The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 833–870 | Cite as

The impact of interstate highways on land use conversion

Original Paper


Between 1945 and 2007, the United States lost 19.3 % of its agricultural land. Over the same time period, the construction of the 42,500 mile interstate highway system lowered transportation costs and opened large tracts of land for development. This paper assesses the impact of the interstate highway system on agricultural land loss in Georgia and uses the empirical estimates to simulate agricultural land loss resulting from the construction of additional interstate highways. Using a historical data set of agricultural land and interstate highway mileage, empirical estimates indicate that each additional mile of interstate highway reduces agricultural land by 468 acres. The impact of interstate highways is heterogeneous across initial level of county development. Urban counties convert 70 % more land than the full sample estimates. Simulation results show that additions to the interstate system create further loss of agricultural land. The results imply that future conservation programs need to consider how to mitigate the impact of the interstate highway system.

JEL Classification

R14 R11 R52 Q56 

Supplementary material

168_2013_564_MOESM1_ESM.docx (31 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (docx 30 KB)


  1. AASHTO (2005) A policy on design standards-interstate system. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Alonso W (1964) Location and land use. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  3. Baum-Snow N (2007a) Did highways cause suburbanization? Q J Econ 122(2):775–805CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baum-Snow N (2007b) Suburbanization and transportation in the monocentric model. J Urban Econ 62: 405–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Chandra A, Thompson E (2000) Does public infrastructure affect economic activity?: Evidence from the rural interstate highway system. Reg Sci Urban Econ 30(4):457–490CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis SC, Diegel SW, Boundy RG (2011) Transportation energy data book, vol 30. Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak RidgeCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duranton G, Turner MA (2011) The fundamental law of road congestion: evidence from US cities. Am Econ Rev 101(6):2616–2652CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Duranton G, Turner MA (2012) Urban growth and transportation. Rev Econ Stud 79(4):1407–1440Google Scholar
  9. Georgia Department of Transportation (1981) Annual report for fiscal years 1979–1981. AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  10. Georgia Department of Transportation (1989) Fiscal year 1989 annual report. AtlantaGoogle Scholar
  11. Georgia State University AYSPS, Research A (2000) The northern arc: the outer perimeter reincarnated? Research Atlanta, IncGoogle Scholar
  12. Goldberg D (1994) Loop appears dead; portion looks likely. Atlanta Journal Constitution, 20 Nov 1994Google Scholar
  13. Lavingo B, Dorfman J, Barnett B, Bergstrom J (2004) Farmland preservation in Georgia: three possible roads to success. University of Georgia, Athens, GAGoogle Scholar
  14. Michaels G (2008) The effect of trade on the demand for skill: evidence from the interstate highway system. Rev Econ Stat 90(4):683–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Mills ES (1967) An aggregative model of resourse allocation in a metropolitan area. Am Econ Rev 57: 197–210Google Scholar
  16. Muth RF (1969) Cities and housing. University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  17. Nechyba TJ, Walsh RP (2004) Urban sprawl. J Econ Perspect 18(4):177–200CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Safe Accountable, Flexible Efficient Transportation, Equality Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) Washington, DC, pp 109–159Google Scholar
  19. US Department of Agriculture NASS (2011) Crop production historical track records. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  20. US Department of Transportation FHWA (1980–2008) Highway performance monitoring system. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  21. US Department of Transportation FHWA (1993) Status of improvement of the national system of interstate and defense highways file PR-511. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  22. US Department of Transportation FHWA (1995) Comprehensive truck size and weight study summary report for phase I-synthesis of truck size and weight (TS &W) studies and issues.
  23. US Department of Transportation FHWA (2010) Highway performancing monitoring system field manual. WashingtonGoogle Scholar
  24. US Department of Transportation FHWA (2011) The Dwight D. Eisenhower system of interstate and defense highways–engineering data. Accessed 5 April 2012

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Georgia State UniversityAtlantaUSA
  2. 2.Marquette UniversityMilwaukeeUSA

Personalised recommendations