CUS  Vol.6 No.4 , December 2018
Measuring Urban Sprawl Indices at Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Level
High rates of land use change causing unsustainable development have attracted the attention of policy and planning and raised the need to understand the factors behind it. Sprawl occurs because of the residents’ preference to live in suburbs, low-cost auto travel, technological innovations, the aspiration for urbanized-automobile dependent life , the disappearance of rural agricultural land, and spatial fragmentation. Thus, it induces sustainability challenges and leads to excessive commuting and congestion. There is a greater necessity to quantify urban sprawl at Traffic Analysis Zone level so that transportation and land use planners can identify potential sprawling TAZ and can promote/develop sustainable strategies for future land use planning. In this study, sprawling indices at TAZ level were derived with and without incorporating centering effect and compared the scores of sprawling TAZs in 2010 to the sprawling TAZs for 2000. The main goal was to propose a methodology for determining potential sprawling TAZs and to identify locations responsible for sprawl in a case study city. The results can be a substantial input in planning and decision-making process.
Cite this paper: Khan, T. and Anderson, M. (2018) Measuring Urban Sprawl Indices at Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Level. Current Urban Studies, 6, 499-516. doi: 10.4236/cus.2018.64027.

[1]   Antrop, M. (2005). Why Landscapes of the Past Are Important for the Future. Landscape and Urban Planning, 70, 21-34.

[2]   Brueckner, J. K. (2000). Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. International Regional Science Review, 23, 160-171.

[3]   Brunner, A. (2013). The Effects of Urban Sprawl on Daily Life: Smart Growth Implementation of Atlantic Station. Transportation Research Board.

[4]   Cortright, J. (2011). CEOs for Cities.

[5]   ESRI Data & Map. (2004). ArcGIS 9 Media Kit. Redlands, CA: ESRI.

[6]   Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles-Style Sprawl Desirable?. Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 107-126.

[7]   Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. (2014). Measuring Urban Sprawl and Validating Sprawl Measures. Salt Lake City, Utah: Metropolitan Research Center.

[8]   Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. W. (1997). Are Compact Cities a Desirable Planning Goal? Journal of the American Planning Association, 63, 95-106.

[9]   Huntsville, C. O. (2015). 2015 State of the Economy. Chamber of Commerce of Huntsville/Madison County.

[10]   Jessup, J. (2014). Sprawl and Transportation Outcomes in Chicago: A Sprawl Index for Municipal Subsections. Transportation Research Board.

[11]   Local Employment Dynamics. n.d. Longitudinal Employer-Household Dynamics.

[12]   Luoa, J., & Dennis Wei, Y. (2009). Modeling Spatial Variations of Urban Growth Patterns in Chinese Cities: The Case of Nanjing. Landscape and Urban Planning, 91, 51-64.

[13]   Minitab Inc. (2015). Minitab Statistical Software, Release 17. Pennsylvania: State College.

[14]   National Cancer Institute. n.d. Updated Urban Sprawl Data for the United States.

[15]   Schneebergera, N., Bürgi, M., Herspergerb, A. M., & Ewaldc, K. (2007). Driving Forces and Rates of Landscape Change as a Promising Combination for Landscape Change Research—An Application on the Northern Fringe of the Swiss Alps. Land Use Policy, 24, 349-361.

[16]   United States Census Bureau. (2010). Tiger/Line Shapefiles.

[17]   Zhang, L. (2010). Does Freeway Traffic Management Strategies Exacerbate Urban Sprawl: The Case of Ramp Metering. Transportation Research Board.