| PUBLICATIONS | | Filtered by Virginia D. McConnell | | | | | Sort by: Title | Date | Results per page: |
| | The New CAFE Standards: Are They Enough on Their Own? | | Virginia D. McConnell | | RFF Discussion Paper 13-14 | May 2013 | | Abstract: New Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards were recently passed in the United States with the twin goals of reducing greenhouse gas emissions and oil use. The new standards represent a dramatic change from recent policy. This paper examines the key features of the new rules, and compares them to previous CAFE standards in terms of flexibility and structure. The importance of consumer preferences and market forces on CAFE outcomes are identified. In the second part of the paper, the perspective of the consumer is explored. Consumer assessments of fuel economy savings with more fuel-efficient vehicles may be biased or incomplete, leading many to argue that there is an “energy efficiency gap” in consumer demand for vehicles. Reasons for such a gap, such as market failures, behavioral responses, and market barriers, are summarized. The implications for policy are discussed, including the role of combining CAFE with other policies. | | | | Explaining Sprawl with an Agent-Based Model of Exurban Land and Housing Markets | | Nicholas Magliocca, Virginia D. McConnell, Margaret A. Walls, Elena A. Safirova | | RFF Discussion Paper 11-33 | June 2012 | | Abstract: This paper develops a model of land use in a growing community on the urban fringe and uses it to explore the spatial patterns and time path of development. The model is an agent-based model (ABM) of housing and land markets that includes as agents farmer/landowners, a developer who buys land and builds houses, and consumers who purchase housing. Housing is characterized by lot size and house size. As in all ABMs, macro-scale patterns emerge from many micro-scale interactions between individual agents, which are modeled computationally. In contrast to many other ABMs, however, the fundamentals of microeconomic decisionmaking are built into the model—consumers choose houses to maximize utility; farmers compare returns from agriculture to the expected value of their land in development; and developers purchase land and build houses so as to maximize profits. Model simulations reveal some aspects of sprawl such as “leapfrog” development, yet also confirm some results from traditional urban economic models, such as declining density and rent (land price) gradients. Sensitivity analyses on the utility function parameters, the distribution of agricultural productivity, and the travel costs highlight the importance of the economic features of the model. | | | | Zoning on the Urban Fringe: Results from a New Approach to Modeling Land and Housing Markets | | Nicholas Magliocca, Virginia D. McConnell, Margaret A. Walls, Elena A. Safirova | | RFF Discussion Paper 11-32 | May 2012 | | Related journal article | | Abstract: This paper uses an economic agent-based model of land use in a hypothetical urban fringe community to examine the effects of large-lot zoning on land conversion, land prices, and the spatial configuration and density of new development. The model incorporates the actions of heterogeneous housing consumers, developers, and farmer/landowners who make economic decisions in land and housing markets. The model allows for population growth and simulates the evolution of land use patterns and prices over a 20-year time period. Zoning regulations in the form of minimum lot size restrictions imposed in an outlying area are shown to have effects that vary with the stringency of the regulations: 2-acre minimum lot sizes have little effect on the spatial patterns of development, but they do increase land and housing prices and result in higher incomes in the region; 5-acre minimum lot sizes push development toward the city center, leaving agricultural land in the zoned region undeveloped until quite late in the simulation period. While house prices are higher with 5-acre zoning, land prices in the zoned region fall, highlighting the countervailing influences of lot size restrictions on land prices. The new modeling approach allows for the tracking of the transitional dynamics of development, both over space and time as the urban area grows. | | | | Urban Growth Externalities and Neighborhood Incentives: Another Cause of Urban Sprawl? | | Matthias Cinyabuguma, Virginia D. McConnell | | RFF Discussion Paper 12-21 | April 2012 | | Abstract: This paper suggests a cause of low density in urban development or urban sprawl that has not been given much attention in the literature. There have been a number of arguments put forward for market failures that may account for urban sprawl, including incomplete pricing of infrastructure, environmental externalities, and unpriced congestion. The problem analyzed here is that urban growth creates benefits for an entire urban area, but the costs of growth are borne by individual neighborhoods. An externality problem arises because existing residents perceive the costs associated with the new residents locating in their neighborhoods, but not the full benefits of new entrants which accrue to the city as a whole. The result is that existing residents have an incentive to block new residents to their neighborhoods, resulting in cities that are less dense than is optimal, or too spread out. The paper models several different types of urban growth, and examines the optimal and local choice outcomes under each type. In the first model, population growth is endogenous and the physical limits of the city are fixed. The second model examines the case in which population growth in the region is given, but the city boundary is allowed to vary. We show that in both cases the city will tend to be larger and less dense than is optimal. In each, we examine the sensitivity of the model to the number of neighborhoods and to the size of infrastructure and transportation costs. Finally, we examine optimal subsidies and see how they compare to current policies such as impact fees on new development. | | | | Zoning on the Urban Fringe: Results from a New Approach to Modeling Land and Housing Markets | | Nicholas Magliocca, Virginia McConnell, Margaret Walls, and Elena Safirova | | Regional Science and Urban Economics | January 2012 | 42 | pp 198-210 | | | | | | Zoning on the Urban Fringe: Results from a New Approach to Modeling Land and Housing Markets | | Nicholas Magliocca, Virginia McConnell, Margaret Walls, and Elena Safirova | | Regional Science and Urban Economics | January 2012 | 42 | pp 198-210 | | | | | | Zoning on the urban fringe: Results from a new approach to modeling land and housing markets | | Nicholas Magliocca, Virginia McConnell, Margaret Walls, and Elena Safirova. | | Regional Science and Urban Economics | September 2011 | Vol. 41, No. 5. | doi:10.1016/j.regsciurbeco.2011.08.012 | Related Discussion Paper 11-32 | | | | | | An Agent-Based Model of Coupled Housing and Land Markets | | Nicholas Magliocca, Elena Safirova, Virginia McConnell, and Margaret Walls | | Computers, Environment, and Urban Systems | May 2011 | Vol. 35, No.3 | pp. 183-191 | | | | | | Should Hybrid Vehicles Be Subsidized? | | Virginia D. McConnell, Tom Turrentine | | Backgrounder | July 2010 | | | | | | Infill Development: Perspectives and Evidence from Economics and Planning | | Virginia D. McConnell, Keith Wiley | | RFF Discussion Paper 10-13 | May 2010 | | Abstract: This paper explores the different perspectives on infill development and its role in urban growth. Despite the intense debate about the potential for and effects of infill development, there is very littleempirical evidence about whether policies to promote it have been effective, about the amount and type of infill development and its effect on surrounding communities. This paper first reviews arguments from both the planning and economics literature on the possible benefits and costs of infill development and the effectiveness of policies to promote it. Then, we summarize the different approaches to measuring infill and provide evidence about the amount of infill that has occurred relative to other development. We also investigate infill characteristics and how its density and size may be different from the development in existing neighborhoods where it is located. Finally, we review the empirical literature on the effects of infill on property values in receiving communities, drawing out implications for policy and suggesting directions for future research. | | | | Policy Monitor: U.S. Experience with Transferable Development Rights | | Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls | | Review of Environmental Economics and Policy | June 2009 | Vol 3, no. 2 | 288-303 | | | | | | Policy Monitor: U.S. Experience with Transferable Development Rights | | Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls | | Review of Environmental Economics and Policy | June 2009 | Vol 3, no. 2 | 288-303 | | | | | | Policy Monitor: U.S. Experience with Transferable Development Rights | | Virginia McConnell and Margaret Walls | | Review of Environmental Economics and Policy | June 2009 | Vol 3, no. 2 | 288-303 | | | | | | Lot Size, Zoning, and Household Preferences: Impediments to Smart Growth? | | Elizabeth A. Kopits, Virginia D. McConnell, Daniel Miles | | RFF Discussion Paper 09-15 | April 2009 | | Abstract: The paper explores a number of issues related to lot size and urban density. First, trends in single-family residential lot size over the past 35 years are examined in eight counties in the state of Maryland. We find that there was a trend toward larger lot sizes in many suburban counties in the mid to late 1990s, and that there has been a general flattening of the density gradient in urban areas over the last few decades. We then examine the extent to which lot size is being constrained by regulation by comparing actual subdivision density to the allowable density under zoning rules. This analysis is done for three counties with different degrees of suburbanization. We find that only in the areas with the very large lot zoning does zoning seem to be constraining actual lots size. There is a good deal of excess capacity in the density that could be built, especially in the more densely zoned areas. Finally, recognizing that households have preferences for lot size and other housing characteristics, we provide some evidence about the strength of household preferences over lot size and their willingness to trade off lot size for other characteristics. | | | | Making Markets for Development Rights Work: What Determines Demand? | | Elizabeth Kopits, Virginia McConnell, and Margaret Walls | | Land Economics | February 2008 | Vol. 94, No.1 | pp. 1-16 | Related Discussion Paper 05-45 | | | | | | Transfer of Development Rights in U.S. Communities: Evaluating Program Design, Implementation, and Outcomes | | Margaret A. Walls, Virginia D. McConnell | | RFF Report | September 2007 | | | | | | The Trade-off between Private Lots and Public Open Space in Subdivisions at the Urban-Rural Fringe | | Elizabeth A. Kopits, Virginia D. McConnell, Margaret A. Walls | | RFF Discussion Paper 07-33 | July 2007 | | Related journal article | | Abstract: In many communities on the urban–rural fringe, subdivisions are subject to “clustering” rules, in which houses must be located on a portion of the total land area and the remainder of the land is left as open space. This open space may be undisturbed forest or pastureland, or it may include recreation facilities and trails. In some communities, the open space may remain in agricultural use as pasture or cropland. Although the open space may provide benefits to subdivision residents, it means that those residents are living in a higher-density setting than people living in conventional subdivisions. It is unclear whether the benefits offset the loss experienced by smaller lots and higher density. This trade-off is the focus of our study. We use data on subdivision house sales occurring between 1981 and 2001 in a county on the fringe of the Washington, DC, metropolitan area to estimate a hedonic price model. We examine how households value being adjacent to open space and having more open space in the subdivision, and how they may be willing to trade off those amenities with their own private lot space. We find that private acreage matters to households—a 10 percent larger lot leads to about a 0.6 percent higher house price, all else being equal. Subdivision open space is also valuable to households, but the marginal effect is much smaller than the marginal effect of private lot space. We also find that subdivision open space does substitute for private land, but the extent of the trade-off is small. We use the results of the estimated hedonic model to simulate the effects on prices of jointly increasing open space and reducing average lot size, holding the size of the subdivision constant. We find that average house prices are lower with clustering, particularly for interior lots that are not adjacent to open space. | | | | Fees in an Imperfect World: An Application to Motor Vehicle Emissions | | Amy W. Ando, Winston Harrington, Virginia D. McConnell | | RFF Discussion Paper 07-34 | June 2007 | | Abstract: This paper compares an emissions fee on measured vehicle emissions rates to a mandatory regulation that requires all vehicles to maintain emissions below a minimum standard. We model the motorist’s decision under the fee policy and simulate the fee and regulatory policies using data from an emissions inspection program that includes test and repair information for more than 50,000 vehicles. Under ideal conditions with perfect information and no subsidies, the fee on emissions rates performs substantially better than the regulatory policy. When more realistic modeling of available information and market conditions are included, there is little difference in the cost and effectiveness of the fee and regulatory programs. In particular, we find that the ability of the polluter to assess the emissions and cost outcomes of is critical importance for the performance of the fee policy. | | | | The Tradeoff between Private Lots and Public Open Space in Subdivisions at the Urban-Rural Fringe | | Elizabeth Kopits, Virginia McConnell, and Margaret Walls | | American Journal of Agricultural Economics | 2007 | Vol. 89, No.5 | pp. 1191-1197 | Related Discussion Paper 07-33 | | | | | | Explaining Sprawl: How Much Does Zoning Matter? | | Virginia D. McConnell, Margaret A. Walls, Elizabeth A. Kopits | | Resources | Spring 2006 (161) | | | | | |
|
|
|
|
|
| FILTER PUBLICATIONS | | By Topic | | | By Type | | | By Author | | | | Display All Publications |
|
|
|
|
|