Addressing Growth and Addressing Growth and Sprawl: Sprawl:

Review of Current Review of Current ResearchResearchPrepared for the:Prepared for the:National Public Policy Education ConferenceNational Public Policy Education ConferenceSeptember 21-24, 2003September 21-24, 2003Salt Lake City, UtahSalt Lake City, Utah

Stephan J. Goetz, Ph.D.Stephan J. Goetz, Ph.D.

Director, The Northeast Regional Center for Director, The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development and Professor of Rural Development and Professor of Agricultural and Regional Economics, Penn Agricultural and Regional Economics, Penn State UniversityState University

Presentation OutlinePresentation Outline

1.1. Land Use Trends and IssuesLand Use Trends and Issues2.2. Determinants Determinants (consumer choices)(consumer choices)

3.3. Consequences Consequences (how do we draw (how do we draw attention to the issues?)attention to the issues?)

4.4. Possible Solutions to Land Use Possible Solutions to Land Use ProblemsProblems

5.5. On-Going ResearchOn-Going Research

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

1. 1. Some Key Land Use Trends Some Key Land Use Trends and and Issues…Issues…

Land on the urban fringe is cheaper, valued Land on the urban fringe is cheaper, valued highly by homebuyers (a private benefit)highly by homebuyers (a private benefit)

Farmers sell land when the amount offered Farmers sell land when the amount offered exceeds profits from agriculture plus non-exceeds profits from agriculture plus non-pecuniary benefits pecuniary benefits (this raises many questions)(this raises many questions)

Current residential development is widely Current residential development is widely perceived to have negative public impactsperceived to have negative public impacts

Major concern over irreversibilityMajor concern over irreversibility

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Developed Land: Top Ten Developed Land: Top Ten StatesStates

RankRank

Acres of Acres of Developed Developed

Land in 1997Land in 1997

Pct Non-Pct Non-Federal Land Federal Land

that was that was Developed Developed

Land in 1997Land in 1997

Total Acres of Total Acres of Land Land

Developed, Developed, 1992-971992-97

11

22

33

44

55

66

77

88

99

1010

TexasTexas

CaliforniaCalifornia

FloridaFlorida

PennsylvaniPennsylvaniaa

GeorgiaGeorgia

North North CarolinaCarolina

OhioOhio

MichiganMichigan

New YorkNew York

IllinoisIllinois

New JerseyNew Jersey

Rhode IslandRhode Island

MassachusettMassachusettss

ConnecticutConnecticut

Puerto RicoPuerto Rico

MarylandMaryland

DelawareDelaware

FloridaFlorida

PennsylvaniaPennsylvania

OhioOhio

TexasTexas

GeorgiaGeorgia

FloridaFlorida

CaliforniaCalifornia

PennsylvaniaPennsylvania

North CarolinaNorth Carolina

TennesseeTennessee

OhioOhio

MichiganMichigan

South CarolinaSouth Carolina

Source: Jill Schwartz, 2003, AFT

Another key land use trend…Another key land use trend…

Second or seasonal homes are an Second or seasonal homes are an increasingly important rural land useincreasingly important rural land use

In some areas long-time residents are In some areas long-time residents are being driven out by newcomers, as being driven out by newcomers, as local property values escalate local property values escalate (gentrification)(gentrification)

Trend driven by baby boomers, who Trend driven by baby boomers, who are retiring into non-traditional areas?are retiring into non-traditional areas?

Accelerating since 9/11 and stock Accelerating since 9/11 and stock market retraction?market retraction?

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

2. Determinants or drivers of current land use patterns…

• Household/population numbers, growing incomes

• Changing tastes and preferences (open space)

• Societal trends (single-person households)

• Technological change• Farm profitability, niche markets• Urban decay• Community planning (lack thereof)• Federal, state and local laws; home rule

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Determinants of new home construction, 1990-2002

-0.2 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Population growth*

Falling HH size*

Direct sales/ farm*

Income growth*

Farm profits

Gov. payments

Pop. Density*

Bars show standardized estimates from a linear regression equation. Northeast US counties only. *Statistically different from zero The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

3.3. Consequences of current Consequences of current land land uses/lifestyle choices uses/lifestyle choices (hypotheses)(hypotheses)

Growing traffic congestionGrowing traffic congestion Population healthPopulation health Environmental effectsEnvironmental effects Social and economic effectsSocial and economic effects Housing valuesHousing values

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Mobility Data for Washington DC-MD-VA, 1982-2000

3200

3250

3300

3350

3400

3450

3500

3550

3600

3650

3700

3750

1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000

Po

pu

latio

n D

en

sity

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

Co

ng

est

ion

Co

st p

er

Ca

pita

Congestion Cost

Density

Possible health consequences of current land use patterns

• Increasing levels of pollution (EPA) – suspended particles (soot)

• Growing incidence of asthma in small children

• Atlanta Olympics – natural experiment

• Cancer risk rate map• Growing incidence of obesity,

diabetesThe Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

-43

-29

-25

-50 -40 -30 -20 -10 0

Asthmaemergencies

Peak ozonelevels

Trafficreduction

Reduction in selected variables during the1996 Olympics, Atlanta, GA, in percent

Source: Friedman et al., 2001 (CDC/JAMA)

Impact of residential choice Impact of residential choice on mode of transport of on mode of transport of school childrenschool children

0 10 20 30 40

1 mile or less

1-2 miles

Percent of school age children Percent of school age children walking to school as a function of walking to school as a function of

distance between home and schooldistance between home and school

Impact of residential choice Impact of residential choice on weight (obesity)on weight (obesity)

Residents of “most sprawling” Residents of “most sprawling” community weigh 6.3 lbs more community weigh 6.3 lbs more than residents of Manhattan, NY than residents of Manhattan, NY (the most dense or least-(the most dense or least-sprawling place); Reid Ewingsprawling place); Reid Ewing

Economic impacts of Economic impacts of agriculture (as a type of land agriculture (as a type of land use)use)

Underestimated?Underestimated? SourceSource: The Northeast Center/E. Tavernier, 2002: The Northeast Center/E. Tavernier, 2002

CTCT 1.491.49 1.521.52 1.241.24

NJNJ 1.521.52 1.581.58 1.251.25

NYNY 1.571.57 1.991.99 1.331.33

PAPA 1.751.75 2.342.34 1.461.46

OutputValue Added

Employ-ment

Agriculture Sector Multipliers

State

How land use affects How land use affects housing valueshousing values

R. Ready and C. Abdalla, Berks R. Ready and C. Abdalla, Berks County,PA Study (funded by The County,PA Study (funded by The Northeast Center), June 2003Northeast Center), June 2003– Examines impacts of alternative land Examines impacts of alternative land

uses on housing values (incl. open space)uses on housing values (incl. open space) Elena Irwin, Elena Irwin, Land EconomicsLand Economics, Nov. , Nov.

20022002– Permanent preservation of open space Permanent preservation of open space

yields a premium on home valuesyields a premium on home values

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

……but, is housing but, is housing development also economic development also economic development?development?

Do counties that issue building permits at faster rates relative to the existing stock of homes also experience faster per capita income growth over time?

Per Capita Income Growth vs. Building Per Capita Income Growth vs. Building Permit Permit Rate (1990-1999): All Northeast CountiesRate (1990-1999): All Northeast Counties

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Permit Rate

Inco

me G

row

th

Calvert, MD

New York, NY

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Per Capita Income Growth vs. Building Per Capita Income Growth vs. Building Permit Rate: Permit Rate: SuburbsSuburbs (Non-Metro Adjacent (Non-Metro Adjacent Counties)Counties)

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%

Permit Rate

Inco

me G

row

th

St. Mary's, MD

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Per Capita Income Growth vs. Building Per Capita Income Growth vs. Building Permit Rate:Permit Rate: Remote Rural CountiesRemote Rural Counties (non- (non-metro non-adjacent) metro non-adjacent)

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35%Permit Rate

Inco

me G

row

th

Potter, PA

Nantucket, MA

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

4. Possible “solutions” to 4. Possible “solutions” to sprawlsprawl

Outlaw sprawl; enforce “smart growth”Outlaw sprawl; enforce “smart growth” Use European model of property rightsUse European model of property rights Raise gas taxes, stop new highway Raise gas taxes, stop new highway

constructionconstruction Eliminate home rule Eliminate home rule Use incentive payments and/or regulationsUse incentive payments and/or regulations Multi-functionality: Make green paymentsMulti-functionality: Make green payments

……in practice, the first four options may not be feasiblein practice, the first four options may not be feasible

The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

5.5. On-Going ResearchOn-Going Research

Determinants of new home Determinants of new home construction (nation-wide)construction (nation-wide)

Second home locations and their Second home locations and their impactsimpacts

Trade, land use and the Trade, land use and the environment workshop (2004)environment workshop (2004)

The future viability of agricultureThe future viability of agriculture

What are Society’s Objectives for What are Society’s Objectives for How Land is Used?How Land is Used?

– Protect acres of farmland, food supply?Protect acres of farmland, food supply?– Protect farm families?Protect farm families?– Provide rural employment?Provide rural employment?– Provide environmental benefits, scenic Provide environmental benefits, scenic

vistas?vistas?– Maintain/improve health of the Maintain/improve health of the

population?population?– Encourage/support home ownership?Encourage/support home ownership?Confusion abounds with regard

to … what, where, and how tosave or to use land resources.

Paul W. Barkley

What are homebuyers’ What are homebuyers’ residential preferences and how residential preferences and how do they compare with actual do they compare with actual residential choices available?residential choices available?

What is driving What is driving suburbanization?suburbanization?– Search for better schools?Search for better schools?– Desire for green space?Desire for green space?– Low-maintenance, newer, bigger Low-maintenance, newer, bigger

homes?homes?– Urban decay, crime, poverty?Urban decay, crime, poverty?– Desire to drive more (SUVs)?Desire to drive more (SUVs)?

What are the full benefits and costs of alternative patterns of development? Who benefits, who loses from land preservation programs?

Which public policy objectives can be met by different portfolios of land use policies?

SummarySummary

TrafficPatterns/

Congestion

EnvironmentalConsequences(air, land, water)

HealthImpacts

Data sets

FiscalImpacts

Economic Impacts (consumer

well-being)

Households Preferences Incomes NumbersTechnological changeNiche marketsFarm profitabilityEconomic vitalityUrban decayFederal subsidiesInstitutions/lawsGeographyOther

SocialImpacts

Determinants and Impacts of Alternative Land Uses The Northeast Regional Center for Rural Development

Benefits and Costs of Alternative Patterns of Development

2

3

6

7

8

Pattern of Development

EcosystemImpacts

Determinants of Land Use

1

9

4ChangingLand Use

Other Resources from The Other Resources from The Northeast CenterNortheast Center

Land Use Annual Research Land Use Annual Research Workshop ProceedingsWorkshop Proceedings– 2001: Orlando, Fl2001: Orlando, Fl– 2002: Camp Hill, PA2002: Camp Hill, PA– 2003: Manchester, NH2003: Manchester, NH

Special Issue of Special Issue of Agricultural and Agricultural and Resource Economics Review Resource Economics Review (April (April 2003)2003)