Tidelands management: Implementation of the Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act

Journal of Environmental Policy and Planning

Volumn 8, Issue 4, 2006, Pages 293-308

  Portman, Michelle ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MASSACHUSETTS BOSTON   (United States)

Author keywords

Enforcement; Implementation deficit; Public access; Public trust; Regulation; Tidelands

Indexed keywords

EID: 34250155627     PISSN: 1523908X     EISSN: 15227200     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/15239080601084737     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Archer, J. H., Connors, D. L., Laurence, K. & Columbia, S. C. (1994) The Public Trust Doctrine and the Management of America's Coasts (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press).
2. Beach, D. (2005) Why governments comply: an integrative compliance model that bridges the gap between instrumental and normative models of compliance, Journal of European Public Policy, 12(1), pp. 113-142.
3. Bialecki, G. (2001) No Safe Harbor, CommonWealth, Spring, pp. 11-15.
4. Boston Waterfront Development Corporation v. Commonwealth, 378: 629 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1979).
5. Bradly, N. J. (2000) An evaluation of coastal management by the Department of Conservation under the Resource Management Act 1991 in New Zealand, University of Delaware [Ph.D.] p. 366.
6. Bursens, P. (2002) Why Denmark and Belgium Have Different Implementation Records: On Transposition Laggards and Leaders in the EU, Scandinavian Political Studies, 25(2), pp. 173-195.
7. Collins, M. (1998) Dirty politics pilots course toward bland blight on waterfront, Boston Herald, 5 April.
8. Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1990) Regulations to Implement MGL Chapter 91, Introduction and Summary (Boston, MA: Office of the Secretary of State), p. 5.
9. Crawford, B. R., Siahainenia, A., Rotinsulu, C. & Sukmara, A. (2004) Compliance and Enforcement of Community-Based Coastal Resource Management Regulations in North Sulawesi, Indonesia, Coastal Management, 32, pp. 39-50.
10. Decker, C. S. & Pope, C. R. (2005) Adherence to environmental law: the strategic complementarities of compliance decisions, The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 45, pp. 641-661.
11. Dekay, M. L., Florig, H. K., Fischback, P. S., Morgan, M. G., Morgan, K. M., Fischhoff, B. & Jenni, K. E. (2001). The Use of Public Risk Ranking in Regulatory Development, in: Fischback & Farrow (Eds) Improving Regulation: Cases in Environment, Health and Safety, pp. 208-230 (Washington, D.C.: Resources for the Future).
12. Department of Environmental Management (1983) Public lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs (Boston, MA: Division of Water Resources).
13. Department of Environmental Protection (2005) Chapter 91 Waterways - Frequently Asked Questions. Available at http://www.mass.gov/dep/brp/waterway/ faqs.htm (accessed 25 June 2004).
14. Ducsik, D. (2000) Milestones in the Massachusetts History of Stewardship over Tidelands (Boston: Department of Environmental Protection/Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management), p. 3.
15. Executive Office of Environmental Affairs (2000) The State of Our Environment (Boston: Commonwealth of Massachusetts), pp. 122-126.
16. Harbor and Lands Commission (1887) Chapter 91 License no. 980 (Boston, MA).
17. Harrington, W. (1988) Enforcement leverage when penalties are restricted, Journal of Public Economics, 37, pp. 29-53.
18. Heyes, A. & Rickman, N. (1999) Regulatory dealing - revisiting the Harrington paradox, Journal of Public Economics, 72, pp. 361-378.
19. Jordan, A. (1999) The implementation of EU environmental policy: a policy problem without a political solution?, Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 17, pp. 69-90.
20. Kindleberger, R. (1996) State OK's $12 m plan for Boston waterfront, Boston Globe, 21 May, p. 94.
21. Kuehn, R. H. (2001) Swimming against the Bay State's tideland law, Boston Sunday Globe, 25 February.
22. Kuperan, K. & Sutinen, J. G. (1998) Blue Water Crime: Deterrence, Legitimacy, and Compliance in Fisheries, Law & Society Review, 32(2), pp. 309-337.
23. Lampinen, R. & Uusikyla, P. (1998) Implementation Deficit - Why Member States do not Comply with EU directives?, Scandinavian Political Studies, 21(3), pp. 231-251.
24. Mague, S. T. (1999) Private Property, Public Rights, and Shifting Sands: The Public Trust Doctrine as a Source of Authority for Coastal Management Decisions (Part 2 of 2), Surveying and Land Information Systems, 59(2), pp. 95-106.
25. Mashburg, T. (1996) Waterfront offices get gov Ok despite access controversy, Boston Herald, 26 December, p. 8.
26. Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management (1995) The Massachusetts Coast Guide: Access to Public Open Spaces Along the Shoreline (Boston, MA: Commonwealth of Massachusetts), pp. 1-62.
27. Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force (2003) Cover letter, Draft Principles, and Preliminary Recommendations (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management).
28. Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force (2004) Waves of Change: the Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force Report and Recommendations (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management), p. 68.
29. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (1994) Coastal Brief No. 9, Chapter 91: An Introduction to the Massachusetts Public Waterfront Act & Its Regulations (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management).
30. Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management (2002) Massachusetts Change Fact Sheet, Shifting Shorelines: New Data on Shoreline Change (Boston, MA: Massachusetts Coastal Zone Management).
31. Mastenbroek, E. (2005) EU Compliance: Still a 'black hole'?, Journal of European Public Policy, 12(6), pp. 1103-1120.
32. Salem Sound Coastwatch (2004) Comments on the Massachusetts Ocean Management Task Force's Draft Principles and Preliminary Recommendations. Available at http://www.mass.gov/czm/MOMI/commentsrec.htm (accessed 10 June 2004).
33. Stone, D. A. (1998) Policy Paradox: The Art of Political Decision Making (New York, NY: W.W. Norton Company).