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