Mitigating Environmental Problems in Exurban Development: An Overview of Rural-Specific Planning Devices

  • David W. Marcouiller
  • David Tremble


The popularity of exurban living challenges regional planners as they seek to conserve natural resources, scenic amenities, and natural open space. This chapter highlights planning tools and techniques that have proven successful in preserving environmental integrity at regional- and site-specific scales. The chapter describes the unique context that colors rural land-use planning, describes a typology of tools and devices that promote rural land conservation, and provides a case study that highlights conservation efforts in rural South-Central Wisconsin.


Rural Land Conservation Easement Wisconsin Department Exurban Development Urban Growth Boundary 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Abbott, C., and Margheim, J. 2008. Imagining Portland's urban growth boundary: planning regulation as cultural icon. Journal of the American Planning Association 74:196–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, A. 2003. Environmental planning and management of the peri-urban interface: perspectives on an emerging field. Environment and Urbanization 15:135–147.Google Scholar
  3. Amos, O. M. 1988. Unbalanced regional growth and regional income inequality in the latter stages of development. Regional Science and Urban Economics 18:549–566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Anas, A., and Pines, D. 2008. Anti-sprawl policies in a system of congested cities. Regional Science and Urban Economics 38:408–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Arendt, R. 1994. Rural by Design: Maintaining Small Town Character. Chicago, IL: Planners Press, American Planning Association.Google Scholar
  6. Arendt, R. 2004. Crossroads, Hamlet, Village, Town: Design Characteristics of Traditional Neighborhoods, Old and New. Chicago, IL: American Planning Association, Planning Advisory Service.Google Scholar
  7. Burge, G., and Ihlanfeldt, K. 2006. The effects of impact fees on multifamily housing construction. Journal of Regional Science 46:5–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruthers, J. I., and Vias, A. C. 2005. Urban, suburban, and exurban sprawl in the Rocky Mountain west: evidence from regional adjustment models. Journal of Regional Science 45:21–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chi, G., and Marcouiller, D. W. 2008. Isolating the effect of natural amenities on population change at the local level. Working paper (in-review with Regional Studies) Department of Urban and Regional Planning, Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin–Madison.Google Scholar
  10. Cho, S., Poudyal, N., and Lambert, D. M. 2008. Estimating spatially varying effects of urban growth boundaries on land development and land value. Land Use Policy 25:320–329.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Compas, E. 2007. Measuring exurban change in the American West: A case study in Gallatin County, Montana, 1973–2004. Landscape and Urban Planning 82:56–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Esparza, A. X., and Carruthers, J. I. 2000. Land use planning and exurbanization in the rural mountain west. Journal of Planning Education and Research 20:23–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Evans, A.W. 2004. Economics and Land Use Planning. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Evans-Cowley, J., Forgey, F. A., and Rutherford, R. C. 2005. The effect of development impact fees on land values. Growth and Change 36:100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Frentz I., Farmer F., Guldin J., and Smith K. 2004. Public lands and population growth. Society and Natural Resources 17:57–68.Google Scholar
  16. Geisler, C. C., and Martinson, O. B. 1976. Local control of land use: profile of a problem. Land Economics 52:371–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Gude, P. H., Hansen, A. J., Rasker, R., and Maxwell, B. 2006. Rates and drivers of rural residential development in the Greater Yellowstone. Landscape and Urban Planning 77:131–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hansen, N. 1995. Addressing regional disparity and equity objectives through regional policies: a skeptical perspective. Papers in Regional Science 74:89–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johnson K., and Beale C. 1994. The recent revival of widespread population growth in nonmetropolitan areas of the United States. Rural Sociology 59:655–667.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kim, K. K., Marcouiller, D. W., and Deller, S. C. 2005. Natural amenities and rural development: understanding spatial and distributional attributes. Growth and Change 36:273–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lang, R. E., and Hornburg, S. P. 1997. Planning Portland style: pitfalls and possibilities. Housing Policy Debate 8:1–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lenth, B., Knight, R. L., and Gilbert, W. C. 2006. Conservation value of clustered housing developments. Conservation Biology 20:1445–1456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levernier, W., Rickman, D. S., and Partridge, M. D. 2000. The causes of regional variations in U.S. poverty: a cross-county analysis. Journal of Regional Science 40:473–497.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Maruani, T., and Amit-Cohen, I. 2007. Open space planning models: a review of approaches and methods. Landscape and Urban Planning 81:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Mayer, C., and Somerville, T. C. 2000. Land use regulation and new construction. Regional Science and Urban Economics 30:639–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Nickerson, C. J., and Lynch, L. 2001. The effect of farmland preservation programs on farmland prices. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83:341–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Odell, E. A., Theobald, D. M., and Knight, R. L. 2003. Incorporating ecology into land use planning. Journal of the American Planning Association 69:72–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Olson, E. 2006. Honing an old land use tool: regulating rural land division at the town level. Land Use Tracker 5:1–8.Google Scholar
  29. Phillips, J., and Goodstein, E. 2000. Growth management and housing prices: the case of Portland, Oregon. Contemporary Economic Policy 18:334–344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Plantinga, A. J., and Miller, D. J. 2001. Agricultural land values and the value of rights to future land development. Land Economics 77:56–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Redman, J. M., Thomas, D. R., and Angle, J. 1992. The role of nonmetropolitan economic performance in rising per capita income differences among the States. Review of Regional Studies 22:155–168.Google Scholar
  32. Renkow, M. 1996. Income non-convergence and rural–urban earnings differentials: evidence from North Carolina. Southern Economic Journal 62:1017–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Rissman, A., and Merenlender, A. 2008. e conservation contributions of conservation easements: analysis of the San Francisco Bay area protected lands spatial database. Ecology & Society 13:40 (online). Available at: Accessed November 18, 2008.
  34. Skidmore, M., and Peddle, M. 1998. Do development impact fees reduce the rate of residential development? Growth and Change 29:383–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Stier, J. C., Kim, K. K., and Marcouiller, D. W. 1999. Growing stock, forest productivity, and land ownership. Canadian Journal of Forest Research 29:1736–1742.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Taintor, R. 2001. nsfer of Development Rights. Providence, RI: Rhode Island Department of Environmental Management, TDD 401-831-5508.Google Scholar
  37. Theobald, D. M. 2004. Placing exurban land-use change in a human modification framework. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 2:139–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Thorsnes, P., and Simon, G. P. W. 1999. Letting the market preserve land: the case for a market-driven transfer of development rights program. Contemporary Economic Policy 17:256–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Van Kooten, G. C. 1993. Land Resource Economics and Sustainable Development: Economic Policies for the Common Good. Vancouver, BC: University of British Columbia Press.Google Scholar
  40. Westphal, J. M. 2001. Managing agricultural resources at the urban-rural interface: a case study of the Old Mission Peninsula. Landscape and Urban Planning 57:13–24CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Wisconsin, State of. 2006. Wisconsin’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan 2005–2010. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban and Regional PlanningUniversity of Wisconsin-MadisonMadisonUSA
  2. 2.Sauk County Planning and Zoning DepartmentWest Square BuildingBarabooUSA

Personalised recommendations