| . | Scenario 1: 10% reduction in greenbelts . | Scenario 2: no greenbelts . | Scenario 3: counterfactual greenbelts . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Panel A: baseline | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | −0.250 | −1.400 | 0.332 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 0.442 | −2.674 | 4.457 |
| Change in output (in %) | −0.172 | 1.017 | −1.100 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −2.350 | −7.320 | 6.719 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.171 | −0.184 | −0.203 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 1.563 | 6.780 | −3.208 |
| Panel B: no greenbelt amenities, |$\zeta =0$| | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | 0.743 | 2.747 | −0.714 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 4.060 | −0.318 | 7.370 |
| Change in output (in %) | 1.696 | 2.782 | 0.509 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −1.619 | −6.618 | 7.408 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.060 | 0.036 | −0.115 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 2.952 | 8.054 | −2.197 |
| . | Scenario 1: 10% reduction in greenbelts . | Scenario 2: no greenbelts . | Scenario 3: counterfactual greenbelts . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Panel A: baseline | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | −0.250 | −1.400 | 0.332 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 0.442 | −2.674 | 4.457 |
| Change in output (in %) | −0.172 | 1.017 | −1.100 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −2.350 | −7.320 | 6.719 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.171 | −0.184 | −0.203 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 1.563 | 6.780 | −3.208 |
| Panel B: no greenbelt amenities, |$\zeta =0$| | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | 0.743 | 2.747 | −0.714 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 4.060 | −0.318 | 7.370 |
| Change in output (in %) | 1.696 | 2.782 | 0.509 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −1.619 | −6.618 | 7.408 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.060 | 0.036 | −0.115 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 2.952 | 8.054 | −2.197 |
Notes: I take the parameter values estimated in column (6) of Table 5.
| . | Scenario 1: 10% reduction in greenbelts . | Scenario 2: no greenbelts . | Scenario 3: counterfactual greenbelts . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Panel A: baseline | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | −0.250 | −1.400 | 0.332 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 0.442 | −2.674 | 4.457 |
| Change in output (in %) | −0.172 | 1.017 | −1.100 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −2.350 | −7.320 | 6.719 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.171 | −0.184 | −0.203 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 1.563 | 6.780 | −3.208 |
| Panel B: no greenbelt amenities, |$\zeta =0$| | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | 0.743 | 2.747 | −0.714 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 4.060 | −0.318 | 7.370 |
| Change in output (in %) | 1.696 | 2.782 | 0.509 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −1.619 | −6.618 | 7.408 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.060 | 0.036 | −0.115 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 2.952 | 8.054 | −2.197 |
| . | Scenario 1: 10% reduction in greenbelts . | Scenario 2: no greenbelts . | Scenario 3: counterfactual greenbelts . |
|---|---|---|---|
| . | (1) . | (2) . | (3) . |
| Panel A: baseline | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | −0.250 | −1.400 | 0.332 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 0.442 | −2.674 | 4.457 |
| Change in output (in %) | −0.172 | 1.017 | −1.100 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −2.350 | −7.320 | 6.719 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.171 | −0.184 | −0.203 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 1.563 | 6.780 | −3.208 |
| Panel B: no greenbelt amenities, |$\zeta =0$| | |||
| Change in expected utility (in %) | 0.743 | 2.747 | −0.714 |
| Change in overall land rents (in %) | 4.060 | −0.318 | 7.370 |
| Change in output (in %) | 1.696 | 2.782 | 0.509 |
| Change in average floor space price (in %) | −1.619 | −6.618 | 7.408 |
| Change in average wages net of commuting (in %) | −0.060 | 0.036 | −0.115 |
| Change in total developable land (in %) | 8.804 | 54.480 | −5.517 |
| Change in total floor space (in %) | 2.952 | 8.054 | −2.197 |
Notes: I take the parameter values estimated in column (6) of Table 5.
This PDF is available to Subscribers Only
View Article Abstract & Purchase OptionsFor full access to this pdf, sign in to an existing account, or purchase an annual subscription.
