Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gvvz8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T19:22:55.906Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Open Space and Urban Sprawl: The Effects of Zoning and Forest Conservation Regulations in Maryland

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  15 September 2016

Erik Lichtenberg
Erik Lichtenberg*
Affiliation:
Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics at the University of Maryland in College Park, Maryland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Rapid urbanization enhances the desirability of policies for preserving open space but policies intended to preserve open space may extend the urban boundary and create leapfrog development. We investigate this potential conflict between open space preservation and urban sprawl conceptually and empirically using data from the Baltimore-Washington suburbs. In accord with previous theoretical and empirical results, the estimated econometric model indicates that both zoning and forest planting requirements contribute to sprawl by increasing the amount of land needed to accommodate the current number of households. These results point to a conflict between preserving open space incorporated into private building lots or internal to subdivisions and public open space at the urban fringe.

Keywords

Maryland Forest Conservation Actopen spacesprawlzoning
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Agricultural and Resource Economics Review , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , December 2011 , pp. 393 - 404
Copyright
Copyright © 2011 Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association 

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

Bento, A.M. Franco, S.F. and Kaffine, D.T. 2006. “Efficiency and Spatial Impacts of Development Taxes: The Critical Role of Alternative Revenue-Recycling Schemes.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 91(5): 1304–1311.Google Scholar
Bockstael, N.E. and Irwin, E.G. 2000. “Economics and the Land Use-Environment Link.” In Tietenberg, T. and Folmer, H. eds., International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2000/2001. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Brueckner, J.K. 1990. “Growth Controls and Land Values in an Open City.” Land Economics 66(3): 237–248.Google Scholar
Cheshire, P. and Sheppard, S. 1995. “On the Price of Land and the Value of Amenities.” Economica 62(246): 247–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galvin, M.F. Wilson, B. and Honeczy, M. 2000. “Maryland's Forest Conservation Act: A Process for Urban Greenspace Protection During the Development Process.” Journal of Arboriculture 26(5): 275–280.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, J. 2002. “The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use.” Land Use Policy 19(1): 91–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Geoghegan, J. Lynch, L. and Bucholtz, S. 2003. “Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs.” Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32(1): 33–45.Google Scholar
Geoghegan, J. Wainger, L.A. and Bockstael, N.E. 1997. “Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS.” Ecological Economics 23(3): 251–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hardie, I. Lichtenberg, E. and Nickerson, C.J. 2007. “Regulation, Open Space, and the Value of Land Undergoing Residential Subdivision.” Land Economics 83(4): 458–474.Google Scholar
Irwin, E.G. 2002. “The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values.” Land Economics 78(4): 465–480.Google Scholar
Irwin, E.G. and Bockstael, N.E. 2004. “Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 34(6): 705–725.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. and Hardie, I. 2007. “Open Space, Forest Conservation, and Urban Sprawl in Maryland Suburban Subdivisions.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 89(5): 1198–1204.Google Scholar
Lichtenberg, E. Tra, C. and Hardie, I. 2007 “Land Use Regulation and the Provision of Open Space in Suburban Residential Subdivisions.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54(2): 199–213.Google Scholar
McConnell, V. Walls, M. and Kopits, E. 2006. “Zoning, TDRs and the Density of Development.” Journal of Urban Economics 59(3): 440–457.Google Scholar
McMillan, D.P. and McDonald, J.F. 1991. “A Simultaneous Equations Model of Zoning and Land Values.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 21(1): 14–27.Google Scholar
Moss, W.G. 1977. “Large Lot Zoning, Property Taxes and Metropolitan Area.” Journal of Urban Economics 4(4): 408–427.Google Scholar
Munneke, H.J. 2005. “Dynamics of Urban Zoning Structure: An Empirical Investigation of Zoning Change.” Journal of Urban Economics 58(3): 455–473.Google Scholar
Nechyba, T.J. and Walsh, R.P. 2004. “Urban Sprawl.” Journal of Economic Perspectives 18(4): 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pasha, H.A. 1996. “Suburban Minimum Lot Size Zoning and Spatial Equilibrium.” Journal of Urban Economics 40(1): 1–12.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thorsnes, P. 2002. “The Value of a Suburban Forest Preserve: Estimates from Sales of Vacant Residential Building Lots.” Land Economics 78(3): 426–441.Google Scholar
Tyrväinen, L. and Miettinen, A. 2000. “Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39(2): 205–223.Google Scholar
Wallace, N.E. 1988. “The Market Effects of Zoning Undeveloped Land: Does Zoning Follow the Market?” Journal of Urban Economics 23(3): 307–326.Google Scholar
Wu, J.J. 2000. “Slippage Effects of the Conservation Reserve Program.” American Journal of Agricultural Economics 82(4): 979–992.Google Scholar
Wu, J.J. Adams, R.M. and Plantinga, A.J. 2004. “Amenities in an Urban Equilibrium Model: Residential Development in Portland, Oregon.” Land Economics 80(1): 19–32.Google Scholar
Wu, J.-J. and Plantinga, A.J. 2003. “The Influence of Public Open Space on Urban Spatial Structure.” Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46(2): 288–309.Google Scholar