Thirty years of urban sprawl in metropolitan America: 1970 - 2000
A report to the Fannie Mae Foundation
Russ Lopez, MCRP ScD
Boston University
715 Albany Street, Talbot 2E
Boston, MA 02118
(617) 414-1439
rptlopez @ bu.edu
Tables, Charts and Maps
Chart 1
Chart 2
Chart 3
Graph comparison of UAR and SGA Sprawl Indexes
Metropolitan Area High Density and Low Density Population 1970 – 2000
Metropolitan Area Land Consumption 1970 – 2000
Table
Table
Table
Table
Table
Comparison of UAR and SGA Sprawl Indexes
All Metropolitan Areas Summary Statistics
Large Metropolitan Areas Summary Statistics
Small Metropolitan Areas Summary Statistics
Types of Metropolitan Areas
1
2
3
4
5
Appendix
1970 – 2000 Sprawl Scores
Map
Map
Map
Map
Buffalo
Atlanta
San Jose
Phoenix
1
2
3
4
1
INTRODUCTION
This paper describes urban sprawl in all US metropolitan areas in 1970, 1980, 1990 and
2000. It begins with a discussion of a working definition of sprawl; outlines some of its
suggested environmental, social, and health consequences; and provides an overview of the
history of sprawl in the US. Then there is a discussion of the methodology used here to measure
sprawl and compares this methodology to another commonly used sprawl measure. Next, the
overall pattern of changes in sprawl is described followed by a discussion of sprawl changes in
large (greater than 1 million population in 2000) and small (less than 1 million population in
2000) metropolitan areas. Metropolitan areas are then divided into 12 categories based on their
2000 sprawl level and how their level of sprawl has changed over the previous 30 years. This
paper concludes with a discussion of some of the implications of the findings outlined here.
BACKGROUND
Urban sprawl is emerging as a major environmental, health and social issue.[1] A term
with many potential definitions, for the purposes of this article sprawl is defined to be an overall
pattern of metropolitan-level development characterized by low density and decentralization and
often (but not always) accompanied by over-separation of land uses, a large number of local
government jurisdictions and a low level of street connectivity. Sprawl’s consequences can
include high levels of automobile use, inefficient or non-existent public transportation services, a
loss of farmland and destruction of natural habitats.[2-8] Longer term, sprawl may be related to
obesity, physical activity, chronic illness and traffic fatalities.[9-12] There have also been
2
concerns that sprawl contributes to global warming, social inequities and ugly urban design.[1317]
Given its contribution to contemporary health, social and environmental issues, there is a
need to understand the history of sprawl. To a certain extent, US metropolitan areas have been
undergoing a process of decentralization and de-densification ever since the middle of the 19th
century, if not earlier. Urban historians have traced the influence of development, transportation
technology and affluence on suburbanization.[18] Many older US cities have a belt of “street car
suburbs”, first developed at the end of the 19th century as commuter railroads and trolley car
lines enabled emerging middle classes to move to new developments.[19-21] Even Los Angeles,
a historic automobile oriented metropolis, was influenced by a combination of new street car
lines subsidized by real estate developers.[22] These classic suburbs represented much lower
densities than the then existing urban cores.
But a new type of low-density suburbanization was set into motion at the end of World
War II with new federal subsidies for home mortgages, the broadening of middle classes and the
development of highway networks.[23, 24] Contemporary patterns of sprawl are thought to have
begun at this time, and it has come to dominate urban form and environments.[25, 26] This leads
to the questions: how has sprawl changed over the past decades? Is it accelerating? Declining?
How do levels of sprawl compare to that of several decades ago? This study measures sprawl at
4 periods of time: 1970, 1980, 1990 and 2000, in order to enable an exploration of the history of
sprawl as well as its effects.
3
MEASURING SPRAWL
Given the importance of sprawl, there have been a number of measures developed to
quantify it. These include assessments of average density (sometimes adjusted to exclude nondeveloped land inside the official boundaries of metropolitan areas), density gradient measures
where employment or population is plotted on a line moving outward from a center point, and
composite measures that may include any of the above with additional submeasures of sprawl
including street connectivity, land use and walkability.[27-29] The choice of these measures
represents a trade off between the availability of data and the detail of the measure
METHODOLOGY
The US Census Bureau used Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to
estimate census tract land areas for 1990 and 2000, but did not do so for prior years. Without
tract land area data, population densities cannot be calculated. Census tract boundaries are
subject to change over time as population grows and the Census Bureau (in consultation with
local governments) seeks to better define and subdivide localities. The result is that a current
Census tract may not necessarily be co-extensive with prior year tracts. Therefore current land
area estimates cannot be used for prior census years. The Urban Institute contracted with
Geolytics Inc. to create a dataset of “normalized” census data based on 2000 census tracts and
also including data from years prior to 2000. Geolytics used GIS to allocate past census year
local area data, where it was available, to contemporary tract boundaries. The result is a
4
database of both short form (100% sample) and long form data (5% and 10% sample questions).
This study used the 1970, 1980 and 1990 normalized population estimates from the Geolytics
database, along with 2000 population and land area data, to calculate sprawl levels for 1970,
1980, 1990, and 2000.[30]
Prior to the 1990 census, many rural counties were not subdivided into tracts. Counties at
the periphery of some metropolitan areas (later incorporated into a given metropolitan area as it
expanded) and counties that are in metropolitan areas that were established after the 1980 census,
may not be tracted and therefore they can not be included in the calculation of sprawl. This was
a greater issue in 1970 than in 1980 because the Census had begun to tract rural counties by
1980. By 1990, all countries were tracted. This limits the ability to measure sprawl prior to
1990 in some areas. On the other hand, these counties were considered rural by the Census
during those earlier decennial years.
The UAR Sprawl Index
This study uses a measure of sprawl first published in 2003 in the journal Urban Affairs
Review (called the UAR Sprawl Index here).[31] It is based on the dimensions of density and
concentration and while it may not have the comprehensive qualities of some of the more
detailed sprawl measures; it has the advantage of being calculable for all US metropolitan areas
and it can be used to determine historical levels of sprawl for any time period where population
estimates and land area estimates are available. This index is scaled between 0 (lowest levels of
sprawl) and 100 (highest levels of sprawl). The formula is:
5
SIi = (Si – Di + 1) * 50,
where SIi = Sprawl Index for Metropolitan Area i, Di = proportion of the total population in
high-density census tracts i, and Si = proportion of total population in low-density census tracts.
High-density census tracts are those with a population density greater than 3500 persons per
square mile, the approximate density where public transit becomes cost-effective.[2] Lowdensity tracts are those with a population density between 200 and 3500 persons per square mile.
Tracts with population density less than 200 persons per square mile are considered rural and
excluded from the metropolitan area analysis.
In 2000, US metropolitan areas had a range of values from 3.94 to 98.76. The mean was
51.35 and the standard deviation was 21.32. Examples of sprawl values are: Atlanta GA 80.6,
Boston MA 46.4, Orlando FL 64.3, Jersey City NJ 3.93 and Washington DC 43.4.
Metropolitan areas generally consist of one or more counties (and a few independent
cities) surrounding one or more central cities. New England metropolitan areas have two types
of definitions, county based and town based. The town based definitions are used here. Some
larger metropolitan areas (called Consolidated Metropolitan Statistical Areas) consist of
aggregations of two or more metropolitan areas (called Primary Statistical Areas). For example,
the Cleveland Ohio Consolidated Metropolitan Area is an amalgamation of the Cleveland and
the Akron Primary Statistical Areas. The unit of aggregation used here will be the Primary
Statistical Areas when applicable.
6
For each of the decennial census years, a series of statistics were calculated including
sprawl index value, high density population, low density population, total population, low
density land area, high density land area, and total land area. Together, these seven measures can
describe how a metropolitan area has changed over the 30 period time frame of this study.
After sprawl values were calculated for all four years, metropolitan areas were organized
based on two dimensions: change in sprawl index value between 1970 (or the earliest year
sprawl could be calculated for that metropolitan area) and 2000, and the level of measured
sprawl in 2000. There were 3 categories of sprawl change: increasing (the sprawl index score
grew by more than 10%), decreasing (greater than 10% decline in sprawl index score) and stable
(the change was less than 10%). The level of sprawl in 2000 was categorized as very low
(sprawl index value of >25), low (sprawl index values between 25 and 50), high (50 to 75) and
very high (sprawl index values > 75). The result is 12 categories of metropolitan areas.
Comparison to the SGA Sprawl Index
Three researchers associated with Smart Growth America, Reid Ewing, then of Rutgers
University, Rolf Pendall of Cornell University and Don Chen, the Executive Director of Smart
Growth America, published a report measuring sprawl in 83 metropolitan areas in the US (called
the SGA Sprawl Index here). [32] Smart Growth America has recently extended this measure
back to 1990, but it is unlikely to be able to look further back. The 1990 metropolitan area
boundary definitions were used in their calculations. The authors first compiled, calculated or
acquired data on 22 different factors thought to be associated with sprawl. Next, these 22 factors
7
were combined into four separate submeasures representing density, land use mix, degree of
centering and street accessibility. Each of these four submeasures was standardized to a mean of
100 and a standard deviation of 25. Finally, the four measures of were summed, unweighted
and then regressed against metropolitan area population size to give a final overall measure of
sprawl. The final SGA Sprawl Index was also normalized to a mean of 100 with a standard
deviation of 25.
While the two measures describe the some of the same feature of the metropolitan
environment, sprawl, they are calculated using different methodologies. Graphing the SGA
Sprawl Index and the UAR Sprawl Index illustrates the general pattern of relationship between
the two measures (See Chart 1). There is one particularly anomalous metropolitan area,
Riverside-San Bernardino CA that has a SGA Sprawl Index value of 14.2 and a UAR Sprawl
Index value of 48.7. This metropolitan area was found to be fairly dense by the SGA density
submeasure. However, it was found to be very sprawled on the other threes submeasures of
sprawl. For this reason, its overall SGA sprawl measure was low. A comparison of the two
measures, using Spearman’s Rank Order correlation, demonstrates how these two measures are
related. Because one metropolitan area was defined differently in the UAR and SGA indexes,
82 metropolitan areas (out of 83 SGA Sprawl Index metropolitan areas and 330 UAR Sprawl
Index metropolitan areas) were compared.
Overall, the two measures were negatively correlated, with a Spearman’s rho of -.52
The negative correlation results because a higher UAR Sprawl Index level indicates increased
sprawl while a lower SGA Sprawl Index value indicates a higher level of sprawl. The SGA
8
Sprawl Index subgroup measures vary in the closeness of their relationship to the UAR Sprawl
Index (See Table 1). The submeasures of density and street access, the two central features of
sprawl, are very highly correlated. The submeasure of land use mix was moderately correlated
and centeredness was very poorly correlated.
1970 – 2000 UAR SPRAWL INDEX VALUES
Of the 330 metropolitan areas defined in 2000, 61 were not tracted in 1970 and 6 were
not yet tracted in 1980. By 1990, the entire country was tracted. US metropolitan areas were
already sprawling in 1970. The overall sprawl index (combining the high and low density
population of all US metropolitan areas) was 36.6 and the mean of the 269 metropolitan areas
with a measured sprawl index was 53.8. Sprawl increased substantially over the next 30 years.
By 2000, the overall sprawl index had increased by 34% to 49.2 and the mean of now 330
metropolitan areas was up by 26% to 67.9. The rate of increase in sprawl seems to be
decelerating, but the absolute amount of sprawl (measured by the mean sprawl value of all
metropolitan areas) continues to increase. Some of this increase may have been caused by the
creation of new, smaller and probably less dense metropolitan areas as well as by increased
tracting of peripheral metropolitan counties. But much of the change represents real increases in
sprawl as well as shifting populations away from some older denser areas to newer small, less
dense metropolitan areas. Levels of sprawl have increased in each of the three decades of this
study including the decade after all metropolitan areas were tracted.
The overall metropolitan population increased by over 50% during these thirty years.
The rate of population increase in high density tracts has accelerated. The reasons for this may
9
include increased attention to infill development, a decline in “white flight” and disinvestment,
increased immigration, newer high density development in a few metropolitan areas, and
gentrification and a revitalization of certain inner cities. However, the population low density
census tracts increased by over five times as much the population in high density tracts. Even
though the rate of low density census tract population increase from 1980 to 1990 and 1990 to
2000 has been fairly stable, it has been greater than that of the high density population. If current
trends continue, there will be a more people living in low density census tracts of US
metropolitan areas than in living in high density tracts by the year 2010. Again, the tracting
issue may have affected these results in early decades. This parallels the earlier shift from inner
city to suburb. Because some suburbs, particularly older inner ring ones, are almost as dense as
inner cites, the shift to a majority suburban population would naturally predate the shift to a
predominately lower density metropolitan population. (See Chart 2)
The consumption of land between 1970 and 2000 was dramatic. By the end of this 30
year period, metropolitan areas covered almost twice as much land as they did at the start. The
amount of land in high density tracts increased at a steady rate over these decades. Prior to 1990,
the percent increase in land in high density tracts was greater than the percent increase in
population, perhaps indicating a de-densification even in high density areas. But between 1990
and 2000, the dense tract population increased at a higher rate than land area, which may be a
reflection of increasing densities in some metropolitan areas. (See Chart 3)
The rates of increase in the amount of land in low density tracts decelerated significantly
after 1980, but these are the tracts most likely have been affected by the initial subdivision of
10
tracts. There was a slight decrease in the rate of increase after 1990. But overall, the amount of
land in covered by low density census tracts is very large and now collectively represents almost
90% of all metropolitan land. New low density land between 1990 and 2000, a time period after
all counties were tracted, is greater than all the land in high density tracts in 2000. (See Table 2)
URBAN SPRAL IN LARGE METROPOLITAN AREAS
In large metropolitan areas, those with a calculated urbanized population greater than 1
million in 2000, overall levels of sprawl have increased by almost a third since 1970. The mean
sprawl score of large metropolitan areas increased by almost 17%. The rate of increase in sprawl
has declined, however. While the overall population of metropolitan areas grew by over 44%,
the population living in low density tracts increased by over twice that amount. The population
of high density tracts increased by just over a quarter over these thirty years. While the rate of
population increase in low density tracts is decelerating, the population increase in higher density
tracts is increasing. Between 1970 and 1980, the population in higher density tracts was virtually
unchanged, but by the 1990s, the population growth rate in these tracts increased to over 10%.
Still, if these population trends continue there will be more metropolitan residents living in less
dense tracts than in higher tracts in 2010.
The land area of large metropolitan areas grew by almost 90% between 1970 and 2000
with the vast majority of that increase in low density census tracts. There were an additional
3,000 square miles of high density census tract land by 2000, but this compares to an additional
24,000 square miles of low density census tracts during that time. (See Table 3)
11
SPRAWL IN SMALL METROPOLITAN AREAS
The overall sprawl index value of small metropolitan areas, those with less than a million
population in 2000, increased by 29% between 1970 and 2000 to 68.7. The mean sprawl index
value increased to 72. The change in sprawl was much smaller after 1990 than between 1970
and 1980, but these metropolitan areas are most affected by the lack of tracting in 1970 and
1980. There were very large increases in the low density population, which represents almost all
the population growth in small metropolitan areas in the three study decades. There was only a
small increase in the high density population. The high density population increase is
accelerating, however. Almost all the land increase in small metropolitan areas has been in low
density land with only an 800 square mile increase in high density land in 30 years. There was
more land in low density census tracts in small metropolitan areas than there were in large
metropolitan areas, though the low density populations are about equal. (See Table 4)
CHANGES IN SPRAWL BY METROPOLITAN TYPE
Over the final three decades of the 20th century, almost two thirds (205) of US
metropolitan areas had increasing levels of sprawl, dwarfing the number of metropolitan areas
with decreasing sprawl (35). Ninety metropolitan areas were stable. Similarly, there were 132
very high sprawl and high sprawl metropolitan areas each, but only 9 low sprawled metropolitan
areas. Eighty percent of metropolitan areas could be categorized as high or very high sprawling
with less than 3% very low sprawled. The modal metropolitan area over this period had
increasing sprawl resulting in high or very high sprawl values. This may indicate that sprawl (or
12
the lack of sprawl) varies across the United States. Some metropolitan areas have been adding
large expanses of low density development, others have had substantial population growth with
relatively little increase in land area. (See Table 5)
STABLE SPRAWL METROPOLITAN AREAS
Metropolitan area sprawl was considered to be stable if the 30 year change in sprawl was
less than 10% (increase or decrease). If a metropolitan area’s 1970 or 1980 sprawl index value
was not calculable because it was not tracted, the earliest available sprawl index value was used
as the base value. Stable metropolitan areas include a large diversity of metropolitan types,
from metropolitan areas with little population growth to metropolitan areas with rapid growth but
from base sprawl index scores that reflect longstanding high levels of sprawl.
Stable/Very Low Sprawl (Sprawl Index value 0 - 25)
Only two metropolitan areas fall into this category, making it one of the smallest of the
categories in terms of number of metropolitan areas, population and land area. Jersey City NJ’s
metropolitan population and land area are virtually unchanged from 1970 to 2000. It had the
lowest level of sprawl of any US metropolitan area in 2000. It seems to have avoided a decline
in its denser, inner core population that has affected many of its peer metropolitan areas in the
Northeast corridor.
13
San Francisco CA is the other stable metropolitan area with very low sprawl. It grew at a
moderate pace over the past thirty years. During the 1970’s its sprawl value increased but it
began to decline between 1980 and 1990 and ended in 2000 at almost the same level it was in
1970. Its land area increase was balanced between high density and low density tracts. Its
population increase was similarly distributed.
Stable/Low Sprawl (2000 sprawl index 25 - 50)
The twelve metropolitan areas in this category include many of the large metropolitan
areas in the West, Florida and Texas (Dallas TX, Seattle WA). These large metropolitan areas
tend to have a mixture of older and newer neighborhoods and though many of them are rapidly
growing, some of this growth is taking place at higher densities. Portland OR also falls into this
category but it has a different history. Its increase in sprawl between 1970 and 1980 appeared to
poise Portland along a more typical path of ever-increasing sprawl. However, this trend reversed
itself after 1980 and Portland has had the one of the largest declines in sprawl since that time.
This may reflect the anti-sprawl efforts that culminated in the adoption of Portland’s growth
boundary regulations.[33, 34]
Stable/High Sprawl (2000 Sprawl Index 50 - 75)
The twenty-seven metropolitan areas in this category are mostly small to medium sized
metropolitan areas in all areas of the country (though they are less likely to be in the south).
Many of these metropolitan areas are college oriented metropolitan areas (Boulder CO,
Champaign IL). Some of these metropolitan areas are rapid growers that contain a mix of high
and low density developments. Others are growing at a more moderate pace.
14
Stable/Very High Sprawl (2000 Sprawl Index 75 - 100)
The largest category of stable metropolitan areas with 49 metropolitan areas, it includes 9
metropolitan areas that had 2000 Sprawl index values of 100, representing the highest possible
level of sprawl. The sprawl index has an upper boundary of 100 and as metropolitan areas
approach this level of sprawl, the amount of potential increase is limited. Many of the
metropolitan areas have stable sprawl index values only because they can not be any more
sprawled. This category is mostly in the South but also includes peripheral New England
metropolitan areas such as Barnstable MA and Portsmouth NH. All are small to medium sized
metropolitan areas.
INCREASING SPRAWL METROPOLITAN AREAS
(Sprawl Index values increased by more than 10%)
Two thirds of US metropolitan areas had increasing sprawl, collectively representing
almost half of the total US population. These numbers indicate why sprawl has emerged as a
major national issue over the past decade.
Increasing/Very Low Sprawl (Sprawl Index value 0 – 25)
Only New York City falls into this category. The absolute change in New York City’s
sprawl index value was only 1.73, but this was on a very low base value of 5.06 in 1970. New
York City’s sprawl index value was the second lowest of all US metropolitan areas in 2000.
15
Most of this increase in sprawl occurred in the 1970s and had reversed itself by the 1990s
reflecting first a deterioration of conditions in the inner city and then an increase in immigration
and improving quality of life in many parts of New York City. If this trend continues, New York
City will eventually settle into the Stable/Very Low Sprawl category.
Increasing/Low Sprawl (2000 sprawl index 25 - 50)
This is the largest of the categories in terms of total population. It includes most of the
large older metropolitan areas in the Midwest and East including Boston MA, Chicago IL and
Cleveland OH. These metropolitan areas have had moderate population increases or stable
populations, high levels of suburban growth and despite some recent gentrification, declining
inner city populations. If the past decade’s pattern continues, many of them could eventually
move into the high sprawl category. This category also includes San Antonio TX and Houston
TX with high population growth that is pushing these metropolitan areas away from a “western”
typology of relatively higher density towards a “southern” typology of low density. A map of
Buffalo NY illustrates how inner city decline in the context of stable population results in
increased sprawl (See Map 1). The total population of the Buffalo metropolitan area (excluding
rural tracts) declined about 10% between 1970 and 2000. But the land area increased by almost
20%, causing an increase in its sprawl index value. The decline in inner city census tracts is
particularly apparent on the eastern edge of the central high density area.
Increasing/High Sprawl (2000 Sprawl Index 50 - 75)
16
This category has the highest number of metropolitan areas and the second highest total
2000 population. This is a group of metropolitan areas predominately in the Midwest and East.
They tend to have moderate to stable population growth with declining inner city populations.
They may represent a group of metropolitan areas further along a process of inner city
population loss and suburbanization than the previous category. Their inner city populations had
higher declines or less gentrification than the metropolitan areas in the previous category. Large
metropolitan area examples include St. Louis MO and Indianapolis IN. Smaller examples
include Waco TX and Worcester MA. It remains to be seen if these metropolitan areas can
reverse these demographic trends and keep from having even higher levels of sprawl.
Increasing/Very High Sprawl (2000 Sprawl Index 75 - 100)
This category, with the second highest number of metropolitan areas (fourth in total
population and second in total land area) represents “classic” sprawl with rapidly increasing
sprawl values resulting from high population growth in highly suburban type development.
Atlanta GA, Charlotte NC and Raleigh NC are examples. The fast growing (both in land and
population) metropolitan areas are mostly in the South. In addition, this category also includes
older Midwestern and Eastern metropolitan areas such as Pittsfield MA and Youngstown OH
where the inner city declined has resulted in a “hollowing out” of dense population centers.
These may represent the end stage of a process many of the moderate and high sprawl members
of this group will eventually reach. The map of Atlanta sprawl shows how an ever-increasing
low-density periphery can dramatically increase sprawl values. Atlanta grew by about 2400
square miles over the past three decades or the equivalent of more than twice the land area of the
17
state of Rhode Island. Almost all of this growth was in low-density census tracts at the ever
expanding edge of the metropolitan area. (See Map 2)
DECREASING SPRAWL METROPOLITAN AREAS
(1970 – 2000 Sprawl Index values decreased by more than 10%)
This small group of metropolitan areas demonstrates that sprawl is not inevitable. They
include a number of metropolitan areas once thought to epitomize sprawl but have since reached
their geographic limits to growth. It should be noted that declining sprawl or an absence of
sprawl does not mean that urban issues will disappear. These metropolitan areas continue to
experience environmental, social and economic problems.
Decreasing/Very Low Sprawl (2000 Sprawl Index value 0 - 25)
The six metropolitan areas in this category represent a unique set of where declining
sprawl has produced very low absolute sprawl values. All are in California (Los Angeles,
Orange County, San Jose, and Stockton) or Florida (Miami and Ft. Lauderdale). All of them are
bounded by geography – oceans, mountains, the Everglades, or by land use - high value farm
land around Stockton[35]. These metropolitan areas represent “1960s style sprawl”. They tend
to have weak downtowns, no dominate employment centers and far flung, but still dense
suburbs.[36, 37][38, 39] But their potential land area growth has been stopped and they can now
only grow upwards rather than outwards. Los Angeles is becoming as well known for its two
story corner strip malls as it has been historically famous for miles of single family housing.
Most new housing in Los Angeles is either multi-family or on small lots unheard of in the
18
Increasing/Very High Sprawl category metropolitan areas such as Atlanta. These metropolitan
areas also have high housing price increases and unaffordable housing as their geographically
imposed growth boundaries in the context of increasing population create a large relative
demand for housing.[40] San Jose CA typifies these metropolitan areas (See Map 3). San Jose’s
population grew by almost 60% from 1970 to 2000 but its land area grew by just a third, causing
a large increase in density. This can be seen by the change from rural to low density to high
density along the eastern side of the metropolitan area. At the same time, large peripheral census
tracts remain below the 200 person per square mile rural-suburban threshold. (See Map 3)
Decreasing/Low Sprawl (2000 sprawl index 25 - 50)
This diverse group contains smaller metropolitan areas in California and elsewhere that
have also been constrained by geography and are unable to grow outwards. It also contains a
few large metropolitan areas that have continued to grow outwards but at relatively higher
densities such as Phoenix AZ and Las Vegas NV.[41] Only Atlanta GA has consumed more
land than Phoenix but a large percentage of Phoenix’s growth has been at relatively higher
densities than Atlanta’s, reducing its resulting overall sprawl index values even in the context of
high population growth. A map of Phoenix’s growth illustrates how most of it occurred at fairly
high density. (See Map 4)
Decreasing/High Sprawl (2000 Sprawl Index 50 - 75)
These six metropolitan areas are in six different states. With the exception of Orlando
FL, they are small to moderate sized located on the periphery of larger metropolitan areas.
19
Decreasing/Very High Sprawl (2000 Sprawl Index 75 - 100)
Only Naples FL was in this category and if present trends continue, it will fall to the
moderate sprawl level by 2010. It may be changing to the urban form of Ft. Lauderdale and
Miami on the opposite coast as it grows.
CONCLUSIONS
There have been substantial increases in sprawl over the past 30 years and the amount of
land consumed by urbanization greatly outpaces metropolitan population growth. High or very
high levels of sprawl, that continue to increase in magnitude, characterize most metropolitan
areas. But there is a small but important subset of metropolitan areas that has reversed this trend,
perhaps because of natural geographic constraints. For observers who believe that sprawl does
not necessarily cause environmental, social and health problems, these findings should at least
demonstrate that sprawl is a reality and it is increasing. For those who are concerned that the
most common pattern of development of most US metropolitan areas is a contributor to many
current issues, this report should cause concern that so many metro areas have increasing levels
of sprawl. The fact that a third of the metropolitan areas had stable or declining sprawl index
values should prompt discussion of why some metropolitan areas show declining sprawl even as
the overall level of sprawl across the US increased.
Another implication is that inner-city conditions affect sprawl levels in many
metropolitan areas, particularly in the Midwest and Northeast, by causing population decline in
high density census tracts and pushing new development to low density tracts on the periphery.
20
Addressing sprawl in those regions will require improving the environment inside cities. The
implications for rapidly sprawling metropolitan areas such as Atlanta are more complex.
Certainly, the experience of Phoenix suggests growth can occur at a higher density than occurs in
Atlanta. It also may mean that addressing sprawl in these metropolitan areas will require a
substantive change in the social, economic and environmental factors that cause sprawl. Finally,
the experience of metropolitan areas that have reversed sprawl because they have reached their
geographic limits may provide insights to what may happen to other areas if they similar reach
constraints on outward growth.
It is clear that any discussion of sprawl cannot happen in a vacuum. Sprawl must be
evaluated in the context of how metropolitan areas are changing and in light of the many
different economic, social, political, demographic and technological forces shaping urban areas.
This portrait of sprawl over the past 30 years should provide some background for the 80% of
Americans living in metropolitan areas in 2000.
Acknowledgements
This paper was made possible by a grant from the Fannie Mae Foundation.
References
1.
2.
3.
Black, T., The economics of sprawl. Urban Land, 1996. 55(3): p. 6-52.
Burchell, R., et al., The costs of sprawl revisited. 1998, National Academy Press:
Washington DC.
Walker, R., Urban sprawl and natural areas encroachment: linking land cover change
and economic development in the Florida Everglades. Ecological Economics, 2001. 37:
p. 357-369.
21
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.
24.
Duany, A., E. Plater-Zyberk, and J. Speck, Suburban nation. 2000, New York: North
Point Press.
Kunstler, J., The geography of nowhere: The rise and decline of America's man-made
landscape. 1993, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Hayward, S., Legends of the sprawl. Policy Review, 1998. 91(26-32).
Johnson, M., Environmental impacts of urban sprawl: a survey of the literature and
proposed research agenda. Environment and Planning A, 2001. 33: p. 717-735.
Sheehan, M., City limits. Putting the break on sprawl. 2001, Worldwatch Institute:
Washington DC.
Frumkin, H., Urban sprawl and public health. Public Health Reports, 2002. 117: p. 201217.
Ewing, R., et al., Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and
morbidity. American Journal of Health Promotion, 2003. 18(1): p. 47-57.
Ewing, R., R. Schieber, and C. Zegeer, Urban sprawl as risk factor in motor vehicle
occupant and pedestrian fatalities. American Journal of Public Health, 2003. 93(9): p.
1541-1545.
Lopez, R., Sprawl and Risk of Being Overweight or Obese. American Journal of Public
Health, 2004: p. Forthcoming.
Smith, N., P. Caris, and E. Wyly, The "Camden syndrome" and the menace of suburban
decline. Residential disinvestment and its discontents in Camden County, New Jersey.
Urban Affairs Review, 2001. 36(4): p. 497-531.
Bullard, R., G. Johnson, and A. Torres, Sprawl city. Race, politics and planning in
Atlanta. 2000, Washington DC: Island Press.
Freeman, L., The effects of sprawl on neighborhood social ties. An explanatory analysis.
Journal of the American Planning Association, 2001. 67(1): p. 69-77.
Jackson, R. and C. Kochtitzky, Creating a healthy environment: the impact of the built
environment on public health. 2002, Sprawl Watch Clearinghouse: Washington DC.
Popenoe, D., Urban sprawl: Some neglected sociological considerations. Sociology and
Social Research, 1979. 63(2): p. 255-268.
Downs, A., Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. 1999, Brookings Institute:
Washington DC.
Warner, S.B., Street Car Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston 1870 - 1900. 1990,
Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.
Foster, M., From Streetcar to Superhighway: American City Planners and Urban
Transportation, 1900 - 1940. 1981, Philadelphia PA: Temple University Press.
Sullivan, F. and F. Winkowski, Trolleycars, Streetcars, Trams and Trolleys of North
America: A photographic History. 1998, Forest Park IL: Heimburger House Publishing
Company.
Weinstein, R., The First American City, in The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at
the End of The Twentieth Century, A. Scott and E. Soja, Editors. 1998, University of
California Press: Berkeley CA.
Hayden, D., Building Suburbia: Green Fields and Urban Growth, 1820 - 2000. 2003,
New York City: Pantheon Press.
Mieskowski, P. and E. Mills, The causes of metropolitan surburbanization. Journal of
Economic Perspectives, 1993. 7(3): p. 135-147.
22
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
Downs, A., New Visions for Metropolitan America. 1994, Washington DC: The
Brookings Institute.
Garreau, J., Edge city: Life on the new frontier. 1991, New York: Doubleday and
Company.
Fulton, W., et al., Who sprawls most? How growth patterns differ across the U.S. 2001,
Brookings Institute: Washington DC.
Galster, G., et al., Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive
concept. 2000, Fannie Mae Foundation: Washington DC.
Glaeser, E., M. Kahn, and C. Chu, Job sprawl: employment location in U.S.
metropolitan areas. 2001, Brookings Institute: Washington DC.
Geolytics, Neighborhood Change Database 1970 - 2000 Tract Data. 2003, Geolytics,
Inc.: East Brunswick NJ.
Lopez, R. and H.P. Hynes, Sprawl in the 1990s: measurement, distribution and trends.
Urban Affairs Review, 2003. 38(3): p. 325-355.
Ewing, R., R. Pendall, and D. Chen, Measuring sprawl and its impact. 2002, Smart
Growth America: Washington DC.
Lang, R. and S. Hornburg, Planning Portland style: pitfalls and possibilities. Housing
Policy Debate, 1997. 8(1): p. 1-10.
Phillips, J. and E. Goodstein, Growth management and housing prices: the case of
Portland Oregon. Contemporary Economic Policy, 2000. 18(3): p. 334 - 344.
Lang, R., Open spaces, bounded places: Does the American West's arid landscape yield
dense metropolitan growth? Housing Policy Debate, 2003. 13(4): p. 758-778.
Ewing, R., Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American Planning
Association, 1997. 63(1): p. 107-126.
Mathews, J., The Los Angeles of the north: San Jose's transition from fruit capital to
high-tech metropolis. Journal of Urban History, 1999. 25(4): p. 459-476.
Henderson, V. and M. Arindam, The new urban landscape: developers and edge cities.
Regional Science and Urban Economics, 1996. 26: p. 613-643.
Davis, M., How Eden lost its garden: A political history of the Los Angeles landscape, in
The City: Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century, A. Scott
and E. Soja, Editors. 1996, University of California Press: Berkeley CA.
Kahn, M., Does sprawl reduce the Black/White housing consumption gap? Housing
Policy Debate, 2001. 17: p. 349-355.
Heim, C., Leapfrogging, urban sprawl, and growth management. Phoenix, 1950-2000.
American Journal of Economics and Sociology, 2001. 60(1): p. 245-283.
23
Table 1
Comparison of Sprawl Measures
Measure/Submeasure
Spearman's
Rho
P Value
Full SGA Sprawl Index
-0.5194
0.0000
Density
-0.9181
0.0000
Land Use Mix
-0.3892
0.0003
Centeredness
-0.1404
0.2083
Street Accessibility
-0.7108
0.0000
Comparison to UAR Sprawl Index
n = 82
24
Table 2
All Metropolitan Areas
Summary Statistics
Year
Overall Sprawl Mean Sprawl
Index
Index
Total Land
Area
Low Density High Density Total
Land Area Land Area Population
Low Density High Density
Population Population
1970
36.8
53.8
65,438
54,842
10,596
132,283,549 48,661,008
83,622,541
1980
45.2
63.3
91,641
79,804
11,836
153,132,818 69,196,818
83,936,000
1990
47.5
65.8
109,265
96,119
13,146
174,455,722 82,930,476
91,525,246
2000
49.2
67.9
127,938
113,337
14,602
200,384,907 98,515,115
101,869,792
1970 - 1980
22.83%
17.85%
40.04%
45.52%
11.71%
15.76%
42.20%
1980 - 1990
5.09%
3.94%
19.23%
20.44%
11.06%
13.92%
19.85%
9.04%
1990 - 2000
3.58%
3.11%
17.09%
17.91%
11.07%
14.86%
18.79%
11.30%
1970 - 2000
33.70%
26.30%
95.51%
106.66%
37.81%
51.48%
102.45%
21.82%
25
0.37%
Table 3
Large Metropolitan Areas (greater than 1 million total population in 2000)
Summary Statistics
Overall
Mean Sprawl Total Land
Sprawl Index Index
Area
Year
Low Density High Density
Low Density High Density
Land Area
Land Area
Total Population Population
Population
1970
28.7
37.0
34,127
26,790
7,337
88,872,583
25,535,038
63,337,545
1980
34.9
41.8
43,531
35,304
8,226
97,370,408
33,985,046
63,385,362
1990
36.9
42.6
52,189
42,856
9,333
111,252,744
41,103,399
70,149,345
2000
38.1
43.2
60,736
50,189
10,546
128,202,002
48,892,458
79,309,544
1970 - 1980
21.48%
12.99%
27.56%
31.78%
12.12%
9.56%
33.09%
0.08%
1980 - 1990
5.85%
1.97%
19.89%
21.39%
13.45%
14.26%
20.95%
10.67%
1990 - 2000
3.22%
1.35%
16.38%
17.11%
13.01%
15.23%
18.95%
13.06%
1970 - 2000
32.73%
16.78%
77.97%
87.34%
43.75%
44.25%
91.47%
25.22%
26
Table 4
Small Metropolitan Areas (less than 1 million total population in 2000)
Summary Statistics
Year
Overall
Mean Sprawl Total Land
Sprawl Index Index
Area
Low Density High Density Total
Land Area
Land Area
Population
Low Density High Density
Population
Population
1970
53.3
57.7
31,311
28,052
3,259
43,410,966
23,125,970
20,284,996
1980
63.1
67.4
48,110
44,500
3,610
55,762,410
35,211,772
20,550,638
1990
66.2
70.1
57,076
53,263
3,813
63,202,978
41,827,077
21,375,901
2000
68.7
72.4
67,203
63,147
4,055
72,182,905
49,622,657
22,560,248
1970 - 1980
18.53%
16.82%
53.65%
58.63%
10.78%
28.45%
52.26%
1.31%
1980 - 1990
4.80%
4.02%
18.64%
19.69%
5.63%
13.34%
18.79%
4.02%
1990 - 2000
3.88%
3.31%
17.74%
18.56%
6.34%
14.21%
18.64%
5.54%
1970 - 2000
29.05%
25.54%
114.63%
125.11%
24.44%
66.28%
114.58%
11.22%
27
Table 5
Types of Metropolitan Areas
Decreasing
Sprawl
Stable
Sprawl
Increasing
Sprawl
Total
Very Low Sprawl <25
# Metropolitan areas
6
2
1
9
Total Population
18,283,464
2,309,772
9,290,558
29,883,794
Total Land Area
3,669
404
940
5,013
Low Sprawl 25 - 50
# Metropolitan areas
20
12
25
57
Total Population
18,535,515
14,966,514
50,900,289
84,402,318
Total Land Area
8,964
7,299
25,649
41,912
8
27
97
132
Total Population
3,084,259
8,376,898
40,432,385
51,893,542
Total Land Area
2,155
6,175
33,069
41,399
High Sprawl 50 - 75
# Metropolitan areas
Very High Sprawl >75
# Metropolitan areas
1
49
82
132
Total Population
220,705
7,319,339
26,165,209
33,705,253
Total Land Area
215
9,659
29,741
39,615
Total
# Metropolitan areas
35
90
205
330
Total Population
40,123,943
32,972,523
126,788,441
199,884,907
Total Land Area
15,003
23,537
89,399
127,939
28
Chart 1
SGA Sprawl Index vs. UAR Sprawl Index
200
180
SGA Sprawl Index
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
0
20
40
60
UAR Sprawl Index
29
80
100
Chart 2
Metropolitan Area High Density and Low Density
Population 1970 - 2000
Population
150,000,000
Low Density
Population
100,000,000
High Density
Population
50,000,000
0
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
30
Chart 3
Square Miles
Metropolitan Area Land Consumption 1970 - 2000
120,000
100,000
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
Low Density Land
Area
High Density Land
Area
1970
1980
1990
2000
Year
31
Appendix I
1970 – 2000 Sprawl Scores
32
Metropolitan
Area
Abilene
Akron
Albany
Albany
Albuquerque
Alexandria
Allentown
Altoona
Amarillo
Anchorage
Ann Arbor
Anniston
Appleton
Asheville
Athens
Atlanta
Atlantic
Auburn
Augusta
Austin
Bakersfield
Baltimore
Bangor
Barnstable
Baton Rouge
Beaumont
Bellingham
Benton Harbor
Bergan Passaic
Billings
Biloxi
Binghamton
Birmingham
Bismarck
Bloomington
Bloomington
Boise
Boston
Boulder
Brazoria
Bremerton
Bridgeport
Brockton
Brownsville
Bryan
Buffalo
Burlington
Canton
Casper
State
TX
OH
GA
NY
NM
LA
PA
PA
TX
AK
MI
AL
WI
NC
GA
GA
NJ
AL
GA
TX
CA
MD
ME
MA
LA
TX
WA
MI
NJ
MT
MS
NY
AL
ND
IL
IN
ID
MA
CO
TX
WA
CT
MA
TX
TX
NY
VT
OH
WY
1970
Sprawl
Index
49.97
48.62
77.61
51.43
36.22
NA
39.93
26.26
52.92
59.37
47.76
NA
41.90
88.63
52.80
60.71
53.41
NA
78.33
36.28
56.42
29.99
58.21
NA
49.42
57.94
NA
NA
23.84
58.40
58.46
45.62
54.86
NA
44.38
52.14
63.43
35.01
49.68
100.00
NA
38.60
63.75
56.39
77.92
31.56
NA
55.44
NA
1980
1990
2000
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Index
Index
Index
47.78
59.75
70.20
58.05
61.15
67.71
79.18
87.40
95.95
56.18
62.40
66.36
37.25
44.95
46.85
82.47
83.90
87.63
53.09
56.65
58.66
38.47
49.63
46.11
51.19
56.35
51.03
48.74
46.67
44.14
57.42
65.25
72.10
89.61
90.30
100.00
55.35
55.58
57.92
95.88
100.00
96.96
68.90
77.89
83.73
78.32
83.53
80.57
68.15
68.44
63.70
88.22
89.61
92.66
89.00
94.61
97.35
48.02
52.71
56.55
53.87
45.40
46.36
37.78
42.93
47.54
60.57
66.83
77.41
NA
100.00
98.23
62.72
77.20
78.44
68.01
78.96
81.20
70.55
67.15
77.78
93.56
93.72
94.64
25.47
28.09
27.85
62.64
67.07
69.34
76.78
89.50
92.47
51.20
56.41
61.44
68.63
79.59
82.68
46.21
50.92
52.89
46.24
44.81
50.97
59.12
62.26
63.35
70.45
65.78
61.39
43.54
45.87
46.44
58.62
53.21
52.09
94.01
90.66
96.63
77.58
78.91
85.44
49.66
52.43
54.05
61.71
66.71
70.31
55.19
56.75
59.93
57.59
52.75
56.72
37.38
42.15
47.70
66.04
67.46
70.42
70.46
70.39
72.82
67.55
76.09
69.35
33
Metropolitan
Area
State
Cedar Rapids
IA
Champaign
IL
Charleston
WV
Charleston
SC
Charlotte
NC
Charlottesville VA
Chattanooga
TN
Cheyenne
WY
Chicago
IL
Chico
CA
Cincinnati
OH
Clarksville
TN
Cleveland
OH
Colorado SpringsCO
Columbia
SC
Columbia
MO
Columbus
GA
Corpus Christi TX
Corvallis
OR
Cumberland
MD
Dallas
TX
Danbury
CT
Danville
VA
Davenport
IA
Dayton
OH
Daytona Beach FL
Decatur
AL
Decatur
IL
Denver
CO
Des Moines
IA
Detroit
MI
Dothan
AL
Dover
DE
Dubuque
IA
Duchess Cnty NY
Duluth
MN
Eau Claire
WI
El Paso
TX
Elkhart
IN
Elmira
NY
Enid
OK
Erie
PA
Eugene
OR
Evansville
IN
Fargo
ND
Fayetteville
NC
Fayetteville
AR
Fitchburg
MA
Flagstaff
AZ
1970
Sprawl
Index
50.53
53.12
63.62
65.25
78.21
37.61
79.53
NA
22.17
NA
38.87
NA
30.62
48.35
69.41
54.90
52.73
48.94
NA
81.71
41.21
NA
78.26
41.46
49.48
70.09
76.85
49.51
29.97
46.26
22.90
NA
NA
58.50
80.96
58.46
62.53
32.08
80.71
57.67
51.46
38.69
54.93
43.22
49.44
98.16
83.25
59.12
NA
1980
1990
2000
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Index
Index
Index
62.07
70.35
70.69
54.30
47.90
51.66
75.38
80.32
83.09
75.68
82.48
85.66
87.41
87.58
87.87
55.13
42.16
61.27
89.02
94.48
95.88
84.81
85.86
86.99
26.80
29.15
30.79
75.00
72.69
74.41
48.43
53.94
61.52
94.50
95.46
100.00
39.98
44.43
48.45
47.44
48.43
48.13
76.70
82.28
87.04
63.26
69.49
79.93
64.78
72.50
84.33
51.19
46.66
49.78
64.40
65.90
70.75
85.53
86.24
87.25
43.22
45.62
44.55
84.50
84.60
84.01
82.51
83.89
84.99
57.64
63.72
64.79
62.97
64.31
68.54
74.67
82.18
84.76
100.00
100.00
100.00
61.06
66.33
69.46
33.91
33.63
32.08
54.87
56.63
61.02
31.46
36.58
41.98
100.00
100.00
100.00
93.31
91.61
97.31
53.98
66.84
68.36
82.19
81.93
82.78
64.61
66.40
68.84
74.91
72.05
74.87
31.21
30.44
34.41
85.08
86.79
87.78
60.54
60.48
64.37
81.75
83.85
83.81
46.75
55.08
57.02
60.65
61.17
57.22
60.99
67.78
73.03
51.72
47.20
56.20
96.68
95.45
94.09
92.06
95.39
91.79
67.41
72.20
75.02
NA
79.49
74.37
34
Metropolitan
Area
State
Flint
MI
Florence
SC
Florence
AL
Fort Collins
CO
Fort Myers
FL
Fort Pierce
FL
Fort Smith
AR
Fort Walton Beach
FL
Fort Wayne
IN
Fresno
CA
Ft. Lauderdale FL
Ft. Worth
TX
Gadsden
AL
Gainesville
FL
Galveston
TX
Gary
IN
Glens Falls
NY
Goldsboro
NC
Grand Forks
NC
Grand Junction CO
Grand Rapids MI
Great Falls
MT
Greeley
CO
Green Bay
WI
Greensboro
NC
Greenville
NC
Greenville
SC
Hagerstown
MD
Hamilton
OH
Harrisburg
PA
Hartford
CT
Hattiesburg
MI
Hickory
NC
Honolulu
HI
Houma
LA
Houston
TX
Huntington
WV
Huntsville
AL
Indianapolis
IN
Iowa City
IA
Jackson
TN
Jackson
MI
Jackson
MS
Jacksonville
NC
Jacksonville
FL
Jamestown
NY
Janesville
WI
Jersey City
NJ
Johnson City
TN
1970
Sprawl
Index
54.10
NA
89.50
59.38
NA
NA
67.97
NA
50.51
50.78
27.53
50.29
70.66
78.98
47.19
50.91
NA
100.00
NA
76.30
55.21
45.84
49.38
55.46
80.14
NA
82.32
66.34
50.03
55.20
56.91
NA
100.00
34.49
NA
37.61
54.11
60.09
47.82
NA
73.30
59.56
60.52
NA
48.18
NA
57.63
4.24
100.00
1980
1990
2000
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Index
Index
Index
64.90
68.56
74.48
100.00
100.00
100.00
91.60
95.10
96.13
60.01
55.10
51.79
92.36
92.37
88.98
85.67
89.77
91.95
74.36
76.76
80.06
89.38
86.17
84.69
66.21
73.52
75.54
48.25
43.18
40.82
26.26
23.55
20.78
61.14
57.63
50.73
93.58
97.23
97.36
89.39
75.78
76.59
53.74
65.76
71.77
58.14
65.15
69.47
62.80
67.49
70.28
100.00
100.00
100.00
63.76
67.16
72.47
87.03
88.39
90.72
64.27
66.85
67.82
63.34
72.42
73.88
45.53
50.83
43.70
56.17
62.29
65.87
88.31
90.35
91.74
NA
77.05
75.10
90.35
94.36
98.55
74.11
74.67
71.98
67.21
73.88
78.94
62.78
68.21
75.02
65.34
68.95
71.48
92.11
91.02
91.92
100.00
100.00
100.00
33.44
31.85
35.35
87.12
86.67
84.98
43.90
47.95
45.91
68.62
78.74
79.01
71.52
86.45
94.82
59.32
66.33
71.97
46.24
49.01
45.15
82.43
96.04
92.30
68.28
71.31
75.55
69.12
73.07
82.75
95.98
96.70
97.32
66.80
74.64
74.65
53.89
53.06
69.60
52.79
54.99
64.13
3.27
3.39
3.93
94.07
95.96
97.27
35
Metropolitan
Area
Johnstown
Jonesboro
Joplin
Kalamazoo
Kankakee
Kansas City
Kenosha
Killeen
Knoxville
Kokomo
La Crosse
Lafayette
Lafayette
Lake Charles
Lakeland
Lancaster
Lansing
Laredo
Las Cruces
Las Vegas
Lawrence
Lawrence
Lawton
Lewiston
Lexington
Lima
Lincoln
Little Rock
Longview
Los Angeles
Louisville
Lowell
Lubbock
Lynchburg
Macon
Madison
Manchester
Mansfield
McAllen
Medford
Melbourne
Memphis
Merced
Miami
Middlesex
Milwaukee
Minneapolis
Missoula
Mobile
State
PA
AR
MO
MI
IL
MO
WI
TX
TN
IN
WI
LA
IN
LA
FL
PA
MI
TX
NM
NV
KS
MA
OK
ME
KY
OH
NE
AR
TX
CA
TX
MA
TX
VA
GA
WI
NH
OH
TX
OR
FL
TN
CA
FL
NJ
WI
MN
MT
AL
1970
Sprawl
Index
63.16
NA
NA
69.23
NA
44.13
26.90
NA
80.54
NA
NA
63.80
36.87
70.25
81.40
70.33
48.00
27.54
62.78
47.35
NA
51.07
28.12
53.16
30.67
44.22
23.25
74.33
NA
12.10
39.60
58.85
48.36
69.26
67.70
38.90
37.10
70.13
79.38
NA
76.90
35.18
NA
20.27
40.71
29.85
35.97
38.06
53.96
1980
1990
2000
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Index
Index
Index
71.23
74.37
77.17
NA
100.00
100.00
80.12
89.70
91.79
77.79
78.79
77.65
57.71
59.39
64.74
56.50
62.31
68.05
45.15
45.99
53.01
83.52
75.04
77.61
88.40
91.30
94.16
62.07
82.80
81.08
67.06
65.17
67.35
63.97
89.17
91.61
40.19
49.43
55.23
81.57
88.79
87.02
92.28
88.61
88.40
77.70
76.35
77.13
56.75
59.70
65.30
23.49
16.25
31.56
75.84
69.20
72.88
37.97
29.38
25.35
56.22
52.31
55.53
63.23
64.43
68.47
43.52
53.63
63.83
59.40
62.61
70.49
52.89
52.31
58.14
64.96
70.23
72.94
33.76
35.27
33.94
80.06
84.28
85.91
95.84
100.00
96.26
12.28
10.65
10.62
51.18
59.05
61.44
64.74
64.49
66.61
41.61
40.36
39.69
86.95
91.51
92.56
75.74
85.81
92.58
50.22
48.82
56.50
56.39
64.48
67.13
75.33
76.09
77.69
83.01
86.68
87.32
74.90
77.74
67.48
77.71
80.12
85.38
49.45
56.27
62.52
75.51
56.85
62.68
16.95
14.89
15.61
48.09
49.99
49.79
40.51
43.52
49.41
47.32
53.51
59.19
52.99
54.29
62.00
65.08
73.60
81.82
36
Metropolitan
Area
Modesto
Monmouth
Monroe
Montgomery
Muncie
Myrtle Beach
Naples
Nashua
Nashville
Nassau-Suffolk
New Bedford
New Haven
New London
New Orleans
New York
Newark
Newburgh
Norfolk
Oakland
Ocala
Odessa
Oklahoma City
Olympia
Omaha
Orange Cnty
Orlando
Owensboro
Panama City
Parkersburg
Pensacola
Peoria
Philadelphia
Phoenix
Pine Bluff
Pittsburgh
Pittsfield
Pocatello
Portland
Portland
Portsmouth
Providence
Provo
Pueblo
Punto Gorda
Racine
Raleigh
Rapid City
Reading
Redding
State
CA
NJ
LA
AL
IN
SC
FL
NH
TN
NY
MA
CT
CT
LA
NY
NJ
NY
VA
CA
FL
TX
OK
WA
NE
CA
FL
KY
FL
WV
FL
IL
PA
AZ
AR
PA
MA
ID
OR
ME
NH
RI
UT
CO
FL
WI
NC
SD
PA
CA
1970
Sprawl
Index
64.17
55.06
76.45
43.21
35.41
NA
NA
NA
66.21
29.02
37.39
48.70
79.22
18.11
5.06
26.86
NA
39.60
26.68
NA
53.12
35.99
NA
37.01
18.41
71.20
NA
NA
69.84
68.33
53.59
26.45
37.70
60.54
39.53
64.11
NA
41.66
57.12
NA
40.87
71.61
34.19
NA
45.51
64.82
60.86
45.42
NA
1980
1990
2000
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Index
Index
Index
50.70
39.06
34.76
69.36
68.68
66.35
82.07
89.35
93.15
68.36
75.91
84.42
57.13
66.09
71.34
NA
100.00
100.00
100.00
80.04
75.00
76.29
76.47
78.97
75.31
78.70
79.32
33.63
35.79
34.80
43.50
45.50
50.58
57.12
58.62
57.62
79.21
79.13
85.49
20.52
28.83
31.65
6.95
7.04
6.73
32.41
36.29
37.51
81.31
77.91
76.69
46.44
42.66
47.49
29.57
27.79
27.75
92.91
100.00
100.00
54.13
52.41
53.88
47.37
58.15
58.37
95.83
91.38
93.39
41.27
43.94
45.08
16.68
16.10
14.22
70.02
68.49
64.30
55.51
62.95
74.74
88.54
91.42
96.86
75.61
79.50
80.20
85.78
93.94
95.71
57.78
65.44
70.57
33.57
39.10
43.24
42.57
35.53
31.31
76.52
84.07
91.44
47.52
53.88
57.67
71.36
70.68
79.57
84.71
85.77
81.88
48.61
44.67
41.12
65.80
69.04
75.02
88.17
90.07
91.58
44.00
45.99
48.30
59.59
50.74
52.15
37.68
35.81
46.52
NA
95.85
92.80
52.00
53.48
61.60
74.10
77.54
81.89
88.74
92.57
93.72
57.80
62.71
64.26
100.00
93.05
90.86
37
Metropolitan
Area
State
Reno
NV
Richland
WA
Richmond
VA
Riverside
CA
Roanoke
VA
Rochester
MN
Rochester
NY
Rockford
IL
Rocky Mount
NC
Sacramento
CA
Saginaw
MI
Salem
OR
Salinas
CA
Salt Lake City UT
San Angelo
TX
San Antonio
TX
San Diego
CA
San Francisco CA
San Jose
CA
San Luis Obispo CA
Santa Barbara CA
Santa Cruz
CA
Santa Fe
NM
Santa Rosa
CA
Sarasota
FL
Savannah
GA
Scranton
PA
Seattle
WA
Sharon
PA
Sheboygan
WI
Sherman
TX
Shreveport
LA
Sioux City
IA
Sioux Falls
SD
South Bend
IN
Spokane
WA
Springfield
MA
Springfield
MO
Springfield
IL
St. Cloud
MN
St. Joseph
MO
St. Louis
MO
Stamford
CT
State College
PA
Steubenville
OH
Stockton
CA
Sumter
SC
Syracuse
NY
Tacoma
WA
1970
1980
1990
2000
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Index
Index
Index
Index
41.03
51.18
51.56
55.50
77.63
77.87
75.32
76.68
53.06
66.35
74.12
77.90
66.68
63.07
49.86
48.61
62.28
80.31
82.27
90.56
57.75
64.79
52.72
60.10
47.18
55.06
61.00
64.74
39.94
54.53
67.77
69.63
87.78
100.00
100.00
100.00
48.74
42.27
31.08
32.92
49.73
61.08
64.76
76.12
71.97
70.95
60.39
55.28
47.34
44.10
44.00
36.60
47.81
41.51
39.05
34.36
73.76
74.33
72.71
78.22
31.30
44.05
43.15
45.00
31.41
33.32
28.79
26.59
17.36
20.21
18.17
17.18
21.04
16.50
15.41
14.87
NA
75.26
75.88
71.21
42.07
45.70
40.98
37.87
NA
52.14
49.15
48.03
62.59
61.02
72.80
63.82
87.71
68.75
59.59
55.44
80.66
78.12
66.80
73.24
42.99
51.03
65.88
68.34
44.21
50.28
54.21
61.07
40.96
46.01
45.29
41.86
36.43
50.48
54.42
64.04
NA
56.83
57.00
61.38
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
49.78
65.94
73.47
77.27
53.07
69.86
70.52
77.45
47.21
60.60
67.89
61.04
40.95
50.04
56.52
60.78
39.43
45.44
45.91
47.65
54.83
57.45
59.26
63.44
59.66
81.46
76.94
83.50
43.28
54.74
56.65
69.38
NA
77.32
71.48
76.14
47.97
54.60
62.56
65.24
35.75
46.02
52.55
58.01
49.83
55.82
54.47
54.82
NA
47.76
57.21
51.61
71.55
77.23
83.17
87.15
40.40
31.84
26.86
21.62
89.79
100.00
100.00
100.00
47.39
52.45
57.72
62.85
65.21
66.03
57.22
60.84
38
Metropolitan
Area
State
Tallahassee
FL
Tampa
FL
Terre Haute
IN
Texarkana
TX
Toledo
OH
Topeka
KS
Trenton
NJ
Tucson
AZ
Tulsa
OK
Tuscaloosa
AL
Tyler
TX
Utica
NY
Vallejo
CA
Ventura
CA
Victoria
TX
Vineland
NJ
Visalia
CA
Waco
TX
Washington
DC
Waterbury
CT
Waterloo
IA
Wausau
WI
West Palm BeachFL
Wheeling
WV
Wichita
KS
Wichita Falls
TX
Williamsport
PA
Wilmington
NC
Wilmington
DE
Worcester
MA
Yakima
WA
Yolo
CA
York
PA
Youngstown
OH
Yuba City
CA
Yuma
AZ
1970
1980
1990
2000
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Sprawl
Index
Index
Index
Index
68.13
78.18
80.29
78.46
48.95
47.34
49.56
50.33
57.23
65.12
70.44
78.65
72.05
90.52
91.44
92.14
36.18
45.12
51.01
56.67
55.00
60.43
66.20
71.67
39.55
43.41
55.23
56.13
47.10
51.52
48.63
46.52
45.31
59.54
62.84
62.90
60.40
82.79
84.31
80.25
84.14
84.48
83.80
86.31
53.09
63.00
67.98
70.94
51.29
52.36
43.50
41.76
53.00
46.93
42.32
40.17
64.21
70.03
68.56
49.16
65.88
71.29
70.97
66.73
77.81
66.48
52.51
47.74
64.37
77.78
79.80
72.59
27.03
39.08
42.33
42.40
56.96
61.84
64.62
67.34
50.47
52.79
64.76
65.14
73.42
78.56
80.10
81.51
62.28
54.17
53.77
46.70
70.97
80.61
82.23
90.14
41.41
58.02
60.74
64.87
74.36
82.99
87.86
88.96
NA
63.98
70.58
75.73
72.39
84.22
90.53
92.38
47.65
58.03
59.27
62.82
56.07
65.43
68.21
71.53
NA
62.25
65.46
67.48
55.25
37.77
33.27
31.09
62.13
72.03
75.52
77.01
56.89
65.77
72.19
77.19
NA
66.78
62.77
62.48
NA
61.53
53.42
60.53
39
Grey areas = census tracts greater than 200 persons per
square mile. Dark areas = census tracts greater than 3500
persons per square mile.
Grey areas = census tracts greater than 200 persons per
square mile. Dark areas = census tracts greater than 3500
1
persons per square mile.
Grey areas = census tracts greater than 200 persons per
square mile. Dark areas = census tracts greater than 3500
2
persons per square mile.
Grey areas = census tracts greater than 200 persons per
square mile. Dark areas = census tracts greater than 3500
persons per square mile. 3