Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Virtually every city in the United States bans multifamily homes in at least some neighborhoods, and in many cities most residential land is restricted to single family homes. This is the case even though many metropolitan areas are facing skyrocketing housing costs and increased environmental degradation that could be alleviated by denser housing supply. Some scholars have argued that an unrepresentative set of vocal development opponents are the culprits behind this collective action failure. Yet, recent work suggests that opposition to density may be widespread. In this research note, I use a conjoint survey experiment to provide evidence that preferences for single-family development are ubiquitous. Across every demographic subgroup analyzed, respondents preferred single-family home developments by a wide margin. Relative to single family homes, apartments are viewed as decreasing property values, increasing crime rates, lowering school quality, increasing traffic, and decreasing desirability.

Keywords

land use development experiment survey

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abramson

Scott

Kocak

Korhan

Magazinnik

Asya

. 2019. What do we Learn about Voter Preferences from Conjoint Experiments. https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites/default/files/kkocak/files/conjoint_draft.pdf.

Badger, Emily and Quoctrung Bui. 2019. “Cities Start to Question an American Ideal: A House with Yard on Every Lot,” New York Times Upshot, June 18, 2019. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/06/18/upshot/cities-across-america-question-single-family-zoning.html

Banzhaf

H. Spencer

. 2014. “The Market for Local Public Goods.” Case Western Law Review 64 (4): 1441–80. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/caselrev/vol64/iss4/4/

Banzhaf

H. Spencer

Mangum

Kyle

. 2020. “Capitalization as a Two-Part Tariff: The Role of Zoning.” FRB of Philadelphia Working Paper No. 19–20.

Bates

Laurie

Santerre

Rexford

. 1994. “The Determinants of Restrictive Residential Zoning: Some Empirical Findings.” Journal of Regional Science 34 (2): 253–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.1994.tb00866.x

Been

Vicki

. 2018. “City NIMBYS.” Journal of Land Use 33 (3): 217–50. https://www.jstor.org/stable/26895803

Einstein

Katherine Levine

Glick

David

Palmer

Maxwell

. 2020. Neighborhood Defenders: Participatory Politics and America's Housing Crisis. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Ellickson

Robert

. 1973. “Alternatives to Zoning: Covenants, Nuisance Rules, and Fines as Land use Controls.” University of Chicago Law Review 40 (4): 681. https://chicagounbound.uchicago.edu/uclrev/vol40/iss4/2

Elmendorf

Christopher

. 2019. “Beyond the Double Veto: Land use Plans as Preemptive Intergovernmental Compacts.” UC Davis Legal Studies Research Paper Series.

10.

Fischel

William

. 2001. The Homevoter Hypothesis: How Home Values Influence Local Government Taxation, School Finance, and Land-Use Policies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

11.

Gyourko

Joseph

Saiz

Albert

Summers

Anita

. 2008. “A New Measure of the Local Regulatory Environment for Housing Markets: The Wharton Residential Land use Regulatory Index.” Urban Studies 45 (3): 693–729. https://doi.org/10.1177/0042098007087341

12.

Hainmueller

Jens

Hopkins

Daniel J.

Yamamoto

Teppei

. 2014. “Causal Inference in Conjoint Analysis: Understanding Multidimensional Choices Via Stated Preference Experiments.” Political Analysis 22 (1): 1–30. https://doi.org//dx.https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpt024.

13.

Hamilton

Bruce W

. 1975. “Zoning and Property Taxation in a System of Local Governments.” Urban Studies 12 (2): 205–11. https://doi.org/10.1080/00420987520080301

14.

Hankinson

Michael

. 2018. “When do Renters Behave Like Homeowners? High Rent, Price Anxiety, and NIMBYism.” American Political Science Review 101 (3): 393–408. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055418000035

15.

Hankinson

Michael

Magazinnik

Asya

. 2020. “The Supply-Equity Trade-off: The Effect of Spatial Representation on the Local Housing Supply,” Working Paper. http://mhankinson.com/documents/supply_equity_working.pdf

16.

Henderson

J. V.

Ioannides

Y. M.

. 1983. “A Model of Housing Tenure Choice.” American Economic Review 73: 98–113. https://www.jstor.org/stable/1803929

17.

Hilber

Christian

. 2005. “Neighborhood Externality Risk and the Homeownership Status of Properties.” Journal of Urban Economics 57 (2): 213–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2004.10.006

18.

Iwata

Shinichiro

Yamaga

Hisaki

. 2008. “Rental Externality, Tenure Security, and Housing Quality.” Journal of Housing Economics 17 (3): 201–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2008.06.002

19.

Leeper

Thomas

Hobolt

Sara

Tilley

James

. 2020. “Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments.” Political Analysis 28 (2): 207–21. https://doi.org/10.1017/pan.2019.30

20.

Marble

William

Nall

Clayton

. 2019. “Where Self-Interests Trumps Ideology: Liberal Homeowners and Local Opposition to Housing Development.” The Journal of Politics 83(4): 1747-1763. https://doi.org/10.1086/711717

21.

Myers

Dowell

Elizabeth

Gearin

. 2001. “Current Preferences and Future Demand for Denser Residential Environments.” Housing Policy Debate 12(4): 633-659.

22.

Oates

Wallace E

. 1981. “On Local Finance and the Tiebout Model.” The American Economic Review 71 (2): 93–8. https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1815699.pdf

23.

Pendall

Rolf

. 1999. “Opposition to Housing NIMBY and Beyond.” Urban Affairs Review 35 (1): 112–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/10780879922184310

24.

Pendall

Rolf

. 2000. “Local Land Use Regulation and the Chain of Exclusion.” Journal of the American Planning Association 66 (2): 125–42. https://doi.org/10.1080/01944360008976094

25.

Pogodzinski

J. M.

Sass

Tim

. 1994. “The Theory and Estimation of Endogenous Zoning.” Regional Science and Urban Economics 24 (5): 601–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/0166-0462(94)02059-0

26.

Rothwell

Jonathan

Massey

Douglas

. 2010. “Density Zoning and Class Segregation in U.S. Metropolitan Areas.” Social Science Quarterly 91 (5): 1123–43. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-6237.2010.00724.x.

27.

Saiz

Albert

. 2010. “The Geographic Determinants of Housing Supply.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 125 (3): 1253–96. https://doi.org/10.1162/qjec.2010.125.3.1253

28.

Schwab

Robert

Oates

Wallace

. 1991. “Community Composition and the Provision of Local Public Goods: A Normative Analysis.” Journal of Public Economics 44 (2): 217–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/0047-2727(91)90027-Y

29.

Tighe

Rosie

. 2012. “How Race and Class Stereotyping Shapes Attitudes Toward Affordable Housing.” Housing Studies 27 (7): 962–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2012.725831

30.

Trounstine

Jessica

. 2018. Segregation by Design: Local Politics and Inequality in American Cities. New York: Cambridge University Press.

31.

Trounstine

Jessica

. 2020. “The Geography of Inequality: How Land Use Regulation Produces Segregation.” American Political Science Review 114 (2): 443–55. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055419000844

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.06 MB