Zoning, TDRs, and the Density of Development
AbstractMany communities on the urban fringe are implementing a range of policies to preserve farmland and open space, cluster residential development, and guide development to areas with existing infrastructure. These efforts are an attempt to control overall growth and the concomitant loss in open space and also to counter a trend toward the so-called large lot development that often takes place in these areas. Planners have argued that policies to manage density are the most important local policy focus for urban areas in the coming years. It is possible that large lot development and sprawl are themselves the result of government policy. Most local governments use zoning to establish minimum acreage requirements for each residential dwelling unit; in ex-urban localities, these limits are often quite high. Developers might build a subdivision with average lot sizes greater than the minimum but they cannot by law go below it. Some researchers have argued, however, that the spatial patterns of development are simply the natural result of household preferences and market forces. In this paper, we address the question of whether zoning limits are the primary cause of lowdensity, sprawling development or whether market forces tend to dictate this outcome. If zoning limits account for low-density development in at least some cases, how would development patterns be different if there had been no such rules? We begin by constructing a simple model of the developer decision about the density of new development. The subdivision is the unit of observation, and developers must weigh both demand and cost considerations in choosing density, in addition to complying with zoning restrictions that vary across parcels. We apply the model using parcel-level data from a region where zoning rules vary but are exogenous to the period under study. Calvert County, Maryland, near Washington, DC, is an historically rural county that has experienced rapid growth in recent years. The county has a transferable development rights (TDRs) program that has led to a great deal of variability in the intensity of development across properties. We are able to not only examine the extent to which zoning has contributed to large lot development but also to determine the economic forces that underlie density decisions. Finally, we are able to forecast how density would have been different in the absence of zoning rules by estimating a Tobit equation that is censored for the observations constrained by zoning.
Download InfoIf 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.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by Resources For the Future in its series Discussion Papers with number dp-05-32.
Date of creation: 20 Jul 2005
Date of revision:
housing density; zoning; transferable development rights;
Other versions of this item:
- R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
- R15 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Econometric and Input-Output Models; Other Methods
- R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2006-01-24 (All new papers)
- NEP-GEO-2006-01-24 (Economic Geography)
- NEP-URE-2006-01-24 (Urban & Real Estate Economics)
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.:
- Levinson, Arik, 1997. "Why oppose TDRs?: Transferable development rights can increase overall development," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 283-296, June.
- Heimlich, Ralph E. & Anderson, William D., 2001. "Development At The Urban Fringe And Beyond: Impacts On Agriculture And Rural Land," Agricultural Economics Reports 33943, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
- Moss, William G., 1977. "Large lot zoning, property taxes, and metropolitan area," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 408-427, October.
- Edward L. Glaeser & Matthew E. Kahn, 2003.
"Sprawl and Urban Growth,"
Harvard Institute of Economic Research Working Papers
2004, Harvard - Institute of Economic Research.
- Wallace, Nancy E., 1988. "The market effects of zoning undeveloped land: Does zoning follow the market?," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 307-326, May.
- McDonald, John F., 1989. "Econometric studies of urban population density: A survey," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 361-385, November.
- Kelejian, Harry H & Prucha, Ingmar R, 1999. "A Generalized Moments Estimator for the Autoregressive Parameter in a Spatial Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(2), pages 509-33, May.
- Hausman, Jerry A, 1978.
"Specification Tests in Econometrics,"
Econometric Society, vol. 46(6), pages 1251-71, November.
- Cannaday, Roger E & Colwell, Peter F, 1990. "Optimization of Subdivision Development," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 195-206, June.
- Pasha, Hafiz A., 1996. "Suburban Minimum Lot Zoning and Spatial Equilibrium," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-12, July.
- Grether, David M. & Mieszkowski, Peter., .
"The Effects of Non-residential Land Uses on the Prices of Adjacent Housing: Some Estimates of Proximity Effects,"
163, California Institute of Technology, Division of the Humanities and Social Sciences.
- Grether, David M. & Mieszkowski, Peter, 1980. "The effects of nonresidential land uses on the prices of adjacent housing: Some estimates of proximity effects," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-15, July.
- Mark, Jonathan H. & Goldberg, Michael A., 1986. "A study of the impacts of zoning on housing values over time," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 20(3), pages 257-273, November.
- Richard B. Peiser, 1989. "Density and Urban Sprawl," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(3), pages 193-204.
- Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," Discussion Papers dp-03-08, Resources For the Future.
- Barry C. Field & Jon M. Conrad, 1975. "Economic Issues in Programs of Transferable Development Rights," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 51(4), pages 331-340.
- McMillen, Daniel P. & McDonald, John F., 1991. "Urban land value functions with endogenous zoning," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 14-27, January.
- William A. Fischel, 1978. "A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(1), pages 64-81.
- Daniel P. McMillen & John F. McDonald, 1990. "A Two-Limit Tobit Model of Suburban Land-Use Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(3), pages 272-282.
- Frew, James R & Jud, G Donald & Wingler, Tony R, 1990. "The Effects of Zoning on Population and Employment Density," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 155-63, June.
- Pogodzinski, J. M. & Sass, Tim R., 1994. "The theory and estimation of endogenous zoning," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 24(5), pages 601-630, October.
- Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia, 2004. "Incentive-Based Land Use Policies and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay," Discussion Papers dp-04-20, Resources For the Future.
- Rolleston, Barbara Sherman, 1987. "Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: An empirical analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, January.
- Edelson, Noel M., 1975. "The developer's problem, or how to divide a piece of land most profitably," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 2(4), pages 349-365, October.
- Mills, David E., 1980. "Transferable development rights markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-74, January.
- Elena G. Irwin, 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(4), pages 465-480.
- Straszheim, Mahlon R, 1974. "Hedonic Estimation of Housing Market Prices: A Further Comment," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 56(3), pages 404-06, August.
- Thorsnes, Paul, 2000. "Internalizing Neighborhood Externalities: The Effect of Subdivision Size and Zoning on Residential Lot Prices," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 48(3), pages 397-418, November.
- Lewis, David J. & Provencher, Bill & Butsic, Van, 2009. "The dynamic effects of open-space conservation policies on residential development density," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 239-252, May.
- Banzhaf, H. Spencer & Lavery, Nathan, 2010. "Can the land tax help curb urban sprawl? Evidence from growth patterns in Pennsylvania," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 169-179, March.
- Gottlieb, Paul D. & O’Donnell, Anthony & Rudel, Thomas & O’Neill, Karen & McDermott, Melanie, 2012. "Determinants of local housing growth in a multi-jurisdictional region, along with a test for nonmarket zoning," Journal of Housing Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(4), pages 296-309.
- Lichtenberg, Erik, 2011. "Open Space and Urban Sprawl: The Effects of Zoning and Forest Conservation Regulations in Maryland," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 40(3), December.
- Wrenn, Douglas H. & Sam, Abdoul G. & Irwin, Elena G., 2012. "Searching for the Urban Fringe: Exploring Spatio-Temporal Variations in the Effect of Distance versus Local Interactions on Residential Land Conversion Using a Conditionally-Parametric Discrete-Time D," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 125007, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
- Magliocca, Nicholas & McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Safirova, Elena, 2012. "Zoning on the urban fringe: Results from a new approach to modeling land and housing markets," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 198-210.
- Magliocca, Nicholas & McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Safirova, Elena, 2012. "Zoning on the Urban Fringe: Results from a New Approach to Modeling Land and Housing Markets," Discussion Papers dp-11-32, Resources For the Future.
- Lewis, David J., 2010. "An economic framework for forecasting land-use and ecosystem change," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(2), pages 98-116, April.
- Sims, Katharine R.E. & Schuetz, Jenny, 2009. "Local regulation and land-use change: The effects of wetlands bylaws in Massachusetts," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 409-421, July.
- Ferris, Jeffrey & Newburn, David, 2013. "Does Zoning Cause Sprawl?," 2013 Annual Meeting, August 4-6, 2013, Washington, D.C. 150252, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
- Lichtenberg, Erik, 2008. "Open Space and Urban Sprawl: The Case of the Maryland Forest Conservation Act," Working Papers 37812, University of Maryland, Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics.
- Lewis, David J. & Provencher, Bill & Butsic, Van, 2008. "The Dynamic Effects of Open-Space Conservation Policies on Residential Development Density," Staff Paper Series 522, University of Wisconsin, Agricultural and Applied Economics.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Webmaster).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.