Characteristics,Caus,and Effects of Sprawl:
A Literature Review
Reid H.Ewing
Keywords:costs·public rvices·urban sprawl·pattern of development·Florida·open space·subsidies·policy·farmland
Editor’s Note:This literature review was prepared for the Florida Department of Community Affairs(DCA)as background to the amendment of Florida’s local comprehensive planning rule, Rule9J-5.On October2,1992,DCA published a propod amendment that,among other things, included criteria for the review of plans to ensure that they discourage urban sprawl.The propod rule was challenged by the Florida Association of Realtors,Florida Home Builders Association, Florida Farm Bureau Federation,and other parties.DCA ttled with most parties,but not all,and the matter went to administrative hearing on September13,1993.The hearing officer’s order is to be issued momentarily,and if favorable to DCA,will allow DCA to adopt afinal rule by early1994.
The physical characteristics,caus,and effects of sprawl must be understood before sprawl can be eff
ectively regulated.Relying on the literature in thefield,this paper provides a conceptual framework against which DCA’s propod sprawl rule can be judged and upon which thefinal rule can rest.
Classic Sprawl Patterns
Sprawl has been equated to the natural expansion of metropolitan areas as population grows (Sinclair,1967;Brueckner and Fansler,1983;Lowry,1988)and to“haphazard”or unplanned growth,whatever form it may take(Peir,1984;Koenig,1989).More often,though,sprawl is defined in terms of“undesirable”land-u patterns—whether scattered development,leapfrog devel-opment(a type of scattered development that assumes a monocentric city),strip or ribbon develop-ment,or continuous low-density development.Table1indicates which patterns have been labeled sprawl in the technical literature of the past three decades.Scattered development is probably the most common archetype,but any“non-compact”development pattern qualifies.
Using archetypes to define sprawl still leaves us short of a working definition.Like obscenity,the experts may know sprawl when they e it,but that is not good enough for rulemaking.There are two problems with the archetypes.
R.H.Ewing
National Center for Smart Growth,Preinkert Field Hou,University of Maryland,College Park,MD20742USA
e-mail:rewing1@umd.edu
519 Originally Published in1994in Environmental and Urban Studies vol21(2):1–15
J.M.Marzluff et al.,Urban Ecology,
C Springer2008
520R.H.Ewing Table1Sprawl Archetypes
Low-Density Development Strip
花鲢鱼的做法
Development
Scattered
新宿二丁目Development
Leapfrog
Development
Whyte(1957)x x
Clawson(1962)x
Lessinger(1962)x x
Boyce(1963)x x
Harvey and Clark(1965)x x x
Bahl(1968)x
McKee and Smith(1972)x x x x
Archer(1973)x x
Real Estate Rearch
Corporation(1974)
x x
Ottensmann(1977)x
Popenoe(1979)x x x
Mills(1981)x x
Gordon and Wong(1985)x
Fischel(1991)x
Heikkila and Peir(1992)x
First,sprawl is a matter of degree.The line between scattered development and so-called poly-centric or multinucleated development is afine one.“At what number of centers polycentrism ceas and sprawl begins is not clear”(Gordon and Wong,1985,p.662).Scattered development is classic sprawl;it is inefficient from the standpoints of infrastructure and public rvice provision,personal travel requirements,and the like.Polycentric development,on the other hand,is more efficient than even compact,centralized development when metropolitan areas grow beyond a certain size threshold(Hai
nes,1986).A polycentric development pattern permits clustering of land us to reduce trip lengths without producing the degree of congestion extant in a compact,centralized pattern(Gordon et al.,1989).
Likewi,the line between leapfrog development and economically efficient“discontinuous development”is not always clear.Leapfrogging occurs naturally due to variations in terrain(Harvey and Clark,1965).New communities nearly always start up just beyond the urban fringe,where large tracts of land are available at moderate cost(Ewing,1991).Some sites are necessarily bypasd in the cour of development,awaiting commercial or higher-density residential us that will become viable after the surrounding area matures(Ohls and Pines,1975).“The sprawl of the1950s is fre-quently the greatly admired compact urban area of the early1960s.An important question on sprawl may be,‘How long is required for compaction?’as oppod to whether or not compaction occurs at all”(Harvey and Clark,1965,p.6).Whether leapfrog development is inefficient will depend on how much land is bypasd,how long it is withheld,how it is ultimately ud,and the nature of leapfrog development(Breslaw,1990).
Nuances ari with other sprawl archetypes as well.The difference between strip development and other linear ,Mainstreet USA or transit corridor development)is a matter of degree. So,to
o,the difference between low-density urban development,exurban development and rural resi-dential development.Wherever one draws the line between sprawl and related forms of development will be subject to challenge unless bad on an analysis of impacts.It is the impacts of development that render development patterns undesirable,not the patterns themlves.
The cond problem with the archetypes is that sprawl has multiple dimensions,which are glosd over in the simple constructs.It is sometimes said that growth management has three dimensions—density,land u,and time.The same is true of sprawl.Leapfrog development is a problem only in the time dimension;in terms of ultimate density and land u,leapfrog development may be relatively efficient.It is known,for example,that infill parcels tend to be developed at higher
Characteristics,Caus,and Effects of Sprawl:A Literature Review521 densities than the land surrounding them(Peir,1989;Peir,1990).Keep the time frame short and leapfrog development ceas to be inefficient.
Similarly,low-density development is problematic in the density dimension,and strip devel-opment in the land-u dimension(since it consists only of commercial us).If development is clustered at low gross densities,or land us are mixed in a transportation corridor,the patterns become relatively e
fficient.Again,it is the impacts of development that render development patterns desirable or undesirable,not the patterns themlves.
Dimensions of Sprawl
Studies analyzing the costs of alternative development patterns have,by necessity,defined alter-natives in multiple dimensions,rather than limiting themlves to simple sprawl archetypes.One cannot analyze the costs of“leapfrog development,”for example,without specifying densities and land us.Even the classic anti-sprawl study,The Costs of Sprawl,depicts multidimensional commu-nity prototypes such as“Sprawl Mix Community,”“Low Density Planned Community,”and“Low Density Sprawl Community.”
广州长隆动物园Table2lists alternative development patterns analyzed in veral recent studies.While tailored to their respective regions,all alternatives may be characteriz in two dimensions,density and land u(a third dimension,time,is never considered in the static analy.Relative to the ba ca(suburban sprawl),most alternatives involve greater concentration of development and/or greater mixing of us.Some alternatives stri for a“balanced”mix of jobs and housing by subare others simply for a degree of mixing that does not occur regularly in suburbia.Some concentrate development the urban
8核处理器
core(s)of the region,others in a few major suburban centers,and still others in a multitude of small centers.
Poor Accessibility
Ultimately,what distinguishes sprawl from alternative development patterns is poor accessibility of related land us to one another.The concept of“accessibility is central to urban economics(in sim-ple models of urban form)and travel demand modeling(in gravity-type models of trip distribution). But for some reason,accessibility is hardly ever mentioned in the literature on spraw even though poor accessibility is the“common denominator”among sprawl archetypes.
In scattered or leapfrog development,travelers and rvice providers must pass vacant land on their way from one developed u to another.In classic strip development,the consumer must pass other commercial us(usually on crowded arterials)on the way to the desired destination.Of cour,in low-density development,everything is far apart due to large private land holdings.
This suggests that sprawl might be characterized generically as any development pattern with poor accessibility among related land us.Poor accessibility may result from a failure to concentrate development and/or to mix land us.
The beauty of equating sprawl to poor accessibility is twofold.First,unlike the simple archetypes, the definition recognizes that real-world development patterns are a matter of degree and are multi-dimensional(a discusd above).No real-world pattern will exactly match an archetype.By defining sprawl generically,we need not debate whether a given pattern is sufficiently similar to an archetype to constitute sprawl.
Second,this generic definition is readily operationalized.Many different accessibility mea-sures are found in the literature(Hann,1959;Ingram,1971Vickerman,1974;Burns and Golob,1976;Dalvi and Martin,1976;Weibull,1976;Morris et al.,1979;Pirie1979;Wachs and Koenig,1979;Koenig,1980;Leake and Huzayyin,1980;Richardson and Young,1982;Hanson
522R.H.Ewing Table2Travel Impacts of Alternative Development Patterns
Concentrated Jobs Clustered
Housing
Mixed
会议旅游Land-U
VMT
(%change)
Speed
儿童画作品(%change)
Washington,D.C.1
–Balanced◦•−9+1
–Concentrated•◦•−9+2 Seattle,W A2
–Major Centers••−4−7
酒驾罚款多少–Multiple Centers◦◦•−10
–Disperd Growth◦+30
–Preferred Alternative•••−3+7 Baltimore,MD3
–Centralized Residential•◦−10
–Decentralized Residential•+2−2
–Transit-Accessible Residential•◦−1−5 Middlex,NJ4
–Scenario1•••−12+21
–Scenario2◦◦◦−9+11 Dallas-Fort Worth,TX5
–Rail Corridors••◦−1−2
–Activity Centers•−1−1
–Uncongested Areas◦−4+2
上海介绍San Diego,CA6
–Move Jobs•−6NA
–Move Housing•−8NA
–Move Jobs(transit access)•−5NA
–Move Housing(transit access)◦•−9NA
–Job Concentration•+11NA
Key
Jobs Housing Land U
•Large Concentrations•Highly Clustered•Balanced Jobs-Housing
◦Small Concentrations◦Slightly Clustered◦Mixed Jobs-Housing
1Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments(1991)
2Puget Sound Council of Governments(1990)
3Baltimore Regional Council of Governments(1992)
4Middlex Somert Mercer Regional Council(1991)
5North Central Texas Council of Governments(1990)
6San Diego Association of Governments(1991b)
and Schwab,1987).Simple measures of accessibility,such as average trip length or average travel time can be obtained from travel surveys.More sophisticated measures,such as vehicle miles or vehicle hours of travel(VMT or VHT)per capita,can be estimated with any standard four-step travel modeling system such as FSUTMS(Florida Standard Urban Transportation Model Structure). FSUTMS will even calculate and report“accessibility indexes”for individual traffic zones,using travel time,cost,or distance between zones as the measure of accessibility.
Lack of Functional Open Space
Another characteristic common to all sprawl archetypes is a paucity of functional open space.Strip development prents a solid wall of commercial us.Low-density suburban development sub-divides land until every developable parcel is spoken for;while there is abundant open space,if
Characteristics,Caus,and Effects of Sprawl:A Literature Review523 you count people’s yards,it is all in private hands or in holdings too small for community us. Even leapfrog development,which le
aves large areas undeveloped,fails to provide functional open space.The leftover lands are no longer farmed and yet,being in private hands,are unavailable for community us.Land in suburbia,not actually ud for urban purpos,typically is not ud at all. It was once estimated that there is about as much idled land in and around cities as there is land ud (in any meaningful n)for urban purpos(Clawson,1962,p.107).
As Schneider(1970,p.69)notes:“It is physically impossible to prerve large open spaces in reasonable proximity to people when millions of people are spread out in uniform low densities. The barrack-like development of land leaves people with the monotony of urban space and form at the scale of the street and private yard.”He argues instead for well-designed nodal developments,a complete range of urban spaces(from the most compact to the most open and spacious),and high net densities coupled with low gross densities.The resulting urban form is the antithesis of urban sprawl. Functional open space can be ud,then,to define sprawl in much the same way as accessibility.It can be readily operationalized and treated as a matter of degree.
Caus of Sprawl
Low-density suburban development is a“natural”conquence of rising incomes,technological chang
es,and low travel costs and high travel speeds(for a thorough discussion of the economic forces at work,e Boyce,1963;Giuliano,1989).Rising personal income has allowed houholds to spend more money on travel and on residential space.Industry has shifted from vertical to horizontal production process,and agglomeration economies have become less important.Incread auto ownership and the construction of high-speed highways have improved the accessibility of outlying sites,causing the urban boundary to shift outwards andflattening land rent and density gradients. Growth and decentralization of population have led to the decentralization of other activities,as market thresholds have been reached at outlying locations.
Leapfrog and scattered development are also a product of market forces(e Clawson,1962; Bahl,1968).Expectations of land appreciation at the urban fringe cau some landowners to with-hold land from the market.Expectations vary,however,from landowner to landowner,as does the suitability of land for development.The result is a discontinuous pattern of development.The higher the rate of growth in a metropolitan area,the greater the expectations of land appreciation,and the more land will be withheld for future development(Lessinger,1962;Ottensmann,1977).
Even strip development results from market forces,albeit forces powerfully shaped by public policy favoring the automobile(Garrison et al.,1959;Boal and Johnson,1968;Achimore,1993).“The packagin
g of50,000daily vehicles(and therefore,a total daily population of60,000to70,000 drivers plus pasngers)into a single arterial street leads to the irresistible urge to ll things to this population,and creates a llscape along Once in place,almost no power on earth will stop its march toward strip commercial”(Kulash,1990).
While a product of market forces,sprawl development patterns are not economically efficient.“[W]e may accept urban sprawl and speculation in raw suburban land as the natural conquences of the economic and social process we have described,and at the same time we may ek to change one or more stages or bas of tho process becau we dislike theirfinal outcome”(Claw-son,1962).In economic theory,a perfectly functioning market requires many buyers and llers, good information about prices and quality,and no external costs or benefits.The land market meets none of the requirements.The number of buyers and llers of raw land is limited at any point in time.The rate of land appreciation is speculative.Suburban development is subsidized directly and through the tax code.The land market is rife with externalities.And government regulation of development introduces additional market distortions.See Lee(1979)for an overview of land market imperfections.
