A review of fifty years of US local growth management (Landis, Progress in Planning, 2021) compared eight adopting jurisdictions with matched non-adopting peers on population growth, land conversion, density, fiscal, and housing-price metrics over 1990-2010, concluding that only some instruments - Boulder's annual building-permit cap and Portland's urban growth boundary combined with transit and infill policies - consistently achieved their local goals, while both were accompanied by accelerated home-price appreciation. Five linked issues remain open beyond the review's findings: the extent and mechanisms of regional displacement of growth to neighbouring jurisdictions and its aggregate metropolitan environmental, fiscal, and affordability consequences; generalizability across metropolitan contexts and time periods; long-run fiscal implications under alternative municipal revenue structures; distributional effects on renters and lower-income households; and standardized measurement with quasi-experimental attribution of program effects. The open problem is to replace descriptive case-pair associations with causally identified, generalizable estimates of what growth-management instruments do at metropolitan scale. Post-2019 reviews and evaluations (Ewing et al. 2022; Siedentop et al. 2022; Lin and Wachter 2019/2020; He et al. 2024; Grover and Anthony 2026) report substantive progress on separate components but do not resolve that problem, which therefore remains open.

Background

Local growth management (LGM) is the family of US municipal and county policies intended to slow, shape, or redirect urban development. Its main instruments include: tempo controls, such as Boulder, Colorado's annual cap on residential building permits, which limits the number of new dwellings approved each year in order to hold population growth near a fixed percentage; urban growth boundaries (UGBs), legally fixed lines around an urbanized area outside which urban development is restricted, as in metropolitan Portland under Oregon statute; transfer of development rights (TDR), under which owners of fringe farmland or resource land can sell development rights to developers building at higher density inside the urban area; incentive programs such as Maryland's Priority Funding Areas, which steer state infrastructure funding toward designated infill zones; transit-oriented development (TOD), the concentration of new development around rail stations; city-county consolidation; coastal permitting regimes; and conventional zoning. The instruments emerged after Ramapo, New York's 1969 phased-growth ordinance and matured through the Smart Growth movement of the 1990s. Landis (2021) organized the efficacy and adverse-effect literatures and then took a fresh comparative look: for each of eight case communities that adopted an instrument, he matched a similar peer community that did not, and compared both on a standardized set of about eleven outcome metrics over 1990-2010 - population growth, urban land-cover change measured from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD, a US Landsat-based classification of land cover), density-gradient changes, core-area population change, per-capita municipal revenues and debt, and median home values, rents, and renter cost burden. The paired findings: the permit cap and the UGB-plus-complementary-policies package most consistently achieved local containment goals, but both case jurisdictions also saw substantially faster home-value appreciation than their peers; consolidation and coastal permitting showed no consistent differences; and inference from eight heterogeneous pairs is hazardous by the author's own caveat. Two long-standing adverse-effect threads frame what is missing. First, price effects: Jun (2006) examined the housing-price effects of Portland's UGB, part of a continuing debate over whether containment raises housing costs. Second, spatial displacement, often called leapfrogging: Pendall (1999) argued that local growth controls adopted within a fragmented jurisdictional landscape can push development past restrictive municipalities into less-regulated neighbours, potentially worsening rather than curbing sprawl. Landis's own case design is exposed to exactly this problem: growth deterred in Boulder or Portland may surface in the matched peer or elsewhere in the metropolitan housing market, so a locally successful program can be a metropolitan redistribution. Later syntheses confirm the evidence base remains unsettled: Ewing et al. (2022) conclude from a comprehensive tool-by-tool review that growth management is neither a panacea for sprawl nor the failure its critics claim, and Siedentop, Schmidt and Dunlop (2022) treat spillover and displacement in what they call porous land markets as a recurring, still-unresolved threat to effectiveness, while Xie et al. (2020) found that the green belts of Frankfurt, London, and Seoul failed to prevent urban sprawl at the wider regional level. What no available study provides is a causally identified, generalizable quantification: how much curtailed growth reappears in other jurisdictions of the same metropolitan area, and what that redistribution does to metropolitan-aggregate land consumption, municipal fiscal position, and housing affordability, including for renters and lower-income households.

Problem Statement

From the evidence review of fifty years of US local growth management (Landis, 2021), the following question remains open: what are the causal metropolitan-scale effects of local growth-management instruments? The open problem is to produce a synthesis that both proposes the measurement-and-attribution protocol and reports the best available causal estimates, with evidence for each, addressing, with credible causal identification and standardized longitudinal, spatially explicit metrics: (1) the extent and mechanisms of regional displacement - what share of the development curtailed by successful local containment programs (permit caps, urban growth boundaries, and related instruments) is redirected to other jurisdictions of the same metropolitan housing market, and how does that redistribution alter aggregate metropolitan outcomes, namely land consumption and environmental resources, municipal fiscal position (revenues, expenditures, debt), and housing costs and affordability; (2) how these effects generalize across metropolitan contexts and time periods - the domain of validity of the causal estimates - as functions of market conditions, initial land availability, and complementary policy mixes; (3) which municipal revenue structures and fiscal tools reliably mitigate revenue shortfalls or rising debt burdens in growth-constrained jurisdictions; (4) the distributional effects on renters and lower-income households, including how different instruments interact with mitigation strategies such as inclusionary zoning (a requirement that a share of new units be provided at below-market prices), affordable-housing set-asides, and regional fair-share programs; and (5) the measurement and attribution protocol itself - standardized longitudinal, spatially explicit metrics and designs (for example multi-case matched samples or difference-in-differences - the design that compares before-and-after outcome changes in adopting jurisdictions against the same changes in non-adopting peers - or other quasi-experimental or structural approaches, where their assumptions hold) that isolate the causal effects of specific program elements from co-occurring policies and market shocks. The central objective is (1) a causally identified, generalizable account of what local growth management does to metropolitan environmental, fiscal, and affordability outcomes; (3) is a second objective - a recommended set of municipal revenue structures and fiscal tools that reliably mitigate revenue shortfalls and rising debt burdens in growth-constrained jurisdictions. (2), (4), and (5) are validity, coverage, and measurement conditions that (1) presupposes.

References

  1. Landis, J. D. (2021). Fifty years of local growth management in America. Progress in Planning, 145, 100435. DOI: 10.1016/j.progress.2019.100435. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.progress.2019.100435
  2. Ewing, R., Lyons, T., Siddiq, F., Sabouri, S., Kiani, F., Hamidi, S., Choi, D., & Ameli, H. (2022). Growth Management Effectiveness: A Literature Review. Journal of Planning Literature, 37(3), 433-451. DOI: 10.1177/08854122221077457. https://doi.org/10.1177/08854122221077457
  3. Siedentop, S., Schmidt, S., & Dunlop, A. (2022). Managing Urban Growth - an Overview of the Literature. Raumforschung und Raumordnung / Spatial Research and Planning, 80(6), 659-677. DOI: 10.14512/rur.1653. https://doi.org/10.14512/rur.1653
  4. Lin, D., & Wachter, S. M. (2019/2020). Land Use Regulation, Regulatory Spillover and Housing Prices. SSRN Working Paper No. 3363947. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3363947. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3363947
  5. Xie, X., Kang, H., Behnisch, M., Baildon, M., & Krüger, T. (2020). To What Extent Can the Green Belts Prevent Urban Sprawl? - A Comparative Study of Frankfurt am Main, London and Seoul. Sustainability, 12(2), 679. DOI: 10.3390/su12020679. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12020679
  6. He, Z., Zhao, C., Fürst, C., & Hersperger, A. M. (2024). How does the effect of urban growth management change over time and across urban land uses? Evidence from China's construction land quotas. Journal of Land Use Science, 19(1), 239-257. DOI: 10.1080/1747423X.2024.2389889. https://doi.org/10.1080/1747423X.2024.2389889
  7. Grover, H., & Anthony, J. (2026). Influence of State Planning Environments on Urban Sprawl. Urban Affairs Review, online first March 31, 2026. DOI: 10.1177/10780874261436363. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780874261436363
  8. Murray, C., & Phibbs, P. (2023). Evidence-lite zone: the weak evidence behind the economic case against planning regulation. Town Planning Review, 94(6), 597-610. DOI: 10.3828/tpr.2023.24. https://doi.org/10.3828/tpr.2023.24
  9. Pendall, R. (1999). Do Land-Use Controls Cause Sprawl? Environment and Planning B: Planning and Design, 26(4), 555-571. DOI: 10.1068/b260555. https://doi.org/10.1068/b260555
  10. Jun, M.-J. (2006). The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Housing Prices. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(2), 239-243. DOI: 10.1080/01944360608976742. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360608976742