Demand for open space and urban sprawl: The Case of Knox County, Tennessee

Abstract

Urban sprawl is often blamed for causing negative environmental effects from unsustainable land consumption and increased traffic congestion. While there is no generally accepted definition of urban sprawl, the process is well-described as the expansion of urban development into rural areas surrounding major cities, and the leapfrogging of development beyond the city’s outer boundary into smaller rural settlements (Hanham and Spiker 2005). Many studies have pointed toward the lifestyle choices of the economically affluent society for the rapid growth of urban sprawl (Brueckner 2000; Carruthers and Ulfarsson 2002; Frumkin 2002; Gordon and Richardson 1998, 2000, 2001a,b; Krieger 2005; Nechyba and Walsh 2004; Skaburskis 2000; Stone and Gibbins 2002). These lifestyle choices include preferences for larger homes and lot sizes, low density housing, mobility afforded by private vehicles, and the demand for open space. This kind of growth has raised concern about the potential negative impacts, especially the loss of benefits provided by farmland and open space, and higher costs of infrastructure and community services. Concerns about the negative consequences of urban sprawl have led local policymakers and nongovernmental activists to turn to urban and suburban open space conservation as potential mechanisms to counter urban sprawl. One example of these mechanisms includes “smart growth” policies. Smart growth policies are development initiatives that protect open space and farmland, revitalize communities, keep housing affordable, and provide more transportation choices (International City/County Management Association 2008). Local governments have incorporated “smart growth” principles designed to encourage compact development and preserve open space to curtail urban sprawl (Tracy 2003). Compact development is a key component of most smart growth policies. A large body of planning literature has addressed a variety of local strategies that are grouped under the rubric of “smart growth” (e.g., Blakely 1994; Daniels 2001; Handy 2005; Weitz 1999).