IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/
MyIDEAS: Login to save this paper or follow this series

Zoning, TDRs, and the Density of Development

  • Walls, Margaret

    ()

    (Resources for the Future)

  • McConnell, Virginia

    ()

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Kopits, Elizabeth

Many 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.

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.

File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-05-32-rev.pdf
Download Restriction: no

Paper provided by Resources For the Future in its series Discussion Papers with number dp-05-32.

as
in new window

Length:
Date of creation: 20 Jul 2005
Date of revision:
Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-05-32
Contact details of provider: Web page: http://www.rff.org

More information through EDIRC

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.:

as in new window
  1. 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.
  2. Glaeser, Edward L. & Kahn, Matthew E., 2004. "Sprawl and urban growth," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: J. V. Henderson & J. F. Thisse (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 4, chapter 56, pages 2481-2527 Elsevier.
  3. 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.
  4. J. A. Hausman, 1976. "Specification Tests in Econometrics," Working papers 185, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), Department of Economics.
  5. 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.
  6. William A. Fischel, 1978. "A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(1), pages 64-81.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Rolleston, Barbara Sherman, 1987. "Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: An empirical analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, January.
  10. Mills, David E., 1980. "Transferable development rights markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-74, January.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. 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.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. Pasha, Hafiz A., 1996. "Suburban Minimum Lot Zoning and Spatial Equilibrium," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-12, July.
  19. 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.
  20. 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.
  21. 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.
  22. 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.
  23. Jan K. Brueckner, 2000. "Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 160-171, April.
  24. McDonald, John F., 1989. "Econometric studies of urban population density: A survey," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 361-385, November.
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
  27. Richard B. Peiser, 1989. "Density and Urban Sprawl," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(3), pages 193-204.
  28. Moss, William G., 1977. "Large lot zoning, property taxes, and metropolitan area," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 408-427, October.
Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

This item is not listed on Wikipedia, on a reading list or among the top items on IDEAS.

When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-05-32. 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: (Webmaster)

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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.

If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.

This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis using RePEc data.