عنوان مقاله [English]
Urban growth topic and their patterns with the growth management policies, as important topics, affect various urban and regional plans. Based upon this matter, the main purpose of this study is a typology identification of growth management policies in urban base regions. For this aim, two sections are set: first, the important and highly cited studies on urban growth pattern are surveyed, then main urban growth pattern in three vast concepts including urban growth, urban expansion, urban sprawl are presented. In the second section and after identification of twelve growth patterns, the typology of growth management policies is presented. After growth management typology discussion, the linkage explanation between growth patterns and growth management policies is done. The research method in this paper is meta-analysis method. Research findings show that the most important polices in growth management include twelve parts. These polices in some studies is known as growth management geopolitics and employed in various cities in the world both inside and outside the city limits. Growth management policies include the following: Green Belt (GB), Urban Growth Boundary (UGB), Urban Services Areas (USA), Extra-Territorial Jurisdiction (ETJ),
Mandatory Comprehensive Plans, Concurrency Provisions and Development Impact Fees, Inter local and Joint-Planning Agreements and Inter Local Agreements (ILA), Transfer/Purchase of Development Rights (TDR), Density Bonuses and Inclusionary Housing Provisions, Special Tax/Financing Tools, Green-Building Programs and Mass-Transit and TOD. Growth management techniques, in general, include: (1) housing/population caps, commercial/industrial caps, and temporary moratoria, (2) urban growth boundaries (UGBs), urban service boundaries (USAs), urban limit lines, and the green belt, (3) concurrency, adequate public facilities (APF), and development impact fees, (4) zoning and other land use regulations such as planned unit developments (PUDs), the purchase of development rights (PDRs), and the transfer of development rights (TDRs), (5) financial or tax incentives for infill and redevelopment, (6) conservation easement and the direct purchase of land for conservation, (7) environmental regulations, and (8) tax-base revenue sharing. The applications and implementation of these techniques are diverse in terms of their strengths and flexibility at the local, community, regional, and state levels. Regarding to these growth management techniques, many studies referred to the techniques of growth boundary (e.g., UGBs, USAs, urban limit lines, and the green belt) as “urban containment” policies. Despite a significant amount of documentation and research on the growth management systems and their implementation, the impact of growth management systems on revitalization in urbanized areas has not been comprehensively addressed in academic literature because the length of time after implementing growth management policies can be a critical factor in the analysis of their effects. However, Dawkins and Nelson (2003) assessed the impact of statewide growth management systems on central-city revitalization by analyzing the panel data of construction activities for 293 metropolitan areas. Their analyses indicated that statewide growth management programs have observable effects on residential construction activities in the central cities. Growth management policies such as an Urban Growth Boundary (UGB) can help encourage infill development in the inner-ring suburbs. However, urban containment policies at the regional level may revitalize the downtowns and the outer-ring suburbs within the growth boundaries at the expense of the inner-ring suburbs. Although urban containment shifted development from rural and exurban areas to city and suburban areas, this shift may concentrate in the downtowns and the outer-ring suburbs of the spatially differentiated metropolitan region. Growth management programs can be framed to address these problems [the vicious cycle of poverty concentration, social despair, and fiscal distress that plagues much of urban America] in fundamental ways, they can redirect economic and social forces by balancing the spread of new development with several efforts to stabilize or revive existing neighborhoods, business centers, and industrial areas and by modifying tax and infrastructure investment policies that influence location decisions. Urban growth management policies, targeting increased development density and protection of open spaces, are widely required in various parts of the world to alleviate negative effects of urban development. Negative impacts of disordered urban growth range from excessive land reclamation and energy consumption, to traffic congestion and air pollution. Urban containment policies including urban growth boundaries (UGBs), urban service boundaries (USBs), and greenbelts are intended to contain the specified types of future urban development (e.g. high-rise residential buildings), within pre-defined boundaries to curb urban sprawl and encourage infill development. Finally Growth management looks for maintaining an ongoing equilibrium between development and conservation, between various form of development and the concurrent provision of infrastructure, between the demands for public services generated by growth and the supply of revenues to finance those demands, and between progress and equity.
Abbott, C. (2007). Imagining Portland’s Urban Growth Boundary. Paper Presented at the Urban Affairs Association 37th Annual Meeting, Seattle, April 25–28.
Acioly, C.C., Davidson, F. (1996). Density in Urban Development. Building Issues, 8(3), 3–25.
Alterman, R. (1997). The Challenge of Farmland Preservation: Lessons from a Six-Nation Comparison. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(2), 220–241.
Amati, M. (2008). Urban Green Belts in the Twenty-First Century, Macquarie University, Australia. Ashgate Publishing Company.
Angel, S., Parent, J. & Civco, D. (2007). Urban Sprawl Metrics: An Analysis of Global Urban Expansion Using GIS. Proceedings of ASPRS 2007 Annual Conference, Tampa, Florida May 7–11.
Belkina, T. D. (2007). Diagnosing Urban Development by an Indicator System. Studies on Russian Economic Development, 18(2), 162–170.
Bengston, D.N., Fletcher, J.O., & Nelson, K.C. (2004). Public Policies For Managing Urban Growth And Protecting Open Space: Policy Instruments and Lessons Learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69, 271–286.
Calthorpe, P. (1993). The Next American Metropolis: Ecology, Community, and Thevamerican Dream. New York Princeton Architectural Press.
Camagni, R., Cristina, M., Rigamonti, P. (2002). Urban Mobility and Urban Form: The Social and Environmental Costs of Different Patterns of Urban Expansion. Ecological Economics, 40, 199- 216.
Carlson, T., Dierwechter, Y.)2007(. Effects of Urban Growth Boundaries on Residential Development in Pierce County, Washington. The Professional Geographer, 59 (2), 209–220.
Chapin, T. (2007). Local Governments as Policy Entrepreneurs: Evaluating Florida’s ‘Concurrency Experiment. Urban Affairs Review, 42 (4), 505–532.
Chinitz, Benjamin. )1990(. Growth Management: Good for the Town, Bad for the Nation?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 56, 1, 3-8.
Degrove, J.M., Deborah, A.M. (1992). The New Frontier for Land Policy: Planning and Growth Management in the States. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA.
Dierwechter, Y. (2008). Urban Growth Management and Its Discontents: Promises, Practices, and Geo-Politics in U.S. City Regions, First Edition: Library of Congress Cataloging, New York.
Dietzel, C., Herold, M., Hemphill, J. J., & Clarke, K. C. (2005). Spatio-Temporal Dynamics in California’s Central Valley: Empirical Links to Urban Theory. International Journal of Geographical Information Science, 19(2), 175–195.
Dietzel, C., Oguz, H., Hemphill, J. J., Clarke, K. C., & Gazulis, N. (2005). Diffusion and Coalescence of the Houston Metropolitan Area: Evidence Supporting a New Urban Theory. Environment and Planning B, 32(2), 231–246.
English, M.R., Hoffman, R.J. (2001). Planning For Rural Areas in Tennessee Under Public Chapter 1101, White Paper Presented for the TACIR-The Tennessee Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations.
Ewing, RH. (2008). Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl: A Literature Review. Urban Studies, 21(2), 1-15.
Forman, R.T.T. (1995). Land Mosaics: The Ecology of Landscapes and Regions. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
Frenkel, A. (2004). The Potential Effect of National Growth-Management Policy on Urban Sprawl and the Depletion of Open Spaces and Farmland, Land Use Policy, 21, 357–369.
Fulton, W., Nguyen, M., Williamson, Ch., Shigley, P., Kancler, E., Dietenhofer, J., Sourial, J.)2002(. Growth Management Ballot Measures in California. Ventura, CA: Solimar Research Group, Inc.
Geymen, A., Baz, I. (2008). Monitoring Urban Growth and Detecting Land-Cover Changes on the Istanbul Metropolitan Area. Environmental Monitoring Assessment, 136, 449–459.
Godschalk, D., R. J. Brower, D., D. Mcbennett, L., A. Vestal, B. (1977). Constitutional Issues of Growth Management. Chicago, IL: The ASPO Press.
Hadly, C.C. (2000). Urban Sprawl: Indicators, Causes, and Solutions. Document Prepared for the Bloomington Environmental Commission.
Harvey, R.O.,Clark, W.A.V. (1965). The Nature and Economics of Urban Sprawl. Land Economics, 41(1), 1–9.
Hedblom, M. & Soderstrom, B. (2008). Woodlands across Swedish Urban Gradients: Status, Structure and Management Implications. Landscape & Urban Planning, 84, 62–73.
Herold, M., Couclelis, H., Clarke, K.C. (2005). The Role of Spatial Metrics in the Analysis and Modeling of Urban Change. Computers, Environment, & Urban Systems, 29, 339–369.
Herold, M., Goldstein, N. C., & Clarke, K. C. (2003). The Spatiotemporal Form of Urban Growth: Measurement, Analysis and Modeling. Remote Sensing of Environment, 86(3), 286–302.
F. Huffman, Jr., A. Nelson, A., T. Smith, M. & A. Stegman, M. (1988). Who Bears the Burden of Development Impact Fees?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 54 (1), 9–55.
Ihlandfeldt, K.R., Shaunghnessy, T.M. (2002). An Empirical Investigation of the Effects of Impact Fees on Housing and Land Markets. Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Johnson, W. (2007). Civil Rights: A Mayor’s Reflections. In Growing Smarter: Achieving Livability, Community, Environmental Justice, and Regional Equity, Ed. R. Bullard. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Kelly, F.N. (2006). Trends in Development, Zoning Density, and the Demand for Transferable Development Rights: A Case Study of Montgomery County, Maryland. University of Maryland.
Lee, S. (2005). The Role of Inner Ring Suburbs in Metropolitan Smart Growth Strategies. Journal of Planning Literature, 19(3), 330-346. Doi: 10.1177/0885412204271878.
Liu, X., Li, X., Chen, Y. )2010(. A New Landscape Index for Quantifying Urban Expansion Using Multi-Temporal Remotely Sensed Data. Landscape Ecology .671-682.
Martinuzzi, S., Gould, W.A. & Gonzalez, O.M.R. (2007). Land Development, Land Use, and Urban Sprawl in Puerto Rico Integrating Remote Sensing and Population Census Data. Landscape & Urban Planning, 79, 288–297.
Millward, H. (2006) Urban Containment Strategies: A Case-Study Appraisal of Plans and Policies in Japanese, British and Canadian Cities. Journal of Land Use Policy, 23, 473-485.
Nelson, A., Tech,V. (2003). Urban Grow H Boundaries Are an Increaslrlg Orida Enco Heir Use. Growth (Lakeland). (February), 22-27.
Páez, A., Scott, D.M. (2004). Spatial Statistics for Urban Analysis: A Review of Techniques with Examples. Geojournal, 61(1), 53–67.
Pendall, R., Martin, J. & Fulton, W. (2002). Holding the Line: Urban Containment in the United States. The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy, Washington, DC.
Peterson, T., Rose, A. (2006). Reducing Conflicts between Climate Policy and Energy Policy in the US: The Important Role of the States. Energy Policy, 34 (5), 619–631.
Porter, Douglas R.(1997). Managing Growth in America’s Communities. Washington, DC: Island Press.
Portney, K. (2004). Taking Sustainable Cities Seriously: Economic Development, the Environment and Quality of Life in American Cities. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Puliafito, J.L. (2007). A Transport Model for the Evolution of Urban Systems. Applied Mathematical Modelling, 31, 2391–2411.
Robinson, L., Newell, J., Marzluff, J. (2005). Twenty-Five Years of Sprawl in the Seattle Region: Growth Management Responses and Implications for Conservation. Landscape and Urban Planning, 71 (1), 51–72.
Shi, Y., Sun, X., Zhu, X., Li, Y., Mei, L. (2012). Landscape and Urban Planning Characterizing Growth Types and Analyzing Growth Density Distribution in Response to Urban Growth Patterns in Peri-Urban Areas of Lianyungang City. Landscape and Urban Planning, 105 (4), 425-433.
Skaburskis, A., Qadeer, M. )1992(. An Empirical Estimation of the Price Effects of Development Impact Fees. Urban Studies, 29(5), 653-667.
Samuel R., S., G. Edgens, J., C.S. Mildner, G. (1999). Boundaries U-Growth, Growth S, Ildner GECSM. A Line in the Land: Growth (Lakeland). (263).
Steinacker, A. (2003). Infill Development and Affordable Housing: Patterns From 1996–2000. Urban Affairs Review, 38 (4), 492–509.
Wang, Zhu, L., Wang, R., Shi, Y. (2003). Analysis on the Spatial Distribution Variation Characteristic of Urban Heat Environmental Quality and Its Mechanism- a Case Study Of Hangzhou City. Chinese Geographical Science, 13(1), 39–47.
Wilson, E.H., Hurd, J.D., Civco, D.L., Prisloe, S. & Arnold, C. (2003). Development of a Geospatial Model to Quantify, Describe and Map Urban Growth. Remote Sensing of Environment, 86(3), 275–285.
Yanos, P.T. (2007). Beyond “Landscapes of Despair”: The Need for New Research on the Urban Environment, Sprawl, and the Community Integration of Persons with Severe Mental Illness. Health & Place, 13, 672–676.
Zhang, P., Atkinson, P.M. (2008). Modelling the Effect of Urbanization on the Transmission of an Infectious Disease. Mathematical Biosciences, 211, 166–185.