Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
TABLE 12.2
Five studies ranking degree of sprawl in United States metropolitan regions. Relevant results from four of the studies are
summarized in Table 12.3 The fifth study, Sutton, is not included in Table 12.3, but is discussed in the text (See footnote 7).
Study
Unit of measure
Sprawl measure
Jordan,
et al
. (1998)
79 Metropolitan Statistical Areas (MSAs) and
Primary Metropolitan Statistical Areas (PMSAs)
as defined by the US Statistical Bureau.
Population density gradient from Central Business
District (CBD) and change in density gradient
over time.
Razin and
Rosentraub (2000)
PMSAs and/or consolidated MSAs. Article
included results for only 20 cities - the 10
most sprawled and the 10 most compact.
Index of three measures:
the percentage of dwellings in single-unit
detached houses
●
population per square kilometer
●
housing units per square kilometer
●
Ewing,
et al
. (2002)
Every metropolitan area in the United States for
which they could access all the necessary
data (83 areas in total)
Index including:
7 variables representing aspects of population and
residential density
6 variables representing land use heterogeneity
6 variables representing population distribution rel-
ative to city centers (which they term variables
measuring ''strength of metropolitan centers.''
3 variables representing accessibility of street net-
works (related to size of city blocks)
Lopez and Hynes
(2003)
330 US metropolitan areas with a population of
over 50 000
Sprawl index (proportion of the metropolitan area
population living in high density tracks relative to
that living in low density tracks)
Sutton (2003)
244 urban clusters with populations over 50 000
Relationship of each urban cluster relative to a
regression of all urban clustersln urban
area/urban population (area derived from
remotely sensed nighttime data of light intensity)
TABLE 12.3
Similar and contrary results from the comparison of four studies (Jordan, Ross and Usowski, 1998; Razin and Rosentraub,
2000; Ewing, Pendall and Chen, 2002; Lopez and Hynes, 2003) ranking metropolitan region on scale from sprawl to compact in the United
States.
Ambivalent results
e
Consensus -
Consensus -
General
General
sprawled
a
compact
b
agreement -
agreement -
sprawled
c
compact
d
Little Rock, AR
(4/4)
New York, NY
(4/4)
Oklahoma City,
OK (3/4)
Colorado
Springs (2/3)
Los Angeles and Honolulu - ranked among
the most compact in two studies, in the
mid-range in a third study and most
sprawled in a fourth study
Knoxville, TN
(4/4)
San Francisco,
CA (4/4)
Syracuse, NY
(2/3)
Fort Lauderdale,
FL (2/3)
Chicago - ranked among the most compact
in three studies and among the most
sprawled in the fourth study
Greenville, SC
(3/3)
Jersey City, New
Jersey (3/3)
Chicago, Ill (3/4)
Miami - ranked by 3 studies as among the
most compact, and one as among the
most sprawled.
Atlanta, GA (3/3)
Lincoln, NE (2/2)
Phoenix - one study places it among the
most compact and another among most
sprawled
a
All studies that included this metropolitan region placed it near the top of their list of sprawled metropolises.
b
All studies that included this metropolitan region placed it near the top of their lists for compact metropolises.
c
The majority of studies (3 of 4, or 2 of 3) that included this metropolitan region placed it near the top of their list of sprawled metropolises.
d
The majority of studies (3 of 4, or 2 of 3) that included this metropolitan region placed it near the top of their list of compact metropolises.
e
Some studies list these metropolitan regions as sprawled while others list them as compact.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search