Download RETHINKING HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION CHANGE

RETHINKING HIGHWAY EFFECTS
ON POPULATION CHANGE
Guangqing Chi is a
postdoctoral research fellow
at the Social Science
Research Center,
Mississippi State University.
This research was carried
out while he was a graduate
student at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison. His
main research interest
focuses on the application
of spatial statistics and GIS
for studying transportation
and land use and
population-environment
interactions. His
dissertation, entitled
“Environmental
Demography, Small-Area
Population Forecasting, and
Spatio-Temporal Modeling”
(University of
Wisconsin–Madison, 2006),
proposes a synthetic theorybased spatio-temporal
approach for population
forecasting at subcounty
levels.
Little systematic work
has been undertaken to
synthesize the effects
that highway
investments have on
population change.
GUANGQING CHI
Mississippi State University
PAUL R. VOSS
STEVEN C. DELLER
University of Wisconsin–Madison
Little systematic work has been undertaken to explain highway impacts on population change. In this study, the authors review the literature in regional economics and
demographics in an attempt to shed light on the mechanisms by which investments
in highway infrastructure influence population change. First, they categorize the
indirect causal paths by which highways influence population change at the county
and municipal levels. Then they propose a spatio-temporal approach to revisit highway effects on population change from the stage of highway development and areal
characteristics specifically. Finally, it is concluded that at the county and municipal
levels, the effect of highways on population change varies from preconstruction to
postconstruction periods and across urban, suburban, and rural areas.
Keywords: population change; highway; regional economics; spatial; temporal.
A
lthough several theories have been offered, accompanied with numerous empirical studies, to explain the effects that highways have on economic growth and development, little
systematic work has been undertaken to synthesize the effects that highway investments have
on population change. Furthermore, much of this vast literature is scattered across several disciplines, ranging from planning to economics to geography to sociology, which has resulted
in a complex mixture of theoretical and empirical approaches. To our knowledge, no one has
attempted to synthesize this literature and draw common themes. In this study, we analyze the
mechanisms by which highways influence population change by examining theoretical explanations and empirical findings in an attempt to provide that synthesis.
We propose to understand the mechanisms by addressing two questions: (a) What are
the possible paths by which investments in highways influence population change? (b) Do
highway-investment effects on population change vary temporally from preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction stages as well as spatially across urban, suburban, and rural
areas? In the following sections, we answer these questions by summarizing and analyzing the
extant literature of highway effects on population change. First, at the county and municipal
AUTHORS’ NOTE: An earlier version of this article was presented at the 35th Annual Conference of
the Mid-Continent Regional Science Association, June 3-5, 2004, Madison, WI. The authors would like
to thank Claire Felbinger and anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. The authors are grateful to Rasha Diab, Michael Bell, and the 2005 writing sociology students at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison for their comments and suggestions. This work was supported by the Wisconsin
Agricultural Experiment Station (Hatch Project No. WIS04536).
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY, Vol. 11 No. 1, July 2006 18-32
DOI: 10.1177/1087724X06292336
© 2006 Sage Publications
18
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Chi et al. / HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION
scales, we address highways as indirect causes of population change via economic growth,
employment change, altered sociodemographic structures, and environmental change. Second,
we employ empirical studies to analyze highway effects on population change temporally
based on different stages of highway construction and spatially based on different areal characteristics (urban, suburban, and rural areas). Finally, in the concluding section, we highlight
some of the shortcomings of existing studies and suggest opportunities for further research.
In this study, we review two categories of literature: the impacts of highway construction on
local economic and employment change as offered by regional economists, both theoretically
and empirically, as well as highway effects on population change examined by demographers
only empirically because of a lack of theoretical literature. We consider all types of highways,
which include interstate highway, limited-access highway, and rural highway, regardless of the
number of lanes. Although this article’s focus is to analyze highway effects on population
change rather than employment change, we use both types of literature because the former
includes the latter, and thus we can have a larger literature for a comprehensive review.
Although highway effects on population change vary with different scales, a troublesome fact
well understood by spatial analysts (Baller, Anselin, Messner, Deane, & Hawkins, 2001), this
study is not structured based on scale. Roughly, this study focuses on county or municipal levels, except that we summarize the roles of highway investment within the regional level (e.g.,
states, metropolitan area, or multi-county regions). We do not consider studies at the neighborhood level (e.g., Corsi, 1974; Eyerly, Twark, & Downing, 1987; Frey, Dansereau, Pashek,
& Markham, 1960; Gamble, Raphael, & Sauerlender, 1966; McLean & Adkins, 1971; Moon,
1988; Rephann, 1992; Twark, 1967). In addition, although some studies examine the variation
of effects on population components by age, race, and sex at county and metropolitan levels
(e.g., Dansereau, 1965; Pucher & Renne, 2003; Tarver & Urbon, 1963; Wang, 1987; Wisenbaker,
1973), we analyze only studies that consider population as one unit.
Causal Paths
An improved highway can affect population change directly through the removal of
rights-of-way for residential housing at the neighborhood scale (Moore, Mayer, Lipson, & Joyce,
1964). More often the effects occur indirectly via economic growth or decline, employment
change, altered sociodemographic structures, and environmental change at county and municipal levels (see Figure 1). There is a vast literature of highway effects on these four mediums
and the effects of these four mediums on population change. By linking the two types of literature together, here we explore the ways in which highways influence population change.
Before doing that, we first attempt to understand the roles that highway infrastructure plays
in affecting population change within a regional economic framework.1
THE ROLES OF HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE
Neoclassical growth theory, growth pole theory, and location theories are the principal
regional economic theories that relate highway investment to economic growth and development and, consequently, to population change. Our understanding of the role of highways in
affecting population change is far from complete. Nevertheless, some roles are better understood than others, and it is useful to summarize the roles that have been relatively well defined.
Neoclassical growth theory is insightful in explaining and predicting metropolitan development after the highway network is built. Neoclassical growth theory considers highway
infrastructure as an input into the production process via production relationships (Boarnet,
1997a; Eberts, 1990),2 an enhancer to increase the productivity of other inputs such as labor
(Dalenberg & Partridge, 1997; Eberts, 1994), or a household amenity factor to attract workers (Dalenberg & Partridge, 1997; Eberts, 1994).
Growth pole theory is useful for forecasting population change from the standpoint of
decision makers because it specifically outlines how resources should be invested in a region
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
19
Paul R. Voss is professor
emeritus of rural sociology
at the University of
Wisconsin–Madison. His
research focuses primarily
on applied demography,
with emphasis on smallarea population dynamics.
He also writes and teaches
in the area of spatial data
analysis, with particular
emphasis on spatial
regression modeling.
Steven C. Deller is a
professor of agricultural
and applied economics,
University of Wisconsin–
Madison/Extension. His
research and education
programs focus on rural
economic growth and
development. His recently
co-authored books include
Community Economics:
Linking Theory and
Practice (Blackwell
Professional, 2004),
Amenities and Rural
Development: Theory,
Methods and Public Policy
(Edward Elgar, 2005), and
Community Policy Analysis
Modeling (Blackwell
Professional, 2006).
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY / July 2006
rural
suburban
urban
sing
hou
ntial
Population
change
side
val
emo
y re
f-wa
Natural increase
Net migration
hts-o
of rig
R
highway
expansion
Employment change
Economic growth/decline
pre-construction
construction
post-construction
20
Social structure
Environmental change
Natural amenity
Geophysical limitations
Figure 1:
Highways as a Cause of Population Change
given limited resources to devote to economic growth and development. Growth pole theory
understands highway investments as a catalyst of change—an improved highway is neither
necessary nor sufficient to influence population growth in its surrounding areas (Thiel,
1962).3 Population decline can also be an outcome (i.e., backwash).
Location theory is strong in interpreting geographic distributions of human settlements.
For instance, central place theory, one type of the location theory, is particularly powerful in
explaining the polycentric city model. Location theory understands highway infrastructure as
a facilitator for the flows of raw materials, capital, finished goods, consumers, and ideas
among central places and their neighborhoods and a limitation on these flows (Thompson &
Bawden, 1992); as a means of importing inputs into and exporting outputs out of a location
(Vickerman, 1991);4 or as necessary but not sufficient for local economic growth and development (Halstead & Deller, 1997).5
Although scholars define the role of highway infrastructure differently on the basis of
regional economic theories, all recognize that highways play an important role in regional economic growth and development (Mikelbank, 1996). Each interpretation of the role of highway
infrastructure has merits; the one to which we are most partial is that of highway infrastructure
as necessary but not sufficient for local economic growth and development (Halstead & Deller,
1997), as this view matches demographers’ view that highway infrastructure is one of many factors affecting population change and can explain and is supported by the findings of most existing studies (Boarnet & Haughwout, 2000; Bohm & Patterson, 1971, 1972; Briggs, 1980, 1981,
1983; Hobbs & Campbell, 1967; Taylor, Broder, & McNamara, 1987; William, 1958).
Just as population change can have many causal factors, highways can influence population change by several paths: economic growth or decline, employment change, altered
sociodemographic structure, and environmental change.
ECONOMIC GROWTH OR DECLINE
Recent empirical studies on the effects of highway investments on economic growth provide evidence that highways play important roles in economic growth and development
through induced travel and improved accessibility (Boarnet & Haughwout, 2000; Cervero,
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Chi et al. / HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION
2002, 2003; Cervero & Hansen, 2002; Guild, 2000; Morrison & Schwartz, 1996). Boarnet
(1997b) has recently reviewed literature on highways and economic productivity. Most of
these studies can be classified into two groups (Halstead & Deller, 1997). The first group
measures change of economic activity at a macro (national and state) level, and it usually
finds its roots in growth theory. The second group uses firm location theory to analyze the
effects of infrastructure investment on economic growth at a local level. Both groups of studies have yielded disparate and contradictory conclusions. For example, macro-level studies
(Aschauer, 1989, 1990; Berndt & Hansson, 1992; Dalenberg & Partridge, 1997; Duffy-Deno
& Eberts, 1991; Morrison & Schwartz, 1996; Munnell, 1990; Nadiri & Mamuneas, 1994;
Shah, 1992) have found that public infrastructure contributes significantly to output, economic growth, and wage structures. In contrast, Holtz-Eakin (1988, 1994), Hulten and
Schwab (1984), and Garcia-Mila & McGuire (1992) found that public infrastructure is secondary to other factors in explaining economic growth (Halstead & Deller, 1997; Morrison &
Schwartz, 1996). At the micro level, Dorf and Emerson (1978) concluded that access to an
interstate highway does not necessarily attract small to medium businesses. Smith, Deaton,
and Kelch (1978), on the contrary, found that interstate-highway access does attract firms.
There are also exceptions to the importance of highways: Kuehn and West (1971) found that
highways primarily influence regional supply conditions and that they are not critical factors
in economic development. The effects of highways on economic growth and development are
complex, not only because different researchers often interpret similar evidence differently
but also because highways are only one of many factors in affecting economic growth and
development (Boarnet & Haughwout, 2000).
EMPLOYMENT CHANGE
Empirical studies on regional development often stress the interdependencies between
household residential choices and firm location decisions (Henry, Barkley, & Bao, 1997),
especially in the literature identifying causality between employment and population change
(Steinnes & Fisher, 1974).6 Carlino and Mills (1987) argued that jobs follow people in a good
economy, whereas people follow jobs in a bad economy. Many studies treat population and
employment changes to be endogenous (e.g., Boarnet, 1994a, 1994b). In whichever direction,
population change is highly correlated with employment change (see Figure 1).
Highways affect employment change in three ways that are not completely independent.
One is through their influence on economic growth or decline, which in turn causes employment change (McLean & Adkins, 1971; Thiel, 1962). A second arises directly from highways
themselves. Improved highways bring additional employment opportunities within commutable distance and can also save time and/or money for employees to commute to work
(Thiel, 1962; Wang, 1987). A third way is to actually generate new employment opportunities, especially in service industries such as automotive service stations, lodging accommodations, retail strip malls, and eating establishments.
ALTERED SOCIODEMOGRAPHIC STRUCTURES
Highways have long been recognized as an influencing factor on social organization and
population distribution (Wisenbaker, 1973). In 20th-century America, about 7% of people
annually relocated their residence from one county to another. A large number of these
migrants moved to those areas where they can depend on vehicles and good highways for
transportation (Kanwit & Todd, 1961). The pattern of migration is a response to social and
economic opportunities in neighborhoods near highways (Thiel, 1962). There are several
ways through which highways can affect social structure. First, the effects of highways on
economic development can enhance residents’ socioeconomic status and bring a greater array
of employment opportunities within reach (McLean & Adkins, 1971; Thiel, 1962). Second,
highways can affect the industrial and occupational distributions in local communities, and
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
21
Public infrastructure is
secondary to other
factors in explaining
economic growth.
22
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY / July 2006
this, in turn, can alter the existing social structure. Third, highway improvement gives people
wider access to a greater range of social institutions (i.e., schools and hospitals) and cultural
opportunities, and the accessibility premium is reflected in higher housing prices (Boarnet &
Chalermpong, 2001). On the negative side, some city leaders had used highways as dividing
tools to segregate minority populations and maintain a majority White city (Bayor, 1996).
Highways and roads were used as barriers, buffers, and boundaries to limit minority communities in a certain area. In other areas, roads were closed off to limit the accessibility to the
White community from minority communities.
ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGE
The main determinants
of migration come from
differences in amenities
rather than differences
in economic
opportunities.
Highways can affect population change via the natural environment. They allow people
better access to remote natural areas with amenities such as lakes and forests. Some demographic studies have focus on the turnaround migration since the 1970s, and many of them
understand the attractiveness of natural amenities as the principal contributor to nonmetropolitan population growth (Fuguitt & Brown, 1990; Fuguitt, 1977; Fuguitt & Beale, 1976;
Fuguitt, Brown, & Beale, 1989; Humphrey, 1980; Johnson, 1982, 1989, 2001; Johnson &
Beale, 1994; Johnson & Purdy, 1980; Voss & Fuguitt, 1979). Equilibrium theory argues that
the main determinants of migration come from differences in amenities rather than differences in economic opportunities (Graves, 1979, 1983; Graves & Linneman, 1979; Smith,
Tayman, & Swanson, 2000). The life-cycle literature suggests that economic factors are more
important to working-age people and that amenity factors become more important as people
become older (Clark & Hunter, 1992; Smith et al., 2000). In urban areas, zoning regulations
often use highways as a tool to protect residential life quality by separating residential areas
from noisy and polluting industrial uses. However, separating residential areas from traffic
has only increased the dependency on vehicles (T. Moore & Thorsnes, 1994).
A Spatio-Temporal Approach
In the above section we conclude that highway effects on population change via each of
the four ways are complex. The effects vary with different geographic scales, from preconstruction to postconstruction periods, and across rural, suburban, and urban areas. This calls
for a spatio-temporal approach that integrates the three aspects. In the following, we focus on
county and municipal scales to synthesize highway effects on population change from the
stages of highway construction and areal characteristics.
STAGES OF HIGHWAY CONSTRUCTION
Because new highway development takes numerous years before it provides full service to
the public (Burkhardt, 2003), a question arises about how highway construction affects population change in its different stages. In assessing the effects of highway construction on population change, it is useful to distinguish between the preconstruction stage, construction
stage, and postconstruction stage (Rephann, 1992). Highways affect economic growth,
employment change, sociodemographic structure, and environmental change differently in
each stage of construction, and that in turn will affect population change differently. A more
important reason is that the relationship between highway development and population
change varies across the construction stages. In fact, many regional economic studies on highways have adopted a before-and-after approach (e.g., Boarnet & Chalermpong, 2001; Cervero &
Hansen, 2002). Most studies, however, focus only on one stage (usually the postconstruction
stage) or do not differentiate among the different stages.
Some highway planners would disagree with the argument about the causality between
highway investments and population change. Standard transportation-planning methodology
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Chi et al. / HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION
highway expansion
public concern
safety and congestion
economic benefits and costs
roadway deficiencies
environmental impacts
traffic volume
forecasts of future demands
regional growth &
economic factors
net in-migration
population growth
natural growth
Figure 2:
Population Growth as a Cause of Highway Investment
first seeks to forecast population growth and then to provide the transportation infrastructure
necessary to serve the growth (Moore & Thorsnes, 1994). In other words, population growth
happens largely independently of highway investment. Population grows in the preconstruction period for a wide variety of reasons, and population continues growing after construction
for the same reasons.7 This view considers population growth as a cause of highway construction, opposite to most demographic views (exceptions are Fuguitt, 1977; Fuguitt &
Beale, 1976). Many of the existing transportation-planning models lack solid economic foundations, and most fail to forecast the change of future land-use patterns (Ankner, 2005;
Moore & Thorsnes, 1994). One possible reason might be that these models have wrongly
interpreted the causality between highways and population change (Cervero, 2002).
Most demographers and some regional economists (e.g., Boarnet & Haughwout, 2000)
would argue that the relationship between highways and population change is a “chickenegg” matter—specifically, a bidirectional relationship with feedback effects (Hobbs &
Campbell, 1967). A higher quality highway serves to stimulate travel and economic growth,
but at the same time, induced travel and economic growth creates the demand for yet higher
levels of highway access (Aschauer, 1990; Boarnet & Chalermpong, 2001; Cervero, 2003;
Mikelbank, 1996). Highways can influence population change because highway investment
alters existing economic and social equilibria. This, in turn, depending on relative locational
advantage or disadvantage, can foster either population growth or decline. On the other hand,
population change can influence highway investment decisions because population growth
demands improved and reliable transportation networks for a variety of reasons (see Figure 2).
Cervero and Hansen (2002) have found solid evidence that the relationship between highway
investments and “induced travel” is bidirectional. Therefore, a more acceptable claim is that
population change is a cause of highway investment before construction, and highway investment is a cause of population change after construction.
Most researchers, including transport planners, agree that population change causes highway constructions in the preconstruction period. For instance, Miller (1979), in a study about
the relationship between highway change and population change in nonmetropolitan counties
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
The relationship
between highways and
population change is a
“chicken-egg” matter.
23
24
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY / July 2006
The causality between
population change and
highway construction
can be proximately
examined by separating
the three construction
stages.
in the late 1960s and early 1970s, found that population growth occurred as highways commenced construction and then diminished after the highway was finished in the 1970s. This
may reflect highway construction responding to population change as suggested by Miller.
Goodwin and Noland (2003) noted that population growth has a large effect on traffic growth.
In addition, Lichter and Fuguitt (1980) examined the causal relationship between population
change and highway construction by comparing mean populations and the date at which the
highway was finished. The population size of nonmetropolitan counties seems related to
the date when highway construction was finished; the larger the population size, the earlier the
date. It also is evident from this study that interstate highways were constructed in counties
that had earlier experienced high net in-migration.
Some researchers also agree that after construction is finished, highways promote population growth. For example, with a longitudinal analysis during three intercensal periods,
Humphrey and Sell (1975) observed the demographic growth of nonmetropolitan places
before and after controlled-access highways were opened. They found that places with highspeed highways were growing faster than were places without high-speed highways before,
during, and after the highway construction. In addition, it seems obvious that the longer an
interstate highway is in place, then the longer it affects population change. For instance,
Wisenbaker (1973) found that the interstate highways being completed from 1960 to 1965
would have greater effects on the population than those completed later.
The debate on the causal directions has lasted for four decades among regional economists
(Boarnet & Haughwout, 2000). We acknowledge this debate and are aware that a causal relationship requires temporal precedence, covariation of the cause and effect, and no plausible
alternative explanations (Trochim, 2001). Our review of the literature reveals little evidence
or consensus regarding causal priority between highway development and population change.
Although the first two requirements can be handled, the last one can never be achieved
because both highway expansion and population change are conditioned on a number of factors. Despite this issue, the causality between population change and highway construction
can be proximately examined by separating the three construction stages. For example, a
highway was proposed in 1970 and had been constructed from 1980 to 1990. Controlling
other variables, we can regress highway in 1990 (represented as a dummy variable or by the
investment) on population change from 1950 to 1970 to examine population change as a
cause of highway investments, and regress population change from 1990 to 2000 on highway
in 1990 to test highways as a cause of population change. Voss and Chi (2006) have recently
applied this approach to examine the causality at the municipal level, and they found that neither of them is statistically significant in explaining the other.
One more way is to view the causality as varying with the location. Hansen (1965) classified regions into three groups: high, medium, and low. “High” regions are rapid-growth areas
that are congested and the present level and density of infrastructure limits further growth. The
implication is that economic growth fosters infrastructure investment. “Medium” regions are
those areas poised for potential economic growth. Here, infrastructure investment might best
be viewed as a catalyst to promote economic growth. “Low” regions are those areas with a low
standard of living, declining industry, and a declining population. Because such areas have
little immediate potential for economic growth and development, there is little likelihood for
infrastructure investment to occur. For our purpose, the categories of low, medium, and high
regions correspond roughly to the demographic category of rural, suburban, and urban areas.
AREAL CHARACTERISTICS: RURAL, SUBURBAN, AND URBAN AREAS
Highways have different
effects on population
change in rural,
suburban, and
urban areas.
Highways have different effects on population change in rural, suburban, and urban areas.
The difference needs further examination, and locales must be analyzed and understood to
determine highway effects on the economy (Deller, 1991).
Highways have a profound influence on living conditions in rural areas (Thiel, 1962), and
highway infrastructure has been adopted as a major tool for rural development (Haskins,
2002). Often areas previously beyond reasonable travel distance to a metropolis can be
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Chi et al. / HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION
brought into commuting range by a new or improved highway, which can increase rural
population by augmenting the spread effects of added employment opportunities in or near
the surrounding rural areas (Henry et al., 1997). This would be the spread effect from growth
pole theory discussed above. Consequently, those rural areas may benefit from highways in
several ways. First, industry and business may be more likely to move there as a consequence
of improved transportation, and that, in turn, creates employment opportunities. Under this
scenario, the highway not only keeps local residents from moving out for jobs but it also
attracts people from elsewhere. Second, those people who previously might have had to move
closer to the metropolis for jobs now can stay. Third, the improvement of transportation itself
can create employment opportunities in the service sector, such as gasoline service stations,
restaurants, and motels. Fourth, rural areas far beyond the reach of central cities potentially
could become new growth centers because of the appearance and centralization of new
services, and they could develop specialized production rather than produce all goods required
by its population at the commutable distance (Thompson & Bawden, 1992). However, the centralization sometimes has a negative, or backwash, effect on some areas with such services
(Hobbs & Campbell, 1967). Fifth, those peripheral areas near central cities conceivably might
more quickly become suburban residential areas if greater access to urban or suburban employment results from improved highways. Sixth, better highways allow urban families to move to
rural areas. This trend is often driven by the reality of lower real estate costs and the perception of a higher quality of life. Some studies build on and corroborate these spread effects
(Briggs, 1980; Humphrey & Sell, 1975; Lichter & Fuguitt, 1980; Rephann, 1992).
Most studies on nonmetropolitan counties found that highways have a positive effect on
population change by attracting migrants and fostering employment growth (e.g., Humphrey
& Sell, 1975; Irwin, 1971; Lichter & Fuguitt, 1980; one exception is Haskins, 2002).
However, a convenient highway can also entice rural people to travel to the urban areas for
employment opportunities and urban amenities—a backwash or negative spillover effect
(Boarnet & Haughwout, 2000), because highways are necessary but not sufficient for rural
growth. Miller (1979) concluded that access to interstate highways does not necessarily guarantee providing job opportunities for rural areas but noted that it helps. Briggs (1980) found
that the highway is not the primary factor related to rural areas’ economic growth.
Forkenbrock, Pogue, Finnegan, and Foster (1990) and Haskins (2002) argued that efficient
transportation is necessary for rural economic development, but what is efficient transportation for one area might be too much or too little for other areas.
In suburbs, highway investment mostly has a positive effect on economic growth and
development as well as associated population growth. The growth of suburbs in metropolitan
areas results from the benefits of suburban over central-city life. Conditions in the central city
may include congestion, spatial economic squeeze, and residential deterioration, and modern
highways have accelerated movement to fringe areas surrounding the central city. The new
highways may not be the direct cause, but they provide a link between the suburban and the
economic center of an urban area. Improved highways compress the time for the journey to
work. Thus, the improvement of interstate highways will reinforce the rate of suburbanization
(Moore et al., 1964).
The relationship between highway expansion and population change is more complex in
urban areas than in rural areas (Wisenbaker, 1973). Crane and Leatham (1990) noted that
there is a big difference in the length and magnitude of highway investment effects on income
between urban and rural areas. Although highways can affect economic growth in urban areas
by reorganizing regionwide central-place functions,8 and although there is evidence that new
highways reinforce major urban areas along the route (Isserman, Rephann, & Sorenson, 1989;
Lichter & Fuguitt, 1980), the effects of highways in urban areas are uncertain because new
highways can either help or hinder the development of urban areas depending on many other
factors as well as the net effects of spread and backwash (Boarnet, 1998, 1999; Boarnet &
Haughwout, 2000; Dilworth, 2002).
That said, however, the distinction between “rural,” “suburban,” and “urban” in America has
become increasingly blurred, and it often becomes difficult as a practical matter to separate
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
25
Efficient transportation
is necessary for rural
economic development,
but what is efficient
transportation for one
area might be too
much or too little for
other areas.
26
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY / July 2006
Pre-construction
+/−
Construction
+/−
Post-construction
+/−
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
−
−
Urban +/−
Suburban +/−
Rural +
Figure 3:
The Spatio-Temporal Effects of Highways on Population Change
suburban from urban areas (Cervero, 1989; Friedland, 1982; Hobbs, 1988; Thompson &
Bawden, 1992). Thus, we know little about how induced growth and population change differ
between suburban and urban areas (Cervero, 2003).
A JOINT THINKING
Highway effects on
population change
differ temporally from
preconstruction to
postconstruction stages
and spatially across
rural, suburban, and
urban areas at county
and municipal scales.
Highway effects on population change differ temporally from preconstruction to postconstruction stages and spatially across rural, suburban, and urban areas at county and municipal
scales. We propose to understand the complex relationship roughly, as in Figure 3. Three circles delineate rural, suburban, and urban areas as in a monocentric model. The dash lines
separate the three construction stages. Thus the two dimensions make nine cells. The plus
(or minus) sign refers to a positive (or negative) correlation between highway construction
and population change.
In the preconstruction period, population usually increases whether we are dealing with
rural, suburban, or urban areas. Population growth causes increases in traffic volume, public
concerns, and forecast for future demand, which are three of the important criteria for the
decision to build a highway. The causal direction at this time is from population growth
to highway expansion. Thus, highway construction and population change are positively
correlated.
In the construction period, the causal direction is from highway expansion to population
change because highway construction has already been decided and processed. The covariant, however, could be either positive or negative, and consequently, population could either
grow or decline. The inconvenience caused by construction makes people unwilling to move
in, and the temporal closure of business affects local economic development, but at the same
time, the increased future value attracts people to move in. The net effect is determined by
these considerations as well as other demographic, socioeconomic, and biogeophysical factors, although most literature found a positive relationship in this period. We believe that the
net effect is positive in most rural areas, not only because of a positive cost-benefit analysis
but also because of regression to the mean. In contrast, we believe that the net effect is negative in most urban areas because of a negative cost-benefit analysis and regression to the
mean. The net effect in most suburban areas should be positive because these areas are almost
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Chi et al. / HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION
27
always the beneficiaries of highway expansion, and the effect increases from preconstruction
to postconstruction stages.
In the postconstruction stage, the causal direction stems from highway construction to
population change. An improved highway can not only serve to increase but also, in some
instances, decrease population, depending on the broader, secular trend in overall regional
population change. If an area is already experiencing population growth, highway expansion
will enhance this trend, as it does in rural and suburban areas. If an area is experiencing population decline, highway expansion further facilitates this trend as well, as it does in urban
areas. However, the effects will diminish at some point when highway capacity is reached.
Conclusion
The role of highway infrastructure is defined in many different ways within the regional
economic context, and the best definition to explain highway effects on population change is
that highways are one of many factors in affecting economic growth and population change.
At the county and municipal levels, highways influence population change indirectly through
economic growth or decline, employment change, altered sociodemographic structure, and
environmental change. The covariant between highways and population change varies in different construction stages as well as across rural, suburban, and urban areas.
To date, the findings on the relationship between highways and population change are conflicting, equivocal, and complex. This is partly caused by the shortcomings of one kind or
another. First, very few studies examine the interactions between highways and population
change systematically (Voss & Chi, 2006). Second, many of the variables that influence the
relationship between highways and population change are not adequately controlled (Lichter &
Fuguitt, 1980). A wide range of results is possible by omitting relevant variables from the
model (Dalenberg & Partridge, 1997; Mikelbank, 1996). Third, the spatial dimension has
largely been neglected. Spatial analysis is important because models without due consideration of spatial processes are incomplete, and parameters estimated for such models can suffer
from different kinds of bias (Baller et al., 2001; Loftin & Ward, 1983). Classical statistical
and economic theories assume geographic space to be isotropic and homogenous (Gerardin,
1991). Central place theory does consider space to be heterogeneous through the notion of
polarization (Boudeville, 1969; Perroux, 1954), but it does not offer a suitable model to
account for spatial heterogeneity. Finally, one particular concern in studies of the relationship
between highways and the economy is the problem of causality (Deller, 1991). Although
many studies conclude a statistical relationship between highway investments and economic
growth, the causality has not been adequately established (Deller, 1991; Doeksen, 1990;
Halstead & Deller, 1997). Doeksen (1990) noted that many studies found a high correlation
between infrastructure and economic growth, but they failed to establish the causality because
of statistical and empirical problems. In fact, the direction of the causality is itself at issue
(Eberts, 1990; Eisner, 1991; Hulten, 1990; Hulten & Schwab, 1993; Mikelbank, 1996;
Munnell, 1992).
Correspondingly, further studies should address these shortcomings. First, a system of
relationships between highways and population change should be specified and built by
examining both causal directions (Lichter & Fuguitt, 1980; Voss & Chi, 2006). All three
stages of highway development (preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction) and the
potential interrelationships with geographic areas both close to the highway and at some distance away should be considered. Second, although current studies vary from regional to
neighborhood scales, and their findings on the relationship between highways and population
change are often contradictory, multi-level models can help solve this problem because they
study variation at different levels of the hierarchical data simultaneously (Bryk &
Raudenbush, 1992; Chi & Voss, 2005). Third, as many control variables as possible should be
considered, although this necessitates consideration of multicollinearity issues. Finally, spatial dependence should be formally made explicit in data analysis (Boarnet, 1994a).
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
To date, the findings on
the relationship
between highways and
population change are
conflicting, equivocal,
and complex.
Although many studies
conclude a statistical
relationship between
highway investments
and economic growth,
the causality has not
been adequately
established.
28
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY / July 2006
We wish to emphasize that regional economic and demographic studies have helped us to
better understand highway effects on population change. What we lack is a framework that
adequately synthesizes highway-population interactions. We believe that the spatio-temporal
approach, despite its limitations, provides a useful starting point for developing a better
framework and for structuring empirical studies of competing arguments.
In closing this article, we attempt to propose a framework for systematically examining the
highway-population interactions at various geographic scales both temporally (preconstruction, construction, and postconstruction) and spatially (urban, suburban, and rural areas). In an
idealized research study, we first choose the scales at which highway construction and population change are possibly correlated. Such scales can include regional, metropolitan, county,
municipal, and neighborhood levels. Second, we identify factors that significantly affect highway construction and/or population change, and these factors will be used as controlled variables. Third, we select a region that can be easily delineated at different scales and divided into
different characteristic areas (urban, suburban, and rural areas) at each of these scales. For each
scale and each characteristic area, we need highway construction data in three time periods—
preconstruction (t–1), construction (t), and postconstruction (t+1), population growth data in
five time periods (t–2, t–1, t, t+1, and t+2), and data of controlled variables.
With all information ready, we suggest running regression models (other statistical frameworks might work better) for each scale and each characteristic area. To examine the causality from highway construction to population change in different construction periods, we can
regress population change (t) over highway preconstruction (t–1), regress population change
(t+1) over highway construction (t), and regress population change (t+2) over highway postconstruction (t+1). Similarly, to examine the causality from population change to highway
construction in different construction periods, we can regress highway preconstruction (t–1)
over population change (t–2), regress highway construction (t) over population change (t–1),
and regress highway postconstruction (t+1) over population change (t). Based on the results,
we could understand comprehensively the highway-population interactions in three dimensions—
time, space, and scale. We believe that this approach is doable when sufficient data become
available.
Notes
1. Because theoretical approaches that address the investment-population change question are dominated by
regional economics, we focus our review on these theoretical frameworks. Much of the political science literature
focuses on the processes by which investment decisions are made, and the sociological and anthropology literature
focuses on how transportation systems affect cultural integration.
2. Much of the recent literature uses the production-function approach to examine the linkage between public
capital and economic productivity (Boarnet, 1997a, 1997b). As an input in the regional production function as the
level of highway infrastructure increases, outputs also increase. We should be cautious in making this argument
because traffic efficiency is at least as important as the highway capital stocks in promoting productivities (Boarnet,
1997a). Traffic congestion caused by inefficient highway planning can decrease productivities dramatically.
3. In other words, regional economic growth and development, or in our case, population change, is a complex
puzzle and transportation infrastructure in the form of highways is but one piece of the puzzle. It is unclear what the
growth pole theory argues about net population change at this point. One solution is to look at different stages of
spread versus backwash (Richardson, 1976). Initially, when a growth pole begins to form, there should be a period
of backwash when the hinterlands decline and the center grows. Later, when the spread occurs, the growth spills out
into the hinterland, and highways leading to and from growth poles become development axes (Hartshorn & Walcott,
2000). This cycle generally occurs during long periods (25 years or more).
4. As such, highway infrastructure is seen as a factor of production itself. According to this view, highway infrastructure is an important factor in determining locations of firms. Firm location theory helps explain manufacturing
location whereby profit maximization is sought by minimizing the transportation cost for raw materials (McCann,
2002; Pellenbarg, Wissen, & Dijk, 2002; Weber, 1929). It also can explain the location of market-based industries,
such as retail services, where the profit maximization is achieved by maximizing demand for its products (i.e., minimizing the transportation cost for consumers to buy).
5. Other factors such as a quality labor pool, access to financial capital, the local regulatory environment, and
community attitudes toward growth and development, to name a few, are equally important. Location theory argues
that industry seeks locational advantages created by highway improvement (Losch, 1938; Weber, 1929). The
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Chi et al. / HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION
improvement of transportation by itself, however, cannot create a comparative advantage where none exists (Henry,
Singletary, Brooks, London, & Roche, 1989).
6. This literature attempts to address the question of whether people follow jobs or jobs follow people in a spatial world.
7. A simple way to view this process is to think of a region that is growing in a spatial sense. Transportation infrastructure, or highways, can absorb the growth until a point where congestion creates a bottleneck in the growth
process. Investment in the highway through expansion removes the bottleneck, allowing growth to continue. Here,
growth causes the investment. Indeed, a widely held criticism of much of the empirical literature is that causation is
confused; the investment does not cause the growth, but rather growth causes the investment.
8. Transportation improvements increase commutable distance, therefore transforming a dispersed pattern of
small central places to fewer large central places with more concentrated productions and services.
References
Ankner, W. D. (2005). Revisiting transportation planning. Public Works Management and Policy, 9(4), 270-277.
Aschauer, D. A. (1989). Is public expenditure productive? Journal of Monetary Economics, 23(2), 177-200.
Aschauer, D. A. (1990). Highway capacity and economic growth. Economic Perspectives, 14(5), 14-24.
Baller, R. D., Anselin, L., Messner, S. F., Deane, G., & Hawkins, D. F. (2001). Structural covariates of U.S. county
homicide rates: Incorporating spatial effects. Criminology, 39(3), 561-590.
Bayor, R. (1996). Race and the shaping of twentieth-century Atlanta. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina
Press.
Berndt, E. R., & Hansson, B. (1992). Measuring the contribution of public infrastructure capital in Sweden.
Scandinavian Journal of Economics, 94, S151-S172.
Boarnet, M. G. (1994a). An empirical model of intrametropolitan population and employment growth. Papers in
Regional Science, the Journal of the RSAI, 73(2), 135-152.
Boarnet, M. G. (1994b). The monocentric model and employment location. Journal of Urban Economics, 36(1),
79-97.
Boarnet, M. G. (1997a). Infrastructure services and the productivity of public capital: The case of streets and highways. National Tax Journal, 50(1), 39-57.
Boarnet, M. G. (1997b). Highways and economic productivity: Interpreting recent evidence. Journal of Planning
Literature, 11(4), 476-486.
Boarnet, M. G. (1998). Spillovers and the locational effects of public infrastructure. Journal of Regional Science,
38(3), 381-400.
Boarnet, M. G. (1999). Road infrastructure, economic productivity, and the need for highway finance reform. Public
Works Management and Policy, 3(4), 289-303.
Boarnet, M. G., & Chalermpong, S. (2001). New highways, house prices, and urban development: A case study of
toll roads in Orange County, CA. Housing Policy Debate, 12(3), 575-605.
Boarnet, M. G., & Haughwout, A. F. (2000). Do highways matter? Evidence and policy implications of highways’
influence on metropolitan development. Retrieved May 5, 2005, from http://www.brookings.edu/es/urban/
boarnet.pdf
Bohm, R. A., & Patterson, D. A. (1971, August 23-26). Interstate highways and the growth and distribution of population. Paper presented at the American Statistical Association Conference, Fort Collins, CO.
Bohm, R. A., & Patterson, D. A. (1972). Interstate highway location and county population growth. Oak Ridge, TN:
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
Boudeville, J. R. (1969). Les espaces economiques [Economic spaces]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Briggs, R. (1980). The impact of the interstate highway system on nonmetropolitan growth (DOT Report No. RC
92040). Springfield, VA: National Technical Information Service.
Briggs, R. (1981). The interstate highway system and development in nonmetropolitan areas. Transportation
Research Record, 812, 9-12.
Briggs, R. (1983). The impact of the interstate highway system on nonmetropolitan development, 1950-1975. In
R. H. Platt & G. Macinko (Eds.), Beyond the urban fringe (pp. 83-105). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.
Bryk, A. S., & Raudenbush, S. W. (1992). Hierarchical linear models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Burkhardt, J. E. (2003). Mobility improvements for America’s seniors. Washington, DC: Westat.
Carlino, G. A., & Mills, E. S. (1987). The determinants of county growth. Journal of Regional Science, 27, 39-54.
Cervero, R. (1989). America’s suburban centers: The land use-transportation link. Boston: Unwin Hyman.
Cervero, R. (2002). Induced travel demand: Research design, empirical evidence, and normative policies. Journal of
Planning Literature, 17(1), 3-20.
Cervero, R. (2003). Road expansion, urban growth, and induced travel: A path analysis. Journal of the American
Planning Association, 69(2), 145-163.
Cervero, R., & Hansen, M. (2002). Induced travel demand and induced road investment: A simultaneous-equation
analysis. Journal of Transport Economics and Policy, 36(3), 469-490.
Chi, G., & Voss, P. R. (2005). Migration decision-making: A hierarchical regression approach. Journal of Regional
Analysis and Policy, 35(2), 11-22.
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
29
30
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY / July 2006
Clark, D., & Hunter, W. (1992). The impact of economic opportunities: Choosing the optimal distance to move.
Journal of Regional Science, 36, 235-256.
Corsi, T. M. (1974). A multivariate analysis of land use change: Ohio turnpike interchanges. Land Economics, 50,
232-241.
Crane, L. M., & Leatham, D. J. (1990, August 4-8). The distributed lag between transportation expenditures and
rural income and employment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics
Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Dalenberg, D. R., & Partridge, M. D. (1997). Public infrastructure and wages: Public capital’s role as a productive
input and household amenity. Land Economics, 73(2), 268-284.
Dansereau, H. K. (1965). Five years of highway research: A sociological perspective. Highway Research Record, 75,
76-82.
Deller, S. C. (1991, March 26-28). Economic and social outcomes of public and private investments in physical infrastructure for growth and stability of rural economies. Paper presented at the Northeast Regional Center for Rural
Development, Key Rural Development Issues Conference, Saratoga Springs, NY.
Dilworth, R. (2002). Urban infrastructure politics and metropolitan growth: Lessons from the New York metropolitan region. Public Works Management and Policy, 6(3), 200-214.
Doeksen, G. A. (1990, August 4-8). The role of extension concerning infrastructure issues in the 90s. Paper presented
at the annual meeting of the American Agricultural Economics Association, Vancouver, Canada.
Dorf, R., & Emerson, M. (1978). Determinants of manufacturing plant location for nonmetropolitan communities in
the west north central region of the U.S. Journal of Regional Science, 18, 109-120.
Duffy-Deno, K. T., & Eberts, R. W. (1991). Public infrastructure and regional economic development: A simultaneous equations approach. Journal of Urban Economics, 30(3), 329-343.
Eberts, R. W. (1990). Public infrastructure and regional economic development. Economic Review, 26, 15-27.
Eberts, R. W. (1994). Some empirical evidence on the linkage between public infrastructure and local economic
development. In H. W. Herzog & A. M. Schlottmann (Eds.), Industry location and public policy (pp. 83-96).
Knoxville: University of Tennessee Press.
Eisner, R. (1991, September/October). Infrastructure and regional economic performance: Comment. New England
Economic Review, 31, 47-58.
Eyerly, R. W., Twark, R. W., & Downing, R. H. (1987). Interstate highway system: Reshaping the non-urban areas
of Pennsylvania. Transportation Research Record, 1125, 1-14.
Forkenbrock, D. J., Pogue, T. F., Finnegan, D. J., & Foster, N. S. J. (1990). Transportation investment to promote
economic development. In Infrastructure investment and economic development: Rural strategies for the 1990’s
(Vol. AGES-9069, pp. 19-42). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Economic Research
Service.
Frey, J. C., Dansereau, H. K., Pashek, R. D., & Markham, J. W. (1960). The economic and social impact of highways: A progress summary of the Monroeville case study. University Park: Pennsylvania State University,
Agricultural Experiment Station.
Friedland, W. H. (1982). The end of rural society and the future of rural sociology. Rural Sociology, 47(4), 589-608.
Fuguitt, G. V. (1977, February 23). Recent trends in nonmetropolitan net migration. Paper presented at the Annual
Meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, Denver, CO.
Fuguitt, G. V., & Beale, C. L. (1976). Population change in nonmetropolitan cities and towns (Agricultural Economic
Report No. 323). Washington, DC: USDA, Economic Research Service.
Fuguitt, G. V., & Brown, D. (1990). Residential preferences and population redistribution. Demography, 27, 589-600.
Fuguitt, G. V., Brown, D. L., & Beale, C. L. (1989). Rural and small town America. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Gamble, H. B., Raphael, D. L., & Sauerlender, D. H. (1966). Direct and indirect economic impacts of highway interchange development. Highway Research Record, 149, 42-55.
Garcia-Mila, T., & McGuire, T. J. (1992). The contribution of publicly provided inputs to states’ economies. Regional
Science and Urban Economics, 22(2), 229-242.
Gerardin, B. (1991). Investment in transport infrastructure and regional development. In R. W. Vickerman (Ed.),
Infrastructure and regional development (Vol. 1, pp. 52-60). London: Pion.
Goodwin, P., & Noland, R. B. (2003). Building new roads really does create extra traffic: A response to Prakash
et al. Applied Economics, 35(13), 1451-1457.
Graves, P. (1979). A life-cycle empirical analysis of migration and climate by race. Journal of Urban Economics, 6,
135-147.
Graves, P. (1983). Migration with a composite amenity. Journal of Regional Science, 23, 541-546.
Graves, P., & Linneman, P. (1979). Household migration: Theoretical and empirical results. Journal of Urban
Economics, 6, 383-404.
Guild, R. L. (2000). Infrastructure investment and interregional development: Theory, evidence, and implications for
planning. Public Works Management and Policy, 4(4), 274-285.
Halstead, J. M., & Deller, S. C. (1997). Public infrastructure in economic development and growth: Evidence from
rural manufacturers. Journal of Community Development Society, 28(2), 149-169.
Hansen, N. (1965, Fall). Unbalanced growth and regional development. Western Economic Journal, 4, 3-14.
Hartshorn, T. A., & Walcott, S. M. (2000). The three Georgias: Emerging realignments at the dawn of the new millennium. Southeastern Geographer, 41(2), 127-150.
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
Chi et al. / HIGHWAY EFFECTS ON POPULATION
Haskins, C. B. (2002). The influence of highways on rural economic development: Evidence from North Carolina.
Unpublished master’s thesis, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.
Henry, M. S., Barkley, D. L., & Bao, S. (1997). The hinterland’s stake in metropolitan growth: Evidence from
selected southern regions. Journal of Regional Science, 37(3), 479-501.
Henry, M. S., Singletary, L., Brooks, K., London, J., & Roche, M. (1989, November 11). Evaluating the economic
development effects of highway investments: Some thoughts on experimental design for South Carolina. Paper
presented at the 36th Annual Meetings of the North American Regional Science Association, Santa Barbara, CA.
Hobbs, D. (1988). Factors influencing the demand for rural infrastructure. In T. G. Johnson, B. J. Deaton, &
E. Segarra (Eds.), Local infrastructure investment in rural America (pp. 51-60). Boulder, CO: Westview.
Hobbs, D. J., & Campbell, R. R. (1967, May/June). Traffic flow and population change. Business and Government
Review, 8(3), 5-11.
Holtz-Eakin, D. (1988). Private output, government capital, and the infrastructure “crisis” (Discussion Paper No.
394). New York: Columbia University.
Holtz-Eakin, D. (1994). Public sector capital and the productivity puzzle. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(1),
12-21.
Hulten, C. R. (1990). Discussion of infrastructure and economic growth. In A. H. Munnell (Ed.), Is there a shortfall
in public capital investment? (pp. 104-107). Boston: Federal Reserve Bank of Boston.
Hulten, C. R., & Schwab, R. M. (1984). Regional productivity growth in U.S. manufacturing, 1951-78. American
Economic Review, 74(1), 152-162.
Hulten, C. R., & Schwab, R. M. (1993). Infrastructure spending: Where do we go from here? National Tax Journal,
46, 261-273.
Humphrey, C. R. (1980). The promotion of growth in small urban places and its impact on population change. Social
Science Quarterly, 61, 581-594.
Humphrey, C. R., & Sell, R. R. (1975). The impact of controlled access highways on population growth in nonmetropolitan communities, 1940-1970 (Working Paper No. 1975-03). University Park: Pennsylvania State
University, Population Issues Research Office.
Irwin, R. (1971, April 23). Nonmetropolitan population change: 1960-1970. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting
of the Population Association of America, Washington, DC.
Isserman, A., Rephann, T., & Sorenson, D. (1989). Highways and rural economic development: Results from quasiexperimental approaches (Working Paper No. 8907). Morgantown: West Virginia University, Regional Research
Institute.
Johnson, K. M. (1982). Organization adjustment to population change in nonmetropolitan America: A longitudinal
analysis of retail trade. Social Forces, 60(4), 1123-1139.
Johnson, K. M. (1989). Recent population redistribution trends in nonmetropolitan America. Rural Sociology, 54(3),
301-326.
Johnson, K. M. (2001, August 15-19). More coffins than cradles: The continuing high incidence of natural decrease
in American counties. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Rural Sociological Society, Albuquerque,
NM.
Johnson, K. M., & Beale, C. L. (1994). The recent revival of widespread population growth in nonmetropolitan areas
of the United States. Rural Sociology, 59(4), 655-667.
Johnson, K. M., & Purdy, R. L. (1980). Recent nonmetropolitan population change in fifty-year perspective.
Demography, 17(1), 57-70.
Kanwit, E. L., & Todd, T. R. (1961). Recent population trends and their highway implications. Highway Research
Board Proceedings, 40, 1-34.
Kuehn, J. A., & West, J. G. (1971, July). Highways and regional development. Growth and Change, 2(3), 23-28.
Lichter, D. T., & Fuguitt, G. V. (1980). Demographic response to transportation innovation: The case of the interstate
highway. Social Forces, 59(2), 492-512.
Loftin, C., & Ward, S. K. (1983). A spatial autocorrelation model of the effects of population density on fertility.
American Sociological Review, 48(1), 121-128.
Losch, A. (1938). The nature of economic regions. Southern Economic Journal, 5(1), 71-78.
McCann, P. (2002). Classical and neoclassical location-production models. In P. McCann (Ed.), Industrial location
economics (pp. 3-31). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
McLean, E. L., & Adkins, W. G. (1971). Freeway effects on residential mobility in urban neighborhoods. Highway
Research Record, 356, 95-104.
Mikelbank, B. A. (1996, June 7). The distribution and direct employment impacts of public infrastructure investment
in Ohio. Paper presented at the 27th Annual Mid-Continent Regional Science Association Meeting, Madison, WI.
Miller, J. P. (1979, Fall). Interstate highways and job growth in nonmetropolitan areas: A reassessment.
Transportation Journal, 19, 78-81.
Moon, H. E. (1988). Interstate highway interchanges as instigators of nonmetropolitan development. Transportation
Research Record, 1125, 8-14.
Moore, C. T., Mayer, M. L., Lipson, H. A., & Joyce, G. (1964). A study of the expected economic and social impact
of interstate highways in the industrial and commercial trading area of Birmingham, Alabama—the first phase
(HPR Report No. 38). Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama, Department of Marketing.
Moore, T., & Thorsnes, P. (1994). The transportation/land use connection. Washington, DC: The American Planning
Association.
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016
31
32
PUBLIC WORKS MANAGEMENT & POLICY / July 2006
Morrison, C. J., & Schwartz, A. E. (1996). State infrastructure and productive performance. The American Economic
Review, 86(5), 1095-1111.
Munnell, A. H. (1990, September/October). How does public infrastructure affect regional economic performance?
New England Economic Review, pp. 11-32.
Munnell, A. H. (1992). Policy watch: Infrastructure investment and economic growth. Journal of Economic
Perspectives, 6, 189-197.
Nadiri, M. I., & Mamuneas, T. P. (1994). The effects of public infrastructure and R&D capital on the cost structure
and performance of U.S. manufacturing industries. Review of Economics and Statistics, 76(1), 22-37.
Pellenbarg, P. H., Wissen, L. J. G. V., & Dijk, J. V. (2002). Firm migration. In P. McCann (Ed.), Industrial location
economics (pp. 110-148). Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.
Perroux, F. (1954). L’Europe sans rivages [Europe without borders]. Paris: Presses Universitaires de France.
Pucher, J., & Renne, J. L. (2003). Socioeconomics of urban travel: Evidence from the 2001 NHTS. Transportation
Quarterly, 57(3), 49-77.
Rephann, T. J. (1992, April). Highways and rural economic development: Evidence from quasi-experimental control
group studies. Paper presented at the 31st Annual Meeting of the Southern Regional Science Association,
Charleston, SC.
Richardson, H. (1976). Growth pole spillovers: The dynamics of backwash and spread. Regional Studies, 10, 1-9.
Shah, A. (1992). Dynamics of public infrastructure, industrial productivity and profitability. The Review of
Economics and Statistics, 74, 28-36.
Smith, E. D., Deaton, B. J., & Kelch, D. R. (1978). Location determinants of manufacturing industry in rural areas.
Southern Journal of Agricultural Economics, 10(1), 23-32.
Smith, S. K., Tayman, J., & Swanson, D. A. (2000). State and local population projections: Methodology and analysis. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum.
Steinnes, D., & Fisher, W. (1974). An econometric model of intraurban location. Journal of Regional Science, 14,
65-80.
Tarver, J. D., & Urbon, J. C. (1963). Population trends in Oklahoma towns and cities. Oklahoma City: Oklahoma
State University, Department of Agricultural Economics.
Taylor, T. D., Broder, J. M., & McNamara, K. T. (1987). Some economic impacts of developmental highways in rural
Georgia. Unpublished manuscript, Agricultural Experiment Station, College of Agriculture, University of
Georgia, Athens.
Thiel, F. I. (1962). Social effects of modern highway transportation. Highway Research Board Bulletin, 327, 1-20.
Thompson, C., & Bawden, T. (1992). What are the potential economic development impacts of high-speed rail?
Economic Development Quarterly, 6(3), 297-319.
Trochim, W. (2001). The research methods knowledge base. Cincinnati, OH: Atomic Dog Publishing.
Twark, R. D. (1967). A predictive model of economic development at non-urban interchange sites on Pennsylvania
interstate highways. University Park: Pennsylvania State University.
Vickerman, R. W. (1991). Transport infrastructure in the European community: New developments, regional implications and evaluation. In R. W. Vickerman (Ed.), Infrastructure and regional development (Vol. 1, pp. 36-50).
London: Pion.
Voss, P. R., & Chi, G. (2006). Highways and population change. Rural Sociology, 71(1), 33-58.
Voss, P. R., & Fuguitt, G. V. (1979). Turnaround migration in the upper Great Lakes region. Madison: University of
Wisconsin–Madison.
Wang, K. S. (1987). A longitudinal examination of the effect of the interstate highway system on the economic and
demographic growth within nonmetropolitan counties in the state of Georgia, 1960-1980. Unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Weber, A. (1929). Alfred Weber’s theory of location of industries. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
William, G. A. (1958). Economic effects of Camp Creek Road improvement. College Station: Texas A & M University
and Texas Transportation Institute.
Wisenbaker, V. B. (1973). The effects of the interstate highway system on the population of nonmetropolitan counties
in the South. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Georgia, Athens.
Downloaded from pwm.sagepub.com at PENNSYLVANIA STATE UNIV on September 17, 2016