Alternative views of optimal open space preservation
Open space preservation has relatively strong public support, both as a general concept and as evidenced by estimates of public willingness-to-pay for land preservation programs and the capitalization of open space into home prices. However, this favorable view of open space may not be shared by developers and others with a direct stake in property markets or local economic development. A notable exception to this skepticism within the real estate world may be some developers who voluntarily reserve some land for open space, seeking to more than offset any revenue loss by enhancing the market value of remaining parcels.
The various groups with a stake in open space preservation and the potential amenity-value effects of open space on land and home values raise interesting questions about the optimalamount of open space from alternative perspectives: households, developers, and policymakers. For example, do the various groups necessarily differ in their view of how much open space is ideal, and how is this amount determined in each case? What role do property markets and public policies—local and higher-level—play in determining and achieving the optimal amount of open space? Is there any tendency for market outcomes and normal policy processes to generate an optimal configuration or, given the spillover amenities of open space, does optimality require market intervention or properly designed policies that account for these externalities?
Methods
Such questions are explored within a relatively complete integrated model of local housing markets and local public choice. Endogenous elements include: household choices of housing and other consumption goods; developer decisions regarding housing output and the inputs of land and structure; local government spending and property tax rate decisions, as well as local policies regarding land-use zoning (residential vs. open space) and density zoning (minimum lot-size and minimum square-feet of structure); equilibrium prices of housing and residential land; aggregate local property value; local population size, and the number of local developers. Simulation methods will be used to explore the sensitivity of these endogenous elements to the community’s geographic size, location, income level, higher-level grants, and other exogenous factors. Sensitivity of outcomes to potential objectives of households, developers, and policymakers also will be examined.
Expected Results
Results are expected to show the sensitivity of community outcomes to key parameters and that, under plausible assumptions about the goals of households, developers, and policymakers, notions of optimal open space may diverge less than commonly perceived.