|
|
|
Dr. Elena Irwin |
|
Assistant Professor |
|
AED Economics Department |
|
|
|
January 3, 2000 |
|
Seneca County Regional Planning Commission |
|
Annual Meeting |
|
|
|
|
How can we characterize current patterns of
urbanization? |
|
What are the factors that influence the location
and pattern of development? |
|
Ultimate Question: What is the right amount and
pattern of development and are we achieving it? |
|
|
|
|
|
Major land uses in U.S. in 1992: |
|
Cropland….459.7 million acres |
|
Pasture……589.0 |
|
Forest…….558.7 |
|
Urban…….152.4 |
|
Even if 50% of the currently undeveloped land is
reserved, we still have enough land for a population five times as large. |
|
|
|
|
As land becomes more scare, per acre price of
land will increase à higher density development. |
|
|
|
Conclude: No problem |
|
|
|
|
|
It only considers the supply of land |
|
Must also consider: |
|
Opportunity cost of development |
|
Impacts of development (i.e. the costs and
benefits of development) |
|
|
|
|
Public finance = costs of providing public
services |
|
Increased congestion |
|
Loss of traditional character |
|
Loss of aesthetics (ex: scenic views) |
|
Loss of environmental quality (ex: wildlife
habitat) |
|
|
|
|
Increased economic activity |
|
Job growth |
|
Increased per capita incomes |
|
Increased housing values |
|
More diversity |
|
|
|
|
The answer depends not only on the supply of
available land for development, but also on the costs and benefits of
development |
|
The pattern of development influences many of
the costs. |
|
|
|
|
|
“Edge City” development |
|
transformation from residential suburbs to
cities |
|
“Exurban” development |
|
Exurban = areas outside the metropolitan region,
but that lie within the commutershed |
|
Fastest growing areas in the U.S. in the last
several decades. |
|
|
|
|
Source: USGS |
|
National Mapping Division: |
|
http://edcwww2.cr.usgs.gov/umap/umap.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Between 1981-1997: |
|
94% increase in population |
|
191% increase in residential land area |
|
145% increase in the degree of fragmentation of
the landscape |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Rising housing prices and tax rates in
urban/suburban areas |
|
Increased accessibility (due to road building) |
|
Relocation of employment |
|
Better quality of life |
|
Changes in population (ex: more retirees) |
|
Changes in technology (ex: telecommunications) |
|
|
|
|
|
Location of development is influenced by: |
|
Zoning/land use controls |
|
Public services (schools, police protection,
sewer/water) |
|
Proximity to employment |
|
Proximity to other activities (shopping,
recreation, entertainment) |
|
Surrounding land uses |
|
|
|
|
|
What are the relative effects of these factors
on the conversion of land to residential use? |
|
For example, if a road is widened or a new sewer
line built, what sort of an effect will this have on new development
patterns? |
|
|
|
|
Goal of land developer: to maximize expected
profits from developing land. |
|
What are the most important characteristics of a
parcel that influence expected profits? |
|
|
|
|
|
GIS Data: |
|
Six year history of “developable” parcels
(1991-1997) |
|
Location of roads, cities, sewer and water
service areas, soil quality |
|
Land use pattern |
|
|
|
|
|
Most significant factors: |
|
Distance to urban area (Washington DC) |
|
Minimum lot size |
|
Other factors that were also significant: |
|
Public sewer/water |
|
Soil quality |
|
Surrounding land use |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Research finding:If a parcel is surrounded by
development, the probability of its conversion is lower. |
|
This implies: Surrounding open space has a
positive effect on the probability of a parcel’s conversion. |
|
This helps to explain the fragmented development
pattern. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Policies that encourage more clustered
development are needed to offset the positive effect of open space. |
|
Policies that focus only on preserving open
space could have unintended effects. |
|
|
|
|
|
Private benefits of scattered pattern |
|
less congestion, more open space for each
household. |
|
Community costs of scattered pattern |
|
public service costs |
|
loss of rural character, farmland |
|
degradation of environmental resources |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Explaining Sprawl in Exurban Areas: The Role of
Open Space,” December 1999 |
|
http://www-agecon.ag.ohio-state.edu/comregecon/briefings.htm |
|
Notes