IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/jecgeo/v10y2010i5p763-783.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Moderating urban sprawl: is there a balance between shared open space and housing parcel size?

Author

Listed:
  • Seong-Hoon Cho
  • Dayton M. Lambert
  • Roland K. Roberts
  • Seung Gyu Kim

Abstract

No abstract is available for this item.

Suggested Citation

  • Seong-Hoon Cho & Dayton M. Lambert & Roland K. Roberts & Seung Gyu Kim, 2010. "Moderating urban sprawl: is there a balance between shared open space and housing parcel size?," Journal of Economic Geography, Oxford University Press, vol. 10(5), pages 763-783, September.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:jecgeo:v:10:y:2010:i:5:p:763-783
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/jeg/lbp048
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

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

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Kim, Seung Gyu & Cho, Seong-Hoon & Classen, Roger, 2012. "Exploring Spatially Heterogeneous Effect of Property Tax Scheme on Land Development," 2012 Annual Meeting, August 12-14, 2012, Seattle, Washington 124709, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    2. Li, Deng-Kui & Mei, Chang-Lin & Wang, Ning, 2019. "Tests for spatial dependence and heterogeneity in spatially autoregressive varying coefficient models with application to Boston house price analysis," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 79(C).
    3. Geniaux, Ghislain & Martinetti, Davide, 2018. "A new method for dealing simultaneously with spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity in regression models," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 72(C), pages 74-85.
    4. Marisa J. Mazzotta & Elena Besedin & Ann E. Speers, 2014. "A Meta-Analysis of Hedonic Studies to Assess the Property Value Effects of Low Impact Development," Resources, MDPI, vol. 3(1), pages 1-31, January.
    5. Daniel A. Brent & Katie Lorah, 2017. "The Geography of Civic Crowdfunding: Implications for Social Inequality and Donor-Project Dynamics," Departmental Working Papers 2017-09, Department of Economics, Louisiana State University.
    6. Chen, Feng & Mei, Chang-Lin, 2021. "Scale-adaptive estimation of mixed geographically weighted regression models," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 737-747.
    7. Andrea Furková, 2022. "Implementation of MGWR-SAR models for investigating a local particularity of European regional innovation processes," Central European Journal of Operations Research, Springer;Slovak Society for Operations Research;Hungarian Operational Research Society;Czech Society for Operations Research;Österr. Gesellschaft für Operations Research (ÖGOR);Slovenian Society Informatika - Section for Operational Research;Croatian Operational Research Society, vol. 30(2), pages 733-755, June.
    8. Zipp, Katherine Y. & Lewis, David J. & Provencher, Bill, 2017. "Does the conservation of land reduce development? An econometric-based landscape simulation with land market feedbacks," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 81(C), pages 19-37.
    9. Maria A. Cunha‐e‐Sá & Sofia F. Franco, 2017. "The Effects of Development Constraints on Forest Management at the Urban‐Forest Interface," American Journal of Agricultural Economics, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 99(3), pages 614-636, April.
    10. Yoo, James & Ready, Richard, 2016. "The impact of agricultural conservation easement on nearby house prices: Incorporating spatial autocorrelation and spatial heterogeneity," Journal of Forest Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 78-93.
    11. Daniel Arribas-Bel & Peter Nijkamp & Henk Scholten, 2011. "Multi-Dimensional Urban Sprawl in Europe: a Self-Organizing Map Approach," ERSA conference papers ersa10p485, European Regional Science Association.
    12. Black, Katie Jo, 2018. "Wide open spaces: Estimating the willingness to pay for adjacent preserved open space," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 71(C), pages 110-121.

    More about this item

    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:oup:jecgeo:v:10:y:2010:i:5:p:763-783. 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.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using 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: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/joeg .

    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.