Conventional Development Versus Managed Growth: The Costs of Sprawl
American Journal of Public Health, 93(9): 1534–1540, 2003
By: Robert Burchell, Sahan Mukherji
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1448006/pdf/0931534.pdf
Report a broken linkbenefits of compact, mixed use development
This article estimated the infrastructural and fiscal savings that can result from “managed growth.” The analysis used 25-year growth projections using conventional development and managed growth scenarios, where managed growth means an increase in development near existing development and a decrease away from existing development. Population and employment levels were held constant, and the study accounted for increased costs associated with decreased rates of development, administrative handling of growth management, and housing (which was more than offset by the cost savings of managed growth). The study concluded that sprawl produces 10% gains in both road lane-miles and annual public service deficits, an 8% increase in housing occupancy costs, and a 21% increase in development of previously undeveloped land.