IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/wiw/wiwrsa/ersa03p292.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Can the Market Be Used to Preserve Land? The Case for Transfer of Development Rights

Author

Listed:
  • Antonio Tavares

Abstract

This paper discusses the use of a market-driven technique ? transfer of development rights ? to preserve land from development while guaranteeing the rights of property owners. While the technique is often used in the United States, Europe has a lot more urgency in land preservation but it is still lagging in the use of market based instruments such as transfer of development rights. Property ownership can be described as a bundle of rights, including the right to use, the right to exchange, and the right to convert. The transfer of development rights (TDR) technique assumes that the development rights of a parcel, as part of the right to convert, can be sold and used in another parcel. The motivation for the creation of a TDR program is the preservation of environmentally sensitive areas, agricultural land, open space, and historic landmarks. In the task of preserving these areas, TDR is thought to be the best technique since it is a market-type transaction involving low costs for the public, it is more effective than zoning in the protection of land and landmarks, and it provides compensation to landowners that alienate the development rights. The typical TDR program involves the landowner of a preservation or sending zone (or parcel) selling the development rights to a developer who will use these rights in an area designated as development or receiving zone (or parcel). In general, the receiving area allows higher density of construction, which becomes the incentive for developers to buy the development rights. A variation of this program occurs when government creates a TDR bank from which developers acquire rights to develop at higher densities and the government uses the money to purchase development rights in areas it wishes to protect. TDR banks can also help during economic recessions to sustain the price of certificates. The economic analysis argues that TDR programs should be preferred to zoning for four reasons. First, TDR programs are market-based alternatives and, therefore, entail less administrative costs then command-and-control regulation. Second, rezoning decisions frequently involve large rent-seeking costs, whereas TDR overcomes the market failure and increases the net benefits of regulation. Third, the certificates of development rights can be exchanged in the market and provide a compensation to the landowner for the loss of the right to develop. Fourth, in communities facing urban sprawl and suffering pressures to develop, the outcome of a TDR program is an efficient market allocation of land to its most valued use: the market maximizes the aggregate value of the land. The paper summarizes the economic arguments favoring the use of TDR programs and discusses the difficulties in implementing these programs in Europe where command-and-control regulation has been preferred over market-based solutions.

Suggested Citation

  • Antonio Tavares, 2003. "Can the Market Be Used to Preserve Land? The Case for Transfer of Development Rights," ERSA conference papers ersa03p292, European Regional Science Association.
  • Handle: RePEc:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p292
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www-sre.wu.ac.at/ersa/ersaconfs/ersa03/cdrom/papers/292.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ezio Micelli, 2002. "Development Rights Markets to Manage Urban Plans in Italy," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 39(1), pages 141-154, January.
    2. Levinson, Arik, 1997. "Why oppose TDRs?: Transferable development rights can increase overall development," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 27(3), pages 283-296, 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. 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).

    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. Wang, Bo & Li, Fan & Feng, Shuyi & Shen, Tong, 2020. "Transfer of development rights, farmland preservation, and economic growth: a case study of Chongqing’s land quotas trading program," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 95(C).
    2. Bonifazi, Alessandro & Rega, Carlo & Torre, Carmelo Maria, 2008. "Evaluation and the environmental democracy of cities: Strategic Environmental Assessment of urban plans in Italy," MPRA Paper 11055, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    3. 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.
    4. Proeger, Till & Meub, Lukas & Bizer, Kilian, 2015. "Tradable development rights under uncertainty: An experimental approach," University of Göttingen Working Papers in Economics 270, University of Goettingen, Department of Economics.
    5. Zhao, Qianyu & Zhang, Zhanlu, 2017. "Does China’s ‘increasing versus decreasing balance’ land-restructuring policy restructure rural life? Evidence from Dongfan Village, Shaanxi Province," Land Use Policy, Elsevier, vol. 68(C), pages 649-659.
    6. 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.
    7. De Vos, Jonas & Witlox, Frank, 2013. "Transportation policy as spatial planning tool; reducing urban sprawl by increasing travel costs and clustering infrastructure and public transportation," Journal of Transport Geography, Elsevier, vol. 33(C), pages 117-125.
    8. 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.
    9. Janmaat, John, 2008. "Playing monopoly in the creek: Imperfect competition, development, and in-stream flows," Resource and Energy Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(3), pages 455-473, August.
    10. Sara Verones, 2015. "Riqualificare energeticamente la citt? oltre i premi volumetrici," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2015(2), pages 69-87.
    11. 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.
    12. 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.
    13. Ezio Micelli, 2014. "Cinque problemi intorno a perequazione, diritti edificatori e piani urbanistici," SCIENZE REGIONALI, FrancoAngeli Editore, vol. 2014(2), pages 9-27.
    14. Shahab, Sina & Clinch, J. Peter & O'Neill, Eoin, 2019. "An Analysis of the Factors Influencing Transaction Costs in Transferable Development Rights Programmes," Ecological Economics, Elsevier, vol. 156(C), pages 409-419.
    15. 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.
    16. 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.
    17. Maolong Chen & Shurong Yao & Chaoran Hu & Songqing Jin, 2023. "Transfer or retain land development right: The role of China’s IDB programme in supporting inclusive urbanisation," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 60(13), pages 2651-2668, October.
    18. Katrina Z S Schwartz, 2013. "Panther Politics: Neoliberalizing Nature in Southwest Florida," Environment and Planning A, , vol. 45(10), pages 2323-2343, October.
    19. 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).
    20. Drysdale, Krystal M. & Hendricks, Nathan P., 2018. "Adaptation to an irrigation water restriction imposed through local governance," Journal of Environmental Economics and Management, Elsevier, vol. 91(C), pages 150-165.

    More about this item

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:wiw:wiwrsa:ersa03p292. 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: Gunther Maier (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.ersa.org .

    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.