Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Well-functioning cities reduce the economic distance between people and economic opportunities. Cities thrive because they enable matchmaking-among people, among firms, and between people and job opportunities. This paper examines employment accessibility in Nairobi, Kenya and evaluates whether modification of land use patterns can contribute to increases in aggregate accessibility. The assessment is based on simulation of counterfactual scenarios of the location of jobs and households throughout the city without new investments in housing or transport infrastructure. The analysis finds that modifications to the spatial layout of Nairobi that encourage land use clustering can increase the share of overall opportunities that can be accessed within a given time-frame. When commuters travel by foot or using the minibus network, the share of accessible economic opportunities within an hour doubles from 11 to 21 percent and from 20 to 42 percent respectively. The analysis also finds that spatial layouts that maximize the number of households that have access to a minimum share of jobs, through a more even jobs-housing balance, come at the expense of average accessibility. This result is interpreted as a trade-off between inclusive and efficient labor markets.

Accessibility --- Labor Market --- Land Use Patterns --- Matchmaking --- Urban Form

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper investigates the costs and benefits of three ex ante flood management strategies - risk-based insurance, zoning, and subsidized insurance - in an urban economics framework that takes land scarcity into account. In a theoretical setting and in the absence of market failures, risk-based insurance perfectly internalizes flood risks and maximizes social welfare. However, risk-based insurance faces major technical, social, and political challenges and is not always realistic. Flood zoning and subsidized insurance are two second-best options that are easier to implement and less technically demanding. The paper explores analytically and with numerical simulations the welfare losses and distributional impacts with these second-best options, and demonstrates that total losses often remain small. Flood zoning is close to optimal when flood-prone areas are small, floods are frequent, and housing quality is low. Zoning keeps total land value unchanged but transfers wealth from landowners in flood-prone areas to landowners in safe locations. Subsidized insurance is close to optimal when a large fraction of a city is flood prone, floods are rare, and housing quality is high. And although it increases flood losses through the moral hazard effect, subsidized insurance encourages more construction, which reduces housing rents and benefits tenants regardless of where they live. Subsidized insurance transfers wealth from landowners in safe locations to landowners in flood-prone areas. When the implementation of risk-based insurance is unrealistic, as is often the case in developing countries, a combination of zoning in high-risk areas and subsidized insurance for low-risk areas might be a good alternative.

Finance and Financial Sector Development --- Flood Control --- Hazard Risk Management --- Insurance --- Insurance and Risk Mitigation --- Land Scarcity --- Land Use --- Moral Hazard --- Risk Management --- Urban Development --- Urban Economic Development --- Urban Economics --- Urban Floods --- Water Resources

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Flood exposure is likely to increase in the future as a direct consequence of more frequent and more intense flooding and the growth of populations and economic assets in flood-prone areas. Low-income households, which are more likely to be located in high-risk zones, will be particularly affected. This paper assesses the welfare and equity impacts of three flood management policies-risk-based insurance, zoning, and subsidized insurance-using an urban economics framework with two income groups and three potential flood locations. The paper shows that in a first-best setting, risk-based insurance maximizes social welfare. However, depending on flood characteristics, implementing a zoning policy or subsidized insurance is close to optimal and can be more feasible. Subsidizing insurance reduces upward pressure on housing rents but increases flood damage, and is recommended for rare floods occurring in a large part of a city. Zoning policies have the opposite effect, avoiding damage but increasing housing rents, and are recommended for frequent floods in small areas. The social welfare impact of choosing the wrong flood management policy depends on the location of floods relative to employment centers, with flooding close to employment centers being particularly harmful. Implementing flood management policies redistributes flood costs between high- and low-income households through land markets, irrespective of who is directly affected. As such, they are progressive in terms of equity, compared to a laissez-faire scenario with myopic anticipations, in the more common scenario where poorer populations are more exposed to urban floods. But their impacts on inequality depend on flood locations and urban configuration. For instance, in a city where floods are centrally located and low-income households live in the city center, subsidized insurance would mitigate a surge in inequality, whereas a zoning policy could substantially increase inequalities.

Climatic changes.

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

Transit subsidies in the urban area of Buenos Aires are high, amounting to a total of USD 5 billion for 2012. They have been challenged on several counts: suspected of driving urban sprawl and associated infrastructure costs, diverting resources from system maintenance, and failing to reach the poor among others. In this context, this paper examines the impacts of cost recovery fares under a range of different policy scenarios that could cushion the impact of fare increases. The alternative scenarios that are scrutinized are the uncompensated removal of the transit subsidy, its replacement by a lump sum transfer, and its replacement by two different construction subsidy schemes. Using a dynamic urban model (NEDUM-2D) calibrated for the urban area of Buenos Aires, all scenarios are assessed along four dimensions: (i) the efficiency/welfare impact on residents, (ii) the impacts on the internal structure of the urban area and sprawl, (iii) the impact on commuting-related carbon dioxide emissions, and (iv) the redistributive impacts, with a focus on the poorest households. A series of results emerge. First, there are consumption-related welfare gains for residents associated with replacing the transit subsidy by a lump sum transfer. Second, there are only moderate reductions in urbanization over time and thus infrastructure costs associated with the subsidy removal. Third, the replacement of the transit subsidy leads to only moderate increases in carbon dioxide emissions despite lower public transport mode shares, because households will chose to settle closer to jobs, thereby reducing commuting distances. Finally, the replacement of the transit subsidy by a lump sum transfer will lead to short-term harsh redistributive impacts for captive transit users in some areas of the urban area. Medium-term adjustments of land and housing prices will partially mitigate the negative impacts of higher transport costs for tenants, but will further hurt homeowners.

Cash Transfers --- Construction Subsidies --- Household Welfare --- Land Use --- Transit Subsidy --- Urbanization

Choose an application

• Reference Manager
• EndNote
• RefWorks (Direct export to RefWorks)

This paper investigates the land value creation potential from flood mitigation investments in a theoretical and applied setting, using the urban area of Buenos Aires as a case study. It contributes to the literature on the wider economic benefits of government interventions and the dividends of resilience investments. Using a simple urban economics framework that represents land and housing markets, it finds that not all flood mitigation interventions display the same potential for land value creation: where land is more valuable (city centers for example), the benefits of resilience are higher. The paper also provides ranges for land value creation potential from the flood mitigation works in Buenos Aires under various model specifications. Although the estimates vary largely depending on model parameters and specifications, in many cases the land value creation would be sufficient to justify the investments. This result is robust even in the closed city configuration with conservative flood damage estimates, providing that the parameters remain reasonably close to the values obtained from the calibration. Finally, acknowledging that fully calibrating and running an urban simulation model is data greedy and time intensive-even a simple model as proposed here-this research also proposes reduced form expressions that can provide approximations for land value creation from flood mitigation investments and can be used in operational contexts.

Flood Control --- Hazard Risk Management --- Housing Regulation --- Land Use --- Residential Investment --- Transport Planning --- Urban Development --- Urban Economic Development --- Urban Housing --- Water Resources