Advertisement

Land-Use Institutions and Natural Resources in Fast-Growing Communities at the Urban-Rural Fringe

  • Abigail M. YorkEmail author
  • Darla K. Munroe
Chapter
Part of the Human-Environment Interactions book series (HUEN, volume 1)

Abstract

In the last several decades, urban decentralization and the conversion of formerly natural or agricultural areas have become the norm in much of the United States. Effective policies to constrain or mediate such growth and its effect on rural landscapes are a major priority at local and regional levels. Past research on land-use policies’ ability to protect natural resources has not paid sufficient attention to the effects of the land market; rising land values, particularly when spatially differentiated, complicate policy efforts to stave off development in environmentally valuable areas. In this chapter, we review key lessons from the literature and provide examples from empirical work in Ohio, Indiana, and Arizona. Better understanding of spatial impacts of land-use institutions across a wide range of contexts will enable planners and policy makers to craft more effective policies balancing costs and benefits of development.

Keywords

Land Conversion Land Rent Land Market Farmland Conversion Urban Encroachment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Abbott, J. K., & Klaiber, H. A. (2010). Is all space created equal? Uncovering the relationship between competing land uses in subdivisions. Ecological Economics, 70(2), 296–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Altshuler, A. A., Gomez-Ibanez, J. A., & Howitt, A. M. (1993). Regulation for revenue: The political economy of land use exactions. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press.Google Scholar
  3. Anderson, J. E. (2005). Taxes and fees as forms of land use regulation. Journal of Real Estate, Finance and Economics, 31(4), 413–427.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Babcock, R. F. (1966). The zoning game. Madison: The University of Wisconsin Press.Google Scholar
  5. Babcock, R. F., & Siemon, C. L. (1985). The zoning game revisited. Boston: Oelgeschlager, Gunn & Hain.Google Scholar
  6. Been, V. (2005). Impact fees and housing affordability. Cityscape, 8(1), 139–185.Google Scholar
  7. Bengston, D. N., Fletcher, J. O., & Nelson, K. C. (2004). Public policies for managing urban growth and protecting open space: Policy instruments and lessons learned in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 69(2–3), 271–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry, B. J. L. (1980). Urbanization and counterurbanization in the United States. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 451(1), 13–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Berube, A., Singer, A., Wilson, J. H., & Frey, W. H. (2006). Finding exurbia: America’s fast-growing communities at the metropolitan fringe. Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution.Google Scholar
  10. Bluffstone, R., Braman, M., Fernandez, L., Scott, T., & Lee, P. Y. (2008). Housing, sprawl, and the use of development impact fees: The case of the Inland Empire. Contemporary Economic Policy, 26(3), 433–447.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brabec, E., & Smith, C. (2002). Agricultural land fragmentation: The spatial effects of three land protection strategies in the eastern United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 58, 255–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Brueckner, J. K. (1997). Infrastructure financing and urban development: The economics of impact fees. Journal of Public Economics, 66(3), 383–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brueckner, J. K. (2000). Urban sprawl: Diagnosis and remedies. International Regional Science Review, 23(2), 160–171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bunce, M. F. (1985). Agricultural land as a real estate commodity: Implications for farmland preservation in the North American urban fringe. Landscape Planning, 12(2), 177–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Burchell, R. W., & Downs, A. (2005). Sprawl costs: Economic impacts of unchecked development. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  16. Burchfield, M., Overman, H. G., Puga, D., & Turner, M. A. (2006). Causes of sprawl: A portrait from space. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 121(2), 587–633.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Burge, G., & Ihlanfeldt, K. (2009). Development impact fees and employment. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 39(1), 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Capozza, D. R., & Helsley, R. W. (1989). The fundamentals of land prices and urban growth. Journal of Urban Economics, 26(3), 295–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Capozza, D. R., & Li, Y. (1994). The intensity and timing of investment: The case of land. American Economic Review, 84(4), 889–904.Google Scholar
  20. Carruthers, J. L. (2003). Growth at the fringe: The influence of political fragmentation in United States metropolitan areas. Papers in Regional Science, 82(4), 475–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Chapman, J. I. (2008). State and local fiscal sustainability: The challenges. Public Administration Review, 68, 115–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Clark, J. K., Sharp, J. S., Irwin, E., & Libby, L. (2003). Growth and change at the rural-urban interface: An overview of Ohio’s changing population and land use. Columbus: Exurban Change Project, Department of Agricultural, Environmental, and Development Economics, The Ohio State University.Google Scholar
  23. Clark, J. K., McChesney, R., Munroe, D. K., & Irwin, E. G. (2009). Spatial characteristics of exurban settlement pattern in the United States. Landscape and Urban Planning, 90(3–4), 178–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Clarke, J. N., & Angersbach, K. (2001). The federal four: Change and continuity in the Bureau of Land Management, Fish and Wildlife Service, Forest Service, and National Park Service, 1970–2000. In C. Davis (Ed.), Western public lands and environmental politics (pp. 35–41). Boulder: Westview Press.Google Scholar
  25. Culp, P. W., Laurenzi, A., & Tuell, C. C. (2006). State trust lands in the West: Fiduciary duty in a changing landscape (Policy Focus Report). Cambridge, MA: The Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.Google Scholar
  26. Diamond, H. L., & Noonan, P. F. (1996). Land use in America. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  27. Dow, K. (2000). Social dimensions of gradients in urban ecosystems. Urban Ecosystems, 4(4), 255–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Downs, A. (1999). Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. Housing Policy Debate, 10(4), 955–974.Google Scholar
  29. Downs, A. (2005). Smart growth: Why we discuss it more than we do it. Journal of the American Planning Association, 71(4), 367–380.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Duncombe, W., Robbins, M., & Wolf, D. A. (2003). Place characteristics and residential location choice among the retirement-age population. Journal of Gerontology B Psychological Social Science, 58, S244–S252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Ellis, E. C., Goldewijk, K. K., Siebert, S., Lightman, D., & Ramankutty, N. (2010). Anthropogenic transformation of the biomes, 1700 to 2000. Global Ecology and Biogeography, 19(5), 589–606.Google Scholar
  32. Erickson, D. L. (1995). Rural land use and land cover change: Implications for local planning in the River Raisin watershed. Land Use Policy, 12(3), 223–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Esparza, A. X., & Carruthers, J. I. (2000). Land use planning and exurbanization in the rural mountain West. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 20(1), 23–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Evans-Cowley, J. S., & Lawhon, L. L. (2003). The effects of impact fees on the price of housing and land: A literature review. Journal of Planning Literature, 17(3), 351–359.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Evans-Crowley, J. S., Forgey, F. A., & Rutherford, R. C. (2005). The effect of development impact fees on land values. Growth and Change, 36(1), 100–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ewing, R. H. (1994). Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: A literature review. Environmental and Urban Issues, 21(2), 1–15.Google Scholar
  37. Fischel, W. A. (1985). The economics of zoning laws: A property rights approach to American land use controls. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
  38. Fischel, W. A. (2001). The homevoter hypothesis: How home values influence local government taxation, school finance, and land-use policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  39. Frey, W. H. (2003). Boomers and seniors in the suburbs: Aging patterns in census 2000 (The Living City Census Series). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution Center on Urban and Metropolitan Policy.Google Scholar
  40. Gammage, G., Jr. (1999). Phoenix in perspective: Reflections on developing the desert. Tempe: Herberger Center for Design Excellence, College of Architecture and Environmental Design, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  41. Gober, P. (2006). Metropolitan Phoenix: Place making and community building in the desert. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.Google Scholar
  42. Gober, P., & Burns, E. K. (2002). The shape and size of Phoenix’s urban fringe. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 21, 379–390.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hamilton, B. W. (1978). Zoning and the exercise of monopoly power. Journal of Urban Economics, 5(1), 116–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hardie, I. W., & Parks, P. J. (1997). Land use with heterogeneous land quality: An application of an area base model. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 79, 299–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Harlan, S., Budruk, M., Gustafson, A., Larson, K., Ruddell, D., Smith, V., et al. (2007). Highlights of the 2006 Phoenix area social survey: Community and environment in a desert metropolis. Contribution No. 4, Central Arizona – Long-Term Ecological Research Project. Tempe: Global Institute of Sustainability, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  46. Hasse, J. E., & Lathrop, R. G. (2003). Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl. Applied Geography, 23(2–3), 159–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hughes, M. A., & Vandoren, P. M. (1990). Social policy through land reform: New Jersey’s Mount Laurel controversy. Political Science Quarterly, 105(1), 97–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Iacono, M. J., & Levinson, D. M. (2009). Predicting land use change: How much does transportation matter? Transportation Research Record, 2119, 130–136.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Ihlanfeldt, K. R., & Shaughnessy, T. M. (2004). An empirical investigation of the effects of impact fees on housing and land markets. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 34(6), 639–661.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Irwin, E. G., & Bockstael, N. E. (2002). Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the evolution of residential land-use patterns. Journal of Economic Geography, 2(1), 31–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Irwin, E. G., & Bockstael, N. E. (2007). The evolution of urban sprawl: Evidence of spatial heterogeneity and increasing land fragmentation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 104(52), 20672–20677.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Jeong, M. G., & Feiock, R. C. (2006). Impact fees, growth management, and development: A contractual approach to local policy and governance. Urban Affairs Review, 41(6), 749–768.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Johnson, E. A., & Klemens, M. W. (2005). Nature in fragments: The legacy of sprawl. New York: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
  54. Lambin, E. F., & Geist, H. J. (Eds.). (2006). Land use and land cover change: Local processes, global impacts. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  55. Logan, M. F. (1994). Fighting sprawl and city hall: Resistance to the urban growth in the Southwest. Tucson: The University of Arizona Press.Google Scholar
  56. Mayer, C. J., & Somerville, C. T. (2000). Land use regulation and new construction. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 30(6), 639–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. McCullagh, P. (1980). Regression models for ordinal data. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society B, 42(2), 109–142.Google Scholar
  58. Mohai, P. (1997). Gender differences in the perception of most important environmental problems. Race, Gender and Class, 5(1), 153–169.Google Scholar
  59. Mueser, P., & Graves, P. (1995). Examining the role of economic opportunity and amenities in explaining population redistribution. Journal Urban Economics, 37, 176–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Munroe, D. K. (2010). Pattern-based evaluation of peri-urban development in Delaware County, Ohio, USA: Roads, zoning and spatial externalities. In A. Páez, J. Gallo, R. N. Buliung, & S. Dall'erba (Eds.), Progress in spatial analysis (pp. 149–169). Berlin: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Munroe, D. K., & York, A. M. (2003). Jobs, houses, and trees: Changing regional structure, local land-use patterns, and forest cover in southern Indiana. Growth & Change, 34(3), 299–320.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Munroe, D. K., Croissant, C., & York, A. M. (2005). Land use policy and landscape fragmentation in an urbanizing region: Assessing the impact of zoning. Applied Geography, 25(2), 121–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Nash, G. D. (1994). New Mexico since 1940: An overview. In R. W. Etulain (Ed.), Contemporary New Mexico (pp. 1940–1990). Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press.Google Scholar
  64. Nelson, R. H. (1980). Zoning and property rights: An analysis of the American system of land use regulation. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar
  65. Newburn, D. A., Berck, P., & Merenlender, A. M. (2006). Habitat and open space at risk of land-use conversion: Targeting strategies for land conservation. American Journal of Agricultural Economics, 88(1), 28–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Ostrom, E. (2005). Understanding institutional diversity. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  67. Ostrom, V., Tiebout, C. M., & Warren, R. (1999). The organization of government in metropolitan areas: A theoretical inquiry. In M. D. McGinnis (Ed.), Polycentricity and local public economies: Readings from the workshop in political theory and policy analysis (pp. 31–51). Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  68. Parker, D. C., & Meretsky, V. (2004). Measuring pattern outcomes in an agent-based model of edge-effect externalities using spatial metrics. Agriculture, Ecosystems & Environment, 101(2–3), 233–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. Perry, M. J., & Mackun, P. J. (2001). Population change and distribution: 1990 to 2000 (2000 Census Brief C2KBR/01-2). Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.Google Scholar
  70. Peterson, P. E. (1981). City limits. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  71. Planning Research, Inc. (2002). Development impact fees. Best Practices Paper: Growing Smarter Implementation Project. Phoenix: Maricopa Association of Governments.Google Scholar
  72. Rudel, T. K. (1989). Situations and strategies in American land-use planning. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  73. Slifkin, R. T., Randolph, R., & Ricketts, T. C. (2006). The changing metropolitan designation process and rural America. The Journal of Rural Health, 20(1), 1–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Souder, J. A., & Fairfax, S. K. (1996). State trust lands: History, management, and sustainable use. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
  75. Talen, E., & Knaap, G. (2001). Legalizing smart growth: An empirical study of land use regulation in Illinois. Champaign: Department of Urban and Regional Planning, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Published in Journal of Planning and Education Research, 22, 345–359 in 2003.Google Scholar
  76. Tiebout, C. (1956). A pure theory of public expenditures. Journal of Political Economy, 64, 416–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tong, S. T. Y., & Chen, W. (2002). Modeling the relationship between land use and surface water quality. Journal of Environmental Management, 66(4), 377–393.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Travis, W. R. (2007). New geographies of the American West: Land use and the changing patterns of place. Washington, DC: Island Press.Google Scholar
  79. Turnbull, G. K. (2004). Urban growth controls: Transitional dynamics of development fees and growth boundaries. Journal of Urban Economics, 55(2), 215–237.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Vitousek, P. M., Mooney, H. A., Lubchenco, J., & Melillo, J. M. (1997). Human domination of earth’s ecosystems. Science, 277(5325), 494–499.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Walker, P., & Fortmann, L. (2003). Whose landscape? A political ecology of the ‘exurban’ Sierra. Cultural Geographies, 10(4), 469–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Wassmer, R. W. (2000). Fiscal equalization for state and local government finance. Economics of Education Review, 19(4), 451–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Yang, Q. S., Li, X., & Shi, X. (2008). Cellular automata for simulating land use changes based on support vector machines. Computers & Geosciences, 34(6), 592–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Yinger, J. (1998). The incidence of development fees and special assessments. National Tax Journal, 51(1), 23–41.Google Scholar
  85. York, A. M. (2005). Land use institutions in an urbanizing environment. Ph.D. dissertation, Indiana University, Bloomington.Google Scholar
  86. York, A. M., & Munroe, D. K. (2010). Urban encroachment, forest regrowth and land-use institutions: Does zoning matter? Land Use Policy, 27(2), 471–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  87. York, A. M., Zhang, S., Boone, C. G., & Shrestha, M. (2009). Landscape fragmentation under rapid urbanization. UGEC Viewpoints, 20, 20–24.Google Scholar
  88. York, A. M., Shrestha, M., Boone, C. G., Zhang, S., Harrington, J. A., Jr., Prebyl, T., et al. (2011). Land fragmentation under rapid urbanization: A cross-site analysis of southwestern cities. Urban Ecosystems, 14(3), 429–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Human Evolution and Social ChangeArizona State UniversityTempeUSA
  2. 2.Department of GeographyOhio State UniversityColumbusUSA

Personalised recommendations