Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Outline

Title
Abstract
Introduction
Empirical Model and Results
Ols Results
Censored Regression Results and Predictions
Regression Results
Conclusions
References
All Topics
Economics
Urban Economics

Zoning, TDRs, and the Density of Development

Profile image of Elizabeth KopitsElizabeth Kopits

2005, RePEc: Research Papers in Economics

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.

Related papers

Farmland Preservation and Residential Density: Can Development Rights Markets Affect Land Use
Elizabeth Kopits

2005

This paper examines transferable development rights (TDRs) policies as a way to preserve farmland and change the density of development. Characteristics of TDR markets are described, including why they might promote efficiency, and the difficulties that arise in implementing them. Evidence from an established TDR program in Calvert County, Maryland, is used to assess the potential for TDRs to influence subdivision density, and to achieve local land preservation goals. The Calvert program has succeeded in creating an active and stable TDR market, and has therefore preserved a large amount of farmland in the region. But we find that the demand for additional density permitted with TDRs occurs mostly in rural areas and not in the higher density town centers and residential areas.

View PDFchevron_right
Lot Size, Zoning, and Household
Elizabeth Kopits

2009

Impediments to Smart Growth? E l i z a b e t h K o p i t s , V i r g i n i a M c C o n n e l l , a n d D a n i e l M i l e s

View PDFchevron_right
The Effects of High-density Zoning on Multifamily Housing Construction in the Suburbs of Six US Metropolitan Areas
Ava Williams

Urban Studies, 2009

This paper presents an empirical analysis of the effects of high-density zoning on multifamily housing construction from 1990 to 2000 in the suburbs of six US metropolitan areas. Zoning constraints are measured as the total number of high-density units allowed by right in each suburban jurisdiction obtained from local zoning ordinances and geographical information data. Using two-stage least squares, the analysis provides two important results: zoning as practised by suburban governments in the six metropolitan areas limits the construction of multifamily housing below market determined levels; and, multifamily zoning constraints are not exogenous but vary systematically with distance from the central city and with the racial composition of the community in 1960.

View PDFchevron_right
Urban Sprawl, Land Values and the Density of Development
John Ottensmann

1977

The character of the residential development occurring at the periphery of a metropolitan area has extensive and diverse economic and social implications. The kinds and prices of housing produced, the population groups served, and the cost and problems of providing public services are all determined by the workings of the development process. An understanding of this process requires an examination of the relationships between land prices and the location and intensity of development.

View PDFchevron_right
Modeling Suburban and Rural-Residential Development Beyond the Urban Fringe
Peter Berck

Land Economics, 2006

This article investigates how land-use regulations differentially influence suburban versus ruralresidential development. Particular emphasis is placed on how both the provision of municipal services (e.g., sewer and water) and zoned maximum density constrain higher-density residential development. We estimated a spatially explicit model with parcel data on recent housing development in Sonoma County, California. To account for heterogeneity in compliance with zoning regulations, we used a random-parameter logit model. The designation of sewer and water services was the most important determinant of suburban development. Meanwhile, it did not significantly affect the likelihood of rural-residential development, which actually leapfrogged into areas well beyond them. (JEL Q24, R14, R52)

View PDFchevron_right
Dynamics of the urban zoning structure: An empirical investigation of zoning change
Henry Munneke

Journal of Urban Economics, 2005

This study empirically examines the role of land prices in the decision to rezone vacant land from one land use to another. Although the study of zoning and related issues is well documented, this is one of only a handful of studies that directly examines zoning changes. Unlike previous studies that treat zoning as static, acknowledging only that the current allocation of land differs from the market allocation, this study examines if the allocation of land will be reallocated (rezoned) toward a market allocation. The study is unique in that it analyzes zoning changes on an individual property basis and is based on transactions of vacant parcels. The data are drawn from a single municipality, Chicago-Illinois, allowing a uniform definition of zoning classification rather than trying to combine data under multiple zoning authorities.

View PDFchevron_right
Land supply effects and drivers of town planning choices. Some empirical observations in a metropolitan modeling perspective
Claude Napoléone

HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe), 2015

View PDFchevron_right
Factors Affecting Residential Property Development Patterns
Greg Smersh

Journal of Real Estate Research, 2003

This article is the winner of the Real Estate Development manuscript prize (sponsored by the Urban Land Institute) presented at the 2002 American Real Estate Society Annual Meeting. This study uses a disaggregated data set, county property appraiser data, to track the number of new single-family housing units built in each section (square mile) of Alachua County, Florida by the year built over a twenty-year period. It explores the role of transportation, large-scale development, employment nodes, existing patterns of development and regulation on the spatial pattern of development. The results of the model suggest that the variables tested are important determinants of the growth pattern in Alachua County, but that much of the growth pattern is not explained by the explanatory variables employed in the model.

View PDFchevron_right
Residential Land Values in Urbanizing Areas
Anya McGuirk

2008

Zoning decisions related to residential lot size and density affect residential land value. Effects of size on residential parcel value in Roanoke County, VA, are estimated with fixed effects hedonic models. Parcel size; elevation; soil permeability; proximity to urban areas, malls, and roads; and location influence parcel value, but the effects vary by value of construction and development status. Parcel value per square meter declines with increasing parcel size. The estimated relationships could be used to evaluate zoning decisions in terms of land values and tax revenues if model estimation uncertainties and responses by developers to zoning strategies are considered.

View PDFchevron_right
Effects Of Local Development Pressure On Land Prices: A Spatial Economic Approach
David Kraybill

2002 Annual meeting, …, 2002

We conduct a study to examine the effects of local development pressure and other factors on the value of urban-fringe land parcels. Multiple regression spatial models were estimated using parcel-level data from Delaware County, Ohio. The empirical results provide ...

View PDFchevron_right

References (41)

  1. Anderson, Soren T., and Sarah E. West. 2003. The Value of Open Space Proximity and Size: City Versus Suburbs. Working paper, Macalester College, St. Paul, MN. Available at http://www.macalester.edu/~wests/index.htm.
  2. Brueckner, Jan K. (2000). Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional Science Review 23(2): 160-171.
  3. Calvert County Planning Commission. 1997. 1997 Comprehensive Plan. Calvert County, MD: Calvert County Planning Commission. Available at http://www.co.cal.md.us/planning/compplan/compmain.htm.
  4. Cannaday, Roger E., and Peter F. Colwell. 1990. Optimization of Subdivision Development. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 3: 195-206.
  5. Daniels, Thomas L. 1997. Where Does Cluster Zoning Fit in Farmland Protection? Journal of the American Planning Association 63: 129-37.
  6. Danielsen, Karen A., Robert E. Lang, and William Fulton. 1999. Retracting Suburbia: Smart Growth and the Future of Housing. Housing Policy Debate 10(3): 513-553.
  7. Davis, Judy S., Arthur C. Nelson, and Kenneth J. Dueker. 1994. The New 'burbs': The Exurbs and Their Implications for Planning Policy. Journal of the American Planning Association 60(1): 45.
  8. Edelson, Noel M. 1975. The Developer's Problem, or How to Divide a Piece of Land Most Profitably. Journal of Urban Economics 2: 349-365.
  9. Field, B. C., and Jon M. Conrad. 1975. Economic Issues in Programs of Transferable Development Rights. Land Economics 1(4): 331-340.
  10. Fischel, William. 1978. A Property Rights Approach to Municipal Zoning. Land Economics 54: 64-81.
  11. Fischel, William. 1987. The Economics of Zoning Laws. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
  12. Frew, James R., G. Donald Jud, and Tony R. Wingler. 1990. The Effects of Zoning on Population and Employment Density. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics 3: 155-163.
  13. Fulton, William, et al. 2001. Smart Growth in Action: Housing Capacity and Development in Ventura County. Los Angeles, CA: Reason Foundation.
  14. Glaeser, Edward L., and Matthew E. Kahn. 2003. Sprawl and Urban Growth. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Institute of Economic Research.
  15. Gordon, Peter, and Harry Richardson. 1997. Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? Journal of the American Planning Association 63(1): 95-105.
  16. Grether, David M., and Peter Mieszkowski. 1980. The Effects of Nonresidential Land Uses on the Prices of Adjacent Housing: Some Estimates of Proximity Effects. Journal of Urban Economics 8(1): 1-15.
  17. Hamilton, Bruce. 1975. Property Taxes and the Tiebout Hypothesis: Some Empirical Evidence. In Fiscal Zoning and Land Use Controls, edited by E. Mills and W. Oates. Lexington, MA: Heath.
  18. Heimlich, Ralph, and William Anderson. 2001. Development at the Urban Fringe and Beyond: Impacts on Agriculture and Rural Land. U.S. Department of Agriculture ERS Agricultural Report No. 803. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture.
  19. Irwin, Elena G. 2002. The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values. Land Economics 78(4): 465-480.
  20. Irwin, Elena G., and Nancy E. Bockstael. 2001. Interacting Agents, Spatial Externalities and the Evolution of Residential Land Use Patterns. Department of Agricultural, Environmental and Development Economics, The Ohio State University, Working Paper: AEDE-WP- 0010-01.
  21. Jaklitch, Trent. 2004. Personal communication between J. Trent, Kain Developers, Calvert County, MD, and the authors. September 14.
  22. Kelejian, Harry, and I. Prucha. 1999. A Generalized Moments Estimator for the Auto-Regressive Parameter in a Spatial Model. International Economics Review 40: 509-533.
  23. LaGro, James A. 1996. Designing Without Nature: Unsewered Residential Development in Rural Wisconsin. Landscape and Urban Planning 35: 1-9.
  24. Levinson, Arik. 1997. Why Oppose TDRs?: Transferable Development Rights Can Increase Overall Development. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27(3): 286-296.
  25. Mark, J.H., and M.A. Goldberg. 1986. A Study of the Impacts of Zoning on Housing Values over Time. Journal of Urban Economics 18(Sept.): 251-260.
  26. McConnell, Virginia, Elizabeth Kopits, and Margaret Walls. 2003. How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program. Discussion paper 03-08. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Available at http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-03-08.pdf.
  27. McConnell, Virginia, and Margaret Walls. 2005. The Value of Open Space: Evidence from Studies of Nonmarket Benefits. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future.
  28. McDonald, John F. 1989. Econometric Studies of Urban Population Density: A Survey. Journal of Urban Economics 26: 361-385.
  29. McDonald, John F., and Daniel P. McMillen. 2004. Determinants of Suburban Development Controls: A Fischel Expedition. Urban Studies 41(2): 341-361.
  30. McMillen, Daniel, and John McDonald F. 1990. A Two-Limit Tobit Model of Suburban Land- Use Zoning. Land Economics 66(3): 272-282.
  31. McMillen, Daniel, and John McDonald F. 1991. Urban Land Value Functions with Endogenous Zoning. Journal of Urban Economics 29(1): 14-27.
  32. Mills, David E. 1980. Transferable Development Rights Markets. Journal of Urban Economics 7: 63-74.
  33. Muth, Richard. 1969. Cities and Housing. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  34. Peiser, Richard B. 1989. Density and Urban Sprawl. Land Economics 65(3): 193-204.
  35. Pogodzinski, J. Michael, and Tim R. Sass. 1994. The Theory and Estimation of Endogenous Zoning. Regional Science and Urban Economics 24(5): 601-30.
  36. Rolleston, Barbara. 1987. Determinants of Restrictive Suburban Zoning: An Empirical Analysis. Journal of Urban Economics 21(1): 1-21.
  37. Song, Yan, and Gerrit-Jan Knaap. 2004. Measuring Urban Form: Is Portland Winning the War on Sprawl? Journal of the American Planning Association 70(2): 210-225.
  38. Straszheim, Mahlon R. 1974. Hedonic Estimation of Housing Market Prices: A Further Comment. Review of Economics and Statistics 56(3): 404-06.
  39. Stull, William J. 1975. Community Environment, Zoning, and the Market Value of Single- Family Homes. Journal of Law and Economics 18(2): 535-57.
  40. Thorsnes, Paul (2000). Internalizing Neighborhood Externalities: The Effect of Subdivision Size and Zoning on Residential Lot Prices. Journal of Urban Economics 48: 397-418.
  41. Walls, Margaret, and Virginia McConnell. 2004. Incentive-Based Land Use Policies and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay. Discussion paper 04-20. Washington, DC: Resources for the Future. Available at http://www.rff.org/Documents/RFF-DP-04-20.pdf.

Related papers

Lot Size, Zoning, and Household Preferences: Impediments to Smart Growth?
Elizabeth Kopits

SSRN Electronic Journal, 2009

Impediments to Smart Growth? E l i z a b e t h K o p i t s , V i r g i n i a M c C o n n e l l , a n d D a n i e l M i l e s

View PDFchevron_right
Zoning on the urban fringe: Results from a new approach to modeling land and housing markets
Nicholas Magliocca

"This paper uses an economic agent-based model of land use in a hypothetical urban fringe community to examine the effects of large-lot zoning on land conversion, land prices, and the spatial configuration and density of new development. The model incorporates the actions of heterogeneous housing consumers, developers, and farmer/landowners who make economic decisions in land and housing markets. The model allows for population growth and simulates the evolution of land use patterns and prices over a 20-year time period. Zoning regulations in the form of minimum lot size restrictions imposed in an outlying area are shown to have effects that vary with the stringency of the regulations: 2-acre minimum lot sizes have little effect on the spatial patterns of development, but they do increase land and housing prices and result in higher incomes in the region; 5-acre minimum lot sizes push development toward the city center, leaving agricultural land in the zoned region undeveloped until quite late in the simulation period. While house prices are higher with 5-acre zoning, land prices in the zoned region fall, highlighting the countervailing influences of lot size restrictions on land prices. The new modeling approach allows for the tracking of the transitional dynamics of development, both over space and time as the urban area grows. Highlights ► Paper uses an economic agent based urban model with spatial land conversion. ► The model allows for variation in households and in land characteristics. ► A key result is that the type and stringency of zoning matters. ► There are spillover effects of zoning on land and housing prices in unzoned areas. ► We can observe offsetting effects on land prices from zoning. JEL classification: R14; R12; R31; R52 Keywords: Urban model; Spatial land use; Zoning" Download PDF here: https://sites.google.com/site/nicholasrmagliocca/publications/paper-pdfs

View PDFchevron_right
Neighborhood, zoning, and the value of urban land / BEBR No. 626
Paul Asabere

1979

This paper is an empirical study of land values in Champaign-Urbana. Land value depends on lot size relative to the typical lot size in the neighborhood. This result supports the notion that minimum lot area zoning can have externality effects. The supply effects of existing zoning appear to dominate any externality effects which might exist. This suggests that the zoning in Champaign-Urbana does more harm than good. Several location variables are introduced to deal with the fact that the value of land would vary across land use zones in the absence of governmental zoning. NEIGHBORHOOD, ZONING, AND THE VALUE OF URBAN LAND I.

View PDFchevron_right
Development density, administrative decisions, and land values: An empirical investigation
Michal Gluszak

Land Use Policy, 2018

The paper addresses the links between planning uncertainty and land values, from theoretical and empirical perspective. We investigated land prices in a western part of Krakow (Poland) using a sample of 419 property sales from 2012 and 2014. We used spatial hedonic models to explore the relations between planning and building decisions, development density and land values. We found that administrative decisions (development and building permits) are capitalized in sales prices. Land with valid Decision on Development Conditions sold for 27-29% more than comparable properties. The implicit value of Building Permit was even higher as it increased the sale price by 47-50%. Additionally, we observed that potential density of development has a positive impact on land prices, but the effect is stronger for institutional investors.

View PDFchevron_right
The Effects of High-density Zoning on Multifamily Housing Construction in the suburbs of Six Metropolitan Areas
Doan B L Nguyen, Ava Williams
View PDFchevron_right

Related topics

  • Business
  • Urban Economics
  • Applied Economics
  • Urban Sprawl
  • Smart Growth
  • Lot Sizing
  • Transferable Development Rights
    • 580 California St., Suite 400
    San Francisco, CA, 94104
    © 2025 Academia. All rights reserved