Recent Related Studies & Reports

A Layman's Perspective on the Issue of Urban Sprawl

Professor Paul G. Thomas
November 2001

Draft, not for quotation. This paper represents the opinions of the author alone. Draft, not for quotation.

I  Introduction

The term "urban sprawl" has become a catch phrase for everything that is supposedly bad about urban growth. Sprawl is blamed for costly infrastructure, higher taxes, loss of prime agricultural land, environmental degradation, decline of inner city, traffic congestion, fiscal disparities among local governments, rising housing prices, and even monotonous aesthetically unappealing suburban and exurban development. The causal links between these negative outcomes and the process of urban sprawl have not been demonstrated conclusively, but there is enough of an apparent connection that the attacks on sprawl strike a responsive chord with many people, especially in cities.

This brief paper offers one person's interpretation of a small sample of the voluminous literature on the urban sprawl phenomenon. The paper attempts to do four things. First, it sets forth a summary of some of the various definitions of sprawl. Secondly, it examines the debates over the causes of sprawl. Thirdly, the paper seeks to identify which among the outcomes associated with sprawl are truly deleterious and which are not. Fourthly, the paper examines possible policy responses to sprawl. Finally, the paper offers some impressions of the issue of sprawl within the particular context of the Capital Region of Manitoba, a territory that has been characterized for several decades with slow growth, rather than the fast growth usually associated with sprawl.

II  Defining sprawl

There is no universally accepted definition and measurement of sprawl. Different commentators define it differently. Many people approach the topic of sprawl like the judge talking about pornography: "I cannot define it but I know it when I see it." Definitions matter because they imply something about the nature of the problem and what can/should be done about it in terms of possible public policy responses.

For many commentators the term sprawl has negative connotations of badly managed urban growth. The term is used to describe inefficient and inappropriate use of land due to low-density, dispersed and uncoordinated development. Other observers see sprawl as an inevitable stage in the continuous process of economic, technological, social and political change. Sprawl—or the outward expansion of cities—has been an historical trend for centuries. The process reflects the operation of economic markets for land and the choices made by individuals as to where they want to live and locate their businesses. Proponents of markets argue that over time economic forces will correct the initial consequences of sprawl. For example, the process of in-fill housing and commercial development will eventually occupy empty spaces caused by leapfrog development. In short, there are at least two broad schools of thought on the inevitability and desirability of so-called sprawl; and there are numerous other perspectives on various other dimensions of what is clearly a multi-dimensional phenomenon. While there is a technical, analytical component to the debate over sprawl, when the issues enter the arena of public debate there is often an emotional clash of philosophical, culture and lifestyle differences.

In thinking about sprawl, it is helpful to disaggregate or to decompose the phenomenon. There are conceivably three potential types of sprawl based upon where development takes place and where the impacts of such development occur:

• land use development at the periphery of a particular jurisdiction where the impacts occur only within that jurisdiction, e.g., suburban expansion within a city that does not have spillover effects on adjacent municipalities.
• land use developments that take place in one locality and have impacts beyond the boundaries of that jurisdiction on adjacent municipalities
• land use developments that occur in one jurisdiction, cause impacts in neighbouring jurisdictions and these impacts, in turn, have consequences for the jurisdiction that took the original decision.

An example of the latter, "feedback loop" situation would be a city encouraging "sububanization," increasing its infrastructure costs, being forced to raise taxes, causing some people to relocate to adjacent municipalities and then being faced with revenue losses and higher expenses for things like highways. Identifying who caused sprawl and where the effects take place is an important first step to deciding whether governments should intervene in "normal" market processes and in deciding what the appropriate policy responses should be.

Another approach to defining sprawl, is to describe the consequences or traits associated with the phenomenon. Again, this approach is not entirely value-free, it involves subjective judgments about what are positive versus negative outcomes. There is also the attribution problem of determining whether particular development decisions caused certain outcomes or consequences. Most lists of the consequences of sprawl would include the following:

• unlimited and uncoordinated extension of urban activities into the rural countryside
• low-density and often single-dimensional development of a residential or commercial nature, rather than mixed use
• "leapfrog" development which occurs when developers choose to build on less expensive land farther away from the city, bypassing vacant land located closer to the city
• strip or ribbon development, which involves extensive commercial development in a linear pattern along both sides of major highways, which contributes to traffic congestion and is ugly
• fragmentation of powers over land use planning and regulatory enforcement caused by multiple competitive local jurisdictions and blurred responsibilities between local governments and higher levels of government
• premature and poorly planned conversion of rural land, especially agricultural land, to other uses
• environmental degradation, such as air pollution caused by excessive reliance upon the automobile, depleted water quality caused by urban runoff and use of septic fields, and loss of natural habitats for wildlife
• land speculation
• reliance mainly on the trickle-down process to provide housing to low-income householders and rising concentrations of poverty in the inner city.

These patterns of development are often portrayed as unfortunate outcomes of a lack of planning, uncoordinated decision-making and/or a lack of enforcement of land use regulations. It needs to be recognized, however, that planning doesn't necessarily prevent sprawl. Governments can follow a market-based, decentralized, laissez-faire approach to planning that accepts and adjusts to uncoordinated private decision-making.

Geography can represent a practical limit on sprawl. With its proximity to the oceans and mountains, there are limits to the outward extension of a city like Vancouver. The level of sprawl in a particular location can fluctuate over time. During a period of rapid growth different localities may be either the origin of, or the destination for, various features of sprawl. However, at a later historical point those same localities may experience slow growth and limited or no sprawl. Policy-makers have to be careful that they are not responding to past trends as opposed to current realities. They also have to recognize that a big part of the dissatisfaction with sprawl has less to do with economics and the environment, but rather reflects an aesthetic dissatisfaction with the communities and lifestyles found at the peripheries of cities and beyond. Critics decry the social homogeneity, strip mall developments and attachment to the automobile that allegedly comes with suburban and ex-urban development. There is, in short, a clash of cultures that is amplified and sensationalized by the politics of competing jurisdictions, by the campaigns of interest groups and by the media coverage of the sprawl issue.

Separating fact from fiction, myth from reality, becomes difficult in debates over sprawl. For example, it is not always clear what came first: do larger highways cause sprawl, reflect sprawl that is already underway, or both? Public opinion with respect to sprawl is an unreliable guide because it is often ill-informed, transient and ambivalent, if not contradictory. Surveys suggest, for example, that the public endorses policies to preserve farmland and open spaces, but also believe that private property owners should be allowed to do what they want with their land-within the limits of zoning. Reconciling these paradoxical views represents a challenge for policy-makers and is used as an argument for a market-oriented approach to land use policy.

III  The causes of sprawl

The loose way in which the concept of sprawl is used means that causes and effects are often confused or interchanged. Also, like other aspects of the sprawl phenomenon, controversy surrounds the causes of sprawl. In broad terms there are both "push" and "pull" factors which cause sprawl in the direction of the periphery of cities and beyond to neighbouring localities. Pull factors are those features of an area, which attract people and business to locate or relocate there. Examples of pull factors would be large lots and safe streets. Push factors are features that drive people away, such as high housing prices and crime.

The following list represents some of the potential causes of sprawl. In each situation the factors which cause sprawl can be somewhat different so that there is not one policy response which will work in all situations. Some of the causes of sprawl are:

• fragmented jurisdiction over planning
• competition among local governments for residential and commercial development
• lower land prices
• technological change, like the automobile and telecommunications
• public investment in roads, water, sewer and other infrastructure in peripheral areas
• consumer desire for rural lifestyle
• crime and safety considerations
• commercial lending practices that favour suburban and ex-urban development
• land regulations that promote/allow suburban style development
• pressures from developers and the extent to which there are other groups opposing sprawl
• short-term and parochial outlooks of politicians

These causes are not listed in order of importance. Not all conditions would apply to every situation and the relative importance of a particular factor can vary over time. It is not always clear, for example, whether building highways contributes to sprawl or reflects sprawl that is already underway.

IV  What's "good" and "bad" about sprawl

In formulating an appropriate policy response to sprawl, it is necessary to distinguish the truly objectionable outcomes from those aspects of development which are an inevitable part of the normal functioning of the land market. Presumably an anti-sprawl policy(ies) would be intended to curb "excessive" spatial extension of the city to its peripheries and beyond. The key word is excessive. Although cities must grow spatially to accommodate expanding populations, where that growth takes place, the timing of such growth and whether such growth is excessive are controversial matters.

Some aspects of sprawl reflect land market forces at work. For a city to grow spatially, developers must be able to buy land from existing users, usually farmers. Under the "hidden hand" model of development, conversion of land to non-agricultural use reflects the fact that the land is worth more and makes a greater economic contribution in a developed state. The implication is that urban growth is not an indiscriminate process, devouring agricultural land without regard to its worth. Studies suggest that productive agricultural land is much more resistant to urban expansion than unproductive agricultural land, reflecting the operation of a free market economy where resources find their most productive uses. Of course, not everyone accepts that the land market operates strictly according to free market principles or that the market can account for all the costs and benefits, both short-term and long-term, arising from different types of development. Loss of "scarce" farmland is seen as a cost of development which is not captured by market processes. But, in the eyes of a free enterprise economist, if productive agricultural land became truly scarce, its selling price would rise, making it more resistant to urban encroachment. In this perspective, land speculation and discontinuous development are simple reflections of market forces at work.

In an article titled, "Decomposing Urban Sprawl," The Planning Review 72, 3(2001), Richard Peiser argues that the misunderstandings about sprawl result from the fact that the critics confuse land development "in process" with land development at "full completion." Land development takes place in waves: first, isolated subdivisions with large-lot homes; second, smaller-lot subdivisions served by utilities and internal roads; and third, the beginnings of commercial and industrial development and in-fill housing to occupy the vacant spaces left by original "leapfrog" development. This process may occur in a relatively short period-within a decade-if growth is occurring rapidly; or it may go on for many more years if growth is slow. In labelling the results of sprawl as good, bad or neutral, it is useful to distinguish at what stage an area is in an ongoing developmental cycle. Some problems caused by the normal functioning of land markets are self-correcting over time. Four outcomes of sprawl are seen by Peiser to be intermediate, natural results of the development process: low-density development, leapfrog development, scattered development and land speculation. Efforts by governments to control or to mitigate these impacts may do more harm than good.

At the full development stage of the sprawl process, six outcomes are identified by Peiser as "bad": gluttonous use of land, monotonous development, environmental degradation, poor accessibility, poor infrastructure and a lack of functional open spaces. These outcomes are the result of so-called market failures, regulatory failure and/or both. The challenge for policy-makers is how to prevent these "bad" results of sprawl. According to Peiser, the appropriate policy approach involves the combined use of both incentives and controls (regulations) to accomplish two objectives:

1. to allow for the fully richness of densities and uses to occur in an area over time
   
   
2. to ensure that the infrastructure, road networks, public services and open spaces are being properly planned to support the ultimate build out.

Two other potential results of sprawl are seen as more complex and problematic in the sense that they result from a series of complex forces and cannot be attributed solely to the sprawl process. The two results are decay of the inner city and the concentration of the poor in certain areas. Peiser cites an empirical study of 162 urban centres where it was found that ten traits of sprawl exhibited no statistically significant relationship to various features of urban decline. Preventing sprawl will not by itself cure the problems of decline in the inner city.

Peiser's overall conclusion is that proper planning at the start of the growth cycle is key to maximizing the benefits and minimizing the costs of urban expansion:

It is here (the initial phase) that planning is most crucial because opportunities to preserve open space and to design appealing neighbourhoods and commercial centres are greatest. Unfortunately, most newly developed communities are ill equipped to provide the planning and development leadership required. The worst aspects of sprawl occur when no one is looking out for community interests as a whole-utility engineers try to minimize utility costs, developers minimize development costs, and short-term interests dominate long-term community welfare objectives. Solving the problems associated with sprawl requires complex, multi-facet solutions. Issues of regional governance and how to pay for public facilities and services must be addressed.

Peiser comes down finally in favour of some form of regional growth management. His perspective is that of the rational planner; it requires foresight, long-range thinking, patience, reliance upon objective analysis and adoption of a regional approach which overrides more parochial decision-making. Peiser's conclusion raises the issue of whether institutional structures contribute separately to the sprawl phenomenon.

In much of the literature, there is a presumed linkage between sprawl and fragmentation of jurisdiction over land use caused by the presence of multiple, overlapping authorities operating within a region. A research study (E. Rozin and M. Rosentraub, "Are Fragmentation and Sprawl Interlinked? North American Evidence" Urban Affairs Review 35, 6 July, 2000) examined the relationship between municipal fragmentation and sprawl in all US and Canadian metropolitan areas with 500,000 or more population. Canadian areas generally were less fragmented and more compact than their US counterparts. Much could be written about the strengths and limits of the analysis contained in this study, but the authors drew three general conclusions:

• there is a relatively weak association between fragmented government structures and sprawl
• low levels of fragmentation do not guarantee compact development. In contrast, the combination of high levels of fragmentation and low levels of sprawl is rare. Compact forms of development do not coexist with most fragmented municipal patterns, perhaps because fragmentation precludes the control of sprawl or because compact residential development reduces prospects for fragmentation
• given the weak association of fragmentation and sprawl, assessments of the pros and cons of sprawl cannot always assume fragmentation as an integral aspect of sprawl or as a major factor responsible for sprawl. Nevertheless, lack of excessive fragmentation seems to be a condition for compact development, although it is not a sufficient condition.

Several comments might be made on these conclusions. First, the concern is with "excessive" sprawl and "excessive" fragmentation. What is excessive is partly in the eye of the beholder. Multiple, smaller jurisdictions may be seen by some people as a source of greater responsiveness and accountability to the local community. Second, there could be reasons, other than eliminating sprawl, for streamlining and consolidating jurisdictions in metropolitan regions, such as the achievement of economic efficiencies of various kinds. The efficiency gains from rationalization are, however, controversial. Third, even if there is a link between fragmentation and sprawl, this does not necessarily mean that consolidation of jurisdictions is the only answer. It is possible that fragmented areas can spontaneously or through encouragement work together to correct outcomes of sprawl that are regarded as negative. Assessments of sprawl and of municipal fragmentation have to be approached somewhat separately, rather than conflating or combining the two phenomenon.

V  Possible policy responses to sprawl

There is a range of possible policy responses to the phenomenon of urban sprawl. Such policies can operate on several levels-provincial, regional and local-and involve different types of policy instruments-statutes, policy statements, guidelines, regulations, official plans, individual decisions, etc. Various types of interventions can be used alone and in combination.

While there is in theory an array of policy tools available to governments to control sprawl, a number of factors constrain their freedom of choice in practice:

• As has been seen in the above discussion, debates over sprawl reflect in microcosm more general debates about the role of governments within the economy and society. Regional planning is both political and ideological because it involves potential restrictions on the rights of property holders and on the freedom of movement of people. Attempts to divorce planning completely from politics are probably futile and it would have serious implications for democratic accountability.
• Politicians at all levels of government strive to govern as much as possible on the basis of a consensus. They will generally favour less coercive measures to achieve results because they recognize there are social and political costs associated with heightened conflict and divisions within the community.
• Imposed "regional solution" will command weak political support from the key stakeholders and from citizens at large. On the other hand, consultations and calls for collaboration may not work when there is a clash of fundamental values and interests. The "political feasibility" of possible solutions to the issues of urban sprawl is an important consideration.
• Considerations of technical, financial and administrative feasibility are also important. The apparent attractiveness of various policy options has to be weighed against the availability of the information/knowledge, finances and administrative capacities of the various jurisdictions to carry out different kinds of actions.
• Successful change involves balancing the past with the future. The traditions and cultures of a region will limit the choices open to decision-makers. For example, urban containment has been widely practiced in Europe for many years and is a key component of the "smart growth" movement in the United States, where it has been incorporated into the growth management policies of 73 metropolitan areas (see R.J. Burby, et. al. "Urban Containment Policy and exposure to Natural Hazards: Is There a Connection?" Journal of Environmental Planning and Management Vol. 44 (July 2001).

In summary, the choice of policy instruments to deal with urban sprawl is far from a straightforward, technical and process; it is inherently value-laden, subjective and political in nature. Analysis can help to inform and guide the process, but it will not eliminate the need for judgment, negotiation, accommodation and persuasion.

The potential remedies to urban sprawl are numerous and varied. Each of the leading approaches will be discussed in several brief paragraphs. More in-depth examination could be undertaken if any of these options was considered sound and feasible.

Municipal consolidation through amalgamation or annexation is one policy response that has been used to deal with regional issues when jurisdictions are fragmented. An additional goal of consolidation is to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of local governance and municipal service delivery. These were the goals of the adoption of Unicity for the Winnipeg region back in the earlier 1970s. More recently, in April, 1996 Halifax, Dartmouth, the town of Bedford and the municipality of Halifax County were amalgamated. The boundaries of the city became the boundaries of the former Halifax County. While there had been cooperation in areas of regional transportation and sewer/water, it was anticipated that the amalgamation would bring about regional planning from a shared, as opposed to a divided, perspective. It was also anticipated that consolidation would reduce competition for economic development through the creation of the Greater Halifax Partnership and the Regional Development Agency. Despite these potential benefits, consolidation was controversial and the transition took a number of years. Two assessments of the results of this consolidation yielded mixed findings. The restructuring of political and administrative functions is a complex task, and success will depend on the specific circumstances of the municipalities involved.

Urban growth boundaries (UGBs) represents a zoning tool that restricts urban growth by banning development in designated areas of urban fringes. A UGB is defined as a legally enforced dividing line that separates urban land uses (such as compact residential and commercial development from rural ones (such as farming and large lot residential development). The benefits of UGBs are held to include greater predictability of the development process, encouragement of infill and redevelopment of existing urban areas, protection of agriculture resources, more cost-effective provision of public services and less environmental damage than occurs with sprawl. In the state of Oregon, cities and towns are required by law to delineate a UGB to accommodate anticipated growth over a 20 year period. Portland's boundary has been in place since the 1970s and 90 percent of the new growth has occurred within the UGB. Recently residents of Portland voted to retain the boundary. High density, infill and redevelopment are encouraged within the UGB. Critics of UGBs insist that they involve guesswork about the causes and future direction of sprawl. Knowing where to draw the line becomes critical. Sufficient space must be provided for future growth or the growth will leapfrog beyond the UGB as it did in Portland. By the time that growth reaches the outer limits, the land abutting the UGB may have been developed by "country houses" and hobby farms who will resist strenuously encroachments on their large lot lifestyles. A UGB may also be unduly restrictive, leading to rising housing costs, to unwarranted increases in density and to the congestion and hazards that accompany more dense patterns of urban living. Some commentators argue that Portland's UGB is responsible for excessive house prices, whereas others argue that the boundary is so loose that the price effects are negligible. This controversy illustrates the important point that setting a boundary properly requires an understanding on the underlying dynamics of growth in a particular area-knowledge which is not always readily available.

Regional collaboration and planning is a second option. More and more in the United States, metropolitan areas are banding together to define a share vision, to build relationships, to pool their resources, to resolve longstanding disputes and to make themselves more competitive in the emerging global marketplace. This movement has been called the new regionalism. Unlike post regional efforts, more than governments are involved and often the leadership comes from non-governmental entities-business, universities, think tanks, social groups, etc. Occasionally, powerful regional agencies have been created, but these are the exception. More commonly, regional planning efforts are organized around regional councils of governments that have entered into partnerships with outside institutions and groups. "The key to regional action is for institutions…to recognize what role they play in the structure of the region and then to combine with other groups to achieve specific regional goals they view as important ("Crossing the Line: The New Regional Dynamics," Governing, January 2000). The leader in such regional efforts will not always be government, but governments can provide support in a variety of ways—supportive policies, tax incentives, grants, information, organizational capacity, etc. An example of the regionalism is the state of Maryland, where a set of "smart growth" strategies were adopted. Unlike previous state land use initiatives, the Maryland program did not rely upon regulations. Rather the core of the program involves new priorities for state spending on infrastructure that serves to reinforce existing communities rather than encourage new sprawl.

There is, however, no one formula that fits all situations. What is common to the new regionalism is the recognition that regions are a basic unit of economic growth and prosperity, as well as a social and ecological entity. Involving community leaders—public, private, third sector, institutional, etc.—can raise regional consciousness and lead to cooperative regional action. The final report of the Alberta Capital Region Governance Review (December 2000) reflects some of the thinking of the new regionalism. After two years of consultation and study, the report insisted that top-down direction would not work and that the best approach was to establish durable regional partnerships to achieve agreed upon regional goals. In this case, the review committee called for a formal body, comprised of municipal representatives, with weighted voting rules, to be used as a decision-making mechanism when a consensus could not be found.

A third approach to dealing with urban sprawl would be to require developers to pay the full costs of service provision to new residential and commercial developments. The argument is that land markets do not operate in an unbiased way because of the hidden subsidies to development in the form of public expenditures on highways, water, sewage, utilities, parks, schools, etc. Currently, development charges typically cover some but not all of the additional costs associated with subdivision creation. Writing of the Winnipeg area, Richard Lennon and Chris Leo, Stopping the Sprawl (January 2001) observed that current city charges cover only roads, underground municipal services and parks. It is also often alleged that the pricing of infrastructure is done on an average rather than a marginal cost basis. In other words, the costs of new services are shared among all residents within a city, a rural municipality and even the province at large. Lower infrastructure costs mean lower taxes and a willingness by homeowners to pay a higher price. With houses selling for more, developers are able to pay more for agricultural land. Thus, by undercharging new homeowners for the infrastructure costs they generate, the current system of public finance contributes to urban sprawl, both inside and outside of the city.

The way to correct the problem, is to alter infrastructure financing to reflect the full costs. In the United States, many communities have done this by adopting impact fees. Under this system, infrastructure costs are paid up front in a lump sum fashion rather than being spread over many years of property tax payments. The fees are calculated to offset infrastructure costs so that no additional financing is required and the fees are paid directly by developers instead of homeowners. The amounts can be substantial. The effect is to depress the price that developers can pay for agricultural land and this in turn slows the sprawl process.

Fees have been fought in the courts by developers, who have challenged the authority of local governments to levy them and the methods used to calculate them. Critics of sprawl and proponents of market-determined land-use patterns often agree that governments should not subsidize development. However, the critics argue that were it not for subsidies there would be no sprawl and they point to earlier historical periods when cities grew in a more compact manner ("the street-car suburb" decades of the early 20th century). Market-oriented commentators reply that the automobile changed living and working patterns and that there would still be sprawl, subsidies or no subsidies. It has also been pointed out (Samuel R. Staley, "The Sprawling of America: In Defence of the Dynamic City" (February 1999) that making development pays "its own way" has equity implications. If land use plans were designed to allow only housing that pays its way using marginal-cost pricing, only high-end housing would be encouraged because low and medium priced housing could not pay its way.

In conjunction with impact fees, cost of community services studies (COCS) are being adopted in many rural states to combat loss of agricultural land. COCS studies are meant to estimate the net fiscal contribution of different land uses to local budgets. Most such studies find that residential development fails to generate sufficient revenues to cover the costs of providing services. By implication this means that other kinds of development—commercial, industrial and agricultural—subsidize housing. While relatively easy and inexpensive to conduct, COCS studies have a number of limitations; they are static rather than dynamic, they ignore non land-use revenue sources, they ignore interdependencies among land uses and they ignore alternative, more efficient methods of municipal service delivery.

If the aim of public policy is to protect farmland and open spaces, a number of policy options arise. The purchase of development rights involves a voluntary exchange of money in return for strong deed restrictions on property. Under this approach the landowner voluntarily sells to a government entity the right to develop the property while still retaining title to the property; however the uses of the property are limited according to a legally-binding deed of easement (See Thomas L. Daniels, "Coordinating Opposite Approaches to Managing Urban Growth and Curbing Sprawl" American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Vol. 60, 1 (January 2001). In essence, the value of the development rights is the unearned increase that would accrue to the landowner from selling the land on the open market. Purchase of development rights programs began in the 1970s as a means to control growth and to preserve agriculture land. Such programs give farmers an alternative to selling their farm to their children or to another farmer or selling it for development. As of 1998, fifteen states and several municipalities have adopted purchase of development programs which enable them to freeze land in agricultural or open use in perpetuity or for a specified time period. According to Daniels, a purchase of development rights program should be employed in combination with agricultural zoning to discourage speculation on non-preserved adjacent properties. Unless such programs are coordinated with local or regional planning efforts, they may result in the preservation of land that should be developed.

Finally, Daniels points out that a purchase of development rights program has both horizontal and vertical equity implications. Put simply, this means that it benefits only owners of farmland and open space. Sellers of development rights are also being allowed to capture the increase in the land value brought on by public infrastructure investment. In essence, the public is paying twice: first for the infrastructure and then for the increased value in the land. This leads Daniels to recommend the use of land value taxation to address the equity issues.

Another approach to farmland preservation in the United States involves the use of private land trusts. Such trusts grew in number from 1990 to 2000 from 743 to 1,213, a 63 percent increase. Forty percent of these land trusts have protected farmland.

New approaches to zoning are another growth management tool. Performance zone regulates the intensity of land use rather than the purpose for which land is used (prescriptive zoning). Performance zoning measures such things as residential densities, height and bulk of structures, proximity of different uses to others, etc. Zoning to accommodate mixed use can be used as part of this approach. The use of zoning to encourage clusters of development is another technique to reduce costs of infrastructure and to preserve open spaces.

Tax base sharing mechanisms can reduce the motivation of local governments to encourage urban sprawl and discourages a "beggar-thy-neighbour" approach to commercial development. A plan in the Minneapolis/St Paul metropolitan area places 40 percent of the net gain in local tax revenues generated by industrial and commercial development since a base year (1971) into a pool which is distributed among local authorities according to a formula that takes into account the population and the fiscal capacity of the local authority. The plan encourages local authorities to look more favourably on dense residential development and on the conservation of open space. It also lessens fiscal disparities between rich and poor communities, although this equity goal is a secondary consideration. Other options in terms of tax sharing are examined in Eran Razen, "Policies to Control Urban Sprawl: Planning Regulations or Changes in the 'Rules of the Game'" Urban Studies 35, 2(1998).

Smart growth planning based on geographic information systems (GIS) and graphic modeling hardware can be used to project growth scenarios and to forecast impacts. GIS is used extensively in Portland to manage its urban growth policies. The availability of information on line allows for greater openness and the engagement of citizens with the planning process. (See Brian Robinson, "Curbing Urban Sprawl," FCW.COM, May 3, 1999).

In summary, there is no shortage of ideas about how to control urban sprawl. Each community has a different urban sprawl situation and therefore different approaches need to be looked at more carefully than has been possible here. The next section provides an overview of the sprawl issue in the Capital Region of Manitoba.

VI  Sprawl and the Manitoba Capital Region

Does the Manitoba Capital Region face a problem of urban sprawl? Unfortunately there is no straightforward, simple answer to this question. The problem starts with the fact there is no universally accepted definition of sprawl and therefore no agreement on how it should be measured.

Sprawl takes place both inside and outside of cities. In the case of the Manitoba Capital Region, we are concerned about the extent and the consequences of dispersed residential, commercial and industrial development outside of compact city, town and village locations. If sprawl is perceived as a problem, the implication is that dispersed patterns of development can be excessive and harmful in a number of ways.

Given that the concerns related to sprawl are varied, measurement of the phenomenon can be elusive and controversial. Density is often the first, but not the only measure of sprawl. Measures of density would include things like the percentage of single-unit detached houses, housing unites per square kilometer and population per square kilometer.. If the concern is with the loss of agricultural land and open spaces, sprawl could be said to occur when the rate at which land is converted to other non-natural uses exceeds the rate of population growth.

The paper by Richard Lennon and Christopher Leo, "Stopping the Sprawl" (January 2001) combines these two kinds of measures to make the case that, even though Winnipeg has been a slow growth metropolitan region, it has suffered from sprawl. For example, during the 20 years period from 1966 to 1986, Toronto consumed 27 hectares of land per thousand population growth, Calgary consumed 43 hectors and Edmonton 59 hectares. For Winnipeg the percentage was 95 hectares. On the matter of density, the mean population density for Winnipeg between 1971 and 1996 declined by 16 percent, the second highest decline (behind only Montreal at 23 percent) among nine metropolitan centres-two of which, Vancouver and Ottawa, showed increased densities. Assuming a causal link between suburbanization and ex-urban development and inner city decline, the two authors discovered a 27 percent decline in inner-city density and a 23 percent decline in the inner-city population of Winnipeg. "Population growth within the city of Winnipeg was 3.7 percent from 1986 to 1991, and 0.3 percent over the next five years, while ex-urban growth took off, with municipalities bordering the city growing at rates in excess of ten percent over five years, and in some instances more than 20 percent" (Lennon and Leo, pg. 9). On the assumption that sprawl is a serious problem for Winnipeg, the two authors call for strong growth management policies.

It should be noted that percentage growth figures for neighbouring municipalities are high because the population bases are relatively small. Also, the authors acknowledge elsewhere in their article that inner city decline is a complex process and not all of it can be attributed to either suburbanization and/or exurban development, although they do argue that these two types of sprawl are important contributing factors.

The Final Report of the Capital Region Review Panel (1999) argued that low-density outward expansion had been a long-standing trend. Only 12.5 percent of the 1996 regional population lived outside of Winnipeg, a ratio which is substantially lower than that of other urban regions in Canada. Also, of that 12.5 percent, approximately 40 percent lived in Selkirk, Stonewall and other built-up centres. Only 7.5 percent of the 1996 regional population were living in rural residences (including farmsteads). Development outside of Winnipeg had been primarily residential. Should increased commercial and industrial activity follow, the situation might become critical because of counter-productive municipal competition for economic development and increased fiscal disparities among jurisdictions. Overall, the Review Panel suggested that little had happened in the capital Region that warranted the epithet "sprawl" and reported there was no consensus that a "crisis" was looming. While there was the need to develop a regional perspective and to create a forum to address regional issues, the Panel concluded that "the risks facing us because of the current deficiencies in the regional framework are not generally so critical as to require direct Provincial intervention. Provincial leadership might be more effectively exercised by enabling and supporting municipalities and residents within the Region to develop and implement a shared Regional vision" (p. 48). Adopting this somewhat benign view of development outside of the city, the Review Panel's primary recommendation was the passage of a provincial statute giving municipalities permission to form regional associations.

In a paper, "Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an Elusive Concept" published by the Fannie Mae Foundation in 2000, the authors defined sprawl as follows: a pattern of land use in an urban area (UA) that exhibits low levels of some combination of eight distinct dimensions:

1. Density: the average number of residential united per square mile of developable land in a UA.
2. Continuity: the degree to which developable land has been developed at urban densities in an unbroken fashion.
3. Concentration: the degree to which development is located in relatively few square miles of the total UA.
4. Compactness: the degree to which development has been "clustered" to minimize the amount of land in each square mile of developable land occupied by residential or nonresidential uses.
5. Centrality: the degree to which residential and/or nonresidential development is located close to the central business district of an urban area.
6. Nuclearity: the extent to which a UA is characterized by a mononuclear (as contrasted with a polynuclear) pattern of development.
7. Diversity: the degree to which two different land uses exist within the same micro-area, and the extent to which this pattern is typical of the entire UA.
8. Proximity: the degree to which different land uses are close to each other across a UA.

It would be possible, although not always easy or inexpensive, to develop measures of these eight dimensions of sprawl. These two analyses of developments in the Manitoba Capital Region suggest that the sprawl problem is in the eye of the beholder. Statistics alone will not change entrenched attitudes towards sprawl. Measures or indicators of sprawl are inherently subjective. What you choose to measure and how you measure it reflect underlying assumptions about the nature of the problem and value judgments about what is important. Also, indictors of sprawl represent "dumb data" in the sense that they do not speak for themselves. The meaning of the statistics is open to varying interpretations, as is their significance and what actions should be taken in response to them. This is not an argument against tracking the sprawl process through its various stages. Rather, it is recognition that sprawl data is the starting point for a useful debate, not a definitive answer for the issues involved.

For more information contact capitalregion@gov.mb.ca