Advanced Search
MyIDEAS: Login

A new interpretation on the optimal density regulations: Closed and open city

Contents:

Author Info

  • Kono, Tatsuhito
  • Joshi, Kirti Kusum

Abstract

Optimality of urban density regulations differs between a closed city and an open city. We demonstrate, by examining optimal floor area ratio (FAR) regulation, how to control building size to mitigate traffic congestion externality in a monocentric city. Results show that a closed city requires not only downward adjustment to the market density at boundary locations using maximum FAR regulation but also upward adjustment at central locations using minimum FAR regulation. On the other hand, an open city requires only the former. The common practice of imposing only maximum FAR regulation is thus insufficient for closed cities although it is effective for open cities.

Download Info

If you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1051137712000526
Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only

As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.

Bibliographic Info

Article provided by Elsevier in its journal Journal of Housing Economics.

Volume (Year): 21 (2012)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 223-234

as in new window
Handle: RePEc:eee:jhouse:v:21:y:2012:i:3:p:223-234

Contact details of provider:
Web page: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/inca/622881

Related research

Keywords: Congestion; Externalities; Floor area ratio; Urban growth boundary;

Find related papers by JEL classification:

References

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
as in new window
  1. Kono, Tatsuhito & Joshi, Kirti Kusum & Kato, Takeaki & Yokoi, Takahisa, 2012. "Optimal regulation on building size and city boundary: An effective second-best remedy for traffic congestion externality," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 619-630.
  2. Ding, Chengri & Knaap, Gerrit J. & Hopkins, Lewis D., 1999. "Managing Urban Growth with Urban Growth Boundaries: A Theoretical Analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 46(1), pages 53-68, July.
  3. Man Cho, 1997. "Congestion Effects of Spatial Growth Restrictions: A Model and Empirical Analysis," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 25(3), pages 409-438.
  4. Brueckner, Jan K., 2007. "Urban growth boundaries: An effective second-best remedy for unpriced traffic congestion?," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 16(3-4), pages 263-273, November.
  5. Richard Arnott & James G. MacKinnon, 1976. "Market and Shadow Land Rents with Congestion," Working Papers 250, Queen's University, Department of Economics.
  6. Harberger, Arnold C, 1971. "Three Basic Postulates for Applied Welfare Economics: An Interpretive Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 9(3), pages 785-97, September.
  7. Anas, Alex & Pines, David, 2008. "Anti-sprawl policies in a system of congested cities," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 38(5), pages 408-423, September.
  8. Jan K. Brueckner, 1990. "Growth Controls and Land Values in an Open City," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(3), pages 237-248.
  9. Bertaud, Alain & Brueckner, Jan K., 2005. "Analyzing building-height restrictions: predicted impacts and welfare costs," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 35(2), pages 109-125, March.
  10. Rouwendal, Jan & Verhoef, Erik T., 2006. "Basic economic principles of road pricing: From theory to applications," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 13(2), pages 106-114, March.
  11. Arnott, Richard J., 1979. "Unpriced transport congestion," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 21(2), pages 294-316, October.
  12. Brueckner, Jan K. & Lai, Fu-Chuan, 1996. "Urban growth controls with resident landowners," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(2), pages 125-143, April.
  13. Kanemoto, Yoshitsugu, 1977. "Cost-benefit analysis and the second best land use for transportation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 483-503, October.
  14. Wheaton, William C., 1998. "Land Use and Density in Cities with Congestion," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(2), pages 258-272, March.
  15. Brueckner, Jan K., 1987. "The structure of urban equilibria: A unified treatment of the muth-mills model," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: E. S. Mills (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 20, pages 821-845 Elsevier.
  16. Pines, David & Sadka, Efraim, 1985. "Zoning, first-best, second-best, and third-best criteria for allocating land for roads," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 17(2), pages 167-183, March.
  17. Joshi, Kirti Kusum & Kono, Tatsuhito, 2009. "Optimization of floor area ratio regulation in a growing city," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 502-511, July.
  18. Wheaton, William C., 1974. "A comparative static analysis of urban spatial structure," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 223-237, October.
  19. Tatsuhito Kono & Takayuki Kaneko & Hisa Morisugi, 2010. "Necessity of minimum floor area ratio regulation: a second-best policy," The Annals of Regional Science, Springer, vol. 44(3), pages 523-539, June.
  20. Sasaki, Komei, 1998. "Optimal urban growth controls," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(4), pages 475-496, July.
  21. Anas, Alex & Rhee, Hyok-Joo, 2007. "When are urban growth boundaries not second-best policies to congestion tolls?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(2), pages 263-286, March.
  22. Lin, C.-C.Chu-Chia & Mai, Chao-Cheng & Wang, Ping, 2004. "Urban land policy and housing in an endogenously growing monocentric city," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 34(3), pages 241-261, May.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

Citations

Lists

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

Statistics

Access and download statistics

Corrections

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhouse:v:21:y:2012:i:3:p:223-234. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Zhang, Lei).

If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link to it, you can help with this form.

If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.