Expansive Urban Growth Boundary

Tomoru Hiramatsu

Department of Economics, Kumamoto Gakuen University, Kumamoto, Japan.

DOI: 10.4236/me.2014.57074                

Abstract

Intuitively, increasing the available land, which is an economic resource, should improve social welfare. However, traditional economic models of urban economy show that an urban growth boundary (UGB) policy, which restricts land availability, actually improves social welfare by reducing the negative externalities imposed by congestion. Nevertheless, recent studies have found that a UGB policy is not always welfare improving. This paper examines both expansive and restrictive UGB regimes using the Chicago metropolitan statistical area as an example. The simulation results presented herein show that an expansive UGB positively affects social welfare, while a restrictive UGB improves social welfare if open spaces are considered and vacant land outside the UGB registers a moderate fall in value. Further, the proportion of absentee landlords is an important determinant of welfare gains, since their gain (or loss) from a UGB policy in the real estate market is a drain from the urban economy. Moreover, a restrictive UGB leads to centralized land use, while an expansive UGB results in moderate suburbanization. Finally, gasoline consumption decreases under a restrictive UGB but increases under an expansive UGB because vehicle miles travelled increase as the city expands outward.

Keywords

Urban Growth Boundary, Centralization and Suburbanization, Computable General Equilibrium

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Brueckner, J.K. (2000) Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional Science Review, 23, 160-171. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/016001700761012710
[2]	Solow, R.M. (1972) Congestion Density and the Use of Land in Transportation. The Swedish Journal of Economics, 74, 161-173. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/3439015
[3]	Kanemoto, Y. (1977) Cost-Benefit Analysis and the Second Best Land Use for Transportation. Journal of Urban Economics, 4, 483-503. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0094-1190(77)90008-0
[4]	Arnott, R. (1979) Unpriced Transportation Congestion. Journal of Economic Theory, 21, 294-316. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0531(79)90032-2
[5]	Pines, D. and Sadka, E. (1985) Zoning, First-Best, Second-Best and Third-Best Criteria for Allocating Land for Roads. Journal of Urban Economics, 17, 167-183. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0094-1190(85)90044-0
[6]	Bento, A.M., Franco, S.F. and Kaffine, D. (2006) The Efficiency and Distributional Impacts of Anti-Sprawl Policies. Journal of Urban Economics, 59, 121-141. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2005.09.004
[7]	Brueckner, J.K. (2007) Urban Growth Boundaries: An Effective Second-Best Remedy for Unpriced Traffic Congestion? Journal of Housing Economics, 16, 263-273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhe.2007.05.001
[8]	Anas, A. and Rhee, H.-J. (2007) When Are Urban Growth Boundaries Not Second-Best Policies to Congestion Tolls? Journal of Urban Economics, 61, 263-286. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jue.2006.09.004
[9]	Anas, A. and Rhee, H.-J. (2006) Curbing Urban Sprawl with Congestion Tolls and Urban Boundaries. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 36, 510-541. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2006.03.003
[10]	Ng, C.F. (2007) Analyzing Anti-Sprawl Policies in a Location Model with Congestion, Agglomeration Economics, and Open Space. Working Paper. http://www.economics.uci.edu/files/economics/docs/micro/f07/ng.pdf
[11]	Anas, A. and Liu, Y. (2007) A Regional Economy, Land Use, and Transportation Model (RELU-TRAN?): Formulation, Algorithm Design, and Testing. Journal of Regional Science, 47, 415-455. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9787.2007.00515.x
[12]	Anas, A. and Arnott, R.J. (1993) Development and Testing of the Chicago Prototype Housing Market Model. Journal of Housing Research, 4, 73-129.
[13]	American Automobile Association (2005) Your Driving Costs: How Much Are You Really Paying to Drive? AAA Association Communication, Heathrow. http://www.aaapa.org/pdfs/Driving_Costs_2005.pdf
[14]	RTAMS (2000) Regional Transportation Assets Management System. http://www.rtams.org/ui/homepage.asp
[15]	IDOT (2000) The Illinois Travel Statistics. Illinois Department of Transportation, Office of Planning and Programming. http://www.dot.state.il.us/travelstats/2000its.pdf
[16]	NHTS (2001) National Household Travel Survey. Bureau of Transportation Statistics. http://nhts.ornl.gov/