LIBRARY

I Michigan State
, Unlverslty

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX
to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINE return on or before date due.

 

MTE DUE MTE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1m Woes-p.14

 

THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OPINIONS OF
TWO MICHIGAN TOWNSHIP BOARDS:
A Q-METHODOLOGY INQUIRY
By

Jefferson G. Edgens

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY

Department of Resource Development

1997

ABSTRACT
THE PRIVATE PROPERTY RIGHTS OPINIONS OF Two
MICHIGAN TOWNSHIP BOARDS:
A Q-METHODOLOGY STUDY
By

Jefferson G. Edgens

Our nations’ land resources face great pressures from population and
development. One of the greatest considerations that elected officials must make
regarding growth in development is the ability to balance property rights. Over the last
20 years, property rights discourse has grown louder, especially evident from several
US. Supreme Court cases.

In Michigan, some township boards have the responsibility for planning and
land use regulations. This places these local entities on the front line with regards to
property rights. Michigan is also like other states in that it is experiencing suburban
sprawl and the loss of farmland and open space.

Therefore, this research examines two township boards’ opinions about
property rights. Questions the paper addresses include: Do township boards appear to
be "gun shy" about "takings" when creating land use restrictions? Are there bi-polar
and widely disparate opinions in property rights philosophy?

Through the use of Q-methodology, this research validates a previous study
performed in 1976. The findings from this paper resemble similar factors from the
1976 study and identify three factor types: parochial propertarians, responsible

propertarians and environmentalists.

Q-methodology provides for the "discovery" of subjective beliefs in a small
population sample. It correlates people instead of tests, unlike standard survey
research. Through factor analysis the methodology can group residents into discrete
factors that share certain perspectives or points of view.

A key finding is that these locally elected officials want the state to provide
technical assistance to them. However, they do not want direct state involvement. This
bodes well for enhancing the outreach and extension efforts at Michigan State
University. Through its resources it can disseminate crucial information to assist public

officials in decision-making efforts.

Copyright by
JEFFERSON GORDON EDGENS

1997

DEDICATION

To my parents...

At every turn in my life, you have always been there for my brothers and me. Without

your unfailing love and patience, none of this would have been possible. To both of you

I say "thank you," and dedicate this dissertation.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

As with any project or experience in life, there are certain people who have
done a lot to ensure that a person stays on course. It is only right and just to recognize
these individuals and this effort is no different.

Other than my parents, to whom this dissertation is dedicated, my teachers
have also served as mentors and sources of inspiration. This author would have never
reached this point in his education if it had not been for the efforts of four key
teachers in my life. TO Drs. Booker Ingram and J. David Gillespie - professors and
friends at Presbyterian College - goes my utmost thanks. These two friends encouraged
me to pursue a graduate education. Dr. Ingram prodded me to pursue a graduate
education, and a career as a college professor, by inviting me back several times over
the years to give presentations in his political science classes. Dr. Gillespie assisted me
with the mechanics of the Q-METHOD software package and the initial interpretation
of the data for this dissertation. Of course, any errors of commission or omission are
strictly mine. A third teacher is my friend and master’s advisor, Dr. Eric Fitch of
Marietta College. He pushed me toward the goal of earning a doctorate. Finally, I

would like to thank my Ph.D. advisor and committee chair, Dr. Eckhart Dersch, who

vi

understood and supported my teaching interests and goals. His advice and friendship
has been indispensable.

I also owe a debt of gratitude to the members of my doctoral committee,
Drs. Cynthia Fridgen and Paul Nickel in the Department of Resource Development,
and Dr. Zenia Kotval in the Department of Urban Planning. Each of them added their
valuable insights into guiding this dissertation and my course of study. Dr. Nickel
especially gave of his time and advice in assisting an often perplexed and confused
student to "just get it done." To all of these people I give wholehearted appreciation.

There are two people who have remained behind the scenes and served as a
compass and gyroscope in completing this project. To my wife, Karen, and daughter,
Savannah, I will be forever in debt to their patience and support. Karen constantly put
up with me being away from home for long hours, both at work and in completing
this project. She handled household obligations with aplomb. She has missed her
Florida family, but has been the "rock" of our family. To her I say, "Thank you. I love
you very much." Without her assistance, prodding and patience, this endeavor would
undoubtedly never have been completed. To Savannah, who has really brightened our
lives and added a new sense of purpose, I offer my thanks and say that I’ll be home

more. She, too, has been a motivation for completing this dissertation.

vii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

£ng

LIST OF TABLES .............................................. x
CHAPTER I. INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH .................... 1
Outline of the Research ..................................... 2
Background to the Research .................................. 2
Statement of the Problem .................................... 8
Michigan Township Boards ............................. 8
Methodological Concerns .................................... 9
Research Questions .................................. 10

Contribution to the Knowledge Base ...................... 11

Research Process .................................... 11

Expected Results from the Research ........................... 12
CHAPTER 11. REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE ....................... 15
History and the Current State of Land Use Regulation ............... 19

The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 ............................. 20

Some US. Supreme Court Cases on Land Use Regulations ........... 21
Bi-Polar Views on Resource and Property Issues ................... 24
Demographic Literature .................................... 25

State of Research of Politicians’ Environmental Opinions ............. 26

Use of an Alternative Methodology for Opinion Study ............... 28
CHAPTER III. METHODS OF THE RESEARCH ...................... 32
Introduction to Q-Methodology and Research Design ................ 33
Rationale for Using Q-Methodology ...................... 36

Distinction Between Q- and R-Methodology ................. 37

Validity and Reliability ............................... 40

Research Design .................................... 41

Analysis of Q-Sorts .................................. 44
Q-Methodology and Application to Study ........................ 44
Strengths and Limitations of the Study .......................... 47
Strengths and Limitations of Q-Methodology ................ 47

CHAPTER IV. INTERPRETATION AND RESULTS .................... 49
Introduction ............................................ 49

Page

Data Collection .......................................... 50
Data Interpretation ................................... 53
Labeled Factors .......................................... 55
Parochial Propertarians ................................ 56
Responsible Pr0pertarians .............................. 63
Environmental Propertarians ............................ 69
Summary of Their Individual Perspectives .................. 72
CO-Orientation .......................................... 74
Summary ......................................... 79
CHAPTER V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............. 81
Recommendations ........................................ 83
Suggestions for Future Research .............................. 85
APPENDICES
APPEN DIX A
Directions for Performing the Q-Sort ...................... 88
APPENDD( B
Forced Grid Distribution Diagram ........................ 94
APPENDD( C
Statements and Factor Arrays ........................... 95
BIBLIOGRAPHY ............................................ 102

ix

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Unrotated Factor Matrix ................................... 55
Table 2. Factor Matrix with an "X" Indicating A Defining Factor ............ 57
Table 3. Correlations Between Factors ............................... 74
Appendix B. Forced Grid Distribution Diagram ......................... 94

CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION TO THE RESEARCH

The subjective differences in politicians’ opinions toward land use activities are
important in devising innovative public policies and fostering sustained
communication. In Michigan, the group of politicians that will be studied are the
township boards, one of the most local levels of government in the state. Many
townships are seeing rapid development pressures which are impacting residents’ way
of life.1 Therefore, it is important to determine how township boards perceive private
property rights in order to understand their propensity for developing land use
regulations. After all, any land management efforts created unilaterally in one
community can impact another. Should not townships, then, be aware of how other
township boards perceive property rights? This research will analyze how township
boards view private property rights not only from its own particular township’s
perspective, but also from the perspective of the other townships. This research effort
will compare the results of an earlier Q study on land use regulations with this study’s

findings.

 

‘ "Meridian Township residents have long been concerned about maintaining the quality
of their community, particularly the quality of residential life.... By the year 2010, the
population could increase to between 41,200 and 45,700 residents, assuming that previous
trends and land use policies continue." Comprehensive Development Plan, Charter Township
of Meridian, May 24, 1993, p.1.

Outline of the Reselrch

Chapter One presents the background and lays the framework for the research.
It will outline the method of the study in analyzing political opinions regarding
property rights. The Second Chapter examines the legal framework of property rights
and land use regulations, drawing from brief synopses of US. Supreme Court land use
cases involving local governments and the issue of takings, and explores the property
rights opinions of non-elected officials.

Chapter Three, Methods of the Research, covers Q-Methodology in greater
detail.2 It presents an historical introduction of the methodology, as well as how it has
been used for this study. The chapter also provides a brief description of the computer
software package employed in the analysis. Chapter Four consists of data
interpretation. It also analyzes the results obtained from the township boards and their
opinions about property rights compared with an earlier Q study. Finally, Chapter Five
gives the recommendations and conclusions, and connects the results of the study with
a policy prescription. The last chapter also makes recommendations for future

research.

BACKGROUND TO THE RESEARCH
In order to understand why this research is being undertaken, it is necessary to
have the factual background. Management of the human/environment interface is an
ongoing activity of society. Alterations have been made to the land for agriculture,

development and construction. Land use changes have resulted in a decline of wildlife

 

2 For an examination of how Q works and how it is implemented consult Chapter Three.

3

habitat and land and water drainage encroachment on farms, human overcrowding and
congestion. Each of these issues leads to conflicts over competing land use.
Throughout history, however, governments have tried to stabilize these conflicts
through effective regulation of certain land uses in order to maintain the social order.
Yet, the government’s interest in maintaining order often clashes with property
owners’ often sacrosanct view of private property protections. Property owners
stipulate that if land is taken by the government for any purpose, then the government
is obligated to compensate for the its use.3 Sometimes compensation happens,
sometimes it does not. Numerous Supreme Court cases have been decided on the
"takings" issue and land use regulation. This research does not concentrate on the legal
nuances or in the legal "hair splitting" of takings.

National research conducted by Steve Brown and James G. Coke (Brown and
Coke 1977) in 1976 on Ohio and other selected states critiques the views of citizens
and politicians on a proposed National Land Planning Act. Brown and Coke (1977)
state that a public consensus could develop on land policy with three basic
assumptions:

One was the continued faith in progress which translated into the view

that economic growth per se was a good thing. The second was a

corollary to the first: zoning and other land use controls should not

interfere unduly with the engine of economic growth. The only

defensible justification for interfering with property rights today would

be to maintain property values in the future. The third assumption was

that the application of land use regulations should be completely

decentralized to local governments. These were police power regulations

which state legislatures should make available on an optional basis to

cities that wanted to use them. Beyond that, only the courts should be
concerned with local government performance.

 

3 See Amendment V to the US. Constitution.

4

These three assumptions have formed the basis for the statements on land use
regulation that have been distributed to township boards. At issue is the relevance of
the human/ environment interface, although Brown does not use this terminology.
Human values which favor growth and development are being heavily considered, with
the resulting loss of many sensitive ecological areas. Legislation at the Federal level,
though, stresses the protection of endangered species, coastal areas and farmland.
Citizens are concerned that granting greater rights to Species other than themselves
threatens their way of life. To them, nature appears to be elevated to a higher plane
and subverts human values.

In other places of the country, urban areas are spilling over into rural spaces,
with residents in these rural parts of America also feeling challenged to preserve their
way Of life and communities, and the rural landscapes. These concerns have
manifested themselves in the American West. In the West, residents’ ways of life
often conflict with the preservation or protection of an endangered species.

Many people in the West, and others in the US, voted in 1994 to send to
Congress representatives who more accurately represented their interests. The 104th
Congress reviewed such legislation as the Endangered Species Act, Clean Water Act
and others that were seen as threatening to their constituents’ way of life or to
economic development. Attempts were made to roll back regulations such as Senator
Bob Dole’s sponsorship of the Private Property Protection Act. This about-face on the
past 30 years of environmental legislation is due primarily to greater Federal
government intrusion into private property rights. These assumptions entail judicial

Opinions that are counter to the Constitution, and arbitrary and capricious bureaucratic

5

rule-making. In effect, westerners and other natural resource users believe their rights
are being taken from them by non-elected, unaccountable officials of the Federal
government. In particular, these citizens, as well as others, believe local government is
the best suited entity to make these decisions, and should be able to do so without
interference.

At the heart of balancing the interests of competing land use policies, are
elected officials entrusted with the responsibility of responding to citizens’ demands
for protecting their ways of life. Local governments must balance these diverse
interests and yet contain unchecked growth while still providing for economic
development. Others argue that the judicial system should not make these decisions on
private property rights, but that such concerns ought to be left to the local
governments to decide. Some legal scholars think that the judicial system is the most
capable governmental entity to balance these interests. Yet in many instances, the
judicial system acts as a de facto policy-making board which is not elected, and
certainly not representative of the people. Fundamental, then, to understanding why
land use regulations are implemented, is the importance of surveying local elected
officials’ opinions regarding property rights protection.

Through the use of Q-method and co-orientation, the subjective differences of
two township boards will be illuminated. CO-orientation involves the respondent
looking at how another person or group perceives an issue (Chaffe 1968). For
instance, the subject is asked to look at the same issue through the lens of the other

township, in essence placing themselves in the shoes of the other board members. Co-

6

orientation might best be accomplished through the use of operant subjectivity and Q
methodology.

Steven Brown defines operant subjectivity to mean: "It is subjective since each
person’s viewpoint, on political or any other matters, is simply that - his viewpoint. It
is operant because it exists naturally within a particular setting." (Brown 1980).
Therefore, each person may interpret discussion or ideas differently, leading to
different ways of communicating. William Stephenson (1953) considers the "playing
out" of beliefs and behavior to be the differences or similarities inherent in
communication. This assumption means that decision makers may take for granted that
solutions to problems are easily agreed upon. This also implies that problem solving
may occur through like-minded individuals. However, individuals have different
opinions, as do elected officials. Also,opinions are shared by other people but perhaps
at a different level. It may be best to think of this as William Stephenson has, using
the concept of quantum mechanics in physics.

In quantum mechanics, electrons are estimated through mathematical
probability to be in a particular place in their orbit. In addition, the electron, when
combined with other atoms, may be shared. Mathematical calculations represent the
bonding of atoms based on the number of electrons each atom shares. Although
bonding is not seen, again, probability estimates the behavior of atoms at the sub-
atomic level and explains a "quantum leap” (Hazen and Trefil 1990; Stephenson 1982,
1987). In essence, an electron will jump to another atom’s orbit; but it is not seen
doing SO, yet the electron is shared by differing atoms. This concept for quantum

mechanics is the same principle on which Stephenson bases Q-methodology as a

7

means of determining those shared beliefs that appear and can be measured through
probability. In the case of atoms it cannot be said, though, that the same electrons
always appear in the same place on every atom, but there is only a probability of
where the researcher thinks the electron may appear. Using factor analysis and Q
methodology, Stephenson can discover the same phenomenon of human subjective
beliefs (also measured within a realm of probability) uniquely held by a particular
group of respondents. The researcher cannot claim that the observation of subjective
beliefs holds to a general population, but only to a sub-population. The parallels are
similar to those in quantum physics and represent discovery and probability.

From the standpoint of understanding subjective beliefs, it is not until people
really communicate and appreciate other’s opinions that any confusion is cleared up.
Often, communicants share concerns, but these concerns are intentionally or
unintentionally obfuscated or missed through written and oral dialogue, often resulting
in hurt feelings or misunderstandings.

A lack of understanding regarding land use opinions between politicians could
lead to boundary disputes and failure to establish a comprehensive and integrated
planning approach that recognizes and protects private property rights. When disputes
occur, it is generally a matter of assumed patterns of opinion (Soden 1990). Common
attributes will be found on which to build sound land use policy in the future. The

remainder of this chapter will cover the research strategy and expected outcomes.

8
STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM

Michigan Township Boards

Balancing the need for economic development and environmental protection
often provides a difficult dilemma for elected officials. This dilemma generally takes
the form of making land use decisions. After all, where or how economic development
occurs depends on land use planning. Yet politicians must normally work within a
system of institutional parameters. On one hand is the constitutional requirement to
protect property rights; on the other hand, is the importance of balancing the needs of
society by encouraging, mitigating or preventing certain noxious land uses that may
influence the enjoyment, health or safety of another person. One way these concerns
can be managed is by implementing land use regulations. Politicians walk a narrow
line between supporting or violating constitutional rights of private property.
Therefore, how they perceive land use regulations can influence how sincere or
practical politicians will be in balancing economic growth (land development) and
individual property rights.

In recent years, the US. Supreme Court decisions have favored the property
owner and have made local governments compensate the owner for any public use of
the land (Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council, 1992 and Dollan v City of Tigard,
1994). In some circumstances, governments are accused of "taking" land without
providing just compensation to the landowner. Subjective opinions of the elected
officials can be important, because if we know what their opinions are toward land
use regulations, then appropriate communication efforts can be established that may

lead to clearer policies and intergovernmental cooperation. This is especially true of

9

township boards in Michigan. In this research, the beliefs of two township boards, one
urban charter township (Meridian) and one rural non-charter township (Alaiedon) are
surveyed regarding their concerns about private property protections. Both townships
are also adjacent to one another, thus each can make land use decisions that affect the
other entity.

The charter township (Meridian) has a comprehensive (comp) plan for
responding to growth occurring in the region. Many of the land use restrictions
established in the comp plan could cause development to occur outside the township’s
jurisdiction. Alaiedon Township, south of Meridian Township, is expected to face
greater development pressures in the future. Development pressures in Meridian are
the heaviest on its south side, right up to the Alaiedon Township boundary. AS a
result, Alaiedon Township is beginning to feel the effects of urban sprawl on their
township. However, at the present time, they lack the institutional capabilities to adapt
to changes in land use that will occur in the foreseeable future.‘ IS there a difference
in how a more urban township board views land use regulations as Opposed to a rural

township board?

METHODOLOGICAL CONCERNS

Using a methodological tool that assesses subjective beliefs or opinions of the

individual being researched is known as Q-Methodology (Brown 1976). The research

 

" Presently, there is no comprehensive plan, or other form of land use Visioning effort, for
Alaiedon Township.

10

takes a nonrandom approach, meaning that the respondents are current or past

township board members?

Research Questions

Since hypotheses in Q methodology are implicit, the research method is useful
for discovery. Therefore, it is more appropriate for this research project to ask
exploratory questions suited to Q-methodology. Research questions for this study
reflect board members’ opinions of private property rights, as well as how the opposite
township board perceives the same question. The main focus of the research is:

0 How local government officials perceive their duties to the community
they were elected to serve.

- Whether or not township boards are concerned with their constituents’
private property rights.

0 Whether a paradigm shift has occurred within the population regarding
environmental opinions.

- Do local officials consider environmental decisions above or over
property rights.

The addition to Q-methodology in this study is co-orientation, which asks
whether Alaiedon Township views property rights the same as Meridian Township or
vice versa? In addition, are there similarities with the Brown and Coke study? This
research and methodology expands the knowledge base in studying the exclusive

property rights opinions of politicians.

 

5 The prior Meridian board was voted out and a new board installed. Only two members
of the current board agreed to participate in the study.

11

Contribution to the Knowledge Base

This research expands the knowledge base in two major ways. First, it
examines the opinions of township boards in Michigan. No written research is evident
that focuses exclusively on township boards’ opinions on anything, much less land
regulations.6 Nor is research available on the counter views of others through the
perspective of the respondent. The research base is furthered by comparing the results
of the Brown and Coke study with the results from this study. It is contended that the
Q method is replicable from other studies and this research validates these previous
studies. Second, the research borrows from the co-orientation literature as described by
Steven Chaffe. Co-orientation is the ability to simultaneously perceive one’s view and

another person’s views. Therefore, the Q method is acceptable for this type of inquiry.

Research Process

For the purposes of this study, the research evaluates 11 to 13 township
members from two adjoining townships. The data collection took place over a period
of one hour at each township board’s work session, or on a person-to-person basis.
The study borrows and uses 34 of the previously tested 55 statements from the Brown
and Coke Q study. Brown and Coke surveyed the opinions of state and local
politicians, as well as citizens. The results were factor analyzed, yielding three belief

types identified by the researchers.7 The 34 statements from the original 55

 

‘5 Based on the systematic literature review of dissertation abstracts, PAIS, planning
literature and literature in political science.

7 Those same statements are apropos for today, considering the current "wise use"
movement and US. Supreme Court decisions mentioned above, among other things.

12

concentrate on private property concerns, open space and what level of government is
best equipped to handle land use regulation. The statements are placed one to a card in
a 34 card deck. The respondent is told to sort all of the cards into three separate piles -
agree, disagree or neutral - oriented to the individual’s point of view. After
conducting the entire sorting process and recording their answers, the township board
is asked to make a second sort. Here, they are asked to sort the cards in the way they
think the other township board views the statements. This is the co-orientation portion
of the study. Results of the townships are compared with the outcomes from the

Brown/Coke study.

EXPECTED RESULTS FROM THE RESEARCH

Local governments have similar knowledge and goals for local development.
As a result, they may be able to pool their resources while balancing natural resource
management with economic development practices. Doing so might help them attain a
better quality of life in the township. This dissertation identifies certain opinions that
are held by township boards charged with the daily management of the township.

By analyzing what board members from different perspectives think about land
use regulations, researchers and others can examine the similar and dissimilar opinions
held. How township boards perceive land use regulations hints at how land regulations
are best utilized by these townships. Since the two townships studied share
perspectives, they are more accepting of some forms of technical assistance provided
by a legitimate organization. Other goals that can be accomplished from this research

are as follows:

13

First, if township boards know what their differences in opinion are, then goals
can be established to minimize these differences and possibly avert planning disputes.
Second, an educational outreach system can be established that teaches trustees about
planning concepts, especially in conjunction with other township governments.
Another possible result from the research is that township boards can use the data to
show the state or county government why they need assistance in establishing greater
self-government in land use planning decisions. This especially holds true for Alaiedon
Township, since it is a non-chartered township and needs permission from the county
for greater land use planning. Meridian can argue that better land use is made if they
were made a city, which discussion is being argued at the present time.

Other possibilities include:

- Recording opinions for future studies and to assess board changes over
time.

- Analyzing the opinion of other members of the township, then
comparing them with the township board.

- Application of these results in a survey method that can be generalized
across the state.

In other words, the results of this study can serve as building blocks for
designing a larger study that includes a bigger population. Through analyzing local
opinions, researchers can gain some insight into whether township boards share
Opinions regarding land use policies and how they can better communicate with one
another. Identifying shared opinions can lead to greater intergovernmental coordination
and collaboration in land planning efforts, thus creating partnerships or joint task

forces on land management issues.

14

Chapter Two reviews the literature on US. Supreme Court opinions as they
relate to the "takings" issue and private property rights. It also provides background
information on the Q-methodology and the Steven Brown study, outlines a comparison
of Lester Milbrath’s theory of paradigm shifts in attitude changes over time, and

further explains the concept of co-orientation.

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Throughout American history, land has been at the center of our economic
system (Friedenberg 1992; Madison et al. 1987). However, recent studies demonstrate
differing societal views of land between citizens and public officials, both nationally
and in Colorado (Brown and Coke 1976), Ohio (Brown and Coke 1977), and Michigan
(Hembroff 1995), to name just a few. Most of American history shows land as the
bedrock of our economic system. Some writers and thinkers, however, believe land
ownership should take a back seat to human progress (Michigan Land Use Institute
1997). This latter view manifests itself in much of our country’s environmental policy
today. Some people within the environmental ranks believe that the quest for land has
led to land abuse and loss of such things as wetlands and other ecologically fragile
areas. AS these fragile lands disappear, a person’s rights to do as they wish with their
property Should either cease or be minimized.

Yet Rousseau spoke of a social contract of society. This social contract took
the form of our US. Constitution and set forth the restrictions necessary to maintain
liberty without creating an overly burdensome or restrictive government. Implicit in

this understanding, also is social responsibility. Rousseau never claimed that people

15

16

are good, but maintained that by coming together and forming a set of rules that
society could live by, proper behavior is rewarded and improper behavior is penalized.

Perhaps one way to look at land is as a "bundle of rights" or "bundle of
sticks." Each stick represents a certain divisible use of land, i.e., development rights,
mineral rights, easements, etc. (Barlowe 1986). Therefore, what someone can do with
their land rests with the rights vested in each stick. This renders most property right’s
perspectives to be ones that value choice, and the belief that an owner can do with
their land whatever they want.

Land is at the heart of America’s economic system, and our country’s founders
realized the Significance of property. Thomas Jefferson, in one Of his early drafts of
the Declaration of Independence, even referenced it as "life, liberty and the pursuit of
property" (Friedenberg 1992). The final draft, of course, deletes this last word and
replaces it with "happiness." Throughout America’s history, economic expansion has
been driven by the acquisition of property. With land, banks can give loans and the
asset is protected. A person’s station in life is measured by land ownership. Property
rights were held sacrosanct by the founding fathers because they knew that once the
erosion of property rights begins, so too does the basis of the economic system
(Korves 1996). In particular, they realized that if land is seized by the government
without the right to do so, or on a whim, then other liberties can also be usurped.

However, thought in the last three decades - from 1970 to the late 1990s - has
centered on private property rights and has been concerned with where one person’s
property rights end and another person’s begin (Smith 1995; Wenner 1994). Since

property rights are at the center of our economic system, and this economic system

l7

creates and enforces property rights, many people argue that the economic system is
unjust to the environmental system (Wenner 1994). It can be said that land change is
at the heart of the argument.

Land change, via agriculture, has been the fundamental goal of all human
civilizations, both past and present (Ponting 1991). American history contains
innumerable success stories of people acquiring land, then building their wealth and
advancing society at the same time (Josephson 1921; Foster 1994; Diamond and
Noonan 1996). Other than ownership in land there were other uses made of the natural
resource base. For instance, settlers no longer harvested game for their own use, but
began to take the surplus to sell to others. Similar concerns faced Europe in the
middle ages, as the medieval society was leaving a feudal system and entering a
mercantile system. Land began to be used for such other purposes as timber harvesting
and construction. As in Europe, these uses have Often been in conflict with one
another. When population increases and land availability becomes scarce, conflicts
emerge.

Many thinkers believe that by placing heavier rules on those with wealth and
property ownership, or by establishing a wealth transfer program, that the
"downtrodden or exploited" will be rewarded and share in the spoils (Harrington
1985). However, the economic system responds best to incentives - not regulations
(Anderson 1991). This is not to say, however, that all regulations are intrinsically bad.

Due to resource conflicts, for instance, institutional constraints are established
to protect an individual’s use and to provide a sense of order in the community. From

the Mayflower Compact to the US. Constitution, to state and local government

l8

charters and ordinances, one of the chief concerns has been the protection of
individual liberties and private property (Diamond and Noonan 1996; Korves 1996;
Marzulla and Marzulla 1997). Often, however, the pursuit of happiness or liberty is in
conflict with another person’s use or enjoyment of their land. The early settlers
brought with them their experiences of a legal system that saw property seized by
government and citizens as liberty unprotected.

As American society advanced, certain individuals began to chronicle the
changes taking place to the local environment. People like John James Audubon and
Henry David Thoreau began to paint, think and write about humans’ impact on nature
(Hays 1987). Other individuals like George Perkins Marsh, John Muir and Gifford
Pinchot, through empirical observations, debated the progress of America and its
influence and pressures on the land (Shabecoff 1993). The battle over land use was
joined in the 19205 and 305 by Aldo Leopold. In his book, A Sand County Almanac,
Leopold explained his concept of a "land ethic" (Leopold 1990). Land ethics Speaks to
the need for wise stewardship of the land, primarily protecting the soils from erosion
and making certain that human actions had little impact on the land.8

The rise of an affluent society after World War II led to the baby boom, which
led to greater demands for housing, with a resulting greater urban concentration (Hays
1987). Businesses expanded with the aid of technological advances and more people
began to move to the city for better economic opportunities. Those that could fled to

the rural landscapes for serenity, but also because they could (Barth 1990). This

 

8 Along coasts and estuaries, John and Mildred Teale’s work, Life and Death of a Salt
Marsh, chronicled the land transformation of early settlers and urban society on the coastal
environments; for example, the harvesting of salt marsh grass and the filling of wetlands.

19

concentration of businesses and housing placed unwanted land use pressures on the
city. Cities then began to consider ways to manage development by passing ordinances

that prohibited or restricted certain land use activities (Foster 1994; Platt 1996).

HISTORY AND THE CURRENT STATE OF LAND USE REGULATION

The first land use regulations can be traced back to medieval England when the
King, seeing trees being destroyed, passed an order to protect this resource from the
commoners’ destructive behavior. Medieval society also spawned additional
regulations for health and land protection, covering everything from minimizing air
pollution to requiring sewers to be built in communities. The sovereign had as its
responsibility the safety, health, welfare and morals of its citizenry. In a democracy,
this is power on loan from the citizens, not from divine right or lineage.

Not until the early part of the twentieth century were land regulations
implemented in the United States. Constitutional challenges led to much debate over
the government’s regulation of activities on private lands. People argued that since it
was their property, they should be able to do as they pleased with their land (Pombo
and Farah 1996). Noxious uses that originated from neighbors’ land led other property
owners to complain. These owners encouraged enactment of regulations so that they
could enjoy their property without being burdened. Yet basic legal theory says that a
property owner may enjoy the use of his or her property as long as that use does not
harm the use of another’s enjoyment of their property. For this reason, most property

restrictions are handled at the local level of government.

20

One crucial element in the design of the colonies was representative
government, where peOple vote and elect their political representatives. One local and
effective form of government is the township. This model of government allows the
citizens to know their elected officials and the issues these officials decide. As society
has matured over the decades, other forms of government have strengthened, such as
cities and special purpose governments. Most have the power to tax and provide for
the public welfare. However, as more people move to towns, townships, cities, etc.,
politicians feel the pressure from citizens to maintain order while providing for greater
opportunity for all residents (Porritt 1985; Paelkhe 1989). This requirement forces
local governments to manage property disputes. As a result, property rights disputes
become matters of local concern or take on a parochial interest (Michigan’s Trends

Future 1995).

THE NORTHWEST ORDINANCE OF 1787

In Michigan, townships were originally created by the Northwest Ordinance of
1787, which established small, compact communities for commerce and protection.
Obviously these small entities provided for local government control or direct
democracy (Browne and VerBurg 1995). The Northwest Ordinance required a survey
of land for "congressional townships," to be divided into 36 sections, each being one
square mile (VerBurg 1990). Usually one of these sections was made into a "school
section," publicly owned and providing for the encouragement of future education as

expressed in Northwest Ordinance Article III (VerBurg 1990).

21

Township powers include constitutional and legislatively expressed powers, and
case law as provided through strict construction (VerBurg 1990). However, state law
does not require townships to establish zoning ordinances. Local zoning is only
provided to a township through enabling legislation passed by the state. Over time,
though, township powers have made "adaptive changes to lessen the negative impacts"
to the township from the lack of zoning powers (VerBurg 1990). Yet, charter
townships can often set their own course, while nonchartered townships must seek
permission from county governments to adapt to local situations. In sum, what is

significant is how township board members from differing townships view private

property rights.9

SOME U.S. SUPREME COURT CASES ON LAND USE REGULATIONS
Although the idea of zoning is not widespread in the US, in the early 20th

century property owners challenged it as burdensome in the US. Supreme Court case
Euclid v Ambler Realty 1926). The court held that it is permissible for local
governments to establish city-wide zoning regulations. Some cases like Hadachek v
Sebastian (1915) and Boomer v Atlantic Cement Co. (1970) protect property owners
from nuisance activities that occur principally in residential areas. This is one of the
first ways the courts established to exclude some types of activities. Other cases
protected property from coal mining, as in the cases of Pennsylvania Coal Co. v

Mahon (1922) DeBenedictis v Keystone Bituminous Coal (1987), and from noxious

 

9 Differences in urban and rural townships are not what is being examined, but simply the
subjective views of township officials toward private property rights.

22

activities like a cattle feed lot in Spurr Industries v Del Webb (1972). In each instance
the courts interpreted the Constitution to protect the property interests of one party
against another.

Still in dispute, though, is the proper moment when a government can take
property for the public good. This usually stems from protecting the public safety and
welfare of the community. It was not until a series of later cases in the 19603 and
since that the issue of "taking" occurred. From Just v Marinette County (1972) through
Nollan v California Coastal Commission (1987) and First English Evangelical
Lutheran Church v County of Los Angeles (1987), the courts began to turn to
protecting property rights and arguing for full compensation even if the landowner was
only deprived of a partial use of their land. In dispute was whether a government had
to compensate the property owner for a regulation that protected the public, but denied
the owner beneficial use of their property. This meant that the uncompensated property
owner would have to shoulder the social costs of society.

Then two cases in the 19905 - Lucas v South Carolina Coastal Council (1992)
and Dollan v City of Tigard (1994) - addressed the issue of a takings claim. In Lucas,
the South Carolina Beachfront Management Act (BMA) was contested. The BMA
precluded shoreline development beyond the first dune; in essence, providing for a
setback requirement. As the line was drawn, it essentially divided Lucas’s property in
half. He claimed the setback rule was arbitrary and capricious, and claimed that the
state had denied him all use of his property. Yet, the US. Supreme Court and Justice
Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, agreed. As Justice Blackmun pointed out in

his dissent, however, Lucas could still use the land, but he might not be able to use it

23

for what he had originally intended. The state was ordered to compensate him for the
loss Of his property.

In the Dollan case, the city of Tigard granted a building permit to a store
owner if the store would provide a public easement for residents. Again the Supreme
Court issued an opinion stating that where there was not a clear nexus between the use
of a permit and a public good, then a taking occurs.

During this time of takings decisions, many property owners in the Western
US. and other locations have felt what they consider to be the overreaching hand Of
government when it comes to property rights (Pombo and Farah 1996). One recent
US. Supreme Court case Bennett v Spear (1997), deals with ranchers along an Oregon
stream who were denied ongoing irrigation use of their water due to a US. Fish and
Wildlife Service’s biological opinion that claimed an endangered species was present
in the stream. The biological opinion emphasized that according to the Endangered
Species Act (ESA), the instrearn flow had to be maintained since this species
depended on higher water levels for its survival. The ranchers, though, filed suit under
the Endangered Species Act challenging the US. Fish and Wildlife Service’s decision,
claiming they were in the "zone of interest" of those affected by an ESA decision.
This zone of interest is designed to protect all parties who have an interest in any ESA
decision. Historically, the courts had ruled that environmental organizations could sue
to uphold or compel an ESA decision (Tennessee Valley Authority v Hill 1978).
Property owners were never granted that same opportunity or standing to sue until the
Bennett case (Stone 1988). The case reached the US. Supreme Court, and in an

unanimous decision (9-0), the Court voted in favor of the ranchers. The Court stated

24

that landowners can indeed challenge a biological opinion since they are in the zone of
interest.

The significance of these cases may lead to local governments reconsidering
any land use regulations that might be perceived as a taking. Case law is divided on
when a taking occurs and at what level property rights "trump" the public interest. The
legal gray lines are blurred, but the rhetoric over property rights is often bi-polar and
pits the wise-use crowd (Bosso 1994) against environmentalists (Dunlap and Mertig
1992). Since compensation might be owed to the owner, would local governments
have to set aside additional tax dollars for purchasing land before beginning a project?
Does this mean local politicians are "gun shy" when it comes to passing land use
regulations? Are local elected officials sensitive to property owners’ concerns? Do
some elected local government officials in adjacent municipalities share the same

concerns?

BI-POLAR VIEWS ON RESOURCE AND PROPERTY ISSUES

These fundamental questions of property rights and governance are guided by a
person’s belief systems. It is not the purpose of this study to explore the literature of
belief systems, since Conover (1969) and Milbrath (1989) have written a great deal on
the subject. In the previous debates regarding environmental policy, Malthusians (those
who believed the resources were being lost) have predicted doom and gloom in
resource scarcity (Gore 1992; Meadows, Meadows and Randers 1992; Ophuls 1992).
Most of their prognostications have been proven false, may not have occurred at all, or

not to the degree predicted (Global 2000 Report 1978). On the other hand, Neo-

25

Cornucopians (those who believe there are plenty of resources) state that through
intelligence and technology, humans can adjust to environmental changes before
imperiling the species (Simon and Kahn 1984; Bast, Hill and Rue 1994). Both views
represent the polar ends of a widely debated view on the state of the environment.
This same polarity also results in property rights disputes among citizens and activist
organizations.lo Instead, this researcher is interested in the views of these polar
positions as they relate to private property rights.

Today the views manifest themselves in shaping environmental policy; in
particular, land use policy (Caldwell 1993; Mueller 1995). One group argues for
conservation of the resource and another argues for growth and development. Yet,
society is able to tolerate both ideals of conserving the resource and maintaining their
quality of life, all the while encouraging well-conceived growth (Daly and Cobb
1989). Since most development and protection decisions are made by elected officials,
this research assesses the subjectivity of beliefs held by local government officials. If
we can understand these differences and build on our agreements, then the

policy-making process may work better.

DEMOGRAPHIC LITERATURE
When it comes time for identifying attitudes, it has been found that most are

based on education, culture, age and gender (Merchant 1989; Stern and Dietz 1994).

 

‘0 In the Brown and Coke study of 1976, the Colorado Farm Bureau was surveyed, and
appeared to be loaded on one factor. The researchers commented that they had never seen
such a homogenous group of people. Inferred from this is they all perceived the issues in the
same way. Certain groups can then take bi-polar approaches in policy formulation.

26

For instance, people with less education regarding environmental issues do not easily
alter their behaviors or actions that impact local natural resources. Many studies have
shown that income is not much of a factor in predicting beliefs. Previous research on
environmental values (Pierce 1979; Axelrod 1994), environmental concerns, technical
knowledge (Pierce and Lovrich 1986; Syme, Beven and Sumner 1993) and public
Opinion have measured the effects of demographic information on beliefs and opinions.
The biggest differences seem to be in education and gender, with age and income

showing less correlation.

STATE OF RESEARCH OF POLITICIANS’ ENVIRONMENTAL OPINIONS
The opinions of politicians can cause them to take similar or different positions

on a policy issue. Thus far, most of the literature involves assessing the attitudes of
citizens about environmental beliefs (Milbrath 1984). Little, if any, of the literature
exclusively focuses on the subjective values of decision makers, especially local
elected officials. However, one piece of literature affecting the area of the public and
government officials is the work by Pierce and Lovrich (1986). They evaluated the
attitudes of Idaho state legislators toward water resource management. They
determined that in most cases, public officials have a higher level of knowledge about
the issue than the public. Pierce and Lovrich called this the "technical information
quandary" (Pierce and Lovrich 1986). The resulting gap of knowledge lies between
what the decision-makers know and what the citizens know. Generally, too, elected
officials and experts track evenly, with a large gap of knowledge holding between

themselves and their constituents. In a similar study from Florida, Dennis Soden

27

(1990) examined the attitudes and technical complexity of government officials and
the public toward coastal resources. Again, he found correlations between the level of
education, knowledge holding and respondents’ attitudes toward growth management
and coastal protection. Then local officials are considered experts and they can see the
complexity of property rights issues, and thus they are more moderate in outlook and
not bipolar.

Lester Milbrath conducted an international study of citizens, public Officials
and industry leaders in the US, England and Germany (1984). Milbrath’s research
identified the environmental beliefs of three dominant groups. First is the New
Environmental Paradigm, those who seem to lead the way and instill a new way of
thinking about environmental issues. Second, Environmental Sympathizers align
themselves with environmental causes some of the time. And third, the Rearguard
maintains the status quo and does not support environmental efforts. In sum, Milbrath
argues that a paradigm shift needs to occur to achieve a sustainable society (Kuhn
1970).

A recent study in Cape May, New Jersey, highlights the diverse pressures
placed on the coast by competing resource users. Cape May must balance recreation,
tourist and environmental amenities, while at the same time providing a solid
economic footing. The authors, O’Connor, Bord and Plugh (1994) identified strict
regulatory enforcement and opposition to development as one facet of
environmentalism. Their research also showed that people think taxes and clean bays
and coasts are "critical" or "very serious" concerns. They also identified two labels -

"environ" and "crowd." The "environ" label centers around four principle concerns:

28

maintenance of clean drinking water supplies, protection of the bay, wildlife protection
and sewage treatment. The "crowd" label is concerned with the seasonal congestion of
traffic and crowds on the coast.

A recent survey on citizens’ opinions regarding land use and growth was
conducted in Michigan by Public Sector Consultants (PSC 1997). Two revealing
conflicts became evident; first, citizens want to protect the environment and urge
something be done to control sprawl. Second when they were asked where they
wanted to live, the majority responded that they wanted to live on a large rural lot.
These conclusions from the PSC survey reflect the literature that growth controls must
originate from the executive branch of government (DeGrove 1992), and this is
particularly true for Michigan (DeGrove 1996). Other states show that local control is
not the way to manage growth, and there iS a need for intergovernmental cooperation
(Durant, Thomas and Haynes 1993). This gap between what the respondent really
thinks and what questions the researcher presents is an opportunity to utilize an

alternative methodology for opinion research.

USE OF AN ALTERNATIVE METHODOLOGY FOR OPINION STUDY
Most of the above-mentioned studies, though, involved analyzing attitudes or
beliefs with a traditional method of survey research. Traditional methods are not well
suited for assessing the subjectivity of respondents, especially for a small sample
population. However, Q-methodology was designed specifically for determining
subjectivity in a subject. (In other words, this is how an individual views an issue.) Q-

method has been used over the last 60 years in fields as diverse as psychology,

29

nursing, political science and parks and recreation, according to recent literature
reviews by Steven Brown (Brown 1968 and 1993). Recently, Q-methodology was used
in natural resource and environmental attitudes research. Gauger and Wyckoff (1973)
used Q-methodology to evaluate the beliefs of photographers and town assessors
regarding their aesthetic preferences for water projects among different groups. One
study at Michigan State used Q-methodology to examine environmental interpreters in
parks and recreation in southern Michigan (Hinkle 1976), and another assessed the
environmental attitudes of participants in Michigan’s Youth Conservation Corps
(Kinzel 1977). A third study using Q-methodology examined the views of Michigan
township officials regarding watershed management (Comstock 1997). Other studies
have centered on environmental issues like forestry education (Hooker 1992) and
common beliefs held within the environmental community (Spearman and Gillespie
1994).

What politicians think about land use regulations can ultimately influence
growth management policies in areas that have such policies or wish to adopt them
(DeGrove 1992; 1996). Perceptions also change the way problems are addressed. Q-
methodology can discern these differing viewpoints. Ultimately, policy making is
based on perceptions of expected outcomes, prior history and cultural elements, all of
which are founded on human beliefs - of which there are many types. The perceptions
and attitudes of local elected officials can influence the type of strategies needed for
balancing competing interests in land use, but we must first know what they think

about private property rights.

30

Perhaps the classic study in environmental Opinion research utilizing Q-
methodology was performed by Steve Brown and James Coke, who assessed the
political subjectivity of decision makers in land use planning. In their 1976 study of
land use decisions in Ohio and on a limited national scale, they administered a series
of statements which measured subjectivity--the belief held by that person. Two labels
emerged-environmentalists and localists. Environmentalists are those who exhibit
environmental beliefs and support state level protection measures. Localists are those
who believe that environmental protection should be accomplished at the local level of
government without the direct involvement of the state or Federal government.
Through further analysis, it has been discovered that there is not a great deal of
difference between the two ideas. Environmentalists also believe in maintaining the
economy, but with the use of a more responsible and integrative approach.

This current research replicated similar results from the Brown and Coke study
through the use of Q-methodology regarding property rights by analyzing the opinions
of local officials in two adjoining Michigan township boards. Thirty-four of the fifty-
five statements used by Brown and Coke, exclusively focused on property rights, are
the centerpiece of this study. There are two dominant factors in this project that align
to similar factors in the Brown and Coke research (1976).

Opinions of the township board can be important, because if we know how
they view an issue and why, then appropriate education and communication efforts
can be established. A detailed account of Q-methodology and how it functions is
provided in Chapter Four. That chapter also presents the data interpretation of the

study, and demonstrates how the results are Similar to those from the Brown and Coke

31

study. It shows that Q-methodology can be replicated and strengthens its utility for

future research.

CHAPTER III

METHODS OF THE RESEARCH

Again, the goal of this research is to identify the opinions of elected officials
toward land use regulations. To accomplish this, it is necessary to employ a
methodological device that assesses the subjective beliefs of individuals rather than the
objective methods used in standard survey research. Toward this end, Q-methodology
was employed and the responses were factor analyzed to yield a factor belief type.
These typologies are useful in identifying the beliefs held within a small sample of
subjects.

This chapter covers an introduction to Q-methodology, explaining its genesis
and distinctiveness from typical objective research, as well as offering a brief
discussion of its methodological soundness. In addition, the chapter explains the
research protocol, how the subjects were sampled, and the steps taken to complete the
research. The strengths and limitations of the research are also covered here. Finally, a
brief profile of the statistical computer package used to analyze the responses is also
presented. Following Chapter Three is a brief discussion of factor analysis. In order to
understand the research, it is necessary to understand how Q-methodology was created

and something about its purpose.

32

33
INTRODUCTION TO Q-METHODOLOGY AND RESEARCH DESIGN

Q-methodology is a methodological tool created by William Stephenson, a
scholar with a Ph.D. in Physics and Psychology. Its purpose is to analyze the
subjective beliefs of individuals in a systematic and quantified manner Dr. Stephenson
understood that standard objective research was meaningless insofar as it attempted to
understand individuals’ beliefs. In his classic paper, Correlation of Persons Instead of
Tests (Stephenson 1939), he tested a subject’s response to tests, rather than testing the
test itself. In essence, he inverted standard research. The fundamental point of Q-
research is that statements are presented to a subject in order to get an opinion on that
person’s interpretation of the statement. Statements consist of any written or oral
source that reflects ongoing dialogue or concourse on an issue. He defines a concourse
as the ongoing dialogue on a subject of concern to the respondent. By increasing the
number of statements to which a subject responds, the researcher can also reduce the
overall number of respondents. Items for the concourse can be gleaned through
electronic or print media, personal experiences or the like, and can be recorded in
simple statements placed one to a card. Each statement represents a perspective on the
issue. In no way should statements be considered as including all perspectives. Also,
the respondent can freely interpret the statements according to his or her own
orientation or perspective; therefore, the wording of the statements is not significant.

As a result, the researcher can fashion a series of statements very quickly
without worrying about pre-testing, since an individual’s beliefs are uniquely held. In
short, the individual’s response is what is sought, not responses to tests. Once the

statements are compiled, the study subject can sort the deck of cards into three piles:

34

one pile for those statements which are in the most agreement, a second pile for those
in the most disagreement, and a final stack for those statements about which the
individual feels ambiguous or neutral. Once three piles are formed, the subjects revisit
the separate piles. For instance, they sort through the agreement pile and record the
statement number in forced sort distribution grid. A forced sort makes the respondent
distinguish between statements of importance and least importance. In general, they
write the number of the statement on the forced distribution grid corresponding with
the space in the grid. This research agenda connects with applied research because
understanding the opinions of local government officials fosters better communication.
Shared communication minimizes the potential for conflict and facilitates better

dialogue and consensus.

35

FORCED GRID DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM

(Please Circle)
Sort Number: 1 or 2

Township
Political Party Affiliation

Date

Time

 

As a reminder: "You indicate your voluntery agreement to participate by
completing and returning this questionnaire."

36

Rationale for Using O-Methodology

The current research did not use traditional probability sampling. Probability
sampling yields views of a population based on a structured response to a sample of
discrete questions (Spearman and Gillespie 1994). Instead, this research project
selected Q-methodology, which uses non-probability sampling. Steve Brown, the
protégé of the creator of Q-methodology, defines it this way:

Q-technique has several advantages over that of most attitude surveys,

not the least being that it gives the reader a chance to judge for himself

whether the old attitudes still prevail. Q-methodology is an approach

that determines the major points of agreement or disagreement--and

their relative significance--in the population by analyzing the responses

of a rather small number of people, selected to represent the major

perspectives on an issue, to a set of statements chosen to cover a wide

range of viewpoints on the subject (the Q-sample). Each respondent

provides a Q-sort, a ranking of his agreement or disagreement with the

statements. The statements are then correlated and factor analyzed to

isolate the various common attitudes’ (Brown and Coke 1977).

Non-probability sampling is used since the subjects are not randomly selected,
but are from a particular group. In addition, plus Q-methodology does not use
probability sampling. The available population of township board members number
seven and five for Alaiedon and Meridian townships, respectively, for a total of twelve
respondents. Some demographic information is collected indicating political party
affiliation, education, gender and income. It is important to note that not all board
members of a political party be represented; simply, if there is one Republican, then
there needs to be one Democrat or Independent. All that needs to be present is one of
each, not a one-for-one representation. For instance, the present research was done

with one Republican in one township and a Democrat in the other township (Gillespie

1995).

37

Although Q-methodology has been employed in over 3,000 refereed studies,
few environmental and natural resources studies have ever used it (Brown 1968, 1992,
1993; Hooker 1994). Steven Brown maintains a tally of all Q-literature and provides
semi-annual updates to subscribers of the Q-METHODS list server over the intemet
(Brown 1997). However, as of late, more attention is being paid to the methodology’s
utility in natural resource policy making (Gauger and Wyckoff 1973; Hooker 1994;
Focht 1995). This means that studying the opinions of township politicians can be
invaluable for Q-methodology, as well as for policy goals in land use planning and
management. Furthermore, township boards’ concerns are recorded in order to
implement future township land use regulations. In other words, it will lend an
element of understanding in communicating policy outcomes determined by decision

makers’ subjective beliefs.

Distinction Between (Land R-Methodology

Methodologists are in conflict when deciding whether to implement qualitative
research at the expense of quantification, or using quantifiable research at the expense
of the qualitative elements. In this light, the Q-method bridges this dilemma while
separating itself from R-methodological concerns.“ The question most often asked in
the discussion Of Q-methodology is, "What separates or makes the Q-method different
from standard research methods?" Q-methods differ from survey research in many

ways.

 

” R-methodology refers to standard survey research.

38

First, it is different because it emphasizes discovery. In other words, the
researcher does not establish a set of formal hypotheses a priori, but the hypotheses
are implicit in the design. After all, a researcher cannot establish a hypothesis that has
subjective elements within a group of individuals. Stephenson felt that to do so was to
impose researcher bias,12 which is not the point of Q-methodology. Another way the
Q-method differs from standard survey research is that Q-methodology measures the
overall patterning of the opinion, "the simultaneous relationships among all of the
opinions, with those opinions eliciting the most intense feeling showing the highest
scores, both positively and negatively" (Brown and Coke 1977). Indeed, the Q-method
is unique in sampling small populations, from one person to a few dozen. In general,
the smaller the population or sample size the better, since handling the sorting task
becomes more complex as the sample size increases (McKeown and Thomas 1988).
Third, Q-methodology emphasizes subjectivity of the respondent from their unique
perspective or, in the Q-lexicon, self operantly determined. Finally, Q-methodology is
different in that the respondent can decide how to most appropriately answer the
statement. With the R-method, the respondent must make arbitrary decisions on what

they think about a subject from the researcher’s perspective.

 

'2 Its Objective is that the hypothesis is determined and tested by the researcher and not
determined by the results of the study. Stephenson believed that when a researcher placed his
bias on what the respondent was to observe, the respondent’s true opinions were obfuscated,
because it was hard to distinguish between where the researcher’s bias stopped and the
respondent’s answer began. By permitting the respondent to answer in a forced sort,
Stephenson felt a more accurate determination of a respondent’s truer feelings or Opinions
could be obtained.

39

For instance, a recent passage in the magazine, American Enterprise, talks
about the problems inherent with using R-methodology without labeling it as such. In
a short piece on political polling, the editors comment that the problem with polls is
that they leave decisions in "crude yes/no or for it/against it replies that can mis-
portray public sentiments" (American Enterprise 1996). The article goes on to say that
this research spends too much time on the averages Of a larger population set rather
than concentrating on the smaller population set. Most significantly, the editors say
that polls "often ask about things that the average respondent Simply does not
understand or care about" (American Enterprise 1996). Q-methodology can remedy
these concerns because, again, the statements are designed from the current dialogue
on a certain subject. This means that the subjects are interested in, and able to give
their opinion as they see it, rather than having their answer imposed from standard
survey research. Therefore, the Q-methodology makes it possible to measure the
attitudes of a small sample of township board members in Michigan as they
understand private property rights.

The results of a Q-sort are framed in a way that standard survey research can
replicate. Several studies do this with almost identical results to the initial Q-sort
(Brouwer 1992). This makes the Q-method even more attractive as a means of
studying a small population sample. Again, the research is exploratory, so that the
researcher never knows what the results will be, making the research truly novel and
capable of developing insight into shared or contradictory beliefs. Finally, the research
is inductive rather than deductive. Rather than following the researcher’s bias in an

objective research protocol, the respondent sets the parameters through a forced sort.

40

Q-methodology can comport with other methods of study. The best purpose for
Q-methodology is in quantifying focus group studies. Other areas for application of Q-
methodology include public opinion and attitudes, political imagery, communication,
political and social roles, group behavior, decision making, personality, philosophies
and value systems (Brown 1980). The Q-method is best suited for fundamental
research on a subjective level that can serve as a baseline or benchmark for other
studies or additional analyses. In essence, it is the first step in measuring the
subjective values of an individual or a small group. In this regard, Q-methodology is
unique and in a research category all by itself. It is safe to say that Q-methodology
can be the first step in intensive analysis or for designing a broader research tool. One
caveat, Q-methods, cannot be juxtaposed with other research protocols because of its
design in measuring subjective beliefs and behaviors. Other methodological concerns

about the Q-method include its validity and reliability.

Validity and Reliability

As with most research, concerns regarding validity and reliability enter the
picture, but for this study, neither pose a problem. Since the researcher cannot presume
to set criteria on what a person believes, it becomes difficult to test for validity a
priori (Brouwer 1992). Because a viewpoint is open to selective perception, it is
uniquely possessed by each respondent (Samuels 1992). Reliability simply requires
that the instrument be capable of getting the same results repeatedly (Singleton et al.,
1988). One way of maintaining reliability is to use an instrument that is proven to be

accurate .

41

Two researchers have conducted a similar study nationwide using Q-
methodology. Drs. Steven R. Brown and James G. Coke studied the subjective
opinions of citizens and political elites toward a national planning policy. They created
55 statements from the literature, focus groups, and dialogue of the time [see
Appendix 1]. The current research used 34 of these same 55 statements while
specifically looking at the opinions of Michigan Township Board members.

To repeat, the statements in the Brown and Coke study evaluated the beliefs of
political elites and citizens regarding debate over a Federal bill to establish national
planning in the early 19708. Part of the debate centered on Federal planning with
state’s being responsible to develop their own plans, individuals’ property use and
compensation concerns, as well as beliefs on establishing land use regulations and
whether or not such beliefs are perceived to burden economic development. The wise-
use movement, a more organized response to environmentalism than the Sagebrush
rebellion of 20 years ago, is currently voicing some of these same concerns today
(Pombo and Farah 1996). Therefore, the statements from Brown and Cook’s research

project are still appropriate for today.

Resmh Design

The data was collected from a regular township meeting, in small groups, and
individually. The group data is from former township members who attended lunch
together. The time needed to conduct the study was 30 to 45 minutes for the sort and
the brief demographic profile. In the demographic information it is not necessary to

identify the respective township board members by name. Due to the small population,

42

most of the demographic information was not recorded in the analysis, in order to
preserve the respondents’ anonymity. Only the demographic data that was found to be
useful in the interpretation is presented. To protect confidentiality, each subject
indicated on a consent form, included in the instruction page, whether they chose to
have the results shared or not, and indicated their voluntary participation during the
study.

Respondents were given instructions as to the length of time needed for of the
survey and demographic profile, and told how to sort the cards into three piles--agree,
neutral and disagree. To begin sorting, a condition of instruction is necessary. A
condition of instruction (C01) is a question that serves to measure the subject’s
perspective. This study applied two conditions of instruction. The first COI was:
"What is your opinion of these statements?" The second COI was: "How do you think
the other township views these statements? "‘3 In this way, the COI can establish the
parameters on how each township views the statements, thereby placing themselves in
the other township’s shoes. In order to distinguish the board member’s opinions and
their importance to each member, cards were sorted via forced distribution as per the
explanation below.

In a forced distribution, a grid [See Appendix], with each cell corresponding to
the number of cards and ranging from +5 to -5, is used for the purpose of recording
the number of each card sorted. All of the cards are first sorted for the C01 and placed
into three piles as defined above. Once the cards have been sorted into agree, disagree

and neutral stacks, the respondents are asked to sort through the cards in each stack in

 

'3 This is the co-orientation alluded to earlier in Chapter One.

43

order to rank them from most to least. Once the cards are sorted, the corresponding
number of each card is recorded in the forced distribution grid. For instance, the
number of an agree card, in which the respondent is in most agreement, is placed in
the grid under the +5 column. In a forced distribution, this means that township board
members can only place the number of cards in a column that correspond with the
number of spaces in the grid. If there are three spaces under the +5 column, but the
respondent selects more than three cards, the respondent is forced to choose which
three statements are the strongest and place those under the +5 column. The remaining
statements are placed under the +4 column in a continuum until all of the agree cards
are exhausted and placed in the grid from +5 to 0.

In the second step, the respondent sorts those cards with which he disagrees,
repeating the procedure as in the first step, but placing the statements he disagrees
with the most under the -5 column. This continues until all of the cards are exhausted,
moving from -5 to 0. When the subject does not have enough cards in either the agree
or disagree stacks, he must then re-sort the neutral stack. The sorter must find a
statement that corresponds to the stack with the shortage of cards. This procedure
allows the respondent to again discriminate between cards. Finally, the neutral pile is
sorted into the remaining spaces of the grid until the neutral cards are placed under the
0 column.

Sometimes during the process of sorting, respondents discover that the initial
cards they placed in a pile may not be what they mean. For example, they may put a
card under the +3 column, agreeing somewhat strongly with that statement, but realize

during the sorting that they hold a more neutral opinion for that statement in

44

comparison to another statement. They are allowed to switch cards from column to
column at any time during the sort in order to reflect the appropriate relationship of
one statement to another. Once the sort is completed, statements are entered into the
computer and factor analyzed. Factor analysis determines patterns of responses and

makes it possible to label the patterns identified.

Analysis of O-Sorts

Using factor analysis,” the statements are weighted and analyzed to determine
special groupings of shared beliefs. In Q-methodology, "factor analysis will isolate the
number of distinctly different ways in which the statements are sorted, each called a
factor" (Brown and Coke 1977). Factor analysis is performed by identifying shared
attributes and labeling any new attributes discovered. Q-sorts between individuals are
correlated. For instance, if two people sort the statements in exactly the same order
(although this is very rare), they will have a correlation of 1.00. Similarly, individuals
ranking statements in exact reverse order (which is equally rare), receive a correlation
of -1.00, representing diametrically opposite views on those statements. Any groups

that share attitudes are correlated among themselves as well.

Q-METHODOLOGY AND APPLICATION TO STUDY
As can be seen from the above discussion, Q-methodology is one way to
measure the subjective opinions of a research subject. This can be especially useful for

determining the opinions of township officials toward land use regulations. Meridian

 

‘4 Factor analysis is the preferred statistical analysis for use with Q-methodology.

45

and Alaiedon Townships are both facing development pressures. Meridian has a
comprehensive plan in place to address land use decisions. Alaiedon Township does
not, yet its proximity to Meridian Township makes it susceptible to development
overflow or development pressure arising from restricted development in Meridian.15
What politicians believe about land use regulations can impact public policy.
Development can either be managed or allowed to continue uncontrolled, thereby
affecting the quality of life for its residents (DeGrove 1992). DeGrove (1992) also
suggests that politicians must exhibit leadership in making wise land use decisions.
Development pressure also affects the local environment, such as wildlife, watersheds
and overall congestion (Kaiser, Godschalk and Chapin 1995; Healy 1976). The
rationale for this study is to examine the opinions of politicians, particularly in relation
to property rights. In this regard, the literature is absent, especially in utilizing Q-
methodology. This makes the Q-method a valuable tool for contributing to the
knowledge base in this area.

Township boards were studied because they are the chief legislative arm of the
township and are charged with passing land use ordinances; therefore, knowing what
other township officials believe about land use regulations is essential in the
development of effective policies. In addition, these township boards were ripe for

study because they must decide not only land use issues, but also the overall quality of

 

‘5 The southern boundary of Meridian Township is well developed and abuts the northern
boundary of Alaiedon Township. As seen from practice, adjacent development often spills
over into other jurisdictions. When the adjacent area is more rural than the other area, it
serves as a magnet for bedroom communities or back office shops for businesses (Kaiser,
Godschalk and Chapin 1995). In either scenario, Alaiedon Township may see development
pressures with which they are unprepared to deal.

46

life concerns. Furthermore, these townships could be researched with minimal expense
for the researcher, and they provided contrary development patterns. Meridian, for
instance, is more developed, while Alaiedon is rural, and has the opportunity to avoid
some of the same mistakes that Meridian Township has made. The question I sought
to answer is, "Do the township boards exhibit different opinions among members and
boards?" and, if so, by using this data, can Alaiedon’s land use patterns be shaped
early enough to avoid some of the same pitfalls that Meridian Township has

made?"16

Moreover, Steve Brown's and James Coke’s study, referred to elsewhere in this
research, can be re-examined from a local perspective. By using the same statements,
the results we obtained comport with the Brown and Coke study. From this point, the
research results are used to study residents’ beliefs with those of public officials,
performed at a different time using standard survey research, thereby providing a
baseline from which to measure changes in beliefs.

Finally, the researcher could study a variety of opinions regarding land use
beliefs, using a simple method that can quickly and inexpensively sample small
populations. One recommendation for further study is to use Q-methodology and the
same questionnaire in other townships around the state and compare the data from
previous studies. Remember, Q-method cannot be used to generalize to the entire
population of research subjects, but it can avail itself for studying other small sample

sizes. The results, statements and interviews are also useful for structuring a larger

 

‘6 Although Meridian Township has a comprehensive plan, the township has failed in
some respects to work its plan.

47

survey instrument that can be implemented statewide. Armed with this knowledge and
research tool, outreach efforts can include establishing continuing education courses on
land use law and economics, while stressing dispute resolution techniques for public

officials, thereby minimizing township conflict and engaging citizen participation.

STRENGTHS AND LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY
As with any study or model, there are certain assumptions that are made, each
with a set of strengths and limitations. This is even true when the methodology
selected is unfamiliar to other researchers. This section will highlight the strengths and

limitations of the study using Q-methodology.

Strengths and Limitations of Q-Methodology

One strength of the Q-method is that the research centers on operant
subjectivity. Operant in this case means that each township board member will
interpret the statements based on their own beliefs, which are subjective; meaning that
each statement can be interpreted differently. Each interpretation forms a factor, or a
type of belief system, which is labeled by the researcher. Moreover, Q-factor analyzes
all respondents, even those typically not used in survey research. In R-studies for
example, if 80 people are surveyed, 55 might say yes they agree and 20 disagree, but
the remaining five respondents are not used since there are concerns that five subjects
cannot be generalized. In Q-methodology, though, these remaining respondents make
another factor or belief type, thus forming a third factor type. If a third factor is

identified, then a label that takes into account why that factor is significant is

48

warranted. In the Brown and Coke study, the third factor was made up of the
ambivalent types. They interpreted these subjects as being of mixed opinion or perhaps
ignorant of land use regulations. This also means that since Q-methodology
emphasizes discovery, it is difficult, if not inappropriate, for the researcher to predict
the number of belief types. Q-methodology is not without some bias, however. For
instance, the researcher can choose to label each factor based on what the statements
as a whole represent. This is the reason for 1) using the statements and factor labels
of the Brown and Coke study, and 2) the reason for connecting politicians’ answers to
land use regulations. Additional strengths of the methodology are 1) the results are
used to build larger R-studies, 2) the appropriateness of using factor analysis, and 3) it
is exploratory in nature, making it inductive rather than deductive.

Yet the methodology does have its limitations. One aspect of Q-methodology is
that it is not generalizable or capable of reflecting the views of the larger population.
This means that the results obtained in the two townships surveyed for this project
cannot be said to be the exclusive beliefs of all township officials within the state.
Secondly, the statements used do not pretend to reflect all of the views on a given
topic, just most of the common concerns.

The data from the Q-study can be used to develop and implement an objective
survey instrument that can assess the beliefs of township officials across the state. In
this way, the results can be generalizable to the larger population. If such a study is
performed, the results would comport with the Q-study, and thereby validate it further.
The next section will detail the computer package used and the process of factor

analysis.

CHAPTER IV

INTERPRETATION AND RESULTS

Introduction

To recap the previous three chapters, this study focuses on the opinions of two
adjoining Michigan townships, Meridian and Alaiedon townships, respectively. The
study is modeled after a 1976 Steven Brown and James Coke study done in Ohio and
nationally. They used a 55-statement survey instrument distributed to obtain the
opinions of citizens and elected officials regarding land use regulations.

The current study is different in that 34 statements are used from the original
55, and elected officials represent the central focus of the study. The statements were
selected to reflect the ongoing dialogue and debate centered around private property
rights. Although the actual statements are over 20 years old, the data points to the fact
that the statements elicited similar responses from both study populations.

The intent of this study was to find similarities and differences between the
townships, as well as within the townships, on the issue of private property rights. The
differences and similarities among urban and rural townships is not as evident as it is
between individual members of each township. This study did not demonstrate a
difference between townships. Not only does this study look at the Brown and Coke

efforts from 20 years ago, but it also connects Lester Millbrath’s work on a New

49

50

Environmental Paradigm (NEP). The research reflects any bi-polar movement in
opinions to see if groups reflect the NEP. Q-methods, therefore, support opinions
along a continuum, thereby demonstrating a more discrete difference in people’s
subjective beliefs. This study achieves that goal. This chapter covers the data
collection and the methodology, interpretation of the data, and co-orientation

application to Q-methodology.

DATA COLLECTION

The initial 55 statements from the Brown and Coke study were pared down to
34 statements that focused on property rights. Again the study assessed the opinions of
local officials about property rights. The reason for this is that the media and some
environmental organizations believe the property rights debate is bi-polar. Two views
have arisen that resemble a land preservationist perspective and a "wise-use" view.
The first favors greater public participation and less support for property rights, with
the latter wanting property rights protection at all costs, with environmental safeguards
secondary. Public policy issues cannot be reduced to such "either/or" choices. Often
public policy questions revolve around the details and gray areas, not absolutes. Q-
methodology can ferret out these gray areas and provide a more solid definition to a
person’s or group’s opinions on statements that represent a world-view on a given
dialogue or concourse (Stephenson 1954; Brown 1980).

The mechanics of the methodology proceeded as follows: 34 statements were
placed one statement per card, for a total of 34 cards, and were then sorted into three

piles representing agree, disagree and neutral. Township officials were interviewed at

51

their homes either individually, at a work session, or at a local restaurant over a meal.
Of the thirteen township officials surveyed, seven were from Meridian Township and
six from Alaiedon Township. Also, of the seven Meridian officials examined, two are
current board members. The remaining five Meridian Township officials reflect a
previous township board, and all had served with each other. Each of the Meridian
Township board members, both former and current members, were either surveyed at a
restaurant or at their homes. The six Alaiedon Township officials were all surveyed
during an Alaiedon Township work session.

The Q-sort takes approximately forty-five minutes to an hour-and-a-half for
each participant. Of the 13 total respondents and 26 sorts, 3 respondents were
disqualified during the course of interpretation due to incomplete Q-sorts and data.
Among these three respondents, some statements were either not recorded, more than
one statement was placed in a cell, or a cell was left empty. Although the confounding
data was in the +1,0 and -1 columns of the forced grid diagram, and in Q-
methodology as the sort gets closer to zero, a respondent becomes less decisive or
ambiguous with their responses, the sorts were disregarded. As a result, the following
analysis is based on 9 respondents and 18 sorts.

Data entry was accomplished with the assistance of Dr. David Gillespie,
Professor in the Department of Political Science at Presbyterian College in Clinton,
South Carolina. Dr. Gillespie’s job was to serve as technician and mentor in the data
entry process. He also assisted this researcher in establishing the initial interpretation.
Statement scores were entered into a desktop version of the Q-METHOD computer

package.

52

The entry portion was accomplished very easily. The Q-METHOD program is
extremely user friendly. Once the data is ready to be entered, the computer provides
step-by-step directions for input. It first asks for the parameters as established in the
grid distribution diagram. In this case, the range of the grid went from plus five to
minus five. Then the technician is asked to input the scores for the first respondent.
The parameters are then set for the next columns—-plus four and minus four,
respectively. The steps are repeated for the first respondent’s scores for Meridian
Township. The rest of the Meridian Township responses are entered the same way, for
a total of six sorts and respondents. Again the steps are repeated for the three Alaiedon
Township respondents.

At the completion of all nine entries, the computer program double checks to
ensure that there is one response per cell, no duplication of responses, and that all the
statements were used. The double check feature of the program is quite useful. This
feature prevents the analyst from having to check all the cells from each of the nine
respondents. In larger population samples, double checking is an inefficient use of
time. The cross check ensures that all the statements were utilized.

Once all nine Q-sorts are entered into the Q-METHOD program, a simple
correlation coefficient is run. Again, one key stroke is all that is needed to begin the
correlation coefficient. The mathematics are nicely performed in the background,
leaving the researcher to contemplate the responses. The computer then asks for the
next step, and the researcher again uses one key stroke to factor analyze the sorts.

Initially there were seven factors present, but only the first three of the seven

are significantly loaded and worth additional exploration. A significant loading is

53

anything .51 or greater. All factors with at least one statement .51 or greater were
flagged by the researcher. The flagged statements were then rotated to "sift" or present
the statements’ sensitivity. In other words, during the rotation the statements are factor
analyzed to see if any loadings either increased or decreased from the .51 threshold.
Once the data is analyzed, the computer generates the output for each of the 34
statements, along with the widest deviations for each factor at that statement. After all
the rotations were completed, three factors were defined from the analysis. The
remaining four factors were not examined since the sorts were not significantly loaded.
The output presents three key pieces of data for interpretation. The first, and most
significant output, is the 34 factor arrays. Second is the unrotated and rotated factor
loadings. The third piece of data output is the correlation coefficient. These three key
items are the heart of a Q-analysis and can reveal much about the subjective opinions
of the respondents. The rotation presents three strong and significantly loaded factors,

which are presented in the next section, Data Interpretation.

Data Interpretation

Upon interpretation of the three factors, the results reflected the research
questions presented in Chapter One. Before the three factors were generated, the
computer software package produced a series of unrotated loadings for each sort
(Table 1). Notice that seven factors were produced, many with insignificant loadings.
These factors were then rotated to generate three factors. The three factors are
discussed in the next section and the significant loaded factors are flagged (Table 2).

In order to generate significant loadings, the unrotated factors are rotated. Up to this

54

point in the Q-study, researcher bias is absent. The only place in the methodology
where the researcher bias is inserted is in the labeling of the factors. A descriptive
label is designed for each factor that captures the meaning of that particular factor. For
example, the three factors identified closely resembled those from the Brown and Coke
study done in 1976. The three labels are localists, environmentalists and ambiguous
types.

If the labels from the Lester Millbrath study are then applied to the Brown and
Coke research, the environmentalist label is now considered the New Environmental
Paradigm or the vanguard in knowledge holding. The Brown and Coke label for
localists is considered to be the rearguard in the Milbrath definition. The ambiguous
types identified are labeled environmental sympathizers in the Milbrath example. It is
evident that Q-methodology can place a keener "edge" on the labels of a select group
of respondents and provide a richer interpretation of their opinions on key policy
issues.

The research at issue also developed three distinct and significant factors. For
ease of understanding, and because the terms are used elsewhere in the study, these
factors are labeled as follows. Factor A - Parochial Propertarians, Factor B -
Responsible Propertarians, and Factor C - Environmentalist. In the section below, each
of the three factors are more closely examined. To provide greater clarity in analysis,
the actual statement with factor loadings is reproduced. The factor arrays are next to
the respective statements included at the end of the chapter. The factor arrays are the

respective loadings of each factor for a particular statement.

55
Table l. Unrotated Factor Matrix.

This table represents the seven initial unrotated sorts. Sorts with a score of .51
or greater were kept and those sorts with less than .51 were not considered for
rotation. In this instance, sorts one, two and five met the criteria. These three sorts

were identified and rotated.

 

SORTS l 2 3 4 5 6 '7
l .68 .53 .43 a26 .10 .14 .03
2 .68 .23 .06 a03 .00 .07 .01
3 .64 .25 .07 a30 .15 n19 .07
4 .36 a44 .18 .13 .01 .23 .09
5 .39 a57 .37 a15 .03 all .02
6 .70 .12 .02 .44 .51 .30 .20
7 .44 .13 .02 .17 .01 .02 .00
8 .58 al3 .01 .11 .01 n27 .16

 

LABELED FACTORS
Terminology for the interpretation of property rights includes the use of

parochial, local control and public interest. The term "parochial" is defined as a local
or regional outlook unique to a group or individuals. In this case the group consisted
of two Michigan township boards. The parochial point of view serves as an
introduction to local control. Local control is best understood as "home rule," with
locally elected officials wanting to preserve their authority as it relates to activities
within their township. Both of these definitions and perspectives serve to establish an

"us-versus-them" mindset between politicians and citizens. Therefore, public interest

56

can be defined as outside involvement in township affairs. This outside involvement
can be township residents, special interest groups, or even other elected officials at the
local, state or Federal level. As a result, involvement goes beyond simple public input,
but includes input from a variety of sources all acting on one another. With these

definitions in mind, it makes the interpretation of the three factor types easier.

Pagehial Properta_r_i_a_n_s_

As in the Brown/Coke study, it was found in our current research that one
factor develops a stronger localist concern. For purposes of this study, the factor was
labeled the parochial propertarians, due to their dominant tendency to support local
efforts in land use decisions rather than to seek outside input. This group exhibits
strong local decision-making for land use regulations, yet demonstrates a great
sensitivity to the needs of private property rights and land owners. Parochial
propertarians reject any direct state involvement that is seen as interfering with local
land use regulations. Note, though, that the parochial propertarians do not exhibit any
hostility for or against private property rights, but seem to place more emphasis on
local control of land use issues. Local determination and private property rights are
their main concerns, followed by support for some limited public involvement land use
decisions. Ancillary concerns are environmental in nature, but still with an orientation

toward the land owner and his property rights.

57

Table 2. Factor Matrix with an "X" Indicating a Defining

Factor

Table 2 represents the nine sorts grouped into three factors. Factor A is

Parochial Propertarians, Factor B is Responsible Propertarians and Factor C is the

Environmentalist. Only one sort loads on Factor C — Environmentalist.

 

 

FACTORS
A B C
1 -. l2 .85X . 10
2 . l4 .70X .00
3 .01 .68X . 14
4 .56X .08 .02
5 .69X .08 .03
6 .25 .67X .51X
7 .1 l .45 .03
8 .57X .67X .01
9 .41 .43 .00

 

<.51 significant loadings
>.51 significant loadings

Three definable factors loaded significantly on Factor A. Two of the sorters

were from Meridian Township and one was from Alaiedon Township. The two from

Meridian were females, both Republicans, with less than five years of board service.

Both respondents either have some college or advance degrees. The Alaiedon

Township official was a male Republican with a graduate or professional degree, and

had been on the township board for over ten years. Unfortunately, the demographic

58

profile Sheet does not include a response for the respondent’s profession. Not including
the profession is an attempt to maintain the anonymity of each respondent.

Interpretation of the factor arrays is performed in the following manner. Each
statement is recorded, with the common factor score showing for each factor. For
instance, the first number represents the score for Factor A, the second for Factor B
and the final number for Factor C. For instance, in our research, statement five loaded
-4 for Factor A. For purposes of clarity each statement will be referenced in

parentheses.

Factors Statement
A B C

-4 2 -l 5. Even relatively severe government restrictions on land use are not an
unconstitutional taking of land, since the prOperty would still remain in
the hands of its owner. The government would merely be preventing the
owner from conducting a land use, which would interfere with the
paramount rights of the public.

-5 -5 -4 27. A person who owns property should have the right to do with it as
he pleases.

All three respondents viewed statement 27 very strongly in the minus five
column. These township officials were saying that they strongly disagree with the idea
that a person can do whatever they want with their property. Their perspective
interprets some government restriction as necessary in the public interest. For instance,
they favor regulation if other property owners are harmed from someone else's unwise
use of land. Interestingly, the Alaiedon official placed statement five under the zero
column. This person may perceive statement five as inconsequential in the grand

scheme of land use decisions. He may also realize, due to his wealth of township

59

experience, that some moderation might be necessary in how the township balances
property ownership and the public interest. Evidently the other two seemed to think
that the township could err on the side of the public interest in drafting land use

regulations.

Factors Statement
A B C

-3 -3 -4 11. The rights of property should not be abridged even in critical
environmental areas. It is the marketplace that should determine which
land is worthy of preservation, and state government should restrict
itself to assuring that the market operates effectively.

-3 -4 -5 30. The township should not restrict the use of land in a way that will
limit growth, because growth attracts more people, and new people
bring in more tax money to the community, thereby easing the burden
on the rest of us.

-2 -5 -5 33. Instead of placing complicated and time-consuming controls on
developers, the state should facilitate development, e.g., by clearing
away the red tape and simplifying the procedures required to obtain
building and zoning permits.

All respondents disagreed rather strongly to a laissez-faire approach to wanton
development (Statements 11, 30 and 33) in Factor A. Moreover, these township
officials seemed to infer that maintaining local control versus allowing the state to
make growth decisions could occur in their townships. The Alaiedon official appeared
to disagree more strongly than the other two that the state should stay out of a
township’s land use decision-making process. The one Meridian official with more
than one year’s worth of experience on the board ranked Statement 33 neutrally. Based

on the person’s political orientation and income level, it might be said that this person

would be more accepting of development than state control. To leave land use

60

decisions to the market, though, was not appealing to most of them. All three

respondents disagreed rather strongly with all three statements.

Factors
A B C
0 -1 -1
-3 0 0
2 4 5
-l 0 2
-2 -1 2

Sim—enacts!

1. The citizens of a locality are best able to decide the proper use of
privately held land in that community. This is a great American
principle upon which a state land use program would wreak irreparable
damage.

7. I, for one, question the desirability or more growth. Development
itself appears to be the enemy, a kind of pollution that causes
congestion and destroys scenic views, and one that ought to be cleaned

up.

9. The township government has an obligation to control the use of
land, and just because a property owner cannot make the most
personally beneficial use of his property, or is unable to realize
speculative investment gains, does not mean that he must be
compensated for the undeveloped potential.

20. Instead of developing regulations for what land uses should go
where, we should stress the creation of a more adequate review process,
one that recognizes the right of a wide variety of legitimate interests--
local governments, regional planning organizations, state agencies,
adjacent property owners, etc.--to comment on specific proposals.

26. The state government should have enough power to override local
zoning decisions if necessary to preserve unique historical, ecological
and cultural sites, as well as prime agricultural land.

As far as local control is concerned, the reactions were mixed regarding leaving

decisions with the citizens of a local government. In each of the statements

(Statements 1, 7, 9, 20 and 26), the respondents believed in less direct outside interest

and more local township board member control. Society’s interests should be

considered, but no one appeared to overwhelmingly support the public interest. They

might think that allowing too much citizen involvement could impede township growth

61

or land ownership. If this is true, the Pierce and Lovrich study, which explains a
technical-information quandary, might apply. Pierce and Lovrich both studied decision
making in water issues in Idaho and concluded that experts and elected officials
tended to have a higher level of information holding than did the citizens, in essence
making the citizenry removed from decision making. The local township officials in
Michigan may think the same thing based on their experiences.

Apparently these statements gave Factor A pause in deciding policies that could
impose on property rights. They reinforced the belief that local governments feel
competent in handling most land management decisions. Since they are closer to the
issue, this sensitivity of property rights allows officials to be cautious in any policy
that might impact a resident’s property rights. Further, these township officials found
the property rights issue to be situational. In essence, they feel that local government
officials could decide more readily whether a landowner’s property use would interfere
with neighbors if there was a need to balance growth and protect environmental
resources.

Factors Statement
A B C

-4 2 -1 5. Even relatively severe government restrictions on land use are not an
unconstitutional taking of land, since the property would still remain in
the hands of its owner. The government would merely be preventing the
owner from conducting a land use, which would interfere with the
paramount rights of the public.

2 -3 -3 8. If the regulation of privately owned land goes too far, it really
amounts to a taking. We are in danger of forgetting that the public
desire to improve conditions is not enough to warrant bypassing the
constitutional way of paying for the change.

62

In statements 8 and 5, the township officials wanted minimal government

intrusion, and did not appear to zealously protect property rights. Factor A thinks that

regulations are necessary, albeit promulgated at the local level.

Factors
A B C
-4 - 1 -2
1 0 3
5 0 0

State—mgr;

14. The solution to ineffective local zoning has been to separate the
planning decisions further from the local community, to rely on some
higher government to resolve local problems. This process is to the
detriment of local growth and must be reversed.

19. I would like for land use considerations to be decided locally,
because if we start giving state officials power over land use, the next
thing you know we will have national zoning from Washington, DC.

24. A state land use program will work best when local prerogatives
and property rights are preserved. State policy, to the extent there is
one, should be limited to providing advice, guidelines and technical
assistance to the localities.

The Parochial Propertarians would be willing to accept some state assistance,

but it is only that — assistance. Namely, townships would be willing to accept

technical assistance in dollars, expertise, etc., but no direct state involvement in

deciding land use activities, as per Statements 14, 19 and 24.

Factors
A B C
0 l 5
0 0 0

Statement

18. First priority Should be given to preservation of agricultural land.
Otherwise, in just a few years there will not be enough food to go

around.

32. I would just as soon leave open spaces open. Just because no people
live in an area does not make it a place for a highway, an apartment
complex or a factory.

63

These township officials apparently did not think that resolving land issues was
urgent; they were also indifferent to open space and farmland preservation (see
Statements 18 and 32). It may be that the township members do not want to limit
choices for growth or alternative uses for the land. This element of choice may be
especially true for the Alaiedon official. The Meridian board members, on the other
hand, may be so new to the board that they may not have established any land use

priorities.

Responsible Propertari_an_§_

This group consisted of five respondents, four from Meridian Township and
one from Alaiedon Township. The Meridian group consisted of two men and two
women, all with some college or advanced degrees. Three officials were Democrats
and one was a Republican. The Alaiedon official from Factor A also shared Factor B
and was the only Alaiedon official who loaded on Factor B--Responsible
Propertarians. Township experience ran from less than one year for one of the
Meridian officials to ten years for the Alaiedon official. The Alaiedon sort appeared on
both factors and tended to make him more progressive on property rights issues than
the other board members. Again, his township experience may have something to do
with his moderated opinions. Experience probably leads him to conclude that land use
issues are intractable; thus, he is able to see beyond the rhetoric from both sides and
develop his own moderate beliefs.

Factor B was more demographically diverse than Factor A, which may explain

the Responsible Propertarian view and the support for public interest that this group

64

shares. It also appears that they all had college degrees at a minimum, with many

holding post-graduate degrees.

Factors Statement

A B C

-2 -3 -3 6. The constitutional right of private property, respected as a
fundamental to individual freedom, is being endangered. We may be on
the verge of total government control of all land in the name of
"environmental concern."

-5 -5 -4 27. A person who owns property should have the right to do with it as
he pleases.

This Factor did not support property rights at all costs, as evident from their
highly negative loading on Statement 27. They tended to support property rights, but
not to the point that they would consider themselves "radical environmentalists."
Responsible Propertarians do not think property rights are in danger of being
subverted, and believe that a person cannot do whatever they want to with their land.
This indicates a strong desire to protect the public interest.

Factors Statement
A B C
1 3 l 10. Since essential needs can only be met through development and
since the environment must be protected for the long run good of us all,
it would seem that both developers and conservationists have a stake in
achieving an accommodation with one another.
3 5 0 17. Permits for development should be denied unless the developer can

show that his project will not have an unduly adverse effect on the
environment and is in conformity with local or state land use plans.

Factors
A B C
- 1 4 2

65

Statement

34. Land use decisions must allow the participation of all people who
would feel the impact--not just those who live within the jurisdiction of
the decision-maker or have the best means to influence him, but all who
would benefit or be harmed by the decision.

Of interest in Factor B was the willingness to accept accommodation from the

public, as evidenced by Statements 10 and 34. This also strikes the theme that

Responsible Propertarians are interested in responsible land ownership, and they tend

to balance individual desires with the public interest. Factor B would deny permits

when the project was expected to unduly harm the local environment and the proposed

development was not in conformity with local or state land use plans (Statement 17).

Again, Factor B wants to protect the public interest and the environment first, and is

concerned secondarily with individual property rights.

Factors
A B C
4 -2 -3
2 -3 -3
4 l 4

Statement

4. There is a hazy boundary between "taking" land and "controlling" it.
It is not fair to take land for the public good under the guise of
regulation without compensation. The individual property owner should
not have to bear the burden of public benefit.

8. If the regulation of privately owned land goes too far, it really
amounts to a taking. We are in danger of forgetting that the public
desire to improve conditions is not enough to warrant bypassing the
constitutional way of paying for the change.

25. An effective land use policy should not restrict freedom of choice,
but should assure that choices are made wisely, that alternatives are
considered, and that important decisions take into account the interests
of society.

66

Factor B would be willing to support greater choice in land use decisions. In
essence, they were not willing to ban all development or support all environmental
efforts. These township officials were more willing to place greater public benefit
responsibility on private landowners. There was also an element of choice for land
uses. Responsible Propertarians acknowledge that development is necessary, but how
and where development takes place can be controlled. Choice is often best
accomplished at the local level of government, since they know best what the local
situation is like.

Factors Statement

A B C

2 0 1 28. We can no longer consider land as merely another factor of
production to be bought cheaply and sold to the highest bidder. It is a
social resource which private individuals may own, use and trade, but
subject to guidelines designed to protect localities and regions.

-3 -4 -5 30. The township should not restrict the use of land in a way that will
limit growth, because growth attracts more people, and new people
bring in more tax money to the community, thereby easing the burden
on the rest of us.

0 0 0 32. I would just as soon leave open spaces open. Just because no people
live in an area does not make it a place for a highway, an apartment
complex or a factory.

Factor B does not know what to think about land as a social resource. This
reflects their understanding that people will sell and develop their land, but that how
this is done is crucial. It may also be why this factor was consistent with the others
for statement 32. Open space represents undeveloped land and the potential for

additional township development. Development should not be wanton, but selective

and done responsibly, as supported by statement 30.

67

Also significant was that these officials wanted to take an active role in doing

something about growth and land use. They were willing to approve of some higher

authority to control land uses.

Factors
A B C
-4 - l -2
0 3 3
0 1 5
- 1 5 3

SW

14. The solution to ineffective local zoning has been to separate the
planning decisions further from the local community, to rely on some
higher government to resolve local problems. This process is to the
detriment of local growth and must be reversed.

16. I want to choose the environment in which I live. I do not want
land use to be something that just happens to me. I want land use to be
something in which I can be actively involved as a deliberator and
voter.

18. First priority should be given to preservation of agricultural land.
Otherwise, in just a few years there will not be enough food to go
around.

23. I would like to see more green belts around cities, and buffer zones
between and within regions, because I am seriously concerned that there
will not be enough green space in our metropolitan areas five or ten
years from now.

They thought land use was best decided on the local level (Statement 14) and

seemed to be proactive in shaping land use policy (Statement 16). For instance they

were willing to consider the protection of agricultural land as a priority (Statement

18), but not at the same level as open space and environmental worth (Statement 23).

It is interesting that factor B loaded heavily on statement 23 since open space

registered a neutral response in statement 32. They wanted additional green space, but

green space can be relative, especially when farmland can serve the same purpose.

68

They supported farmland preservation, however, half-heartedly. This means that they
felt there was a distinction between farmland as open space and other land areas.

Factor B also shared some traits with Factor A, as in statement 27. Neither
favored property rights as sacrosanct, but were willing to balance property rights with
the interests of society. Both favored maintaining local control over land use decisions.
These two factors are indeed both sides of the same coin. They want to control land
use and do so right now. They are willing to make a start and err on the side of doing
something about land use, rather than waiting.

Where the two factors clearly diverged was in their support, or lack thereof, for
public involvement in land use decision making. The Parochial Propertarians wanted
greater local control with less outside meddling, but the Responsible Propertarians
favored more public involvement--to a point-«but clearly not when it would jeopardize
local control. A hazy line existed between "some" and "a little" public involvement.

This Factor also wanted to share information with other local governments and
regional planning authorities. However, Responsible Propertarians, because they are
willing to compensate land owners for private property rights, are sensitive to property
rights. Factor B may have more environmental sensitivity than Factor A, but less than
Factor C. Due to a lack of environmental statements, however, this group did not lean
heavily toward any environmental response. When this study was compared with the
Brown and Coke analysis, many of the people loaded on Factor Two were identified

as Environmentalists. The next factor is labeled Environmentalist in world-view.

69

Environmental Propertarians

This view reflected the view of only one of the nine respondents. This person

also shared Factors B and C, with support for Factor B and slightly loaded on Factor

C. She obviously, though, has a separate perspective from other board members.

Factors
A B C
-3 -4 -5
-2 -5 —5

Statement

30. The township should not restrict the use of land in a way that will
limit growth, because growth attracts more people, and new people
bring in more tax money to the community, thereby easing the burden
on the rest of us.

33. Instead of placing complicated and time-consuming controls on
developers, the state should facilitate development, e.g., by clearing
away the red tape and simplifying the procedures required to obtain
building and zoning permits.

She was adamantly opposed to unrestrained growth, as evidenced by the heavy

negative loading on Statements 30 and 33. In Statement 33, she was also wary of state

involvement in local decision making.

Factors
A B C
3 3 0
3 5 0
5 2 0

W

12. The township needs to adopt land use guidelines right now, so even
if a policy has its critics, it should be passed if it is fundamentally
equitable. We cannot afford to wait for perfection. We must make a
beginning.

17. Permits for development should be denied unless the developer can
Show that his project will not have an unduly adverse effect on the
environment, and it is in conformity with local or state land use plans.

21. I tend to think of land as a kind of transcendental prerogative. None
of us individually or collectively should be allowed to do whatever we
wish with a piece of land merely because we "own" it in the legal
sense.

Factors
A B C
-5 -5

70

Statement

-4 27. A person who owns property should have the right to do with it as

he pleases.

Interestingly, on some very sensitive property rights and environmental

questions, she appeared to be neutral. However, one could say that her neutrality was

due to inexperience on the township board. She could also be taking a "wait-and-see

approach" to land use policy.

Factors
A B C
-3

Statement

0 0 7. I, for one, question the desirability of more growth. Development

itself appears to be the enemy, a kind of pollution that causes
congestion and destroys scenic views, and one that ought to be cleaned

up.

32. I would just as soon leave open spaces open. Just because no people
live in an area does not make it a place for a highway, an apartment
complex or a factory.

Inexperience can probably be attributed to the way she considered statements 7

and 32 on Factor C.

Factors
A B C
4 -2 -3
-2 -3 -3

Statement

4. There is a hazy boundary between "taking" land and "controlling" it.
It is not fair to take land for the public good under the guise of
regulation without compensation. The individual property owner should
not have to bear the burden of public benefit.

6. The constitutional right of private property, respected as a
fundamental to individual freedom, is being endangered. We may be on
the verge of total government control of all land in the name of
"environmental concern."

71

Factors Statement
A B C

2 -3 -3 8. If the regulation of privately owned land goes too far, it really
amounts to a taking. We are in danger of forgetting that the public
desire to improve conditions is not enough to warrant bypassing the
constitutional way of paying for the change.

-3 -3 -4 11. The rights of property should not be abridged even in critical
environmental areas. It is the marketplace that should determine which
land is worthy of preservation, and state government should restrict
itself to assuring that the market operates effectively.

She supported stronger no-growth legislation and would limit willy nilly private
use of land (Statement 11). Her sensitivity toward the environment appeared to even

transcend Constitutional and takings issues (see Statements 4, 6 and 8).

Factors Statement
A B C

2 4 5 9. The township government has an obligation to control the use of
land, and just because a property owner cannot make the most
personally beneficial use of his property, or is unable to realize
speculative investment gains, does not mean that he must be
compensated for the undeveloped potential.

0 l 5 18. First priority should be given to preservation of agricultural land.
Otherwise, in just a few years there will not be enough food to go
around.

4 l 4 25. An effective land use policy should not restrict freedom of choice,
but should assure that choices are made wisely, that alternatives are
considered, and that important decisions take into account the interests
of society.

The above statements illustrate Factor C’s commitment to the environment and
public interest. She was adamantly opposed to a diminished value of a person’s

property if the property could still be used, but just for some other purpose, as in

statements 9 and 25. Her interest in farmland preservation (Statement 18) also

72
signified her commitment to public good over private benefit. Yet, she also supports
local control and fiscal responsibility.
Factors Statement
A B C
l 0 3 19. I would like for land use considerations to be decided locally,
because if we start giving state officials power over land use, the next
thing you know we will have national zoning from Washington, DC.
0 1 4 22. Government at all levels should actively solicit open space
donations and should facilitate the work of responsible private
organizations by granting them charitable status for real estate purposes.
In summary, the Environmentalist was slightly loaded on this factor, but this
person favored more environmental control, was more willing to sacrifice private
property rights for public interest, and accepted greater public participation. All of
these are traits and characteristics of strong environmental attitudes and opinions
(Milbrath 1984). It is possible this person, as well as others who load on Factor B,
might have taken a stronger environmental worldview if the remaining Brown and

Coke statements had been used in this study. If this had been the case, it is reasonable

that there could have been two factors, both resembling the Brown/Coke typology.

Mary of Their Individual Perspectives

Each of the three factors identified reflected the Brown and Coke study almost
to the exact scores. However, this study went one step further by discretely identifying
factors A and B by examining private property rights. Recall the wide disparity
between localists and environmentalists from the Brown and Coke analysis and how

they loaded onto each statement. This study seemed to reflect greater symmetry,

73

homogeneity and moderation toward private property rights, with less emphasis toward
bi-polar views.

Parochial and Responsible Propertarians reflected both sides of the same coin.
There were no radical thoughts except perhaps slightly on the Environmentalist factor.
If the additional environmental statements had been used, it is very possible that the
Responsible Propertarian factor would have loaded somewhat onto the
Environmentalist factor as well. One great point for this study is the fact that it
supported the Brown and Coke study even over time, and demonstrated that property
rights statements are indeed pertinent to today’s dialogue. More importantly, perhaps,
was the discrete analysis of the Parochial and Responsible Propertarians, and a
paradigm shift in thoughts on private property rights over the last 20 years.

Table 3 illustrates the correlations between factors. The Responsible
Propertarians and the Environmentalist reflected a stronger correlation in attitudes than
did the relationship between the Parochial and Responsible Propertarians. The
difference lies in the environmental statements and interest in public involvement. The
correlation matrix supports the concept that if the previous Brown/Coke statements on
the environment had been used, there would have been a stronger correlation between

Factors B and C.

74

Table 3. Correlations Between Factors

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Factors
Factors A B C
A 1.00 .46 .36
B .46 1.00 .71
C .36 .71 1.00

 

 

 

The Milbrath study, with its New Environmental Paradigm, Environmental
Sympathizers and Rearguard, essentially stated that environmental opinions or attitudes
will tend to move in a continuum. If this is true, then there may indeed be a New
Environmental Paradigm or new way of thinking evolving within local governments. It
is evident from this study that the township officials surveyed here are aware of land
use regulation and private property rights. Most township officials seem to be very
sensitive toward the whole issue of private property rights. As a result, there is a
balancing of interests between property rights, public interest and environmental
protection. These two townships reflected the opinions and views of the New
Environmental Paradigm and, certainly, Environmental Sympathizers. None of these

township officials could be considered part of the rearguard.

CO-ORIENTATION
Recall that co-orientation is an extra analytical twist on Q-methodology.
Co-orientation provides the opportunity for a research subject to look at an issue from

their own perspective and to see the same subject from another person’s point of view.

75

This unique twist is placed on Q-methodology to further the methodology and
establish parameters of understanding between individuals. It highlights the similarities
and differences in policy debates. In the Q-universe, co-orientation enhances the
methodology. This methodology goes beyond that of Q-methodology and has each
township sort the cards in a way they think the other township views these statements.
In essence, Meridian Township views itself, and then is asked how they think the
other township, in this instance Alaiedon Township, would perceive these statements,
and vice versa.

Due to the way the data was entered and analyzed, it was not possible to
examine the data on a factor-to-factor comparison, as was anticipated. Each township
needed to be entered separately, and this renders factor analysis meaningless when all
the sorts cannot be factor analyzed together. Instead, this interpretation centered on a
pattern of responses across factors from the original Q-sort and the co-orientation sort.
For instance, analysis hinges on grouping or patterns of responses. In particular, the
analysis showed the similarity, agreement or disagreement on certain statements across
factors. These similar and dissimilar statements formed the parameters around
township opinions on property rights and environmental awareness.

The co-orientation approach also formed three distinct factors, but most of the
factors were negatively loaded. Further examination was made of all three co-
orientation factors and the original factors to identify shared or dissimilar statements
held in common between both views.

Shared statements are those that are loaded virtually identical on each factor.

When a factor or range of factors load as a group, either positively or negatively, it

76

can be said that all respondents viewed those statements in the same way, although

individual loadings might vary by degree. It was this grouping or pattern of responses,

though, that was used in this study. All three factors were analyzed across the Q-sort

and co-orientation sort. The following statements seemed to be shared among the

factors and co-orientation approach.

Factors
A B C
-2 -3 -3
0 3 3
0 1 5
-1 0 2
-5 -5 -4
2 0 1

Statement

6. The constitutional right of private property, respected as a
fundamental to individual freedom, is being endangered. We may be on
the verge of total government control of all land in the name of
"environmental concern."

16. I want to choose the environment in which I live. I do not want
land use to be something that just happens to me. I want land use to be
something in which I can be actively involved as a deliberator and
voter.

18. First priority should be given to preservation of agricultural land.
Otherwise, in just a few years there will not be enough food to go
around.

20. Instead of developing regulations for what land uses should go
where, we should stress the creation of a more adequate review process,
one that recognizes the right of a wide variety of legitimate interests--
local governments, regional planning organizations, state agencies,
adjacent property owners, etc.--to comment on specific proposals.

27. A person who owns property should have the right to do with it as
he pleases.

28. We can no longer consider land as merely another factor of
production to be bought cheaply and sold to the highest bidder. It is a
social resource which private individuals may own, use and trade but
subject to guidelines designed to protect localities and regions.

Shared responses across townships seemed to indicate a support for property

rights. No one from either perspective appeared to think that property rights were

77

eroding, or that society was entering a stage of radical environmental concern
(Statement 6). Moreover, these officials wanted to be involved in land use decision
making. They wanted to take an active role and were not willing to sit back and let
development just happen (Statement 16).

It is also interesting that both perspectives were sensitive to farmland
preservation (Statement 18) and recognized the fact that farms are disappearing. This
would indicate they understand the effects of urban sprawl in the region. This is also
Significant for rural Alaiedon Township. At this point, Meridian Township realizes
they have lost most of their farmland. The only thing that the groups could not decide
on was setting priorities on what land use protection effort would be targeted
(Statement 18). Indeed, they did think that any area in jeopardy should be bought
rather than heavily regulated (Statement 2). This indicates a sustainable development
ethic and allows for growth, but does not accept growth for growth’s sake.

All of these views were reinforced by the idea that no one can do with their
land as they please (Statement 27). This opinion seemed to reflect the townships’
opinion that some regulation is either needed, or inevitable up to a point (Statement
28).

These statements did not reflect a bi-polar point of view within the group but
rather, a need for sharing information in support of land use regulations. These
statements illustrated a fundamental base of knowledge or shared attitudes across
factors. The shared ideas and opinions on these six statements also indicated that there
was greater moderation or room for compromise on private property rights than

appears in the public discourse. No bi-polar view was exemplified in this group of

78

township officials. Common themes within the group were to maintain local

government control (probably home rule), accept some state involvement through

technical assistance, and hold a pre-disposition toward limited or balanced growth
within the township.

What was also interesting was the identification of four dissimilar opinions
across all the factors. Differences were determined by subtracting the difference
between one Statement loading from another. Two figures are established--one for each
township’s view and one for the other township’s view. These figures represent a
number for each factor and statement. When the difference was greater than three, it
yielded four consistent statements. In other words, those same four statements
identified by each of the factors were held in common, but had the greatest disparity
(see Statements 8 and 20).

Factors Statement

A B C

2 -3 -3 8. If the regulation of privately owned land goes too far, it really
amounts to a taking. We are in danger of forgetting that the public
desire to improve conditions is not enough to warrant bypassing the
constitutional way of paying for the change.

-1 0 2 20. Instead of developing regulations for what land uses should go
where, we should stress the creation of a more adequate review process,
one that recognizes the right of a wide variety of legitimate interests--
local governments, regional planning organizations, state agencies,
adjacent property owners, etc.--to comment on specific proposals.

-3 -4 -5 30. The township should not restrict the use of land in a way that will
limit growth, because growth attracts more people, and new people

bring in more tax money to the community, thereby easing the burden
on the rest of us.

79

Factors Statement
A B C

-2 -5 -5 33. Instead of placing complicated and time consuming controls on
developers, the state should facilitate development, e.g., by clearing
away the red tape and simplifying the procedures required to obtain
building and zoning permits.

The biggest disparity across statements rested with the interpretation of takings.
If township boards have a difficult time recognizing takings, then this could account
for their lack of prioritizing land preservation and why they were willing to leave open
space open. US. Supreme Court cases may have had an impact on how local
government officials view property rights (Statement 8).

They also differed on local control and public input. There was division
between how much public involvement is needed and what decisions a local
government can make on its own (Statement 20). Absolute local control was Split,
with some evidence of the state facilitating economic development (Statement 33).
Along these lines rests the idea of restricting additional growth or allowing growth to

continue. There was more agreement to limit growth, but by how much is the

question.

Summa_ry

These four statements (8, 20, 33, 33) were split between protecting the
landowner and providing for the public good. Each of the factors believed there should
be greater local control, which would ensure "balancing of the interests" among
environmentalists and developers. The township board wanted to support the public

interest, but realized that too much public input could result in a loss of control by the

80
local township officials, perhaps even a loss of home rule. There was a sense that
greater public participation could result in diluting the decisions of experts, and that

the people could "muck things up. Growth versus no—growth appears to show
considerable disparity. A difference of opinion existed as to how much growth a
township would be willing to receive. Supporting this concern regarding growth were
the issues of costs and fiscal responsibility.

Some township officials wanted state involvement, while others want greater
local control. There is a fine line, however, between too much state control and not
enough. The issue of control could also be related to what type of state involvement is
needed for the township--technical assistance or day-to—day land use decision making.
Yet, all factors and all views within the township reflected some acceptance of state
assistance.

All township officials within the study believed in property rights, but said that
paying for those property rights were situationally dependent. It should be stressed that
local government officials in this study believed that they knew best how to decide
land use decisions, and would shun any direct outside involvement, yet would
appreciate any state or Federal government assistance from outreach and
communication efforts to provide cost share monies. It is also significant that each of
the township officials supported the Constitution and held property rights as a given
for society. However, they believed that in certain circumstances, total payment for a
partial taking would not be justified, especially when juxtaposed to the public interest.

Indeed, they did not want to take land for the sake of taking land, but only when the

public interest should prevail.

CHAPTER V

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

This research connected a methodology of subjectivity with a politician’s
opinions on private property. The 34 statements in this research were from the
Brown/Coke study described in Chapter Two. Each statement appeared one to a card
and was sorted in a forced grid distribution. Using a process of co-orientation, where
each respondent not only sorted the cards from his or her own particular point of view,
but also from that of the other board members in the adjacent township, this research
determined what perspectives were shared or not between rural/urban townships.

Overall, this study was in line with the Brown and Coke analysis. Factor A was
parochial, with some tendency toward public interest. Factor B was more responsive to
the citizens, thus making this factor more prone to support the public interest than
Factor A. Neither factor, however, forsook property rights or the environment. Indeed
these factors were moderate in temperament. The result was a more discrete
delineation of the localist attitude, since it seemed that local control was desired
among both factors.

It should be noted that these views are subject to change based on the
particular circumstances facing each of these respective townships. Opinions are

flexible and case sensitive. For instance, one township official may favor the public

81

82

interest for wetlands, yet also allow for development in other areas of the township.
Factor C, on the other hand, was slightly loaded for one member of Meridian
Township. This person tended to be oriented toward an environmental ethic more than
the others. Yet, it is difficult to make too strong a determination on environmental
opinions due to the lack of additional Statements which could have exposed these
environmental tendencies.

In the co-orientation approach to Q-methodology, two key points were
identified. One point is that all factors shared six of the same statements, yet also had
the greatest disparity over the same statements across factors. The statements held in
common established a loose framework from which to begin more intense analysis of
township officials’ opinions on property rights. Co-orientation establishes a parameter
where township officials agree and where there is disagreement in property rights. In
essence, the Six shared statements illustrated where both Alaiedon and Meridian
Townships share common ground or have fundamental attitudes and opinions toward '
property rights. Where there were disparities between factors, there was a gap in
understanding for these township officials on land use regulations and private property
rights. This indicates that additional work needs to be done in streamlining
intergovernmental communications and staying informed on the land use issues of the
other township. Although one township is urban and the other is rural, they did not
difi‘er markedly in their overall concerns for land use within their townships. As a
result there was no difference in outlook between these urban and rural townships.

Meridian Township was in greater favor of some restraint on private property,

especially when that land use interferes with the goals of the township’s

83

comprehensive plan or the quest for more open space. Population increase and
development pressures were the greatest concerns for restraining private property
rights in this instance. Alaiedon Township, on the other hand, is more rural in nature
and does not want to encroach on its quality of life, but realized that some land use
controls were necessary. Alaiedon Township was sensitive and aware of development
pressures, and seemed willing to address the problem sooner, rather than later.

What, if anything, was found from this research? Several tenets of private
property theory were discovered. First, is that private property does not appear to be
sacrosanct from the stand-point of the "wise use" or Western US. philosophy.
Politicians seemed willing to accept certain government restriction on the use of
someone’s private property, especially in the name of the public interest. When the
statements reflected compensable takings for public purposes, politicians were
undecided as to what path to take. Yet in some circumstance, they felt it would be
better to take land for a public purpose, like open space designation or flood
mitigation purposes, rather that to seize it for some other purpose.

The only difference in demographic variables was the education level of the
respondents. Political party affiliation, gender, age, race and income, in this group of

respondents, did not present convincing differences in opinions.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Possible recommendations to improve this study would be to intensively
analyze these respondents through several conditions of instruction (C01) and not use

co-orientation. Co-orientation leads to confusion in interpreting the results, because

84

individuals are first asked to give their opinion on the statements, then asked to give
an individual opinion on an entire township board. In essence, opinion ranged from the
self to one of a group, when it is probably best to analyze the respondents on a one-to-
one basis. Second, the statements could have been amended to reveal any special
circumstances on private property within Michigan. However, this may have yielded
very little additional information for the study. After all, it is the dialogue at the local
level that drives the Federal, which means that general attributes are wanted, not traits
endemic to one region or state.

The research demonstrated that there are certain similarities, differences and
misconceptions of opinion when dealing with private property concerns. Certain
statements consistently resonated a stronger response with other statements. The
delicate balance between property rights, growth and environmental protection shows
that these local government officials understand and appreciate the sensitivity of the
property rights debate. It also means that when local officials are not certain on land
use issues, they recognize that they need technical assistance from other sources to
assist with decision making. This lack of technical assistance appears to be the greatest
finding, but one that was anticipated. Township officials indicated, that when there is
not enough information available to make a decision, they needed to turn to an outside
source for assistance and support. As evident in this study, however, the outside source
must provide information, education and even dollars--but not direct involvement.

With this being the case, Michigan State University Extension can play a role
in information dissemination and education of township officials, as well as even

planning for these townships and local governments. The attractiveness of Michigan

85

State University Extension to facilitate information is the fact that it is recognized and
respected within the community, and does not take a heavy hand or a big government
approach to local decision making. Michigan Sate University Extension can do several
things to address this desire by local government officials to have information

provided on land use issues:

0 There needs to be a Land Use Information Center created at the
University that provides world wide web access, as well as current and
yet accessible data for township officials.

0 Provide greater education decision-making models, seminars and
workshops for local government officials. Develop a directory of land
use experts within the state who understand local government issues.

0 Identify possible funding sources, both on a state and local level, for the
purpose of purchasing sensitive lands.

SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE RESEARCH
Ideas for future research abound. First, expand the statements utilized so

as to look exclusively at private property rights among more townships. Second,
multiple conditions of instruction should be given for intensive analysis of the
respondents. Third, a statewide survey on the demographic variables associated with
private property rights is also invaluable to see if the sorts correlate and validate the
demographic variables. Fourth, the data collected from the Q-study can be used to
construct and implement a larger survey instrument for a larger sample size.

Furthermore, analysis of concerns regarding road building, crime, safety, and

public health would be interesting, solely to establish the differences between urban

86

and rural townships. In this manner, certain areas might need prioritization to keep the
township boards informed and up-to-date. Another possibility for future research
would be to track this issue of development and property rights over time to see if
personnel changes on township boards reflect radical changes. For instance, would
new township board members change their opinions over time concerning land use
regulations? Also, a comparison could be made between politicians, citizens and
bureaucrats to see if communities share the same concerns. One way of doing this
would be to conduct an intensive analysis on one issue with a series of conditions of
instruction. For example:

1.) What do these statements mean to you? (politicians, citizens and

bureaucrats)

2.) How would a politician, citizen or bureaucrat perceive the statements?

Finally, deleting and adding statements that would be relevant to specific
situations would be valuable. Not only would the statements contain statements
concerning private property rights, but they could also include statements on specific
cases occurring within their jurisdiction or actions that might affect their jurisdictions.
These case-specific statements could be topically geared to particular issues salient
within a township. Remember, any increase in statements usually results in a smaller
population sample. A research agenda that evolves as times or conditions change,
however, would be of infinite worth in monitoring land use programs. Additional Q-
studies should be done utilizing the entire Brown and Coke statements on private

property rights and land use regulations, in order to validate township officials’

87

opinions about land use regulations. Clearly the field of environmental policy is ripe

for future Q-methodological inquiries.

APPENDICES

APPENDIX A

APPENDIX A

DIRECTIONS FOR PERFORMING THE Q-SORT

Attached to these directions are 34 statements, one to a card, for a total of 34 cards, as
well as a forced grid distribution form to be completed as described in the directions.

INFORMED CONSENT

This research is based on a study conducted 20 years ago that assessed the land use
opinions of the public and politicians in Ohio. The result was three typologies of
opinions and it highlighted the similarities and dissimilarities between the opinions. A
policy outcome gave impetus to designing better communication strategies for the
respondents to Share opinions and current knowledge on the field of land use
regulations. With current US. Supreme Court and Michigan Supreme Court decisions
dealing with private property rights and public use, (declaration of open spaces for
instance), I felt this research should be tried again, but this time studying politicians in
neighboring political jurisdictions. The results are expected to mirror those of the
study from 20 years ago.

This research will require your voluntary participation for approximately one to one
and half hours regarding your opinions on land use regulations. It will involve one
session of testing and two tests will be given during that time. The first test will
require you to look at the statements from your perspective and record your responses.
The second test will require you interpreting the statements from what you think the
other township’s perspective is on those statements. I foresee no risks to you by
participating in this study.

Please initial one of the spaces below to indicate your willingness to participate, that
you understand the experiment as it has been explained to you, and that you
understand any risks or discomfort: involved.

Yes, the directions have been explained and I am willing to participate

No, the directions have not been explained and I do not wish to participate

"You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and
returning this questionnaire."

At any point in this research you can terminate your participation without threat of
penalty or coercion. It is hoped, though, that you can participate to the fullest extent

88

89

possible. To insure you that the results will remain confidential and anonymous, your
completion of the research will not be released in any way to a third party nor will an
individuals’ identity be revealed by the researcher, even if I discover it after the fact.

Your participation in this research implies your consent. It also signifies that you have
read the directions and agreed to them. As a reminder, you may terminate, at your
choice, this research at any point.

Contact person(s) for additional questions or concerns that may be raised from
participation in the study:

Eckhart Dersch, Professor
Department of Resource Development
323 Natural Resources Building
Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1222
(517) 353-1921

OR

Jefferson G. Edgens, Ph.C. candidate
1642 F Spartan Village

East Lansing, Michigan 48823

(517) 353-6871

STEP 1.

Each participant has an instruction packet which present your informed consent,
directions, 34 statements, (2) statement grids and demographic information. First,
please read the informed consent paragraph contained within this directions page. Once
you have read the paragraph and agree to continue your involvement, please read
further. Remember you may terminate your participation at any time.

You will notice that you have 34 cards, each containing one statement on land use
issues, as well as 3 additional cards labeled AGREE, DISAGREE and NEUTRAL.
Please place these 3 cards on the table in front of you from left to right respectively.
(Please be sure that you have enough room in front of you to spread out the cards).
Please read through the 34 statements on land use regulation.

STEP 2.

** What is your opinion on each of the statements on land use regulations? With
which are you in greatest agreement?

90

Sort the cards removing all of those with which you agree and place them under the
label listed AGREE. {At anytime during the sort, you may move any card that you
feel more appropriately represents your opinion}.

Next, sort the remaining cards and place those with which you disagree under the
corresponding label. Finally, all remaining cards can be placed under the neutral label.

Example:

DISAGREE AGREE NEUTRAL
Pile l Pile 2 Pile 3
STEP 3.

Return to the agree stack and sort these statements, so that they reflect those opinions
with which you are in greatest agreement. To aid you in this task please consult the
grid distribution enclosed with this packet. Have the grid available to answer and
record your decisions.

First, look at the grid distribution labeled from -5 through 5 along the top. The -5 to 0
portion of the grid will represent the answers to the disagree cards. Under -5 notice
that you have only two spaces, this means that you must find in the disagree stack the
two cards with which you are in strongest disagreement. Then proceed to -4, sorting
the cards each time to find those statement with which you disagree. Do this until the
disagree stack is exhausted.

91

Example:

 

92

[If you run out of disagree cards before you reach the 0 column, then sort your neutral pile to
find those cards or statements with which you find some disagreement so that you can finish
the sort].

STEP 4.

Follow the same procedure for the agree pile as you did for did for the disagree pile.
Remember to begin from 5 and work toward 0 placing the corresponding number of cards for
each space under the number. .

[If you run out of cards before you reach the 0 column, then sort your neutral pile to find
those cards or statements with which you find some agreement so that you can finish the sort].

STEP 5.

Now sort the neutral stack. At this point, there should be spaces available on the grid under
the -1,0 and 1 columns. Sort the cards again from disagree, agree to neutral. The most neutral
or ambivalent cards should be under the 0 column.

Once all of the cards are recorded, please circle the entire group of those numbers represented
under the neutral label. Do not circle the numbers individually, but as a group, being careful
not to include agree or disagree cards. Please hand me the completed grid once you are
finished.

STEP 6.

At this point, some of you may be asked certain questions that relate to why you sorted the
cards the way you did.

STEP 7.

Once the instructions are given to begin a new sort, prepare to sort the cards and use the
second grid.

** This time sort each card on the basis of how you think each board member from Meridian
Township will perceive them. This means you should be looking at these statements from
what you think is their point of view, not yours.

Again, place the cards into three piles and follow the instructions above. At the completion of
this sort, again please hand me the completed grid with recorded statement numbers.

STEP 8.

Once all of the sorts are completed for your point of view and the point of view of the board
member from the other township, the sorts are completed. Another post sort interview may
take place to ask some of you why cards were sorted a certain way.

93
STEP 9.

The last sheet in the packet is the demographic form. Please answer as many of these
questions as you can. Return the demographic sheet when you are finished.

This completes the research exercise. Thank you very much for your participation.

I will gladly share the results with each township board, preserving the anonymity of each
board member, that requests the results.

APPENDIX B

APPENDIX B

FORCED GRID DISTRIBUTION DIAGRAM

(Please Circle)
Sort Number: 1 or 2

Township
Political Party Affiliation
Date

Time

A Neutra

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

As a reminder: "You indicate your voluntery agreement to participate by completing and
returning this questionnaire."

94

APPENDIX C

Appendix C

Statements and Factor Arrays

Property Rights Statements

1. The citizens of a locality are
best able to decide the proper use of
privately held land in that community.
This is a great American principle
upon which a state land use program
would wreak irreparable damage.

2. If some areas are of such concern
that they ought to be protected from
development, then the state ought to
buy those areas outright rather than
attempt to regulate the private use of
them.

3. We need something like a land
trust to assist localities in the
designation, planning and conservation
of extensive green space.

4. There is a hazy boundary between
"taking" land and "controlling" it.

It is not fair to take land for the

public good under the guise of regulation
without compensation. The individual
property owner should not have to bear
the burden of public benefit.

95

Factors

B

-1

96

Property Rights Statements

5. Even relatively severe government
restrictions on land use are not an
unconstitutional taking of land, since the
property would still remain in the hand of
its owner. The government would merely be
preventing the owner from conducting a
land use, which would interfere with the
paramount rights of the public.

6. The constitutional right of private
property, respected as fundamental to
individual freedom, is being endangered.

We may be on the verge of total government
control of all land in the name of
"environmental concern."

7. I for one question the desirability

of more growth. Development itself appears
to be the enemy, a kind of pollution that
causes congestion and destroys scenic
views, and one that ought to be cleaned up.

8. If the regulation of privately
owned land goes too far, it really amounts
to a taking of property. We are in danger
of forgetting that the public desire to
improve conditions is not enough to
warrant bypassing the constitutional way
of paying for the change.

9. The township government has an
obligation to control the use of land,

and just because a property owner cannot
make the most personally beneficial use

of his property, or is unable to realize
speculative investment gains, does not mean
that he must be compensated for the
undeveloped potential.

A

-4

Factors
B

2

C

97

Property Rights Statements

10. Since essential needs can only be met
through development and since the environment
must be protected for the long run good of

us all, it would seem that both developers

and conservationists have a stake in

achieving an accommodation with one another.

11. The rights of property should not be
abridged even in critical environmental
areas. It is the marketplace that should
determine which land is worthy of
preservation, and state government should
restrict itself to assuring that the market
operates effectively.

12. The township needs to adopt land use
guidelines right now, so even if a policy
has its critics, it Should be passed if it

is fundamentally equitable. We cannot
afford to wait for perfection. We must

make a beginning.

13. The state should require developers
of subdivisions and new towns to reserve
enough parkland and open space to serve
the needs of the residents of their projects.

14. The solution to ineffective local

zoning has been to separate the planning
decisions, further form the local community,

to rely on some higher government to resolve
local problems. This process is to the

detriment of local growth and must be reversed.

15. When government compensates landowners
affected by new regulations, it should be

required to pay the landowner what he would

get if he could develop the property.

A

Factors

B

3

C

98

Property Rights Statements

16. I want to choose the environment in
which I live. I do not want land use to

be something that just happens to me.

I want land use to be something which I
can be actively involved as a deliberator
and voter.

17. Permits for development should be
denied unless the developer can show that

his project will not have an unduly adverse
effect on the environment and is unconforrnity
with locator state land use plans.

18. First priority should be given to
preservation of agricultural land.

Otherwise, in just a few years there will not
be enough food to go around.

19. I would like for land use considerations
to be decided locally, because if we start
giving state officials power over land use,

the nest thing you know we will have national
zoning from Washington, DC.

20. Instead of developing regulations for
what land uses should go where, we should
stress the creation of a more adequate
review process, one that recognizes the
right of a wide variety of legitimate
interests (local governments, regional
planing organizations, state agencies,
adjacent property owners, etc.) to

comment on specific proposals.

21. I prefer to think of land use as a
kind of transcendental prerogative. None

of us, individually or collectively, should

be allowed to do whatever we wish with a
piece of land merely because we "own" it in
a legal sense.

Factors
B

3

99

Property Rights Statements

22. Governments at all levels should actively
solicit open space donations and should
facilitate the work of responsible private
organizations by granting them charitable

status for real estate purposes.

23. I would like to see more green belts
around cities and buffer zones between and
with in regions, because I'm seriously
concerned that there will not be enough green
space in our metropolitan areas five or ten
years from now.

24. A state land use program will work best
when local prerogatives and property rights
are preserved. State policy, to the extent

there is one, should be limited to

providing advice, guidelines, and technical
assistance to the localities.

25. An effective land use policy should
not restrict freedom of choice, but should
assure that choices are made wisely,

that alternatives are considered, and

that important decisions take into account
the interests of society.

26. The state government should have enough
power to override local zoning decision if
necessary to preserve unique historical,
ecological and cultural sites, as well as

prime agricultural lands.

27. A person who owns property should
have the right to do with it as he pleases.

Factors
B

l

100

Property Rights Statements

28. We can no longer consider land as
merely another factor of production to be
bought cheaply and sold to the highest bidder.
It is a social resource which private
individuals may own, use and trade but
subject to guidelines designed to protect
localities and regions.

29. Open spaces need not be publicly owned.

In fact, land kept open for purposes other
than recreation is best left in private
hands, while being regulated to prohibit
uses inconsistent with the conservation of
scenic and ecological characteristics.

30. The township should not restrict the
use of land in a way that will limit growth,
because growth attracts more people an new
people bring in more tax money to the
community, thereby easing the burden on the
rest of us.

31. Eventually, I think local governments
in metropolitan areas will have to set an
absolute limit on their total populations.

No matter how well planned future
development may be, the quality of life

will deteriorate as new residents continue

to move in.

32. I would just as soon leave open spaces
open. Just because no people live in an area
doesn’t make it a place for a highway or an
apartment complex or a factory.

33. Instead of placing complicated and time
consuming controls on developers, the state
should facilitate development — e.g., by
clearing away the red tape and simplifying

the procedures required to obtain building

and zoning permits.

A

Factors
B

0

C

101

Property Rights Statements Factors
A B C
34. Land use decisions must allow the -1 4 2

participation of all people who would feel
the impact - not just those who live within
the jurisdiction of the decision-maker or
have the best means to influence him, but
all who would benefit or be harmed by

the decision.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

American Enterprise: A National Magazine of Politics, Business and Culture. 1996.
Sean - The Un-Reality of Poll Setting, (January/February): 9-10.

Axelrod, Lawrence J. 1994. Balancing Personal Needs with Environmental
Preservation: Identifying the Values That Guide Decisions in Ecological
Dilemmas. Journal of Social Issues, 50(3): 85-104.

Barlowe, Raleigh. 1986. Land Resource Economics: The Economics of Real Estate.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall Publishers.

Barth, Gunther. 1990. Fleeting Moments: Nature and Culture in American History.
Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Bosso, Christopher. 1994. After the Movement: Environmental Activism in the 1990’s.
In Norman J. Vig and Michael E. Kraft, (eds.) Environmental Policy in the
19905. Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

Brouwer, Marten. 1993. Validity: Q vs R. Journal of Operant Subjectivity, (October
l992/January 1993): 1-18.

Brown, Steven R. 1993. A Primer on Q-Methodology. Joumal of Operant Subjectivity,
(April/July): 91-138.

Brown, Steven R. 1980. Politicajl Subjectivity: Applications of 0 Methodology
in Political Science. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Brown, Steven R. 1968. Bibliography on Q-Technique and Its Methodology.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 26: 587-613.

Brown, Steven R. and James G. Coke. 1977. Public Opinion on Land Use Regulation.
In Urban and RegionaL Development Series No. 1 (pp. 1-16). Columbus, Ohio:
Academy for Contemporary Problems.

102

103

Brown, Steven R. and James G. Coke. 1976. Public Attitudes About Land Use Policy
and Their Impact on State Policy-Makers. Center for the Study of Federalism,
Temple University. Publius,the Journal of Federalism, Winter 6(1): 97-134.

Browne, William P. and Kenneth VerBurg. 1995. Michigan Politics and Government:
Facing Change in a Complex State. University of Nebraska Series. Lincoln,
NE: University of Nebraska Press.

Caldwell, Lynton K. 1993. Environmental Policy as a Political Problem. Policy Studies
Review, 12(3/4): 104-117.

 

Capra, Fritjof. 1982. The Turning Point: Science, Society and the Rising Culture.
New York: Bantam Books.

Chaffe, Steven H. and Jack M. McLeod. 1968. Sensitization in Panel Design: A
Coorientational Experiment. Journalism Quarterly, pp. 661-669.

Comstock, Richard. 1997. The Education of Township Supervisor’s in Watershed
Management: The Case of North Titibiwassee River Watershed. Unpublished
Master’s Thesis, Department of Resource Development, Michigan State
University.

Council on Environmental Quality. 1982. The Global 2000 Report to the President:
Entering the Twenty-First Century. New York: Penguin Books.

Cronon, William. 1983. Changes in the Land: Indians, Colonists and the Ecology of
New England. New York: Hill and Wang.

Daly, Herman E. and Roger Cobb. 1989. For the Common Good - Redirecting the
Economy Toward Community, the Environment and a Sustainable Future.
Boston: Beacon Press.

DeGrove, John. 1992. 1996. State Growth Management Systems That Integrate and
Coordinate Land Use Planning: An Overview. Presented at the Michigan State
University Land Use Forum, "Land Use Decision Making - It’s Role in a
Sustainable Future for Michigan," January 9-10, 1996.

DeGrove, John. 1992. Planning and Growth Management in the States. Cambridge,
MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.

Diamond, Henry L. and Patrick J. Noonan. 1996. Land Use in America. Covelo, CA:
Island Press.

104

Dunlap, Riley E. and Angela G. Mertig. 1992. The Evolution of the US.
Environmental Movement from 1970 to 1990: An Overview. In Riley Dunlap
and Angela Mertig (eds.), American Environmentalism: The US.
Environmental Movement, 1970 - 1990 (pp. 1-9). New York: Taylor and
Francis.

Durant, Robert F., Larry W. Thomas and Don Haynes. 1993. The Politics of Growth
Management Reform in the States: A Comparative Analysis. PolicLStudies
Review, (12/93/4): 30-54.

Foster, John Bellamy. 1994. The Vulnerable Planet: A Short Economic History of the
Environment. New York: Monthly Press Review.

Friedenberg, Daniel M. 1992. Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Land: The Plunder of
Early America. Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books.

Gauger, Stephen E. and J .B. Wyckoff. 1973. Aesthetic Preferences for Water Resource
Projects: An Application of Q Methodology. Water Resources Bulletin, June
9(3): 522-528.

Gillespie, J. David. March 16, 1995. Telephone interview.

Gillespie, J. David. 1993. Politics at the Periphery: Third Parties in Two-Party
America. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

Gore, A1. 1992. Earth in the Balance. New York: Houghton-Mifflin Publishers.

Harrington, Michael. 1985. Taking Sides: The Education of a Militant Mind. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.

Hays, Samuel P. 1987. Beauty, Health and Permanence: Environmental Politics in the
United States, 1955-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Hazen, Robert M. and James Trefil. 1991. Science Matters: Achieving Scientific
Literacy. New York: Anchor Books.

Hembroff, Larry A. 1995. Land Use Views and Priorities of Michigan Residents:
Results of the Trend Future Surveys, 1994-1995. Planning and ZonirLLNews,
September. pp. 5-8.

Hinkle, Robert Douglas. 1976. Environmental Interpreters in Southern Michigan: A
Q-Study of Interpreter Types. Unpublished Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State
University.

105

Hooker, A.M. 1992. Human Beliefs and Values Regarding Nature and Forests: A
Framework for Listening. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Yale University.

Kinzel, Steven Frank. 1977. A Q-Methodological Study of Environmental Attitudes of
Participants in the 1975 Michigan Youth Conservation Corps. Unpublished
Ph.D. Dissertation, Michigan State University.

Korves, Ross C. 1996. The Rights of Ownership. In Writings on the Right to Own and
Use Private Property (pp. 25-26). Chicago, Illinois: American Farm Bureau
Federation.

Kuhn, Thomas. 1970. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.

Leopold, Aldo. 1966. A Sand County Almanac. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Lester, James P. 1994. Comparative State Environmental Politics and Policy: The
Evolution of a Literature. Policy Studies Journal, 22(4): 696-700.

Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 112 S. Ct. 2886 (1992).

McKeown, Bruce and Dan Thomas. 1988. Q-Methodology. Quantitative Applications
in the Social Sciences Series. Newbury Park: Sage Publications.

Madison, James, Alexander Hamilton and John Jay. 1987. Penguin edition. _'l_‘h_e
Federalist Papers. New York: Penguin Books.

Marzulla, Nancie G. and Roger J. Marzulla. 1997. Property Rights: Understanding
Government Takings and Environmental Regulation. Washington, DC:
Government Institutes Press.

Meadows, Donella, Dennis Meadows and Jorgen Randers. 1992. Beyond the Limits.
Post Mills: Chelsea Green Publishing.

Merchant, Carolyn. 1989. Ecological Revolutions: Nature, Gender and Science in New
England. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.

Michigan Society of Planning Officials. 1995. Michigan’s Land Use Trends.
Institutional Structure for Land Use Decision Making in Michigan - Working
Paper. Michigan Society of Planning Officials.

Milbrath, Lester W. 1989. Envisioning a Sustainable Society: Learning Our Way Out.
Albany, New York: State University of New York Press.

106

Milbrath, Lester W. 1984. Environmentalists Vanguard For A New Society. Albany,
New York: State University of New York Press.

Mueller, Henri Klaus. 1995. Local Government and the Environmental Policy Process.
Australian Planner, 32(2): 79-81.

Muir, John. 1944 renewed. My First Summer in the Sierra. Boston: Houghton—Mifflin
Company.

O’Connor, Robert E., Richard J. Bord and Kerry Kirk Pflugh. 1994. The Two Faces of
Coastal Environmentalism: Environmental Protection and Development on
Cape May. Coastal Zone Management, 22: 183-194.

Ophuls, William. 1992. Ecology and the Politics of Scarcity Revised. New York:
W. H. Freeman and Company.

Paelkhe, Robert C. 1990. Environmental Values and Democracy: The Challenge of the
Next Century. In Norman J. Vig and Michael Kraft (eds.), Environmental
Policy in the 1990’s (pp. 349-368). Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly
Press, Inc.

Paelkhe, Robert C. 1989. Environmentalism and the Future of Progressive Politics.
New Haven: Yale University Press.

Pierce, John C. and Nicholas P. Lovrich. 1986. Water Resources, Democracy and the
Technical Information Quandary. New York: Associated Faculty Press.

Platt, Rutherford H. 1996. Land Use and Society: Geography, Law and Public Policy.
Covelo, CA: Island Press.

Pombo, Richard and Joseph Farah. 1996. This Land 15 our Land: How to End the War
on Private Property. New York: St. Martin’s Press.

Ponting, Clive. 1991. A Green History of the World. New York: Penguin Books.

Porritt, Jonathon. 1985. Seeing Green - The Politics of Ecology Explained.
Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Samuels, Warren J. 1992. Welfare Economics, Power and Property. In Essays on the
Economic Role of Government (pp. 56-138). New York: University of New
York Press.

Shabecoff, Philip. 1993. A Fierce Green Fire: The American Environmental
Movement. New York: Hill and Wang.

107

Simon, Julian and Herman Kahn. 1984. The Resourceful Earth - A Response to Global
2000. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

Smith, Zachary A. 1995. The Environmental Policy Paradox (2nd edition). Englewood
Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall Publishers.

Soden, Dennis. 1990. Managing Florida’s Coastal Resources: Technical Complexity
and Public Attitudes. Florida Sea Grant College Program.

Spearrnan, Katherine S. and J. David Gillespie. 1994. Diverse Perspectives in the
Community of Environmentalists: A Q-Methodological Inquiry, pp. 1-18. Paper
presented at the Annual Convention of Southwestern Political Science
Association, San Antonio, Texas. March 31, 1994.

Stephenson, William. 1953. The Study of Behavior - Q-Technique and its
Methodology. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Stephenson, William. 1939. Character and Personality. "Correlating Persons Instead
of Tests," Vol 4, pp. 17-24.

Stern, Paul C. and Thomas Dietz. 1994. The Value Basis of Environmental Concern.
Journal of Social Issues, 50(3): 65-84.

Stone, Christopher D. 1988. Should Trees Have Standing? Palo Alto: Tioga
Publishing.

VerBurg, Kenneth. 1990. Managing the Modern Michigan Townsm (2nd Edition).
East Lansing, Michigan: The Board of Trustees, Michigan State University.

Wenner, Lettie. 1994. Environmental Policy in the Courts. In Norman J. Vig and
Michael E. Kraft (eds.). Environmental Policy in the 1990’s (pp. 145-164).
Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly Press.

The World Commission on Environment and DeveIOpment. 1990. Our Common
Future. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

 

   

IES

"‘illlllllllllllill