Environment: The Costs of Sprawl

• Share

In an era of environmental concern, it is common knowledge that the use of land makes sense. But does pay? In many ways, yes, says a 278-page federal report released week. The study, first of its kind, compares the costs to society of three kinds of land use: 1) allowing communities to sprawl haphazardly across landscape, 2) erecting planned density housing clusters, and 3) mixtures of both. In all cases, the economic environmental costs are lowest for high-density developments.

Entitled The Costs of Sprawl, the report measures the costs of putting 10,000 dwelling units plus schools and public buildings on 6,000 acres of suburban land. Clustering the development rather than letting it spread would:

> Use 75% less land for houses, yielding more space for parks and recreation.

> Cost 44% less to build because everything — houses, sewers, streets and other public facilities— would be concentrated.

> Generate 45% less air pollution, mainly because every family would not have to depend on one or more private cars to get around.

> Cut energy requirements by 44%, again mostly by requiring fewer cars.

> Reduce some social costs, like commuting time to work, but increase others, e.g., the crime rate and the psychic stress that results , from being crowd together, especially in a poorly designed community.

The three agencies that sponsored study — the President's Council on Quality, the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Housing and Urban Development — carefully avoid advocating one type of development over another. Indeed says Edwin Clark, the CEQ economist who organized the study, "a lot of people still think that low-density housing is environmentally and socially preferable to the alternatives." But by laying out the relative costs of the various developments, the report allows planners, politicians and citizens to make intelligent choices about how their communities should grow.