Views
5 years ago

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

COLLEGE OF SOCIAL SCIENCE

Extant literature

Extant literature regarding land use and economic development emphasizes that private interests shape land use and development decision making, concluding development interests dominate local government policies (Peterson 1981; Feiock and Kim 2000: Fleischmann 1990), and can make coalitions to overcome opposition to development (Molotch 1976; Stone 1989; Feiock and Kim 2000; Fleischman 1989; Lewis and Neiman 2002). Growth machine theory (Molotch 1976) explains well how the coalitions between governments and development interest groups influence urban policy making process. Development interests have the upper hand in local politics because they receive concentrated benefits for pro-development policies and are better organized than diffuse public interests (Lubell et al. 2005). As I defined earlier, community interest is “shared interest” in a community. Various characteristics of community represent certain types of “shared interests,” which influence the policy making processes. These characteristics play proxies for interest group influence in the policy making process (Lubell et al. 2005). Many literature justifies using the characteristics of community as proxies for interest group. For example, population ecology of interest group argues that the contextual factors drive size and diversity of interest group communities (Gray and Lowery 1996; Lowery and Gray 2001). Using lists of groups in state lobbying registration, Gray and Lowery (1996) tested the contextual factors that drive the number of interest group organizations to lobby in state policy making. One of the contextual factors is “area,” which means the size of the latent constituency. They argue that the density of interest is related to the size of the latent constituency. In addition, Lubell et al. (2002; 2005) support this idea using characteristics of community as proxies for interest group constituencies. Shared Environmental Interest According to Donovan and Neiman (1992), people with high socioeconomic status such as wealth and education are more stringent to growth to isolate themselves from lower income individuals and therefore increase their property values and lower the cost of supplying local public goods. Clingermeyer and Feiock (1994) also argue that a city with higher median income has exclusionary zoning policies to keep lower incomers 37

away. Schneider and Logan (1982) argue that people with higher income favor strict exclusionary zoning or similar land use policies. While the environmental protection is a secondary concern for the poor people, rich people may direct their concern to the extra such as environmental protection (Whittaker et al. 2005). Therefore, they may try to avoid industrial development, which contains noxious externalities as well as traffic congestion and other negative externalities. Homeownership is another indicator of community wealth. Whittaker et al. (2005) argue that homeownership could be another indicator that influences anti-growth land use policy because homeownership status provides residential and income stability, and concerns a quality of life. In addition, homeowners are very sensitive to the housing values. Empirical findings showed that stringent land use or environmental protection policy have the increasing impact of housing values (Ihlanfeldt 2007). According to Brueckner (1995), homeowners behave like brokers hoping to increase their house values. Fischel (2005) also argues that homeowners tend to maintain and increase their assets’ value, which could become more valuable by a local land use policy. He also argues that housing values are higher in the place where more open spaces exist, not in densely populated area. Moreover, because development of high density residential houses and commercial areas increase the necessity of more infra-structures, consequently increasing the tax burden for the various public services, homeowners may have attitudes for anti-growth preferences. Highly educated people may also prefer the pro-environmental land use policy. Education could be a source of information to the residents about the cost of environmental degradation. Thus, higher education may provide more information about the risks of environmental degradation, and consequently they know the long term benefits of preserving environment (Becker and Mulligan 1997). Quigley et al. (2004) also found similar impact arguing that educated people prefer to preserve community environment and quality of life rather than further development. Dunlap and Mertig (1992) found that people with higher education may put higher value on preserving environment and more participate in environmental interest groups. In a little bit different perspective, highly educated people are more patient of environmental protection. The 38