IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/ajagec/v57y1975i4p549-557..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Transfer of Development Rights: An Analysis of a New Land Use Policy Tool

Author

Listed:
  • Richard L. Barrows
  • Bruce A. Prenguber

Abstract

The issues in establishing and administering a transfer of development rights program are discussed, and an hypothetical program is empirically analyzed. In the case study, administrative assignment of development rights and definition of development unit significantly affected the distribution of program costs. Full compensation to restricted landowners would have required widely fluctuating development right prices. Initial cost burdens varied with type of development as well as within development categories. Timing of development right supply and demand may create problems in the market. Although the TDR concept is promising, many practical difficulties remain.

Suggested Citation

  • Richard L. Barrows & Bruce A. Prenguber, 1975. "Transfer of Development Rights: An Analysis of a New Land Use Policy Tool," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 57(4), pages 549-557.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:57:y:1975:i:4:p:549-557.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.2307/1238872
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ian D. Hodge, 1982. "Rights To Cleared Land And The Control Of Dryland‐Seepage Salinity," Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, Australian Agricultural and Resource Economics Society, vol. 26(3), pages 185-201, December.
    2. Tan, Rong & Wang, Rongyu & Heerink, Nico, 2020. "Liberalizing rural-to-urban construction land transfers in China: Distribution effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    3. Lori Lynch & Wesley N. Musser, 2001. "A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 77(4), pages 577-594.
    4. Mengba Liu & Anlu Zhang & Xiong Zhang & Yanfei Xiong, 2022. "Research on the Game Mechanism of Cultivated Land Ecological Compensation Standards Determination: Based on the Empirical Analysis of the Yangtze River Economic Belt, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(9), pages 1-29, September.
    5. Kurt Stephenson & Patricia Norris & Leonard Shabman, 1998. "Watershed‐Based Effluent Trading: The Nonpoint Source Challenge," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 16(4), pages 412-421, October.
    6. Gustafson, Gregory C., 1977. "Land-Use Policy and Farmland Retention: The United States' Experience," Miscellaneous Publications 329531, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    7. P Gordon & J E Moore II, 1991. "Planning the Trajectories of Land and Development Rights Rents via Discrete Programming Models," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 23(11), pages 1561-1570, November.
    8. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    9. Walls, Margaret, 2012. "Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-49, Resources for the Future.
    10. Chen, Chun & Yu, Li & Choguill, Charles L., 2020. "“Dipiao”, Chinese approach to transfer of land development rights: The experiences of Chongqing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Xiaojing Liu & Xiao Zhang & Mingsheng Wang & Zhongxing Guo, 2022. "Is Urban and Rural Construction Land Quota Trading “Chicken Ribs”? An Empirical Study on Chongqing, China," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(11), pages 1-19, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:ajagec:v:57:y:1975:i:4:p:549-557.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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 RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/aaeaaea.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.