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

Regional Science and Urban Economics

Volumn 43, Issue 6, 2013, Pages 996-1007

  Dempsey, Judith A ^a   Plantinga, Andrew J ^b  

^a FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

Author keywords

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

Indexed keywords

GIS; HOUSING MARKET; LAND USE PLANNING; REGULATORY FRAMEWORK; URBAN DEVELOPMENT; URBAN GROWTH; URBAN HOUSING; URBAN PLANNING; URBANIZATION;

OREGON; UNITED STATES;

EID: 84887237552     PISSN: 01660462     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2013.10.002     Document Type: Article

References (33)

1. Abrevaya J., Hamermesh D.S. Charity and favortism in the field: are female economists nicer (to each other)?. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2012, 94(1):202-207.
2. Anderson J.R., Hardy E.E., Roach J.T., Witmer R.E. A land use and land cover classification system for use with remote sensor data. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1976, 964.
3. Boarnet M.G., McLaughlin R.B., Carruthers J.I. Does state growth management change the pattern of urban growth? Evidence from Florida. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2011, 41:236-252.
4. Brueckner J.K. Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies. Int. Reg. Sci. Rev. 2000, 23(2):160-171.
5. Cho S.-H., Chen Z., Yen S.T., Eastwood D.B. Estimating effects of an urban growth boundary on land development. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2006, 38(2):287-298.
6. Cho S.-H., Omitaomu O.A., Poudyal N.C., Eastwood D.B. 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. J. Agric. Appl. Econ. 2007, 39(3):701-717.
7. Conley T.G., Tabor C.R. Inference with "difference in differences" with a small number of policy changes. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2011, 93(1):113-125.
8. Cunningham C.R. Growth controls, real options, and land development. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2007, 89(2):343-358.
9. Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD) Oregon's Statewide Planning Goals and Guidelines Available at. http://www.lcd.state.or.us.
10. Grout C.A., Jaeger W.K., Plantinga A.J. Land-use regulations and property values in Portland, Oregon: a regression discontinuity design approach. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2011, 41:98-107.
11. Hanson A. Local employment, poverty, and property value effects of geographically-targeted tax incentives: an instrumental variables approach. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2009, 39:721-731.
12. Hanson A., Rohlin S. Do spatially targeted redevelopment programs spillover?. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2013, 43:86-100.
13. Ihlanfeldt K.R. The effect of land use regulation on housing and land prices. J. Urban Econ. 2007, 61:420-435.
14. Jun M.-J. The effects of Portland's urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting. Urban Stud. 2004, 41(7):1333-1348.
15. Kline J.D., Alig R.J. Does land use planning slow the conversion of forest and farm lands?. Growth Change 1999, 30(Winter):3-22.
16. Knaap G.J. The price effects of urban growth boundaries in Metropolitan Portland, Oregon. Land Econ. 1985, 61(1):26-35.
17. Krupka D.J., Noonan D.S. Empowerment zones, neighborhood change and owner-occupied housing. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 2009, 39:386-396.
18. Loveland T.R., Sohl T.L., Stehman S.V., Gallant A.L., Sayler K.L., Napton D.E. A strategy for estimating the rates of recent United States land cover changes. Photogramm. Eng. Remote Sens. 2002, 68(10):1091-1099.
19. Lynch L., Gray W., Geoghegan J. Are farmland preservation program easement restrictions capitalized into farmland prices? What can score matching tell us?. Rev. Agric. Econ. 2007, 29(3):502-509.
20. McMillen D.P. Perspectives on spatial econometrics: linear smoothing with structured models. J. Reg. Sci. 2012, 52(2):192-209.
21. McMillen D.P., McDonald J.F. Land values in a newly zoned city. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2002, 84(1):62-72.
22. McMillen, D.P., Soppelsa, M., 2013. A conditionally parametric probit model of micro-data land use in Chicago. Unpublished manuscript, Department of Economics, University of Illinois.
23. Pendell R. Do land-use controls cause sprawl?. Environ. Plan. B Plan. Des. 1999, 26:555-571.
24. Pendell R. Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 2000, 66(2):125-142.
25. Phillips J., Goodstein E. Growth management and housing prices: the case of Portland, Oregon. Contemp. Econ. Policy 2000, 18(3):334-344.
26. Plantinga A.J., Lewis D.J. Landscape simulations with econometric-based land-use models. The Oxford Handbook of Land Economics 2013, Oxford University Press, (in press). J.M. Duke, J. Wu (Eds.).
27. Quigley J.M., Rosenthal L.A. The effects of land use regulation on the price of housing: what do we know? What can we learn?. Cityscape 2005, 8(1):69-137.
28. Saiz A. The geographic determinants of housing supply. Q. J. Econ. 2010, 125(3):1253-1296.
29. Status and trends of land change in the western United States-1973 to 2000. U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 2012, 1794-A. B.M. Sleeter, T.S. Wilson, W. Acevedo (Eds.).
30. Turner M.A., Haughwout A., van der Klaauw W. Land use regulation and welfare. Working Paper 2012, University of Toronto, Department of Economics.
31. Wassmer R.W. The influence of local urban containment policies and statewide growth management on the size of United States urban areas. J. Reg. Sci. 2006, 46(1):25-65.
32. Wooldridge J.M. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data 2010, MIT Press.
33. Zhou J., Mcmillen D.P., McDonald J.F. Land values and the 1957 comprehensive amendment to the Chicago zoning ordinance. Urban Stud. 2008, 45:1647-1661.