Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interjurisdictional Competition and Land Development: A Micro-Level Analysis

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Employment Location in Cities and Regions

Part of the book series: Advances in Spatial Science ((ADVSPATIAL))

Abstract

A considerable number of recent studies show that metropolitan areas having a more fragmented governance structure tend to show a sprawling pattern of development. This may suggest that a fragmented institutional setting can generate a higher level of interjurisdictional competition that often hinders systematic management of the development process, thus offsetting the benefits from disaggregated local governance, such as welfare and fiscal efficiency gains. While previous studies typically assess this issue through metropolitan-level analysis, this research examines how the institutional setting influences land development at a micro-scale (i.e., section: 1 mile × 1 mile). More specifically, the present study (1) quantifies the institutional conditions in each section, taking the jurisdictional boundaries into account and (2) measures its effect on land use conversion rate by employing a quasi-likelihood estimation method. An empirical assessment of the U.S. Midwest case suggests that interjurisdictional competition, particularly the race for specific small land areas, does accelerate land use conversion, although the analysis results vary to some extent by the measurement of the institutional factor.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    Brueckner (2003) provides a comprehensive summary of the empirical research on the inter-jurisdictional competition, particularly the studies using spatial econometrics.

  2. 2.

    The notion of the association between political fragmentation and sprawl has been suggested by Downs (1994) and Lewis (1996). Furthermore, in the growth management literature, coordinated planning is often regarded as a necessary condition for the successful control of sprawl.

  3. 3.

    Whereas sprawl is generally regarded as a main cause of the urban problems, Gordon and Richardson (1997) and some others contend that such development patterns are the natural consequence of economic decentralization and the American preference. It also needs to be noted that the concept of sprawl is still somewhat elusive and often defined differently, even though a few studies (Ewing 1996; Tsai 2005) have attempted to identify and clarify the characteristics of sprawl.

  4. 4.

    In this study, the dependent variable is not density change but the level of population density. Therefore, the outcome does not necessarily indicate that the fragmented governance induces a more rapid density decline, although it may suggest that the fragmentation is inversely associated with density level.

  5. 5.

    This analysis employs the definition of the metropolitan statistical area boundaries, used for Census 1990, as it analyzes how institutional structure in early 1990s affects land development between 1992 and 2001.

  6. 6.

    The institutional factors in t−1 (\( {{G}_{{t - 1}}} \)) is used to avoid the endogeneity problem (i.e., the influence of development pattern on \( G \)), although this may not be a perfect solution.

  7. 7.

    As synthesized in Kim (2011), exclusionary land use controls are found to induce a more sprawling pattern of development (see e.g., Shen 1996; Pendall 1999; Levine 2006).

  8. 8.

    The index value 1 indicates that all three surrounding municipalities have the same distance to the section, whereas 0 means the section is included in a single place, so competition over the section may not occur.

  9. 9.

    We use \( \delta = 0.1 \), which results in a positive value of the index (i.e., new development) even for the most rapidly declining MSA, between 1992 and 2001 in the Midwest.

  10. 10.

    The two NLCD (National Land Cover Database) products (i.e., 1992 and 2001) use different classification schemes and methodologies, so that they could not be effectively used together for the research on land use changes. The NLCD 1992/2001 Retrofit Change Product addresses the compatibility issue between the two NLCD and identifies land use change between 1992 and 2001 (US Geological Survey 2008).

  11. 11.

    Approximately 65 % of the entire sections (73,879 out of 113,738) had attracted no new development between 1992 and 2001, thus have \( y = 0 \), whereas much less number of sections (about 1.2 %) show \( y = 1 \).

  12. 12.

    For the maximization of the likelihood function, BFGS (Broyden 1970 – Fletcher 1970 – Goldfarb 1970 – Shanno 1970), which is a quasi-Newton method, is employed in R.

  13. 13.

    It needs to be noted that this finding may be attributable to the measurement of the fragmentation. In other words, the outcome can be different, if other metrics, such as Herfindahl index or other inequality indicators, are used.

References

  • Brown BB, Yamada I, Smith KR, Zick CD, Kowaleski-Jones L, Fan JX (2009) Mixed land use and walkability: variations in land use measures and relationships with BMI, overweight, and obesity. Health Place 15:1130–1141

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Broyden CG (1970) The convergence of a class of double-rank minimization algorithms. IMA J Appl Math 6:76–90

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brueckner JK (2003) Strategic interaction among governments: an overview of empirical studies. Int Reg Sci Rev 26:175–188

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers JI (2003) Growth at the Fringe: the influence of political fragmentation in United States metropolitan areas. Pap Reg Sci 82:475–499

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Carruthers JI, Ulfarsson GF (2002) Fragmentation and sprawl: evidence from interregional analysis. Growth Change 33:312–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cervero R (1989) America’s suburban centers: the land use – transportation link. Unwin Hyman, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Dewar M, Epstein D (2007) Planning for “Megaregions” in the United States. J Plann Lit 22:108–124

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs A (1994) New visions for metropolitan America. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Ewing RH (1996) Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: a literature review. Environ Urban Stud 21:1–15

    Google Scholar 

  • Fletcher R (1970) A new approach to variable metric algorithms. Comput J 13:317–322

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster KA (2001) Regionalism on purpose. Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank LD, Pivo G (1994) Impacts of mixed land use and density on utilization of three modes of travel: single-occupant vehicle, transit, and walking. Transport Res Rec 1466:44–52

    Google Scholar 

  • Frank LD, Andresen MA, Schmid TL (2004) Obesity relationships with community design, physical activity, and time spent in cars. Am J Prev Med 27:87–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fulton W et al (2001) Who sprawls the most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. Bookings Institution, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Glaeser EL, Kahn M, Chu C (2001) Job sprawl: employment location in U.S. Metropolitan areas. Bookings Institution, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldfarb D (1970) A family of variable metric updates derived by variational means. Math Comput 24:23–26

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon P, Richardson HW (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? J Am Plann Assoc 63:95–106

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hardin G (1968) The tragedy of the commons. Science 162:1243–1248

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Howell-Moroney M (2008) The Tiebout hypothesis 50 years later: lessons and lingering challenges for metropolitan governance in the 21st century. Public Adm Rev 68:97–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Innes JE, Booher DE, Di Vittorio S (2011) Strategies for megaregion governance. J Am Plann Assoc 77:55–67

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim JH (2011) Linking land use planning and regulation to economic development: a literature review. J Plann Lit 26:35–47

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krizek KJ (2003) Operationalizing neighborhood accessibility for land use – travel behavior research and regional modeling. J Plann Educ Res 22:270–287

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kunce M, Shogren JF (2005) On interjurisdictional competition and environmental federalism. J Environ Econ Manag 50:212–224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Levine J (2006) Zoned out: regulation, markets, and choices in transportation and metropolitan land use. RFF Press, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis P (1996) Shaping suburbia: how political institutions organize urban development. University of Pittsburgh Press, Pittsburgh

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney M, Essington K (2006) Learning to think and act like a region. Land Lines 18:8–13

    Google Scholar 

  • Oates WE (1999) An essay on fiscal federalism. J Econ Lit 37:1120–1149

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papke LE, Wooldridge JM (1996) Econometric methods for fractional response variables with an application to 401 (k) plan participation rates. J Appl Econom 11:619–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pendall R (1999) Do land-use controls cause sprawl? Environ Plann B Plann Des 26:555–571

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Razin E, Rosentraub M (2000) Are fragmentation and sprawl interlinked? North American evidence. Urban Aff Rev 35:821–836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rolleston BS (1987) Determinants of restrictive suburban zoning: an empirical analysis. J Urban Econ 21:1–21

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ross S, Yinger J (1999) Sorting and voting: a review of the literature on urban public finance. In: Cheshire P, Mills ES (eds) Handbook of regional and urban economics, vol 3. North-Holland, New York, pp 2001–2060

    Google Scholar 

  • Shanno DF (1970) Conditioning of quasi-Newton methods for function minimization. Math Comput 24:647–656

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shen Q (1996) Spatial impacts of locally enacted growth controls: the San Francisco Bay Region in the 1980s. Environ Plann B Plann Des 23:61–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tiebout CM (1956) A pure theory of local expenditures. J Polit Econ 64:416–424

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tsai YH (2005) Quantifying urban form: compactness versus ‘sprawl’. Urban Stud 42:141–161

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • U.S. Geological Survey (2008) Completion of the National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 1992–2001 land cover change retrofit product. Open-File Report 2008–1379. U.S. Department of the Interior

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulfarsson GF, Carruthers JI (2006) The cycle of fragmentation and sprawl: a conceptual framework and empirical model. Environ Plann B Plann Des 33:767–788

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • White MJ (1975) Fiscal zoning in fragmented metropolitan areas. In: Mills ES, Oates WE (eds) Fiscal zoning and land use controls: the economic issues. Lexington Books, Lexington, pp 31–100

    Google Scholar 

  • Wildasin DE (2006) Fiscal competition. In: Weingast BR, Wittman DA (eds) Oxford handbook of political economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 502–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson AG (1970) Entropy in urban and regional modelling. Pion, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson JD, Wildasin DE (2004) Capital tax competition: bane or boon. J Public Econ 88:1065–1091

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Windsor D (1979) Fiscal zoning in suburban communities. Lexington Books, Lexington

    Google Scholar 

  • Yaffee SL (1997) Why environmental policy nightmares recur. Conserv Biol 11:328–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yaro RD (2011) America 2050: towards a twenty-first-century national infrastructure investment plan for the United States. In: Xu J, Yeh AGO (eds) Governance and planning of mega-city regions: an international comparative perspective. Routledge, New York, pp 127–147

    Google Scholar 

  • Zellner ML et al (2009) The emergence of zoning games in exurban jurisdictions: informing collective action theory. Land Use Policy 26:356–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang J (2011) Interjurisdictional competition for FDI: the case of China’s “development zone fever”. Reg Sci Urban Econ 41:145–159

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Planning, Policy, and Design, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA

    Jae Hong Kim

  2. Regional Economics Applications Laboratory, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, Urbana, IL, USA

    Geoffrey J. D. Hewings

Authors
  1. Jae Hong Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Geoffrey J. D. Hewings
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Jae Hong Kim .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. , Dept. of Transportation Engineering, University of Naples Federico II, Via Claudio 21, Naples, 80125, Italy

    Francesca Pagliara

  2. Significance, Koninginnegracht 23, The Hague, 2514AB, Zuid-Holland, Netherlands

    Michiel de Bok

  3. David Simmonds Consultancy, Suite 14 Millers Yard, Mill Lane, Cambridge, CB2 1RQ, United Kingdom

    David Simmonds

  4. , Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, Tottenham Court Road 90, London, W1T 4TJ, United Kingdom

    Alan Wilson

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2013 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Kim, J.H., Hewings, G.J.D. (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. Advances in Spatial Science. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31779-8_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-31779-8_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-31778-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-31779-8

  • eBook Packages: Business and EconomicsEconomics and Finance (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation