Professional Documents
Culture Documents
What Is Smart Growth
What Is Smart Growth
1177/0885412204271668
What Is “Smart Growth?”
ARTICLE
Journal of Planning Literature
just 20 percent of the growth headed for areas outside NATIONAL ORGANIZATIONS’ DEFINITIONS
central cities and inner suburbs would double or triple Pursuing usable definitions for the term smart
the growth projected for inner areas. . . . This is smart growth, we turned to three federal agencies, five
growth, as opposed to sprawled growth” (Burchell, nonprofits claiming at least a partial mission in direct-
Listokin, and Galley 2000, 822). Definitions are needed ing the processes of economic expansion and land use
that clarify the specific actions and programs to be change, and two national associations dominated by
undertaken in order to achieve this type of redirection for-profit developers and builders. While the defini-
of new settlement. tions promulgated by these organizations differ in tone
It is increasingly obvious that different environmen- and specificity, they share a set of broad commonalities,
tal organizations, government agencies, and interest as Table 1 illustrates.
groups define smart growth in their own ways to The federal government’s environmental arm, the
achieve their particular missions and goals. Then end U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has
result is the use of a common label for approaches that defined smart growth as “development that serves the
are not fully consistent and may even be contradictory. economy, the community, and the environment. It
This article is a preliminary effort to parse the different changes the terms of the development debate away
meanings of smart growth currently in circulation. We from the traditional growth/no growth question to
do not claim to offer a fully comprehensive view of the ‘how and where should new development be accom-
massive smart growth literature, especially given the modated’” (EPA n.d.b). The EPA promulgated national
array of public policies that are now using the term as awards for smart growth achievement in 2002. The
their rationale or justification. Rather, we review a announcement for the awards provided a list of the fea-
selection of Web sites, publications, laws, and govern- tures of eligible projects, thus offering a more detailed
ment program descriptions to assess the range of definition of the term. The projects were defined as
approaches and activities now promulgated under the combining a mix of land uses, compact building design,
smart growth label. and diverse housing opportunities in compact,
Our discussion proceeds as follows: First, we review walkable communities with a variety of transportation
the writings of ten large national organizations that are options, and a reliance on participatory planning and
widely acknowledged to have an interest in smart predictable decision processes to preserve and
growth to see how they define the term in their litera- strengthen existing settlements and promote a strong
tures. Next, we synthesize across those definitions by sense of place (EPA 2002).
identifying six dimensions of smart growth approaches The agency appeared to recognize that efforts to pro-
through the commonalities exhibited. These smart tect the environment needed to accommodate the
growth elements are further decomposed into their development pressures associated with growth in both
major components or subemphases using the content of population and economic activity. Smart growth in the
forty-nine different smart growth policy documents EPA lexicon thus involves finding ways to encourage
collected for the purpose of comparison. We then use economic growth that preserve valuable natural
those taxonomies to compare policies and programs in resources and environments.
Georgia and Kentucky, two southeastern U.S. states The nation’s leading urban development agency,
with very limited planning efforts and capacities. Both HUD, declares that one of the goals of its community
states are experiencing substantial sprawl but growing renewal program is to help communities across Amer-
in population at very different rates. The comparisons ica grow in ways that ensure a high quality of life and
form the basis for a preliminary discussion of the limita- strong, sustainable economic growth through the use of
tions of the term smart growth that arise from the regional smart growth strategies (HUD 2003). We were
absence of clarity and consistency in its usage. The limi- unable to find a definition of smart growth in either the
tations are especially critical in light of reliance on this HUD site Index1 or in its Glossary.2 We uncovered one
ill-defined concept as the basis for framing planning HUD-authorized publication, however, that did offer a
approaches that address the tensions and planning definition—Smart Growth and Housing Policy (Nelson
potential inherent in simultaneously pursuing eco- and Wachter 2002). While they looked at only one facet
nomic growth and environmental preservation. We of the issue, the authors contend that, when it comes to
conclude with a note on the need for additional effort to housing, smart growth appeared to focus on increasing
address analysis problems posed by the malleability of housing options, integrating diverse land uses with
the term smart growth. housing, and elevating design as a consideration. They
(continued)
TABLE 1 (continued)
SOURCES:
a. U.S. Environment Protection Agency (n.d.b).
b. Nelson and Wachter (2002).
c. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (2001).
d. American Planning Association (2002c).
e. Smart Growth Network (n.d.).
f. Smart Growth America (n.d.)
g. Parfrey (n.d.).
h. Horton (1999).
i. National Association of Home Builders (n.d.b.).
j. Urban Land Institute (n.d.).
found that as the percentage of American households The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), by con-
with children fell (from 42.1% in 1974 to 38.1% in 1995), trast, seems to have little concern for urban forms
smart growth efforts played a role in generating hous- except for their effect on rural settlements and land
ing options other than the stereotypical single-family uses. Thus, USDA does not provide a definitive discus-
house. They also argued that smart growth forces need sion on the topic of smart growth on its Web site. The
to design infrastructure, recreation, and transportation USDA Economic Research Service provided a defini-
systems to promote urban areas that are more compact, tion of smart growth in 2001, describing it as “a catch-all
dense, and mixed in both land uses and household phrase to describe a number of land use policies to
income levels than the current norm (Nelson and influence the pattern and density of new develop-
Wachter 2002). ment . . . [directing] . . . development to designated areas
(cities and older suburbs) through incentives and disin- and build communities . . . [and] compact, transit acces-
centives, without actually prohibiting development sible, pedestrian-oriented, mixed use development
outside them or threatening individual property patterns and land reuse epitomize the application of the
rights” (USDA 2001, 24). This definition appears to be principles of smart growth.”
an effort to allay farmers’ fears of the possible impact of The Sierra Club, with its more than 700,000 mem-
smart growth policies and practices on their freedom of bers, exemplifies environmental organizations’ con-
action in using—or disposing of—their farmlands. cern for how human activity expansion affects the rest
Moving beyond the federal government, we find of the world’s systems and species. It outlines several
numerous national nonprofit organizations that have elements that are most important for smart growth,
developed their own specific definitions or principles including communities designed for people rather than
of smart growth. We begin a review of perspectives for automobiles, closeness to nature and permanent
with the definition offered by an umbrella organization, conservation of important lands, improved public tran-
the Smart Growth Network (SGN). SGN counts EPA sit, and revitalization of older suburbs and downtowns
and most of the other agencies and organizations (Parfrey n.d.).
described here in its membership, including some not The Trust for Public Land (TPL) is a national non-
obviously wedded to limiting urban sprawl. Member- profit organization working to protect land from devel-
ship includes thirty-three partners, spanning univer- opment when possible and to preserve public access to
sity research centers, a state government, traditional lands. TPL holds that growth must be accommodated
environmental organizations, developers’ associations, but that current patterns of sprawl development are
and federal agencies. As such an inclusive coalition, the environmentally, fiscally, and socially ruinous. TPL
organization needed to arrive at a universal or broad- activists believe that the key to smart growth is con-
based vision. The network’s Web site argues that, com- vincing more people that living on less land can be “liv-
pared to traditional development, “new smart growth able and not just crowded” (Horton 1999). The organi-
is more town-centered, is transit and pedestrian ori- zation argues, “To truly grow smart a community must
ented, and has a greater mix of housing, commercial decide what lands to protect for recreation, community
and retail uses” (International City/County Manage- character, the conservation of natural resources, and
ment Association with Geoff Anderson 1998, 1). open space. This decision helps shape growth and
Smart Growth America (SGA) is a different nation- define where compact development should occur”
wide coalition, consisting of nearly 100 smart growth (TPL 1999, 8).
advocacy organizations committed to combating The National Association of Home Builders (NAHB
expansion of urban land uses. It includes 1000 Friends n.d.a) defines as a key element of its vision that “build-
of Oregon, the American Farmland Trust, the Congress ers have the freedom to operate as entrepreneurs in an
for New Urbanism, the National Wildlife Federation, open and competitive environment.” Therefore, it has
and others (many of which are also members of SGN). looked askance at smart growth strictures on land use
SGA defines smart growth according to its outcomes, and development. Nevertheless, the organization felt
which they claim “mirror the basic values of most the obligation to promulgate a definition of smart
Americans.” Their definition (see Table 1) identifies six growth, which it describes as “building a political con-
preferred outcomes, which combine desired character- sensus (a) to support comprehensive local plans
istics of neighborhoods with economic expansion and employing market-sensitive and innovative land-use
preservation of open space (SGA n.d.). planning concepts to achieve a wide range of housing
The American Planning Association (APA 2002b) choices for all Americans, (b) to fairly and fully finance
formally adopted a Smart Growth Policy Guide at the infrastructure to support necessary new residential,
2002 National Planning Conference in Chicago. Such commercial, and industrial growth, and (c) to preserve
guides, following formal adoption by the organiza- meaningful open space and protect the environment”
tion’s national delegate assembly and ratification by its (NAHB 2003). In this case, smart growth has been
Board of Directors, are intended to serve the needs of defined in a manner that does not proscribe any
the professionals who direct most public sector plan- particular building and development activities.
ning activity in the United States, in this case offering “The Urban Land Institute [ULI] defines smart
them a definition of smart growth to guide their delib- growth as development that is environmentally sensi-
erations. In announcing the guide, the APA (2002c) tive, economically viable, community-oriented, and
claimed that “smart growth requires a comprehensive sustainable.” ULI (n.d.) offers a Web site3 with its view
approach that cuts across many traditional public pol- on the subject to “offer guidance to help move smart
icy disciplines . . . [s]mart growth means using compre- growth from rhetoric to reality and help communities
hensive planning to guide, design, develop, revitalize determine what type of growth best serves their inter-
ests.” For an organization that continues to be led by individual automobile use is a valuable approach for
representatives of the property development commu- conserving energy, cleaning up polluted air, and
nity, this statement implies significant acceptance of mitigating traffic congestion.
potential constraints on the freedom of property While the terms themselves remain ill-defined, the
owners to develop as they see fit. definitions of smart growth also assert the importance
Table 1 summarizes the definitions offered by these of developing a “sense of community” and promoting
different organizations with their divergent objectives “livability.” In many instances, this element is defined
and concerns. For all their differences, these conceptu- in terms of preserving existing communities and
alizations share at least some acceptance of the natural restraining development expansion into more remote
resources preservation theme of smart growth. Healthy areas. There seems to be limited concern about the
environment, clean air, clean water, wildlife, green effects on communities of adding new people to exist-
space, open space, and farmland are the most common ing populations, whether that action involves only
phrases present in all the definitions or principles of the increasing densities or includes increasing the diversity
smart growth concept. However, organizations’ of residents and, thus, of housing stock. Action recom-
approaches to the means of preserving important natu- mendations include inviting community and stake-
ral areas are rather different. We turn next to a compari- holder collaboration; providing for different income-
son and an initial synthesis of these definitions. level residents in communities; and encouraging neigh-
borhood shops, restaurants, and other businesses to
CONSISTENCY AND CONFLICT IN locate near residential areas.
SMART GROWTH DEFINITIONS If the different groups more or less agree upon the
SGN, SGA, and Sierra Club are concerned with per- above three elements (the importance of resource pres-
manently conserving open space and with discourag- ervation, transportation choices, and community) in
ing the spatial expansion of development. As SGA their definitions of smart growth, there is substantial
states, “Productive agricultural areas, wildlife habitats, disagreement over three other clearly evident dimen-
and key open space should also be permanently pro- sions of the concept: housing, planning, and economic
tected” (Parfrey n.d.). The EPA, ULI, and NAHB place development. These areas may be more central to the
more emphasis on striking a balance between develop- different organizational missions and constituencies of
ment and environmental protection. They admit that the organizations examined, which would explain
development is likely to happen and see the more why—and perhaps how—their definitions differ.
important issue as trying to accommodate new devel- As one might expect of organizations with a primary
opment while preserving the natural resources. On focus on concern for public land use policy in their mis-
behalf of its homebuilder constituencies, NAHB is the sions, USDA; TPL; and, to some degree, ULI all over-
most aggressive among the agencies in supporting new look housing policies in their definitions of smart
land development. It supports plans that identify land growth. NAHB, not surprisingly, stresses housing,
to be made “available for residential, commercial, recre- going so far as to define smart growth as a tool for pro-
ational and industrial uses as well as to be set aside as moting home ownership and new housing develop-
meaningful open space,” providing “environmentally- ment. NAHB notes that “when setting aside meaning-
sensitive areas” are protected (NAHB n.d.b). The ULI ful open space, a local community should rezone other
(n.d.) encourages compact suburban development that land to assure there is an ample supply of land available
can be “integrated into existing commercial areas, new for residential development” (National Association of
town centers, and/or near existing or planned trans- Home Builders n.d.b). This is a position that many
portation facilities.” There is thus clear conflict between would interpret as contradicting the broader smart
NAHB and ULI over the appropriate emphasis on new growth concerns with new housing as potentially
development and natural resource preservation under responsible for sprawl. While HUD shares the NAHB
the mantle of smart growth. Both, however, recognize concern for housing, the department is oriented more
that some mix of the two needs to be pursued. toward compact development and provides urban
Another widespread theme is a commitment to a design technical assistance to support communities.
range of transportation choices. Except for TPL, all the HUD appears to attempt to strike a balance between
organizations reference the importance of more trans- environmental preservation and housing supply
portation options for people to get to work, recreate, growth. Even though housing provision is not part of
and live (including public transit, walking, and bicy- the EPA mission, the agency gives the impression that it
cling in most instances). They all affirm that reducing wants to include every dimension of smart growth in its
definition in order to build a constituency for its THE SIX MAJOR COMPONENTS
OF SMART GROWTH
environmental agenda.
Planning and economic development are the two In much the same way as we were able to find six
most complicated categories in the smart growth defi- major components that make up the umbrella smart
nition. The potential conflict between economic growth growth term, we can move on to a decomposition of
and environmental protection is, after all, the issue that those dimensions into their programmatic elements.
the smart growth approach is intended to resolve. Dif- These elements show just how substantial the variation
ferent groups try to find the balance between growth really is between organizations, even when they share
and conservation that best serves their constituencies. an interest in housing, planning, or economic develop-
Conflict avoidance is not possible without prior effort, ment policies. Table 2 summarizes some of the multiple
that is, without planning. Therefore, because it is a cen- dimensions of the six major components of smart
tral concern, no group can define economic develop- growth derived from the national organizations’
ment as irrelevant, and because it is the policy tool of varying definitions.
choice, none can ignore planning. What differs across The elaborations on the major categories presented
the groups is how they propose to use the tool to in Table 2 are derived from our review of forty-nine pol-
address the concern. Promoting mixed land use and icies and programs that are labeled as smart growth by
addressing possible negatives that undermine the their promulgators. These materials were identified
potential density of new development are the two through Web scanning using the term smart growth to
approaches shared by most groups. screen for and locate documents posted by state and
The Sierra Club has the strongest statement on local government units in Georgia and Kentucky. Citing
growth management: “Urban growth boundaries are a multiple sources for each elaboration of a dimension in
key solution to contain continuous sprawl develop- the table or in the narrative discussion is too cumber-
ment” (Parfrey n.d.). No other groups we examined some and of minimal value for this examination of what
appear to rely on state-level growth management as planning practice documents tell us about the real defi-
their central tool for planning development, due in part nition of smart growth. All the sources are, however,
to controversy over whether this much-studied identified in the appendix for further reference.
approach actually works. The antigrowth label 1. Planning for smart growth encompasses six broad
imposed by libertarian organizations on state growth areas: comprehensive growth planning, mixed land use
management programs, and on smart growth efforts zoning, design and planning for increased residential
more generally, may have the effect of limiting the density, design for street connectivity, innovation in
endorsement by other groups of explicit control mecha- water infrastructure provision, and enhancement of
nisms (Bradley 2003; Fiscelli 2003; Hayward 2000). public service facilities, including recreational areas.
The Sierra Club, ULI, and USDA share a common Comprehensive planning is deemed to be “smart” in
focus, however, on the detailed economic development light of its utilization of existing infrastructure and its
tools that best implement the smart growth concept. potential contributions to reducing automobile use and
Part of their common rationale is that good comprehen- energy consumption; its inclusiveness and inherently
sive planning for both land use and economic develop- regional logic and character; and integrating housing,
ment requires regional coordination among urban, sub- economic development, and transportation elements. It
urban, and rural communities. While very concerned is thus a key element in promoting sufficiently mixed
with planning in the broadest sense, the APA Policy land use, so that “residents provide a market and
Guide addresses five dimensions of “specific policy employees for businesses, and, in turn, businesses pro-
motions” required to pursue smart growth but fails to vide desired amenities and employment opportunities
incorporate any of the essential details or elements of for residents” (Hirschhorn and Souza 2001, 18). The
the practical economic development tools required in social and economic interaction of residents and busi-
its discussion (APA 2002b). nesses in a neighborhood requires increasing density.
On a conceptual plane, one could continue the exam- Density, in turn, promotes more open space and natural
ination of differences across the ten summary state- land; offers economies of scale in public transit, schools,
ments about smart growth in Table 1. It appears more and emergency services; and decreases automobile
constructive, however, to examine implementation of dependency.
the six broad elements of the smart growth agenda: nat- The design and construction of public infrastructure
ural resource preservation, transportation, housing, is also part of the planning process for smart growth,
community development, and planning economic with street connectivity design to avoid dead ends, inte-
development. grate new roads within the existing street network, and
minimize curb cuts, especially on arterials (National reduced reliance on cars and, therefore, fewer miles
Wildlife Federation n.d.). The logic is as follows: “Gated traveled, lower road budgets, and less pollution.
communities, private road systems, and the introduc- 3. Economic development, whether as a goal to be pro-
tion of disconnected cul-de-sac systems promote dis- moted or as a process to be managed, is arguably a cen-
connections. Proper street connectivity, on the other tral concern of planning efforts, smart or otherwise. In
hand, reduces miles traveled, increases non-motorized the smart growth context, development promotion
trips, and supports transit use” (APA 2002b, III-B-7). efforts involve three threads: encouraging neighbor-
Concerns over water infrastructure tend to initially hood business, infill development, and downtown
arise from waste water problems. Increasingly, how- redevelopment. Encouraging neighborhood business
ever, these concerns include assuring source water reflects, first, building communities in which people
quality as well as wetlands protection, incorporating can live, work, shop and recreate and, second, revitaliz-
the need to protect the natural function of stream and ing depressed neighborhoods by encouraging new eco-
wetland systems into all aspects of the planning pro- nomic activity, thus supporting continued use of avail-
cess. Public service facility planning overall recognizes able infrastructure. Infill development involves using
that such installations can enhance the viability of exist- vacant and abandoned spaces, both for housing and
ing communities and reduce outward migrations. new nonlocal businesses, in order to avoid urban area
Efforts to avoid subsidies to new development through spatial expansion while promoting economic growth.
facility provision include heightened need justification Downtown redevelopment policies involve efforts to
standards for public financing of new facilities and change the status of city centers as destinations and
public-private cost sharing with developers. development targets by promoting more housing
2. “Transportation choice means providing residents (often purposefully mixed income), employment, and
with multiple, safe and connected options—driving, public amenities as attractions for residents and
rail and bus transit, bicycling, walking—to get from one recreational activities.
place to the other” rather than being automobile 4. Housing policies generally encompass offering
dependent (EPA n.d.a, emphasis added). Pursuing this more options in order to provide households of all
objective involves “better coordinating between land income levels with the ability to live in a home that
use and transportation, increasing availability of high meets their needs. Smart growth housing policies tend
quality transit service . . . [and] . . . ensuring connectivity to promote alternatives to the postwar standards of the
between pedestrian, bike, transit and road facilities” stand-alone single family home in income-segregated
(SGN 2002, 62). The common goal across all smart areas. The smart growth housing orientation is
growth efforts in this dimension is simply pursuit of intended to create “opportunities for communities to
slowly increase density without radically changing the diversity that exists in the United States as a whole, with
landscape” (SGN 2002, 18). respect to both growth pressures and response
5. Community development as a concern represents an capacities.
acknowledgment that people remaining in place create Admittedly, the states are not representative of the
locally specific sociocultural values that need to be pro- nation in total population in 2000, with Georgia ranked
tected and enhanced in the face of change. Different as the tenth largest state and Kentucky fourteenth, and
communities have their own cultural, historical, and both less urbanized than the fifty-state average. How-
economic values. This uniqueness can be supported by ever, both states began the decade of the nineties with
efforts to build consensus in each community about higher population densities than the nation as a whole,
how it wants to pursue smart growth. Policies under which might suggest more sensitivity to consuming
this category emphasize the specific community char- undeveloped lands. More important, from the perspec-
acteristics and historical values that will help maintain tive of examining comparable political jurisdictions
existing communities and the need for community par- and population data, the two states provide a good
ticipation in local planning efforts. The approaches tend basis for comparison since their counties are of similar
to stress identifying diverse resources that different geographic size and they share a common history of a
community groups possess and setting up a platform laissez-faire attitude toward land use regulation
through which a range of organizations can participate (Nelson 1999).
in policy making and implementation. Table 3 highlights some comparisons of the states to
6. Natural resource preservation may be at the heart of the United States and each other, in terms of recent sta-
smart growth from a purely environmental perspec- tus and changes. The comparison highlights differences
tive, with the resources in question covering animal in tendencies toward “sprawl” and thus potential polit-
habitat, farms, ranch land, wetlands, and other places ical motivation for policies claiming to offer smarter
of “natural beauty” and “critical environmental value.” growth. Georgia’s population grew at double the
Major tools that are being widely used include strict national average, while Kentucky’s lagged, which
land use and preservation regulations and “the use of might lead us to expect little sprawl pressure in Ken-
market-based mechanisms such as donated conserva- tucky. Both states also experienced higher income
tion easements, transfer of development rights (TDR), growth than the United States overall. Income growth
and purchase of development rights (PDR)” (SGN 2002, has been associated with sprawl pressures since land
44-45). consumption rises with income. The extent of growth of
In essence, the smart growth definitions we have developed land area, however, may be the most telling
examined incorporate some or all of these six dimen- difference between the two states: Georgia’s five-year
sions into an integrated policy or program. The real (1992-97) growth in developed land area (27.4 percent)
value of the concept of smart growth—if the term has was roughly comparable to its ten-year (1990-2000)
any remaining utility—thus lies in the extent to which population change (26.4 percent). But during the same
the policies, programs, and plans that are promulgated two periods, Kentucky’s developed land grew by 15.8
under that label manage to incorporate the conceptual percent, over 150% of its population expansion of 9.6%.
depth of the definition in any practical sense, whatever Kentucky residents actually spread out across more
the mix of emphases across the six major dimensions land per capita in the 1990s than did the residents of,
they may reflect. and immigrants to, Georgia. However, Georgia
attracted far more political attention about whether the
state has reached a point at which the costs of growth
DIFFERENCES ACROSS STATES—A COMPARISON
have outweighed the gain (Bouvier and Stein 2002).
OF GEORGIA AND KENTUCKY
That sort of publicity, and the recent SGA finding that
As we have noted, identifying the components of the ranked the Atlanta metropolitan statistical area (MSA)
six dimensions in Table 2 involved the examination of as the fourth most sprawling MSA in the nation (Ewing,
forty-nine state, regional (multicounty), and local poli- Pendall, and Chen 2002), can generate a need to claim
cies and programs in the states of Georgia and Ken- that a state is promulgating smart growth policies.
tucky that identified smart growth as at least part of the To determine what appears to have constituted
rationale. The two states both exhibit extensive rural smart growth implementation in these two states, each
and natural areas, as well as a majority of local jurisdic- program or policy document was reviewed first for the
tions with no formal planning or zoning requirements. extent to which it addressed the six different dimen-
However, they experienced very different levels of pop- sions of smart growth identified in Table 2. Next, those
ulation and economic activity growth in the 1990s. programs or policies that involved some explicit land
Georgia and Kentucky, therefore, reflect some of the use planning effort, a key element of smart growth,
TABLE 3. Population, Income, and Land Use Change in Georgia and Kentuckya
a. Unless otherwise stated, data are from U.S. census summary file 1 (SF1), 1990 and 2000.
b. Calculated from 2002 census of government—General purpose governments.
c. “Developed land area” includes nonfederal urban and built-up areas and rural transportation land. Numbers in parentheses
are percentages of nonfederal land that was developed. Data are from the 2001 Natural Resources Inventory (NRI), U.S. Depart-
ment of Agriculture, at http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/technical/land/tables/t5846.html.
were examined further to determine the extent to which mean coverage of close to four different dimensions in
public intervention in private land use decisions really both Kentucky and Georgia. At the regional and local
was accepted in practice, regardless of the rhetorical levels, the Kentucky documents tended to incorporate
posture of the document. all six dimensions. Those from Georgia, in contrast,
In both steps of the review process, the actual appeared to be narrower in scope than their state policy
breadth of the approach was established for each policy statements and plans, covering only slightly more than
or plan by counting how many of the possibilities were half the dimensions on average. While these smart
encompassed by the document. Thus, the score on growth documents generally included discussion of
smart growth for any one document ranged from one to planning, as we have noted, they clearly have not inte-
six, the number of dimensions and cells in Table 2. The grated the diverse elements of planning controls in any
score for breadth of “planning”” covers the same range, consistent manner: no group of documents from either
reflecting the six elements in the planning cell of the state encompasses an average of even half of the six
table. planning components identified in Table 2.
Table 4 displays the findings from these readings for The evidence on breadth of coverage of the smart
the forty-nine documents reviewed. Kentucky and growth dimensions suggests that the term may be
Georgia certainly have not come close to adopting any included in policy statements as lip service or as a form
statewide growth management (or smart growth) poli- of political cover for programs that have little to do with
cies. Georgia has even been characterized as one of the the key environmental concerns of the smart growth
laissez-faire states that lack any statewide growth man- advocates. To better understand what the policies really
agement mandates (Nelson 1999).Thus, some of their encompass, it is necessary to go beyond coverage
state-level initiatives or programs are selected to help counts to an examination of which smart growth and
reveal the current statewide efforts to promote smart planning elements actually appeared in the different
growth concept. It does appear, however, that some documents.
dimensions of the smart growth logic have enough Table 5 examines coverage of the six dimensions of
appeal to permit implementation of some of the ele- smart growth in the broader state and strictly local doc-
ments of the overall approach. Moreover, with some uments. We lay no claim to a “finding” on the types of
such activity in evidence in forty-five of the documents, coverage that are typical or characteristic, and we can-
the implementation clearly involves planning. not explain the variation we observed in our limited
Looking more carefully at smart growth overall, it is generalizations. These are subjects for further investi-
clear that, at the state level, few of the programs or poli- gations. (There were only five regional programs across
cies promulgated spanned all six of the dimensions of two states in the document collection. Therefore, it was
smart growth policies. By and large, however, those ini- impossible to generalize about those examples and we
tiatives were clearly multidimensional, showing a have not included them in this discussion.)
Number of Policies
That Encompass the
(Percentage of Policies in
Particular Element
Both States That Encompass
the Particular Element) Georgia Kentucky
Table 5 offers some useful insights and contrasts that growth documents stressed planning, suggesting that
underscore inconsistency in usage and the need for fur- there is a political imperative to imply some sort of
ther examination. At the state level, it appears that: action, not just intent, in smart growth policy
documents.
• As noted in both Tables 4 and 5, Georgia’s state-level
• Natural resource preservation is consistently a policy
policies seem to encompass more smart growth dimen-
focus. This uniformity suggests that, whatever else may
sions than do Kentucky’s, which are heavily concen-
motivate the policies, there is a recognition that a major-
trated on housing, an element that the Georgia docu-
ity of citizen groups and political constituencies
ments tend to ignore. The need to provide for housing
demand some environmental protection.
may just be too obvious to mention in a state with mas-
• Planning efforts are acknowledged as smart growth
sive population in-migration.
policy imperatives in the vast majority of cases, with the
local documents in Georgia showing 100 percent com-
mitment, probably due to legal requirements (APA At the local level, however, Kentucky appears to be
2002a, 51-52). Even absent such a requirement, how- uniformly more inclusive of the dimensions of smart
ever, fourteen out of sixteen of Kentucky’s local smart growth than is Georgia, with a mean coverage score of
5.1 relative to Georgia’s 3.6, as noted in Table 4. One for mixed land uses again suggests the use of symbolic
could speculate extensively on the reason for this differ- language as a cover.
ence, on the nature of political pressures leading differ- It is interesting that this apparent inconsistency
ent parties to wrap themselves in the mantle of the smart arises less in the local-level policy documents. At this
growth label, and on other issues. Kentucky appears to level, the density issue appears in roughly two-thirds of
offer an example of the power of poorly defined, but the statements that reference mixed land uses. The uni-
popular, language as political cover for whatever the formly higher concern with both these issues at the local
real objectives of the policies actually may be. From a level in Georgia than in Kentucky necessitates further
different perspective, the Kentucky local documents’ examination and explanation. Differences in rates of
broader coverage of all categories of smart growth poli- urban expansion during the past decade are probably
cies, except for planning, when compared to Georgia only a starting point for analysis. More in-depth exami-
may be interpreted as reflecting a different political nation of the political pressures and processes leading
imperative: the need to ensure that smart growth pro- to adoption of the plans is clearly needed to explain the
grams not be labeled as planning. greater interest evidenced in Kentucky documents for
We have no strong empirical grounds for either inter- comprehensive planning, street connectivity, and pub-
pretation, having no data on the political discourse lic services provision when compared to the Georgia
leading to the promulgation of the plans and policies, materials.
nor the identities or economic motivations of the propo- The few references to innovative water infrastruc-
nents and opponents of the decisions reflected in the ture appear to come from the smaller municipalities in
documents examined. The questions raised by such both states. New federal requirements (under clean
speculation do, however, need to be addressed. It is water and drinking water statutes) that water system
very clear from these superficial comparisons that the operators demonstrate their financial and managerial
language used cannot be taken to accurately reflect the capacities, not just their engineering/technical abilities
true motivations and objectives of the parties adopting to provide water, may be raising some concerns in those
and adapting terms to serve their purposes. jurisdictions that rely on small system operators. Other,
more local, factors may also play a role, including the
This examination of the six dimensions of smart
higher proportional impacts of sprawl on smaller
growth policies suggests manipulation of language. A
communities.
closer look at the extent to which implementation plans
Overall, these comparisons have demonstrated the
actually use all the tools available (and potentially nec-
considerable range over which the meanings ascribed
essary) provides somewhat more evidence, albeit no
to the term smart growth can vary across governments,
definitive answers. Table 6 depicts the breadth of the
between the levels of government, and can apparently
planning tools and approaches exhibited by the state
shift with the political imperatives of different commu-
and local policy documents that were reviewed.
nities. The evidence from the forty-nine policy instru-
Once again, there are stark differences between the ments examined also supports the presumption that the
states and the levels of government within them. The pursuit of smart growth objectives need not necessarily
variation in this case arises with the descriptions in the result in the imposition of detailed prescriptive plan-
policy documents of what constitutes “smart growth ning, since, on average, fewer than half the planning
planning.” At the state level, there is no comprehensive elements were incorporated in the smart growth
planning evident in Kentucky, but Georgia, with legis- documents.
lative mandates in place (see APA 2002a, 51-52),
appears to rely heavily on the tool. Despite this very
fundamental difference, neither state pays any atten- CONCLUSION
tion to street connectivity. This apparently is seen as a This review of definitions from a range of different
local concern, even though all communities have state national organizations and of the uses and apparent
roads and highway intersections over which the states implementations of the smart growth label evident in
have jurisdiction. Both states emphasize planning for state and local government documents illustrates how
public services provision. Beyond that, the states differ. malleable the label is in practice. This does not necessar-
Why Kentucky places more emphasis on planning ily mean that the term has become totally meaningless
for mixed land uses, while Georgia is more concerned or transformed into an excuse for any policies that an
about increasing densities is not at all obvious. One agency wishes to promulgate. It does suggest that anal-
might speculate that it is because Georgia has experi- ysis of the impact of such policies and practices must
enced much higher in-migration. The fact that a con- involve detailed examination of the nuances of imple-
cern for density is exhibited at a rate less than half that mentation. It is clear that the combination of an explicit
Number of Policies
That Encompass the
(Percentage of Policies in
Particular Element
Both States That Encompass
the Particular Element) Georgia Kentucky
City of Buckhead. n.d. A vision for the Buckhead Village. http:// tobacco/councils/quicksand/lee1.html (accessed November 13,
www.buckhead.net/villagevision/index.html (accessed August 2003).
12, 2003). Boyle County. 2002. Heart of Danville main street program.. http://
City of Decatur. 2000. Decatur strategic plan 2000-2010. http:// www.downtowndanville.com/ (accessed November 13, 2003).
www.decaturga.com/pdf/stratplan1.pdf (accessed August 25, City-County Planning Commission of Warren County. 1999a. Oakland
2003). r u r a l vi l l a ge pol i c y pl a n . http :/ / w w w.w ar re np c.o rg /
City of Madison. 2000. Madison traditional neighborhood development oaklandruralvillagepolicies.htm (accessed November 13, 2003).
(TND) code. http://madison.townware.com/site/page520.html . 1999b. Warren County Comprehensive Plan. http://
(accessed October 15, 2003). www.warrencountyva.net/Comprehensive_Plan.html (accessed
City of Port Wentworth. n.d. Port Wentworth form based zoning code. November 13, 2003).
http://cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/policy.cfm?policyid=747 (accessed . 2001. Smiths Grove Rural Village Policy Plan. http://
September 9, 2003). www.warrenpc.org/sgruralvillagepolicies.htm (accessed November 13,
City of Suwanee. 2000. Suwanee 2020: A citywide comprehensive plan and 2003).
town master plan. http://www.suwanee.com/development.php City of Glasgow. n.d. Renaissance/main street Glasgow. http://
(accessed September 16, 2003). www.cityofglasgow.org/renaissance.htm (accessed April 1, 2002).
Columbia County Planning and Development Services Division. Danville-Boyle County Planning and Zoning Commission. 2002.
1999. Columbia County growth management plan—forward 2020. Danville/Boyle County commercial sector feasibility study. http://
http://www.co.columbia.ga.us/urban2020/intro.htm (accessed www.danville-ky.com/BoyleCounty/feasibility.htm (accessed November
March 28, 2003). 13, 2003).
. 2003. Columbia County PUD development. http:// . n.d. Danville/Boyle County community development plan. http:/
www.co.co lumb ia.ga.us/planning_development/ plan- /www.danville-ky.com/BoyleCounty/planning.htm (accessed
ning_development1.html (accessed September 8, 2003). April 7, 2002).
Forsyth County Planning Department. 2002. Forsyth County unified Enterprise Zone/Enterprise Communities. 2001. Bowling Green enter-
development code. http://www.co.forsyth.nc.us/ccpb/UDO/ prise community. http://www.ezec.gov/Communit/bowling.html
udomain.pdf (accessed March 28, 2003). (accessed November 1, 2002).
Fulton County Board of Commissioners. 2003. Fulton County transfer- Farm Service Agency. 2001. Conservation reserve program-Kentucky
able development right ordinance. http://www.chatthillcountry.org/ enhancement program. http://www.fsa.usda.gov/pas/publica-
main/tdr.htm (accessed March 28, 2003). tions/facts/crepky01.pdf (accessed June 21, 2002).
Georgia Conservancy. n.d. Smart growth program. http:// Garkovich, Lori. 1996. Protecting agricultural land: A question for Ken-
www.georgiaconservancy.org/SmartGrowth/SmartGrowth.asp tucky communities. http://www.ca.uky.edu/snarl/landusefiles/
(accessed March 28, 2003). landusepubs.htm (accessed March 23, 2003).
Georgia Department of Community Affairs. 1998. Recommendations of Georgetown–Scott County Planning Commission. 1996. Georgetown–
the grow th s tr a te gi e s re a s s e s s me n t ta s k f o rce . http :/ / Scott County comprehensive plan. http://www.gscplanning.com/
www.dca.state.ga.us/planning/georgiasfuture.pdf (accessed comprehensive_plan.htm (accessed November 13, 2003).
March 28, 2003).
Grant County Planning Commission. 2001. Grant County comprehen-
. n.d.a. C o n s e r va ti o n s u b di vi s i o n pro gr a m. http :/ / sive plan. http://www.grantcopz.com/Comp%20Plan/
www.dca.state.ga.us/toolkit/resource2.asp?ID=10 (accessed gccomptoc.htm (accessed November 13, 2003).
March 28, 2003).
Henderson County Chamber of Commerce. n.d. Henderson City-
. n.d.b. Northwest Georgia growth management initiative program. County Planning Commission. http://www.hendersonky.com/
http://www.dca.state.ga.us/nwga/index.html (accessed March plancom.html (accessed April 20, 2002).
28, 2003).
Home Builders Association of Northern Kentucky. 2002. HBA of NKY
Georgia Department of Natural Resource Greenspace Commission. community development policies. http://www.hbanky.com/
n.d. Community greenspace program. http://www.ganet.org/dnr/ GovtAffairs/CommDevPol.asp (accessed November 1, 2002).
greenspace/ (accessed May 15, 2003).
Kentucky Heritage Council. n.d. Kentucky Heritage Council’s tax credit
Georgia Regional Advisory Council. n.d. Georgia regional growth strat- program. http://www.state.ky.us/agencies/khc/tax_credit.htm
egy. http://www.dca.state.ga.us/nwga/implementation/ (accessed February 2, 2003).
NWGAExSummary.pdf (accessed May 15, 2003).
Kentuckiana Regional Planning and Development Agency (KIPDA).
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority. n.d. www.grta.org 2003. Horizon 2025 regional mobility plan: Bicycle and pedestrian ele-
(accessed March 28, 2003). ment. http://www.kipda.org/transport/DOWNLOAD/
Gwinnet County Planning Department. 2003. Gwinnet mixed-use over- Final%20Full%20Plan.pdf (accessed February 1, 2003).
lay ordinance. http://www.co.gwinnett.ga.us/departments/plan- The Nature Conservancy. n.d. Conservation land buyer program. http:/
ning/pdf/devreg.pdf (accessed August 23, 2003). /nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/kentucky/
Habersham County. 2001. Habersham smart growth coalition. http:// projects (accessed July 2, 2002).
www.habershamsmartgrowth.org/ (accessed September 29, 2003). Owensboro Metropolitan Planning Commission. 1999. Daviess
Henry County Georgia. n.d. Henry County quality growth initiative. County Land Use Task Force Study. http://www.iompc.org/docu-
http://www.atlreg.com/counties/henry.html (accessed August ments/DaviessCoLandUseTaskForceStudy.pdf (accessed May 15,
23, 2003). 2002).
Statesboro County. 2002. Statesboro County greenway planning. http:// Preservation Kentucky. 2001. Why preservation is smart growth. http://
www.georgiaqualitygrowth.com/region12.html (accessed March www.preservationkentucky.org/news/Communique/July-
28, 2003). August_2001/PreservationSmartGrowth.html (accessed March 23,
2002).
Kentucky Scott, Jean, and Steve Kay. n.d. Preserving the bluegrass. Lexington, KY:
Beatyville/Lee County Planning Commission. n.d. Beattyville—Lee Roberts and Kay.
county plan. http://www.uky.edu/Agriculture/AgPrograms/
Transport Authority of River City (TARC). n.d. Smart commute initia- International City/County Management Association with Geoff Ander-
tive TARC program. http://www.ridetarc.org/SmartCommute.htm son. 1998. Why smart growth: A primer. Washington, DC: International
(accessed February 1, 2003). City/County Management Association. Also available online at
Transportation Tomorrow. 2002. South Central light rail—Transporta- http://www.epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/WhySmartGrowth_
tion tomorrow project. http://www.t-2.org/south_central_ltrl.htm bk.pdf.
(accessed February 1, 2003). National Association of Home Builders (NAHB). 2003. Policy state-
Water Resource Information System. 2001. Water management planning ment, June 13, 2003: Smart growth. http://www.nahb.org/
in KY. hthttp://wris.state.ky.us/wma/pdfs/overview/ generic.aspx?sectionID=188&genericContentID=3519 (accessed
WMPREPORT.pdff (accessed May 2, 2002). November 7, 2003).
Young, Penny. 2002. Renaissance Kentucky—2002 program guide. http:/ . n.d.a. Mission and vision. http://www.nahb.org/
/www.kyhousing.org/communitytech/RenKy/resources/ generic.aspx?sectionID=88 (accessed November 8, 2003).
RenKyProgramGuide.doc (accessed March 26, 2002). . n.d.b. NAHB’s smart growth policy statement: Smart growth:
Building better places to live, work and play. http://www.nahb.org/
generic.aspx?genericContentID=384 (accessed June 19, 2003).
National Wildlife Federation. n.d. “Smart” development-guidelines &
practices. http://www.nwf.org/smartgrowth/guidelines.html
NOTES (accessed February 02, 2003).
1. http://www.hud.gov/assist/siteindex.cfm. Nelson, Arthur C. 1999. Comparing states with and without growth
management: Analysis based on indicators with policy implica-
2. http://www.hud.gov/cfo/glossary.html#S.
tions. Land Use Policy 16 (2): 121-27.
3. http://smartgrowth.net (not to be confused with Smart Growth
Nelson, Arthur C., and Susan M. Wachter. 2002. Smart growth and hous-
Network’s http://www.smartgrowth.org). ing policy. http://www.huduser.org/Publications/pdf/brd/
08Nelson.pdf (accessed August 27, 2003).
REFERENCES Parfrey, Eric. n.d. What is smart growth? http://www.sierraclub.org/
sprawl/community/smartgrowth.asp (accessed June 19, 2003).
American Planning Association. 2002a. Planning for smart growth—
2002 state of states. Chicago: American Planning Association. Porter, Douglas R. 2002. Making smart growth work. Washington, DC:
Urban Land Institute.
. 2002b. Policy guide on smart growth. http://www.plan-
ning.org/policyguides/smartgrowth.htm (accessed March 8, Smart Growth America. n.d. What is smart growth? http://www.
2003). smartgrowthamerica.org/whatissg.html (accessed June 19, 2003).
. 2002c. What exactly is smart growth? http://www.plan- Smart Growth Network. 2002. Getting to smart growth: 100 policies for
ning.org/newsreleases/2002/ftp0502.htm (accessed June 19, implementation. Washington, DC: International City/County Man-
2003). agement Association (ICMA). Also available online at http://
www.smartgrowth.org/pdf/gettosg.pdf.
Bouvier, Leon F., and Sharon McCloe Stein. 2002. Georgia’s dilemma:
The unintended consequences of population growth. Washington, DC: . n.d. Pr i n ci pl e s o f s ma r t grow th. http :/ /
Negative Population Growth. www.smartgrowth.org/about/principles/default.asp?res=800
(accessed June 19, 2003).
Bradley, David. 2003. Anti-growth plan approved in county. Louden
Easterner (VA), January 8. http://www.easterner.com/articles03/ Trust for Public Land. 1999. The economic benefits of parks and open space:
010803/content.htm (accessed July 25, 2004). How land conservation helps communities grow smart and protect the bot-
tom line. Washington, DC: Trust for Public Land.
Burchell, Robert W., David Listokin, and Catherine C. Galley. 2000.
Smart growth: More than a ghost of urban policy past, less than a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service. 2001.
bold new horizon. Housing Policy Debate 11 (4): 821-79. Smart growth: Implications for agriculture in urban fringe areas.
Agricultural Outlook (April): 24-27. http://www.ers.usda.gov/
Dawkins, Casey J., and Arthur C. Nelson. 2003. State growth manage- publications/AgOutlook/April2001/ao280.pdf (accessed August
ment programs and central city revitalization. Journal of the Ameri- 27, 2003).
can Planning Association 69 (4): 381-96.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2003. Smart
Ewing, Reid, Rolf Pendall, and Don Chen. 2002. Measuring Sprawl and growth and livable communities resources. http://www.hud.gov/
Its Impact. Washington, DC: Smart Growth America. offices/cpd/economicdevelopment/programs/rc/resource/
Fiscelli, Chris. 2003. Smart growth dream will give you nightmares. smartliv.cfm (accessed August 27, 2003).
http://www.rppi.org/smartgrowthdream.html (accessed July 25, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 2002. National award for smart
2004) growth achievement 2002 winners. Publication EPA 231-F-02-002.
Hayward, Steven. 2000. Smart growth lessons from Portland. Presen- Washington, DC: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
tation to Heartland Institute’s National Conference on Sprawl and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. n.d.a. Smart growth policy data-
Smart Growth. April 26. http://www.pacificresearch.org/pub/ base glossary. http://cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/glossary.cfm?type=
sab/enviro/portland.html (accessed July 25, 2004). topic (accessed November 19, 2003).
Hirschhorn, Joel S., and Paul Souza. 2001. New community design to the . n.d.b. What is smart growth? http://www.epa.gov/dced/
rescue: Fulfilling another American dream. http://www.nga.org/ about_sg.htm#what_is_sg (accessed November 11, 2003).
cda/files/072001NCDFull.pdf (accessed September 4, 2003).
Urban Land Institute. n.d. What is smart growth? http://
Horton, Tom. 1999. Can we grow smarter? Land & People Magazine. smartgrowth.net/Home/sg_Home_Main_A.html (accessed
Spring. The Trust for Public Land, http://www.tpl.org/ November 8, 2003).
tier3_cd.cfm?content_item_id=959&folder_id=765 (accessed June
19, 2003).