TDR Program Performance in Florida

Linkous, Evangeline R.; Chapín, Timothy S.

doi:10.1080/01944363.2014.985697

Cited by 27 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the statistical and the land use analyses are based on completely different data sources, the consistency reinforces our confidence in the conclusion. Linkous and Chapin (2014) and Linkous (2016) also confirmed the ineffectiveness of TDR programs as a preservation tool and cautioned against measuring TDR success by counting the acreages preserved through TDR transactions. Daniels (1991) and Nelson (1992) both suggested that TDR is unlikely to preserve farms but may preserve some open space.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…By transferring density from protection sites (the sending area) to growth centers (the receiving area), theoretically, TDR can support the development of compact communities while preserving rural land (Linkous & Chapin, 2014). By transferring density from protection sites (the sending area) to growth centers (the receiving area), theoretically, TDR can support the development of compact communities while preserving rural land (Linkous & Chapin, 2014).…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

“…They concluded that demand for bonus development and customized receiving areas are essential to TDR success, strict sending area regulations, few alternatives to TDR to add density, and market incentives are extremely important, while certainty of use, strong public preservation support, simplicity, promotion, and facilitation, and a TDR bank are helpful but not necessarily critical. Linkous and Chapin (2014) and Linkous (2016) reviewed the change of TDR programs over time in the state of Florida and evaluated their effectiveness in managing growth. Linkous and Chapin (2014) and Linkous (2016) reviewed the change of TDR programs over time in the state of Florida and evaluated their effectiveness in managing growth.…”

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Can transfer of development rights programs save farmland in metropolitan counties?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Transfer development rights (TDR) programs have been gaining popularity as a tool for farmland preservation, as they compensate landowners at minimal public cost. This study shows that despite their wide adoption, TDR programs do not save much farmland on the urban fringe. We use Department of Agriculture data and apply two quasi‐experimental methods, synthetic control, and difference‐in‐difference, to evaluate the effect of TDR programs on farm retention for three fringe metropolitan counties in the state of Maryland. We also compare land use patterns before and after TDR implementation in these counties. The result shows limited effects of TDR programs on farm preservation, even in Montgomery County, one of the national models for TDR programs. TDR programs do contribute to low and medium density residential development. This cautions observation planners about their enthusiasm toward TDR programs and highlights the difficulty of preserving farmland on the fringe of metropolitan regions. We compare the features of the studied TDR programs, and highlight those that account for the programs’ relative success/failure. Based on these analyses, we make recommendations to planners to help improve TDR effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Literaturementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can transfer of development rights programs save farmland in metropolitan counties?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although scholars appear united in acknowledging TDR as a market instrument, they draw inspiration from diverse theoretical foundations and thus differ in their views towards how TDR reconstructs the state-market relationship and how this relationship in turn influences the outcomes of TDR programs. If there is any failure of TDR, it can be attributed to a lack of demand for development rights (Linkous and Chapin, 2014) or planners' inaccuracy in predicting supply-demand conditions (Daniels, 2007). Governments may initiate TDR programs, but the success of these programs is a matter of market equilibrium.…”

Section: Rethinking Tdr: Putting the State To Work For The Market--ormentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Scholars, especially those in the field of economics, observe that while TDR leaves room for improvement, it does lead to fewer market constraints and more flexibility and efficiency in both ecological conservation and economic growth (Renard, 2007;Henger and Bizer, 2010;Linkous and Chapin, 2014). The success of a TDR program depends on market mechanisms, especially on the supply-demand equilibrium of the land market.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The State as Both Regulator and Player: The Politics of Transfer of Development Rights in China

Shao

Chung

et al. 2020

Int J Urban Regional Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The conventional argument that the introduction of transfer of development rights (TDR) shifts the power of land use regulation from the state to the market is increasingly under challenge. In China, the state's grip on land is reinforced through TDR, in which the state is both regulator and player. This state-dominated form of TDR affects China in three ways. First, competing aspirations of different scales of government complicate how TDR is implemented. Although the central state promotes TDR to maintain a national balance of arable land, some local states instrumentalize it to expand their landed basis of accumulation. Secondly, TDR tends to benefit the state but not its people. It may increase the fiscal income of the sending government and lessen the land shortage of the receiving government, but sometimes at the expense of the interests of land users without land ownership. Thirdly, given the state's deep involvement in TDR programs, the key for China's TDR to protect arable land lies not so much in clear property rights or a fully fledged market as in effective checks and balances regarding the state's powers over TDR. These three observations attest to the embeddedness of TDR in the local political economy.

show abstract

Urban growth containment policies for the guidance and control of peri-urbanization: a review and proposed framework

Dadashpoor

2021

Environ Dev Sustain

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

TDR Program Performance in Florida

Cited by 27 publications

References 10 publications

Can transfer of development rights programs save farmland in metropolitan counties?

Can transfer of development rights programs save farmland in metropolitan counties?

The State as Both Regulator and Player: The Politics of Transfer of Development Rights in China

Urban growth containment policies for the guidance and control of peri-urbanization: a review and proposed framework

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About