S. metropolitan areas with varying types of regional planning agencies and different scenario planning histories. Our work involved a review of three regional plans, 52 local plans, and nine confirmatory interviews. We found that the normative and exploratory scenarios common in regional planning rarely influence local comprehensive plans, especially in suburban municipalities. However, we also found that the regional scenario plans influenced planning practices and norms across the regions in ways that did not appear in plan documents. Our findings suggest that regional scenario planning can help practitioners identify new challenges, creatively engaging the future and shaping regional agencies, but such outcomes require institutional coordination, potentially executed by the regional agency performing technical assistance. Takeaway for practice Planners should consider how the groups that guide scenario plans can be de facto political bodies, advocating for better planning practices. To make the regional scenario plan effective at the local level, regional agencies should institutionalize local partnership building.

Policy Change through Social Elements of Policy Design: Florida Growth Policies

Article

Dec 2020

Efraim Ben-Zadok

This study analyzed policy change in legislation through three social elements of policy design: policy problem, policy goal, and intervention strategy. It covered five successive policies of Florida Growth Management Act (1970-2010). The study also examined social construction of policy change and sources influencing change. Florida’s record of social policy learning and change was positive. Drastic 1980s changes included a centralized state-regional-local planning-implementation system and local economic development. Florida’s policies emphasized statewide control of population growth (1970s-1980s), and sprawl and urban decline areas (1990s-2000s). Florida’s problematic experience of instrumental policy learning and change included discretionary implementation tools and processes

Fifty years of local growth management in America

Article

Sep 2019
PROG PLANN

John Landis

This article looks at the efficacy of a diverse set of local growth management programs undertaken in the United States since the early 1970s. Organized into three sections, it begins with a brief history of growth management milestones, tracing the evolution of growth management programs from Ramapo, New York’s original 1969 ordinance to the emergence of the Smart Growth movement in the mid-1990s. A second part organizes and summarizes the growth management efficacy and adverse effect literatures. A third part takes a fresh look at the success of local growth management programs by comparing population growth, sprawl, and fiscal and housing price outcome measures across eight pairs of communities, one of which (i.e., “case study community”) adopted a growth management program, and the other (i.e., “peer community”) which did not. It concludes with a summary assessment of fifty years of local growth management experiences, along with some lessons for how planners might best deal with forthcoming rounds of suburban growth.

Urban form, policy packaging and sustainable urban metabolism

Article

May 2017
RESOUR CONSERV RECY

Since the inception of modern urban planning in the early 20th century, numerous urban planning policies have been introduced that seek to steer urban form towards desired patterns. Some have explicitly focused on promoting energy efficient urban forms to reduce carbon emissions and contribute to sustainable urban metabolism. Despite the proliferation of such policies, ‘unsustainable’ trends, such as urban sprawl and long distance car-based commuting, continue and in some cases are worsening. In this paper, we aim to explore the limited success of a number of influential urban planning policies in Europe and North America in trying to steer urban form towards a more sustainable path. Our aim is to identify their potential common shortcomings and suggest a number of principles which may help formulating more effective policy packages for sustainable urban metabolism.

The Promise and Challenge of Equitable Transit-Oriented Development in Diverse Suburbia.

Chapter

Full-text available

Apr 2014

Willow Lung-Amam, Ph.D.

Lung-Amam, Willow, Rolf Pendall, Molly Scott, and Eli Knaap. The Promise and Challenge of Equitable Transit-Oriented Development in Diverse Suburbia. Chapter for book on transit-oriented development in Washington, DC and Paris.

Smart growth in Maryland: Looking forward and looking back

Article

Full-text available

Jan 2007
Idaho Law Rev

Public Program Evaluation: A Statistical Guide

Book

Jul 2016

Laura Langbein

Sprawl and Politics: The Inside Story of Smart Growth in Maryland

Article

Oct 2011

Incentives, regulations and plans: The role of states and nation-states in smart growth Planning

Book

Jan 2007

'The book will be useful to planners engaged in smart growth efforts on both sides of the Atlantic. Its strength is in the inclusion of a variety of topics and case studies relevant to growth management programs and highlighting key direct and indirect impacts of these efforts in a variety of contexts.' -Lucie Laurian, Growth and Change. © Gerrit-Jan Knaap, Huibert A. Haccoü, Kelly J. Clifton and John W. Frece, 2007. All rights reserved.

Urban containment in the United States: History, models, and techniques for regional and metropolitan growth management

Article

Jan 2004

Smart Growth and The Transportation-Land Use Connection: What Does the Research Tell Us?

Article

Apr 2005
INT REGIONAL SCI REV

Susan Handy

The connection between transportation and land use lies at the center of efforts in the United States to combat sprawl through smart growth strategies. Proponents of smart growth commonly make several specific propositions about the relationships between transportation and land use: (1) building more highways will contribute to more sprawl, (2) building more highways will lead to more driving, (3) investing in light rail transit systems will increase densities, and (4) adopting new urbanism design strategies will reduce automobile use. This article explores how well the available evidence supports these four propositions and provides an overview of the theory, research efforts, and current debates associated with each of these propositions. This overview shows that the four propositions have not yet been fully resolved: researchers have made more progress on some of these propositions than others, but even in the best cases, our ability to predict the impact of smart growth policies remains limited.

Smart Growth Policies: An Evaluation of Programs and Outcomes

Article

Dec 2009
J AM PLANN ASSOC

Arthur Nelson

Does the Job Creation Tax Credit Program in Maryland Help Concentrate Employment Growth?

Article

Nov 2005

The Job Creation Tax Credit program is one of the five Smart Growth programs initiated by the state of Maryland in 1997. Like other tax credit programs, it is a personbased program intended to create jobs; it is also, however, a place-based program in that eligibility is limited to jobs created in Priority Funding Areas (PFAs). This article examines whether the program has furthered the goals of concentrating job growth with PFAs. The empirical analysis uses a fixed-effects random growth model and examines employment in five economic sectors from 1994 to 1998 at the zip code level. The results show that job growth in transportation, communication, and utilities and services industries has concentrated in PFAs, whereas growth in the primary sector, manufacturing, and finance, insurance, and real estate has been unaffected by the program.

Rhetoric versus Reality: A Review of Studies on State Enterprise Zone Programs

Article

Dec 1996
J AM PLANN ASSOC

This paper provides a comprehensive review of empirical analyses of state-sponsored enterprise zone programs. An introductory segment focuses on major theoretical and policy issues about enterprise zones. This discussion is followed by a summary of studies on two major dimensions of enterprise zone programs: (1) job and investment impacts, and (2) program costs. The research reviewed ranges from individual case studies to cross-state analyses. Interpretation of findings from these studies suggests that enterprise zones vary in their effects on investment and employment in declining areas. This variation is partly explained by the features of program design and the specific attributes of zone contexts. Although enterprise zones have been effective in generating new employment and investment in certain areas, they have important limitations that must be scrutinized more closely to minimize program costs and target benefits to depressed communities more effectively.

Enterprise Zones and Job Creation: Linking Evaluation and Practice

Article

Aug 2001

Marlon G. Boarnet

Although enterprise zones have been a popular economic development tool for several years, there is still a lack of evidence on both zone effectiveness and how to improve existing zone programs. This article discusses several evaluation criteria that should be given more attention. First, the article addresses methodological issues in assessing zone benefits, including the importance of comparing places that received zones with a suitably chosen control group of places that did not get zones. Second, the data requirements for enterprise zone evaluation are examined. The link between evaluation and practice is discussed. Zone evaluations must address not only efficiency criteria such as the measurement of benefits and costs but also the question of how to improve the functioning of existing zones. The conclusion is that zone evaluations should pay closer attention to research methodology and strive to document program implementation information that can improve the practice of enterprise zones.

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

Abstract and Figures

Recommendations

PRESTO: Plan for Regional Sustainability Tomorrow

GeoSInPo

Planning Theory

purple line

ANÁLISIS ECONÓMICO DE LA ADOPCIÓN DE LAS VARIEDADES CASTILLO® REGIONALES RESISTENTES A LA ROYA

Local Government Finance and Training in Benue State, Nigeria

Strategy, Priority-Setting, and Municipal Capital Budget Reform: Three Cases from the Great Recessio...

A tervezési keretrendszer innovatív megközelítésben a magyarországi államháztartási szektorban - Kül...