Transportation

, Volume 34, Issue 2, pp 255–274 | Cite as

Transportation and land-use preferences and residents’ neighborhood choices: the sufficiency of compact development in the Atlanta region

Original Paper

Abstract

This paper analyzes the transportation and land-use preference and actual neighborhood choices of a sample of 1,455 residents of metro Atlanta. We develop a stated-preference scale on which desires for neighborhood type are gauged, from preferences for low-density, auto-oriented environments to desires for compact, walkable, and transit-oriented neighborhoods. This scale is then related to desires for change in one’s own neighborhood characteristics after a hypothetical move. If all neighborhood preferences were equally likely to be satisfied, then neighborhood preferences would not be correlated with a desire for change. By contrast, in the current study, stronger preferences for a more walkable environment are associated with greater desire for change in one’s neighborhood characteristics. This suggests an undersupply of compact, walkable, and transit-friendly neighborhood types relative to current demand.

Keywords

Zoning Land-use regulation Stated preference Residential choice Smart growth Compact development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

Funding for this component of SMARTRAQ was provided by the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority and the Georgia Department of Transportation. We would like to acknowledge Christopher Leerssen, formerly with Georgia Tech, Mark Bradley and John Douglas Hunt with the University of Calgary for their considerable contribution to the design of the Community Preference Survey instrument. We thank Mr Guy Rousseau with the Atlanta Regional Commission for his comments on the manuscript. We would also like to thank Mr James Chapman with Lawrence Frank and Company, Inc, and Mr Carlos Arce and Ms Heather Contrino with NuStats, Inc for helping to design and oversee the collection of the unique data upon which this paper is based.

Disclaimer: The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, the Georgia Department of Transportation, The University of British Columbia, The University of Michigan, or the Georgia Institute of Technology. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation

References

  1. Alberini, A.: Optimal designs for discrete choice contingent valuation surveys: single-bound, double-bound, and bivariate models. J. Environ. Econ. Manag. 28, 287–306 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Arrow, K., Solow, R., Portney, P.R., Leamer, E.E., Radner, R., Shuman, H.: Report of the NOAA panel on contingent valuation. Fed. Regist. 58, 4601–4614 (1993)Google Scholar
  3. Badoe, D.A., Miller, E.J.: Transportation–land-use interaction: empirical findings in North America, and their implications for modeling. Transport. Res. D 5D(4), 235–263 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bishop, R.C., Heverlein, T.A.: The contingent valuation method. In: Johnson R.L., Johnson G.V. (eds.) Natural Resource Damages: Law and Economics, pp. 281–309. Wiley, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  5. Blackburn, M., Harrison, G.W., Rutstrom, E.E.: Statistical bias functions and informative hypothetical surveys. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 76, 1084–1088 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boyle, K.J., Holmes, T.P., Teisl, M.F., Roe, B.: A comparison of conjoint analysis response formats. Am. J. Agric. Econ. 83(2), 441–454 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownstone, D., DeVany, A.: Zoning, returns to scale, and the value of undeveloped land. Rev. Econ. Stat. 73, 699–704 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Crane, R.: The influence of urban form on travel: an interpretive review. J. Plan. Lit. 15(1), 3–23 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Downs, A.: Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. Housing Policy Debate 10(4), 955–974 (1999)Google Scholar
  10. Ewing, R., Pendall, R., Chen, D.: Measuring Sprawl and Its Impact. Smart Growth America, Washington. Available at http://www.smartgrowthamerica.com/sprawlindex/MeasuringSprawl.PDFH (2003a)Google Scholar
  11. Ewing, R., Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R., Zlot, A., Raudenbush, S.: Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. Am. J. Health Promot. 18, 47–57 (2003b)Google Scholar
  12. Fischel, W.A.: Does the American way of zoning cause the suburbs of metropolitan areas to be too spread out? In: Altshuler A., Morrill W., Wolman H., Mitchell F. (eds.) Governance and Opportunity in Metropolitan America. National Academy, Washington (1999)Google Scholar
  13. Frank, L., Stone, B., Jr., Bachman, W.: Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the central puget sound: methodological framework and findings. Transport. Res. D 5(3), 173–196 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Frank, L.D., Engelke, P., Schmid, T.: Health and Community Design: The Impacts of the Built Environment on Physical Activity. Island press, Washington (2003)Google Scholar
  15. Frank, L., Andresen, M., Schmid, T.: Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am. J. Prev. Med. 27(2), 87–96 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Frank, L.D., Schmid, T., Sallis, J.F., Chapman, J., Saelens, B.: Linking objective physical activity data with objective measures of urban form. Am. J. Prev. Med. 28(2S), 117–125 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Frumkin, H., Frank, L., Jackson, R.: The public health impacts of sprawl: designing, planning, and building for healthy communities. Island press, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  18. Giuliano, G.: Urban form and travel behavior: why we won’t get there from here. Conference on Policies for Fostering Sustainable Transportation Technologies, Pacific Grove, CA (1999)Google Scholar
  19. Green, R.K.: Land use regulation and the price of housing in a suburban Wisconsin County. J. Housing Econ. 8, 144–159 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Green, P.E., Srinivasan, P.: Conjoint analysis in marketing: new developments with implications for research and practice. J. Mark. 54(4), 3–19 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Levine, J.: Zoned Out: Regulation, Markets, and Choices in Transportation and Metropolitan Land Use. Resources for the Future press, Washington, DC (2006)Google Scholar
  22. Levine, J., Inam, A.: The market for transportation–land use integration: do developers want smarter growth than regulations allow? Transportation 31(4), 409–427 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levine, J., Inam, A., Torng, G.-W.: A choice-based rationale for land use and transportation alternatives: evidence from Boston and Atlanta. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 24(3), 317–330 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. McMillen, D.P., McDonald, J.F.: A Markov chain model of zoning change. J. Urban Econ. 30, 257–270 (1991); [§3–10] 56Google Scholar
  25. Moss, W.G.: Large lot zoning, property taxes, and metropolitan area. J. Urban Econ. 4(4), 408–427 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Myers, D., Gearin, E.: Current preferences and future demand for denser residential environments. Housing Policy Debate 12(4), 633–659 (2001)Google Scholar
  27. Pasha, H.: Suburban minimum lot zoning and spatial equilibrium. J. Urban Econ. 40(1), 1–12 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Peiser, R.B.: Density and urban sprawl. Land Econ. 65(3), 194–204 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Pendall, R.: Do land use controls cause sprawl? Environ. Plan. B: Plan. Des. 26(4), 555–571 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Pindyck, R.S., Rubinfeld, D.L.: Econmetric Models and Economic Forecasts, 2nd edn. McGraw-Hill, New York, p. 126 (1981)Google Scholar
  31. Podgodzinski, J.M., Sass, T.R.: The theory and estimation of endogenous zoning. Reg. Sci. Urban Econ. 24(5), 601–630 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Shlay, A.B., Rossi, P.H.: Keeping up the neighborhood: estimating net effects of zoning. Am. Sociol. Rev. 46(6), 703–719 (1981)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Talen, E., Knaap, G.: Legalizing smart growth: an empirical study of land use regulation in Illinois. J. Plan. Educ. Res. 22(4), 345–359 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thorson, J.A.: Zoning policy changes and the urban fringe land market. J. Am. Real Estate Urban Econ. Assoc. 22, 527–538 (1994); [§3–10]Google Scholar
  35. Thorson, J.A.: The effect of zoning on housing construction. J. Housing Econ. 6, 81–91 (1997); [§3–10]Google Scholar
  36. Vuchic, V.: Transportation for Livable Cities. Center for Urban Policy Research, New Brunswick, New Jersey (1999)Google Scholar
  37. Water Science and Technology Board: Valuing Ecosystem Services: Towards Better Environmental Decision Making. National Academies press, Washington, DC (2004)Google Scholar
  38. White, J.R.: Large lot zoning and subdivision costs: a test. J. Urban Econ. 23, 370–384 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Willson, R.W.: Suburban parking requirements: a tacit policy for automobile use and sprawl. J. Am. Plan. Assoc. 61(1), 29–42 (1995)Google Scholar
  40. Wittink, D.R., Cattin, P.: Commercial use of conjoint analysis: an update. J. Mark. 53(4), 91–96 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Urban and Regional Planning Program, Taubman College of Architecture and Urban PlanningThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.School of Community and Regional PlanningUniversity of British ColumbiaVancouverCanada

Personalised recommendations