IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/ags/joaaec/43761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Estimating Effects of an Urban Growth Boundary on Land Development

Author

Listed:
  • Cho, Seong-Hoon
  • Chen, Zhuo
  • Yen, Steven T.
  • Eastwood, David B.

Abstract

This study estimates the effects of an urban growth boundary (UGB) on land development decisions in Knox County, TN, using a heteroscedastic probit model. With combined efforts of increased land development within the city boundary and decreased development within the UGB and the neighboring town of Farragut after the implementation of UGB, the UGB of Knox County has been successful in urban revitalization within the city boundary and discouraging urban sprawl. These UGB impacts may be related to the city government having the right to annex land parcels within the UGB without consent of land owners.

Suggested Citation

  • Cho, Seong-Hoon & Chen, Zhuo & Yen, Steven T. & Eastwood, David B., 2006. "Estimating Effects of an Urban Growth Boundary on Land Development," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 38(02), August.
  • Handle: RePEc:ags:joaaec:43761
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://purl.umn.edu/43761
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Pierre Dubois, 1999. "Moral Hazard, Land Fertility and Sharecropping in a Rural Area of the Philippines," Working Papers 99-30, Center for Research in Economics and Statistics.
    2. M. Fletcher & P. Gallimore & J. Mangan, 2000. "Heteroscedasticity in hedonic house price models," Journal of Property Research, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(2), pages 93-108, January.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Newburn, David A. & Berck, Peter, 2011. "Growth Management Policies for Exurban and Suburban Development: Theory and an Application to Sonoma County, California," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 40(03), pages 375-392, December.
    2. Dempsey, Judith A. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2013. "How well do urban growth boundaries contain development? Results for Oregon using a difference-in-difference estimator," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 996-1007.
    3. Kim, Seung Gyu & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Classen, Roger, 2012. "Exploring Spatially Heterogeneous Effect of Property Tax Scheme on Land Development," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124709, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    4. Callum Logan, 2013. "Valuing the Risk of Imperfect Information: Christchurch Earthquake," ERES eres2013_32, European Real Estate Society (ERES).
    5. repec:gam:jsusta:v:9:y:2017:i:7:p:1259-:d:105081 is not listed on IDEAS
    6. Jae Hong Kim, 2013. "Measuring the Containment and Spillover Effects of Urban Growth Boundaries: The Case of the Portland Metropolitan Area," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 650-675, December.
    7. Marin V. Geshkov & Joseph S. DeSalvo, 2012. "The Effect Of Land-Use Controls On The Spatial Size Of U.S. Urbanized Areas," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 648-675, October.
    8. Yuya Sasaki & Arthur Caplan, 2008. "Matching Heterogeneous Traders in Quantity-Regulated Markets," Computational Economics, Springer;Society for Computational Economics, vol. 31(4), pages 341-362, May.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    heteroscedastic probit; land development; urban growth boundary; Community/Rural/Urban Development; Environmental Economics and Policy; Land Economics/Use; C35; Q24; R52;

    JEL classification:

    • C35 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Multiple or Simultaneous Equation Models; Multiple Variables - - - Discrete Regression and Qualitative Choice Models; Discrete Regressors; Proportions
    • Q24 - Agricultural and Natural Resource Economics; Environmental and Ecological Economics - - Renewable Resources and Conservation - - - Land
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations

    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:ags:joaaec:43761. 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: (AgEcon Search). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/saeaaea.html .

    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 CitEc recognized a reference but did not link an item in RePEc 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 RePEc Author Service 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.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.