Tradeable development rights to protect peri-urban areas: lessons from the United States and observations on Australian practice

Abstract

As population growth continues there is greater pressure to manage cities and regions sustainably. These pressures are particularly acute in Australia's fastest growing peri-urban regions. Despite efforts to contain and consolidate urban growth, pressure on the peri-urban interface remains a key challenge. The reliance on traditional regulatory approaches to manage land use change in high growth peri-urban areas is proving to be ineffective. The use of market-based instruments (MBIs) are among the many options available to planners and policy makers to manage growth and development. Tradeable development rights (TDRs) are one type of MBI that have been used widely throughout the US to preserve open space and agricultural lands; however, their application in Australia has been limited. This paper uses a simple case study approach to review two Australian peri-urban TDR cases based on the findings of a large-scale US TDR study. The findings suggest that any attempt to implement TDR programmes in Australia should have regard for the key factors found in successful US TDR programmes. Planners also need to develop an intricate understanding of the internal and external factors that influence peri-urban areas.

Keywords:

• sprawl
• planning
• rural
• sustainability
• agriculture

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Garth Moore from Ipswich City Council and Locky McLaren, formerly of the Department of Primary Industries and Resources, South Australia. The authors would also like to thank, Ryan McAllister, Bruce Taylor, Anthea Coggan and Stuart Whitten whose comments improved earlier versions of this paper.

Notes

1. For the purpose of this paper the different terms used in the case studies reflect the broader TDR concept and are used interchangeably.

2. G. Moore, pers. comm., 10 November 2009 – is a strategic planner with the council who has over 20 years’ experience and was involved in the conceptualisation and implementation of the TDE scheme. It should be noted that with a lack of published material much of the subsequent information for the Ipswich case study came from this source unless otherwise stated. For the remainder of this section any further commentary refers to the above source.

3. Note: Many US TDR programmes also use a one-to-one ratio; however, they tend not to be the most successful programmes.

4. Note that while many US TDR programmes transfer development potential from rural to urban areas, many also operate within the same zone and have been successful, e.g. Calvert County MD.

5. Note that the findings may have been different if a larger sample and or other case studies were obtainable for review. There were limiting factors that prevented a more comprehensive review.

6. Note that success can be defined as the ability of the programme to facilitate transfers and preserve actual land. The inability to generate few or no transfers may lead to programme abandonment.