Urbanization and Carbon Emissions: A Nationwide Study of Local Countervailing Effects in the United States

Abstract

Objective. This study advances a theoretical framework for examining the impact of urbanization on local carbon emissions over space and time. It conceptualizes urbanization at the local level as a set of three distinct but related subprocesses of population concentration, land-use intensification, and systemic interaction, which join together to exert countervailing effects on local carbon emissions. Methods. To test this framework we conduct cross-sectional and panel regression analyses of carbon emissions at the county level across the continental United States, controlling for spatial autocorrelation. Results. Findings strongly support our framework and show how different dimensions of urbanization push against one another at the local level to influence carbon emissions in ways that exert far more consistent effects than household density and alternative transit use. Conclusion. These findings illuminate the complexities of urbanization as a local force of environmental transformation with increasingly global consequences.To date, most research on social drivers of carbon emissions has focused on national rather than local dynamics of urbanization. This literature shows repeatedly that more urbanized societies emit more greenhouse gases than less urbanized societies regardless of how we measure these emissions-total, per capita, or per economic unit (Clark and York, 2005;Fisher and Freudenburg, 2004;York, Rosa, and Dietz, 2003). Moreover, recent studies affirm that this pattern has persisted for at least the past half century (Jorgenson and Clark, 2012). Yet, at the same time, a growing body of literature now argues that urbanization holds the key to global sustainability because, as an eco-social process, it is highly efficient at the local level, lowering environmental costs of infrastructure, facilitating alternative transit use, and stimulating environmental awareness-all in ways that help reduce the carbon intensity of social

Population and lifestyle trend changes in China: implications for environmental quality

“…The positive effect of urbanization on carbon emissions indicates that China is not characterized by strong environmental policies, therefore, underscoring the importance of pollution problems. Our results receive statistical report by those in Elliott and Clement (2014), who provide empirical evidence about the strength of urbanization in leading to higher levels of carbon emissions. These findings strongly indicate that urbanization requires substantial and ongoing inputs related to energy and other sectors, which seems to occur through highly inefficient and environmentally destructive means.…”

The Environmental Consequences of Rural and Urban Population Change: An Exploratory Spatial Panel Study of Forest Cover in the SouthernUnitedStates, 2001–2006

“…In this study, however, there is no evidence that urban areas affect consumption of forest resources at the local level, which has not been the case for other environmental outcomes (e.g., use of fossil fuels). Nevertheless, previous research on other environmental outcomes has argued that urbanization at the local level is multidimensional, and the different dimensions have countervailing environmental impacts (Elliott and Clement ). Therefore, given the nonsignificant effect of urban population size in this study, future quantitative analyses of forest cover change might consider the different dimensions of urbanization (e.g., population size, density, and social organization) as separate independent variables.…”

Urbanization and Land‐Use Change: A Human Ecology of Deforestation Across the United States, 2001–2006

“…Often called smart growth or compact development, the concept of density figures as a central topic in these discussions (Nielsen ). The environmental performance of these projects appears promising, especially with respect to the relationship between density and fossil fuel use (Newman ); however, this performance has been subject to much scrutiny (e.g., Elliott and Clement ; Melia, Parkhurst, and Barton ; Neuman ). Meanwhile, the above study also demonstrates the ecological benefit of density in terms of preserving forest cover.…”