Abstract
In Chap. 15, I simplified Schlager by ignoring what he labels “design standards”. In this chapter, I incorporate design standards into a full version of the Schlager model . To Schlager, a design standard is an assertion about the relationship of one kind of land use to another kind of land use nearby. Schlager’s design standards take the form of either a minimum or a maximum. We might put a lower limit on a land use in a zone when that land use is complementary to other uses: e.g., having it in the zone reduces the amount of travel for persons who would otherwise have to go elsewhere to find that use. In this sense, complementarity standards are seen to reduce urban sprawl . Expressed differently, the planner might want to ensure a minimum ratio of L use to H use in any zone. An alternative here would be to use a quadratic restriction of the form X nL X nH = 0 which has the effect of ensuring that the two land uses do not occur in the same zone n. We can think of Schlager’s linear approach (that is, using X nL < a LH X nH ) as also forcing X nL to be near zero when a LH is set close to zero. In practice, linear models are easier to work with than quadratic models. In this sense, Schlager’s approach to design standards is a neat trick operationally. As an example, one might want a public school nearby to accommodate children living in the vicinity. The design standard here would be the minimum number of hectares to be set aside for school use per hectare of land assigned to a particular kind of residential use (e.g., a single detached house ). Alternatively, we might put an upper limit on the amount of a land use in a zone when that land use is a private nuisance as regards other land uses nearby. In the case of a maximum, we would then be able to limit the amount of land use of one kind where another kind is present. Here, the planner seeks to keep the nuisance land use small relative to the other use.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Koopmans and Beckmann envisage each use as a factory. I generalize the term here to mean a category of land use.
- 2.
Koopmans and Beckmann envisage traffic as the intermediate goods produced in one factory and then used in production by another factor. Reducing unnecessary traffic is at the heart of a complementary standard. My definition of use includes production, retailing, and housing. To me, traffic therefore includes the flow of workers from home to work site, the flow of customers from home to retail site, as well as the flow of intermediate goods. I think we can also incorporate nuisance standards here where t njmk measures the nuisance cost associated with locating uses m and n in zones j and k respectively. In general, the difference here is that t njmk increases with the distance between zones j and k when uses are complementary and decreases when one use is seen as a nuisance by the other.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2017 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Miron, J.R. (2017). Private Nuisance, Zoning, and the Urban Economy. In: The Organization of Cities . Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50100-0_16
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-50100-0_16
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-50099-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-50100-0
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)