Environmental Engineering Reference
In-Depth Information
Guo, 2001). Second, in comparative studies, the precise area
under investigation (Wolman
et al
., 2005) and the definition
of built area (Orenstein
et al
., 2010) must be consistent. Third,
sprawl should be conceptualized as a multidimensional phe-
nomenon that requires a different measure or set of measures for
each dimension (Torrens and Alberti, 2000; Galster
et al
., 2001;
Ewing, Pendall and Chen, 2002; Cutsinger and Galster, 2006).
Angotti, T. (1993)
Metropolis 2000: Planning, Poverty and Politics
,
Routledge, New York.
Batty, M. and Longley, P. (1994)
Fractal Cities: A Geometry of
Form and Function
, Academic Press, London.
Batty, M., Xie, Y. and Zhanli, S. (1999) The dynamics of urban
sprawl.
Working Paper Series
. London,Centre for Advanced
Spatial Analysis, University College.
Belser, K. (1960) Urban dispersal in perspective. In Engelbert, E.A.
(Ed.)
TheNatureandControlofUrbanDispersal
,California
Chapter of the American Institute of Planners, Berkeley, CA.
Benguigui, L. (1998) A fractal analysis of the public transportation
system of Paris.
Environment and Planning A
,
27
, 1147 - 1161.
Benguigui, L., Blumenfeld-Lieberthal, E. and Czamanski, D.
(2006) The dynamics of the Tel Aviv morphology.
Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design
,
33
, 269 - 284.
Benguigui, L., Czamanski, D., Marinov, M. and Portugali, Y.
(2000) When and where is the city fractal?
Environment and
Planning B
,
27
, 507 - 519.
Bhatta, B., Saraswati, S. and Bandyopadhyay, D. (2010) Urban
sprawl measurement from remote sensing data.
Applied Geog-
raphy
,
30
, 731 - 740.
Bruegmann, R. (2005)
Sprawl, A Compact History
,TheUniversity
of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Bruekner, J.K. (2000) Urban sprawl: diagnosis and remedies.
International Regional Science Review
,
23
, 160 - 171.
Burchell, R.W., Shad, N.A., Listokin, D.
et al
. (1998) The Costs
of Sprawl - Revisited. Transit Cooperative Research Program
(TCRP) Report 39, Transportation Research Board, Washing-
ton.
Burton, E. (2000) The compact city: just or just compact? A
preliminary analysis.
Urban Studies
,
37
, 1969 - 2006.
Buttenheim, H.S. and Cronick, P.H. (1938) Land reserves for
American cities.
The Journal of Land and Public Utility Eco-
nomics
,
14
, 254 - 265.
Cam,E.,Nichols,J.D.,Sauer,J.R.,Hines,J.E.andFlather,C.H.
(2000) Relative species richness and community completeness:
birds and urbanization in the Mid-Atlantic states.
Ecological
Applications
,
10
, 1196 - 1210.
Cato Institute (2009) About Cato. Cato Institute, Washington
DC.
Chin, N. (2002) Unearthing the roots of urban sprawl: a critical
analysis of form, function and methodology.
CASA Working
Paper 47
. London, Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis,
University College London.
Churchman, A. (1999) Disentangling the concept of density.
Journal of Planning Literature
,
13
, 389 - 411.
Cutsinger, J. and Galster, G. (2006) There is no sprawl syndrome:
A new typology of metropolitan land use patterns.
Urban
Geography
,
27
, 228 - 252.
Czamansk ,D ,Benenson,I ,Malkinson,D ,Marinov,M ,
Roth, R. and Wittenberg, L. (2008) Urban sprawl and
ecosystems - can nature survive?
International Review of Envi-
ronmental and Resource Economics
,
2
, 321 - 366.
Downs, A. (1994)
New Visions for Metropolitan America
,Brook-
ings Institution Press, Washington DC.
Conclusion
In this chapter, we presented multiple definitions of sprawl, the
historic development of the term and associated urban devel-
opment patterns, and the measures employed to quantify these
patterns. We find an increasingly nuanced discussion regarding
definition of and measures for quantifying sprawl. This is a pro-
ductive result of a longstanding debate around all aspects of the
subject.
Today, sprawl is understood to be both a pattern at a given time
and a process of change over time. Sprawl is generally accepted
as a relative state, warranting cross-site comparisons and multi-
temporal analyses. It is defined by multiple quantitative, spatial
characteristics whose values do not necessarily lead to similar
conclusions; different sprawl measures may yield conflicting
results. As such, the state of the art in measuring sprawl involves
the application of multiple variables either in the form of an
integrated index or considered in parallel and the acceptance that
a defined area may display sprawl-like characteristics in some,
but not all, measures.
We therefore note the importance of comparative studies such
as the US metropolitan regions analyses mentioned above. These
analyses each provide a comparison of multiple sites, and in the
case of the study by Jordan and colleagues (1998), an analysis
of change over two decades. However three of these studies
(representative of much of the sprawl literature), employed only
one or a few variables culled from relatively easily accessible
statistical data to measure sprawl. This may be understandable
considering the amount of data that would need to have been
collected and processed for such a broad comparison. The result,
however, is that important characteristics of sprawl, such as
spatial geometry as in the cases above, were not assessed. A
remotely sensed meta-analysis of US metropolitan regions would
be a welcome contribution to this discussion.
The debate around the desirability of sprawl is a values-driven
discussion. So, it is imperative that researchers are forthright and
explicit in their chosen definition and their objectives, such that
their readers, critics and end-users can assess their research in the
proper context. The research community can contribute a broad
range of quantitative measures that can be used to elucidate the
processes and allow stakeholders to assess where we have been
and where we are going. It will then be up to all of the stakeholders
(researchers included) to decide whether or not they are observing
sprawl, and if so, whether it is desirable process or not.
References
Alperovich, G. (1995) The effectiveness of spline urban den-
sity functions: an empirical investigation.
Urban Studies
,
32
,
1537 - 1548.
Search WWH ::
Custom Search