Theoretically, urban containment programs will create an additional demand for urban land, reduce the demand for rural land, and segment the urban fringe land market into urban and rural submarkets. However, empirical evidence of these effects is scant. In addition, there is some question of the time it takes the urban fringe land market to internalize the supply restricting effects of urban containment programs. This paper presents evidence of the demand, segmentation, and timing effects of an urban containment program on urban fringe land values.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bahl, R.W. (1968). A Land Speculation Model: The Role of the Property Tax as a Constraint to Urban Sprawl. Journal of Regional Science , Vol. 8.
2.
Beaton, C.R., Hanson, J.S. and Hibbard. T.H. (1977). The Salem Area Urban Growth Boundary: Evaluation of Economic Impacts and Policy Recommendations for the Future, Mid-Willamette Valley Council of Governments, Oregon. Salem.
3.
Boyce, D.E., Allen, B., Desfor, G. and Zuker, R. (1972). Impact of Rapid Transit on Suburban Residential Property Values and Land Development, Regional Science Research Institute. Amerst.
4.
Chicoine, D.L. (1981). Farmland Values at the Urban Fringe. Land Economics, Vol. 57: 353-362.
5.
Colwell, P.F. and Sirmans, C.F. (1978). Area, Time, Centrality and the Value of Urban Land. Land Economics, Vol. 54: 514-519.
6.
DeLacy, P.B. (1983). Cash Value Equivalency in Residential Appraising . Appraisal Journal, Vol. 51: 81-88.
7.
Freeman, A.M. III. (1979). Hedonic Prices, Property Values and Measuring Environmental Benefits. Scandinavian Journal of Economics , Vol. 81, 154-173.
8.
Gleeson, M.E. (1979). Effects of an Urban Growth Management System on Land Values. Land Economics, Vol. 55, 350-365.
9.
Godschalk, D.R., Brower, D.J., McBennett, L.D., Vestal, B.A. and Daniel, C.H. (1979). Constitutional Issues of Growth Management, Planners Press, Chicago. APA .
10.
Griliches, Z. (1961). Hedonic Price Indexes for Automobiles. Models of Income Determination, Studies in Income and Wealth, New York: Columbia University Press, Vol. 28.
11.
Gustafson, C., Daniels, T.L., Shirack, R.P. (1982). The Oregon Land Use Act. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 48: 365-373.
12.
Knaap, G.-J. (1982). The Price Effects of an Urban Growth Boundary: A Test for the Effects of Timing, unpub. dissertation, Eugene: University of Oregon.
13.
Mid-Willamette Valley Council Of Governments, ( 1971). An Urban Growth Policy for the Salem, Oregon Area, Salem, revised December 1974.
14.
Mid-Willamette Valley Council Of Governments, ( 1972a). Papers and Discussion Outlines, Salem.
15.
Mid-Willamette Valley Council Of Governments, ( 1972b). Combining Public Regulation and Public Compensation to Guide Urban Growth, Salem.
16.
Mid-Willamette Valley Council Of Governments, ( 1972c). Developmental EJfects of an Urban Growth Boundary on the Salem, Oregon Area, Salem.
17.
Nelson, J.P. (1978). Economic Analysis of Transportation Noise Abatement , Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
18.
Rosen, S. (1974). Hedonic Prices and Implicit Markets. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 82: 34-55.
19.
Shoup, D.C. (1970). The Optimal Timing of Land Development. Papers and Proceedings of the Regional Science Association, Vol. 25: 33-44.
20.
Strathman, J.G., Dueker, K.J., DeLacy, P.B. (1984). Creative Financing in ResidentialSales: Effects and Implications. Housing Finance Review , Vol. 3.
21.
Whitelaw, W.E. (1980). Measuring the Effects of Public Policy on the Price of Urban Land. Urban Land Markets, J. Thomas Black and James E. Hoben, (eds). ULI Research Report No. 30, Urban Land Institute . Washington, D.C.
