Irreversible development and eminent domain: Compensation rules, land use and efficiency
This paper examines the efficiency of eminent domain used to acquire green spaces, situations in which private investment permanently destroys the ecological externality value of land. The real option approach takes into account this irreversibility and changes established conclusions for the reversible investment case. Under irreversibility, eminent domain efficiency is more sensitive to compensation rules than previously thought. Setting compensation equal to what market value would be in the absence of eminent domain--the approach taken in the US and many other countries--reduces efficiency relative to losing the ecological externality to private development. Compensating at the market value under eminent domain threat increases efficiency, but not as much as compensation at social value does.
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.
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.
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.:
- Turnbull Geoffrey K & Salvino Robert F., 2009. "Do Broader Eminent Domain Powers Increase Government Size?," Review of Law & Economics, De Gruyter, vol. 5(1), pages 785-806, December.
- Geoffrey K. Turnbull, 2002. "Land Development under the Threat of Taking," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 69(2), pages 290-308, October.
- Williams, Joseph T, 1993. "Equilibrium and Options on Real Assets," Review of Financial Studies, Society for Financial Studies, vol. 6(4), pages 825-50.
- Hermalin, Benjamin E, 1995. "An Economic Analysis of Takings," Journal of Law, Economics and Organization, Oxford University Press, vol. 11(1), pages 64-86, April.
- Fischel, William A. & Shapiro, Perry, 1989. "A constitutional choice model of compensation for takings," International Review of Law and Economics, Elsevier, vol. 9(2), pages 115-128, December.
- Blume, Lawrence & Rubinfeld, Daniel L & Shapiro, Perry, 1984. "The Taking of Land: When Should Compensation Be Paid?," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 99(1), pages 71-92, February.
- Thomas J. Miceli & Kathleen Segerson, 2011. "Regulatory Takings," Working papers 2011-16, University of Connecticut, Department of Economics.
- Williams, Joseph T, 1991. "Real Estate Development as an Option," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 4(2), pages 191-208, June.
- Innes, Robert, 1997. "Takings, Compensation, and Equal Treatment for Owners of Developed and Undeveloped Property," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 40(2), pages 403-32, October.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:jhouse:v:19:y:2010:i:4:p:243-254. 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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.