Sprawl opponents have blamed sprawl for weakening linkages among the residents and social capital but there is a lack of empirical evidence to support their argument. This study examines the relationship between the county sprawl index and social-capital factors from the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey data. Using 3-level hierarchical models, this study shows that for the US, urban sprawl may support some types of social capital while negatively impacting the others. Furthermore, changing urban form via population density and street accessibility at the county level may not be ideal to improve social capital.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AndersonW PKanaroglouP SMillerE, 1996, “Urban form, energy and the environment: a review of issues, evidence and policies”Urban Studies337–35
2.
AudiracIShermyanA HSmithM T, 1990, “Ideal urban form and visions of the Good Life Florida growth management dilemma”Journal of the American Planning Association56470–482
3.
BentoA MCropperM LMobarakA MVinhaK, 2005, “The effects of urban spatial structure on travel demand in the United States”Review of Economics and Statistics87466–478
4.
BruecknerJLargeyA, 2006, “Social interaction and sprawl”, WP 060707, Department of Economics, University of California—Irvine, Irvine, CA
5.
BurchellR WLowensteinGDolphinW R, 1998Costs of Sprawl—Revisited (National Academy Press, Washington, DC)
CampbellKLeeB, 1992, “Sources of personal neighbor networks: social integration, need, or time?”Social Forces701077–1100
8.
CerveroRDuncanM, 2003, “Walking, bicycling, and urban landscapes: evidence from the San Francisco Bay area”American Journal of Public Health931478–1483
9.
CerveroRWuK, 1998, “Subcentering and community: evidence from the San Francisco Bay area”Urban Studies351059–1076
10.
EwingR, 1994, “Characteristics, causes, and effects of sprawl: a literature review”Environmental and Urban211–15
11.
EwingR, 1997, “Is Los Angeles-type sprawl desirable?”Journal of the American Planning Association63107–125
EwingRSchmidTKillingsworthRZlotARaudenbushS, 2003, “Relationship between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity”American Journal of Health Promotion1847–58
14.
FreemanL, 2001, “The effects of sprawl on neighborhood social ties: an explanatory analysis”Journal of American Planning Association6769–77
15.
GalsterGHansonRRatcliffeM RWolmanHColemanSFreihageJ, 2001, “Wrestling sprawl to the ground: defining and measuring an elusive concept”Housing Policy Debate12681–717
16.
GelmanAHillJ, 2007Data Analysis Using Regression and Multilevel/Hierarchical Models (Cambridge University Press, New York)
KahnM, 2006, “The quality of life in sprawled versus compact cities”, paper prepared for the OECD ECMT Regional Round Table 137, Berkeley, CA, http://www.OECD.org/publishing
29.
KahnMCostaD, 2002, “Civic engagement and community heterogeneity: an economist's perspective”, Social Science Research Network, http://www.ssrn.com/abstract=311839
30.
KeylockC, 2005, “Simpson diversity and the Shannon-Wienner index as special cases of generalized entropy”Oikos109203–207
31.
LeydenK, 2003, “Social capital and built environment: the importance of walkable neighborhood”American Journal of Public Health931546–1551
PutnamR, 2000Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community (Simon and Schuster, New York)
34.
PutnamR DLeonardiRNanettiR Y, 1993Making Democracy Work (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ)
35.
RaudenbushS WBrykA S, 2002Hierarchical Linear Models: Applications and Data Analysis Methods2nd edition (Sage, Newbury Park, CA)
36.
RongF, 2006Impact of Urban Sprawl on US Residential Energy Use PhD thesis, University of Maryland, College Park, MD
37.
SnijdersTBoskerR, 1999Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (Sage, London)
38.
The Roper Center, 2005Social Capital Benchmark Survey Restricted Data 2000The Roper Center for Public Opinion Research Data, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, http://www.ropercenter.uconn.edu/
39.
WeitzJMooreT, 1998, “Development inside urban growth boundaries: Oregon's empirical evidence of contiguous urban form”Journal of the American Planning Association64424–440
