[go: up one dir, main page]
IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/regeco/v43y2013i6p996-1007.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How well do urban growth boundaries contain development? Results for Oregon using a difference-in-difference estimator

Author

Listed:
  • Dempsey, Judith A.
  • Plantinga, Andrew J.
Abstract
Urban containment policies, including urban growth boundaries (UGBs), are a common tool used by city planners to promote compact development. We analyze how well UGBs do in containing development using fine-scale GIS data on cities in Oregon. Earlier studies on UGBs yield mixed results, with some authors finding no effects of UGBs on housing market variables and urbanization rates and others finding significant effects. A challenge in measuring these effects is that the location of the UGB is unlikely to be an exogenous determinant of a land parcel's value for development. The panel structure of our dataset allows us to estimate the UGB's effect on the probability of development using a difference-in-difference estimator applied to a narrow band of plots along each city's UGB. This estimator controls for time-invariant unobservable variables and common temporal effects among plots, thereby mitigating the potential for biased estimates due to the endogeneity of the UGB's location. We also pursue a novel approach to controlling for time-varying factors that exploits our fine-scale data. We find that UGBs contain development in many of the Oregon cities we examine, although there are some cities in which development rates are the same inside and outside of the UGB. Our results reveal that, in most cities, the effect of the UGB is small relative to pre-existing differences in development probabilities. This suggests that it may be difficult to identify UGB effects with cross-sectional data, the approach commonly taken in previous studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Dempsey, Judith A. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2013. "How well do urban growth boundaries contain development? Results for Oregon using a difference-in-difference estimator," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(6), pages 996-1007.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:regeco:v:43:y:2013:i:6:p:996-1007
    DOI: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.10.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0166046213000914
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.10.002?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Boarnet, Marlon G. & McLaughlin, Ralph B. & Carruthers, John I., 2011. "Does state growth management change the pattern of urban growth? Evidence from Florida," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(3), pages 236-252, May.
    2. Timothy G. Conley & Christopher R. Taber, 2011. "Inference with "Difference in Differences" with a Small Number of Policy Changes," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 93(1), pages 113-125, February.
    3. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Chen, Zhuo & Yen, Steven T. & Eastwood, David B., 2006. "Estimating Effects of an Urban Growth Boundary on Land Development," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Cambridge University Press, vol. 38(2), pages 287-298, August.
    4. Lori Lynch & Wayne Gray & Jacqueline Geoghegan, 2007. "Are Farmland Preservation Program Easement Restrictions Capitalized into Farmland Prices? What Can a Propensity Score Matching Analysis Tell Us?," Review of Agricultural Economics, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association, vol. 29(3), pages 502-509.
    5. Albert Saiz, 2010. "The Geographic Determinants of Housing Supply," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 125(3), pages 1253-1296.
    6. Christopher R. Cunningham, 2007. "Growth Controls, Real Options, and Land Development," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 89(2), pages 343-358, May.
    7. Hanson, Andrew & Rohlin, Shawn, 2013. "Do spatially targeted redevelopment programs spillover?," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 43(1), pages 86-100.
    8. Jeffrey M Wooldridge, 2010. "Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 2, volume 1, number 0262232588, April.
    9. Robert W. Wassmer, 2006. "The Influence of Local Urban Containment Policies and Statewide Growth Management on the Size of United States Urban Areas," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 46(1), pages 25-65, February.
    10. Quigley, John M. & Rosenthal, Larry A., 2005. "The Effects of Land-Use Regulation on the Price of Housing: What Do We Know? What Can We Learn?," Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy, Working Paper Series qt90m9g90w, Berkeley Program on Housing and Urban Policy.
    11. Cho, Seong-Hoon & Omitaomu, Olufemi A. & Poudyal, Neelam C. & Eastwood, David B., 2007. "The Impact of an Urban Growth Boundary on Land Development in Knox County, Tennessee: A Comparison of Two-Stage Probit Least Squares and Multilayer Neural Network Models," Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, Southern Agricultural Economics Association, vol. 39(3), pages 1-17, December.
    12. Hanson, Andrew, 2009. "Local employment, poverty, and property value effects of geographically-targeted tax incentives: An instrumental variables approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(6), pages 721-731, November.
    13. J. Phillips & E. Goodstein, 2000. "Growth management and housing prices: the case of Portland, Oregon," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 18(3), pages 334-344, July.
    14. R Pendall, 1999. "Do Land-Use Controls Cause Sprawl?," Environment and Planning B, , vol. 26(4), pages 555-571, August.
    15. Jan K. Brueckner, 2000. "Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 23(2), pages 160-171, April.
    16. Ihlanfeldt, Keith R., 2007. "The effect of land use regulation on housing and land prices," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(3), pages 420-435, May.
    17. Jason Abrevaya & Daniel S. Hamermesh, 2012. "Charity and Favoritism in the Field: Are Female Economists Nicer (To Each Other)?," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 94(1), pages 202-207, February.
    18. Krupka, Douglas J. & Noonan, Douglas S., 2009. "Empowerment Zones, neighborhood change and owner-occupied housing," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 386-396, July.
    19. Grout, Cyrus A. & Jaeger, William K. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2011. "Land-use regulations and property values in Portland, Oregon: A regression discontinuity design approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 98-107, March.
    20. Daniel P. McMillen & John F. McDonald, 2002. "Land Values In A Newly Zoned City," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 84(1), pages 62-72, February.
    21. Daniel P. McMillen, 2012. "Perspectives On Spatial Econometrics: Linear Smoothing With Structured Models," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(2), pages 192-209, May.
    22. Jian Zhou & Daniel P. McMillen & John F. McDonald, 2008. "Land Values and the 1957 Comprehensive Amendment to the Chicago Zoning Ordinance," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 45(8), pages 1647-1661, July.
    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. Bigelow, Daniel P. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2017. "Town mouse and country mouse: Effects of urban growth controls on equilibrium sorting and land prices," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C), pages 104-115.
    2. Koster, Hans R.A. & van Ommeren, Jos & Rietveld, Piet, 2012. "Bombs, boundaries and buildings," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(4), pages 631-641.
    3. Grout, Cyrus A. & Jaeger, William K. & Plantinga, Andrew J., 2011. "Land-use regulations and property values in Portland, Oregon: A regression discontinuity design approach," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(2), pages 98-107, March.
    4. 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.
    5. Marin V. Geshkov & Joseph S. DeSalvo, 2012. "The Effect Of Land-Use Controls On The Spatial Size Of U.S. Urbanized Areas," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 52(4), pages 648-675, October.
    6. Han, Wenjing & Zhang, Xiaoling & Zheng, Xian, 2020. "Land use regulation and urban land value: Evidence from China," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 92(C).
    7. Sumei Zhang, 2015. "Impacts of Enterprise Zone Policy on Industry Growth," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 29(4), pages 347-362, November.
    8. Huub Ploegmakers & Pascal Beckers & Erwin Van der Krabben, 2018. "The impact of planning intervention on business development: Evidence from the Netherlands," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 55(14), pages 3252-3273, November.
    9. Haoying Han & Chen Huang & Kun-Hyuck Ahn & Xianfan Shu & Liyun Lin & Derong Qiu, 2017. "The Effects of Greenbelt Policies on Land Development: Evidence from the Deregulation of the Greenbelt in the Seoul Metropolitan Area," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 9(7), pages 1-17, July.
    10. Tan, Ronghui & Liu, Pengcheng & Zhou, Kehao & He, Qingsong, 2022. "Evaluating the effectiveness of development-limiting boundary control policy: Spatial difference-in-difference analysis," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 120(C).
    11. Miriam Hortas-Rico, 2015. "Sprawl, Blight, And The Role Of Urban Containment Policies: Evidence From U.S. Cities," Journal of Regional Science, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 55(2), pages 298-323, March.
    12. Button, Patrick, 2019. "Do tax incentives affect business location and economic development? Evidence from state film incentives," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 315-339.
    13. Kehao Zhou & Ronghui Tan, 2022. "More Than Thirty Years of Environmentally Sensitive Area Loss in Wuhan: What Lessons Have We Learned from Urban Containment Policy?," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(8), pages 1-20, August.
    14. Edward Feser, 2013. "Isserman’s Impact," International Regional Science Review, , vol. 36(1), pages 44-68, January.
    15. Zabel, Jeffrey & Dalton, Maurice, 2011. "The impact of minimum lot size regulations on house prices in Eastern Massachusetts," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 41(6), pages 571-583.
    16. Xi Yang, 2021. "Land-Use Regulations and Urban Growth of African Americans," Economic Development Quarterly, , vol. 35(4), pages 338-350, November.
    17. Sebastian Eichhorn & David Pehlke, 2022. "Unintended effects of regional planning in Germany," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 53(2), pages 933-950, June.
    18. Gabbe, C.J. & Kevane, Michael & Sundstrom, William A., 2021. "The effects of an “urban village” planning and zoning strategy in San Jose, California," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(C).
    19. Jae Hong Kim, 2013. "Measuring the Containment and Spillover Effects of Urban Growth Boundaries: The Case of the Portland Metropolitan Area," Growth and Change, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 44(4), pages 650-675, December.
    20. Wentao Niu & Ting Nie & Xiao Chen & Tianxi Wang & Jingyi Shi & Zhenzhen Xu & Hexiong Zhang, 2022. "Understanding the Corrective Effect of the Urban Growth Boundary Policy on Land Finance Dependence of Local Governments in China," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(8), pages 1-31, April.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    R14 (land use patterns); R5 (land use and other regulations);

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • R5 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis

    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:eee:regeco:v:43:y:2013:i:6:p:996-1007. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/regec .

    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.