Housing demand forces and land use towards urban compactness: A push-accessibility-pull analysis framework

Abstract

This paper focuses on resolving a defect of population-based urban sprawl analysis from a landuse planning perspective. This defect is indicated for a few metropolitan areas, which have experienced a controversial phenomenon of population decentralisation but with potential household centralising force. With the emphasis on household movement, this paper first aims to clarify the role of populations, households and employment that characterises urban sprawl and to check if unmet housing demand in city centres can be identified. Second, we evaluate the influence of household distribution factors, such as unmet housing and land-use related factors, on spatialstructure-based compactness/sprawl, taking time lag into consideration. A new classification of urban forms is developed to identify potential residential centripetal market forces. Additionally, the housing demand generation-distribution + push-accessibility-pull (GD+PAP) analysis framework is applied. The results of an empirical study on the Taipei metropolitan area between 1980-1990 and 1990-2000 suggest that the most significant policy towards compactness is high density. We recommend a prioritisation in city centres, particularly when housing demand is underserved.

Scenario Simulation and the Prediction of Land Use and Land Cover Change in Beijing, China

“…When urban centers still have space, increased households may cause its development to be more compact. On the contrary, increased housing demands may lead to sprawl if not accommodated by high-density or not afforded by high housing price, particularly in the city center [52]. In this situation, the rapid spatial expansion of the city will lead to more rural and arable land converting to built-up areas and simultaneously putting immense pressure on the land use pattern in future.…”

Housing demand of urban fringe residents and underlying causes: example of Ankara, Türkiye

“…Housing demand on the urban fringe has also attracted interest in recent years and has been addressed in a great deal of research (Dascher, 2001; Mitchell, 2004; Owusu-Ansah and O'Connor, 2010; Lauf et al. , 2012; Tsai, 2014). Several studies in the existing literature have explored the relationship between urban form and real estate prices (Song and Knaap, 2003; Wassmer and Baass, 2006; Bednar-Friedl et al.…”

“…Due to its dramatic effects, urban sprawl has recently become the subject of various practices in the fields of urban planning (Hebbert, 1986;Peiser, 2001;Polidoro et al, 2012), real estate development (Hof and Bl azquez-Salom, 2013;Bencardino and Nestic o, 2017), transportation (Ewing et al, 2003;Zhao, 2010), environment (Johnson, 2001;Alberti, 2010;Stone et al, 2010), energy consumption (Ewing and Rong, 2008) and public health (Lopez, 2004;Frumkin et al, 2004). Housing demand on the urban fringe has also attracted interest in recent years and has been addressed in a great deal of research (Dascher, 2001;Mitchell, 2004;Owusu-Ansah and O'Connor, 2010;Lauf et al, 2012;Tsai, 2014). Several studies in the existing literature have explored the relationship between urban form and real estate prices (Song and Knaap, 2003;Wassmer and Baass, 2006;Bednar-Friedl et al, 2010;Chiaradia et al, 2013;Huang and Yin, 2015).…”

Measuring Sprawl

“…Recent work by Paulsen (2014) and Tsai (forthcoming) focused on changes in regional sprawl patterns over time. The former describes changes in housing density using four variables: Overall change in housing unit density, marginal land consumption of each new housing unit, the density of housing in newly urbanized areas, and the percentage of net new housing construction in places already urbanized.…”

“…I separately use the newly developed index, Lopez and Hynes’ sprawl measure, and weighted population density, all calculated at both the tract and block level, as predictors. I also include two additional sprawl measures described earlier in the paper based on the work of Tsai (forthcoming) and Paulsen (2014) which quantify changes over time. The former expresses the change in proportion of metro population in low- and high-density subareas over the time period, whereas the latter is similar to Paulsen’s marginal land consumption indicator, and is a measure of the change in land consumption per housing unit.…”