Land-Use Survey Examines Preferences for
Conservation vs. Conservation Policy
When voters are confronted with a myriad of policies designed to
achieve both conservation and development objectives, do residents actually
vote for policies that lead to the land-use goals that they support?
What does it mean to be a conservationist? What does it mean to support
development? For many residents of rural areas, voting on town referenda
is an essential component of expressing their preferences regarding land
use. But when voters are confronted with a myriad of policies designed
to achieve both conservation and development objectives, do residents
actually vote for policies that lead to the land-use goals that they support?
Research often focuses on residents’ values for the outcomes of development
and conservation activities. However, the rural public may not only be
concerned with the outcomes of land management; residents may also have
preferences for the policy process. The relationship between the public’s
policy preferences and their desires for development and conservation
outcomes is the subject of a unique research effort by researchers at
the University of Rhode Island (URI) and the University of Connecticut
(UConn).
The Preferences of Two Towns
In October 2002, the Charlestown Town Council voted against a proposed
policy that would have imposed a $1,500 impact fee on each new house built
in that Rhode Island town. In contrast, the Exeter Town Council had, one
month earlier, approved an impact fee of $5,033 per new house constructed,
the third highest impact fee in the state at that time.
These divergent choices occurred in two towns that are in many ways similar.
Both are rural communities situated in Rhode Island’s southernmost Washington
County. Their populations are almost evenly divided between men and women;
both are 96 percent Caucasian, and the median ages of the towns fall between
38 and 41. Approximately 60 percent of each town’s households are comprised
of married-couple families. More than 80 percent of the housing in each
town is owner-occupied. The average household size of each town is slightly
less than three, and the household income category applicable to most
residents of each town is $50,000 to $74,999.
It might seem that communities with such similar population profiles,
in such close proximity, would approve similar growth-management policies.
Indeed, when one considers that Charlestown’s population density is double
that of Exeter’s, one might expect that Charlestown would have been more
eager to adopt the preservation-oriented impact fee.
Is it possible that the different choices can be attributed to the composition
of those town councils? Or does the contrast in reactions to residential
impact fees, in otherwise similar communities, provide useful information
for town planners as they tackle management issues facing rural landscapes?
Searching for a Link
Urban sprawl is no longer a concept known only to town planners. As its
consequences grow more apparent, residents of rural communities have been
increasingly exposed to the jargon of land management. Terms such as “impact
fees,” “building caps,” and “zoning changes” now pervade the media and
political dialogue. While many researchers have investigated rural residents’
preferences for land use, few have given attention to residents’ support
for policies needed to achieve land-use outcomes. A Rhode Island study,
led by Robert Johnston, formerly URI environmental and natural resource
economics assistant research professor, now UConn agricultural and resource
economics assistant professor and Connecticut Sea Grant associate director,
and Stephen Swallow, URI environmental and resource economics professor,
endeavored to do just that.
The URI researchers undertook an extensive survey project to determine
if a relationship exists between the rural public’s preferences for land-
use outcomes and their support for associated land management policies.
Titled the “Rhode Island Rural Land Use Survey,” one section of the survey
assessed residents’ willingness to accept tradeoffs among different development
and conservation options, each of which detailed the long-term effects
on the rural landscape. These land-use outcomes included the type and
amount of land that would be developed or conserved, characteristics of
residential developments and preserved open space, and the consequent
tax changes.
The next section of the survey asked respondents to indicate their
degree of support for 21 different land- use policy tools, including both
pro- development and pro-conservation policies. Respondents revealed their
support for policies such as encouraging residential development by decreasing
zoning restrictions and requiring new developments to preserve undeveloped
land. By contrasting results of these two independent survey sections—one
addressing residents’ preferences for land-use outcomes and one addressing
their support for land- use policy tools—the researchers were able to
assess potential linkages between the two.
The researchers administered the survey in the rural Rhode Island communities
of Burrillville, Coventry, Exeter, and West Greenwich. The findings were
somewhat surprising, and may introduce a twist to the common assumptions
upon which many community planners rely.
An Unexpected Result
The study confirms that rural residents have clear preferences for tradeoffs
between development and conservation. Most residents strongly favor open
space preservation and improvements in wildlife habitat and oppose attributes
associated with residential development, such as increases in housing
density and the number of developed acres in their community.
However, the research also shows that policy-makers cannot always expect
those preferences to match the specific land-use policies that residents
favor. There was often little correlation between individual respondents’
preferences for open space and habitat preservation and their support
for tools that would achieve those goals. For example, while most residents
expressed strong preferences for preserving open space, the residents
of all four towns surveyed opposed methods such as real estate transfer
taxes as a means to fund open space conservation. Moreover, the purchase
and preservation of open space with public bonds, one of the most common
means of preserving open space, received only moderate support.
In instances where the researchers found correlations between land- use
preferences and policy support, the correlations often varied between
towns. For example, survey respondents from Burrillville who strongly
supported zoning policies also expressed a strong aversion to housing
density. In contrast, respondents from Exeter who strongly supported zoning
policies did not have a strong aversion to housing density, but rather
expressed a strong preference for reductions in development visibility.
Uncertain Outcomes?
The researchers are not aware of other studies examining the links between
land-use preferences and policy support, so the results are especially
intriguing. An obvious question is, “Why isn’t there a stronger correlation
between residents’ preferences for land-use outcomes and their support
for policies that could achieve those outcomes?”
The answer to that question could be that residents do not always associate
certain management policies with their actual outcomes. Although land-use
policies have begun to receive substantial attention in the media, the
consequences of the policies are often ambiguous or unclear. Indeed, one
respondent from Exeter wrote, “I don’t know what the current zoning restrictions
are.” Another respondent even acknowledged that he was operating without
full information when he wrote, “I am not eager to see many changes within
Exeter, but I must admit I am not well informed regarding Exeter’s financial
situation.”
Yet other respondents from the same town expressed very definite perceptions
of land management policies. One resident weighed in saying, “I think
cluster development with preserved open space works best in keeping woodland
protected while allowing for growth.” Another resident of Exeter wrote,
“Low density housing would help protect water supplies….”
In addition to inaccurate or incomplete information, many residents simply
may not believe that policies will have the claimed long-term effects.
Some residents simply have a general distrust of government actions. Indeed,
prior findings of Johnston and Swallow confirm that trust in Rhode Island’s
government can play a major role in residents’ preferences for environmental
policies.
Obscure Motivations?
Would this lack of correlation between preferences and policy support
exist if residents fully understood the outcomes of land-use policies
and trusted the government to enact those policies? Johnston expects that
it might. He believes that respondents might have obscure motivations
for supporting or opposing certain land- use policy tools. For example,
survey responses may reflect internal—and not necessarily accurate—assumptions
regarding the effect that land-use policies have on their taxes. However,
respondents revealed a range of perceptions concerning the relationships
between community taxes and development. A large proportion of respondents
commented that commercial or industrial development would reduce taxes
and expressed cautious support for such development. One Exeter resident
wrote, “I do believe that some commercial industry, in moderation, would
help offset taxes, but I would not want to see the rural appearance of
Exeter lost.” Another less moderate respondent wrote, “The town of Exeter
needs to establish a commercial tax base. As housing developments increase,
so will taxes.”
Another group of respondents expressed the opinion that any development
would lead to an increase in taxes. An Exeter resident commented, “Stop
development. Lower taxes.” Another succinctly expressed a popular sentiment:
“I’m for no more development in Exeter. Taxes are too high already.” Yet
another wrote, “I feel that any development in Exeter should decrease
my taxes, not increase them!”
There also was a group of respondents who indicated that they didn’t
mind an increase in taxes if it helped keep their town rural. One resident’s
comments epitomized this sentiment: “I love the peace and beauty of the
area and yes, don’t mind paying more taxes to preserve that.”
The lack of correlation between residents’ land-use preferences and their
support for land management policies may be due to the array of underlying
perceptions and opinions motivating residents. The myriad of motivations
certainly highlights the difficulty that community planners and even town
councils face as they
attempt to deal with growth management issues.
A New Challenge
In November 2002, new council members were voted to the Charlestown Town
Council. Those new council members seem committed to conservation policies,
and if the impact fee comes to a vote again, the outcome might be different.
“People like the idea of the rural community but feel they can’t afford
it,” says Kate Waterman, town council member. Whether that means Charlestown’s
residents will support impact fees, real estate transfer taxes, or other
methods of open space preservation is unclear.
However, these latest findings begin to explain why residents may sometimes
express unexpected opposition to land-use policies that would otherwise
provide outcomes they appear to favor. The new challenge lies in incorporating
that knowledge into the decisions that shape the development and conservation
of rural Rhode Island.
For more information on the Fund for Rural America research project, contact
Robert Johnston at (860) 405-9278 or Stephen Swallow at (401) 874-4589.
—Lisa DeProspo Philo is a URI Environmental and Natural Resource Economics
Research Associate and Robert J. Johnston is UConn Agricultural and Resource
Economics Assistant Professor.
Related Link:
Fund for Rural America
Return
to 41°N
|