IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-05-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand

Author

Listed:
  • Walls, Margaret

    () (Resources for the Future)

  • McConnell, Virginia

    () (Resources for the Future)

  • Kopits, Elizabeth

Abstract

Many economists see current land use patterns as inefficient due to various market failures, and planners argue that current patterns do not follow sound planning practice. One policy of interest to both groups is transferable development rights (TDR). TDRs allow the development rights from land that is preserved in an undeveloped state to be transferred to other areas where development can be made denser. This paper addresses one of the greatest difficulties TDR programs face—insufficient demand. We develop a simple theoretical model and estimate a TDR demand function using data from Calvert County, Maryland, one of the only regions where data on individual sales are available. We find that baseline zoning is a critical determinant of TDR demand—demand is high in low-density rural areas but not in the relatively high-density residential areas. We also identify many subdivision characteristics that are significant in explaining TDR use.

Suggested Citation

  • Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2005. "Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand," Discussion Papers dp-05-45, Resources For the Future.
  • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-05-45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-05-45.pdf
    Download Restriction: no

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. 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.
    2. 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.
    3. Paul Thorsnes & Gerald P. W. Simons, 1999. "Letting The Market Preserve Land: The Case For A Market-Driven Transfer Of Development Rights Program," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 256-266, April.
    4. McDonald, John F & Moffitt, Robert A, 1980. "The Uses of Tobit Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(2), pages 318-321, May.
    5. B E Carpenter & D R Heffley, 1981. "A Spatial Equilibrium Analysis of Flexible Zoning and the Demand for Development Rights," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 13(3), pages 273-284, March.
    6. Rolleston, Barbara Sherman, 1987. "Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: An empirical analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. 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.
    8. Mills, David E., 1980. "Transferable development rights markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-74, January.
    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. David E. Mills, 1989. "Is Zoning a Negative-Sum Game?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 1-12.
    12. 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.
    13. Carpenter, Bruce E. & Heffley, Dennis R., 1982. "Spatial-equilibrium analysis of transferable development rights," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 238-261, September.
    14. McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2006. "Zoning, TDRs and the density of development," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 440-457, May.
    15. 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.
    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. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Center for European, Governance and Economic Development Research Discussion Papers 271, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    2. Walls, Margaret, 2012. "Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program," Discussion Papers dp-12-49, Resources For the Future.
    3. 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), October.
    4. Kopits, Elizabeth & McConnell, Virginia & Miles, Daniel, 2009. "Lot Size, Zoning, and Household Preferences: Impediments to Smart Growth?," Discussion Papers dp-09-15, Resources For the Future.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    TDRs; density; zoning; subdivisions;

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations
    • R21 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Housing Demand

    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-05-45. 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). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/degraus.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.