The Impact of the Smart Growth Incentive Policies on the Water and Sewer Infrastructure Investment in and outside the Priority Funding Area in Maryland

매릴랜드 주 스마트성장 인센티브정책이 우선투자지역 내외부에서의 상하수도시설투자에 미치는 영향

  • Sohn, Jung-Yul (Department of Geography, College of Social Sciences, Seoul National University)
  • 손정렬 (서울대학교 사회과학대학 지리학과)
  • Published : 2008.12.31

Abstract

This paper attempts to examine how Maryland's Priority Funding Area (PFA) designation and incentive program has influenced the location of infrastructure investment. Is Maryland's PFA program reducing sprawl? In order to answer this question, data on the water and sewer infrastructure investments between 1997 and 2003 are collected from each county in the state. Empirical works are composed of two parts. The first part of the empirical analysis examines the pattern of water and sewer investment that has gone in and outside the PFAs between 1997 and 2003 at the county level. The second part of the empirical study shows at a county level the conditions that influence decisions to go in and outside the PFA. Regression models with various specifications are used for the analysis. The findings reveal that state fund has worked as designed. The coefficients of state fund in all estimations are significant and have expected signs implying that a county with more state fund tends to invest more in PFA as less outside.

이 논문은 미국 매릴랜드 주의 우선투자지역 설정과 이에 기반한 인센티브 프로그램이 기반시설의 투자위치에 어떤 영향을 주고 있는지를 검증하려는데 그 목적을 두고 있다. 매릴랜드 주의 우선투자지역 프로그램은 도시스프롤을 억제하고 있는가? 이 물음에 대한 답을 구하기 위하여 본 연구에서는 1997년부터 2003년의 기간 동안 주 내의 각 카운티로부터 상하수도 기반시설 투자에 대한 자료를 수집하였다. 실증분석은 두 부분으로 구성되어 있다. 첫 번째 부분은 1997년과 2003년 사이에 카운티별로 우선투자지역의 내부와 외부에 이루어진 상하수도 시설 투자의 패턴을 대상으로 한 분석이다. 두 번째 부분에서는 카운티 단위에서 우선투자지역의 내부 혹은 외부로 투자결정이 이루어지는데 영향을 준 조건들을 확인하는 분석이다. 분석을 위하여 다양한 방식의 회귀모형이 이용되었다. 분석의 결과 주정부의 지원금은 애초의 의도했던 바와 같은 역할을 한 것으로 확인되었다. 모든 추정방식에서 주정부 지원금의 계수값은 유의하였으며 기대한 바와 같은 방향으로 영향을 주고 있었다. 이는 주 정부의 지원금을 많이 받은 카운티일수록 우선투자지역 내부로의 투자가 많았고 외부로의 투자는 작았음을 의미한다.

Keywords

References

  1. Alexander, D. and Tomalty, R., 2002, Smart growth and sustainable development: challenges, solutions and policy directions, Local Environment, 7(4), 397-409 https://doi.org/10.1080/1354983022000027578
  2. American Planning Association, 2002, Planning for Smart Growth, Chicago
  3. Burge, G. and Ihlanfeldt, K., 2006, The effect of impact fees on multifamily housing construction, Journal of Regional Science, 46, 5-23 https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0022-4146.2006.00431.x
  4. Burge, G. and Ihlanfeldt, K., 2006, Impact fees and single-family home construction, Journal of Urban Economics, 60, 284-306 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.03.002
  5. Cho, C., 2006, Backgrounds and implementation of smart growth in the U.S., Planning and Policy 299, 42-51
  6. Daniels, T., 2001, Smart growth: a new American approach to regional planning, Planning Practice and Research, 16(3/4), 271-279 https://doi.org/10.1080/02697450120107880
  7. Downs, A., 1999, Some realities about urban sprawl and urban decline, Housing Policy Debate, 10(4), 955-974
  8. Downs, A., 2005, Smart growth: why we discuss it more than we do it?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367-378 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360508976707
  9. Ewing, R., 1997, Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 107-126 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975728
  10. Gordon, P. and Richardson, H. W., 1997, Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?, Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 95-106 https://doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975727
  11. Howland, M. and Sohn, J., 2007, Has Maryland's priority funding areas initiative constrained the expansion of water and sewer investments?, Land Use Policy, 24, 175-186 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landusepol.2005.05.008
  12. Knaap, G.-J. and Frece J. W., 2007, Smart Growth in Maryland: looking forward and looking back, Idaho Law Review, 43, 445-473
  13. Lee, W., 2006, Directions of urban development for smart growth, Planning and Policy, 299, 6-14
  14. Maryland Office of Planning, 1997, The Smart Growth Areas Act of 1997, State of Maryland. Baltimore
  15. Newburn, D. A. and Berck, P., 2006, Modeling suburban and rural-residential development beyond the urban fringe, Land Economics, 82, 481-499 https://doi.org/10.3368/le.82.4.481
  16. Sohn, J. and Knaap, G., 2007, The characteristics of housing markets and urban development trends in the Washington-Baltimore Metropolitan Area in the U.S., Journal of the Korean Urban Geographical Society, 10(3), 27-40
  17. Whipple, M. D., 2000, Smart Growth's Weak Link? An Analytical Evaluation of Water and Sewer Planning in Maryland, Unpublished Master's Thesis, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg