Effects of Urban Sprawl - Article Example

COMMON GROUND Introduction This brief analysis is a comparison among three articles on the topic of urban sprawl, which technical is commonly definedby the authors of all three pieces as low density, non-contiguous growth outside cities. It appears that while the three agree on the definition and even the causes of sprawl, they disagree in large part on the nature of the effects of sprawl on the wildlife in the area affected by the sprawl. Overall, Shaw (2004) extols the favourable effects of sprawl, Terris (1999) argues for the negative effects, and Chen and Duany (2000) takes the pragmatic view in relation with the other dimensions of sprawl. Effects of urban sprawl: “Growing pains” The article by Chen and Duany (2000) takes a broad view of sprawl, discussing its other repercussions beside the matter of wildlife and their habitat. The authors nevertheless place greatest stress on the effects of sprawl on the environment while they separately discuss the matter of wildlife preservation. Effects to the environment include air and water pollution, the destruction of scenic and historical vistas, the economic costs and higher level of maintenance required, traffic congestion, absence of sidewalks, and proliferation of obesity due to abandonment of walking and bicycling as means of transportation. Chen and Duany also mention the effects on animal life and habitat, the topic exclusively dwelt on by the other two articles. As to value of animal life and their habitat, the articles agree that sprawl has intruded into the natural habitats of wildlife. They disagree, however, as to how this intrusion affects both animal habits and human lifestyles. For Chen and Duany (2000), they see sprawl as a form of broad ecosystem degradation implying a destruction of the ecological territories where the animals thrive. Terris (1999), on the other hand, bewails the increasing land area occupied by urban sprawl as impacting negatively on the wildlife whose habitats are encroached upon. What Chen and Duany merely imply as the negative effects of sprawl on the ecosystem, Terris implicitly describes as posing an actual and tangible risk to the survival of American wildlife. According to Terris, the rapidly growing settlements endanger a great number of species of American wildlife, destroying their feeding and breeding grounds, causing their populations to shrink, fragment, and disappear altogether. For Shaw (2004), she sees sprawl more of an enhancement of the areas where wild animals thrive and adapt. She cites an upsurge in incidents of human encounters with wildlife, such as bears raiding trash cans and mountain lions prowling the subdivisions. More than implying that people are moving into the territories and habitats of the wildlife in the area, it means that more and more, suburban life tends to attract wild animals. Aiding the proliferation of wild animals is the natural reforestation taking place as well as the expansion of low-density residential developments outside cities that animals find attractive. Developers create ponds, establish gardens and plant trees which creates a setting conducive to animals, while in their natural habitats nearby, wetlands may be drained, hayfields may disappear or trees cut down. The result is increasing hazards of automobile collisions with deer, and human injuries or deaths due to animal attacks. Causes of sprawl According to Chen and Duany, Increasingly complex requirements for urban planning have caused subdivision developers to resort to sprawl. Some requirements for instance require wide streets to accommodate vehicles travelling at 65 mph, setbacks of buildings far from streets, parking lots of a certain minimum size, etc. Wide streets and curved corners encourage use of cars and speeding, thereby also endangering pedestrians/bicyclists. Other causes cited by this article include population growth, technological change, and the misguided government policies on development and its inability to plan for future growth (Chen & Duany, 2000). Shaw agrees with Chen and Duany that growing affluence of residents tends to encourage the proliferation of less-dense environments. Wealth drives sprawl by enabling people to purchase their own automobiles and to relocate themselves in more spacious appointments far from the city, with its noise and pollution, crime rate and spatial constriction. On the other hand, Terris, without explicitly mentioning affluence, implies as much by noting that urban land development has exceeded population growth, to which sprawl is attributed. Solutions While the three articles diverge in the manner sprawl affects wildlife and the natural habitat, they agree, however, that something must be done about sprawl in order to manage it better, so as not to further exacerbate its destructive effects. The authors essentially recommend an improvement in the planning of land development, but in different ways. Chen and Duany as well as Terris take the view that existing infrastructure in areas of high population density may be rehabilitated and maximized, in order to reduce the need to establish low density areas outside the city. They suggest land preservation, park improvements, community reinvestment, and public transit. The article notes that there already exists a wave of innovation, pursuing creative economic incentives, new construction technologies, sophisticated marketing and demographic forecasting techniques, public information campaign of the estimated costs of sprawl. Revision of construction codes are being enacted to accommodate mixed-use neighbourhoods (including parks, provision of sidewalks and bicycle lanes, proximity of shops and commercial establishments to residences to encourage pedestrian travel. New zoning codes give incentives to developers for proximity to transits, access for pedestrians, availability of existing infrastructure, redevelopment of brownfields (i.e., abandoned industrial sites), and so forth (Chen & Duany, 2000; Terris, 1999). Shaw (2004) encourages the planning of eco-developments that help maintain the natural environment while developing specific home sites. Shaw believes that a systematic approach to low-density settlements is going to benefit the wildlife by designing human settlements that may beneficially co-exist with the natural environment of the animals thriving in the area. She foresees the emergence of new organizations and entrepreneurs that will aid in the integration of nature and human lifestyles. The article concludes that there is no reason to doubt that wildlife may not survive and thrive in the suburbs. Wordcount = 1,000 excluding title References Chen, Donald D. T. & Duany, Andres. “The Science of Smart Growth.” Scientific American. 283 (6): 84, 12/01/2000, Shaw, Jane. “Nature in the Suburbs”, The Heritage Foundation, 18 February 2004. Retrieved 6 February 2011 from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2004/02/Nature-in-the-Suburbs Terris, Jutka. “Unwelcom (Human) Neighbors: The Impacts of Sprawl on Wildlife,” Natural Resources Defense Council. August 1999. Retrieved 6 February 2011 from http://www.nrdc.org/cities/smartGrowth/pwild.asp Read More