IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-05-32.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Zoning, TDRs, and the Density of Development

Author

Listed:
  • Walls, Margaret

    (Resources for the Future)

  • McConnell, Virginia

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Kopits, Elizabeth

Abstract

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.

Suggested Citation

  • Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2005. "Zoning, TDRs, and the Density of Development," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-32, Resources for the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-05-32
    as

    Download full text from publisher

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

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stull, William J, 1975. "Community Environment, Zoning, and the Market Value of Single-Family Homes," Journal of Law and Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 18(2), pages 535-557, October.
    2. 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 509-533, May.
    3. John F. McDonald & Daniel P. McMillen, 2004. "Determinants of Suburban Development Controls: A Fischel Expedition," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(2), pages 341-361, February.
    4. 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.
    5. Heimlich, Ralph E. & Anderson, William D., 2001. "Development At The Urban Fringe And Beyond: Impacts On Agriculture And Rural Land," Agricultural Economic Reports 33943, United States Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service.
    6. 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.
    7. William A. Fischel, 1978. "A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 54(1), pages 64-81.
    8. 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.
    9. 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 155-163, June.
    10. 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.
    11. Hausman, Jerry, 2015. "Specification tests in econometrics," Applied Econometrics, Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration (RANEPA), vol. 38(2), pages 112-134.
    12. 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 404-406, August.
    13. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia, 2004. "Incentive-Based Land Use Policies and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-20, Resources for the Future.
    14. Rolleston, Barbara Sherman, 1987. "Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: An empirical analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, January.
    15. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    16. 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.
    17. Karen A. Danielsen & Robert E. Lang & William Fulton, 1999. "Retracting suburbia: Smart growth and the future of housing," Housing Policy Debate, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 10(3), pages 513-540, January.
    18. Mills, David E., 1980. "Transferable development rights markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-74, January.
    19. Richard B. Peiser, 1989. "Density and Urban Sprawl," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(3), pages 193-204.
    20. 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.
    21. Moss, William G., 1977. "Large lot zoning, property taxes, and metropolitan area," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 4(4), pages 408-427, October.
    22. 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.
    23. 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.
    24. Paul Thorsnes, 2000. "Internalizing neighborhood externalities: Subdivision size, zoning, and residential lot prices," International Advances in Economic Research, Springer;International Atlantic Economic Society, vol. 6(2), pages 366-366, May.
    25. 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.
    26. 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.
    27. Jan K. Brueckner, 2000. "Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 160-171, April.
    28. 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.
    29. McDonald, John F., 1989. "Econometric studies of urban population density: A survey," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 26(3), pages 361-385, November.
    30. Pasha, Hafiz A., 1996. "Suburban Minimum Lot Zoning and Spatial Equilibrium," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 40(1), pages 1-12, July.
    31. 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.
    32. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Elizabeth Kopits & Virginia McConnell & Margaret Walls, 2008. "Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 84(1), pages 1-16.
    2. McConnell, Virginia D. & Kopits, Elizabeth & Walls, Margaret, 2005. "Farmland Preservation and Residential Density: Can Development Rights Markets Affect Land Use?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Walls, Margaret, 2012. "Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-49, Resources for the Future.
    4. J.M. Pogodzinski & Tim R. Sass, 1991. "Measuring the Effects of Municipal Zoning Regulations: A Survey," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 28(4), pages 597-621, August.
    5. Carrión-Flores, Carmen E. & Flores-Lagunes, Alfonso & Guci, Ledia, 2018. "An estimator for discrete-choice models with spatial lag dependence using large samples, with an application to land-use conversions," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 69(C), pages 77-93.
    6. Gyourko, Joseph & Molloy, Raven, 2015. "Regulation and Housing Supply," Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, in: Gilles Duranton & J. V. Henderson & William C. Strange (ed.), Handbook of Regional and Urban Economics, edition 1, volume 5, chapter 0, pages 1289-1337, Elsevier.
    7. Lichtenberg, Erik & Tra, Constant & Hardie, Ian, 2007. "Land use regulation and the provision of open space in suburban residential subdivisions," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 199-213, September.
    8. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Wu, JunJie, 2001. "Measuring Interactions Among Urban Development, Land Use Regulations, And Public Finance," 2001 Annual meeting, August 5-8, Chicago, IL 20774, American Agricultural Economics Association (New Name 2008: Agricultural and Applied Economics Association).
    9. Olivier Chanel & Laurence Delattre & Claude Napoléone, 2014. "Determinants of Local Public Policies for Farmland Preservation and Urban Expansion: A French Illustration," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 90(3), pages 411-433.
    10. 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.
    11. Guillaume POUYANNE & Frederic GASCHET, 2013. "The Effect Of Current And Future Land Use On House Prices," ERSA conference papers ersa13p249, European Regional Science Association.
    12. Fu, Yuming & Somerville, C. Tsuriel, 2001. "Site Density Restrictions: Measurement and Empirical Analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 49(2), pages 404-423, March.
    13. De Vos, Jonas & Witlox, Frank, 2013. "Transportation policy as spatial planning tool; reducing urban sprawl by increasing travel costs and clustering infrastructure and public transportation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 117-125.
    14. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    15. McMillen, Daniel P., 1997. "Multiple Regime Bid-Rent Function Estimation," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 301-319, March.
    16. Janmaat, John, 2008. "Playing monopoly in the creek: Imperfect competition, development, and in-stream flows," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 455-473, August.
    17. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    18. Arnab Chakraborty & Gerrit-Jan Knaap & Doan Nguyen & Jung Ho Shin, 2010. "The Effects of High-density Zoning on Multifamily Housing Construction in the Suburbs of Six US Metropolitan Areas," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(2), pages 437-451, February.
    19. 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.
    20. Munneke, Henry J., 2005. "Dynamics of the urban zoning structure: An empirical investigation of zoning change," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 58(3), pages 455-473, November.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    housing density; zoning; transferable development rights;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • 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

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-05-32. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.