Open space and land market feedbacks

Megan LawsonUniversity of Colorado-BoulderAugust 7, 2008

Research QuestionPrimary question: Does the establishment of open space affect the rate and location of residential development?Secondary question:Do open space management strategies alter these patterns?

The problem, in a nutshellDesignating open space turns undeveloped land into a permanent amenityIf individuals prefer permanent open space to developed or temporarily undeveloped land, development will cluster around the designated open spaceTwo problems with this:Designating open space in areas further from the city center could exacerbate sprawlEdge effects from development may degrade the habitat preserved by open space (Armsworth, 2006)

Existing LiteraturePeople value open space:Correll, Lilydahl, and Singell (Land, 1978)Irwin (Land, 2002)

Existing LiteraturePeople value open space:Correll, Lilydahl, and Singell (Land, 1978)Irwin (Land, 2002)People who value open space locate near it:Turner (JUE, 2005): theoretical model of preferences for open spaceIrwin and Bockstael (Reg. Sci. and Urb. Econ., 2004): how open space affects the rate and pattern of subdivision in Maryland

This papers contributionModeling development decisions at the individual parcel levelIncluding public open spaceEvaluating the effect that various management options have on development patternsEasement versus fee ownershipPublicly versus privately heldOpen versus restricted accessEndogenous open space decisionsOpen space only established where there is a threat, often development pressureCausal effects may be overstated

Case Study: Boulder County, ColoradoLong history of open space preservation:Chautauqua, 1875Sales tax specifically for open space purchase, 1967Aggressive open space purchasing began, 1989Currently over 65% of the land in Boulder County is permanently protected

DataParcel and subdivision data from the Boulder County Land Use and Assessors Departments80,000 parcels and 3,500 subdivisionsZoning data from Boulder County GIS DepartmentOpen space data from COMapUsed GIS to calculate the percentage of a buffer around each parcel comprised of public access open space, over time

Open Space and Residential Development1900

Open Space and Residential Development1920

Open Space and Residential Development1960

Open Space and Residential Development1980

Open Space and Residential Development2000

Open Space and Residential Development2008

The Econometric ModelProportional Hazard Model:Time varying covariate: percentage of land within 0.10 miles comprised of open spaceTime-invariant covariates:SlopeElevationZoningMunicipality indicatorsParcel sizeIndicator for located within any city limitsCost distance to Boulder city centerAdjacent parcel development status at time of development

Summary Statistics: Covariates

Summary Statistics: Covariates

Summary Statistics: Covariates

Summary Statistics: Covariates

Summary Statistics: Covariates

Summary Statistics: Covariates

Results, all data

Results, by decade

Results, with neighbors

Next stepsImproved measure of adjacent parcel development statusControlling for spatial autocorrelationAdditional buffer sizes and management optionsAnalysis for subdivisionsControlling for endogenous relationships