1999
DOI: 10.2307/3146994
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Evaluating the Economic Impact of Planning Controls in the United Kingdom: Some Implications for Housing

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
35
0

Year Published

2002
2002
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
3
3
3

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 57 publications
(35 citation statements)
references
References 16 publications
0
35
0
Order By: Relevance
“…British researchers have shown that, although individuals believe that new housing only accounts for a small portion of the total housing stock, restrictive policies can increase housing prices [33][34][35][36]. Greenbelts have increased housing prices by controlling land supplies, which deeply harms the bottom of the market, as emphasized by the results of Barker's investigation [37,38].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…British researchers have shown that, although individuals believe that new housing only accounts for a small portion of the total housing stock, restrictive policies can increase housing prices [33][34][35][36]. Greenbelts have increased housing prices by controlling land supplies, which deeply harms the bottom of the market, as emphasized by the results of Barker's investigation [37,38].…”
Section: Literature Reviewmentioning
confidence: 95%
“…On the demand side, because government intervention in land market can help preserve environmental amenities, enhance accessibilities and promote more efficient provision of public service and infrastructure, it can increase the demand for housing through an amenity effect (Cheshire & Sheppard, 2002;Dawkins & Nelson, 2002;Ihlanfeldt, 2007). On the supply side, government intervention in land market can lead to a decline in the amount of land available for housing development, which in turn will put downward pressure on new housing supply (Cheshire & Sheppard, 2004Dawkins & Nelson, 2002;Gerald, 1992;Hui & Ho, 2003;Ihlanfeldt, 2007;Kim, 1993;Kim & Cho, 2010;Monk & Whitehead, 1999;Saiz, 2010;Vermeulen & van Ommeren, 2009). Because governments around the world are faced with the task of ensuring an adequate supply of housing to meet demand, improving housing affordability and maintaining stability in the property market (Chen, Hao, & Stephens, 2010;Chiu, 2007;Kim & Cho, 2010;Ooi, Sirmans, & Turnbull, 2011;Rosen & Ross, 2000), examining the impacts that government intervention in land market has on real estate market outcomes is an area that deserves research attention.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 96%
“…Although the impact that government intervention in land market has on new housing supply has been the focus of a growing number of studies (Bramley, 1993;Green, Malpezzi, & Mayo, 2005;Mayer & Somerville, 2000a;Monk & Whitehead, 1999;Quigley & Raphael, 2005;Saiz, 2010), most of these studies are conducted in developed countries and scant attention has been devoted to emerging market economies which are undergoing both rapid economic growth and significant institutional change. China's real estate market provides a good opportunity to examine the impacts that government intervention in land market has on land supply and new housing supply in fast-growing developing countries.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Perhaps, a possible means of dealing with this problem is the use of comparative static method involving the employment of control and experiment groups. Even so, this may not be suitable for planning policies, which are usually applied in a uniform way (Monk and Whitehead, 1999;Hammond and Antwi, 2010). The foregoing demonstrates that it is practically difficult if not impossible to apply multiplier-based methodologies to estimate the extent of benefits of planning policies in SSA.…”
Section: The Multiplier-based Methodologiesmentioning
confidence: 99%