Advertisement

The Annals of Regional Science

, Volume 51, Issue 3, pp 671–693 | Cite as

Land use regulation and intraregional population–employment interaction

  • Jae Hong Kim
  • Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
Original Paper

Abstract

Land use regulations often delay residential development processes and increase the development costs, although they contribute to addressing market failures and realizing a well-organized urban spatial structure. Raising barriers to development can prevent households from moving in response to either job relocations or job growth at certain locations in a timely manner through restrictions in the local housing supply. This situation may also result in longer commuting distances, times, and costs, as well as greater spatial mismatches. To examine the possible adverse effects of the regulations, this study analyzes how intraregional population–employment interactions vary across metropolitan areas that substantially differ in the restrictiveness of land use regulations. First, an exploratory correlation analysis of 40 large U.S. metropolitan areas reveals that highly regulated regions, particularly those with lengthy approval processes, are likely to show a lower correlation between census tract-level population and employment changes and an increase in mean commuting time between 1990 and 2000. Secondly, regression analysis suggests that the lower correlation in highly regulated metropolitan areas could be attributed to the limited responsiveness of the population to employment redistribution within the regions.

JEL Classification

J61 R23 R31 R52 

References

  1. American Institute of Planners (1976) Survey of state land use planning activity. Department of Housing and Urban Development, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  2. Boarnet MG (1994a) An empirical model of intrametropolitan population and employment growth. Pap Reg Sci 73:135–152Google Scholar
  3. Boarnet MG (1994b) The monocentric model and employment location. J Urban Econ 36:79–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Boarnet MG, Chalermpong S, Geho E (2005) Specification issues in models of population and employment growth. Pap Reg Sci 84:21–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Buzbee WW (2005) The regulatory fragmentation continuum, westway and the challenges of regional growth. J Law Polit 21:323–364Google Scholar
  6. Cameron G, Muellbauer J (1998) The housing market and regional commuting and migration choices. Scott J Polit Econ 45:420–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Carlino GA, Mills ES (1987) The determinants of county growth. J Reg Sci 27:39–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Carruthers JI, Mulligan GF (2007) Land absorption in U.S. metropolitan areas: estimates and projections from regional adjustment models. Geogr Anal 39:78–104CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Carruthers JI, Ulfarsson GF (2002) Fragmentation and sprawl: evidence from interregional analysis. Growth Change 33:312–340CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins CJ (2000) Transaction costs and the land use planning process. J Plan Lit 14:507–518CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Downs A (1991) The advisory commission on regulatory barriers to affordable housing: its behavior and accomplishments. Hous Policy Debate 2:1095–1137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fischel WA (1985) The economics of zoning laws: a property rights approach to American land use controls. The Johns Hopkins University Press, BaltimoreGoogle Scholar
  13. Glaeser EL (2006) The economic impact of restricting housing supply. Policy Briefs PB-2006-3, Rappaport Institute for Greater Boston, Harvard University. http://www.hks.harvard.edu/rappaport/downloads/policybriefs/glaeserhousing_final.pdf. Accessed 07 Dec 2008
  14. Glaeser EL, Gyourko J, Saks RE (2006) Urban growth and housing supply. J Econ Geogr 6:71–89Google Scholar
  15. Gyourko J, Saiz A, Summers A (2008) A new measure of the local regulatory environment for housing markets: the Wharton residential land use regulatory index. Urban Stud 45:693–729CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Horner MW (2007) A multi-scale analysis of urban form and commuting change in a small metropolitan area (1990–2000). Ann Reg Sci 41:315–332CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ihlanfeldt KR (1994) The spatial mismatch between jobs and residential locations within urban areas. Cityscape J Policy Dev Res 1:219–244Google Scholar
  18. Ihlanfeldt KR (2004) Exclusionary land-use regulations within suburban communities: a review of the evidence and policy prescriptions. Urban Stud 41:261–283CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ihlanfeldt KR, Sjoquist DL (1998) The spatial mismatch hypothesis: a review of recent studies and their implications for welfare reform. Hous Policy Debate 9:849–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kaiser EJ, Godschalk DR (1995) Twentieth century land use planning: a stalwart family tree. J Am Plan Assoc 61:365–385CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kelejian HH, Robinson DP (1993) A suggested method of estimation for spatial interdependent models with autocorrelated errors, and an application to a county expenditure model. Pap Reg Sci 72:297–312CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Kim JH (2011) Linking land use planning and regulation to economic development: a literature review. J Plan Lit 26:35–47Google Scholar
  23. Kim S (2011) Intraregional residential movement of the elderly: testing a suburban-to-urban migration hypothesis. Ann Reg Sci 46:1–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kim JH, Hewings GJD (2012) Integrating the fragmented regional and subregional socioeconomic forecasting and analysis: a spatial regional econometric input-output framework. Ann Reg Sci 49:485–513Google Scholar
  25. Kim JH, Hewings GJD (2013) Interjurisdictional competition and land development: a micro-level analysis. In: Pagliara F, de Bok M, Simmonds D, Wilson A (eds) Employment location in cities and regions: models and applications. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 181–199Google Scholar
  26. Levine J (1998) Rethinking accessibility and jobs-housing balance. J Am Plan Assoc 64:133–149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Levine J (2006) Zoned out: regulation, markets, and choices in transportation and metropolitan land-use. RFF Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  28. Levinson DM (1997) Job and housing tenure and the journey to work. Ann Reg Sci 31:451–471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Linneman P, Summers A (1991) Wharton urban decentralization project data set. Wharton Real Estate Unit, University of Pennsylvania, PennsylvaniaGoogle Scholar
  30. Malpezzi S (1996) Housing prices, externalities, and regulation in U.S. metropolitan areas. J Hous Res 7:209–241Google Scholar
  31. Mayer CJ, Somerville CT (2000) Land use regulation and new construction. Reg Sci Urban Econ 30: 639–662Google Scholar
  32. Moore T (1978) Why allow planners to do what they do? A justification from economic theory. J Am Inst Plan 44:387–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mulligan GF, Vias AC (2006) Growth and change in U.S. micropolitan areas. Ann Reg Sci 40:203–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pendall R (1999) Do land-use controls cause sprawl? Environ Plan B Plan Des 26:555–574Google Scholar
  35. Pendall R (2000) Local land use regulation and the chain of exclusion. J Am Plan Assoc 66:125–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pendall R, Puentes R, Martin J (2006) From traditional to reformed: a review of the land use regulations in the Nation’s 50 largest metropolitan areas. Brookings InstitutionGoogle Scholar
  37. Platt RH (1996) Land use and society: geography, law, and public policy. Island Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  38. Pollakowski HO, Wachter SM (1990) The effects of land-use constraints on housing prices. Land Econ 66:315–324CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Quigley JM, Raphael S (2004) Is housing unaffordable? Why isn’t it more affordable? J Econ Perspect 18:191–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Rey SJ, Boarnet MG (2004) A taxonomy of spatial econometric models for simultaneous equations systems. In: Anselin L, Florax R, Rey SJ (eds) Advances in spatial econometrics: methodology, tools, and applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 99–119Google Scholar
  41. Riley SF (2012) Land use regulations and the returns to low-income homeownership. Ann Reg Sci 49: 745–766.Google Scholar
  42. Rudel TK (1989) Situations and strategies in American land use planning. Cambridge University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  43. Saks RE (2008) Job creation and housing construction: constraints on metropolitan area employment growth. J Urban Econ 64:178–195CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Shen Q (1996) Spatial impacts of locally enacted growth controls: the San Francisco Bay region in the 1980s. Environ Plan B Plan Des 23:61–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Teitz MB (1996) American planning in the 1990s: evolution, debate, and challenge. Urban Stud 33:649–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Thorson JA (1996) An examination of the monopoly zoning hypothesis. Land Econ 72:43–55CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ulfarsson GF, Carruthers JI (2006) The cycle of fragmentation and sprawl: a conceptual framework and empirical model. Environ Plan B Plan Des 33:767–788CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van der Vlist AJ, Gorter C, Nijkamp P, Rietveld P (2002) Residential mobility and local housing-market differences. Environ Plan A 34:1147–1164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Van Ommeren J, Rietveld P, Nijkamp P (2000) Job mobility, residential mobility and commuting: a theoretical analysis using search theory. Ann Reg Sci 34:213–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Planning, Policy, and DesignUniversity of California, IrvineIrvineUSA
  2. 2.Regional Economics Applications LaboratoryUniversity of Illinois at Urbana-ChampaignUrbanaUSA

Personalised recommendations