Regional Transportation Planning Through Intergovernmental Collective Action: Does Planning Conformity With Federal Regulations Improve Regional Air Quality?

Abstract

This study examines whether metropolitan planning organizations’ (MPOs) planning conformity, which is the degree to which regional transportation planning language aligns with federal air-quality requirements, is associated with regional attainment of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS). MPOs operate at the intersection of transportation and environmental regulation, coordinating across multiple governments to address cross-jurisdictional air pollution. We measure planning conformity using a content analysis that combines the Institutional Grammar framework with automated text analysis (natural language processing) to compare MPO transportation plans with relevant federal regulatory language. Using a sample of 84 MPOs in U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Regions 1–3, we estimate the relationship between planning conformity and 2023 county-level attainment status. Results indicate that higher planning conformity is associated with higher odds of NAAQS attainment, net of institutional, infrastructure, and state-level controls.

Keywords

intergovernmental collective action planning conformity institutional grammar metropolitan planning organization (MPO)NAAQS attainment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Arnold

(2017). A tidy data model for natural language processing using cleanNLP. R Journal, 9(2), 248–267. https://doi.org/10.32614/rj-2017-035

Ashworth

Boyne

Delbridge

(2009). Escape from the iron cage? Organizational change and isomorphic pressures in the public sector. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 19(1), 165–187. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/mum038

Bowman

A. O. M.

Kearney

R. C.

(2011). Second-order devolution: Data and doubt. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 41(4), 563–585. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjr002

Carpenter

D. P.

(2002). Groups, the media, agency waiting costs, and FDA drug approval. American Journal of Political Science, 46(3), 490. https://doi.org/10.2307/3088394

Carr

J. B.

Feiock

R. C.

(2004). Perspectives on city-county consolidation and its alternatives.

Carr

J. B.

Hawkins

C. V.

Westberg

D. E.

(2017). An exploration of collaboration risk in joint ventures: Perceptions of risk by local economic development officials. Economic Development Quarterly, 31(3), 210–227. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891242417710325

CFR (Code of Federal Regulation) . Title 23 Chapter I Subchapter E Part 420. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-420

CFR (Code of Federal Regulation) . Title 23 Chapter I Subchapter E Part 450. https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-23/chapter-I/subchapter-E/part-450?toc=1

Covilla

J. C.

(2025). Artificial intelligence and administrative discretion: Exploring adaptations and boundaries. European Journal of Risk Regulation, 16(1), 36–50. https://doi.org/10.1017/err.2024.76

10.

Craw

(2015). The effect of fragmentation and second-order devolution on efficacy of local public welfare policy. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 45(2), 270–296. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjv003

11.

Crawford

S. E.

Ostrom

(1995). A grammar of institutions. American Political Science Review, 89(3), 582–600. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082975

12.

Daley

D. M.

Mullin

Rubado

M. E.

(2014). State agency discretion in a delegated federal program: Evidence from drinking water investment. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 44(4), 564–586. https://doi.org/10.1093/publius/pjt033

13.

Deyle

R. E.

Wiedenman

R. E.

(2014). Collaborative planning by metropolitan planning organizations: A test of causal theory. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(3), 257–275. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x14527621

14.

DiMaggio

Powell

(1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101

15.

EPA (The US Environmental Protection Agency) - (2023). EPA History. https://www.epa.gov/history/why-are-our-regional-offices-and-labs-located-where-they-are-historical-perspective-siting

16.

EPA . (2024a). EPA Process of Reviewing the NAAQS. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-determine-whether-areas-meet-naaqs-designations-process

17.

EPA . (2024b). EPA Process to Determine Whether Areas Meet the NAAQS. https://www.epa.gov/criteria-air-pollutants/process-determine-whether-areas-meet-naaqs-designations-process

18.

EPA . (2025). Green Book National Area and County-Level Multi-Pollutant Information. https://www.epa.gov/green-book/green-book-national-area-and-county-level-multi-pollutant-information

19.

Feiock

R. C.

(2004a). Do consolidation entrepreneurs make a deal with the devil. City-county consolidation and its alternatives: Reshaping the local government landscape (1st ed., pp. 26–39). Routledge.

20.

Feiock

R. C.

(2004b). Introduction: Regionalism and institutional collective action. Metropolitan governance: Conflict, competition, and cooperation (pp. 3–16). Georgetown University Press.

21.

Feiock

R. C.

(2009). Metropolitan governance and institutional collective action. Urban Affairs Review, 44(3), 356–377. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087408324000

22.

Feiock

R. C.

(2013). The institutional collective action framework. Policy Studies Journal, 41(3), 397–425. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12023

23.

FHWA and FTA . (2007). The transportation planning process key issues: A briefing book for transportation decisionmakers, officials, and staff, FHWA-HEP-07-039, FHWA and FTA. https://(www.planning.dot.gov);atwww.planning.dot.gov/documents/briefingbook/bbook.htm

24.

FHWA (The Federal Highway Administration) . (2021). Transportation Conformity. https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/Applications/Show/transportation-conformity

25.

Fowler

Jones

(2019). Second‐order devolution or local activism? Local air agencies revisited. Review of Policy Research, 36(6), 757–780. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12361

26.

Fowler

Rabinowitz

(2020). Balancing multilevel politics in local environmental policy choices. Public Works Management & Policy, 25(1), 75–97. https://doi.org/10.1177/1087724x19834563

27.

Frantz

C. K.

Siddiki

(2021). Institutional grammar 2.0: A specification for encoding and analyzing institutional design. Public Administration, 99(2), 222–247. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12719

28.

Fredericksen

E. D.

Witt

S. L.

Nice

D. C.

(2016). The politics of intergovernmental relations. Birkdale Publishers.

29.

Gerber

E. R.

Gibson

C. C.

(2009). Balancing regionalism and localism: How institutions and incentives shape American transportation policy. American Journal of Political Science, 53(3), 633–648. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00391.x

30.

Glasgow

Zhao

(2017). Has the clean air interstate rule fulfilled its mission? An assessment of federal rule‐making in preventing regional spillover pollution. Review of Policy Research, 34(2), 186–207. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12225

31.

Hansen

Mullin

Riggs

E. K.

(2020). Collaboration risk and the choice to consolidate local government services. Perspectives on Public Management and Governance, 3(3), 223–238. https://doi.org/10.1093/ppmgov/gvz017

32.

HEP (The Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty) . (2021). Transportation conformity. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/air_quality/conformity/

33.

Hill

C. J.

Lynn

Jr, L. E.

(2015). Public management: Thinking and acting in three dimensions. CQ Press.

34.

Howell‐Moroney

(2024). Inconvenient truths about logistic regression and the remedy of marginal effects. Public Administration Review, 84(6), 1218–1236. https://doi.org/10.1111/puar.13786

35.

Hui

Ulibarri

Cain

(2020). Patterns of participation and representation in a regional water collaboration. Policy Studies Journal, 48(3), 754–781. https://doi.org/10.1111/psj.12266

36.

IBM . (2024). What is NLP (natural language processing)? https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/natural-language-processing

37.

Institutional Grammar Research Initiative . (2022). Institutional grammar coding guides. https://institutionalgrammar.org/resources/institutional-grammar-codebook/

38.

Kernell

Jacobson

G. C.

Kousser

Vavreck

(2019). The logic of American politics. CQ Press.

39.

Keydana

Chollet

Kalinowski

Allaire

J. J.

(2022). Deep learning with R.

40.

Konisky

D. M.

Teodoro

M. P.

(2016). When governments regulate governments. American Journal of Political Science, 60(3), 559–574. https://doi.org/10.1111/ajps.12221

41.

Koontz

T. M.

Thomas

C. W.

(2006). What do we know and need to know about the environmental outcomes of collaborative management? Public Administration Review, 66(s1), 111–121. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-6210.2006.00671.x

42.

Koski

Keating

(2018). Holding back the storm: Target populations and state climate adaptation planning in America. Review of Policy Research, 35(5), 691–716. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12308

43.

Larsen

S. M.

Khursheed

A. F.

(2002). Environmental regulations and economic performance: Evidence from ozone attainment status. (2002-01-01)[2014-04-30]. https://www. epa. gov/ttnecas 1/workingpapers/ozone. pdf.

44.

Lester

J. P.

Lombard

E. N.

(1990). The comparative analysis of state environmental policy. Natural Resources Journal, 30(2), 301–319. https://digitalrepository.unm.edu/nrj/vol30/iss2/4

45.

Chung

(2020). Decomposing isomorphism: What drives similarity in the adoption of new public management? Administration & Society, 52(3), 375–404. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095399718811307

46.

Lowe

(2014). Bypassing equity? Transit investment and regional transportation planning. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 34(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/10.1177/0739456x13519474

47.

Meckling

Nahm

(2018). The power of process: State capacity and climate policy. Governance, 31(4), 741–757. https://doi.org/10.1111/gove.12338

48.

Miller

Nelles

(2020). Order out of chaos: The case for a new conceptualization of the cross-boundary instruments of American regionalism. Urban Affairs Review, 56(1), 325–359. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087418773905

49.

Millimet

D. L.

(2013). Environmental federalism: A survey of the empirical literature. Case Western Reserve Law Review, 64(4), 1669. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol64/iss4/9

50.

Milward

H. B.

Provan

(2003). Managing the hollow state collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review, 5(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461667022000028834

51.

NARC (National Association of Regional Councils) . (2023). What is a regional council, COG, or MPO. https://narc.org/about/what-is-a-cog-or-mpo/

52.

Oates

W. E.

(2004). A reconsideration of environmental federalism. In Environmental policy and fiscal federalism (pp. 125–156). Edward Elgar Publishing.

53.

Ostrom

(2009). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton University Press.

54.

Ostrom

(2011). Background on the institutional analysis and development framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 7–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00394.x

55.

Ostrom

Gardner

Walker

(1994). Rules, games, and common-pool resources. University of Michigan Press.

56.

Potoski

(2001). Clean air federalism: Do states race to the bottom? Public Administration Review, 61(3), 335–343. https://doi.org/10.1111/0033-3352.00034

57.

Potoski

Woods

N. D.

(2002). Dimensions of state environmental policies: Air pollution regulation in the United States. Policy Studies Journal, 30(2), 208–226. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-0072.2002.tb02142.x

58.

Rabe

B. G.

(2006). Power to the states: The promise and pitfalls of decentralization. Environmental Policy: New Directions for the Twenty-First Century, 6, 34–56.

59.

Rice

Siddiki

Frey

Kwon

J. H.

Sawyer

(2021). Machine coding of policy texts with the institutional grammar. Public administration, 99(2), 248–262. https://doi.org/10.1111/padm.12711

60.

Scott

T. A.

Marantz

Ulibarri

(2022). Use of boilerplate language in regulatory documents: Evidence from environmental impact statements. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 32(3), 576–590. https://doi.org/10.1093/jopart/muab048

61.

Siddiki

Heikkila

Weible

(2019). Using the institutional grammar tool to understand policy design: A review and tutorial. Policy Studies Journal, 47(2), 419–436.

62.

Sjöberg

(2018). An empirical study of US environmental federalism: RCRA enforcement from 1998 to 2011. Ecological Economics, 147, 253–263. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolecon.2018.01.024

63.

Transportation Research Board . (2002). Environmental and social justice. Surface transportation environmental research: A long-term strategy, special report 268. National Research Council, National Academy Press.

64.

Vannoni

Ash

Morelli

(2021). Measuring discretion and delegation in legislative texts: Methods and application to US states. Political Analysis, 29(1), 43–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2020.9

65.

Williams

(2012). Using the margins command to estimate and interpret adjusted predictions and marginal effects. STATA Journal, 12(2), 308–331. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536867x1201200209

66.

Woods

N. D.

(2008). Serving two masters? State implementation of federal regulatory policy. Public Administration Quarterly, 32(4), 571–596.

67.

Woods

N. D.

(2014). Fiscal dependence and bureaucratic responsiveness in state environmental regulation. Public Administration Quarterly, 38(1), 71–96. https://www-jstor-org-443.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/24372027

68.

Woods

N. D.

(2021). The state of state environmental policy research: A thirty‐year progress report. Review of Policy Research, 38(3), 347–369. https://doi.org/10.1111/ropr.12426

69.

Woods

N. D.

Potoski

(2010). Environmental federalism revisited: Second‐order devolution in air quality regulation. Review of Policy Research, 27(6), 721–739. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1541-1338.2010.00468.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.51 MB