Evaluating the dynamic impacts of urban form on transportation and environmental outcomes in US cities

Original Paper

Abstract

Previous urban sprawl studies have typically taken a cross-sectional approach without examining how sprawling urban areas are performing over time. Longitudinal studies of individual or household travel behavior and built-environment preference have made some progress in this direction, but very few studies have explored the longitudinal interaction of urban form with transportation and environmental outcomes. This study begins to fill this gap by evaluating the transportation and environmental impact dynamics of several key dimensions of urban sprawl: density, land use mix, centrality, and street connectivity. The central hypothesis is that while the built environment is durable and development patterns change slowly, the impacts of urban sprawl are dynamic rather than static and are accelerated in more sprawling cities relative to less sprawling cities. To test this hypothesis, a panel dataset of 7 years (2000–2007) was developed for 60 Metropolitan Statistical Areas of the US and a hybrid modeling framework that incorporates fixed and random effects is applied to evaluate different transportation and environmental outcomes over time. We found that the influence of urban centrality or the strength of urban sub-centers on the travel pattern of commuters and transit users is dynamic. This suggests that people living in cities with stronger centers drive less and use public transportation more over time. For environmental outcomes, we found that cities with higher density have experienced a significant decrease in ambient ozone and PM2.5 concentrations after controlling city-specific variables.

Keywords

Air quality Congestion Sprawl Transit Urban form 

References

  1. Allison PD (2009) Fixed effects regression models. Sage Publications, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  2. Bechle MJ, Millet DB, Marshall JD (2011) Effects of income and urban form on urban NO2: global evidence from satellites. Environ Sci Technol 45:4914–4919CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bereitschaft B, Debbage K (2013) Urban form, air pollution, and CO2 emissions in large U.S. metropolitan areas. Prof Geogr 65(4):612–635. doi:10.1080/00330124.2013.799991 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bhat CR, Guo JY (2007) A comprehensive analysis of built environment characteristics on household residential choice and auto ownership levels. Transp Res Part B Methodol 41(5):506–526CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borrego C, Martins H, Tchepel O, Salmim L, Monteiro A, Miranda AI (2006) How urban structure can affect city sustainability from an air quality perspective. Environ Model Softw 21:461–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brownstone D (2008) Key relationships between the built environment and VMT. University of California, IrvineGoogle Scholar
  7. Brownstone D, Golob TF (2009) The impact of residential density on vehicle usage and energy consumption. J Urban Econ 65:91–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brueckner JK, Largey AG (2008) Social interaction and urban sprawl. J Urban Econ 64(1):18–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Cao XY, Mokhtarian PL, Handy SL (2009) Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behaviour: a focus on empirical findings. Transp Rev 29(3):359–395. doi:10.1080/01441640802539195 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Carruthers JI, Ulfarsson GF (2003) Urban sprawl and the cost of public services. Environ Plan B Plan Des 30(4):503–522CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Clark LP, Millet DB, Marshall JD (2011) Air quality and urban form in U.S. urban areas: evidence from regulatory monitors. Environ Sci Technol 45:7028–7035CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Crane R, Chatman D (2003) Traffic and sprawl: evidence from U.S. commuting, 1985 to 1997. Plan Mark 6(1):14–22Google Scholar
  13. Crane R, Chatman D (2004) Traffic and sprawl: evidence from U.S. commuting 1985–1997. In: Richardson H, Bae C (eds) Urban sprawl in Western Europe and the United States. Ashgate, LondonGoogle Scholar
  14. Crane R, Crepeau R (1998) Does neighborhood design influence travel?: a behavioral analysis of travel diary and GIS data. Transp Res Part D Transp Environ 3(4):225–238CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Dieleman FM, Dijst M, Burghouwt G (2002) Urban form and travel behaviour: micro-level household attributes and residential context. Urban Stud 39(3):507–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Dubin R (1991) Commuting patterns and firm decentralization. Land Econ 67:121–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Echenique MH, Hargreaves AJ, Mitchell G, Namdeo A (2012) Growing cities sustainably: does urban form really matter? J Am Plan Assoc 78(2):121–137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Eid J, Overman HG, Puga D, Turner MA (2008) Fat city: questioning the relationship between urban sprawl and obesity. J Urban Econ 63(2):385–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. England P, Farkas G, Kilbourne BS, Dou T (1988) Explaining occupational sex segregation and wages: findings from a model with fixed effects. Am Sociol Rev 53:544–558CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. EPA (2006) Greenhouse gas emissions from the U.S. transportation sector, 1990–2003. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  21. Ewing R (1997) Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? J Am Plan Assoc 63(1):107–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Ewing R, Rong F (2008) The impact of urban form on U.S. residential energy use. Hous Policy Debate 19(1):1–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2002) Measuring sprawl and its impact. Smart Growth America, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  24. Ewing R, Pendall R, Chen D (2003) Measuring sprawl and its transportation impacts. Transp Res Rec 1831:175–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Filion P, McSpurren K, Appleby B (2006) Wasted density? The impact of Toronto’s residential-density distribution policies on public-transit use and walking. Environ Plan A 38:1367–1392CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Frank LD, Stone B, Bachman W (2000) Linking land use with household vehicle emissions in the central Puget Sound: methodological framework and findings. Transp Res Part D 5(3):173–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Frank LD, Sallis JF, Conway TL, Chapman JE, Saelens BE, Bachman W (2006) Many pathways from land use to health: associations between neighborhood walk ability and active transportation, body mass index, and air quality. J Am Plan Assoc 72:75–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Galster G, Hanson R, Ratcliffe MR, Wolman H, Coleman S, Freihage J (2001) Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept. Hous Policy Debate 12(4):681–717CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Gordon P, Richardson HW (1997) Are compact cities a desirable planning goal? J Am Plan Assoc 63(1):95–106CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gordon P, Kumar A, Richardson HW (1989) The influence of metropolitan spatial structure on commuting time. J Urban Econ 26:138–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Gordon P, Richardson HW, Jun MJ (1991) The commuting paradox: evidence from the top twenty. J Am Plan Assoc 57(4):416–420CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Gordon P, Lee B, Richardson HW (2004) Travel trends in U.S. cities: explaining the 2000 census commuting results. University of Southern California, Los AngelesGoogle Scholar
  33. Grazi F, Van der Bergh JC, Van Ommeren JN (2008) An empirical analysis of urban form, transport, and global warming. Energy J 29(4):97–122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Handy S (2005) Smart growth and the transportation-land use connection: what does the research tell us? Int Reg Sci Rev 28(2):146–167CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Handy SL, Clifton KJ (2001) Local shopping as a strategy for reducing automobile travel. Transportation 28:317–346CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Handy S, Cao X, Mokhtarian P (2005) Correlation or causality between the built environment and travel behavior? Evidence from Northern California. Transp Res Part D 10(6):427–444Google Scholar
  37. Holden E, Norland IT (2005) Three challenges for the compact city as a sustainable urban form: household consumption of energy and transport in eight residential areas in the greater Oslo region. Urban Stud 42(12):2145–2166CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Hong J, Shen Q, Zhang L (2013) How do built-environment factors affect travel behavior? A spatial analysis at different geographic scales. Transportation. doi 10.1007/s11116-013-9462-9
  39. Jacobson MZ (2008) On the causal link between carbon dioxide and air pollution mortality. Geophys Res Lett 35. doi:10.1029/2007GL031101
  40. Jerrett MR, Buenett T, Pope CA, Ito K, Thurston G, Krewski D, Shi Y, Calle E, Thun M (2009) Long-term ozone exposure and mortality. N Engl J Med 360(11):1085–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Knaap GJ, Song Y, Ewing R, Clifton K (2005) Seeing the elephant: multi-disciplinary measures of urban sprawl. National Center for Smart Growth Research and Education, Urban Studies and Planning Program, University of MarylandGoogle Scholar
  42. Laden F, Schwartz J, Speizer FE, Dockery DW (2006) Reduction in fine particulate air pollution and mortality: extended follow-up of the Harvard six cities study. Am J Respir and Crit Care Med 173(6):667–672CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Lariviere I, Lafrance G (1999) Modelling the electricity consumption of cities: effect of urban density. Energy Econ 21(1):53–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Levinson DM, Kumar A (1994) The rational relocator: why travel times have remained stable. J Am Plan Assoc 301:495–519Google Scholar
  45. Levinson DM, Kumar A (1997) Density and journey to work. Growth Change 28:147–172CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Liao CH, Chang CL, Su CY, Chiueh PT (2013) Correlation between land-use change and greenhouse gas emissions in urban areas. Int J Environ Sci Tech 10(6):1275–1286CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Malpezzi S (1999) Estimates of the measurements and determinants of urban sprawl in US metropolitan areas. University of Wisconsin, Center for Urban Land Economics Research, Madison (unpublished paper)Google Scholar
  48. Marshall JD (2008) Energy-efficient urban form. Environ Sci Technol 42(9):3133–3137CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Mokhtarian PL, Cao X (2008) Examining the impacts of residential self-selection on travel behavior: a focus on methodologies. Transp Res Part B 42(3):204–228CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Nelson AC, Moore T (1996) Assessing growth management policy implementation: case study of the united states’ leading growth management state. Land use Policy 13(4):241–259CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Neuman M (2005) The compact city fallacy. J Plan Educ Res 25:11–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Newman P, Kenworthy J (1989) Gasoline consumption and cities: a comparison of US cities with a global survey and its implication. J Am Plan Assoc 55(1):24–37CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Niedt C, Martin IW (2013) Who are the foreclosed? A statistical portrait of America in crisis. Hous Policy Debate 23(1):159–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Peiser R (2001) Decomposing urban sprawl. Town Plan Rev 72(3):275–298Google Scholar
  55. Richmond HR (1995) Regionalism: Chicago as an American region. John D and Catherine T MacArthur Foundation, ChicagoGoogle Scholar
  56. Runhaar H, Driessen P, Soer L (2009) Sustainable urban development and the challenge of policy integration: an assessment of planning tools for integrating spatial and environmental planning in the Netherlands. Environ Plan 36(3):417–431CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sarzynski A, WomanHL Galster G, Hanson R (2006) Testing the conventional wisdom about land use and traffic congestion: the more we sprawl, the less we move? Urban Stud 43(3):601–626CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Schweitzer L, Zhou J (2010) Neighborhood air quality, respiratory health, and vulnerable populations in compact and sprawled regions. J Am Plan Assoc 76(3):363–371CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Song Y, Knaap G (2004) Measuring urban form: Is Portland winning the war on sprawl? J Am Plan Assoc 70(2):210–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Stone B (2008) Urban sprawl and air quality in large US cities. J Environ Manag 86(4):688–698CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Sultana S (2000) Some effects of employment centers on commuting times in the Atlanta metropolitan area, 1990. Southeast Geogr 41(2):225–233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Sultana S, Chaney P (2003) Impact of urban sprawl on travel behaviors and local watersheds in the Auburn-Opelika metropolitan area: a case study on a small MSA. Pap Proc Appl Geogr Conf 26:20–280Google Scholar
  63. Sultana S, Weber J (2013) The nature of urban growth and the commuting transition: endless sprawl or a growth wave? Urban Stud. doi:10.1177/0042098013498284 Google Scholar
  64. The Sierra Club (1999) The dark side of the American dream: the costs and consequences of suburban sprawl. The Sierra Club, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  65. Torrens PM, Alberti M (2000) Measuring sprawl. Working Paper Series, Paper-27, CASA: Centre for Advanced Spatial Analysis, University College London, LondonGoogle Scholar
  66. Tsai Y (2005) Quantifying urban form: compactness versus ‘sprawl’. Urban Stud 42(1):141–161CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Tuzkaya U (2009) Evaluating the environmental effects of transportation modes using and integrated methodology and an application. Int J Environ Sci Technol 6(2):277–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Wassmer R (2000) Urban sprawl in a US metropolitan area: ways to measure and a comparison of the Sacramento area to similar metropolitan areas in California and the US. CSUS Public Policy and Administration Working Paper, CAGoogle Scholar
  69. Weber J, Sultana S (2007) Journey-to-work patterns in the age of sprawl: evidence from two midsize southern metropolitan areas. Prof Geogr 59(2):193–208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Weng Q (2003) Fractal analysis of satellite-detected urban heat island effect. Photogramm Eng Remote Sens 69(5):555–566CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Yigitcanlar T, Teriman S (2014) Rethinking sustainable urban development: towards an integrated planning and development process. Int J Environ Sci Tech 1–12. doi:10.1007/s13762-013-0491-x
  72. Zhao P, Lu B, de Roo G (2011) The impact of urban growth on commuting patterns in a restructuring city: evidence from Beijing. Pap Reg Sci 90(4):735–754CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. Zolnik EJ (2011) The effect of sprawl on private-vehicle commuting outcomes. Environ Plan-Part A 43(8):1875–1893. doi:10.1068/a42466 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University (IAU) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Urban and Regional PlanningUniversity of Illinois at Urbana–ChampaignChampaignUSA

Personalised recommendations