5 Urbanisation and Land Use Change
83
infrastructure in the US, or subsidies for the development of industrial or retail development by the European Union are likely to support this effect (Persky and Kurban
2001).
Some scholars have presented evidence that the institutional fragmentation of
local authorities could be another important factor explaining the rate and pattern of
land consumption. According to this position, decentralised land use governance with
numerous local governments controlling urban land use is more likely to promote
urban sprawl, as it increases the number of jurisdictions seeking extra-budgetary
revenue through land conversion to urban uses (Downs 1998; Razin and Rosentraub
2000; Ulfarsson and Carruthers 2006). The size of local government units is also
important in other ways—the bigger they are, the less likely they will be reliant on one
particular investor or project, and the less vulnerable they will be to the influence of
individual local land owners with regard to planning policies and decisions. Furthermore, smaller communities are more likely to permit exclusionary zoning policies,
where local governments attempt to exclude low-income groups from their municipalities (Pendall 1999; Clingermayer 2004). These policies are driven by suburban
residents’ desires to protect their housing investments and to maintain their social
status (Downs 1998).
5.3 Impacts of Urban Land Use Change
While urban land use change on the global scale has only become a hot topic in
recent decades (e.g. Foley et al. 2005; Seto et al. 2012; Creutzig et al. 2019), urbanisation, suburbanisation and urban sprawl—i.e. urban land use change at the local
and regional level—have been a subject of major concern and passionate debate for
quite some time because of their obvious effect on the morphology of urban systems
(increases in artificial surfaces, changes in densities, alteration of land use patterns)
and consequent impacts on the environment and other amenities. While the unintended effects of urban growth have been a matter of discussion in the United States
since as early as the mid-twentieth century, they are an issue of concern all over the
globe today. Initially, urban growth was mainly blamed for endangering landscape
beauty, weakening community life and overloading the transport and network infrastructure (e.g. Nechyba and Walsh 2004). However, the debate has clearly broadened
its scope and increased in intensity over the decades, now also raising concerns
regarding the loss of habitats and biodiversity, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions,
and environmental justice in general, to name but a few.
Despite its various drawbacks, it would be an inappropriate simplification to
simply blame urban land use change as an environmentally harmful and generally
non-sustainable phenomenon. On the one hand, the use of land for urban purposes
inevitably infringes on its “value” in other (mainly environmental) respects; but on
the other hand, urban land use change is essentially a by-product of demographic
change and economic growth, and it is difficult—yet not impossible—to conceive of
83
infrastructure in the US, or subsidies for the development of industrial or retail development by the European Union are likely to support this effect (Persky and Kurban
2001).
Some scholars have presented evidence that the institutional fragmentation of
local authorities could be another important factor explaining the rate and pattern of
land consumption. According to this position, decentralised land use governance with
numerous local governments controlling urban land use is more likely to promote
urban sprawl, as it increases the number of jurisdictions seeking extra-budgetary
revenue through land conversion to urban uses (Downs 1998; Razin and Rosentraub
2000; Ulfarsson and Carruthers 2006). The size of local government units is also
important in other ways—the bigger they are, the less likely they will be reliant on one
particular investor or project, and the less vulnerable they will be to the influence of
individual local land owners with regard to planning policies and decisions. Furthermore, smaller communities are more likely to permit exclusionary zoning policies,
where local governments attempt to exclude low-income groups from their municipalities (Pendall 1999; Clingermayer 2004). These policies are driven by suburban
residents’ desires to protect their housing investments and to maintain their social
status (Downs 1998).
5.3 Impacts of Urban Land Use Change
While urban land use change on the global scale has only become a hot topic in
recent decades (e.g. Foley et al. 2005; Seto et al. 2012; Creutzig et al. 2019), urbanisation, suburbanisation and urban sprawl—i.e. urban land use change at the local
and regional level—have been a subject of major concern and passionate debate for
quite some time because of their obvious effect on the morphology of urban systems
(increases in artificial surfaces, changes in densities, alteration of land use patterns)
and consequent impacts on the environment and other amenities. While the unintended effects of urban growth have been a matter of discussion in the United States
since as early as the mid-twentieth century, they are an issue of concern all over the
globe today. Initially, urban growth was mainly blamed for endangering landscape
beauty, weakening community life and overloading the transport and network infrastructure (e.g. Nechyba and Walsh 2004). However, the debate has clearly broadened
its scope and increased in intensity over the decades, now also raising concerns
regarding the loss of habitats and biodiversity, the rise in greenhouse gas emissions,
and environmental justice in general, to name but a few.
Despite its various drawbacks, it would be an inappropriate simplification to
simply blame urban land use change as an environmentally harmful and generally
non-sustainable phenomenon. On the one hand, the use of land for urban purposes
inevitably infringes on its “value” in other (mainly environmental) respects; but on
the other hand, urban land use change is essentially a by-product of demographic
change and economic growth, and it is difficult—yet not impossible—to conceive of