Density and Urban Sprawl

Peiser, Richard

doi:10.2307/3146665

Cited by 158 publications

(63 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is a thesis supported, in some part, by planners at the University of Southern California (Gordon and Richardson 1997a, b;Peiser 1989). Los Angeles is a clear example of an urban area that presents with many of the characteristics of sprawl, but also seems to be quite compact in its spatial structure (Gordon and Richardson 1997b).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Today's sprawl could turn into compact and sustainable development in later years as the pace of urban extension drives developers to fill-in previously undeveloped sites (Peiser 1989). Understanding of sprawl dynamics requires examination of change in the space-time distribution of each of the characteristics discussed thus far.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Sprawl is commonly regarded as a low density phenomenon, although there is debate as to whether this characterization is appropriate (Ewing 1997;Gordon and Richardson 1997a, b;Lang 2003;Peiser 1989). Low density is considered to be problematic because buildings that need to be supplied with services are further away from central service nodes and from each other than might be expected in denser developments.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A Toolkit for Measuring Sprawl

Torrens

2008

Appl. Spatial Analysis

202

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Debate regarding suburban sprawl in urban studies is contentious. It is fair to say that the phenomenon is not fully understood to satisfaction in the academic, policy, or planning communities and there are a host of reasons why this may be the case. Characterization of sprawl in the literature is often narrative and subjective. Measurement is piecemeal and largely data-driven. Existing studies yield contrary results for the same cities in many cases. The partial appreciation for the intricacies of sprawl is problematic. In practice, city planning agencies and citizen advocacy groups are scrambling to suggest and develop "smart growth" strategies to curb sprawl, without a strong empirical basis for measuring the phenomenon. Yet, sprawl is extremely popular with consumers. In this paper, we develop an innovative approach to diagnosing sprawl, looking across the full range of its characteristic attributes in a comprehensive fashion that is robust to some well-known challenges. This proves to be very useful in sweeping the parameter space of the phenomenon, enabling the visualization and valuation of sprawl surfaces across attributes, allowing us to check the pulse of a developing city. We apply the work to Austin, TX, a controversial exemplar of American sprawl, with the surprising result that sprawl and "smart growth" are found to co-exist and co-evolve. This raises questions about relationships between the two, with consequences for planning and public policy.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A Toolkit for Measuring Sprawl

Torrens

2008

Appl. Spatial Analysis

202

163

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Peiser (1989) uses subdivision data from three different communities over time to estimate average lot size as a function of median house value, age of the subdivision, distance from the city center, and other accessibility measures. Peiser's hypothesis is that jurisdictions that allow discontinuous developmentinterspersed development and undeveloped parcels as the city expands-will have efficient development patterns and higher overall density because as property values increase over time, infill development will occur in areas developed earlier.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Zoning, TDRs and the density of development

McConnell

Walls

Kopits

2006

Journal of Urban Economics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many communities on the urban fringe are implementing a range of policies to preserve farmland and open space, cluster residential development, and guide development to areas with existing infrastructure. These efforts are an attempt to control overall growth and the concomitant loss in open space and also to counter a trend toward the so-called large lot development that often takes place in these areas. Planners have argued that policies to manage density are the most important local policy focus for urban areas in the coming years.It is possible that large lot development and sprawl are themselves the result of government policy. Most local governments use zoning to establish minimum acreage requirements for each residential dwelling unit; in ex-urban localities, these limits are often quite high. Developers might build a subdivision with average lot sizes greater than the minimum but they cannot by law go below it. Some researchers have argued, however, that the spatial patterns of development are simply the natural result of household preferences and market forces.In this paper, we address the question of whether zoning limits are the primary cause of lowdensity, sprawling development or whether market forces tend to dictate this outcome. If zoning limits account for low-density development in at least some cases, how would development patterns be different if there had been no such rules? We begin by constructing a simple model of the developer decision about the density of new development. The subdivision is the unit of observation, and developers must weigh both demand and cost considerations in choosing density, in addition to complying with zoning restrictions that vary across parcels. We apply the model using parcel-level data from a region where zoning rules vary but are exogenous to the period under study. Calvert County, Maryland, near Washington, DC, is an historically rural county that has experienced rapid growth in recent years. The county has a transferable development rights (TDRs) program that has led to a great deal of variability in the intensity of development across properties. We are able to not only examine the extent to which zoning has contributed to large lot development but also to determine the economic forces that underlie density decisions. Finally, we are able to forecast how density would have been different in the absence of zoning rules by estimating a Tobit equation that is censored for the observations constrained by zoning.

show abstract

“…Therefore, negative ASI are considered less sprawling than ASI that summed positive relative to the mean. It is important to note that what might be indicated as a sprawling county today could evolve into a compact development in the future as urbanization has been shown to drive building on previously undeveloped sites [72].…”

Section: Summing the Indicator Z Scoresmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measuring Sprawl across the Urban Rural Continuum Using an Amalgamated Sprawl Index

Kew

Lee

2013

Sustainability

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Urban sprawl is rapidly transforming the landscape of Kentucky"s prime farmland from a dominant agricultural land use pattern to a patchwork of dispersed and loosely defined parcels. This state, located in the east central portion of the U.S., is not unlike many states considered rural, nor is it unlike many rural regions found throughout the world where urban sprawl is concentrated in metropolitan areas that are often encroaching into these rural areas. Authors have argued for and against urbanization patterns generally understood to be sprawl on the basis of social, economic, and biophysical opportunities and constraints. Finding consensus in the literature about defining and measuring urban sprawl is difficult. This paper demonstrates a method for cost effectively measuring urban development using National Land Cover Data, Census data, and ancillary data across 34 counties. Based on seven indicators framed around the amount, configuration, and per capita land usage, an amalgamated sprawl index (ASI) is demonstrated through an example in north central Kentucky, USA. While the public believes this growth area of Kentucky is rapidly sprawling, this study indicates the pattern of sprawl is spreading faster in areas not obvious to this same public.

show abstract

Density and Urban Sprawl

Cited by 158 publications

References 6 publications

A Toolkit for Measuring Sprawl

A Toolkit for Measuring Sprawl

Zoning, TDRs and the density of development

Measuring Sprawl across the Urban Rural Continuum Using an Amalgamated Sprawl Index

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About