5 Urbanisation and Land Use Change
85
has argued that the “continent’s best soils” have been sealed off due to the fact
that most urban centres were built on fertile valley soils and around estuaries (see
also American Farmland Trust 1994; Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Creutzig et al. 2019).
Hasse and Lathrop (2003) presented quantitative findings that prime farmland was
more vulnerable to urbanisation than farmland of lesser quality. Urban development in increasingly fragmented agricultural landscapes can also be problematic for
the production of food and fibre on the remaining farmland. For instance, conflicts
between farmers and their residential neighbours “can arise over noise, chemical
applications, and smells that are part of farming” (Merenlender et al. 2005: 2).
The (not only monetary) costs for providing settlements with public services have
often been addressed in urban sprawl studies that focus on the economic effects of
urban land use change. In 1974, the “costs of sprawl” study (Real Estate Research
Corporation 1974) presented empirical evidence for a negative interdependency
between the density of residential developments and the fiscal costs for providing
basic urban services. The findings of this study triggered an intensive dispute not only
with respect to the implications for urban development policies, but also in terms of
methodological uncertainties. A couple of subsequent studies confirmed the results
of the 1974 work (see Burchell et al. 1998 with many references); others disputed the
relevance of urban form variables on infrastructure costs (Peiser 1989; Ladd 1991).
Ultimately, researchers today widely acknowledge the idea that low-density and
dispersed urban developments are more cost-intensive than more compact development patterns (see also Speir and Stephenson 2002; Carruthers and Ulfarsson 2003;
Burchell et al. 2005).
Urban land use change has also been criticised for unintended social outcomes,
particularly in association with the broad process of suburbanisation that has affected
cities and urban agglomerations worldwide for many decades (e.g. Power 2001). The
“spatial mismatch” debate, starting in the 1960s (Gordon et al. 1989; Kain 1992),
addressed the extent of limits on residential choices for minority populations (especially people of colour in the US), combined with the intra-regional decentralisation
of employment. Proponents of the spatial mismatch hypothesis have argued that
the exclusion of low-income and non-white households from suburban communities, together with the continuous spatial dispersal of jobs, especially for low-skilled
employees, is responsible for the high rates of unemployment and the low earnings of
minority populations living in inner cities. More recently, studies have found evidence
that low job accessibility in public transport catchments has a negative effect on the
likelihood of employment among social groups that tend to lack access to cars (Matas
et al. 2010). Moreover, suburban development has also been associated with gender
issues, as it is usually linked to a traditional (key) family model, with the female adult
being responsible for reproductive work and childrearing. In such mono-functional
residential areas characteristic of suburbia in particular, women are largely unable to
participate in the labour market and even have difficulties in accessing public spaces.
More recently, another social effect of dispersed urbanisation patterns has attracted
major attention from researchers and environmental policymakers. Various studies
have highlighted the relationship between urban form variables and physical activities
with their corresponding health implications. These studies came to the conclusion
85
has argued that the “continent’s best soils” have been sealed off due to the fact
that most urban centres were built on fertile valley soils and around estuaries (see
also American Farmland Trust 1994; Kuemmerle et al. 2016; Creutzig et al. 2019).
Hasse and Lathrop (2003) presented quantitative findings that prime farmland was
more vulnerable to urbanisation than farmland of lesser quality. Urban development in increasingly fragmented agricultural landscapes can also be problematic for
the production of food and fibre on the remaining farmland. For instance, conflicts
between farmers and their residential neighbours “can arise over noise, chemical
applications, and smells that are part of farming” (Merenlender et al. 2005: 2).
The (not only monetary) costs for providing settlements with public services have
often been addressed in urban sprawl studies that focus on the economic effects of
urban land use change. In 1974, the “costs of sprawl” study (Real Estate Research
Corporation 1974) presented empirical evidence for a negative interdependency
between the density of residential developments and the fiscal costs for providing
basic urban services. The findings of this study triggered an intensive dispute not only
with respect to the implications for urban development policies, but also in terms of
methodological uncertainties. A couple of subsequent studies confirmed the results
of the 1974 work (see Burchell et al. 1998 with many references); others disputed the
relevance of urban form variables on infrastructure costs (Peiser 1989; Ladd 1991).
Ultimately, researchers today widely acknowledge the idea that low-density and
dispersed urban developments are more cost-intensive than more compact development patterns (see also Speir and Stephenson 2002; Carruthers and Ulfarsson 2003;
Burchell et al. 2005).
Urban land use change has also been criticised for unintended social outcomes,
particularly in association with the broad process of suburbanisation that has affected
cities and urban agglomerations worldwide for many decades (e.g. Power 2001). The
“spatial mismatch” debate, starting in the 1960s (Gordon et al. 1989; Kain 1992),
addressed the extent of limits on residential choices for minority populations (especially people of colour in the US), combined with the intra-regional decentralisation
of employment. Proponents of the spatial mismatch hypothesis have argued that
the exclusion of low-income and non-white households from suburban communities, together with the continuous spatial dispersal of jobs, especially for low-skilled
employees, is responsible for the high rates of unemployment and the low earnings of
minority populations living in inner cities. More recently, studies have found evidence
that low job accessibility in public transport catchments has a negative effect on the
likelihood of employment among social groups that tend to lack access to cars (Matas
et al. 2010). Moreover, suburban development has also been associated with gender
issues, as it is usually linked to a traditional (key) family model, with the female adult
being responsible for reproductive work and childrearing. In such mono-functional
residential areas characteristic of suburbia in particular, women are largely unable to
participate in the labour market and even have difficulties in accessing public spaces.
More recently, another social effect of dispersed urbanisation patterns has attracted
major attention from researchers and environmental policymakers. Various studies
have highlighted the relationship between urban form variables and physical activities
with their corresponding health implications. These studies came to the conclusion