Geography, policy or market? New evidence on the measurement and causes of sprawl (and infill) in US metropolitan regions

Abstract

This paper proposes four metrics to measure sprawl in metropolitan regions as marginal changes in land use over time. The metrics (change in urban housing unit density, marginal land consumption per new urban household, housing unit density in newly urbanized areas and percent of new housing units located in previously developed areas) are computed for all 329 metropolitan areas in the continental USA for 1980 and 2000. Regression analysis is used to explain variations in sprawl metrics across metropolitan areas, incorporating variables representing market, geographic and policy factors. Changes in development patterns reflect interactions of market and geographic structures. States with a substantial state role in planning accommodate a higher percentage of new housing units in previously developed areas and with lower marginal land consumption, suggesting that policy can mitigate sprawl development.

A spatial econometric analysis of land use efficiency in large and small municipalities

“…In this work we argue that the Brueckner and Fansler (1983) approach provided so far clear indications in favour of the economic rationale behind urban spatial growth, and implicitly against the hypothesis of excessive land take, since focused on large cities and metropolitan areas, while excluding the low-density peripheries (see Paulsen (2014)), and neglecting medium and small cities. In particular, we suggest that the price of land in large cities better internalises the negative externalities implicit in the process of land use change.…”

“…In line with this approach, the OECD suggests measuring sprawl as the growth in built-up area adjusted for the growth of population (OECD, 2013). Furthermore, the economists' view recognise the peculiar character of urban sprawl, outlined primarily by declines in housing unit density and by increases in marginal land consumption per new household (Paulsen, 2014). On the other hand, regarding methodology, the Brueckner and Fansler (1983) approach only shows that urban size is related to market variables but does not reveal to what extent this relationship leads to consumption of land that could be defined excessive.…”

Long-Term Urban Growth and Land Use Efficiency in Southern Europe: Implications for Sustainable Land Management

“…Urban growth is one of the most relevant factors determining irreversible landscape changes, affecting ecosystem health and human well-being for generations to come [2]. Urbanization stimulates land use changes, determining the contraction of agricultural land, the consolidation of forests and other natural land and the expansion of urban land [3]. While society benefits from economic development and conservation of natural areas, this trend has a number of adverse implications, related to expanding unsustainable use of land, rural-urban migration, abandonment of cropland, land marginalization, inadequate social security and health provision and decreasing food and environmental security at the regional scale [4].…”

The Fiscal Impacts of Urban Sprawl: Evidence From U.S. County Areas

“…Adding some evidence to this possibility, Carruthers and Úlfarsson () suggest that restrictive land use regulations are likely to push development to less restrictive areas, usually beyond the urban fringe. Alternatively, Paulsen () suggests that states with a substantial role in the planning process have higher levels of infill development, helping to stem inefficient development on the urban fringe. Such that statewide planning or local urban containment policies are effective in restraining growth on the urban fringe, this analysis suggests that local government expenditures are likely to be reduced as a result…”