Laura and Warren Howard live in Carlisle, in a spacious 4,500-square-foot Cape. They downsized recently, from a sprawling 7,000-square-foot Colonial, so they could pocket some cash and buy a second property: A cozy cottage on Cape Ann.

Ideally, the couple would like to buy a place in Gloucester, within walking distance of Good Harbor Beach or with a view of the Annisquam River. The home itself can be a handyman special, something that requires a bit of elbow grease, they say, but it must be on a smaller lot so they don't have to fret much over yard work.

''The vision is to find something we can enjoy on the weekends now, and maybe rent out," said Laura Howard, 44, who grew up in Manchester-by-the-Sea. ''Then, when we retire, we'll take the equity out of our Carlisle home to make over the Cape Ann home."

For months, the Howards have been scouring Cape Ann's rocky shoals for a picturesque retirement home, but to no avail. The findings of a recent land-use study may help explain why: Snug homes on diminutive lots are becoming an endangered species in the northern suburbs and across Greater Boston.

According to the analysis by the Massachusetts Housing Partnership and the Center for Real Estate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the average lot size for new homes built north of Boston doubled between 1998 and 2002, to 1.1 acres -- roughly the size of a football field. The average lot size for homes built prior to 1999 was .47 acres.

The analysis -- believed to be the first town-by-town study of lot sizes in Massachusetts -- reveals just how fast the region's land is being devoured for new homes. The bottom line, according to the study's authors: A growing number of communities are seeing a proliferation of large lots in part because local officials are embracing zoning regulations to slow development and limit the number of school children entering their financially strained school systems.

Area economists worry that the region's pattern of development will translate into even higher housing prices in one of the country's least affordable markets. As land becomes more scarce, they said, highly qualified workers will flee the region. Massachusetts lost more residents between 2000 and 2004 than any other state but New York, according to Census Bureau statistics released last week. If that trend continues, experts worry, business may also begin to leave the Bay State. They note that Massachusetts is the only state to have lost population each of the past two years, according to US Census data.

''The average lot sizes in Massachusetts are three times as large as they are nationally, even though nationally land costs are much lower," said Henry Pollakowski, lead author of the study and director of the Housing Affordability Initiative at the MIT center. ''That's alarming. But even more alarming is the rate at which we're developing the land.

''The amount of land developed in a five-year period was larger than the cities of Boston, Arlington and Brookline, combined," added Pollakowski. ''And this land that is being developed in the suburbs, it's going to be tied up for a very long time, making it difficult to build affordable housing. That, in turn, poses a significant risk to the long-term economic viability of the region."

Of 37 local cities and towns, 15 now average more than an acre of land for each new housing unit, including apartments. Before 1999, only two area communities had reached that benchmark.

''A lot of what's driving this is the fear by communities that smaller lots will translate into more homes and more children, which will drive up school costs," said Edward Moscovitch, an economist and former state budget director who now is president of Cape Ann Economics in Gloucester.

''The towns are dealing with this by zoning out all but the very rich," Moscovitch added. ''If only one or two communities were doing it, it wouldn't be so bad. But everyone is doing it. And as a result, we're chewing up more of the landscape -- and driving up housing costs -- without solving the towns' financial problems."

Moscovitch cited a recent study by the Pioneer Institute, a Boston-based public policy research firm, that found nearly one-third of the state's 351 cities and towns have adopted zoning regulations requiring new homes to be built on lots larger than .75 acres; 55 of those communities require more than an acre of land for residential development, the study found.

According to local officials, zoning may be contributing to the propagation of large lots, but other forces also are at work. They note that buyers are showing a seemingly insatiable appetite for grand homes with ''bonus rooms" -- including home theaters and recreation rooms -- on sprawling, private lots.

Using figures supplied by the Warren Group, a real estate industry publisher, county registers of deeds, and city and town assessors, researchers for the MIT center and the Housing Partnership found that 35 of the region's 37 communities saw their average lot size increase between 1998 and 2002. Only Everett and Peabody registered a decline.

And while Boston's ring cities -- most notably Revere, Malden, and Chelsea -- maintained their traditional small lot sizes, the lot sizes in more than half of the region's cities and towns more than doubled. This was true even in communities that had embraced large lots prior to 1999.

In Boxford, for example, housing lot sizes grew from an average of 1.47 acres prior to 1999 to 4.28 acres between 1998 and 2002. The trend was driven in part by buyer preference, local officials said.

The town's planning director, Len Phillips, noted that many of the homes now under construction in this sleepy suburb are at least 8,000 to 10,000 square feet in size, and are nestled on private, wooded lots that far exceed the town's 2-acre minimum for residential development.

However, the demand for large lots was not the only reason Boxford's average lot size increased in recent years, Phillips said, pointing to its zoning regulations as another factor. There is little land available for development in the town, Phillips said, with much of the remaining land consisting of scattered parcels tucked behind existing homes. Under Boxford's zoning laws, a home could be built on these oddly shaped lots only if they are at least 6 acres.

Boxford continues to be home to the region's largest lots. However, the town did not boast the greatest percentage increase in its lot sizes. Essex claimed that distinction, with its average lot growing from .75 acres prior to 1999 to 3.69 acres by 2002. Then came Beverly (.25 acres to 1.1 acres); Manchester-by-the-Sea (.68 acres to 2.69 acres); Hamilton (.72 acres to 2.67 acres); Merrimac (.63 acres to 2.04 acres); and Salisbury (.39 acres to 1.25 acres).

''Under current zoning laws, developers have little choice," said Mark Leff, senior vice president in charge of construction lending at the Salem Five Bank. ''They can either build on large lots, or subject themselves to a special permitting process that is both time-consuming and expensive."

Through such a process, Symes Associates Inc., a Beverly-based real estate firm, was able to create Pillsbury Village, a Georgetown community consisting of 32 single-family homes surrounded by 62 acres of preserved open space. Most lots are slightly less than an acre, and all homeowners are banned from doing anything with about half their land, ''other than walking through it," according to Jeffrey Rhuda, business development manager at Symes.

Such developments are rare, the MHP/MIT study reveals. Across Greater Boston, the numbers tell the tale: The average new home consumed 1.3 acres of land between 1998 and 2002, and nine communities out of 10 had larger lots than they had prior to 1999.

''The amount of land that is being consumed overall is extraordinary and is something which can't be sustained," said Clark Ziegler, executive director of the Massachusetts Housing Partnership, adding that current development trends will ''make it too expensive for people to live and work here."

If the region is to reverse the tide, Moscovitch, Ziegler, and other land-use experts argue that local leaders must embrace a regional approach to development, one that would take a hard look at how much new housing is needed in Greater Boston as a whole, and adopt policies that would help build those homes, allowing for denser development in areas where it makes sense. Failing that, they said, the state Legislature must step in and impose uniform standards on all municipalities to ease restrictions on development and allow for ''smart growth."

Smart growth would allow homes to be built on smaller lots (picture Ipswich, Rockport, or other traditional New England towns) or clustered together and surrounded by acres of open space (think Pillsbury Village).

Past attempts by state lawmakers to encourage, rather than demand, relaxed zoning requirements have not been embraced. Four years ago, Beacon Hill legislators passed a bill that gives cities and towns the ability to allow cluster developments by right, enabling developers to avoid the usual special permitting process. Gloucester is the only community in the state to have adopted the measure. To date, not a single development has been built under the provision.

''There is a general feeling within a lot of communities that residential development is bad, and the primary reason for that is the cost of educating school children," said Rhuda. ''However, what does it say if we as a society start zoning out families because we're afraid of bearing the cost of educating their children? It tells families, 'Move somewhere else.'

''And you know what? They will," Rhuda added. ''And then the businesses will leave. They'll follow the people. And then where will Massachusetts be?"

Globe staff writer Matt Carroll contributed to this report. Brenda J. Buote may be reached at bbuote@globe.com.

Northtalk

What can communities do to curb the trend toward larger lot sizes? Or do you think development should be left to the marketplace? Log on to www.boston.com/northtalk, or write to us at globenorth@globe.com, or Globe North, 1 Corporate Place, 55 Ferncroft Road, Danvers, MA 01923.