In this article, we argue that insights can be gained by analyzing the use of urban growth boundaries (UGBs) for urban growth management as an inventory problem. The analysis provides three useful insights. First, it shows that where UGBs are employed, too much emphasis is placed on whether UGBs contain sufficient land to accommodate 20 years of growth and too little is placed on how frequently, how much, or under what circumstances UGBs should be expanded. Second, it shows that where market factors are used, they have been used inappropriately to increase the size of UGBs immediately after expansion, when they should be used to influence the size of UGBs immediately before expansion. Third, it shows that UGBs are likely to work better if expansions occur not after an arbitrary period of time, but when the supply—or the price—of land reaches some critical threshold. We conclude by asserting that the use of UGBs should not be governed by arbitrary rules of thumb, because such rules do not stand up to critical examination, they preclude adaptation to local situations, and they prevent experimentation.
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 65 citations exist upstream.