DETROIT:
Here is a city that, during the period of study, lost population but experienced
profound sprawl. In light of that, how can population growth be considered
an important factor in American sprawl?
PORTLAND:
It is at the top of most Smart Growthers' lists for best planning and
execution of anti-sprawl efforts. What are the results in terms of sprawl?
And if this is the best any Urbanized Area has been able to do, what does
that tell us about what the average Smart Growth efforts will accomplish?
LOS
ANGELES: If a chief goal of Smart Growth is to increase the density
of Urbanized Areas, then Los Angeles is a champion of Smart Growth. So
with all that de facto Smart Growth, why is L.A. mainly seen as a champion
of sprawl?
Population growth
and increased per capita land consumption have played almost equal roles
in the loss of some 1200 square miles of rural land in the Chesapeake
Bay Watershed Area. According to U.S. Bureau of the Census data, increased
per capita land consumption was associated with about 55% of the sprawl
in the Watershed and population growth was associated with about 45%
of the sprawl, although there is great variation among the different
Urbanized Areas of the Chesapeake Bay Watershed.
The Chesapeake Bay
Watershed is home to more than 3,000 species of plants and animals,
and nearly 15 million people today. The restoration and long-term protection
of the Bay depends on halting the urban sprawl that is threatening the
biodiversity and water quality of the area.
SprawlCity "combines the expertise of two environmental authors,
Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz, to make census data and
analysis of that data more digestible to teachers and
students alike."October 7, 2003; The Christian Science Monitor
Even
one of the best efforts to contain sprawl can't
stop losses due to population growth.
The Impact of Immigration Policy on the Environment Environmental Planner, Leon Kolankiewicz, discusses how uncontrolled immigration levels threaten America's environmental stability. He discusses the impact of population growth on greenhouse gas emissions, sprawl, energy consumption and our foreign oil dependency.
Studies
on the relative roles of per capita land consumption and
population growth in the following areas:
Tools: Examples of tools to help you get started(DavidSuzuki.org)
In Shift, 40% of Immigrants Move Directly to Suburbs The New York Times; October 17, 2007
"About 4 in 10 immigrants are moving directly from abroad to the nation’s suburbs, which are growing increasingly diverse, according to census figures released yesterday..."
The
dramatic results of this report by authors Roy Beck and Leon Kolankiewicz
indicate that population growth has been the No. 1 factor in California's
relentless urban sprawl. Overall, 95% of the total sprawl in California
from 1970-1990 was related to population growth., indicating that
most Urbanized Areas in California succeed in stopping increases
in per capita land consumption. Yet despite efforts to stop per
capita land consumption, sprawl consumed another 1,670 square
miles of land during the period studied, primarily because of
population growth. "Sprawl in California" was presented
at the CAPS 2000 Conference at the University of Southern California
on August 13, 2000.
Florida's
phenomenal population growth has been the No. 1 factor in the
state's urban sprawl, according to the results of this study released
during Florida OverPopulation Awareness Week (October 29 - November
4, 2000). In fact, in most Urbanized Areas of Florida, the amount
of land per resident did not grow at all, indicating that growth
in percapita consumption was not a factor in any of the sprawl
in those cities. Rather, the volatile growth of Florida's population
outweighed the sprawl effect of all other factors combined suggesting
that antisprawl efforts in Florida must also try to limit population
growth in order to be effective.
What
the data shows about Minnesota is that in Minnesota both population
growth and growth in per capita land consumption contribute to
sprawl, although there is substantial variation from one city
to the next. For example, since the Duluth-Superior Urbanized
Area actually declined in population from 1970 to 1990, population
growth is associated with 0% of the sprawl there; 100% of its
sprawl is related to declining population density (rising land
consumption per capita). On the other hand, 100% of the sprawl
in St. Cloud from 1980 to 1990 can be explained by population
growth, because average density actually rose during that decade.
For the cities that were already Urbanized Areas in 1970, 54%
of 1970 - 1990 sprawl was associated with population growth and
100% of 1980 - 1990 sprawl was associated with population growth.
About
half of all sprawl nationwide is related to U.S. population growth
and the other half is related to land use choices, according to
the results of this ground-breaking scientific analysis of U.S.
Bureau of the Census data on the 100 largest Urbanized Areas of
the United States. Over the 20-year period studied, the Areas
examined sprawled out over an additional 14,545 square miles of
farmland and natural habitats -- and that was just for the half
of Americans who live in the 100 Areas studied. The findings suggest
that plans and programs from governmental agencies, think tanks,
universities and advocacy groups aimed at stopping sprawl must
include a two-pronged approach using both land-use/consumption
tools and population stabilization in order to halt urban sprawl.
