IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/rff/dpaper/dp-05-45.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand

Author

Listed:
  • Walls, Margaret

    (Resources for the Future)

  • McConnell, Virginia

    (Resources for the Future)

  • Kopits, Elizabeth

Abstract

Many economists see current land use patterns as inefficient due to various market failures, and planners argue that current patterns do not follow sound planning practice. One policy of interest to both groups is transferable development rights (TDR). TDRs allow the development rights from land that is preserved in an undeveloped state to be transferred to other areas where development can be made denser. This paper addresses one of the greatest difficulties TDR programs face—insufficient demand. We develop a simple theoretical model and estimate a TDR demand function using data from Calvert County, Maryland, one of the only regions where data on individual sales are available. We find that baseline zoning is a critical determinant of TDR demand—demand is high in low-density rural areas but not in the relatively high-density residential areas. We also identify many subdivision characteristics that are significant in explaining TDR use.

Suggested Citation

  • Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2005. "Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand," RFF Working Paper Series dp-05-45, Resources for the Future.
    • Handle: RePEc:rff:dpaper:dp-05-45
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.rff.org/RFF/documents/RFF-DP-05-45.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Kelejian, Harry H & Prucha, Ingmar R, 1999. "A Generalized Moments Estimator for the Autoregressive Parameter in a Spatial Model," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 40(2), pages 509-533, May.
    2. John F. McDonald & Daniel P. McMillen, 2004. "Determinants of Suburban Development Controls: A Fischel Expedition," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(2), pages 341-361, February.
    3. Paul Thorsnes & Gerald P. W. Simons, 1999. "Letting The Market Preserve Land: The Case For A Market‐Driven Transfer Of Development Rights Program," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 256-266, April.
    4. McDonald, John F & Moffitt, Robert A, 1980. "The Uses of Tobit Analysis," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 62(2), pages 318-321, May.
    5. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia, 2004. "Incentive-Based Land Use Policies and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay," RFF Working Paper Series dp-04-20, Resources for the Future.
    6. Rolleston, Barbara Sherman, 1987. "Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: An empirical analysis," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 1-21, January.
    7. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    8. McMillen, Daniel P. & McDonald, John F., 1991. "Urban land value functions with endogenous zoning," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 29(1), pages 14-27, January.
    9. Mills, David E., 1980. "Transferable development rights markets," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 7(1), pages 63-74, January.
    10. David E. Mills, 1989. "Is Zoning a Negative-Sum Game?," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 65(1), pages 1-12.
    11. Daniel P. McMillen & John F. McDonald, 1990. "A Two-Limit Tobit Model of Suburban Land-Use Zoning," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 66(3), pages 272-282.
    12. Carpenter, Bruce E. & Heffley, Dennis R., 1982. "Spatial-equilibrium analysis of transferable development rights," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(2), pages 238-261, September.
    13. B E Carpenter & D R Heffley, 1981. "A Spatial Equilibrium Analysis of Flexible Zoning and the Demand for Development Rights," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 13(3), pages 273-284, March.
    14. McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2006. "Zoning, TDRs and the density of development," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 440-457, May.
    15. Cannaday, Roger E & Colwell, Peter F, 1990. "Optimization of Subdivision Development," The Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, Springer, vol. 3(2), pages 195-206, June.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

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


    Cited by:

    1. Till Proeger & Lukas Meub & Kilian Bizer, 2018. "Laboratory Experiments of Tradable Development Rights: A Synthesis of Different Treatments," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 10(6), pages 1-19, June.
    2. McConnell, Virginia D. & Kopits, Elizabeth & Walls, Margaret, 2005. "Farmland Preservation and Residential Density: Can Development Rights Markets Affect Land Use?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Northeastern Agricultural and Resource Economics Association, vol. 34(2), pages 1-14, October.
    3. Tan, Rong & Wang, Rongyu & Heerink, Nico, 2020. "Liberalizing rural-to-urban construction land transfers in China: Distribution effects," China Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 60(C).
    4. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2017. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 614-624.
    5. Kopits, Elizabeth & McConnell, Virginia & Miles, Daniel, 2009. "Lot Size, Zoning, and Household Preferences: Impediments to Smart Growth?," RFF Working Paper Series dp-09-15, Resources for the Future.
    6. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2016. "The role of communication on an experimental market for tradable development rights," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 271, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    7. Walls, Margaret, 2012. "Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-49, Resources for the Future.
    8. Chen, Chun & Yu, Li & Choguill, Charles L., 2020. "“Dipiao”, Chinese approach to transfer of land development rights: The experiences of Chongqing," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    9. Nie, Xin & Li, Xiaojuan & Lyu, Chengyu & Su, Yanglan & Wang, Han, 2024. "Can ecological compensation based on the transfer of development rights (TDR) improve ecosystem service value? A multi-scenario simulation," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C).
    10. Ferreira, António, 2020. "Reconsidering the merit of market-oriented planning innovations: Critical insights on Transferable Development Rights from Coimbra, Portugal," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 99(C).
    11. Yidi Wang & Ying Fan & Zan Yang, 2022. "Challenges, Experience, and Prospects of Urban Renewal in High-Density Cities: A Review for Hong Kong," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    12. He Zhu & Xing Gao & Ying Lin & Yijing He, 2022. "Land-Development-Right Pricing Based on Spatial Characteristics in Urban Local Function Regeneration," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-25, November.

    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. McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2006. "Zoning, TDRs and the density of development," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 59(3), pages 440-457, May.
    2. Walls, Margaret, 2012. "Markets for Development Rights: Lessons Learned from Three Decades of a TDR Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-12-49, Resources for the Future.
    3. McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth & Walls, Margaret, 2005. "Farmland Preservation and Residential Density: Can Development Rights Markets Affect Land Use?," Agricultural and Resource Economics Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 34(2), pages 131-144, October.
    4. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia & Kopits, Elizabeth, 2003. "How Well Can Markets for Development Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program," RFF Working Paper Series dp-03-08, Resources for the Future.
    5. Paul Thorsnes, 2002. "The Value of a Suburban Forest Preserve: Estimates from Sales of Vacant Residential Building Lots," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 78(3), pages 426-441.
    6. Walls, Margaret & McConnell, Virginia D., 2004. "Incentive-Based Land Use Policies and Water Quality in the Chesapeake Bay," Discussion Papers 10843, Resources for the Future.
    7. Yidi Wang & Ying Fan & Zan Yang, 2022. "Challenges, Experience, and Prospects of Urban Renewal in High-Density Cities: A Review for Hong Kong," Land, MDPI, vol. 11(12), pages 1-20, December.
    8. 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.
    9. Paul Thorsnes & Gerald P. W. Simons, 1999. "Letting The Market Preserve Land: The Case For A Market‐Driven Transfer Of Development Rights Program," Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, vol. 17(2), pages 256-266, April.
    10. Magliocca, Nicholas & McConnell, Virginia & Walls, Margaret & Safirova, Elena, 2012. "Zoning on the urban fringe: Results from a new approach to modeling land and housing markets," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 42(1-2), pages 198-210.
    11. Junichi Suzuki, 2013. "Land Use Regulation As A Barrier To Entry: Evidence From The Texas Lodging Industry," International Economic Review, Department of Economics, University of Pennsylvania and Osaka University Institute of Social and Economic Research Association, vol. 54(2), pages 495-523, May.
    12. J. Peter Clinch & Eoin O'Neill, 2010. "Assessing the Relative Merits of Development Charges and Transferable Development Rights in an Uncertain World," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(4), pages 891-911, April.
    13. JunJie Wu & Richard M. Adams & Andrew J. Plantinga, 2004. "Amenities in an Urban Equilibrium Model: Residential Development in Portland, Oregon," Land Economics, University of Wisconsin Press, vol. 80(1), pages 19-32.
    14. Gregory M. Parkhurst & Jason F. Shogren & Thomas Crocker, 2016. "Tradable Set-Aside Requirements (TSARs): Conserving Spatially Dependent Environmental Amenities," Environmental & Resource Economics, Springer;European Association of Environmental and Resource Economists, vol. 63(4), pages 719-744, April.
    15. Keith R. Ihlanfeldt, 2004. "Exclusionary Land-use Regulations within Suburban Communities: A Review of the Evidence and Policy Prescriptions," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 41(2), pages 261-283, February.
    16. Heffley, Dennis, 1998. "Landlords, tenants and the public sector in a spatial equilibrium model of rent control," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 28(6), pages 745-772, November.
    17. Arnab Chakraborty & Gerrit-Jan Knaap & Doan Nguyen & Jung Ho Shin, 2010. "The Effects of High-density Zoning on Multifamily Housing Construction in the Suburbs of Six US Metropolitan Areas," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 47(2), pages 437-451, February.
    18. Mayer, Christopher J. & Somerville, C. Tsuriel, 2000. "Land use regulation and new construction," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(6), pages 639-662, December.
    19. Gan, Zhongying, 2023. "Do electric vehicle charger locations respond to the potential charging demands from multi-unit dwellings? Evidence from Los Angeles County," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 138(C), pages 74-93.
    20. Sims, Katharine R.E. & Schuetz, Jenny, 2009. "Local regulation and land-use change: The effects of wetlands bylaws in Massachusetts," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 39(4), pages 409-421, July.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    TDRs; density; zoning; subdivisions;
    All these keywords.

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • R52 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Regional Government Analysis - - - Land Use and Other Regulations
    • R21 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - Household Analysis - - - Housing Demand

    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:rff:dpaper:dp-05-45. 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: Resources for the Future (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/rffffus.html .

    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.