Burchell 2003 - "Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl"

Burchell RW and Mukherji S.
“Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl.”  American Journal of Public Health.
December 2003; v.91, n.9; pp1534-1540.1
On the Web
relevance: medium

Using a mathematical model to compare the effects of sprawl versus compact development, the authors find that sprawl requires converting more undeveloped land and building more roads and water/sewer infrastructure.  Sprawl also leads to higher pubic service costs and housing costs.

The mathematical impact model estimates costs and resource consumption for the US over the period 2000-2025 under the two growth scenarios.  In each scenario no development was denied and no adjustments were made

compact development leads to:
    *21% less undeveloped land converted to developed land (2.4 million acres)
    *9.2% fewer local road miles lane-miles (188,300 miles) built and 11.8% lower in local road construction costs ($110 billion), using no mass transit assumptions.
    *6.6% less in water and sewer infrastructure costs ($12.6 billion); *9.7% lower annual public service (fiscal) deficits ($4.2 billion)
    *7.8% lower housing occupancy costs ($13,000 per dwelling unit).


TrackBack URL for this entry:

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Burchell 2003 - "Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl":


The comments to this entry are closed.