1. Open space and land market feedbacks Megan Lawson University of Colorado-Boulder August 7, 2008

2. Research Question  Primary question:  Does the establishment of open space affect the rate and location of residential development?  Secondary question:  Do open space management strategies alter these patterns?

3. The problem, in a nutshell  Designating open space turns undeveloped land into a permanent amenity  If individuals prefer permanent open space to developed or temporarily undeveloped land, development will cluster around the designated open space  Two problems with this:  Designating open space in areas further from the city center could exacerbate sprawl  “Edge effects” from development may degrade the habitat preserved by open space (Armsworth, 2006)

4. Existing Literature  People value open space:  Correll, Lilydahl, and Singell (Land, 1978)  Irwin (Land, 2002)

5. Existing Literature  People value open space:  Correll, Lilydahl, and Singell (Land, 1978)  Irwin (Land, 2002)  People who value open space locate near it:  Turner (JUE, 2005): theoretical model of preferences for open space  Irwin and Bockstael (Reg. Sci. and Urb. Econ., 2004): how open space affects the rate and pattern of subdivision in Maryland

6. This paper’s contribution  Modeling development decisions at the individual parcel level  Including public open space  Evaluating the effect that various management options have on development patterns  Easement versus fee ownership  Publicly versus privately held  Open versus restricted access  Endogenous open space decisions  Open space only established where there is a threat, often development pressure  Causal effects may be overstated

7. Case Study: Boulder County, Colorado  Long history of open space preservation:  Chautauqua, 1875  Sales tax specifically for open space purchase, 1967  Aggressive open space purchasing began, 1989  Currently over 65% of the land in Boulder County is permanently protected

8. Data  Parcel and subdivision data from the Boulder County Land Use and Assessor’s Departments  80,000 parcels and 3,500 subdivisions  Zoning data from Boulder County GIS Department  Open space data from COMap  Used GIS to calculate the percentage of a buffer around each parcel comprised of public access open space, over time

9. Open Space and Residential Development 1900

10. Open Space and Residential Development 1920

11. Open Space and Residential Development 1960

12. Open Space and Residential Development 1980

13. Open Space and Residential Development 2000

14. Open Space and Residential Development 2008

15. The Econometric Model  Proportional Hazard Model:  Time varying covariate: percentage of land within 0.10 miles comprised of open space  Time-invariant covariates:  Slope  Elevation  Zoning  Municipality indicators  Parcel size  Indicator for located within any city limits  Cost distance to Boulder city center  Adjacent parcel development status at time of development

16. Summary Statistics: Covariates Mean Elevation Slope, range Slope, mean Build Year In City? Developed in 2008? Distance to city center NO Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,361.860.811.2819770.830.9916.27 Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,911.823.122.8619810.670.9615.81 T-test for differences in means-59.51-42.0-50.54-15.0141.6814.483.68

17. Summary Statistics: Covariates Mean Elevation Slope, range Slope, mean Build Year In City? Developed in 2008? Distance to city center NO Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,361.860.811.2819770.830.9916.27 Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,911.823.122.8619810.670.9615.81 T-test for differences in means-59.51-42.0-50.54-15.0141.6814.483.68

18. Summary Statistics: Covariates Mean Elevation Slope, range Slope, mean Build Year In City? Developed in 2008? Distance to city center NO Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,361.860.811.2819770.830.9916.27 Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,911.823.122.8619810.670.9615.81 T-test for differences in means-59.51-42.0-50.54-15.0141.6814.483.68

19. Summary Statistics: Covariates Mean Elevation Slope, range Slope, mean Build Year In City? Developed in 2008? Distance to city center NO Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,361.860.811.2819770.830.9916.27 Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,911.823.122.8619810.670.9615.81 T-test for differences in means-59.51-42.0-50.54-15.0141.6814.483.68

20. Summary Statistics: Covariates Mean Elevation Slope, range Slope, mean Build Year In City? Developed in 2008? Distance to city center NO Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,361.860.811.2819770.830.9916.27 Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,911.823.122.8619810.670.9615.81 T-test for differences in means-59.51-42.0-50.54-15.0141.6814.483.68

21. Summary Statistics: Covariates Mean Elevation Slope, range Slope, mean Build Year In City? Developed in 2008? Distance to city center NO Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,361.860.811.2819770.830.9916.27 Open space w/in 1/10 mile5,911.823.122.8619810.670.9615.81 T-test for differences in means-59.51-42.0-50.54-15.0141.6814.483.68

22. Results, all data VariableData from all years % open space-0.366*** Mean elevation, ft-0.0000944*** Slope, range-0.0157*** Slope, mean0.0159*** In city?-0.249*** Parcel size-0.00595*** Distance to center0.00901*** Forestry-0.0379 Agriculture-0.449*** Rural residential-0.168*** Suburban residential0.267***

23. Results, by decade VariablePre 197070s80s90s2000s % open space0.000125-0.109***-0.151***-0.02690.158*** Mean elevation0.000349***-0.000152***0.000063-0.000346***-0.000211*** Slope, range-0.0131***-0.002790.009420.0160***0.000444 Slope, mean0.0195***0.00503-0.0474***-0.0369***-0.00147 In city?0.394***-0.1390.0873-0.362***0.154** Parcel size-0.00125-0.00719***-0.000594-0.00064-0.0018 Dist. to center-0.00981***0.00937***0.001440.0117***0.0180*** Forestry-0.343***0.428***-0.1380.06470.147 Agriculture0.202***0.270***-0.308***-0.867***-0.224 Rural residential-0.140***0.238***-0.563***-0.278**0.065 Suburban residential-0.750***0.481***-0.1030.439**-0.517**

24. Results, with neighbors With Neighbors % open space-0.479*** Developed neighbors-0.00729*** Undeveloped neighbors0.00564*** Mean elevation, ft-0.000106 Slope, range-0.00912 Slope, mean0.00724 In city?-0.778*** Parcel size-0.00660* Distance to center0.00740** Forestry-0.0545 Agriculture-0.350** Rural residential-0.172 Suburban residential0.465***

25. Next steps  Improved measure of adjacent parcel development status  Controlling for spatial autocorrelation  Additional buffer sizes and management options  Analysis for subdivisions  Controlling for endogenous relationships