Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T19:29:09.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Estimating Effects of an Urban Growth Boundary on Land Development

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 September 2016

Seong-Hoon Cho ,
Zhuo Chen ,
Steven T. Yen  and
David B. Eastwood
Seong-Hoon Cho
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, the University of Tennessee
Zhuo Chen
Affiliation:
Center for Disease Control and Prevention, the Chicago Center of Excellence in Health Promotion Economics, the University of Chicago
Steven T. Yen
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, the University of Tennessee
David B. Eastwood
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural Economics, the University of Tennessee
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This study estimates the effects of an urban growth boundary (UGB) on land development decisions in Knox County, TN, using a heteroscedastic probit model. With combined effects of increased land development within the city boundary and decreased development within the UGB and the neighboring town of Farragut after the implementation of UGB, the UGB of Knox County has been successful in urban revitalization within the city boundary and discouraging urban sprawl. These UGB impacts may be related to the city government having the right to annex land parcels within the UGB without consent of land owners.

Keywords

heteroscedastic probitland developmenturban growth boundaryC35Q24R52
Type
Invited Paper Sessions
Information
Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics , Volume 38 , Issue 2 , August 2006 , pp. 287 - 298
Copyright
Copyright © Southern Agricultural Economics Association 2006

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Bae, C. “Cross-Border Impacts of Growth Management Programs: Portland, Oregon, and Clark County, Washington.” 17th Pacific Regional Science Conference. Portland, OR, June 30-July 4, 2001.Google Scholar
Bin, O., and Polasky, S.. “Effects of Flood Hazards on Property Values: Evidence Before and After Hurricane Floyd.” Land Economics 80(2004): 490–500.Google Scholar
Chan, S. “Drawing the Line: The Effect of Urban Growth Boundaries on Housing Prices in the San Francisco Bay Area.” Working Paper, Public Policy Center, Stanford University. 2004.Google Scholar
Cho, S., Wu, J., and Boggess, W.G.. “Measuring Interactions among Urban Development, Land Use Regulations, and Public Finance.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 85(2003):988–99.Google Scholar
Downs, A. “Have Housing Prices Risen Faster in Portland Than Elsewhere?” Housing Policy Debate 13(2002):7–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dubois, P. “Moral Hazard, Land Fertility and Sharecropping in a Rural Area of the Philippines.” Journal of Development Economics 68(2002):35–64.Google Scholar
EPA. Smart Growth Policies Glossary. Internet site: http://cfpub.epa.gov/sgpdb/glossary.cfm?type=strategy (accessed July 20, 2005).Google Scholar
Fletcher, M., Gallimore, P., and Mangan, J.. “Heteroscedasticity in Hedonic House Price Model.” Journal of Property Research 17(2000):93–108.Google Scholar
Goodman, A.C., and Thibodeau, T.G.. “Age-Related Heteroscedasticity in Hedonic House Price Equations.” Journal of Housing Research 6(1995):25–42.Google Scholar
Greene, W. Econometric Analysis. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2003.Google Scholar
Harvey, A. “Estimating Regression Models with Multiplicative Heteroscedasticity.” Econometrica 44(1978):461–65.Google Scholar
Howell-Moroney, M. “What Are the Determinants of Open-Space Ballot Measures? An Extension of the Research.” Social Science Quarterly 85(2004): 169–79.Google Scholar
Iwata, S., Murao, H., and Wang, Q.. “Nonparametric Assessment of the Effects of Neighborhood Land Uses on the Residential House Values.” Advances in Econometrics: Applying Kernel and Nonparametric Estimation to Economic Topics, Volume 14. Fomby, T.B. and Hill, R.C., eds. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, 2000.Google Scholar
Jun, M. “The Effects of Portland's Urban Growth Boundary on Urban Development Patterns and Commuting.” Urban Studies 41(2004):1333–48.Google Scholar
Kline, J., and Alig, R.. “Does Land Use Planning Slow the Conversion of Forest and Farm Lands?” Growth and Change 30(1999):2–22.Google Scholar
Mahan, B.L., Polasky, S., and Adams, R.M.. “Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach.” Land Economics 76(2000): 100–13.Google Scholar
Nelson, A.C., and Moore, T.. “Assessing Urban Growth Management: The Case of Portland, Oregon, the USA's Largest Urban Growth Boundary.” Land Use Policy 10(1995):293–302.Google Scholar
Patterson, J. “Urban Growth Boundary Impacts on Sprawl and Redevelopment in Portland, Oregon.” Working Paper, University of Wisconsin—Whitewater, 1999.Google Scholar
Phillips, J., and Goodstein, E.. “Growth Management and Housing Prices: The Case of Portland, Oregon.” Contemporary Economic Policy 18(2000):334–44.Google Scholar
Porter, D.R. Tennessee's Growth Policy Act: Purposes, Implementation, and Effects on Development. Chicago, IL: National Association of Realtors, 2002. Internet site: http://www.realtor.org/SG3.nsf/files/tengrowthpol.pdf/$FILE/tengrowthpol.pdf (Accessed June 9, 2005).Google Scholar
Richardson, H.W., and Gordon, P.. “Portland and Los Angeles: Beauty and the Beast.” 17th Pacific Regional Science Conference. Portland, OR, June 30-July 4, 2001.Google Scholar
Staley, S.R., Jefferson, G.E., and Mildner, C.S.. A Line in the Land: Urban—growth Boundaries, Smart Growth, and Housing Affordability. Policy Study 263. Washington, DC: Reason Public Policy Institute, 1999.Google Scholar
Wooldridge, J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2002.Google Scholar