Moderation effect of planning on housing development along the French Atlantic coast: findings from an event history hazard model

Figures & data

Figure 1. Pays de Brest – Urban amenities and daily-commodities service areas.

Figure 2. Yearly build rates in Pays de Brest between 1968 and 2009 (new houses/100,000 suitable plots).

Figure 3. Evolution of plots at 0–100 m from the sea shore according to the type of planning bylaw in the municipality.The area of selected plots ranges from 200 to 2000 m². Smaller and larger plots are excluded from the analysis. Bylaws: UDP: urban development plan; LUP: land-use plan; LUS: local urbanism schema. None: no bylaw; built: plots used for housing; protected: unavailable plots (e.g. owned by the Conservatoire du littoral, nature reserve).

Figure 4. Kaplan–Meier survivor function of building land in Pays de Brest from 1968 to 2009 by distance to the sea shore (plots between 200 and 2000 m²).

Figure 5. Kaplan–Meier survivor function of building land in municipalities with LUP or LUS from 1979 to 2009 by distance to the sea shore (plots between 200 and 2000 m²).

Figure 6. Kaplan–Meier survivor function of building land in coastal municipalities with LUP or LUS from 1986 to 2009 by distance to the sea shore (plots between 200 and 2000 m²).

Table 1. Cox proportional hazard models of the impact of the Coastal Law and bylaws on the protection of the sea shore.

(a) Base model (time periods based on laws interacted with municipal-level planning bylaws) – Equation 6
	0–100 m			101–200 m			201–300 m
Treatments	Haz. ratio	Sign.	PH test	Haz. ratio	Sign.	PH test	Haz. ratio	Sign.	PH test
A – 1968–1979 (before CL)	0.716	***	0.07	0.748	***	0.29	0.725	***	0.74
B – 1980–1985 (before CL)	0.466	***	0.83	0.828	***	0.87	0.788	***	0.86
C – 1968–1985 (UDP before CL)	0.915		0.37	1.493	***	0.79	0.746	*	0.08
D – 1978–1985 (LUP before CL)	0.274	***	0.96	0.682	***	0.44	0.408	***	0.36
E – 1986–2000 (CL only)	0.497	***	0.60	0.673	***	0.05	0.661	***	0.34
F – 1986–2000 (CL and LUP)	0.356	***	0.95	0.721	***	0.29	0.725	***	0.01
G – 2001–2009 (CL only)	n.a.		n.a.	0.497	*	0.58	0.338	**	0.97
H – 2001–2009 (CL and LUP or LUS)	0.340	***	0.65	0.760	***	0.99	0.818	***	0.65
(b) Model with time-varying covariates and parameters – Equation 7
Reference (301+ m)	0–100 m			101–200 m			201–300 m
Treatments	Haz. ratio	Sign.	PH test	Haz. ratio	Sign.	PH test	Haz. ratio	Sign.	PH test
A – 1968–1979 (before CL)	1.378	***	0.02	1.179	***	0.08	1.188	***	0.77
B – 1980–1985 (before CL)	0.849	*	0.81	1.190	**	0.79	1.167	**	0.75
C – 1968–1985 (UDP before CL)	0.952		0.56	1242	*	0.26	0.735	*	0.03
D – 1978–1985 (LUP before CL)	0.489	***	0.93	1.072		0.35	0.639	***	0.32
E – 1986–2000 (CL only)	0.946		0.32	0.913		0.02	0.937		0.16
F – 1986–2000 (CL & LUP)	0.647	***	0.84	1.047		0.42	1.017		0.02
G – 2001–2009 (CL only)	n.a.		n.a.	1.723		0.61	1.181		0.96
H – 2001–2009 (CL & LUP or LUS)	0.559	***	0.64	0.944		0.99	0.982		0.66

Significance of parameters: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Bylaws: UDP: urban development plan (based on LUL); LUP: land use plan (based on LUL); LUS: local urbanism schema (based on SUR).

Overall PH test (p = 0.488) and link test (p = 1.000) for the base model.

Table 2. Impact of the time-varying covariates and parameters between 1968 and 2009 – Equation 7.

	1968–1974		1975–1982		1983–1990		1991–1999		2000–2009
Time period	Haz. ratio	Sign.	Haz. ratio	Sign.	Haz. ratio	Sign.	Haz. ratio	Sign.	Haz. ratio	Sign.
Euclidean distance to the nearest plot already built on in the previous year (ref. > 300 m) PH test (p = 0.956) link test (p = 1.000)
0–100 m	9.829	***	21.329	***	25.856	***	22.450	***	51.156	***
101–200 m	2.881	***	5.213	***	4.138	***	1.852	*	8.257	***
201–300 m	1.625	***	2.354	***	1.009		0.837		1.968	*
Road distance to the nearest school (ref. > 2000 m) PH test (p = 0.994) link test (p = 1.000)
0–500 m	2.549	***	2.165	***	2.257	***	2.541	***	3.809	***
501–1000 m	2.778	***	2.271	***	2.751	***	2.729	***	3.927	***
1001–1500 m	1.934	***	2.242	***	2.169	***	1.975	***	2.821	***
1501–2000 m	1.345	***	1.299	***	1.868	***	1.417	***	1.737	***
Car travel time to Brest CBD (ref. > 32 min) PH test (p = 0.980) link test (p = 1.000)
0–8 min	0.292	***	0.190	***	0.192	***	0.198	***	0.053	***
8.1–12 min	1.736	***	1.273	***	1.276	**	0.962		0.307	***
12.1–16 min	1.646	***	1.367	***	2.097	***	1.617	***	1.184	**
16.1–20 min	1.640	***	1.319	***	1.729	***	1.568	***	1.149	*
20.1–24 min	1.442	***	1.255	***	1.629	***	1.403	***	1.000
24.1–28 min	1.142	**	1.351	***	1.708	***	1.038		0.893	**
28.1–32 min	1.029		1.238	***	1.306	***	1.089		1.051
Car travel time to the nearest second- or third-order urban centre (ref. > 10 min) PH test (p = 0.907) link test (p = 1.000)
0–2 min	0.979		0.903		0.671	***	1.308	***	0.698	***
2.1–4 min	1.519	***	1.500	***	1.578	***	1.370	***	1.890	***
4.1–6 min	1.954	***	1.698	***	1.475	***	1.465	***	1.656	***
6.1–8 min	0.995		1.337	***	1.291	***	1.330	***	1.566	***
8.1–10 min	1.057		1.237	***	1.118	**	1.667	***	1.216	***
Plot size (ref. > 1000 m^2) PH test (p = 0.155) link test (p = 1.000)
200–500 m^2	1.054	*	0.833	***	1.147	***	0.402	***	0.431	*** ^ΔΔΔ
501–750 m^2	0.884	***	0.990		1.212	***	0.849	***	1.206	*** ^ΔΔ
751–1000 m^2	0.874	***	0.790	***	1.054		0.994		1.462	***^Δ
Proportion of secondary homes in the municipality during the previous year (ref. > 4%) PH test (p = 0.976) link test (p = 1.000)
0–4%	1.112	***	1.553	***	1.394	***	1.424	***	1.373	***
Proportion of vacant houses in the municipality during the previous year (ref. > 7%) PH test (p = 0.169) link test (p = 1.000)
0–7%	1.205	***	0.931	*	0.913	**	1.009		0.818	***
Migration balance of the municipality during the previous year (ref. negative) PH test (p = 0.02) link test (p = 1.000)
Positive	1.110	***	1.191	***	1.070	*	1.173	***	1.086	**^Δ
Urban amenities and daily-commodities service area – fixed effects (ref. Brest service area) PH test (p = 1.000) link test (p = 1.000)
Chateaulin	0.786	*	2.127	***	0.942		0.323	***	0.740	**
Crozon	0.546	***	0.554	***	0.702	***	0.398	***	0.504	***
Daoulas	0.671	***	0.955		0.777	**	0.662	***	0.977
Landerneau	0.952		0.894	*	0.868	**	0.793	***	0.843	***
Le Conquet	0.818	**	1.111		0.995		1.230	**	1.373	***
Le Faou	0.792	*	1.140		0.836		0.520	***	0.740	***
Lesneven	0.738	***	0.707	***	0.687	***	0.484	***	0.586	***
Plabennec	0.718	***	0.690	***	0.454	***	0.805	***	0.964
Ploudalmezeau	0.776	***	0.865	*	0.699	***	0.564	***	1.045
Plouguerneau	0.621	***	0.678	***	0.733	***	0.596	***	0.764	***
Saint-Renan	0.692	***	0.748	***	0.774	***	0.679	***	1.007

Significance of parameters: *p < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Significance of proportional hazard (PH) assumption test for the parameter: ^ΔΔp < .05; **p < .01; ***p < .001.

Table 3. Wald tests of equality between hazard ratios of distance strips to the sea shore in the time-varying covariate model.

Treatments	0–100 versus 101–200	0–100 versus 201–300	101–200 versus 201–300
A – 1968–1979 (before CL)	1.378 > 1.179 (0.002)	1.378 > 1.188 (0.003)	1.179 ≈ 1.188 (0.883)
B – 1980–1985 (before CL)	0.849 < 1.190 (<0.001)	0.849 < 1.167 (<0.001)	1.190 ≈ 1.167 (0.790)
C – 1968–1985 (UDP before CL)	0.952 ≈ 1.242 (0.217)	0.952 ≈ 0.735 (0.258)	1.242 > 0.735 (0.002)
D – 1978–1985 (LUP before CL)	0.489 < 1.072 (<0.001)	0.489 ≈ 0.639 (0.167)	1.072 > 0.639 (<0.001)
E – 1986–2000 (CL only)	0.946 ≈ 0.913 (0.820)	0.946 ≈ 0.937 (0.950)	0.913 ≈ 0.937 (0.853)
F – 1986–2000 (CL & LUP)	0.647 < 1.047 (<0.001)	0.647 < 1.017 (<0.001)	1.047 ≈ 1.017 (0.648)
G – 2001–2009 (CL only)	n.a.	n.a.	1.723 ≈ 1.181 (0.465)
H – 2001–2009 (CL & LUP or LUS)	0.559 < 0.944 (<0.001)	0.559 < 0.982 (<0.001)	0.944 ≈ 0.982 (0.492)

Significance of difference in parameters (p); ≈: difference is not significant.

Table 4. Wald tests of equality between hazard ratios of treatments at less than 100 m from the sea shore.

Treatments	A – 1968–1979 (before CL)	B – 1980–1985 (before CL)	C – UDP before CL
B – 1980–1985 (before CL)	0.849 < 1.378 (<0.001)
C – 1968–1985 (UDP before CL)	0.952 ≈ 1.378 (0.052)	0.952 ≈ 0.849 (0.571)
D – 1978–1985 (LUP before CL)	0.489 < 1.378 (<0.001)	0.489 < 0.849 (0.002)	0.489 < 0.952 (0.007)
E – 1986–2000 (CL only)	0.946 < 1.378 (0.003)	0.946 ≈ 0.849 (0.451)	0.946 ≈ 0.952 (0.977)
F – 1986–2000 (CL and LUP)	0.647 < 1.378 (<0.001)	0.647 < 0.849 (0.009)	0.647 ≈ 0.952 (0.054)
H – 2001–2009 (CL and LUP or LUS)	0.559 < 1.379 (<0.001)	0.559 < 0.849 (<0.001)	0.559 < 0.952 (0.007)
Treatments	D – LUP before CL	E – 1986–2000 CL only	F – 1986–2000 CL and LUP
E – 1986–2000 (CL only)	0.946 > 0.489 (0.001)
F – 1986–2000 (CL and LUP)	0.647 ≈ 0.489 (0.109)	0.647 < 0.946 (0.007)
H – 2001–2009 (CL and LUP or LUS)	0.559 ≈ 0.489 (0.440)	0.559 < 0.946 (<0.001)	0.559 ≈ 0.647 (0.138)

Significance of difference in parameters (p); ≈: difference is not significant.

Table

Distance to the sea shore	0–100 m		101–200 m		201–300 m		301+ m
Observation period (laws and bylaws)	Plot-years	Build rate	Plot-years	Build rate	Plot-years	Build rate	Plot-years	Build rate
1968–1979 (before CL)	85,896	884.8	96,488	926.5	99,952	899.4	1402,140	1138.7
1980–1985 (before CL)	24,425	736.9	28,923	1310.4	28,617	1247.5	451,412	1611.2
1968–1985 (UDP before CL)	2368	1224.7	4313	1994.0	5698	1000.4	185,767	2605.4
1978–1985 (LUP before CL)	9584	417.4	11,430	1041.1	13,136	624.2	176,283	1217.4
Before coastal law	122,273	825.2	141,154	1047.1	147,403	946.4	2215,602	1364.2
1986–2000 (CL only)	16,502	418.1	18,996	568.5	19,087	560.6	250,879	840.2
1986–2000 (CL and LUP)	61,209	330.0	71,412	666.6	75,757	669.2	860,605	663.4
2001–2009 (CL only)	1152	0.0	1062	753.3	1344	520.8	25,527	901.0
2001–2009 (CL and LUP or LUS)	41,710	546.6	46,238	1219.8	47,956	1311.6	566,189	1348.0
1986–2009 (excluded from CL)	448	2232.1	268	10447.8	287	7665.5	488,369	1797.2
After coastal law	121,021	420.6	137,976	858.1	144,431	880.7	2191569	1115.9
Total	243,294	623.9	279,130	953.7	291,834	913.9	4407,171	1240.7
Evolution of build rates (after/before CL)		0.510		0.820		0.931		0.818

Appendix 2. Adjustment of Cox proportional hazard models.

	Base model	Model with time-varying covariates
Log likelihood (model)	−721,605.95	−686,449.51
LR Chi^2	1548.86 (df: 23)	71,861.73 (df: 203)
p > Chi^2	0.0000	0.0000
PH assumption test	Chi^2: 22.53 (df: 23); p = 0.489	Chi^2: 112.79 (df: 203); p = 1.000
AIC	1443,258	1373,305
BIC	1443,568	1376,039

AIC: Akaike’s information criterion; BIC: Bayesian information criterion.