IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/cep/sercdp/0145.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

No Escape? The Co-ordination Problem in Heritage Preservation

Author

Listed:
  • Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt
  • Nancy Holman

Abstract

Conservation areas (CAs) are among the most restrictive English planning policies. Designation implies a significant limitation of owners' control over the shape and appearance of their properties. The policy, however, can also be argued to solve a sort of 'prisoners' dilemma', in which it might be collectively rationale to preserve the character of an area, but an individual homeowner may be tempted to inappropriately alter their property, thus free-riding on nearby properties' character. The net-benefit of the policy depends largely on the existence of positive 'heritage effects' and acknowledgement from homeowners that policy contributes to neighbourhood stability and the preservation of these positive effects. Our results of a mixed-method analysis of close to 1 million property transactions near to about 8000 CAs and 111 interviews with residents in nine representative CAs in Greater London suggest that positive heritage externalities exist and that residents in CAs tend to value their local environments, acknowledge the need for planning control and execute their right to object to neighbour's planning request.

Suggested Citation

  • Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Nancy Holman, 2013. "No Escape? The Co-ordination Problem in Heritage Preservation," SERC Discussion Papers 0145, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
  • Handle: RePEc:cep:sercdp:0145
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://cep.lse.ac.uk/pubs/download/sercdp0145.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Velma Zahirovic-Herbert & Swarn Chatterjee, 2012. "Historic Preservation and Residential Property Values: Evidence from Quantile Regression," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 49(2), pages 369-382, February.
    2. Joseph Henrich, 2001. "In Search of Homo Economicus: Behavioral Experiments in 15 Small-Scale Societies," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 73-78, May.
    3. Paul Cheshire & Stephen Sheppard, 2005. "The Introduction of Price Signals into Land Use Planning Decision-making: A Proposal," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 42(4), pages 647-663, April.
    4. Alex Lord & Mark Tewdwr-Jones, 2014. "Is Planning "Under Attack"? Chronicling the Deregulation of Urban and Environmental Planning in England," European Planning Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(2), pages 345-361, February.
    5. Gabriel Ahlfeldt, 2011. "If Alonso Was Right: Modeling Accessibility And Explaining The Residential Land Gradient," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(2), pages 318-338, May.
    6. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Wolfgang Maennig, 2010. "Substitutability and Complementarity of Urban Amenities: External Effects of Built Heritage in Berlin," Real Estate Economics, American Real Estate and Urban Economics Association, vol. 38(2), pages 285-323, June.
    7. Julian Diaz III & J. Andrew Hansz & Matthew L. Cypher & Darren K. Hayunga, 2008. "Conservation Status and Residential Transaction Prices: Initial Evidence from Dallas, Texas," Journal of Real Estate Research, American Real Estate Society, vol. 30(2), pages 225-248.
    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. Gabriel Ahlfeldt & Kristoffer Möller & Sevrin Waights & Nicolai Wendland, 2012. "On prisoner's dilemmas and gilded cages: The economics of heritage preservation," ERSA conference papers ersa12p783, European Regional Science Association.
    2. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Nancy Holman, 2018. "Distinctively Different: A New Approach to Valuing Architectural Amenities," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 128(608), pages 1-33, February.
    3. Hilber, Christian A.L. & Palmer, Charles & Pinchbeck, Edward W., 2019. "The energy costs of historic preservation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 114(C).
    4. Mario A. Fernandez & Shane L. Martin, 2020. "What’s so special about character?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 57(16), pages 3236-3251, December.
    5. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Wolfgang Maennig & Felix J. Richter, 2013. "Urban Renewal after the Berlin Wall," Working Papers 049, Chair for Economic Policy, University of Hamburg.
    6. Nancy Holman & Alessandra Mossa & Erica Pani, 2018. "Planning, value(s) and the market: An analytic for “what comes next?â€," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 50(3), pages 608-626, May.
    7. Lawrence W. C. Lai & Frank T. Lorne, 2019. "Sustainable Urban Renewal and Built Heritage Conservation in a Global Real Estate Revolution," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-12, February.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Wadu Mesthrige Jayantha & Esther Hiu Kwan Yung, 2018. "Effect of Revitalisation of Historic Buildings on Retail Shop Values in Urban Renewal: An Empirical Analysis," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(5), pages 1-18, May.
    2. Gabriel Ahlfeldt & Kristoffer Möller & Sevrin Waights & Nicolai Wendland, 2012. "On prisoner's dilemmas and gilded cages: The economics of heritage preservation," ERSA conference papers ersa12p783, European Regional Science Association.
    3. Paul Cheshire & Gerard Dericks, 2014. "'Iconic Design' as Deadweight Loss: Rent Acquisition by Design in the Constrained London Office Market," SERC Discussion Papers 0154, Centre for Economic Performance, LSE.
    4. Ahlfeldt Gabriel M., 2011. "The Train has Left the Station: Do Markets Value Intracity Access to Intercity Rail Connections?," German Economic Review, De Gruyter, vol. 12(3), pages 312-335, August.
    5. Paul C. Cheshire & Gerard H. Dericks, 2020. "‘Trophy Architects’ and Design as Rent‐seeking: Quantifying Deadweight Losses in a Tightly Regulated Office Market," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 87(348), pages 1078-1104, October.
    6. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt, 2010. "Architektur, Ökonomie – Architekturökonomie," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 11(4), pages 340-355, November.
    7. Gabriel M. Ahlfeldt & Nicolai Wendland, 2010. "How Polycentric is a Monocentric City? The Role of Agglomeration Economies," EERI Research Paper Series EERI_RP_2010_24, Economics and Econometrics Research Institute (EERI), Brussels.
    8. Anne Corcos & Yorgos Rizopoulos, 2011. "Is prosocial behavior egocentric? The “invisible hand” of emotions," Post-Print halshs-01968213, HAL.
    9. Litina, Anastasia, 2012. "Unfavorable land endowment, cooperation, and reversal of fortune," MPRA Paper 39702, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    10. Liqi Zhu & Gerd Gigerenzer & Gang Huangfu, 2013. "Psychological Traces of China's Socio-Economic Reforms in the Ultimatum and Dictator Games," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-6, August.
    11. Finocchiaro Castro, Massimo, 2008. "Where are you from? Cultural differences in public good experiments," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 37(6), pages 2319-2329, December.
    12. Hans R. A. Koster & Jos N. van Ommeren & Piet Rietveld, 2016. "Historic amenities, income and sorting of households," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 16(1), pages 203-236.
    13. Frank Cowell & Marc Fleurbaey & Bertil Tungodden, 2015. "The tyranny puzzle in social preferences: an empirical investigation," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 45(4), pages 765-792, December.
    14. Liv Osland & Inge Thorsen, 2013. "Spatial Impacts, Local Labour Market Characteristics and Housing Prices," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(10), pages 2063-2083, August.
    15. Bruno S. Frey & Stephan Meier, "undated". "Pro-Social Behavior, Reciprocity or Both?," IEW - Working Papers 107, Institute for Empirical Research in Economics - University of Zurich.
    16. John A. List, 2024. "Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling," Nature, Nature, vol. 626(7999), pages 491-499, February.
    17. Sadayuki, Taisuke, 2018. "Measuring the spatial effect of multiple sites: An application to housing rent and public transportation in Tokyo, Japan," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 70(C), pages 155-173.
    18. Blair Cleave & Nikos Nikiforakis & Robert Slonim, 2013. "Is there selection bias in laboratory experiments? The case of social and risk preferences," Experimental Economics, Springer;Economic Science Association, vol. 16(3), pages 372-382, September.
    19. Ehmke, Mariah & Lusk, Jayson & Tyner, Wallace, 2010. "Multidimensional tests for economic behavior differences across cultures," Journal of Behavioral and Experimental Economics (formerly The Journal of Socio-Economics), Elsevier, vol. 39(1), pages 37-45, January.
    20. Cordes, Christian & Richerson, Peter J. & Schwesinger, Georg, 2010. "How corporate cultures coevolve with the business environment: The case of firm growth crises and industry evolution," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 76(3), pages 465-480, December.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    Designation; England; Heritage; Property Value; Prisoner’s Dilemma;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations
    • D23 - Microeconomics - - Production and Organizations - - - Organizational Behavior; Transaction Costs; Property Rights
    • C7 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Game Theory and Bargaining Theory

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:cep:sercdp:0145. 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.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://cep.lse.ac.uk/_new/publications/serc-papers/ .

    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.