Open space, forest conservation, and urban sprawl in Maryland suburban subdivisions.

We present a conceptual framework of the choices facing a developer subdividing a parcel of fixed size. We use that conceptual framework to specify econometric models of average lot size and the number of lots per subdivision as functions of: minimum lot size zoning; forest planting requirements under the Maryland FCA; subdivision size; geographic features of the subdivision; subdivision location; and land use surrounding the subdivision. Our empirical analysis uses data from suburban subdivisions in the Baltimore-Washington suburbs. The estimated coefficient of minimum lot size zoning is significantly greater than zero (and not significantly different from one) in the average lot size equation and negative in the number of lots equation, implying that this form of regulation contributes to sprawl by reducing density and thereby confirming findings in the theoretical literature and empirical findings from nearby Calvert County, Maryland. The estimated coefficient of forested planting requirements under the FCA is positive in the average lot size equation, indicating that these requirements increase the average size of lots in suburban subdivisions, but also positive (albeit not significantly different from zero) in the number of lots equation. Thus, forest planting requirements increase average lot sizes but not the number of lots per subdivision, suggesting that they induce developers to economize on space allocated to roads, sidewalks, and other forms of infrastructure. Because forest planting requirements do not necessarily increase the number of lots per subdivision, they do not increase the amount of land needed to accommodate any given level of population growth and hence they do not contribute to sprawl. Thus, there may not be a conflict between forest preservation goals and prevention of urban sprawl.

References

Bockstael, N.E., and E.G. Irwin. 2000. "Economics and the Land Use-Environment Link." In T. Tietenberg and H. Folmer, eds. International Yearbook of Environmental and Resource Economics 2000/2001. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Cheshire, P., and S. Sheppard. 1995. "On the Price of Land and the Value of Amenities." Economica 6:247-67.

Galvin, M.E, B. Wilson, and M. Honeczy. 2000. "Maryland's Forest Conservation Act: A Process for Urban Greenspace Protection During the Development Process." Journal of Arboriculture 26:275-80.

Geoghegan, J. 2002. "The Value of Open Spaces in Residential Land Use." Land Use Policy 19:9198.

Geoghegan, J., L. Lynch, and S. Bucholtz. 2003. "Capitalization of Open Spaces into Housing Values and the Residential Property Tax Revenue Impacts of Agricultural Easement Programs." Agricultural and Resource Economics Review 32:33-45.

Geoghegan, J., L.A. Wainger, and N.E. Bockstael. 1997. "Spatial Landscape Indices in a Hedonic Framework: An Ecological Economics Analysis Using GIS." Ecological Economics 23:25164.

Hardie, I., E. Lichtenberg, and C.J. Nickerson. 2007. "Regulation, Open Space, and the Value of Land Undergoing Residential Subdivision." Land Economics" 83: 455-71.

Irwin, E.G. 2002. "The Effects of Open Space on Residential Property Values." Land Economics 78:465-80.

Irwin, E.G., and N.E. Bockstael. 2004. "Land Use Externalities, Open Space Preservation, and Urban Sprawl." Regional Science and Urban Economics 34:705-25.

Lichtenberg, E., C. Tra, and I. Hardie. 2007. "Land Use Regulation and the Provision of Open Space in Suburban Residential Subdivisions." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 54: 199-213.

McConnell, V., M. Walls, and E. Kopits. 2006. "Zoning, TDRs and the Density of Development." Journal of Urban Economics 59:44057.

McMillan, D.P., and J.F. McDonald. 1991. "A Simultaneous Equations Model of Zoning and Land Values." Regional Science and Urban Economics 21:14-27.

Moss, W.G. 1977. "Large Lot Zoning, Property Taxes and Metropolitan Area." Journal of Urban Economics 4:408-27.

Munneke, H.J. 2005. "Dynamics of Urban Zoning Structure: An Empirical Investigation of Zoning Change." Journal of Urban Economics 58:455-73.

Pasha, H.A. 1996. "Suburban Minimum Lot Size Zoning and Spatial Equilibrium." Journal of Urban Economics 40:1-12.

Thorsnes, E 2002. "The Value of a Suburban Forest Preserve: Estimates from Sales of Vacant Residential Building Lots." Land Economics 78:426-41.

Tyrvainen, L., and A. Miettinen. 2000. "Property Prices and Urban Forest Amenities." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 39:205-23.

Wallace, N.E. 1988. "The Market Effects of Zoning Undeveloped Land: Does Zoning Follow the Market?" Journal of Urban Economics 23:307-26.

Wu, J., R.M. Adams, and A.J. Plantinga. 2004. "Amenities in an Urban Equilibrium Model: Residential Development in Portland, Oregon." Land Economics 80:19-32.

Wu, J., and A.J. Plantinga. 2003. "The Influence of Public Open Space on Urban Spatial Structure." Journal of Environmental Economics and Management 46:288-309.

Erik Lichtenberg is Professor and Ian Hardie Professor Emeritus in the Department of Agricultural and Resource Economics, University of Maryland College Park.

Funding for this project was provided by the National Center for Smart Growth Small Grants Program, the USDA National Research Initiative Competitive Grants Program, and the Maryland Agricultural Experiment Station. Some data were provided from EPA STAR Grant R-82801201. We thank Lori Lynch, Jackie Geoghegan, Bruce Gardner, Anna Alberini, and participants of the AREUEA 2007 mid-year meeting for their comments and suggestions.

This article was presented in a principal paper session at the AAEA annual meeting (Portland, OR, July 2007). The articles in these sessions are not subjected to the journal's standard refereeing process. Table 1. Estimated Parameters of the Average Lot Size and Number of Lots Models

Subdivisions with Public

Sewer Access

Average Number

Lots Size of Lot Variable Intercept 0.08639 54.65036 **

(0.05319) (11.08031) Subdivision exempt from -0.02513 -15.22887

FCA (yes = 1) (0.04181) (8.71092) Forested acres required by 0.01129 ** 0.26113

FCA (0.00369) (0.76947) Zoned minimum lot size 1.13259 ** -78.64303 ** (acres) (0.06485) (13.51071) Total site acreage 0.000436 0.88913 **

(0.000997) (0.20780) Acres of floodplain -0.00723 -2.37453

in subdivision (0.00578) (1.20472) Acres of wetland 0.017278 * -0.50431

in subdivision (0.00796) (1.65846) Linear feet of stream -0.0001 ** 0.01761 **

in subdivision (0.000025) (0.00524) Percentage of land within a 0.00362 * 0.27224

half mile (0.00149) (0.31123)

in farmland Percentage of land within a 0.00106 -0.34276

half mile in parks, public (0.00277) (0.57774)

spaces, etc. Percentage of land within a -0.0013 0.01271

half mile in forest, brush, (0.00110) (0.22861)

or undeveloped Commuting distance to 0.000775 -1.09250 *

nearest CBD (road miles) (0.00212) (0.44138) Subdivision located -0.13551 63.25595 **

in Charles County (0.09984) (20.79842) Subdivision located -0.24474 * -13.32909

in Carroll County (0.10026) (2.88585) Subdivision located (0.07560) -8.85609

in Howard County (0.04227) (8.80669) Subdivision located -0.13117 ** 5.33535

in Montgomery County (0.04628) (9.64200) [R.sup.2] 0.8194 0.4931 Number of observations 163 163

Subdivisions without

Public Sewer Access

Average Number

Lots Size of Lot Variable Intercept (2.80318) 13.97038

(2.18670) (8.03264) Subdivision exempt from 4.03485 ** -7.45351 *

FCA (yes = 1) (0.99072) (3.63933) Forested acres required by 0.02153 0.00794

FCA (0.02617) (0.09614) Zoned minimum lot size 0.65777 * -1.32597 (acres) (0.31124) (1.14332) Total site acreage -0.00327 0.23831 **

(0.01135) (0.04169) Acres of floodplain -0.00253 -0.21721 **

in subdivision (0.01873) (0.06879) Acres of wetland -0.03700 0.33103

in subdivision (0.05150) (0.18917) Linear feet of stream -0.00006 -0.00022

in subdivision (0.000154) (0.000566) Percentage of land within a 0.01524 -0.01114

half mile (0.02436) (0.08949)