A Toolkit for Measuring Sprawl

Abstract

Debate regarding suburban sprawl in urban studies is contentious. It is fair to say that the phenomenon is not fully understood to satisfaction in the academic, policy, or planning communities and there are a host of reasons why this may be the case. Characterization of sprawl in the literature is often narrative and subjective. Measurement is piecemeal and largely data-driven. Existing studies yield contrary results for the same cities in many cases. The partial appreciation for the intricacies of sprawl is problematic. In practice, city planning agencies and citizen advocacy groups are scrambling to suggest and develop "smart growth" strategies to curb sprawl, without a strong empirical basis for measuring the phenomenon. Yet, sprawl is extremely popular with consumers. In this paper, we develop an innovative approach to diagnosing sprawl, looking across the full range of its characteristic attributes in a comprehensive fashion that is robust to some well-known challenges. This proves to be very useful in sweeping the parameter space of the phenomenon, enabling the visualization and valuation of sprawl surfaces across attributes, allowing us to check the pulse of a developing city. We apply the work to Austin, TX, a controversial exemplar of American sprawl, with the surprising result that sprawl and "smart growth" are found to co-exist and co-evolve. This raises questions about relationships between the two, with consequences for planning and public policy.

Dynamics of Urban Growth in Semarang Metropolitan – Central Java: An Examination Based on Built-Up Area and Population Change

“…There was also relocation of educational zone (Diponegoro University) from city centre to the suburb area during the period. As Torrens (2008) has revealed, urban growth that may lead to a characterization of sprawl is linked to suburbanization phenomena. Suburbanization can be indicated from the development of urban fringe area.…”

“…There are a lot of debates in representing urban growth pattern, not only in terms of distinguishing the degree of compactness and sprawl but also in terms of how the developed pattern will be able to promote sustainable development (Torrens, 2008;Jabareen, 2006;Breheny, 2005). Stricter urban containment which may lead to compactness is believed as more environmentally friendly.…”

“…Along with the discourse concerning on form of urban growth pattern, Torrens (2008), Tsai (2005), and Galster et al (2001) believe that the measurement of compactness or sprawl is likely to lead on a sparkling debate eventhough there are common quantitative variables may be applied to further examine the phenomena. According to Ewing (1997in Tsai, 2005, degree of compactness and sprawl can be indicated from low density, scattered development, commercial strip development, and leapfrog development phenomena.…”

“…Galster et al (2001) further proposes seven different dimension of sprawl including continuity, concentration, compactness, centrality, (mono-) nuclearity, mixed uses, and proximity. Torrens (2008) has even further analyse sprawl characterization based on urban studies literature. Indeed, urban growth examination to quantifying sprawl is multifaceted.…”

Urbanization suitability maps: a dynamic spatial decision support system for sustainable land use

“…At the same time, a general lack of consideration of the value of the land implies many regional criticalities relating to the degradation of agricultural land, urban dispersion, spatial and ecological fragmentation, etc., imposing the need to consider land consumption as an essential factor that must be supported by suitable methods for its measurement and assessment on all levels of urban and regional planning (Hasse and Lathrop, 2003;De La Rosa, 2005;Tsai, 2005;Huang et al, 2007;Peng et al, 2007;Torrens, 2008;Jones et al, 2009;Winter and Lobley, 2009;Gerundo and Grimaldi, 2011).…”