Upload
conner-bradley
View
39
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
WHITE PAPER
Exploring the Implications of Urban Sprawl Management through the Environment, the Economy, and the Automobile
Conner BradleyProfessor Keller
ENVS Senior SeminarRhodes College
May 4, 2015
1
Table of Contents:
1. IntroductionA. Historical Background……………………………………………………….…3B. Defining Sprawl…………………………………………………………….…...4
2. Environmental ImpactsA. Loss of Ecosystem Services……………………………………………….….7B. Biodiversity Loss…………………………………………………………….….8C. Habitat Fragmentation……………………………………………………….…9D. Consequences of Impervious Surfaces……………………………….…….10E. Automobile Implications……………………………………………...….……12F. Land Loss……………………………………………………………………....13
3. Economic ImpactsA. Income Inequality……………………………………………………..……….15B. Quantifying the Costs……………………………………………...……….…16
4. Solutions and BarriersA. Portland case study…………………………………………………………...18B. Digging up the root of the problem…………………………………………..21C. Eliminating Automobile Dependence………………………………………..23
5. A Cleaner Future A. The New American Lifestyle…………………………………………………..26
6. References
2
Section 1: Introduction
This White Paper will define and address a wide range of consequences associated
with urban sprawl. Consequences associated with sprawl can be categorized into three
major groups: environmental, economic, social. An overview of these costs provides the
framework of knowledge required to understand the means towards effective policy
solutions. This white paper aims to provide an accurate account of many problems
relative to urban sprawl. Additionally, this white paper compiles an array of proposed
management solutions. A case study of Portland, Oregon’s management agenda is
included to provide further information about the successes and failures of policy. A
review of the consequences, solutions, and barriers leads into a discussion about the
future of urban growth and sustainable living. The final goal of this paper is to establish
a framework of management decisions that can successfully mitigate environmental,
economic, and social costs associated with urban sprawl.
Historical Background
Urban sprawl is a process that has been in motion since the beginning of human
civilization. Sprawl however has not been a large scale issue until recent technological
advancements allowed for widespread and rapid urban development. Historical urban
development has occurred as people move from rural, low density populations into high
density urban centers. This process, called Urbanization, is closely related to urban
sprawl. Urbanization in the past occurred because people were looking for economic
prosperity in the central business districts of cities. American Cities developed steadily
throughout the first 75 years of nationhood, remaining small in geographic area and
population due to limitations in transportation. Since most cities prospered based off of
their ability to trade and transport goods to other areas urban centers were located
along trade corridors, coasts and navigable rivers.
3
Urbanization greatly increased after the train became the primary mode of
transportation. More goods and services were able to transfer at a faster pace, resulting
in a higher standard of living for many people. Agricultural productivity was no longer
limited by region, which “increased the flow of people to the cities by the turn of the
century.” (Auch et. al 2004) The inner core of the city become the center of industry and
economy. By the 1920’s, “for the first time, more Americans lived in urban than rural
settings.”(Auch et. al 2004) At the same time, car ownership greatly increased as more
people were able to afford them. By the end of the First World War, the downtown city in
America reached its economic zenith.
However by the end of World War II, the dynamics of urban growth shifted. The Federal
Government established modern mortgage loan, which made housing more affordable
and lead to an economic boom. This economic flexibility reduced the demand for inner
city housing, leading to the process of suburbanization, where populations moved away
from the urban center. This process was facilitated further by the Federal Interstate
Highway Act, which “set the stage for large-scale, multilane roads.”(Auch et. al 2004) By
1970, “more of the Nation’s urban population lived in the suburbs than in central cities.”
(Auch et. al 2004) People no longer needed to live in the crowded city to find economic
prosperity. Here we see how the preference for low-density suburban living became
born. It is this lifestyle that currently fuels urban sprawl, leading to widespread
environmental and economic consequences.
Defining Sprawl
Urban sprawl is closely related to suburbanization, the “general trend of city dwellers to
move from the city into residential areas in ever-growing concentric circles away from
the city's core.”(encyclopedia.com) Suburbanization can be seen as a driving force of
urban sprawl, which is generally defined as the rapid expansion of metropolitan areas. A
more specific definition describes urban sprawl as “a complex pattern of land use,
transportation, and social and economic development.” (Frumkin, 2002) Urban sprawl is
initiated by pressures (such as suburbanization) that “cause a fall in demand for land
development in the center of a city whilst increasing it in the peripheral areas.”
4
(Gargiulo, Vittorio, et al) Sprawl is often thought of as a “static pattern, measurable by
low population or housing densities.” (Sultana, et al, 2014) This idea works well with the
spatial component of sprawl - a ring of low population density suburbs surrounding a
high density urban “core”. However sprawl is also a dynamic phenomenon, fueled by
an increasing population. As one might gather, “areas that might have been considered
sprawl a few decades ago are now quite dense and urban.” (Sultana, et al, 2014)
Consequently, areas that are currently considered sprawl may become dense and
urban in the future. We can see now how sprawl evolves spatially over time, making it a
dynamic process, not static.
Since urban sprawl is a dynamic process, it has evolved over time through distinct
growth cycles which capture the “flavor of the living styles, income levels, transport
technologies, spending habits, and tastes of its period.” (Sultana, et al, 2014) These
growth cycles are driven by political and economic pressures, which vary from between
regions and states. While sprawl is a consistent process, the consequences associated
with it depend on multiple different forces. This makes it difficult to pinpoint a
widespread management plan. Even more, some sprawling cities are functioning well
economically, while others are failing. For these reasons, planners are unable to come
to a consensus about whether or not urban sprawl is actually a serious problem.
While researchers are unable to agree on the magnitude of urban sprawl
consequences, they do agree on the various patterns associated with it. The figure
below illustrates temporal and spatial patterns associated with sprawl.
5
Figure 1: Patterns of Urban development lead to the spread of low density housing
populations towards the perimeter of a city. This process is temporal and spatial and
continues to expand with human population and economic growth. (Academia.edu)
The following list summarizes patterns associated with urban sprawl:
1. Sprawl is dynamic; driven by suburbanization and population growth
2. Sprawl is spatial; it occurs in a space outside of the urban center.
3. Sprawl is temporal; it reflects new development.
4. Sprawl results in low density housing and development
5. Sprawl is closely related to automobile transportation
6. Commute times and automobile use increases as development grows towards
the fringe
These patterns and associated consequences have been observed by analyzing
historical urban growth trends. Extensive information suggests a similar, yet not
identical processes of urban sprawl across the United States. These patterns will be
different when compared to the patterns of other countries, considering the influence of
the political-economic factors. With a thorough understanding of the historical patterns
and driving forces of urban sprawl in the United States, it is possible to predict how
cities might grow in the future. This makes it possible to implement effective policy
solutions that aim to reduce the economic and environmental costs associated with
sprawl.
Section 2. Environmental Impacts
6
Environmental consequences from urban sprawl include, loss of ecosystem services,
biodiversity loss, habitat fragmentation, water pollution, air pollution, climate change,
and land loss. Construction of new infrastructure such as houses, roads, lots result in
direct habitat loss and “not only degrades environmental resources such as water
quality, air quality, and wildlife habitats, but also limits or eliminates accessibility to
natural resources such as agricultural lands, timberland, minerals, and water.”
(Gargiulo, Vittorio, et al) Sprawl literally plants human development into natural
ecosystems, causing a large amount of direct and indirect environmental and economic
problems.
Loss of ecosystem services
Urban sprawl disrupts valuable ecosystem functions which directly support human
livelihood through services such as flood mitigation, carbon sequestration, pollination,
and nitrogen fixation. These functions are defined as services when they provide direct
benefits, economic or aesthetic, to human life. Without many of these services,
civilization would not be able to flourish. Clean water for example is an ecosystem
service that we could not live without. Many areas are already experiencing shortages,
which could be linked to urban sprawl. When disturbance such as housing development
and road construction hinders the ability of specific ecosystem services to function,
costs to society “could total many billions of dollars” (Leinberger, Christopher).
Examples of ecosystem services are explored in depth below:
Flood mitigation is a valuable ecosystem function that is specifically harmed by urban
sprawl. As housing developments are constructed, trees and other vegetation are
removed. Long roots of vegetation act to hold soil in place, however when they are
removed, rain can easily sweep the soil away. As sprawl continues to expand, some
areas of construction simply aren’t suited for development. Without adequate erosion
control, whole houses can be swept away, causing large costs for the owners.
Additionally, erosion sweeps large amounts of sediment into streams and rivers.
Sediment can alter the aquatic habitat, causing many problems for the organisms that
7
call it home. When erosion occurs, topsoil is lost, hindering the ability of the ecosystem
to replenish itself.
Carbon Sequestration works to counteract the effects of greenhouse gas accumulation.
Trees are able to accumulate, or sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, and as
some sources suggest, they “help to reduce global warming.” (Pimentel et al, 1997)
Much debate centers about whether or not carbon dioxide build up threatens the health
of the global climate, however most researchers agree that forest loss has multiple, far
reaching consequences. Without a large population of wooded vegetation, emissions
from vehicles are less likely to be absorbed, and greenhouse gases accumulate.
Pollination is an ecosystem service that facilitates plant growth. Pollinators, such as
bees, butterflies, birds, and bats, provide substantial benefits to the productivity of
natural ecosystems. It is estimated that “as much as one-third of the world's food
production relies either directly or indirectly on insect pollination.” (Pimentel et al, 1997)
This service may be directly or indirectly influenced by urban sprawl, where loss of
habitats threatens insect populations. While it may seem less significant to human
needs, ecosystems require pollinators to function correctly. Since sprawl can also
encroach on agricultural lands, it can eliminate pollinators, contributing to a decline in
crop productivity.
Nitrogen fixation is a valuable ecosystem service helps regulate the productivity of
specific environments. Plants require nitrogen to grow and survive, however
development changes the levels of nitrogen available. This can change the composition
of an entire ecosystem. Small changes can lead to a shift in native vegetation, or allow
invasive species to grow. Additionally, nitrogen can be depleted by agricultural
practices, leading to limits in productivity. As demand for agricultural goods rises in the
future, and the availability of fertile land diminishes, the value of nitrogen fixation will
only increase.
8
Biodiversity Loss
A principal component of ecosystem functions is the maintenance of biodiversity.
Biodiversity is directly threatened by Urban Sprawl. Biodiversity refers to the total
species of plants, animals, microorganisms in an ecological community. When housing
developments and roads are built into new locations, the biodiversity is destroyed. As a
result, areas that may be unique in flora and fauna become increasingly homogenized.
While this occurrence may seem relatively insignificant on a small scale, urban
development is not limited to small scales. Ecological theories describe the intricate
relationship that organisms in a community share. Plants, animals, and microorganisms
all rely on one another for resources. Often time specific species of animals only survive
due to the presence of another species. If human disturbance destroys specific plant
species in an area, a domino effect can occur, indirectly harming the entire community.
Since human beings are part of the ecological community too, we can indirectly hard
ourselves if we eliminate certain species or processes.
The flooding during Hurricane Katrina provides an example of the unforeseen value
biodiversity offers. Before the city of New Orleans was built, the landscape was primarily
wetlands. Once thought of as swampland or wasteland, “wetlands have become
recognized as critical for the ecological and hydrological health of a landscape” (Hasse
et al, 2003) In New Orleans, wetlands and the organisms that live within are especially
important because they can act as a buffer zone that prevents strong storm surges from
crashing far inland. As a transition zone, the vegetation absorbs some of the shock that
occurs during surge events. After years of urban development, wetlands in New Orleans
were replaced by housing developments. When the city was hit by Katrina there were
limited natural buffers to prevent flooding, leading to economic and environmental
catastrophe. The storm surge during hurricane Katrina devastated the city of New
Orleans, costing millions of dollars in damage. We can see how the substitution of
natural areas for man-made structures can cause magnified environmental destruction.
Thus protecting biodiversity must become a priority. Without proper planning, many
developed areas are less resilient to natural disaster.
9
Habitat Fragmentation
As development extends out from urban centers, roads, houses, and lots are built,
causing increasing fragmentation of wildlife habitats. Habitat fragmentation is closely
related to biodiversity loss, as well as loss of ecosystem services. However,
fragmentation causes problems mainly with native wildlife as ”urbanization alters
landscapes and fragments prior patterns of land-use and land cover, dramatically
reducing the amount of habitat, the size of remaining patches of habitat, and the degree
of connection amongst the remaining patches.” (Gargiulo, Vittorio, et al) This leads to
problems including habitat loss, reduced dispersal, changing migration patterns,
population decline and even extinction. As a result of habitat fragmentation, more and
more species are become threatened or endangered. Fragmentation has a large impact
on migrating birds, animals with large ranges, amphibians, and other species that
require specific or pristine habitat types to survive.
Habitat fragmentation however does not only impact the local wildlife. Inevitably, sprawl
leads to increased human-wildlife conflict. As development expands outward, more
people are coming into contact with native wildlife. Some wildlife conflict can be
extremely hazardous to human lives. Statistics show that more than “More than 1.5
million traffic crashes involving deer, producing at least $1.1 billion in vehicle damage
and about 150 fatalities, are estimated to occur annually in the United States.” (Hedlund
et al 2004) As vehicular travel increases, deer-related crashes follow. Deer offer the
example of a species that has adapted well to suburban expansion, low density sprawl
therefore does not seriously threaten their population. However it does fragment their
populations, cutting through large patches of land that may be home to thousands of
deer. Thus sprawl reinforces ever growing human encroachment on local wildlife. As we
have seen in the past, humans and wild animals do not mix well together.
Consequences of Impervious Surfaces
Urban sprawl results in the replacement of natural surfaces with impervious surfaces.
Impervious surfaces are generally understood as anthropogenic developments such as
10
roads and lots that do not allow water to permeate through. Environmental problems
that result from increased impervious surfaces are increased urban heat and water
pollution.
Heat island effect. The heat island effect has been observed to be directly related to
urban growth. Thermal imagery of surface temperatures show how “as cities sprawl
outward, the heat island effect expands, both in geographic extent and intensity.”
(Frumkin, 2002) This occurs for two reasons. Firstly, impervious surfaces are often dark
colors, meaning they absorb heat from sunlight. Think rooftops, asphalt, and parking
lots in the summer are often much warmer than grassy fields. Secondly, impervious
surfaces eliminate woody vegetation, such as trees, that may absorb heat and provide
shade. The figure below illustrates a sketch of the urban heat island effect:
Figure 2: Urban heat island effect, since impervious surfaces absorb more heat, urban
developments are warmer than surrounding rural areas. (Frumkin, 2002)
11
Polluted runoff. Sprawl adversely impacts water quality when “impervious surfaces
created by parking lots, road ways and building footprints prevent ground water
infiltration, increase stream surges and channel non-point source pollution directly into
water bodies” (Hasse et al, 2003) Non-point source pollution includes sediment,
fertilizers, phosphates, and hydrocarbons. These pollutants cannot be absorbed and
diluted by wetlands and forested areas when these communities are replaced with
impervious surfaces. Instead of being absorbed by permeable land, storm water runs
directly over contaminated surfaces, picking up oils and detergents and eventually
depositing them into stream systems. Non Point-Source pollution severely threatens the
health of freshwater systems, which are essential for human lives as well as other
organisms. Here we can see how water pollution is linked to biodiversity loss as well as
loss of ecosystem services. As development continues, we can expect increasing
concentrations of pollutants to contaminate a growing number of water systems.
Automobile Implications
The amount of impervious surfaces continues to increase due to the heavy use of
automobiles in the United States. Automobiles have been cited as a key driver of urban
sprawl. Many trends between urban sprawl and driving have been observed, “reflecting
a well-established close relationship between lower density development and more
automobile travel” (Frumkin, 2002). Heavy automobile use as a result of low density
developments has been linked to multiple environmental problems, including air
pollution and fossil fuel emission.
Even though automobile engines have become much cleaner in recent years, “motor
vehicles are a leading source of air pollution.” (Frumkin, 2002) As automobile use
increases, large releases of “carbon monoxide, carbon dioxide, particulate matter,
nitrogen oxides, and hydrocarbons” (Frumkin, 2002) continue to grow larger. In areas of
heavy automobile dependence, the proportion of these pollutants is higher, leading to
air quality degradation. However this air pollution however does not always stay
12
concentrated in these areas. Due to wind patterns, particulate matter can be blown to
surrounding areas, causing increased threats to human health. Health hazards from air
pollution are well known and lead to “worse lung function, more emergency room visits
and hospitalizations, more medication use, more absentness from school and work.”
(Frumkin, 2002)
Automobiles also emit carbon dioxide, which contributes to the greenhouse effect. The
greenhouse effect has been linked to global climate change, which has been projected
to cause many environmental problems to occur. Currently, there are more greenhouse
gases in the atmosphere than have been in a long time. Automobile use currently
contributes to “26 percent of U.S greenhouse gas emissions. In the 1990’s, greenhouse
gases from mobile sources increased 18 percent.” (Frumkin, 2002) This percentage of
increase can be linked to increases in human population and developments. If
measures aren’t taken to limit emissions, this number will likely continue to rise. It has
been argued that as a result of excess emissions, temperatures are warming irregularly,
ice caps are melting, and new diseases are appearing. These conclusions are heavily
debated, however most empirical evidence suggest climate changes are occurring.
Automobile use is not the sole cause of climate change, but it does increase emissions.
As car use increases, emissions will as well, leading to more air pollution, and
potentially more health risks to humans and the ecosystems we rely on to sustain
ourselves.
Land Loss
We can come to understand urban sprawl as a phenomenon that harms the
environment by direct pollution through water and air, ecosystem destruction, and
habitat fragmentation. Sprawl poses a threat to human well-being and even can be
linked to climate change. In addition to these problems, sprawl results “in alterations
and declines in local agricultural activities and to the loss of prime farmlands” (Gargiulo,
Vittorio, et al). Farmland is extremely important to food production around the world.
Sprawl may not directly impact agricultural production, however with an increasing
13
population farmland will become much more valuable in the future. When farmland is
lost to housing developments and highways, jobs and livelihoods go with it. With less
farmland, farmers are forced to increase the use of fertilizers and pesticides in order to
keep up production. Of course these chemicals runoff into the stream systems, causing
additional pollution. Many towns that have been built because of the rich soil that
surrounds them. If urban sprawl takes away some of the soil resources, the
environment and economy of a community will be threatened.
In the same way that many communities rely on agriculture to fuel their economy,
“forest resources have made significant contributions to the economic development and
industrial growth of many regions.” (Gargiulo, Vittorio, et al) With sprawl comes greater
residential land-use, and “forests become more valuable for development than for
timber production.” (Gargiulo, Vittorio, et al) When forests are responsibly cut down for
timber resources, they are economically viable for the long run and continue to support
the local market. When forests are exchanged for housing developments, their
economic value does not extend as far into the future. Here we can see how urban
sprawl impacts more than just environmental health, it also influences the economy and
threatens valuable space for productive land use. Without regulations, urban sprawl will
continue to drive these consequences, leading to a decrease in human health and well-
being.
Section 4. Economic Costs
“Urban sprawl costs the American economy more than US$1 trillion annually,” (New
Climate Economy) according to a new study by the New Climate Economy. When you
consider the environmental costs combined with social and economic externalities, one
trillion dollars makes sense. Benefits of biodiversity alone are estimated to “total
approximately $300 billion” (Pimentel et al, 1997) in the United States. The continued
expansion of uncontrolled sprawl will only add up to serious economic costs.
14
Urban Sprawl and Inequality
Inequality and poverty are driven by patterns of suburbanization and sprawl. As a
general trend, over the last half of the 20th century, households have moved from the
urban center to suburban areas. In 1966, “2.7 million people left a city for a suburb while
just 800,000 made the opposite move.” (Squires, 2002).This phenomenon is
responsible for driving a wealth gap between urban and suburban areas. “In 1960,
income in cities was 105 percent of their surrounding suburbs. By 1990, that ratio fell to
84 percent. From 1970 to 1995, poverty rates in cities rose from 12.6 percent to just
over 20 percent. As cities gained low-income residents, they lost upper income
residents to the suburbs.” (Squires, 2002) Overall, due to this trend of suburbanization
“people, resources, and wealth have consistently shifted away from city centers.”
(Squires, 2002) Of course this pattern should not be surprising. Families that have the
freedom to choose a community with new houses and large lots, less traffic, and lower
crime rates will inevitably do so. When this occurs, business also have the choice to
follow, as many have done. This creates a wealth gap which drives poverty and
decreases the economic potential of a city.
As a result of urban sprawl, poverty has become increasingly concentrated in urban
centers. Between 1970 and 1990 “the number of census tracts in which the poverty rate
was 40 percent or greater and the number of people living in such tracts doubled.”
(Squires, 2002) Poverty has increased within urban centers because relocating requires
the ability to afford a mortgage and car to travel between work and home, which is
expensive. Without the ability to relocate low-income populations become spatially
concentrated. This income barrier ensures that, at least in specific areas, only the poor
will populate. Understandably the wealthy tend to avoid poverty stricken areas, since
business is not entirely profitable and quality of life is perceived to be lower. This only
serves to make newer, wealthier areas more desirable for economic development. Of
course, these areas may very well be low density, sprawling areas. We can see a cycle
developing here where poverty stricken areas continue to remain poor. This cycle of
poverty then becomes a driving force of suburbanization and sprawl.
15
Poverty is associated with many social issues, which translate into economic liabilities
for a community as a whole. Look for example, at a low income individual living in an
urban center. Assuming that the surrounding local economy provides limited
opportunities, individuals are required to travel longer distances to find meaningful work.
However, since many of these individuals are poor they may not have access to reliable
transportation. Therefore, they are required to rely on public transportation, which may
not allow them to travel to the suburbs to find opportunities. We see how low income
individuals are at a fundamental economic disadvantage, which leads to social and
developmental issues. Ultimately, low-income individuals are less likely to climb the
economic latter and positively contribute to the market of a community. This cost has
been shaped by the nature of urban sprawl
Quantifying the Costs
Economic costs associated with urban sprawl are not limited to income inequality and
poverty. Many costs are actually very difficult to quantify, such as social costs and
energy costs. Economists are unable to account for the impact of social problems such
as crime, food insecurity, and mental illness on the local or regional economy. These
problems however can all be connected back to urban sprawl. Such costs are viewed
by economists as externalities, and they make it very difficult to come to a consensus
on the true cost of sprawl.
Energy costs provide examples of market externalities that are less difficult to quantify
than social costs. Energy costs include costs of travel, waste consumption and removal,
air conditioning, water and electricity, to name a few. Additional development will always
lead to increases in energy use, as more fuel is required for transportation and
construction. When new residential communities are established away from the core of
a city, essentials such as water and electricity must be transported over longer
distances, effectively raising the cost of such utilities. Therefore the cost of living
increases for those who live in suburban areas. Urban sprawl only serves to perpetuate
these additional costs, which puts more stress on both the economy and the
16
environment. If urban sprawl is allowed to continue uncontrollably the costs will
outweigh the benefits. For this reason, it is in every communities’ best interest to make
active efforts to limit sprawl and the associated externalities.
Section 5. Solutions and Barriers
Solutions to urban sprawl however have proven to be tricky since urban communities
face a diverse history of developmental flaws, depending on a mix of environmental,
political and economic factors. For many reasons, solutions must be tailored to the
specific scope of a particular space. There really is not a band aid solution that can be
applied everywhere. The result of variable urban sprawl patterns and problems is that
some communities now have years of experience with anti-sprawl solutions, and others
have just recently began to implement plans.
On a global scale, European countries have implemented a stronger initiative to control
urban sprawl than the United States. Since 1980, the control of sprawl has “become a
major consideration of urban policy in most European countries.” (Gargiulo, Vittorio, et
al) A matter of limited space in European countries makes urban sprawl a more
pressing issue there than in the United States. Since the United States is larger and
less population dense, there is a disparity of urban planning across multiple regions.
However the United States stands as the most urbanized country on the planet, “where
80 percent of the population now lives in metropolitan areas that occupy less than 20
percent of the land area.” (Auch et. al 2004) We may have a wealth of space in this
country, however it will not correct the problems associated with urban sprawl.
If we want to remain economically and environmentally healthy, the United States must
follow the footsteps of European countries and actively limit urban sprawl. The good
news is that governmental organizations have recognized this need, and many
communities have crafted solutions that act to control urban sprawl. Examples of
proposed community actions include:
17
1. More effective reuse of existing land and infrastructure resources,
2. Restrictions on development in outlying suburban and exurban areas,
3. Development of a range of transportation modes and less reliance on
the automobile
4. Concentration of residential and commercial development in central
locations and along the lines of mass transit arteries.
5. Creation of area wide revenue sharing and regional investment pools
6. More affordable housing construction and distribution of such housing
throughout metropolitan areas.
7. More vigorous enforcement of fair housing laws
8. Increased public and private investment in central cities to achieve more
balanced development throughout the region. (Squires, 2002)
Portland Case Study
Looking at examples of planning initiatives to manage urban growth, we can get a better
idea of how to implement future solutions. Portland, Oregon provides an example of a
community that has prioritized urban growth management. In 1979, the city created an
urban growth boundary (UGB) around the metropolitan area that “encourages
investment in the downtown and central city areas while discouraging development
beyond that boundary.” The goals of the UGB, as recommended by the American
Planning Association, should be to “promote compact and contiguous development
patterns that can be efficiently served by public services and to preserve or protect open
space, agricultural land, and environmentally sensitive areas.”(Jun, 2004) The
managing body that governs Oregon’s UGB defines it as “a legal boundary separating
urbanizable land from rural land … The boundary controls urban expansion onto farm,
forest, and resource lands.”(Jun, 2004) Due to continued sprawl in the area, the growth
boundary has been expanded three dozen times since it was first drawn. Adjustments to
18
the urban growth boundary are made according to a review of land supply by the Metro
Council. This review occurs every six years where “Metro prepares a forecast of
population and employment growth for the region for the next 20 years and, if
necessary, adjusts the boundary to meet the needs of growth forecast for that 20-year
period.”(Metro, 2014) Of course as sprawl continues to grow, the UGB must account for
changes.
Figure 3: Portland Urban Growth Boundary expands multiple counties. It was put into
place in 1979 to control urban growth. (Jun, 2004)
Review of Portland’s UGB. There has been considerable debate about the impact of
Oregon’s UGB policy. Some evidence argues that Portland’s UGB has “contributed to
controlling urban sprawl and urbanized density increases, while others insist that
Portland’s trend of suburbanization and land use patterns is no better than those of
other metropolitan areas.”(Jun, 2004) A literature review analyzed data trends and
conclusions about Portland’s UGB using the 2000 census, and concluded that
“Portland’s UGB has not been successful.”(Jun, 2004) The review asked: “did Portland’s
19
UGB control sprawl, curtail automobile usage, and maintain mobility?”(Jun, 2004) They
argue that it is problematic to find detailed evidence about why Portland has not been
successful. With so many different factors to consider, it is even problematic to find a
working definition of success. Further analysis suggests that the measures of UGB
management themselves were not implemented effectively. Since the UGB was
adjusted so many times, developmental growth dictated the policy. Had the boundary
been more “fixed,” development would have been more restricted. This review leads to
the conclusion that Portland’s UGB is not a model of how to successfully control urban
sprawl.
Reflecting on Portland’s failure. Portland’s management may have failed, however it
proves to be extremely influential towards future management practices. Since patterns
of growth and expansion are so dependent on a multitude of complex factors, it is very
hard to pinpoint where exactly management went wrong. Therefore we cannot assume
that Portland’s UGB was the wrong decision to make. It is important to note that
Portland’s urban growth boundary system may not be the reason why the city failed to
effectively manage sprawl. Since Portland has actually been a city with rapid population
growth, expansion could have simply been too much to control. Perhaps UGB system
could have actually worked in a city with slower growth. Analyzing the nature of
Portland’s UGB management leads to many questions of how future urban sprawl
policies should look:
1. Should a management solution attempt to solve a broad range of problems
(population density, automobile usage, and environmental health) or should the
solution focus on a single issue? For example, Portland’s UGB may have
attempted to control more than was possible. Simply focusing efforts on a single
category could have more benefits.
20
2. What is the primary root of the urban sprawl problem? Is it a market driven
problem, or more politically tied? Does the culture of the community drive
sprawl? How much of the issues are related to unsustainable population growth?
3. Which solution carries the most weight in deciding overall community health? Do
environmental improvements contribute more to human welfare than economic
improvements?
4. Who should manage Urban Growth? Local, regional, or national? Public or
private developers?
In the concluding discussion, this White Paper will address many of the questions
above. Based off of the previous questions, the following list defines a framework of
successful management:
1. Active and efficient management of Urban development
2. Reduction of economic and environmental externalities
3. Improved standard of living
The idea behind these goals is to establish a system (which Portland has done) to limit
low-density sprawling areas. Once this system is established, it should be tailored to
ensure that unnecessary economic and environmental problems do not limit the
standard of living in that community. Creating an environmentally clean community with
an even distribution of wealth, if done correctly, should increase the standard of living.
The management policy must be actively monitored and remain flexible to account for a
rapidly changing world.
Digging up the root of the problem
21
In order to find the best method towards limiting urban sprawl, the primary contributor
must be identified. In the introduction, I noted how cities grew according to
transportation corridors, which for a long period of time were dominated by trains. Urban
sprawl was not a substantial issue until the automobile facilitated suburbanization. Now,
suburbs and strip malls develop along highways, pushing out from the historical urban
center. Here we find the root of the urban sprawl equation in transportation. Specifically,
automobile transportation.
Nearly every review of urban growth has identified automobile reliance as a major driver
of urban sprawl. By itself, automobile use is responsible for several environmental,
social and economic costs. The following list summarizes problems associated with
automobile reliance:
Environmental costs:
1. Air pollution due to increased emissions. This pollution leads to higher rates of
asthma more health risks
2. Water pollution due to road oil products. Chemicals from cars concentrate on
impervious surfaces and run off into water systems during storms.
3. Habitat fragmentation: roads form barriers to migratory species, disrupt
vegetative growth, and invite noise and light pollution.
4. Climate change due to fossil fuel emissions and urban heat islands.
Economic Consequences:
1. Energy increases; more electricity, water, and fuel is needed to supply a growing
population with new cars.
2. Income inequality; car use allows the spread of wealth outwards from urban
centers. Additionally, money spent on infrastructure will be focused on
automobiles rather than alternative transportation
3. Traffic; it is estimated that “the overall cost (based on wasted fuel and lost
productivity) reached $87.2 billion in 2007 - more than $750 for every U.S.
traveler.”(Metro Magazine)
22
Social Issues:
1. Obesity; Cars emphasize a sedentary lifestyle, encourage fast food diets
2. Road Rage; numerous studies suggest traffic as a source of increased stress
3. Drunk driving; The annual cost of alcohol-related crashes totals more than $59
billion (Center for Disease Control)
The startling amount of issues related to automobile use alone leads to the conclusion
that a successful policy to control urban sprawl must start with cars. Moving away from
automobile travel may be a very difficult feat to accomplish, however it must be done.
Recent studies suggest that “the most auto-dependent cities are less wealthy than
some other more transit-oriented cities.”(Kenworthy et al, 1999) The United States cities
currently exhibits the most extreme dependence on cars. For this reason, while driving
freedoms should not be restricted, they must be informed.
Eliminating Automobile Dependence
Integration of public transit systems are the most viable replacement for car travel. “For
a city to support diverse activities, provide mobility for all population groups, maintain
sound environmental and social conditions, and remain economically vital, a good
balance between the transit and street/highway systems must be planned. Moreover,
convenient walking conditions and human-oriented areas must be planned.” (Vuchic
2002) With this type of planning, a community should certainly see an increased
standard of living.
By properly mitigating the environmental and economic liabilities of car use,
consequences of urban sprawl will be limited as well. An increased fuel tax on
automobiles provides an example of a policy that can act to limit automobile reliance. A
fuel tax already exists in the United States, with “18.4 cents per gallon allocated to fixing
roads and bridges. This tax however has remained steady since 1993.”(USA Today)
With inflation, the tax is actually less significant now than it was back then. Democrats
23
are already proposing an increase in the fuel tax by up to 15 cents. They say increasing
the fuel tax would make it possible to fund more highway and road construction,
however this is not the ideal way to reduce urban sprawl impacts since it would
encourage car use.
An increased fuel tax should allocate a large percentage of funds toward building
efficient public transit networks. Public transit networks allow for efficient travel around
the central urban business district, reducing the need for automobile use. With an added
expense to travel and cheaper/ more efficient public systems automobile reliance would
be effectively reduced. At the same time, car companies would be forced to create more
innovative vehicles that require less gas. This would reduce emissions overall, leading
to a cleaner urban environment. Overall, this tax could have a large impact on both the
economy and the environment.
Atlanta offers a great example of a city that is already attempting to diagnose the side
effects of urban sprawl. Experts have notified the limitations in the current inefficient
system, and a practical transportation plan has been proposed that prioritizes the
development of a “comprehensive highway and transit network for the entire region.”
(Reason Foundation, 2015) The proposed plan intends to reduce traffic congestion and
increase economic output. This plan however does not require additional taxation. It
relies on the establishment of a “variable toll,” in order to keep traffic lanes flowing at all
times. The profit from this toll then goes toward transportation and development.
Additional money will come from a gas tax diversion towards transportation and
development. If all gas tax goes towards transportation, and gas tax exemptions are
eliminated, over “18.6 billion will be generated over 30 years”. (Reason Foundation,
2015)
With increased efficient transportation networks, the entire community will benefit.
Analysts note how traffic congestion due to automobile reliance “shrinks people’s circles
of opportunity, limiting their possibilities in entertainment, recreation and social
life.”(Reason Foundation, 2015) If the goals of Atlanta’s plan are accomplished,
24
increased mobility will lead to a more enjoyable living. This type of reform is necessary
to ensure that the standard of living in Atlanta will increase. If it is successful, more
cities should follow suit, which will ultimately lead to a cleaner and more prosperous
future.
Section 6: A Cleaner Future
The political body of the United States must make urban planning a top priority
immediately. Considering the vast consequences of urban sprawl, it is a matter of
national security if we follow the road we are currently on (pun!). Government
organizations such as the National Fish and Wildlife association, United States
Department of Agriculture, United States Geological Survey, Bureau of Land
Management, Department of Transportation, Environmental Protection Agency, and
more already work to manage much of the land use in the nation. It should be their duty
to work together towards sustainable land management practices. Since urban sprawl
changes many land management practices, it must be actively and effectively
controlled.
Making improvements to the way we travel, grow, and live now will have incredible
impacts on the future health of the human community. That is why the United States
must recognize their leadership ability and adopt a reformed lifestyle. As a nation we
can be the first to say “look, we haven’t been as responsible with our growth as we
could be, it is time to make a change.” A reduced reliance on automobiles will be
enough to reduce our environmental impact, economic externalities, and increase our
overall standard of life. The focus of reducing automobile reliance should not stop at a
simple fuel tax. Examples of additional political action that can support this type of living
include:
25
1. Removal of existing political barriers and replace with new codes that encourage
“flexible development, in a way that supports walking, transit, and a good
distribution of amenities.” (Squires, 2002)
2. Establishment of strategies where public, private and NGO entities are working
together to pioneer new political tools, such as tax-increment financing and
community land trusts.
3. Incentivized support for sustainable development, even when economic return is
most challenging.
4. Increasing prices of development to ensure that businesses pay the true cost.
Combining all these strategies into law however will prove to be a challenging task.
Unfortunately, there is no time to wait. The consequences associated with urban sprawl
are too vast to sit by the wayside. If the United States truly is the great country it claims
to be, serious changes must be made. These changes must start from the top down in
order to be successful. Top down directional change is necessary because urban
sprawl disproportionately impacts the poor. Those who are at the top are able to afford
the costs of sprawl and suburban living, while the poor remain trapped in lower
standards of life. If the elites make the shift to a sustainable living, the overall health of a
community will improve. This shift should start with policies that enforce a cleaner living,
such as those described above.
When governmental organizations successfully implement these practices, businesses
will be required to follow suit. This will trigger an increase in the public consciousness of
sustainability. We are already seeing this type of shift in many progressive American
cities where businesses encourage people to recycle, walk or bike to work, and limit
consumption. Proper top-down legislation could facilitate a spread of these ideas to less
sustainable cities. As we have seen with Atlanta, experts are already calling for this
change.
The New American Lifestyle
26
Ultimately, legislation should attempt to plant a new social philosophy about
sustainability. When this philosophy spreads throughout America, individuals will begin
to participate in sustainable living. This participation will lift us into a new and improved
American way.
In the new American lifestyle, sustainable development towards a cleaner future is a
national priority. We realized that our current system embellishes wasteful living, which
has limited our capacity to progress as a nation in the 21st century. While it is not
comfortable to accept the idea that our way of life is inherently flawed, we know it is
necessary. Recognizing the errors will only lead to more solutions, and a better life for
all. In the new American lifestyle, national leaders realize how we are at a historical
turning point where we can look back at the structural, social and political mistakes of
the past and move in a new direction. These leaders take every opportunity to endorse
sustainable living, because they know it is the best way to a brighter future. The new
American lifestyle values clean energy, efficient transportation, recycling, and healthy
living. As a result, people drive less and walk more. The air is cleaner, people are
outside more with less health risk. This new American lifestyle supports a stable
economy that ensures a high standard of living for generations to come.
In many way a shift towards a sustainable future has already begun. We have seen
examples of how Portland and Atlanta have become focused on eliminating urban
sprawl. Plenty of other cities are doing the same. It is likely that urban sprawl will never
go away, but this should not get in the way of solutions. Americans are very capable of
progressing to a better future, all that it will take is dedication. Leaders must push for
transportation reform while at the same time educating the public about sustainability.
Individuals must limit consumption and practice healthy habits. If we start with simple
steps to success, there is no doubt that we will introduce our children to a cleaner
future.
27
References
Auch, Roger, Janis Taylor, and William Acevedo. Urban Growth in American Cities Glimpses of U.S. Urbanization. Reston, Va.: U.S. Dept. of the Interior, U.S. Geological Survey, 2004. Accessed May 4, 2015. http://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/2004/circ1252/
Frumkin, Howard. "Urban sprawl and public health." Public health reports 117.3 (2002): 201. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1497432/pdf/12432132.pdf
Gargiulo, Vittorio, et al. "URBAN SPRAWL AND THE ENVIRONMENT. "ENVIRONMENT SUSTAINABILITY. http://eprints.uni-kiel.de/20777/1/gi412.pdf#page=46
Hasse, John E., and Richard G. Lathrop. "Land resource impact indicators of urban sprawl." Applied Geography 23.2 (2003): 159-175. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0143622803000158
Hedlund, James H., et al. "Methods to reduce traffic crashes involving deer: what works and what does not." Traffic Injury Prevention 5.2 (2004): 122-131. http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/15389580490435079?journalCode=gcpi20
"Home Page." The New Climate Economy Report 2014. Web. 4 May 2015. <http://newclimateeconomy.report/>.
28
Ideas of Urban Sprawl, Urban Rural Fringe, Optimum Size of a City and Downtown: An Academic Research." Ideas of Urban Sprawl, Urban Rural Fringe, Optimum Size of a City and Downtown: An Academic Research. Web. 4 May 2015. http://www.academia.edu/7311151/Ideas_of_Urban_Sprawl_Urban_Rural_Fringe_Optimum_Size_of_a_city_and_Downtown_An_Academic_Research
"Impaired Driving: Get the Facts." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 13 Jan. 2015. Web. 4 May 2015. <http://www.cdc.gov/Motorvehiclesafety/impaired_driving/impaired-drv_factsheet.html>.
Jun, Myung-Jin. "The effects of Portland's urban growth boundary on urban development patterns and commuting." Urban Studies 41.7 (2004): 1333-1348. http://urizen-geography.nsm.du.edu/~psutton/AAA_Sutton_WebPage/Sutton/Courses/Geog_4020_Geographic_Research_Methodology/Course_Documents/Seminal_Papers_Geography/UGB_Portland.pdf
Kenworthy, Jeffrey R., and Felix B. Laube. "Patterns of automobile dependence in cities: an international overview of key physical and economic dimensions with some implications for urban policy." Transportation Research Part A: Policy and Practice 33.7 (1999): 691-723. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0965856499000063
Leinberger, Christopher. "The unbearable costs of sprawl." Sprawl Retrofit Initiative, The Congress for the New Urbanism. http://www.cnu.org/sites/www.cnu.org/files/whitepaper-unbearablecostofsprawl.pdf
Pimentel, David, et al. "Economic and environmental benefits of biodiversity."BioScience (1997): 747-757. http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/1313097?uid=3739808&uid=2&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21106700031163
"Practical Strategies for Increasing Mobility in Atlanta." Reason Foundation. Web. 4 May 2015. <http://reason.org/news/show/strategies-mobility-atlanta>.
Service, Janel. "Democrats Make Uphill Push for Gas Tax Increase." USA Today. Gannett, 15 Apr. 2015. Web. 4 May 2015. <http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2015/04/15/gas-tax-highway-bill-unions-boxer/25848153/>.
29
"Suburbanization." Encyclopedia.com. HighBeam Research, 1 Jan. 2003. Web. 4 May 2015. <http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/Suburbanization.aspx>.
Squires, Gregory D., ed. Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences, & policy responses. The Urban Insitute, 2002. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=1s0URQ6sYyIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR9&dq=urban+sprawl+policy&ots=IUPaISK6vw&sig=t4NeGiXamVXdbeSRRWU5Gh0fx4Q#v=onepage&q=urban%20sprawl%20policy&f=false
Sultana, Selima, and Joe Weber. "The nature of urban growth and the commuting transition: endless sprawl or a growth wave?." Urban Studies 51.3 (2014): 544-576. http://www.researchgate.net/publication/265123315_The_Nature_of_Urban_Growth_and_the_Commuting_Transition_Endless_Sprawl_or_a_Growth_Wave
"TTI: Traffic Costs $87B in Fuel, Lost Productivity." - Bus. Web. 4 May 2015. <http://www.metro-magazine.com/bus/news/283538/report-economy-impacting-traffic>.
"Urban Growth Boundary." Metro. 19 May 2014. Web. 4 May 2015. http://www.oregonmetro.gov/urban-growth-boundary
Vuchic, Vukan R. "Urban public transportation systems." στο TS Kim (επιμ.), Encyclopedia of Life Support Systems, UNESCO (2002). http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.362.6956&rep=rep1&type=pdf
30