The influence of public open space on urban spatial structure

Abstract There is widespread public support for open space provision and for efforts to limit sprawl. We demonstrate that open space policies should not be viewed as independent of—or necessarily compatible with—growth management goals. We examine the impacts of open space designation on the urban landscape in a spatial city model with two important and empirically relevant features: (1) residents prefer to live close to open space and (2) open space amenities attract migrants to the city. Our main findings are that open space designation can produce leapfrog development; the effect of open space on the total area of developed land in the city is ambiguous; more dispersed forms of open space may be preferred when congestion externalities are present; depending on location, the provision of new open space may benefit some income groups more than others and may increase the income diversity of a city.

[1]  Raymond B. Palmquist.  Valuing localized externalities , 1992 .

[2]  P. Graves,et al.  On the Role of Amenities in Models of Migration and Regional Development , 1989, Journal of regional science.

[3]  Robert M. Solow,et al.  Congestion Cost and the Use of Land for Streets , 1973 .

[4]  A. Plantinga,et al.  Public Conservation Land and Employment Growth in the Northern Forest Region , 2002, Land Economics.

[5]  Dennis Wichelns,et al.  Measuring heterogeneous preferences for preserving farmland and open space , 1998 .

[6]  N. Bockstael,et al.  EVIDENCE OF THE EFFECTS OF WATER QUALITY ON RESIDENTIAL LAND PRICES , 2000 .

[7]  M. Fujita,et al.  Efficient Configuration of a Greenbelt: Theoretical Modelling of Greenbelt Amenity , 1997 .

[8]  J. Brueckner.  Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies , 2000 .

[9]  Masahisa Fujita,et al.  Urban Spatial Structure with Open Space , 1983 .

[10]  Yves Zenou,et al.  Why is central Paris rich and downtown Detroit poor?: An amenity-based theory , 1999 .

[11]  Junjie Wu.  Environmental Amenities and the Spatial Pattern of Urban Sprawl , 2001 .

[12]  Mahlon Straszhem,et al.  The theory of urban residential location , 1987 .

[13]  D. E. Clark,et al.  THE IMPACT OF ECONOMIC OPPORTUNITY, AMENITIES AND FISCAL FACTORS ON AGE-SPECIFIC MIGRATION RATES , 1992 .

[14]  B. E. Carpenter,et al.  Spatial-equilibrium analysis of transferable development rights , 1982 .

[15]  William S. Breffle,et al.  Using Contingent Valuation to Estimate a Neighbourhood's Willingness to Pay to Preserve Undeveloped Urban Land , 1998 .

[16]  M. Riddel,et al.  A Dynamic Approach to Estimating Hedonic Prices for Environmental Goods: An Application to Open Space Purchase , 2001, Land Economics.

[17]  J. Brueckner.  Urban Sprawl: Lessons from Urban Economics , 2001 .

[18]  Thomas Romer,et al.  Mobility and Redistribution , 1991, Journal of Political Economy.

[19]  D. Mcleod,et al.  Private Open Space and Public Concerns , 1998 .

[20]  L. L. Bennett,et al.  Valuing Open Space and Land-Use Patterns in Urban Watersheds , 2001 .

[21]  Brent L. Mahan,et al.  Valuing Urban Wetlands: A Property Price Approach , 1996 .

[22]  K. Small,et al.  URBAN SPATIAL STRUCTURE. , 1997 .

[23]  P. Graves,et al.  Examining the Role of Economic Opportunity and Amenities in Explaining Population Redistribution , 1995 .

[24]  David E. Mills.  Growth, speculation and sprawl in a monocentric city☆ , 1981 .

[25]  Alex Anas,et al.  Dynamics of urban residential growth , 1978 .

[26]  E. Irwin,et al.  Interacting agents, spatial externalities and the evolution of residential land use patterns , 2002 .

[27]  Testing the efficiency of urban spatial growth: A case study of Tokyo , 1989 .