Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 259–265
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Landscape and Urban Planning
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/landurbplan
Editorial
Urban expansion, sprawl and inequality
1. Introduction
According to the United Nations, 2014 ‘World Urbanization Pro-
spects’, the pace of urbanization in the recent decades has been rapid,
often doubling in size every decade; urbanization could add another 2.5
billion urban residents by 2050, with close to 90 percent of the increase
occurring in Asia and Africa. The greatest urban growth will take place
in developing countries such as China and India. This unprecedented
increase in urban population could not only pose challenges to pro-
viding jobs, housing, and infrastructure, but also exert more pressure on
urban land management, spatial equity, and more generally sustainable
development. The recent global financial crisis has intensified the de-
bates over inequality (Stiglitz, 2012; Wei, 2015), and equity has be-
come a top sustainable development goal of the UN's post-2015 de-
velopment agenda.
As cities are where population is increasingly concentrated, and
land is a vital yet limited resource, equitable and sustainable develop-
ment of urban land and urban space to cater the needs of this growing
urban population is seen as one of the key challenges globally (UN-
Habitat, 2011; Wei, 2017; Wei & Ye, 2014). Urban expansion and
sprawl have been identified as the most significant aspects of urbani-
zation and urban development. A key tenet for sustainable development
and smart growth is promoting equitable urbanization and land de-
velopment and mitigating land use conflicts (Wei, 2017). However,
there is relatively limited scholarship that explores the global char-
acteristics and mechanisms of urban land expansion and sprawl and
their implications on equity and sustainable development (Ewing &
Hamidi, 2017). The causal relationship between urban sprawl and
spatial inequality has not been comprehensively and thoroughly ex-
amined; current literature overemphasizes subjects of patterns and ex-
periences of the West (Li, Wei, & Korinek, 2018; Wei, Li, & Yue, 2017).
Moreover, existing literature connecting urban development with in-
equality mainly emphasizes environmental dimensions, and the subject
of social sustainability is particularly under-researched (Frenkel &
Israel, 2018).
Therefore, we need more sophisticated studies examining processes,
mechanisms, equity, and sustainability of urban expansion and sprawl
globally and comparatively, to understand the myriad ways in which
urban expansion/sprawl, spatial inequality, and sustainable develop-
ment relate to each other. We also need efforts to develop new theories,
and innovative concepts and methods to understand the myriad ways in
which these three constructs correlate with each other.
This special issue focuses on the inter-relationship between urban
expansion/sprawl and equitable and sustainable development. It ex-
amines patterns, structures, and dynamics of urban expansion/sprawl
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2018.05.021
Available online 30 May 2018
0169-2046/ © 2018 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
and their effects on spatial inequality from multiple dimensions (eco-
nomic, social, political, environmental etc.). We seek to examine how
urban expansion/sprawl affect sustainable outcomes, especially spatial
inequality.
We announced a call for papers in various academic and profes-
sional organizations including AAG and ACSP to broaden the partici-
pation and publicize our efforts. All the submitted papers have been
reviewed following the Landscape and Urban Planning’s standard review
protocol and quality standards. Ten research articles that address the-
oretical, methodological, empirical, and policy issues in urban expan-
sion/sprawl and its effects on spatial inequality in the broad contexts of
globalization, urbanization, and institutional change have been in-
cluded in this special issue, including Wei et al. (2017), which was
mistakenly published separately.
2. Objectives and research questions
This Special Issue aims at providing new insights on urban expan-
sion/sprawl and spatial inequality, with relevance to Landscape and
Urban Planning and its related fields. In the recent years, urbanization
has accelerated in developing countries, and equitable and sustainable
urban development has found relevance in diverse contexts and coun-
tries across the globe. With increasing global urbanization, interests in
equity and sustainability of urban places continue to grow among re-
searchers, academics, and practitioners engaged in urban planning,
public policy and sustainable development in diverse nations, including
United States, China, India, and United Kingdom.
While there have been several special issues on urbanization and
sustainability (e.g., Wei, 2017; Wei & Ye, 2014) and special issues on
spatial inequality (e.g., Wei, 2015, 2017), no special issues have fo-
cused on the linkages between urban expansion/sprawl and spatial
inequality. This Special Issue is unique. It includes articles from a varied
group of scholars from interdisciplinary fields and international con-
texts. Conclusively, this Special Issue will provide a new lens on urba-
nization and equitable development, with four unique contributions: 1)
comparative perspectives, 2) global coverage, 3) multiple dimensions
and interactions, and 4) equity as a key component of sustainable de-
velopment. We hope that this issue will contribute to broadening the
understanding of the spatial and temporal aspects of urban expansion/
sprawl – their patterns, processes and intertwinement with equitable
and sustainable development.
While leaving an amplitude of space for innovative contributions
that bring a new lens on equitable and sustainable urban development,
this Special Issue examines spatially and temporally patterns and pro-
cesses of urban expansion and sprawl, analyzes the effects of urban
Editorial
expansion/sprawl on spatial inequality and equitable development, and
provides helpful insights for urban planners and administrators to
balance efficiency and equity, in policy making and implementation. It
focuses on papers that address questions such as the following:
• What is the nature, structure, and trajectory of urban expansion/
sprawl in different contexts, including institutional change, global
urbanization and climate change?
• How is urban expansion/sprawl displayed in terms of spatial con-
vergence/divergence, dimension, scale and time?
• What are the underlying concepts, mechanisms and the main drivers
of urban expansion and sprawl?
• What are the governance and political processes? How are the roles
of geography, contexts, and institutions in urban expansion/sprawl
best measured?
• What effects do they have on equitable development at the local,
regional, and global scales? Does urban sprawl increase residential
segregation, spatial mismatch, digital divide, environmental in-
justice, and in general spatial inequality?
• How are developments in GIS, multimedia, and big data best used to
advance our knowledge?
• What are the theoretical and policy implications of the research?
How can they be used to promote equitable and sustainable urba-
nization and development in terms of policy, governance, and
practices?
3. Urban expansion/sprawl: characteristics and measurements
The debate over urbanization and its consequences have been on-
going since the late 1940s with the end of the World War II.
Globalization since the late 1980s has stimulated a new wave of ur-
banization (Sassen, 1991). Demographic urbanization is accompanied
by equally rapid urbanization of land, and the rise of urban problems
such as access to jobs, housing affordability, and inequality, as well as
environmental and health challenges. Massive state investment in in-
frastructure and mega-projects characterize Asia’s efforts to promote
their cities and capitalize on globalization (Chen, 2009; Wei, Leung, &
Luo, 2006; Wu, 2003). Scholars have been increasingly concerned with
equity and justice issues worldwide in the broad contexts of globali-
zation and urbanization (Benner & Pastor, 2012; Fainstein, 2010; Wei,
2017).
Urban expansion and sprawl have been treated as two different
terms describing physical urban development process in developing
countries and developed nations, respectively. Characterized by low-
density, single-use, scattered, leapfrog development, urban sprawl has
been identified as the most critical feature of urbanization and sub-
urbanization in the United States (Ewing, 1997). Urban land develop-
ment in developing countries has been identified as urban expansion,
since most of this process lacks the characteristics of leapfrog and low
density (Li et al., 2018). However, there is no clear dividing line be-
tween sprawling and compact development, and the process of urban
land development in many cities cannot simply be characterized as
sprawling development (Ewing & Hamidi, 2017). Over the years, infill
development has reduced the level of urban sprawl in many cities, even
such cities as Los Angeles, which has been at the center of the debate
over urban sprawl (Ewing, 1997; Gordon & Richardson, 1997).
Since divergent definitions have been employed to capture the two
similar processes of urban expansion and sprawl, different geographic
and spatial patterns, measurements and underlying mechanisms have
also been developed. Based on the application of GIS techniques,
scholars have developed a series of methods to identify the spatial
patterns of urban sprawl using different indicators such as time cost of
traffic, mixed land uses, centrality of population distribution, density of
development, and compactness scores (Galster, Hanson, Wolman,
Coleman, & Freihage, 2001; Hamidi, Ewing, Preuss, & Dodds, 2015;
Sierra Club, 1998; Tsai, 2005).
260
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 259–265
In this special issue, Talen, Wheeler, and Anselin (2018) provide a
GIS-based analysis to identify urban sprawl through urban morpholo-
gical patterns in the United States. By examining six diverse U.S. me-
tropolitan regions: Boston, Atlanta, Chicago, Las Vegas, Portland, and
Sacramento, they find that loops & lollipops, rural sprawl, upscale en-
claves, degenerate grids, and garden suburbs are the core residential
landscapes of sprawl, joined by non-residential built landscape types
such as heavy industry, airports, trailer parks, and commercial strips.
Contemporary globalization and urbanization have important spa-
tial dimensions, with the rise of central business districts (CBDs) for
advanced business services, newly formed production centers in sub-
urban areas, and spatially segregated neighborhoods dividing the rich
and the poor, especially in developing countries such as China. Studies
of China have also found unique patterns of urban expansion, mani-
fested in multiple forms, including leapfrogged industrial parks, low-
density suburban residential communities, and chaotic peri-urban in-
formal development (Liu, Fan, Yue, & Song, 2018). Consequently,
urban expansion in China has occurred at unprecedented rates, and
Chinese cities have become multinucleated or polycentric, even in
China’s western cities (Schneider, Chang, & Paulsen, 2015).
The magnitude and measurement of urban expansion in developing
countries have also been improved by the development of GIS and RS
techniques. Based on the reclassification results of satellite images, the
absolute changes and growth rates of built-up areas and construction
land uses have been widely used to capture the urban expansion process
(Huang, Wei, He, & Li, 2015; Li, Wei, Liao, & Huang, 2015; Li, Wei, &
Zhou, 2017; Wei et al., 2017). With the social data revolution and big
data technology, increasing numbers of studies have focused on the
application of open data sources. In this special issue, using the data of
points of interest, night light images, and Weibo records from 2009 to
2014, Long, Zhai, Shen, and Ye (2018) re-define the natural urban area
in China based on the fractural analysis. They assess the magnitude and
pattern of natural cities and their expansion in size and space, and then
find that the spatial expansion rate of official statistics has been sig-
nificantly underestimated. Their study provides a more realistic picture
of urban land expansion in China.
Besides the magnitude and dynamics of urban expansion, a key
issue concerning urban land development is the efficiency of urban land
use. Patterns of urban land development differ within cities, and the
extent of urban sprawl differs within metropolitan areas as well. It is
important to understand the internal structure of cities, which influ-
ences the efficiency of urban land use. Researchers have started to
evaluate the quality of urban land development based on the indicator
of land use efficiency, which is defined as the economic output of an
area of land. In general, the existing literature finds that the quality of
urban expansion is highly associated with patterns of urban develop-
ment, environmental change, industrialization, economic transition, as
well as the establishment of development zones (Barbosa, Bragança, &
Mateus, 2015; Huang, He, & Wei, 2016; Wu, Wei, Huang, & Chen,
2017).
Additionally, Long, Zhai, Shen, and Ye (2018) utilize the perspective
of natural cities to evaluate the quality of urban expansion by calcu-
lating the ratio between the density of the expanded urban areas and
that of the existing urban areas in the BTH, the Yangtze River Delta
(YRD) and the Pearl River Delta (PRD). They find that the BTH has the
highest functional quality of urban expansion, while the PRD has the
best social quality. Urban land use efficiency in the YRD has improved
over time, with the process of globalization and the improvement of
accessibility (Wu et al., 2017).
4. Mechanism
The underlying mechanism of urban land development has also
been hotly debated. With the development of GIS and modeling tech-
niques, scholars have concluded a series of studies on the mechanisms
of urban expansion and sprawl (Li et al., 2018). Transportation
Editorial
improvements, local accessibilities, economic growth, the desire of
better life quality, fiscalization of land use, globalization, roles of state,
patterns of economic transition, and entrepreneurship have all been
employed in explaining urban land development in both developed and
developing countries (Chapple, 2018; Gordon & Richardson, 2000;
Lewis, 2001; Wei et al., 2017). Particularly noticeable are efforts to
theorize the process of urbanization and land development, including
the notion of teleconnection (Seto, Reenberg, et al., 2012), the use of
concepts in economic geography (Li, Deng, & Seto, 2012; Li et al., 2018;
Lin, 2007), and the conceptualization of urbanization and urban ex-
pansion in China as a triple process of globalization, decentralization
and marketization (e.g., Gao, Wei, Chen, & Chen, 2014; Gao, Wei, Chen,
& Yenneti, 2015; Huang et al., 2015; Li et al., 2015, 2017; Wei, 2012).
While most of the studies employ a mixed perspective to provide a
comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms, for simplicity, the
underlying mechanisms of urban sprawl/expansion have been studied
from the neoclassical, sociological and institutional perspectives.
Neoclassical theories tend to emphasize the role of markets and prices
in urban sprawl/expansion. They point out that agricultural land price,
commuting cost, increasing incomes and population, transportation
improvements, and consumer choices are the primary factors resulting
in urban sprawl in the United States (Brueckner & Fansler, 1983;
Gordon & Richardson, 2000). Scholars have used neoclassical theories
in the context of developing countries and found that economic factors,
such as population, income, transportation costs, and agriculture land
rent, are primary determinants of urban expansion (Li et al., 2012; Seto
& Kaufman, 2003). This school of thought has become the basis for
numerous model-based studies, which tend to use a variety of in-
dicators, often with little theoretical justification, to model the de-
terminants of urban expansion. However, how market mechanisms
function and the relationships among influencing factors remain un-
derstudied.
Social and behavioral scientists tend to emphasize personal choices
and racial relations in spatial decisions and urban sprawl. They believe
that residents as individuals have the desire to avoid the real and per-
ceived blight of more centralized locations, which has been marked by
higher tax rates, higher crime rates, crumbling infrastructures, as well
as low-performing public schools (Batchis, 2010; Mieszkowski & Mills,
1993). For some, suburbanization is a personal choice, while for others,
the process of suburbanization can be considered as “white flight,” and
is an even racialized, discriminatory process against minorities in the
inner cities. The development of the Internet and social media techni-
ques, as well as availability of open data, have empowered researchers
to truly understand movement patterns and job-housing relations at the
individual level, thereby providing the potential for better under-
standing of the mechanisms of urban development .
Institutional perspectives emphasize the role of institutions espe-
cially local government in the process of urban sprawl/expansion.
Scholars have used such concepts as globalization, development state,
entrepreneurship state, transitional institutions, growth machine, as
well as economic transition to conceptualize the underlying mechan-
isms of urban expansion, especially on urbanization and urban expan-
sion in China (Li et al., 2015, 2017, 2018; Wei, 2012). In terms of urban
sprawl, scholars find that land use decisions are driven heavily by fiscal
considerations, which influences the degree of sprawl observed in
urban areas (Chapple, 2018; Ladd, 1998; Lewis, 2001). A property tax
on land improvements results in a reduction in the intensity of land
development (Brueckner & Kim, 2003). In this special issue, Chapple
(2018) confirms suburban jurisdictions are disproportionately likely to
fiscalize land uses, to make local land-use decisions to maximize rev-
enue generation through the attraction of tax-generating uses and the
reduction of government service costs.
Governments have used land urbanization as the primary approach
to stimulate economic growth and eliminate poverty (United Nations,
2014). Land urbanization has been identified as a global process that
reshapes and restructures the traditional urban space and organization,
261
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 259–265
generating spatial inequality in multiple dimensions (Wei, 2012). The
role of focalization in land development is even more significant in
developing countries, especially in China where local governments rely
heavily on land finance through the proactive approach of land leasing
(Liu et al., 2018). Land development in China follows the adminis-
trative hierarchy, and higher ranked cities such as centrally admini-
strated municipalities and provincial capitals tend to have more power
in land development and urbanization (Li et al., 2015, 2017; Wei et al.,
2017). In this special issue, Wang, Chen, Zheng, and Deng (2018)
analyze the trade-off impacts of urban expansion and land use effi-
ciency in Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei (BTH) of China and find that changes in
land use efficiency are primarily influenced by rural income growth.
The efforts to integrate factors from various perspectives have
provided a more complete conceptual framework to understand urban
expansion and sprawl, and helped to theorize variable selections in the
modeling traditions. The significance of these factors and their inter-
action should vary with different contexts of research. For example, the
triple transition framework of urbanization in China have to be revised
when studying other developing countries (Li et al., 2018). Also, more
case studies are needed to unfold and compare the role of different
factors including states and markets in urban expansion and sprawl,
especially in the context of developing countries.
5. Outcomes and effects on inequality
Many outcomes of urbanization of land in developed countries,
especially urban sprawl, have been extensively researched in the past
two decades. The debate over metropolitan sprawl and its costs has
been ongoing since the early 1970s in the U.S. (Ewing, Pendall, & Chen,
2002), and spills over into European and Asian countries (Wei & Ye,
2014; Wilson & Chakraborty, 2013). Since the 2000s, the consequences
have drawn increasing scholarly attention, and thus, literature con-
necting urban development with inequality has emerged. Consequently,
the concepts of upward mobility, environmental justice, jobs-housing
imbalance, social segregation, digital divide, and gated communities,
have been widely connected with the process of urban expansion and
sprawl (Ewing, Hamidi, & Grace, 2016; Ewing, Hamidi, Grace, & Wei,
2016; Goix, 2005; Jargowsky, 2001; Lee, Ambrey, & Pojani, 2018;
Zhao, Lu, & Roo, 2011).
The literature has been more heavily oriented toward costs of
sprawl than to equity and sustainability issues. While the literature on
sprawl and its impacts is well-established, there is little understanding
of how urban sprawl may affect the so-called “topical outcomes”
especially spatial inequality, upward mobility, public health, and sus-
tainable development in general. Rising income inequality and the as-
sociated lack of upward mobility, have emerged among the most im-
portant issues of our time (Piketty, 2014; Stiglitz, 2012). While
inequality often makes the headlines of news, spatial inequality remains
less studied and upward mobility is barely on the radar of geographers
and planners (Wei, 2015). Ewing, Hamidi, and Grace (2016) and
Ewing, Hamidi, Grace, et al.’s (2016) pioneering work provides evi-
dence of negative effects of urban sprawl on upward mobility. Lee et al.
(2018) find that, consistent with a priori expectations, lower levels of
sprawl are, on average, associated with lower levels of income in-
equality and lower levels of sprawl correspond to higher levels of fi-
nancial well-being. Nevertheless, many research issues remain, in-
cluding the role of scale and neighborhoods, and international contexts.
Moreover, while the discourses on sustainability emphasize overall
interactions among the three pillars of sustainable development – so-
ciety, economy, and environment – most of the research has been fo-
cused on preserving the ecological capital against economic capital and
development or vis-à-vis. There is little research on the intertwinement
among the economic, social (e.g., health, inclusion), and environment
capitals of sustainable development – the essence of sustainability of
urban societies. The effects of urban expansion and sprawl on multiple
dimensions of spatial inequality – a complex and alarming issue for
Editorial
both developed and developing countries – largely remain untouched.
The global urbanization process has become more spatially frag-
mented and more socially segregated (Goix, 2005). Most urban projects
of recent decades, no matter whether in developed or developing
countries, have contributed to a physical reinforcement of inequality
and segregation in multiple dimensions (Burdett, 2016). Still, there is
little agreement on the process of urban expansion/sprawl and its im-
pacts on spatial inequality and sustainable development (Bruegmann,
2006; Burchell et al., 1998, 2002; Duany, Plater-Zyberk, & Speck, 2001;
Ewing, 1997; Ewing & Hamidi, 2017; Ewing et al., 2002; Gordon et al.,
1997; Hayden, 2004; Hirschhorn, 2005). Since multiple dimensions are
the nature of inequality (Li & Wei, 2010; Wei, 2015), the section will
discuss how the urban expansion/sprawl reshape economic, social, and
environmental inequalities, as well as the relevant policy suggestion in
both developed and developing nations. Given the interdisciplinary
feature of inequality, research on outcomes and be divided into eco-
nomic, social, and environmental dimensions for simplicity (Redman &
Jones, 2005; Zhao, 2013).
5.1. Economic dimension
There have been a large number of studies relating urban sprawl
and expansion to economic inequality since the 1960s. Along with the
urbanization, urban expansion and sprawl have been widely identified
as a significant factor influencing economic/income inequality in both
developed and developing countries (UN-Habitat, 2011; Wei, 2012). In
the context of western urban areas, the expanded economic and income
gaps, as well as the spatial mismatch caused by urban sprawl are the
most popular topics in this dimension (Ewing, Hamidi, & Grace, 2016;
Ewing, Hamidi, Grace, et al., 2016; Jargowsky, 1996, 2001). Urban
sprawl and the concentration of poverty in inner cities are the same
metropolitan development processes, which further limit equality of
opportunity and increase spatial inequality (Jargowsky, 2001).
After World War II, many wealthy Americans decentralized out of
the core cities and moved to the suburbs. Shopping and ancillary ser-
vices followed them, leaving poor and minority populations behind. In
this regard, Kain (1968) formulated the spatial mismatch hypothesis,
arguing that poor black workers left in central cities were increasingly
distant from and poorly connected to major centers of employment in
suburban areas. They were constrained by discrimination in labor and
housing markets and central city job shortages. The spatial mismatch
hypothesis has important implications for inner city residents that are
dependent on low level entry jobs. Distance from work centers can lead
to increasing unemployment rates among inner city residents and
thereby increasing poverty outcomes for the region as a whole.
Many empirical studies tested the spatial mismatch hypothesis in
the early 1970s, soon after the advance of the hypothesis by Kain
(1968). There was resurgent interest in the hypothesis in the early
1990s, when at least five review articles were published (Holzer, 1991;
Ihlanfeldt, 1994; Jencks & Mayer, 1990; Kain, 1992; Moss & Tilly,
1991), and at least six more after 2000 (Blumenberg, 2004; Blumenberg
& Manville, 2004; Chapple, 2006; Fan, 2012; Gobillon, Selod, & Zenou,
2007; Houston, 2005).
An established positive correlation between urban sprawl and in-
come inequality and segregation have been widely found (Guo,
Buchmann, & Schwarz, 2017; Jargowsky, 2001; Watson, 2009).
Wheeler (2008) identifies that the variance of the household income
distribution significantly raises as urban density declines, which con-
firms that the negative effect of urban sprawl on equitable development
in the United States. Sprawl contributes to low housing affordability
(Kahn, 2001, 2006; Wassmer & Baass, 2006). Wassmer and Baass
(2006) find that more centralized metropolitan areas actually exhibit
lower median home prices and lower proportions of homes in upper-
end price categories than sprawling regions. Many studies have also
reported savings on infrastructure costs as densities rise (e.g., American
Farmland Trust, 2006; Burchell, Downs, McCann, & Mukherji, 2005;
262
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 259–265
Burchell et al., 1998, 2002; Lieske, McLeod, Coupal, & Srivastava,
2012).
Along with the costs, there have been reported benefits too
(Bruegmann, 2006; Cox & Utt, 2004; Ewing & Hamidi, 2015; Gordon &
Lee, 2013). Bruegmann (2006), for example, describes suburban sprawl
as a natural manifestation of the American Dream of a big house in the
suburbs. Gordon et al. (2013) also find that given the population size
and suburbanization, more decentralized and dispersed employment
distribution is associated with shorter average commute time. A recent
study shows that lower housing prices in sprawling areas are offset by
higher transportation costs, giving a slight edge to compact areas when
it comes to H + T (housing plus transportation costs) affordability.
In this special issue, using the land use and socioeconomic data of
1.2 million tax assessor parcels in California from 2007 to 2013,
Chapple (2018) quantitatively proves that the urban sprawl negatively
affects net job quality, specifically wages, over time. She further asserts
that land use strategies have failed in achieving broader economic de-
velopment goals since the new job opportunities created by urban
sprawl tends to pay relatively low wages and offer little upward mo-
bility, which further reinforces the findings in Ewing, Hamidi, and
Grace (2016) and Ewing, Hamidi, Grace, et al.’s (2016) and Lee et al.’s
(2018) papers.
Also in this special issue, Mueller, Hilde, and Torrado (2018) pro-
pose to incorporate housing preservation into transit-oriented devel-
opment planning. By paying special attention to poverty sprawl, they
assess and compare transit corridors in terms of the benefits they pro-
vide to low-income renters, the potential scale of displacement, and
redevelopment pressure, and then test them on comparative case cities
of Austin and Denver. Their suggestions should help preservation of
affordable rental housing in central, transit-rich neighborhoods.
In developing countries, concentrated development and distribu-
tions of public services and transport infrastructures in core urban areas
result in a cluster of high-income residents in the urban center, while
the low-income residents and migrants are confined in the periphery
urban regions (Zhao, 2013). By innovatively treating urban expansion
as the source and dimension of spatial inequality, Wei et al. (2017)
analyze spatial patterns and dynamics of urban land expansion in China
to better understand the role of institutions and urbanization in spatial
inequality. They find that urban land expansion in China is highly
uneven at both intra-provincial and intra-prefectural levels, and in-
equalities are much higher in the Western region than the Eastern re-
gion. The provincial level development policies are the major driver of
increased urban land expansion and economic development gaps across
prefectures, which have further intensified regional inequality in China.
5.2. Social dimension
Scholars are also widely concerned with the impacts of sprawl on
quality-of-life outcomes. Urban sprawl and expansion have enormous
influences on social inequality in terms of education, life-chances,
mobility, health and access to public services (Batchis, 2010; Ewing,
Hamidi, & Grace, 2016; Ewing, Hamidi, Grace, et al., 2016; Ragusett,
2016; Zhao, 2013). In general, scholars have agreed that urban sprawl
has largely increased the racial and gender inequality for residents in
terms of access employment opportunities, public services, and urban
amenities (Glaeser, Kahn, & Rappapo, 2008; McLafferty & Preston,
1992; Thomas, 1998). Sprawl has also reduced social capital (Kim,
Subramanian, Gortmaker, & Kawachi, 2006; Nguyen, 2010).
Urban sprawl is believed to contribute to traffic congestion (Ewing
et al., 2002; Holcombe & Williams, 2012; Zolnik, 2011) and traffic
safety problems (Ewing, Hamidi, & Grace, 2016; Ewing, Hamidi, Grace,
et al., 2016; Ewing, Schmid, Killingsworth, Zlot, & Raubenbush, 2003;
Trowbridge, Gurka, & O’Connor, 2009). Ewing, Pendall, and Chen
(2003) and Ewing and Hamidi (2014) find that sprawl is associated
with significantly higher fatal crash rates. Urban sprawl also reduces
physical activity and increases obesity (Doyle, Kelly-Schwartz,
Editorial
Schlossberg, & Stockard, 2006; Ewing & Hamidi, 2014; Ewing, Schmid
et al., 2003; Fan & Song, 2009; Kelly-Schwartz, Stockard, Doyle, &
Schlossberg, 2004; Lee, Ewing, & Sesso, 2009; Plantinga & Bernell,
2007; Sturm & Cohen, 2004). Ewing, Schmid et al. (2003) and Ewing
et al. (2014) find that adults living in sprawling countries walk less,
weigh more, and are more likely to be obese and to suffer from high
blood pressure than those living in compact counties.
In this special issue, based on a case study that includes a medium
sized city and eight of its suburbs located within Israel's central me-
tropolitan region, Frenkel et al. (2018) point out that suburbanization
results in highly unequal patterns of social stratification. Social groups
in the suburbs are found to benefit from better life-chances than their
urban counterparts. Also, this inequality is positively related to the
accumulation of capital forms and the formation of the physical en-
vironment. Economic, cultural, and social forms of capital, formed in an
individual's living environment, determine a space's equality of op-
portunity. Antoniucci and Marella (2018) analyze the variation in
housing market polarization in Italian cities and correlate it to urban
density, which is highly associated with urban sprawl. They find that
housing market polarization increased since 2008 when economic and
sovereign debt crisis began, and lower density areas tend to have a
higher housing market polarization index.
Regarding the post-urban sprawl era in the United States, scholars
have found that there are more than 25% of large cities experiencing
shrinkage. Along with suburbanization, the shrinking process has also
led to a significant issue of social inequality. Using Detroit as an ex-
ample, Xie, Gong, Yang, Li, and Zeng (2018) develop a systematic and
quantitative framework to connect the causes and dynamics of city
shrinking with primary inequality factors. They find that the odds of
becoming vacant are largely related to the concentration of less edu-
cated and African American population, under-developed housing
structures, and poverty. The racial segregation and persistent poverty
were the primary cause of long-lasting urban shrinkage in Metropolitan
Detroit.
Methodologically, Talen et al. (2018) present a quantified, GIS-
based analysis of the relationship between urban morphological pat-
terns and racial, ethnic, and household characteristics to understand
how the built landscapes of American cities differ in sociological terms,
such as racial concentration and prevalence of particular family types.
They find that urban sprawl causes significant equity implications be-
cause of the uneven distribution of services, amenities, schools, parks,
and tax base, and identify the specific social inequality status for each
pattern. Rural sprawl and upscale enclave have the least diverse de-
mographics across all six metro areas. Older built landscape types
(urban grids, rectangular block grids, and degenerate grids) are rela-
tively diverse.
5.3. Environmental dimension
Urban sprawl’s effect on environment in developed countries has
been widely studied. It has been documented that urban sprawl in-
creases the challenges in open space preservation (Nelson, 1992; Nelson
& Sanchez, 2005) and results in poor air quality (Bereitschaft &
Debbage, 2013; Kahn, 2006; Schweitzer & Zhou, 2010; Stone, 2008;
Stone, Hess, & Frumkin, 2010). Stone (2008) finds that large sprawling
metropolitan regions experience a greater number of ozone ex-
ceedances than more spatially compact metropolitan regions. On the
other hand, a more recent study by Schweitzer et al. (2010), while
confirming that ozone concentrations are significantly lower in com-
pact regions, also found that human exposure to ozone was higher in
these regions because more people live in areas where emissions are
concentrated.
Another topic connected to urban sprawl and spatial inequality is
environmental injustice (Darby & Atchison, 2014). As a central aca-
demic concern in a variety of disciplinary contexts, environmental in-
justice’s initial application confines in the environmental risk
263
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 259–265
distribution and the related inequality issue. To relate environmental
injustice with urban sprawl, scholars mainly focus on where poor and
minority communities suffer disproportionately from urban disinvest-
ment (Boone & Fragkias, 2013; Wilson et al., 2013; Young, 2012). This
outcome of environmental injustice is obviously correlated with urban
sprawl, inasmuch as urban sprawl incorporates a transfer of people and
resources from the inner city to suburban areas, and such transfer is
performed with less control over land use (Downs, 1994, 1999; Ewing &
Hamidi, 2017). Existing studies have concluded that urban sprawl re-
sults in more poor and minority population living in a toxic and ha-
zardous environment close to abandoned brownfields, least-desirable
areas, and old buildings in the inner cities (Bryant, 1995). Grineski,
Bolin, and Boone (2007) add air pollutants to measure environmental
injustice, and then link it to urban sprawl. They point out that racial
segregation caused by urban sprawl further intensifies the environ-
mental injustice from the perspective of air pollution. However, most
studies are conducted based on a single measurement of environmental
injustice and urban sprawl (Sze & London, 2008).
Studies on environmental effects of urban expansion in developing
countries also notice the problem of environmental degradation.
Studies find that urban expansion negatively affects biodiversity, sur-
face temperature, and global climate change (Seto, Guneralp, & Hutyra,
2012; Weng, 2001; Yue, Fan, Wei, & Qi, 2014). The studies which di-
rectly link environmental inequality and urban expansion are still
limited. In this special issue, Wang, Chen, Zheng, and Deng (2018)
helps us to better understand the linkage between urban expansion and
environmental degradation. The fast population growth is not the root
of environmental degradation, and structural effects of ecological inter-
correlation determine the pattern of urban–rural landscape changes and
environmental inequality.
6. Conclusion
This paper has situated the special issue in the massive literature on
urban sprawl and expansion. Existing studies have developed myriad
methods to measure the characteristics, causes, and costs of urban
sprawl (Ewing & Hamidi, 2017), including impacts on inequality.
However, the studies to understand how urban expansion/sprawl,
spatial inequality, and sustainable development relate to each other are
still limited.
By examining spatiotemporal patterns and processes of urban ex-
pansion and sprawl, analyzing the effects of urban expansion/sprawl on
spatial inequality, this special issue provides comprehensive lens on
urbanization and equitable development, contributes to the existing
literature of urban sprawl/expansion by providing comparative per-
spectives, global coverage, as well as multiple dimensions and inter-
actions.
This special issue has made an effort to study urban sprawl/ex-
pansion and its linkages to inequality from multiple perspectives in the
world, including both developed and developing countries. It has
showcased that most recent development in geographical, planning,
and sociological research on urban development and inequality. These
studies have examined the economic dimension of inequality
(Antoniucci & Marella, 2018; Wei et al., 2017), and have broadened the
scope of their research to include more social considerations (Frenkel
et al., 2018; Talen et al., 2018; Xie et al., 2018). Most articles are still
largely dependent on western experiences and theories, and more stu-
dies focusing on developing countries are still needed.
Studies have provided some policy suggestions to reduce the ne-
gative effects of urban sprawl, such as adjusting land use strategies
(Chapple, 2018), more policy support for mixed-use development
(Ewing, Hamidi, & Grace, 2016; Ewing, Hamidi, Grace, et al., 2016),
more even distribution of urban amenities and services in both space
and quality (Batchis, 2010; Frenkel et al., 2018; Li, Wei, Yu, & Tian,
2016), as well as adjustment of land administration and legislation of
land property (Wang et al., 2018; Wei et al., 2017). This special issue
Editorial
provides helpful insights for urban planners and administrators to
balance efficiency and equity, and plan and market in policy making
and implementation.
Acknowledgements
We would like to acknowledge funding of the US National Science
Foundation (1759746), the National Natural Science Foundation of
China (41329001), and the Ford Foundation (0155-0883). We would
also like to thank the careful guidance of Co-Editor-in-Chief Wei-Ning
Xiang and the research assistance of Han Li.
References
Antoniucci, V., & Marella, G. (2018). Is social polarization related to urban density?
Evidence from the Italian housing market. Landscape and Urban Planning, This volume.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.08.012.
American Farmland Trust (2006). Agenda 2007: a new framework and direction for U.S.
Farm Policy. Washington, DC: American Farmland Trust.
Batchis, W. (2010). Urban sprawl and the constitution: Educational inequality as an
impetus to low density living. The Urban Lawyer, 42(1), 95–133.
Barbosa, J. A., Bragança, L., & Mateus, R. (2015). Assessment of land use efficiency using
BSA tools: Development of a new index. Journal of Urban Planning and Development,
141, 1–9.
Bereitschaft, B., & Debbage, K. (2013). Urban form, air pollution, and CO2 emissions in
large U.S. metropolitan areas. The Professional Geographer, 65(4), 612–635.
Benner, C., & Pastor, M. (2012). Just growth: Inclusion and prosperity in america’s me-
tropolitan regions. New York: Routledge.
Blumenberg, E. (2004). En-gendering effective planning. Journal of the American Planning
Association, 70(3), 269–281.
Blumenberg, E., & Manville, M. (2004). Beyond the spatial mismatch hypothesis: Welfare
recipients and transportation Policy. Journal of Planning Literature, 10, 182–205.
Boone, C. G., & Fragkias, M. (2013). Urbanization and sustainability: Linking urban ecology,
environmental justice and global environmental change. New York and London: Springer,
Dordrecht Heidelberg.
Bryant, B. (1995). Issues and potential policies and solutions for environmental justice: an
overview. In B. Bryant (Ed.). Environmental justice: Issues, policies, and solutions (pp. 8–
34). Washington, DC: Island Press.
Brueckner, J. K., & Fansler, D. A. (1983). The economics of urban sprawl: Theory and
evidence on the spatial size of cities. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 65(3),
479–482.
Brueckner, J. K., & Kim, H. (2003). Urban sprawl and the property tax. International Tax
and Public Finance, 10, 5–23.
Bruegmann, R. (2006). How sprawl got a bad name. The American Enterprise, 17(5),
16–21.
Burchell, R. W., Downs, A., McCann, B., & Mukherji, S. (2005). Sprawl costs. Washington,
DC: Island Press.
Burchell, R. W., Lowenstein, G., Dolphin, W. R., Galley, C. C., Downs, A., Seskin, S., ...
Moore, T. (2002). Costs of sprawl – 2000. Transit Cooperative Research Program
(TCRP) Report 74. Washington, DC: Transportation Research Board.
Burchell, R. W., Shad, N. A., Listokin, D., Phillips, H., Downs, A., Seskin, S., & Gall, M.
(1998). The costs of sprawl—Revisited. Washington, DC: Transportation Research
Board.
Burdett, R. (2016). Inequality and urban growth. Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development. The OECD Observer, Paris, 308.
Chapple, K. (2006). Overcoming mismatch: Beyond dispersal, mobility, and development
strategies. Journal of the American Planning Association. 72, 322–336.
Chapple, K. (2018). Sprawl, the fiscalization of land use, and wage decline in California's
metropolitan regions. Landscape and Urban Planning. This volume.
Chen, X. (2009). Shanghai rising: State power and local transformations in a global megacity.
Minneapolis MN: University of Minnesota Press.
Cox, W., & Utt, J. (2004). The costs of sprawl reconsidered: What the data really show.
Backgrounder, 1770, 10.
Darby, K. J., & Atchison, C. L. (2014). Environmental justice: insights from an inter-
disciplinary instructional workshop. Journal of Environmental Studies and Sciences, 4,
288–293.
Downs, A. (1994). New visions for metropolitan America. Washington, DC: The Brookings
Institution Cambridge, MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy.
Downs, A. (1999). Some realities about sprawl and urban decline. Housing Policy Debate,
10(4), 955–974.
Doyle, S., Kelly-Schwartz, A., Schlossberg, M., & Stockard, J. (2006). Active community
environments and health: The relationship of walkable and safe communities to in-
dividual health. Journal of the American Planning Association, 72(1), 19–31.
Duany, A., Plater-Zyberk, E., & Speck, J. (2001). Suburban nation: the rise of sprawl and the
decline of the American dream. Macmillan.
Ewing, R. (1997). Is Los Angeles-style sprawl desirable? Journal of the American planning
association, 63(1), 107–126.
Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. (2014). Measuring urban sprawl and validating sprawl measures.
Washington, DC: National Institutes of Health and Smart Growth America.
Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. (2015). Compactness versus sprawl: A review of recent evidence
from the United States. Journal of Planning Literature, 30(4), 413–432.
264
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 259–265
Ewing, R., & Hamidi, S. (2017). Costs of sprawl. Routledge.
Ewing, R., Hamidi, S., & Grace, J. B. (2016). Urban sprawl as a risk factor in motor vehicle
crashes. Urban Studies, 53(2), 247–266.
Ewing, R., Meakins, G., Hamidi, S., & Nelson, A. C. (2014). Relationship between urban
sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity–Update and refinement. Health &
Place, 26, 118–126.
Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2002). Measuring sprawl and its impact. Washington,
DC: Smart Growth America.
Ewing, R., Pendall, R., & Chen, D. (2003). Measuring sprawl and its transportation im-
pacts. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board,
1831(1) Washington DC: Smart Growth America.
Ewing, R., Schmid, T., Killingsworth, R., Zlot, A., & Raubenbush, S. (2003). Relationship
between urban sprawl and physical activity, obesity, and morbidity. American Journal
of Health Promotion, 18(1), 47–57.
Ewing, R., Hamidi, S., Grace, J. B., & Wei, Y. H. D. (2016). Does urban sprawl hold down
upward mobility? Landscape and Urban Planning, 148, 80–88.
Fainstein, S. S. (2010). The just city. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Fan, Y. (2012). The planner’ war against spatial mismatch: Lessons learned and ways
forward. Journal of Planning Literature, 27(2), 153–169.
Fan, Y., & Song, Y. (2009). Is sprawl associated with a widening urban–suburban mor-
tality gap? Journal of Urban Health, 86(5), 708–728.
Frenkel, A., & Israel, E. (2018). Spatial inequality in the context of city-suburb
cleavages—Enlarging the framework of well-being and social inequality. Landscape
and Urban Planning, This volume. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.02.
018.
Gao, J. L., Wei, Y. H. D., Chen, W., & Chen, J. L. (2014). Economic transition and urban
land expansion in provincial China. Habitat International, 44, 461–473.
Gao, J. L., Wei, Y. H. D., Chen, W., & Yenneti, K. (2015). Urban land expansion and
structural change in the Yangtze River Delta. China. Sustainability, 7(8),
10281–10307.
Gobillon, L., Selod, H., & Zenou, Y. (2007). The mechanisms of spatial mismatch. Urban
Studies, 44(12), 2401–2427.
Gordon, P., & Lee, B. (2013). Trends in commuting and non-commuting travel in US
metropolitan areas. In R. Hickman, (Ed.). International handbook on transport and
development. UK: Edward Elgar.
Gordon, P., & Richardson, H. W. (1997). Are compact cities a desirable planning goal?
Journal of the American Planning Association, 63(1), 95–106.
Hamidi, S., Ewing, R., Preuss, I., & Dodds, A. (2015). Measuring sprawl and its impacts:
An update. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 35(1), 35–50.
Hayden, D. (2004). A field guide to sprawl. WW Norton & Company.
Hirschhorn, J. S. (2005). Sprawl kills: How bland burbs steal your time, health and money.
New York: Sterling & Ross.
Holcombe, R. G., & Williams, D. W. (2012). Urban sprawl and transportation ex-
ternalities. The Review of Regional Studies, 40(3), 257–272.
Houston, D. (2005). Methods to test the spatial mismatch hypothesis. Economic
Geography, 81(4), 407–434.
Huang, Z., Wei, Y. H. D., He, C., & Li, H. (2015). Urban land expansion under economic
transition in China: A multilevel modeling analysis. Habitat International, 47, 69–82.
Huang, Z., He, C., & Wei, Y. H. D. (2016). A comparative study of land efficiency of
electronics firms located within and outside development zones in Shanghai. Habitat
International, 56, 63–73.
Galster, G., Hanson, R., Wolman, H., Coleman, S., & Freihage, J. (2001). Wrestling sprawl
to the ground: Defining and measuring an elusive concept. Housing Policy Debate,
12(4), 681–717.
Glaeser, E. L., Kahn, M. E., & Rappapo, J. (2008). Why do the poor live in cities? The role
of public transportation. Journal of Urban Economics, 63(1), 1–24.
Grineski, S., Bolin, B., & Boone, C. (2007). Criteria air pollution and marginalized po-
pulations: environmental inequity in metropolitan Phoenix, Arizona. Social Science
Quarterly, 88(2), 535–554.
Goix, R. L. (2005). Gated communities: Sprawl and social segregation in southern
California. Housing Studies, 20(2), 323–343.
Gordon, P., & Richardson, H.W. (2000). Critiquing sprawl’s critics. Policy Analysis,
January 24: 1–18.
Guo, C., Buchmann, C. M., & Schwarz, N. (2017). Linking urban sprawl and income
segregation – Findings from a stylized agent-based model. Environment and Planning
B. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/2399808317719072.
Holzer, H. J. (1991). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: What has the evidence shown?
Urban Studies, 28(1), 105–122.
Ihlanfeldt, K. (1994). The spatial mismatch between jobs and residential locations within
urban areas. Cityscape, 1(1), 219–244.
Jargowsky, P. A. (1996). Take the money and run: Economic segregation in U.S. me-
tropolitan areas. American Sociological Review, 61(6), 984–998.
Jargowsky, P. A. (2001). Sprawl, concentration of poverty, and urban inequality. In G.
Squires (Ed.). Urban sprawl: Causes, consequences and policy responses. Washington,
DC: Urban Institute.
Jencks, C., & Mayer, S. E. (1990). Residential segregation, job proximity, and black job
opportunities. In L. E. LynnJr., & M. M. McGreary (Eds.). Inner-city poverty in the
united states (pp. 187–222). Washington, D.C: National Academic Press.
Kahn, M. E. (2001). Does sprawl reduce the black/white housing consumption gap?
Housing Policy Debate, 12(1), 77–86.
Kahn, M. E. (2006). The quality of life in sprawled versus compact cities. Prepared for the
OECD ECMT Regional Round, Berkeley, California, 27–28.
Kain, John F. (1968). Housing segregation, negro employment, and metropolitan de-
centralization. Quarterly Journal of Economics. 82(2), 175–197.
Kain, J. F. (1992). The spatial mismatch hypothesis: Three decades later. Housing Policy
Debate, 3(2), 371–462.
Editorial
Kelly-Schwartz, A. C., Stockard, J., Doyle, S., & Schlossberg, M. (2004). Is sprawl un-
healthy: A multilevel analysis of the relationship of metropolitan sprawl to the health
of individuals. Journal of Planning Education and Research, 24, 184–196.
Kim, D., Subramanian, S. V., Gortmaker, S. L., & Kawachi, I. (2006). US state-and county-
level social capital in relation to obesity and physical inactivity: A multilevel, mul-
tivariable analysis. Social Science & Medicine, 63(4), 1045–1059.
Ladd, H. (1998). Local government tax and land use policies in the united states:
Understanding the links. Northampton, MA: Edward Elgar Publishing Inc.
Lee, I., Ewing, R., & Sesso, H. D. (2009). The built environment and physical activity
levels: The Harvard alumni health study. American Journal of Preventive Medicine,
37(4), 293–298.
Lee, W. H., Ambrey, C., & Pojani, D. (2018). How do sprawl and inequality affect well-
being in American cities? Cities.
Lewis, P. G. (2001). Retail politics: Local sales taxes and the fiscalization of land use.
Economic Development Quarterly, 15(1), 21–35.
Li, H., Wei, Y. H. D., Liao, F. H. F., & Huang, Z. (2015). Administrative hierarchy and
urban land expansion in transitional China. Applied Geography, 56, 177–186.
Li, H., Wei, Y. H. D., Yu, Z., & Tian, G. (2016). Amenity, accessibility and housing values
in Metropolitan USA: A study of Salt Lake County, Utah. Cities, 59, 113–125.
Li, H., Wei, Y. H. D., & Zhou, Y. (2017). Spatiotemporal analysis of construction land
development in transitional China. Habitat International, 67, 79–95.
Li, H., Wei, Y. H. D., & Korinek, K. (2018). Modeling urban expansion in the transitional
Greater Mekong Region. Urban Studies. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/
0042098017700560.
Li, J., Deng, X., & Seto, K. (2012). Multi-level modeling of urban expansion and cultivated
land conversion for urban hotspot counties in China. Landscape and Urban Planning,
108, 131–139.
Li, Y., & Wei, Y. H. D. (2010). The spatial-temporal hierarchy of regional inequality of
China. Applied Geography, 30, 303–316.
Lieske, S. N., McLeod, D. M., Coupal, R. H., & Srivastava, S. K. (2012). Determining the
relationship between urban form and the costs of public services. Environment and
Planning Part B, 39(1), 155.
Lin, G. C. S. (2007). Reproducing spaces of Chinese urbanization. Urban Studies, 44(9),
1827–1855.
Liu, Y., Fan, P., Yue, W., & Song, Y. (2018). Impacts of land finance on urban sprawl in
China: The case of Chongqing. Land Use Policy, 72, 420–432.
Long, Y., Zhai, W., Shen, Y., & Ye, X. (2018). Understanding uneven urban expansion with
natural cities using open data. Landscape and Urban Planning, This volume. http://dx.
doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.05.008.
McLafferty, S., & Preston, V. (1992). Spatial mismatch and labor market segmentation for
African-American and Latina women. Economic Geography, 68(4), 406–431.
Mieszkowski, P., & Mills, E. S. (1993). The causes of metropolitan suburbanization.
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 7(3), 135–147.
Moss, P., & Tilly, C. (1991). Why black men are doing worse in the labor market. New York:
Social Science Research Council.
Mueller, E., Hilde, T. W., & Torrado, M. (2018). Methods for countering spatial inequality:
Incorporating strategic opportunities for housing preservation into transit-oriented
development planning. Landscape and Urban Planning, This volume.
Nelson, A. C. (1992). Preserving prime farmland in the face of urbanization: Lessons from
Oregon. Journal of the American Planning Association, 85(4), 467–487.
Nelson, A. C., & Sanchez, T. W. (2005). The effectiveness of urban containment regimes in
reducing exurban sprawl. NSL Network City and Landscape, 160, 42–47.
Nguyen, D. (2010). Evidence of the impacts of urban sprawl on social capital. Environment
and Planning B: Planning and Design, 37(4), 610–627.
Plantinga, A. J., & Bernell, S. (2007). The association between urban sprawl and obesity:
Is it a two-way street? Journal of Regional Science, 45(3), 473–492.
Piketty, T. (2014). Capital in the twenty-first century. London: Cambridge University Press.
Ragusett, J. M. (2016). Black residential segregation in the era of urban sprawl. The
Review of Black Political Economy, 3–4, 253–272.
Redman, C. L., & Jones, N. S. (2005). The environmental, social, and health dimensions of
urban expansion. Population and Environment, 26(6), 505–520.
Sassen, S. (1991). The global city. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Schneider, A., Chang, C., & Paulsen, K. (2015). The changing spatial form of cities in
Western China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 135, 40–61.
Schweitzer, L., & Zhou, J. (2010). Neighborhood air quality outcomes in compact and
sprawled regions. Journal of the American Planning Association, 76(3), 363–371.
Seto, K. C., & Kaufman, R. K. (2003). Modeling the drivers of urban land use change in the
Pearl River Delta, China. Land Economics, 79, 106–121.
Seto, K. C., Reenberg, A., Boone, C. G., Fragkias, M., Haase, D., Langanke, T., Marcotullio,
P., Munroe, D. K., Olah, B., & Simon, D. (2012). Urban land teleconnections and
sustainability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(20), 7687–7692.
Seto, K. C., Guneralp, B., & Hutyra, L. R. (2012). Global forecasts of urban expansion to
2030 and direct impacts on biodiversity and carbon pools. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 109(40), 16083–16088.
Sierra Club (1998). Sprawl: the Dark Side of the American Dream. Research Report.
Stiglitz, J. E. (2012). The price of inequality. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Stone, B. (2008). Urban sprawl and air quality in large U.S. cities. Journal of Environmental
Management, 86, 688–698.
265
Landscape and Urban Planning 177 (2018) 259–265
Stone, B., Hess, J. J., & Frumkin, H. (2010). Urban form and extreme heat events: are
sprawling cities more vulnerable to climate change than compact cities?
Environmental Health Perspectives, 118(10), 1425.
Sturm, R., & Cohen, D. (2004). Suburban sprawl and physical and mental health. Public
Health, 118(7), 488–496.
Sze, J., & London, J. K. (2008). Environmental justice at the crossroads. Sociology
Compass, 2(4), 1331–1354.
Talen, E., Wheeler, S., & Anselin, L. (2018). The social context of U.S. built landscapes.
Landscape and Urban Planning, This volume.
Thomas, J. M. (1998). Ethnic variation in commuting propensity and unemployment
spells: Some UK evidence. Journal of Urban Economics, 43(3), 385–400.
Trowbridge, M. J., Gurka, M. J., & O’Connor, R. (2009). Urban sprawl and delayed am-
bulance arrival in the United States. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 37(5),
428–432.
Tsai, Y. (2005). Quantifying urban form: compactness versus ‘sprawl’. Urban Studies,
42(1), 141–161.
United Nations (2014). World urbanization prospects. New York: United Nations.
UN-Habitat (2011). State of the world’s cities 2010/2011. New York: United Nations.
Wang, Z., Chen, J., Zheng, W., & Deng, X. (2018). Dynamics of land use efficiency with
ecological intercorrelation in regional development. Landscape and Urban Planning,
This volume. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2017.09.022.
Watson, T. (2009). Inequality and the measurement of residential segregation by income
in American neighborhoods. Review of Income and Wealth, 55(3), 820–844.
Weng, Q. (2001). A remote sensing? GIS evaluation of urban expansion and its impact on
surface temperature in the Zhujiang Delta, China. International Journal of Remote
Sensing, 22(10), 1999–2014.
Wassmer, R. W., & Baass, M. C. (2006). Does a more centralized urban form raise housing
prices? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 25(2), 439–462.
Wei, Y. H. D. (2012). Restructuring for growth in urban China: Transitional institutions,
urban development, and spatial transformation. Habitat International, 36, 396–405.
Wei, Y. H. D. (2015). Spatiality of regional inequality. Applied Geography, 61, 1–10.
Wei, Y. H. D. (Ed.). (2017). Urban land and sustainable development. Basel, Switzerland:
MDPI.
Wei, Y. H. D., Leung, C. K., & Luo, J. (2006). Globalizing Shanghai: foreign investment
and urban restructuring. Habitat International, 30(2), 231–244.
Wei, Y. H. D., Li, H., & Yue, W. (2017). Urban land expansion and regional inequality in
transitional China. Landscape and Urban Planning, 163, 17–31.
Wei, Y. H. D., & Ye, X. (2014). Urbanization, urban land expansion, and environmental
change in China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 28(4),
757–765.
Wheeler, C. H. (2008). Urban decentralization and income inequality: Is sprawl asso-
ciated with rising income segregation across neighborhoods? Federal Reserve Bank of
St. Louis Regional Economic Development, 4(1), 41–57.
Wilson, B., & Chakraborty, A. (2013). The environmental impacts of sprawl: Emergent
themes from the past decade of planning research. Sustainability, 5, 3302–3327.
Wu, C., Wei, Y. H. D., Huang, X., & Chen, B. (2017). Economic transition, spatial de-
velopment and urban land use efficiency in the Yangtze River Delta, China. Habitat
International, 63, 67–78.
Wu, F. (2003). Globalization, place promotion and urban development in Shanghai.
Journal of Urban Affairs, 25(1), 55–78.
Xie, Y., Gong, H., Yang, L., Li, S., & Zeng, S. (2018). Examining shrinking city of Detroit in
the context of sociospatial inequalities. Landscape and Urban Planning, This volume.
Young, A. F. (2012). Urbanization, environmental justice, and social-environmental
vulnerability in Brazil. Urbanization and Sustainability, 95–116.
Yue, W., Fan, P., Wei, Y. H. D., & Qi, J. (2014). Economic development, urban expansion,
and sustainable development in Shanghai. Stochastic environmental research and risk
assessment, 28(4), 783–799.
Zhao, P. (2013). The impact of urban sprawl on social segregation in Beijing and a limited
role for spatial planning. Tijdschrift voor Economische en Sociale Geografie, 104(5),
571–587.
Zhao, P., Lu, B., & Roo, G. (2011). Impact of the jobs-housing balance on urban com-
muting in Beijing in the transformation era. Journal of Transport Geography, 19(1),
59–69.
Zolnik, E. J. (2011). The effect of sprawl on private-vehicle commuting outcomes.
Environment and Planning Part A, 43(8), 1875.
Yehua Dennis Wei
Department of Geography, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112-
9155, USA
E-mail address: wei@geog.utah.edu
Reid Ewing
Department of City and Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah, Salt
Lake City, UT 84112-9155, USA
E-mail address: ewing@arch.utah.edu