size of open space for net social value is 450 acres, smaller than its counterpart for a
single open space, while the capacity of tax increment financing is 1270 acres, larger than
that for one single large open space. We compare the maximum net social values of four
evenly distributed areas of open space and one central park, and find the four areas with a
value of $7.6634 × 107 is larger than the single park with a value of S7.4724×107. This
result seems to suggest that splitting one large open space into several small pieces and
evenly distributing these pieces may improve the net social value of open space and
create more tax increment and thus financing capacity. The comparison between two
areas of open space and one large tract of open space also supports this result. In other
words, changing the distribution of open space can be a useful tool for policy-makers
especially in situations such as insufficient tax increment to finance preserving open
space.
Effect of the Shape of Open Space
In this subsection, we examine the effect of the shape of open space on the net
value of community land and property tax increment. We consider two typical shapes of
open space: ring (a circular belt), and cross (see figure 8). For the shape of a cross, we
focus on the area effect when open space is located across a community center, while for
a ring-shaped green belt, we not only examine the area effect but also simulate the effect
of spatial locations.
Figure 9 illustrates the shape effect of open space. Panel A and B compare
different locations of an open space ring. Specifically, when open space is located at
300m from the center of community, the net social value reaches its maximum of
S7.5407×107 at 432 acres; while when open space is located at 900m from the center of
32