QA Environment
Progress Indicators
Urban growth
Basics
Puget Sound Indicator Name
Urban growth
Progress Indicator
Percent (%)
/
Topics
Smart Growth
Laura Vary
laura.vary@psp.wa.gov
Puget Sound Partnership
Contributing Partners
Last Updated
01/09/2025 00:34:04
Map
Related Ongoing Programs
Description

Percentage of total new housing growth located within urban growth areas (UGAs)

Progress Indicator Chart

Percentage of net new housing growth in Urban Growth Areas in Puget Sound counties from 2011 to 2023. 

Accommodating growth inside UGAs is a key regional strategy for the recovery of the Puget Sound ecosystem. Directing new housing into UGAs can help protect forest lands, open spaces, farms, and wetlands.

Housing development outside UGAs needs to be balanced. It should meet the needs of rural economies; for example, by providing housing for farm workers. It should also be balanced with the protection and restoration of ecosystems.  

UGAs with public transit systems offer wider access to jobs, schools, and grocery stores compared to rural systems[i]. Directing growth to urban growth centers can ensure communities have needed resources. 

The 2022-2026 Action Agenda for Puget Sound and the related Land Development and Cover Implementation Strategy outline specific actions to channel growth to UGAs.  

  • The Action Agenda’s Smart Growth strategy has high-level actions. Actions aim to balance the needs of the growing Puget Sound population with habitat restoration and protection of working lands.  
  • The Implementation Strategy provides more detail for how cities and counties can encourage sustainable development approaches while protecting important natural spaces.  

This Progress Indicator is one way to assess progress channeling growth into UGAs. 

[i] Puget Sound Regional Council, (2020). Housing in Centers and Near Transit, Housing Innovations Program, Puget Sound Regional Council. https://www.psrc.org/media/3209

Key Progress Indicator Results

The region is not making progress focusing more growth inside UGAs. There is a slight decline in average growth channeled into UGAs in the most recent reporting period (2017-2023, 91.7 percent) relative to the baseline period (2011-2016, 95.3 percent), though results vary by county. 

Conditions vary dramatically by county. Some counties increased growth inside UGAs from 2017-2023 compared to the baseline period (2011-2016). Others decreased growth inside UGAs. 

In recent years, growth inside of UGAs has remained steady as a share of total growth. 

  • The percentage of total housing production inside UGAs decreased from a high of nearly 100 percent in 2014 to a low of 90 percent in 2018.   
  • From 2017 to 2023, the percentage of total housing production inside UGAs fluctuated between 90 percent (2018) and 93 percent (2022). On average, the region channeled 92 percent of new growth into UGAs from 2017 to 2023. This is less than the baseline period (2011-2016) when the region channeled 95 percent of new growth into UGAs on average.   
Methods
Monitoring Program

Small Area Estimates Program, Office of Financial Management, State of Washington.  

April 1 Official Population Estimates Program, Office of Financial Management, State of Washington.  

Data Source

Annual housing unit estimates for urban growth areas, Office of Financial Management’s Small Area Estimates program.  

Annual housing unit estimates for cities and counties, Office of Financial Management’s April 1 Official Population Estimates program.  

This Progress Indicator relies on the Washington State Office of Financial Management’s annual estimates of housing units for every UGA, city, and county within Washington state.  

The indicator is calculated by dividing the net new homes produced within a county’s UGA during a selected reporting period by the total net new homes within the same county. This value is then converted to a percentage.  

At the county scale, indicator values are calculated over a six-year reporting period. The six-year period matches reasonably well with comprehensive planning cycles. Comprehensive plans directly influence how Washington counties address population growth.  

 

Current reporting period: 2017 to 2023 

Baseline period: 2011 through 2016 

 

We evaluate progress by comparing the region's performance in the current reporting period to its performance during the baseline period. 

 

Limitations 

This Progress Indicator helps assess progress in directing new development into urban areas. But it has limitations:  

The indicator is analyzed at the county level, hiding variation by local areas. 

  • This Progress Indicator does not show the distribution of growth between different UGAs or unincorporated UGAs within each county. Some areas within a county may be accommodating a larger share of growth than others.  
  • Examining jurisdiction permit trends can show which county areas better attract and accommodate urban growth.  
  • Counties also often set local growth targets for their different UGAs. This indicator currently does not describe local growth targets that may exist.

The indicator focuses on residential development. 

  • This Progress Indicator does not measure other urban change, like commercial or industrial development. These other types of urban development also have implications for the health of Puget Sound.
  • Housing, however, is the largest consumer of land in most communities and serves as a reasonable proxy for overall urban development patterns.  

The indicator ignores the location of new housing in relation to farmlands and natural areas. 

  • This Progress Indicator does not directly measure whether housing is being built within critical areas and natural resource lands, such as working farmlands and forests.  
  • This indicator should be evaluated alongside the Farmland Conversion and Forestland Conversion Progress Indicators (in development), and Habitat Function Vital Sign Indicators.  

The indicator ignores density and development patterns. 

  • This Progress Indicator does not measure density level, housing diversity, or access to jobs and services.  
  • This indicator should be evaluated with the Infill Development and Housing Diversity Progress Indicators. These indicators together provide a better view of land-use efficiency and consistency with smart growth goals.  

 

View a detailed report of the methods used to calculate this Progress Indicator here.

Critical Definitions

Urban Growth Area (UGA): Areas designated by counties within which urban growth shall be encouraged and outside of which growth can occur only if it is not urban in nature (RCW 36.70A.110).  

Interpretation of Results

This indicator shows that the region has not made substantial progress increasing the amount of new growth located in UGAs relative to the baseline period. In 2011-2016 (baseline), the region channeled 95.3 percent of new growth in UGAs each year, on average. In the current reporting period (2017-2023), the region channeled 91.7 percent of new growth in UGAs each year, on average. We thus apply the “Getting Worse” designation, though note that counties vary in their progress channeling growth into UGAs.  

Baseline period (2011-2016): 95.3 percent of new growth in UGAs each year, on average. 

Current reporting period (2017-2023): 91.7 percent of new growth in UGAs each year, on average.  

Performance in this indicator varies by county.  

Percentage of net new housing growth in UGAs by county in Puget Sound, 2017 to 2023. 

Total units of net new housing growth in UGAs by county in Puget Sound, 2017 to 2023.

Counties surrounding the Seattle metro area were most likely to have a higher percentage of growth within UGAs from 2017-2023.

  • These counties (King, Snohomish, Pierce) also saw the greatest amount of total housing production during this period.  
  • Counties further from the Seattle metro area like Mason, Island, San Juan, and Jefferson had the least housing production overall from 2017-2023. But they had the greatest percentage of new growth located outside of UGAs during this period. 

 

Change in net new housing growth in UGAs between 2011-2016 and 2017-2023 by county in Puget Sound.

Performance of this Progress Indicator declined or remained steady in most counties from 2017 to 2023 compared to 2011 to 2016. 

  • Thurston, Kitsap, Jefferson, and Island counties saw between 11 and 15 percent less growth in UGAs between 2017 to 2023 relative to the baseline period (2011-2016). 
  • King, Snohomish, Pierce, and Whatcom counties saw between 0 and 4 percent less growth in UGAs between 2017 to 2023 relative to the baseline period (2011-2016).   
  • Skagit, Clallam, San Juan, and Mason counties saw between 5 percent and 10 percent more growth in UGAs between 2017 to 2023 relative to the baseline period (2011-2016). 

 

There are several common reasons driving new residential development outside of UGAs, described below. The relative importance of these reasons varies by county. The below observations are based on prior consultant work with various counties experiencing rural housing growth. Additional research and analysis would be needed to determine factors have impacted trends in each county. 

High demand for new housing in rural areas.  

  • In the past decade, the Seattle metro area has gained tens of thousands of high-income workers in fields like technology, life sciences, and aerospace. The cost of living in Seattle and other Washington urban areas ranges from 10 to 27 percent higher than the national average.  
  • The arrival of more wealthy households, plus Seattle’s high cost of living, can affect housing demand in rural areas. Wealthy households may want a bigger house on a larger lot in a rural area. Or they may want a second home closer to remote recreational opportunities. Households may get priced out of urban areas due to housing shortages, rising housing costs, and the current job market.  
  • Short-term rental apps, like Airbnb and Vrbo, enable individuals and companies to build or buy homes in high-demand rural areas and rent them as vacation getaways.  
  • After the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers let employees work remotely full- or part-time. Many workers have since chosen to live in rural areas.  
  • These behaviors may be driving housing market pressures in many counties. This is especially true for those with natural amenities and strong recreation economies. These include San Juan, Island, Clallam, Jefferson, and Mason counties.  

Limited regulatory tools for discouraging rural housing development. 

  • Low-density zoning can prevent dense new subdivisions. Additional regulations can prevent development within designated critical areas.  
  • In many areas, however, rural lands are divided into parcels that predate the passage of the Growth Management Act in 1990. In these cases, owners of these parcels can build a home by right.  

Limited incentive for counties to discourage rural housing development. 

  • New housing raises property tax revenue.  It also boosts sales tax revenue from new residents or visitors. This may curb the political will required to more intensively regulate development in rural areas. 
  • Some counties’ urban areas are at capacity based on their available sewer and water systems. Rural homes usually need individual wells and septic tanks. These factors may make rural development the more economical choice in some areas.  
  • County policies can create barriers to urban development. For example, counties may limit annexations without a no-protest agreement for utilities.  

 

Each county is at a different stage in progress. It is important to consider progress over time and adopted targets within jurisdictions.  

The Action Agenda describes a number of regional strategies to channel growth into UGAs and protect working lands across the Puget Sound. The Land Development and Cover Implementation Strategy also offers some more specific actions. Also, local jurisdictions can use several strategies to boost housing development inside UGAs.  

 

Strategies for local jurisdictions to increase percentage of new development inside UGAs: 

Datasets

No datasets uploaded.

Reporting Guidance
Reporting Instructions
Subcategories

No Subcategories for this Puget Sound Indicator.