pays  for
            The Economic, Social, and Environmental
                 Impacts of Sprawl Development
                             April 1998
OhesapeaKe Bay Program
EPA Report Collection
Regional Center for Environmental Information
U.S. EPA Region III
Philadelphia, PA 19103

                           Prepared by               •  ~
                  Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.       ';  „•

                          on behalf of the                .  -   ^
Chesapeake Bay Program's Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee^
                              and the
        Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee,

    Members of both groups provided valuable insight and comments
                   to the text and bibliographies.              ;
                           Printed by the
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  for the Chesapeake Bay Program
                        Printed on recycled paper.

                           Prepared by
                  Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.

                          on behalf of the
Chesapeake Bay Program's Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee
                              and the
       Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee.

    Members of both groups provided valuable insight and comments
                   to the text and bibliographies.
                          Printed by the
                U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                  for the Chesapeake Bay Program
                                    US, EPA Region III
                                    Aoc^nal Cer.ter for Environmental
                                     Hi; or or1"; on
                                    3650 Arch Street (3PM52)
                                    KjJlaueJphia, PA 19103
                        Printed on recycled paper.

                        Table of Contents

The Chesapeake Bay Program	i

Introduction	  1
      What is Sprawl?	  2
      What Causes Sprawl?	  2
      What are the Effects of Sprawl?	  2

Cost of Sprawl to Local Governments	  3
      Social Costs	  4
      Effects on Business Climate	  4
      Infrastructure Costs  	  4

Cost of Sprawl to Developers 	  6
      Impact Fees  	  6
      Infrastructure Costs  	  6

Cost of Sprawl to Citizens	  8
      Taxes	  8
      Housing Costs  	  8
      Commuting Time and Automobile Costs 	  9
      Quality of Life	 10

Cost of Sprawl to Farmers	 11
      Loss of the Industry Land Base	 11
      Residential Intrusion and Conflicts	 12
      Loss of Farm Support Services	 13
      Loss of Productivity	 13

Cost of Sprawl to the Environment and the Chesapeake Bay	 13
      Land	 14
      Air	 15
      Water	 16

Conclusion 	 17

Annotated Bibliography  	 19

General Bibliography  	 27

The Chesapeake Bay Program
          ecognizing the effect local decisions have on the health of the Chesapeake Bay, its rivers
           id streams, the Chesapeake Bay Program adopted two new initiatives in 1996 — the
      Local Government Participation A ction Plan and the Priorities for Action for Land, Growth,
      and Stewardship in the Chesapeake Bay Region.  The Chesapeake Bay Local Government
      Advisory Committee  developed the Local Government Participation Action Plan to
      encourage local governments to broaden their participation in Chesapeake Bay restoration
      and protection initiatives by implementing or enhancing implementation of local initiatives
      in three theme areas: land use management, stream corridor protection and infrastructure

      The Chesapeake Bay Land, Growth and Stewardship Subcommittee developed Priorities for
      Action for Land, Growth and Stewardship in Chesapeake Bay Region. The goal of the
      Priorities for Action is to encourage  sustainable development patterns, which integrate
      resource  protection,  community participation and  economic health.  Adopted by the
      Chesapeake Executive Council, which consists of the governors of Maryland, Pennsylvania,
      and Virginia; the mayor of the District of Columbia; the chair  of the Chesapeake Bay
      Commission, a tri-state legislative body; and the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
      Protection Agency representing the federal government, the Priorities for Action has six
      objectives, including one that encourages efficient development patterns. These patterns are
      represented in compact, contiguous, transit-oriented, and mixed-use development which is

      The Chesapeake  Bay Program is  considered the national and  international model for
      estuarine  restoration and watershed protection.


      T?or nearly fifty years, changes in the patterns and densities of land use in the Chesapeake Bay
      J7 watershed have reflected a national trend — a migration of businesses and residents from
      urban centers to new rural and suburban developments.  This migration has blurred the once
      distinct urban and rural landscape of the Chesapeake Bay
      region. Economists, citizens, environmentalists, local          ^••••••••••^••••I^^M
      governments and others have begun to realize the economic
      and environmental costs associated with this sprawl pattern of
      Sprawl affects us all. Local governments are affected by
      increasing costs of services, migration of businesses, and loss
      of a community identity. Higher taxes, longer commutes and
      loss of a sense a place are some examples of how landowners
      are affected by sprawl. Sprawl also affects the Chesapeake
      Bay, its rivers and streams.  The Chesapeake's fragile
      ecosystem is negatively impacted by sprawl development's
      effect on sensitive areas such as wetlands, forests and stream

      A growing number of articles are surfacing on how sprawl
      impacts our economy, environment and community. For
      instance, a recent Washington Post article reported on the
      effects of sprawl on Prince William County, Virginia.
      Officials in the County estimated that the costs of providing
      public services to a new residential home exceeds what is
      collected in taxes and other fees by $1,600  (Shear and Casey).

      There are alternatives to the patterns of development that
      create sprawl including establishing urban growth boundaries,
      clustering development, and creating attractive infill
      developments. Although these alternatives reduce the impact
      of sprawl development, they have not been fully embraced by
      land use decision-makers, citizens, landowners and others.
"To develop irregularly...
To spread out carelessly
or awkwardly."
       -Webster's New Collegiate

"...an inefficient use of the
land, difficult to service
with infrastructure and
transportation, requiring
extensive use of
automobiles, and
consuming large areas of
            - 2020 Panel Report

"...a specific form of
suburbanization that
involves extremely low-
density settlement at the
far edges of the settled
area, spreading out far
into previously
underdeveloped land."
               -Anthony Downs
         The Brookings Institute
      The following literature review synthesizes recent regional
      and national studies which demonstrate the economic, social and environmental consequences of
      sprawl development to local governments, residents, developers, and farmers in the Chesapeake
      Bay watershed.

What is Sprawl?

Though frequently discussed, sprawl is a term without a commonly accepted meaning, interpreted
in a variety of ways with only subtle differences.  At times, the definition may be quite specific.
For example, Cost of Providing Government Services to Alternative Residential Patterns defines
sprawl as development with a density less than 3  dwelling units per acre (CH2M-Hill p. 1). For
the purpose of this work, sprawl assumes a broader meaning: it is low-density, land-consumptive
development that separates jobs from homes, encourages the reliance on the automobile, and
underutilizes existing community facilities and public services.

What Causes Sprawl?

Since few agree upon the definition of sprawl, it is not surprising that there is also little consensus
about the origins of the development pattern. According to Anthony Downs of the Brookings
Institute, sprawl can be attributed to five factors:

•     Occupancy of single-family homes in wide-spreading, low-density developments.
•     Universal use of private automobiles.
•     Dominance of scattered low-density workplaces, most of them providing convenient free
•     Fragmentation of powers of governance over land use.
•     Reliance on the "trickle-down" economic process to provide housing for low-income
      households (qtd. Young p. 6).

One prominent cause of urban sprawl is the nation's reliance on     "If we continue to
automobiles. As the standards of living rose in the post-war era,    rely on highways and
many families were able to afford an automobile and, therefore, a    automobiles, and if
house located a considerable distance from work.                 we continue with the
                                                            same patterns of
The universal use of automobiles in the United States led to         growth, it is virtually
sprawl by allowing the distance between jobs, homes, and          impossible that the
shopping centers to increase, while still remaining connected. As    quality of life in the
sprawl increases, so does the need for automobiles; it is a           region will get
relationship in which one perpetuates the other.                   anything but worse."
                                                               (2020 Panel Report p.18)
What are the Effects of Sprawl?                      ^™^^^^^.^-^
Characterized by low-density development, sprawl disperses residential, employment, and retail
centers over a broad geographic area and requires long trips by automobile. As the Bank of
America report Beyond Sprawl illustrates, sprawl creates decentralized employment centers,
housing that pushes deeper into agriculture and environmentally sensitive lands, an increased
dependence on automobiles, and an isolation of older communities (p. 4). The migration to
suburban and rural areas associated with sprawl has stressed natural resources. The Maryland


      Office of Planning projects the following growth and development trends for the state:

      •     21 % - The projected population increase by the year 2020.
      •     20% - The decline in city population due to out-migration to suburban areas between
            1970 and 1990.
      •     30% - The increase in number of households by the year 2020 as a result of shrinking
            household size.
      •     36% - The average increase in the size of lots created in new development since 1985.
      •     100% - the projected increase in land consumed by development by the year 2020 if the
            current trends continue.

      These patterns of growth and the costs they entail are threatening the identity and blurring the
      character of communities throughout the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  Sprawl touches upon every
      aspect of our communities — family life, business and economic development, housing, farming
      and forestry, local governance, natural resources, and the Bay.
Cost of Sprawl to Local Governments
                                             Paying for Growth...Estimated additional
                                             local government expenditures required to
                                             meet needs of 400,000 new Wisconsin
                                             residents by the year 2010.
    Local governments are one of the groups that sprawl affects most directly. It impacts the
    socio-economic conditions, business    ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
climate, and infrastructure costs of a
jurisdiction. Although adequate public
facilities ordinances and impact fees are
tools used by local governments to
minimize the impacts of sprawl, they do
not cover the full costs of such
development.  In many cases, the impact
fees paid by the developers remain
constant whether the new home is located
two miles or ten miles from a treatment
plant, though the costs of providing
services increase with distance, leaving the
rest of the bill to be paid by the local
governments (Kasowski p. 1). Taxes, the
main source of revenue for local
governments, also do not cover the
development expenses.  In Loudoun
Development Pattern
Suburban low-density
significant "leapfrogging"
Dispersion beyond suburbs, but
minimal "leapfrogging"
Higher density, urban containment
Cost (billions)
                                             Source: UW-Madison Dept. Of Urban and Regional Planning.
                                             Costs include transportation, public works, public safety,
                                             culture, recreation, and government.

                                                                                  (Huisey p. 5)
      County, Virginia, the average family paid only $1,280 in taxes, but received $5,800 in services
      each year, covering only a quarter of the costs (Kinsley and Lovins).

Social Costs

Sprawl also has social implications that local government officials must face. According to Henry
Richmond of the National Growth Management Leadership Project, as middle and upper class
residents flee the city for the suburbs, poverty becomes concentrated in urban areas and leads to a
host of problems.  Dealing with social problems left to fester in older neighborhoods costs time
and money.  "For example, concentration of poverty makes urban schools dysfunctional, and lack
of education becomes a major factor in rising crime rates" (Young p. 10).

Effects on Business Climate

Sprawl affects the business climate of a community by reducing the quality of life in an area while
making other regions more attractive to potential business owners and employees. The business
climate of an area is key: local governments rely on businesses to provide tax revenue to the area
since business typically requires relatively fewer government services. Businesses may avoid an
area characterized by sprawl because of the higher direct business taxes levied to compensate for
sprawl's side-effects.  On the other hand, businesses may follow the flight of residents from cities
and leave their downtown locations.  Chicago is feeling the effects of such urban disinvestment as
businesses and residents gravitate to the suburbs, leaving a growing problem of joblessness and
poverty behind.  Between 1980 and 1990, 81 percent of the region's new jobs went to suburban
locations (McMahon).

A geographic mismatch between workers and jobs may also arise as a result of sprawl. This leads
to an increase in labor costs as worker productivity declines.  As jobs and people spread out, the
commuting time increases and workers cannot reach new jobs because their homes are simply too
far removed from employment centers {Beyond Sprawl p.  6).

Infrastructure Costs

Many studies show that infrastructure expenditures prove to be sprawl's  highest cost to local
governments. The price tag of building and maintaining a single parking  space can be $10,000 to
$15,000 over the course of 20 years (CBF/EDF p. 5). Though the actual  plans for managing
growth vary from area to area, the results all point in the same direction — planned growth is less
expensive than unplanned, sprawl-type growth.

Consider the following findings:

•     The use of compact, higher density development has been shown  to produce a 4% to 8%
       savings in capital costs of infrastructure at the regional and state  levels (CH2M-Hill p. 5-

•     The Search for Efficient Growth Patterns (Duncan et al. 1989) found a 30% savings in
       capital costs for roads and utilities with a planned configuration as opposed to scattered
       development (Impact Assessment ofDELEP p. III-8).


          Studies in Florida, New Jersey, California, and Minnesota have reported average
          infrastructure savings related to planned growth to be:
                 • 25% for roads
                 • 5%  for schools
                 • 15% for utilities (Impact Assessment ofDELEP p. 9).

          James Frank's well-known literature review, The Costs of Alternative Development
          Patterns, determined that the capital costs for streets, sewers, water, storm drainage, and
          schools could be reduced by $17,000 per dwelling unit, "by choosing a central location,
          using a mix of housing types in which single-family units and townhouses constitute 30
          percent of the total and apartments 70 percent, and by planning contiguous development
          instead of leapfrogging" (Frank p. 39).

          Fiscal Studies, a report prepared for the Governor's Commission on Growth in the
          Chesapeake Bay Region in 1991, calculated a $1.2 billion savings in infrastructure costs
          relating to, "the efficiencies of targeting much of the projected growth to previously
          developed and/or adjacent growth areas" (p. 109).
          Savings in Infrastructure Costs
             as a result of Planned Development

Water and
New Jersey
(Over 20 yrs.)
$740 million
$440 million
(Over 25 yrs.)
$31.5 million
$17.4 million
(Over 20 yrs.)
$700 million
$200 million
1.  Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and
Redevelopment Plan, Report II (1992).
2.  Impact Assessment of DELEP CCMP versus STATUS QUO on Twelve
Municipalities in the DELEP Region (1995).
3.  Burchell 1991[a],
Robert W. Burchell has
conducted numerous studies
to measure the economic costs
of sprawl. To the left, three of
Burchell's major studies
summarize the reductions in
infrastructure costs as a result
of planned development.

Studies show that redirecting
growth to areas with
established infrastructure
systems, as opposed to rural
areas where infrastructure
does not exist, results in
significant savings. As people
move out of areas with
existing infrastructure,
   services must be extended. For example, the exodus of residents from urban centers caused one
   Maryland county to close over 60 existing schools, only to build the same number in outlying
   areas.  The cost to the county totaled $500 million over a 20 year period (McMahon p. 4).

   The density of development also impacts the cost of providing infrastructure. The National
   Association of Home Builders determined that as housing densities increase, the unit cost for

      infrastructure costs decrease (2020 Panel Report p. 31). According to the 2020 Panel, high-
      density development, as opposed to sprawl, could save $10.8 billion (in 1988 dollars) in road
      construction costs by the year 2020 (p. 33)

      Burchell's studies also show infrastructure savings with higher density development patterns. For
      example, cost to serve single-family development in Maryland to the year 2020 is estimated to be
      twice as much as to serve townhouses with a higher density, and three times as much as the cost
      of apartments (Burchell 1991 [a] p. 13).
Cost of Sprawl to Developers

          Although developers would appear to benefit from sprawl, low-density development proves to
          be costly in impact fees and infrastructure costs. The costs increase because low-density
      development generates a need for additional miles of roads, curbs, sewer and water lines to serve
      new development.

      Impact Fees

      Impact fees are charges placed on new development to pay for a proportionate share of
      infrastructure costs resulting from growth. As of 1991 in Maryland, impact fees were being used
      by a total of 9 counties (Burchell 1991 [a] p. 97) bringing in over $10 million per year.  This
      amount is expected to continue to rise as more impact fees are initiated. As of 1991, Calvert
      County, Maryland imposes a school impact fee of $3,000 per single-family dwelling unit and a
      $1,000 to $2,000 fee for attached units (p. 98).  Jim Nicholas, professor of Urban Planning and an
      economist at the University of Florida, found fees to be as high as $50,000 per single-family home
      for schools, roads, and sewers. He determined the average impact fee to be $10,000, growing at
      a rate of 20 percent annually (Kasowski p. 2).

      In California, contiguous development has been  shown to incur reduced impact fees. Public fees
      for new development cost $15,000 to $30,000 per dwelling in the suburban sprawl areas
      surrounding Sacramento.  In contrast, a 25 unit condominium project located within the city
      required only $6,500 in fees because roads, sewers,  and water system already exist
      (Mogavero p. 1).

      Infrastructure Costs

      The cost of infrastructure is an expense a developer will have to pay for directly or indirectly
      through impact fees. Concentrated development and taking advantage of existing facilities has
      been proven to defray the  costs of providing infrastructure. Higher density development is
      cheaper to build; dwellings built at a density of 5 units per acre cost $5,000 to $20,000 more to
      build than development at a density of 15 to 25 units per acre (Mogavero p. 2).


                         Remlik Hall Farm Infrastructure Costs
A comparison study of conventional rural subdivision design versus clustered rural subdivision
design at Remlik Hall in Middlesex County, Virginia showed concentrated development to be cost
effective (Mauer         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^—
p. 27). The clustered
plan reduced
infrastructure costs by
$525,000 for the site
(see table).  A
substantial portion of
the  savings came from
a 53 percent reduction
in road length over the
subdivision plan.  In
addition to the cost
benefits of the
development, the
clustered plan

Engineering Costs
Road Construction Costs
Sewer and Water Costs
                                                                Figures by Land Ethics, Inc.
                                                                          (Mauer p.31)
Planning will save New Jersey...
       Infrastructure Savings
       Over the Next 20 Years
"preserves rural character, field and shoreline vistas, and large acreages of forested and workable
farmland" (p. 29).

The Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan
revealed significant savings in infrastructure costs — $1.38 billion over the course of 20 years.
  •^^•••••^^^•^^•^•••••^^••I^HI   The greatest portion of the savings arises
                                               from road costs.  A reduction of 1,600 lane-
                                               miles contributes to a $740 million savings.
                                               Concentrated, planned growth has also been
                                               shown to reduce the costs of water, sewer,
                                               and schools for new development (see

                                               Higher densities of development decrease
                                               the construction costs. The 2020 Panel
                                               found that, "at densities of one unit per 1-5
                                               acres, approximately $3,500 in site
                                               development costs can be saved for each
                                               one unit increase in density."  Furthermore,
                                               there is potential for $1,800 in development
                                               costs to be saved for each one unit increase
                                               in density from 2 to 5 units per acre and
$400 for each one unit increase in multifamily dwellings (2020 Panel Report p. 32)
$740 million
$61 million
$379 million
$200 million
$1.38 billion
             (Impact Assessment of New Jersey)

       Sprawl increases the costs of new development by creating the need for infrastructure extension.
       Concentrated development is more cost efficient because it uses the existing infrastructure. For
       example, James Frank found development located 10 miles from central services added $15,000
       per dwelling to the capital costs (Frank p. 39)
Cost of Sprawl  to Citizens
          Residents of the sprawling subdivision which characterize today's suburban landscape may
          perceive neighborhoods as symbols of affluence and security, but with those perceived
      benefits come substantial costs. Sprawl costs everyone — from the owners of a three acre lot ten
      miles out of town, to the tenant of an inner city apartment building. Increased taxes, commuting
      time, automobile maintenance, and a reduction in the quality of life are some of sprawl's "hidden


      Although suburbs are perceived to be low-tax locations, and may be in the short-term, the hidden
      costs of low-density development are passed on to all taxpayers. One major expense is the
      building and maintenance of infrastructure improvements serve outlying areas. A Maryland study
      found that residents will pay $10 billion by the year 2020 to construct schools, roads, and sewers
      to serve sprawl development (McMahon p. 4).

      In McFarland,  Wisconsin, it was estimated that all local residents paid an additional $30 in taxes
      to cover police, fire, schools, and other services for each $1 million in new construction
      (Hulsey p. 5).  The City of Franklin, Wisconsin found every new single-family detached home to
      cost taxpayers $10,607 to serve (p. 6).  Although the residents of the new sprawl-type
      developments may enjoy the benefits of a large front lawn and privacy, but they are also paying
      for their space, and passing the costs onto other taxpayers.

      Housing Costs

      Sprawl development can also increase the cost of homes. Developers who pay for extensions of
      roads, water and sewer infrastructure to support sprawl development patterns pass on the costs to
      homebuyers. In fact, the cost of infrastructure in new sprawl developments can amount to half
      the cost of development (CFI2M-Hill p. 168). In addition, the cost of sprawl development also
      reduces the amount of affordable housing available.

           Increase in Driving Time
Commuting Time and Automobile Costs

As employment centers and homes spread farther from each other and established urban centers,
the distance between activity centers increases, necessitating more automobile trips.  Commuting
times have risen 13 percent between 1980 and 1990 for residents of 10 cities in the
Alameda/Contra Costa, California area (Beyond Sprawl). In the Washington D.C. area, the
average speed of the beltway was 47 miles per hour in 1981, but by 1988 the average speed
slowed to 23 miles per hour (2020 Panel Report p. 24).

Experts expect that if sprawl continues at its current rate, commuting times will continue to rise as
the reliance on the automobile becomes more pronounced.  Burchell's Technical Studies
determined that for the Chesapeake Bay Region, a dispersed development pattern will generate
10.9 million hours of driving time from 1990 to 2020  (p. 69).  In contrast, concentrated
development is expected to only produce 5.6                    	   	
million hours of driving and medium-density 6.3    '
million hours (see chart). Between 1970 and
1995, the Chesapeake Bay watershed
experienced a 27 percent increase in population
while the amount of vehicle miles traveled
(VMT) jumped by 106 percent.  Population
projections expect a 12 percent rise by the year
2010, but VMT is predicted to rise another 39
percent during the same period (Chesapeake Bay
Program's Environmental Indicators). These
traffic delays not only cost time, but money.  In
the San Francisco Bay area, research estimates
that $2 billion per year is lost while sitting in
traffic (Mogavero p. 2).
                                                                   (Burchell 1991[b], p.69)
The increased travel time due to sprawl makes
the automobile a necessity for the suburban resident, but the flexible mobility that this form of
transportation provides is costly:

•      16% to 20% of household expenditures in the United States go to auto-related expenses
       (Young p. 7).

•      The average Californian spends 1 out of every 5 dollars buying or maintaining
       automobiles (Beyond Sprawl p. 6).

•     $4,000 per household annually could be saved if the number and distance  of trips were
       reduced, which would allow families to own fewer cars (CBF/EDF p. 6).
                  Millions of Hours

                   Dispersed Pattern
                   Medium Density
                   Concentrated Pattern

          Population  Distribution
 Since 1970, more people are living in the suburbs than in the cities.
                                     If the price of gasoline reflected
                                     the tme social and environmental
                                     costs of utilizing a car, gasoline
                                     would cost between $6 to $8 per
                                     gallon (CBF/EDF p. 5).

] Central Cities
I Suburbs
  Rural Areas
                                                  Quality of Life

                                                  Residents move into new communities
                                                  characterized by low-density
                                                  development in search of a better life —
                                                  safer streets, more privacy, a larger
                                                  house — but their quality of life does not
                                                  always improve.   Studies show that the
                                                  population of suburbs, characterized by
 ™"~™"^^^^^~^^"'^^~                      low-density development, has been
                                                  steadily rising in the past few decades
(see chart). Although many seek distance from the cities, sprawl development is not self-
supportive and contact with urban centers is still necessary. As development spreads farther from
central places, automobile travel and commuting time increases. This commuting time poses
psychological consequences. Roger Ulrich of Texas A&M said the commuter, "grows more and
more tense as he drives... and then spends the beginning of his work day trying to unwind"
(Young p. 11).  Commuting not only creates stress, but lowers worker productivity as well.

The long commutes for suburban residents not only affects those making the drive,  but also the
children that they leave behind. Time spent in the car commuting is time that  children lose with
parents at home. Sylvia Ann Hewlett, author of When the Bough Breaks: The Costs of
Neglecting our Children, concludes that children have lost approximately  12 hours per week of
parental time over the last 30 years (Mogavero p. 2).  A portion of    	
this lost parental time is from the long commutes resulting from
dispersion of residential areas and jobs.
One intangible cost of suburban sprawl is the loss of a "sense of
place." Many of the new housing developments that sprawl creates
are virtually identical and lack those traits which give older
neighborhoods their traditional, but individualistic look, i.e., shallow
setbacks, narrower streets, and varied architectural styles and types.
Kenneth T. Jackson, author of Crabgrass Frontier: The
Suburbanization of the United States, notes that a major
characteristic of suburbs, beginning with those constructed in the
post-war era, is their architectural similarity "contributing to the
disappearance of distinctive regional styles in American
architecture." James Howard Kunstler discusses the perception of a
                                            "...as the middle
                                            class vacates older
                                            urban (and now
                                            they leave a
                                            concentration of
                                            poverty and poor
                                            children with fewer
                                            role models for
                                                      (Mogavero p.2)

      loss of community in Home from Nowhere: "American's sense that something is wrong with the
      places where we live and work and go about our daily business. We hear this unhappiness
      expressed in phrases like 'no sense of place' and 'the loss of community"' (p. 43).

      Sprawl profoundly affects those who reside in the central cities and established suburbs.  They do
      not experience the positive aspects of sprawl, but instead remain isolated in the deteriorating
      central places.  The quality of life declines for these residents as they experience economic
      segregation and a loss of social stability created by the void of middle-class residents who have
      migrated to the periphery.  Studies reveal that, "low-density development has led to an
      intensification of residential segregation by race and social class" (Nelson p. 7).  Central cities
      have a high concentration of poverty and unemployment because many of the residents cannot
      afford to own an automobile and have, as a result, lost access to the jobs now concentrated in the
      suburbs (BeyondSprawl?. 7).

      Sprawl development is the result of American prosperity, that is, the ability to afford an
      automobile and own a home a considerable distance from the work place.  As time progresses and
      sprawl continues to consume our countryside and degrade our cities, residents of older cities and
      new developments alike are becoming increasingly aware of the harmful effects of this
      development pattern.

Cost of  Sprawl to  Farmers

        A griculture is a staple of the American economy at both the national and international level —
      -/A-the grain belt alone accounts for 25 percent of the world's grain output. For the Chesapeake
      Bay region, the importance of the agricultural industry cannot
      be overlooked. In 1987, the market value of agricultural
      products sold was over $3 billion in Pennsylvania, over $1.5      "Agriculture is not only an
      billion in Virginia, and approximately $1 billion in Maryland      important component of
      (1987 Census of Agricultural, vol. 1, pts. 20,38,46). Despite     the State's economy, it is
      agriculture's economic importance, prime farmlands are not      a|so an important resource
      spared from sprawl development.  For example, in Maryland     fOr fne future of a state
      where agriculture accounts for 14 percent of the State's gross     whose population is
      product, there was a net loss of 147,400 acres of agricultural     expected to increase from
      lands between 1971 and 1988. If current trends persist, the      4 7 to 5 8 million people in
      State is  predicted to lose an additional 333,000 acres — a 13     the next severa, decades."
      percent  reduction in agricultural land — by the year 2020                 (Burcheii I99i[b] p 38)
      (Burchell 1991 [b] p. 39).                                  •-•^.
      Loss of the Industry Land Base

      A decline in farmland acreage is not only a characteristic of Maryland.  The American Farmland
      Trust released a March 1997 report entitled Fanning on the Edge that declares the Mid-Atlantic


Coastal Plain of Delaware and Maryland is the ninth most threatened agricultural region in the
nation. Urban growth from the Wilmington-Newark and Washington-Baltimore regions is
endangering 60 percent of the area's best farmland. The American Farmland Trust determined
that, on the national level, 4.3 million acres of prime farmland were destroyed between 1982 and
1992. In addition, it states that 79 percent of the nation's fruits, 69 percent of the vegetables, and
52 percent of the dairy products are produced on land seriously threatened by sprawl (Sorensen
et. al.).

Other findings/projections include:

•      In the Delaware Estuary region, 2,350 acres of prime farmland could be saved over a
       25 year period by initiating concentrated, planned development (Impact Assessment of
       DELEPp.  10).

•      Sprawl development will consume 108,000 acres of mostly high-quality agricultural land
       by 2010 in New Jersey. Planned development will save 30,000 acres during the same
       period, without a loss in "prime" or "marginal" farmlands from 1990 levels (Impact
       Assessment of New Jersey p. 12).

•      The Central Valley of California experienced a permanent loss of a half-million acres of
       productive farmland between 1982 and 1987, including the irreplaceable and highly
       productive costal farmlands and land in micro-climates supporting unique agricultural
       products (Beyond Sprawl p. 7).
       Literature has shown that planned development
       consumes 40% less agricultural land than low-density
       sprawl (Impact Assessment ofDELEP p. 111-22).
Residential Intrusion and Conflicts

Any one of a number of land use conflicts with farming activity
can arise as a result of sprawl development. Land use conflicts,
or nuisances, frequently cited by farmers include: residential
complaints (and often law suits) over farm odors and flies,
agricultural noise, dust, chemical and pesticide spraying;
livestock predation by domestic pets, especially dogs;
indiscriminate refuse disposal and littering; trespassing, theft and
vandalism; significantly altered traffic patterns and farmland
removed from production as roads are widened to accommodate
new growth.  Farmers can also be held financially responsible for
any damage caused to residential areas by wandering farm
animals. Coping with these nuisances has proven financially
burdensome for most farmers (RJA).
"Clustering development
is an effective way to
allow development and
also save farmland and
open space in rural
areas undergoing
suburbanization. And as
far as the Chesapeake
Bay is concerned,
farmland is preferable to
developed land.
Properly managed
farmland minimizes
polluted runoff and
maintains the land's
permeability to
               ( Mauer p. 27)

         Loss of Farm Support Services

         The agricultural industry depends on farm support services for its survival.  As more and more
         farmers and farmland are displaced by development, fewer farmers and less farmland are left to
         retain the critical mass needed to maintain farm support services. Farm implement dealers, seed
         feed and fertilizer sales companies, and grain elevators depend upon a minimum level of business
         generated by area farmers.  As farmers sell out and business levels decline, those engaged in the
         farm support services industry move on to more agriculturally intense communities or retire. As
         support services vanish from the community, existing farmers find it increasingly difficult to farm
         efficiently and cost effectively.

         For example, Alternative for Future Growth in California determined that for the Central Valley
         region in California, low-density development could reduce direct agricultural commodity sales by
         $1.13  billion per year as opposed to more efficient patterns of development. Related sales of
         suppliers, processors, and other agricultural support businesses would decline by $1.7 billion per
         year. By the year 2040, the cumulative loss of direct and indirect agricultural sales for sprawl
         development in the Central Valley versus concentrated growth would be $72 billion (Alternative
         for Future Urban Growth in California's Central Valley). Sprawl's implications for the
         agriculture industry are far-reaching.

         Loss of Productivity

         Air pollution results from increased car and truck emissions that occur due to longer commutes
         and higher auto use. This pollution resulting from sprawl is detrimental to agricultural
         productivity. According to the Agricultural Issues Center at the University of California-Davis,
         ozone-pollution has been shown to reduce crop yields by 30 percent and incur a cost of $200
         million per year (Beyond Sprawl p. 7).

         Sprawl development directly affects the agriculture industry by robbing farmers of prime land and
         by causing financial losses that can be felt throughout the agricultural support businesses.
         Indirectly, sprawl-induced pollution lowers agricultural productivity. The current trends in
         development are threatening one of the most prominent industries in the region, as well as the
Cost of Sprawl to the Environment and the Chesapeake Bay

            Sprawl costs local governments and landowners money, but equally importantly, it negatively
            impacts the health of the environment.  Low-density, land-consuming development
         compromises the land, air, and water quality which ultimately affects the Chesapeake Bay, its
         rivers and streams.


          Amount of Land Saved by
            Growth Management

03 30-
TJ 3°

watershed remains forested.  Forests are under pressure from urban expansion, lost to sub-
urbanization at an average rate of 100 acres a day (Making the Connection p. 101).

Concentrated, planned development has proven to preserve wetlands and other sensitive lands
containing forests, steep slopes, and critically sensitive watersheds. The Impact Assessment of the
New Jersey State Interim Development and Redevelopment Plan indicates that 80 percent of the
fragile environmental lands — a savings of 30,000 acres — could be protected by the
implementation of growth management techniques (p.  12). In the Delaware Estuary, 1,075 acres
of fragile lands could be saved by avoiding sprawl, a 27 percent reduction (Impact Assessment of
DELEP p. 10). Literature reveals that planned growth requires only 17 percent of the level of
development on fragile lands as compared to traditional sprawl development (p. 111-22).

Protecting environmentally sensitive areas is vital to the health of the Chesapeake Bay.  Forested
lands are very beneficial to the Bay's ecosystem by absorbing surface run-off and preventing
sedimentation (Burchell  1991[b] p.  46). Each individual tree plays an important role in protecting
the environment.  The North America Forestry Association estimated that the annual monetary
value of the environmental benefits  of a 50 year old tree provides:

•      $75 in soil erosion and storm water control
•      $75 in wildlife shelter benefits
•      $73 in air cooling services
•      $50 in air pollutant controls

Over the course of 50 years with a 5 percent interest rate, each tree proves to be quite valuable,
worth $57,151 (Coughlin pp. 2-23). Wetlands are also important in improving the water quality
by buffering against excessive nutrients, sediments, and pollutants (2020 Panel Report p. 29).  In
addition, they provide habitat supporting a variety of plant and animal species. In the Chesapeake
Bay, between 80 percent and 90 percent of the total seafood harvest depends on wetlands during
some life stage (2020 Panel Report p. 29).

The increased dependency on automobiles, generated by sprawl, greatly affects air quality. The
increased amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) resulting from low-density sprawl development
contributes additional pollutants to the air. Research concludes that one-third of all air pollutants
are traceable to automobile emissions (Beyond Sprawl p. 8).

The increase in VMT has serious environmental implications as well. Air quality could be
significantly improved by a 10 percent annual reduction in the growth rate of VMT. By 2020, this
would translate into a reduction of 19.2 tons per day for both ozone and oxides of nitrogen, as
well as a 287 ton per day decrease in carbon monoxide (Burchell 1991 [b] p. 31).

Growth generates more air pollution as
automobiles become more prevalent in an
area. Las Vegas has been known as the
fastest growing city in the country
throughout the decade, and because of this
growth, the city is now among the five
metropolitan areas with the worst air
quality. Air pollution cannot be contained
within the boundaries of a city or state,
but instead affects large areas in what are
called "air sheds".  Salt Lake City has
experienced the side-effects of sprawl-
generated air pollution from Los Angeles.
The pollutants travel from Los Angeles becoming trapped by the Wasatch Mountain Front and
cause a decline in air quality for the Salt Lake Valley (Egan p. 20).

Findings indicate that a continuation of current development trends will lead to the further decline
of air quality. These trends do not have to persist.  A concentrated pattern of development has
been shown to reduce potential air pollution from automobile emissions twice as much as a
dispersed pattern.


Decisions made on land ultimately affect the water. The 64,000 square mile Chesapeake Bay
watershed has a vast land area that drains into thousands local streams, rivers and eventually the
Chesapeake Bay.  The run off from the large land area in the drainage basin flows into the
relatively shallow Bay; making it extremely difficult for the Bay to dilute pollutants. Clearly, land
use decision either help to protect local streams and the Bay, or  dramatically harm them. The
patterns and densities of development and what we apply on the land has a profound influence on
the health of local ecosystems and the Bay.

The increase in impervious surfaces accompanying  sprawl — roads, parking lots, rooftops —
prevents the infiltration of rainfall. This significantly hinders the ground's ability to filter the
contaminants from rainfall, increases the volume  and pace of run-off, and has a significant impact
on the health of local streams and rivers.  A one acre area of parking lot creates 16 times more
run-off than a meadow of the same size. Run-off washes the pollutants off of impervious
surfaces, adding them to the  contaminants already present in the  rainwater, all of which drain into
the Chesapeake Bay (Mauer p. 4).

Recent studies indicate that there is a direct correlation between the percentage of impervious
surface and the quality of a stream ecosystem. In fact, once total impervious cover exceeds
10 percent, a stream ecosystem is profoundly influenced.  Profound influences to a stream
ecosystem include but are not limited to: increased flood peaks, more frequent bankfull flooding,

       lower stream flow during dry weather periods, widening of the stream channel, increased
       streambank and channel erosion, increased risk of shellfish closing, decline in fish habitat quality
       (Pelley p. 464).
        Key Impacts of Alternative Development Patterns on the
           Chesapeake Bay and its Watershed from 1990-2020
                                                                development can curb
                                                                the negative effects of
                                                                growth. Planned growth
                                                                has been shown to
                                                                reduce the amounts of
                                                                nutrients, like nitrogen
                                                                oxides, from entering the
                                                                Bay and its tributaries.
                                                                Excess amounts of these
                                                                nutrients increase the
                                                                potential for algae
                                                                blooms that cloud the
                                                                water and deplete the
                                                                oxygen needed by
                                                                aquatic organisms.
Sediment run-off is also decreased by growth management measures as these leave more land in a
natural state (see table). A concentrated pattern would contribute 2.4 million tons of sediment
less than a dispersed pattern (Burchell 1991[b] p. 28). A high concentration of sedimentation can
smother bottom-dwelling organisms and cloud the water. Cloudy water prevents sunlight from
reaching grass beds which provide important habitat for fish and other aquatic species.

Avoiding sprawl would also reduce the demand for fresh water which is developing into a severe
problem for some areas of the watershed, such as the Hampton Roads region of Virginia.
Solutions to inadequate water supplies such as diverting water from streams and rivers and
impounding wetlands often jeopardize indigenous resources (2020 Panel Report p. 31). Water
availability is a nation-wide issue, especially in the arid west around Las Vegas  (Egan p. 20).

Increase in
Increase in
nitrous oxides
Increase in water
5.7 million tons
1 .6 million
108.8 billion
4.1 million
.10 million
84.6 billion
3.4 million tons
.08 million
70.7 billion
(Burchell 1991[b] p.5)

          Based on the information and data collected, some general conclusions can be drawn
          concerning our patterns of development. Clearly, the effects of sprawl are felt by the local
      governments, residents, visitors, fanners, developers, and fish and wildlife of the Chesapeake Bay
      watershed. This can take the form of financial, social, or environmental repercussions. Current
      sprawl development trends raise infrastructure costs, increase the burden on the taxpayers,
      diminish the quality of life,  threaten environmental resources, and consume substantial amounts of
      land.  Therefore, the choices we make concerning the pattern, density and location of
      development will have far-reaching consequences, both economically and environmentally.

Richard Moe of the National Trust for Historic Preservation makes an important point, "Being
anti-sprawl is not being anti-growth" (qtd. Young p. 11).  Growth management does not attempt
to put an end to growth, but instead directs it by targeting areas suitable for new development.
As we explore alternative development scenarios, we will acquire options to resist the tendency
towards sprawl development.

The decisions we make today regarding our patterns of development will create the legacy for
future generations. Will we continue our inefficient patterns of land use and leave depleted
environmental resources?  Will we control new growth and concentrate development to preserve
the Chesapeake Bay and other natural treasures? Alternatives to existing development patterns
provide the means to manage the characteristics of growth, including its location, diversity of land
uses, density, and environmental, social  and fiscal costs.  Land use decision-makers, including
local governments, citizens, and developers, all share the responsibility for making informed land
management decisions to ensure that future growth and development benefits the economy,
protects the environment, and preserves our communities.
For more information, contact the Land, Growth, and Stewardship Subcommittee at 1 (800)
YOUR-BAYor the Chesapeake Bay Local Government Advisory Committee at 1 (800) 446-

Annotated  Bibliography
       Eleven works were selected as the "best" sources on the costs of sprawl. They are considered to be the
       most relevant studies on the topic and have proven to be the most useful resources for completing this
       project. The works were chosen based on the amount of information contained, accessibility, and
       applicability to the Chesapeake Bay watershed.  A list of the audiences which each work appeals to is
       also provided.
                                     Alternatives to Sprawl
                                        Dwight Young, 1995
       *      Local Governments
       *      Residents

       Alternatives to Sprawl is one report in a series by the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy examining the
       current land-related issues, each based on a workshop or conference.  This report follows a conference,
       titled "Alternatives to Sprawl," held in March 1995 cosponsored by the Lincoln Institute, the Brookings
       Institute, and the National Trust for Historic Preservation. Conference attendees included Henry R.
       Richmond of the National Growth Management Leadership Project, Anthony Downs of the Brookings
       Institute, and Robert W. Burchell of Rutgers University who is considered to be the expert on the fiscal
       impacts of development.

       The report is very accessible and contains a significant amount of information on the causes and costs
       of sprawl providing background on the origins of this development pattern and the factors encouraging
       it. The discussion on the economic costs of sprawl contains valuable information for local governments
       as it summarizes three of Burchell's major studies comparing planned development to unmanaged
       growth. The socio-economic factors of sprawl and its impacts on public health are also addressed.

       The work not only educates on sprawl, but provides alternatives to it.  The second half of the report
       consists of methods to create and encourage alternative patterns of growth including case studies on
       successful growth management attempts.

    Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California
   Bank of America, California Resources Agency, Greenbelt Alliance, and the Low
                         Income Housing Fund, January 1995
#     Local Governments
*     Residents
#     Farmers
»     Environment/Bay	

The Bank of America, a California financial giant traditionally opposed to growth control policies,
teamed with a variety of other organizations to release a controversial report in 1995. This unlikely
advocate of growth management highlighted the costs of sprawl to taxpayers, residents, businesses,
farmers, and the environment. The report declares that the state of California can no longer afford the
costs of sprawl and must reconsider how it will accommodate future growth.

Beyond Sprawl provides a discussion on the causes of sprawl before addressing the far reaching
consequences that sprawl has inflicted on California.  The report also outlines possible steps of action
that the state should take to remedy the situation.

This is a widely read work on sprawl, frequently referred to in other literature.  It provides a general
overview on the causes and effects of low-density development while also suggesting solutions to the

     The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the
                        Prepared for the  Urban Land Institute
                                James E. Frank, 1989
*     Local Governments
*     Developers	

This is a key work on the cost of sprawl evaluating nine of the major documents on the cost of
development. Frank examines the strengths and weaknesses of each study and adjusts the numbers to
1989 dollars to make the figures more current.

The work determines that low-density, discontinuous development increases the capital costs of public
facilities.  Frank found planned contiguous development in a central location with a mix of housing
types (30% single-family dwelling units, 70% apartments) to have the lowest per unit cost of
infrastructure. Areas for additional research on the subject are also suggested.

References to Frank's work are often made in other literature. The work is valuable for the amount of
information it contains and its applicability to other regions.

                  Cost of Providing Government Services to
                        Alternative Residential Patterns
             Prepared for the Chesapeake Bay Program by CH2M HILL
                                       May 1993
*     Local Governments	

The purpose of the study is to determine how the type, form, and location of new residential
development influence the capital costs of providing services and infrastructure. The Chesapeake Bay
Program commissioned CH2M HILL to conduct a literature review on the cost of development
studies, primarily focusing on capital costs and their impact on the local governments, but also
discussing operating and maintenance costs. The work identifies the factors affecting the cost of
providing local government services to residential areas, examines the range of variables influencing
these costs,  and describes the sensitivity of capital costs.

Appendices A and B contain the literature review.  Appendix A reviews and analyzes the most relevant
resources on the cost of development. Appendix B consists of other literature reviewed in less detail
that is indirectly applicable to the study, but still interesting. Each review includes background
information, methodology, results, summary and applicability to the Chesapeake Bay watershed. The
literature review contains most of the major works on the topic providing a great deal of information
that would be valuable to local governments.

         The Costs of Sprawl-Literature Review and Bibliography
	Real Estate Research Corporation, April 1974	
#     Local Governments
#     Developers
*     Residents
=*     Farmers
»     Environment/Bay                                                     	

The Costs of Sprawl is the most well-known and comprehensive literature review on the costs of
development. Containing all major documents, it summarizes the existing knowledge on the costs of
sprawl at that time (1974).  Even though it was completed more than 20 years ago, it is still a useful
work for the amount of information it encompasses and its very extensive bibliography.  This has
become the  model for other literature reviews on the costs of sprawl.

The work is divided into three sections. The first section contains the literature review covering the
environmental, economic, and socio-economic impacts of alternative development patterns. The
second section consists of a general bibliography in which the works are categorized by the topic and
rated on its relevance to geographical areas and functional considerations. The final section is an
annotated bibliography which provides a brief description of the more relevant sources.

     Fiscal Studies for the Governor's Commission on Growth in the
                            Chesapeake Bay Region
               Robert W. Burcheli and David Listokin, January 1991
#     Local Governments
*     Developers	

Fiscal Studies consists of three studies conducted over a four-month period during 1990. The
infrastructure costs and revenues at the local level are examined, each study evaluating a different
aspect of determining capital costs. The three studies are:

•      Future Growth in the State of Maryland: The Scale, Capacity to Accommodate, and Costs of
       Trend Development (1990-2020)
•      Capital Funding Alternatives to Support Future Growth: Revenue Sources and Their
       Potential for Revenue  Generation
•      Growth, Infrastructure Costs, Achievable Revenues, and the Infrastructure Revenue Gap:
       State of Maryland (1990-2010).

The work compares two future growth scenarios: sprawl development, labeled trend, vs. a planned
growth alternative, labeled vision. The focus is entirely on the effects of these growth alternatives on
capital costs at the local level, making the work very useful for local governments. A clear conclusion
is drawn by the report that "vision growth is less expensive than trend growth." The savings in
infrastructure with vision growth over trend growth is reported to be $1.2 billion, with 60 percent of the
savings derived from a decrease in road infrastructure costs.

This work is important to the Chesapeake Bay because it is focused on an area within the watershed ~
the state of Maryland. The focus of the work appeals to local governments, but developers will also be
interested in the information the study contains on impact fees and other methods to finance
infrastructure. Burcheli is considered to be the expert on the subject of the fiscal impacts of
development, and has authored numerous additional studies mentioned in this literature synthesis.

   Impact Assessment ofDELEP CCMP Versus Status  Quo on Twelve
                      Municipalities in the DELEP Region
                    Prepared for the Delaware Estuary Program
	Robert W. Burcheli and William Dolphin, August 15,1995
*     Local Governments
#     Farmers
*     Environment/Bay	

The goal of the study is to determine the effects over a twenty-five year period of two future growth
scenarios in the Delaware Estuary, incorporating portions of New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware.
One future development pattern is the continuation of current growth trends of low-density
development labeled Status Quo.  The other growth alternative is the Delaware Estuary Program's
(DELEP) Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) which attempts to contain


growth around existing centers.  Twelve study communities were selected from the region to examine
the effects the two growth scenarios would have on land taken, infrastructure costs, housing costs, and
fiscal impacts created.

CCMP or planned development has been found to produce noticeable savings over Status Quo
development. The results also reveal that CCMP protects environmentally sensitive lands and prime
farmlands. The work contains an informative section that reviews major studies on growth
management examining its effects on the land, infrastructure consumption, and housing and public
service costs. The reviewed literature supports the finding in this work, that planned development
saves money and protects the land.
                            Impact Assessment of the
    New Jersey Interim State Development and Redevelopment Plan
                    Robert W. Burchell, et al., February 28,1992
*     Local Government
*     Developers
*     Residents
*     Farmers
»     Environment/Bay	

The purpose of this study is to determine whether or not the State of New Jersey will be better off with
the Interim State Development Plan (IPLAN) than the continuation of current development patterns
(TREND). The IPLAN scenario attempts to concentrate future growth in selected centers equipped
with service systems and capital facilities with the capacity to handle such growth.  TREND is defined
as a pattern of unmanaged, low-density growth infringing on rural areas.  The results showed
significant savings in capital costs over the twenty year period of 1990 to 2010, particularly in local and
state roads as well as water and sewer infrastructure costs.

The significance of this study lies in the fact that it not only examines the economic savings of planned
development, but also its environmental benefits and effects on the quality of life.  The findings on
housing costs, quality of community life, and economic impacts on job location could be beneficial to
citizens interested in the effects of growth management. Results revealed that planned development in
New Jersey would reduce air pollutant emissions, generate fewer water pollutants, and consume less
sensitive and agricultural lands than sprawl development.  These results are important to the Bay
watershed as they show that controlled growth produces environmental benefits that would improve the
health of the Chesapeake Bay.

      Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay
                          Watershed to the Year 2020
       The Report of the Year 2020 Panel to the Chesapeake Executive Council
                                  December 1988
*    Local Governments
*    Residents
*    Environment/Bay	

The 2020 Panel Report analyzes the effects of growth on the health of the Chesapeake Bay and the
quality of life of the residents in the watershed.  The report draws the conclusion that the methods for
accommodating growth in the Chesapeake Bay region are insufficient which leads to a host of
environmental problems. It calls for the development of rational growth patterns to protect the Bay and
improve the quality of the communities of the area.

The report addresses the relationship between the Bay's problems and growth within the region. The
effects of growth on key resources and infrastructure costs and a comparison of high, medium, and low
density future growth alternatives are also included.

The 2020 Panel Report is fundamental to the study of the costs of sprawl in the Bay watershed because
it contains valuable information on the effects of growth pertaining directly to the Chesapeake Bay
region. The impacts of growth on the Bay are covered ranging from the effects on wetlands to fish

                        A Smart Growth Bibliography
 A Bibliography of Fiscal, Economic, Environmental, and Social Impact
                          Methodologies and Models
                        Abt Associates, Inc., October 2.1996
#    Local Governments
*    Developers
*    Residents
#    Farmers
*    Environment/Bay

A Smart Growth Bibliography  provides a comprehensive list of resources addressing growth and
development issues.  The work is divided into twenty categories with one category specifically being
"sprawl." A one to two sentence description is given for each reference included.

The bibliography covers areas such as the economic, environmental, transit, and fiscal impacts of
growth along with listing computer models, handbooks, and guides enabling others to determine the
impacts of specific projects.  It appeals to all groups because of the array of references the work
contains. The bibliography provides an excellent starting point for researching the costs of sprawl as it
includes all of the major works completed on the topic.

      Technical Studies for the Governor's Commission on Growth
                         in the Chesapeake Bay Region
	Robert W. Burchell and David Listokin. January 1991	
#      Residents
#      Farmers
*      Environment/Bay

This work accompanies Burchell's Fiscal Studies, but instead focuses on the implications of alternative
development patterns on the Chesapeake Bay and its watershed system. Three densities of
development, a dispersed pattern, medium density, and a concentrated pattern, were examined to
determine the influence each had on the natural environment, rural resources, and the built

Results reveal an increase in driving time and vehicle miles traveled for residents with a more
dispersed pattern of growth. The loss of farmland and forests are also analyzed in the study. Most
importantly, Technical Studies researches the wide-range environmental ramifications of development.
The impact of different densities of development on air pollution, sedimentation, water consumption,
energy use, and living resources habitats are all evaluated. In each case, a concentrated pattern was
shown to lessen the negative side-effects of growth on the environment.

When determining the effects of development on the Chesapeake Bay, Technical Studies is a key work
because it focuses on Maryland and contains a significant amount of information on the environmental
impacts of growth on the Bay, including very informative and helpful maps, graphs, and charts.

General  Bibliography
      Abt Associates Inc. A Smart Growth Bibliography: A Bibliography of Fiscal, Economic,
             Environmental, and Social Impact Methodologies and Models. Prepared for the Office of
             Policy, Planning, and Evaluation, U.S. EPA, October 2,1996.

      Alternatives for Future Urban Growth in California's Central Valley: The Bottom Line for
             Agriculture and Taxpayers.  American Farmland Trust, October 1995.

      Anderson. Environmental and Economic Impacts of Lot Size and Other Development Standards:
             Showing the Impact of 100 Houses Developed at Different Lot Sizes.  Maryland Office of
             Planning, November 1988.

      Bamett, Johnathan. The Fractured Metropolis: Improving the New City, Restoring the Old City, and
             Reshaping the Region. HarperCollins, 1995.

      Berke, Arnold. "Striking Back at Sprawl." Historic Preservation, September/October 1995, vol. 47,

      Beyond Sprawl: New Patterns of Growth to Fit the New California. San Francisco: Bank of America,
             California Resources Agency, Greenbelt Alliance and Low Income Housing Fund, January

      Black, J. Thomas, and Rita Curtis. "The Local Fiscal Effects of Growth and Commercial
             Development Over Time." Urban Land, January 1993, pp. 18-21.

      Burchell, Robert W., et al. Fiscal Studies for the Governor's Commission on Growth in the
             Chesapeake Bay Region.  Baltimore, MD: Maryland Office of Planning, January 1991[a].

      Burchell, Robert W., et al. Impact Assessment of the New Jersey Interim State Development and
             Redevelopment Plan, Report II: Research Findings. Trenton, NJ: Report prepared for New
             Jersey Office of Planning,  February 1992.

      Burchell, Robert W., et al. Technical Studies the Governor's Commission on Growth in the
             Chesapeake Bay Region. Baltimore, MD: Maryland Office of Planning, January 1991 [b].

      Burchell, Robert W., William Dolphin and Harvey S. Moskowitz. Impact Assessment qfDELEP
             CCMP versus STATUS QUO on Twelve Municipalities in the DELEP Region. Philadelphia,
             PA: Report prepared for the Delaware Estuary Program, August 1995.

      Burchell, Robert W., and David Listokin. Land Management, Housing Costs and Fiscal Impacts
             Associated with Growth: The Literature on the Impacts of Sprawl versus Managed Growth.
             Working Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1995.

Chesapeake Bay Foundation/Environmental Defense Fund (CBF/EDF). A Network of Livable
       Communities: Evaluating Travel Behavior Effects of Alternative Transportation and
       Community Designs for the National Capital Region.  Chesapeake Bay Foundation Lands
       Program, May 1996.

The Cost of Community Services in Three Pioneer Valley Towns: Agawam, Deerfield, and GUI.
       Review Draft. Submitted to the Massachusetts Department of Agriculture. Northampton,
       MA: American Farm Trust, Northeastern Office, June  1992.

CH2M-Hill. Costs of Providing Government Services to Alternative Residential Patterns.  Committee
       on Population Growth and Development, U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program. Annapolis,
       MD, May 1993.

Coughlin, Robert E., Joanne R. Denworth, John C. Keene, and John W. Rogers.  Guiding Growth:
       Building Better Communities and Protecting Our Countryside.  Philadelphia, PA:
       Pennsylvania Environmental Council, Inc., September 1993.

DeGrove, John M. Balanced Growth: A Planning Guide for Local Government.  International City
       Management Association, .1991.

Duncan, James, et al. The Search for Efficient Urban Growth Patterns. Tallahassee, FL: Report
       prepared for the Governor's Task Force on Urban Growth Patterns of the Florida Department
       of Community Affairs, July 1989.

The Economics of Growth Management: A Background Reader. National Growth Management
       Leadership Project October 1991.

Egan, Timothy. "Urban Sprawl Strains Western States." New York Times 29 Dec. 1996,
       nail, ed.: 1.

Euston, Andrew.  Community Sustainability: Urbanization and Infrastructure, Enterprise  and
       Design.  February 1997.

Fausold, Charles J., and Robert J. Lilieholm. "The Economic Value of Open Space." Land Lines,
       September 1996, vol. 8, no.5.

Ewing, Reid H.  "Characteristics, Causes, and Effects of Sprawl: A Literature Review."
       Environmental and Urban Issues, Winter 1994.

Feitelson. "The Spatial Effects of Land Use Regulations." Journal of the American Planning
       Association, Autumn 1993, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 461-472.

Fischel, William A. "Do Growth Controls Matter? "  A Review of Empirical Evidence on  the
       Effectiveness and Efficiency of Local Government Land Use Regulations.  Working Paper,
       Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1990.


Fodor, Eben. "The Three Myths of Growth." Planning Commissioners Journal, Winter 1996, Issue

Frank, James E. The Costs of Alternative Development Patterns: A Review of the Literature.
       Washington, DC: Urban Land Institute, 1989.

Garreau, Joel. Edge City: Life on the New Frontier. New York, New York: Doubleday, 1991.

Gray, Robert, Joanne Dann, and Lucy Vinis. Development in Richmond County—The Revenue/Cost
       Relationship. December 1988.

Hamilton, Lenoard W., PhD. and Paul B. Wehn, PhD.  The Myth of the Ratables. Report prepared for
       the Great Swamp Association, October 1992.

Heimlich, Ralph E. Metropolitan Agriculture: Farming in the City's Shadow. Economic Research
       Service. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Agriculture, AER-619, 1989.

Hulsey, Brett. Sprawl Costs Us All. Sierra Club Midwest Office, 1996.

Jackson, Kenneth T.  Crabgrass Frontier: The Suburbanization of the United States.  Oxford
       University Press, 1985.

Kasowski, Kevin.  "The Costs of Sprawl, Revisited." PAS Memo.  February 1993.

Kinsley, Michael J., and L. Hunter Lovins.  Paying for Growth and Prospering from Development.
       Snowmass, CO: Rocky Mountain Institute, 1996.

Kunstler, James Howard. "Home from Nowhere." The Atlantic Monthly, September 1996, vol. 278,
       no. 3, pp.43-66.

Ladd, Helen F.  "Population Growth, Density, and the Costs of Providing Public Services."    Urban
       Studies. 1992, vol.29, no.2, pp. 273-295.

Lassar, Terry Jill. "Sharing the Benefits and Costs of Growth Management in Minneapolis."  Urban
       Land, February 1991, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 20-25.

Making the  Connection -A Catalog of Local Initiatives to Protect and Restore the Chesapeake
       Bay Watershed. U.S. EPA Chesapeake Bay Program, 1996.

Malone, Maggie, Patrick Rogers, and et al.  "Paved Paradise." Newsweek, May 15, 1995, vol. CXXV,
       no. 20, pp.42-45.

Mauer, George. A Better Way to Grow: For More Liveable Communities and a Healthier
       Chesapeake Bay. Chesapeake Bay Foundation, 1996.

McMahon, Edward T.  "Stopping Sprawl by Growing Smarter." Planning Commissioners Journal,
       Spring 1997, Issue 26, p.4.

Miller, Stephen. The Economic Benefits of Open Space.  May 11, 1992.

Mogavero, David. "Financial Impacts of Urban Form: Their Implications for Sustainable Cities."
       Architecture California, November 1994, pp. 1-4.

Nelson, Arthur C, and James B. Duncan. Growth Management Principles and Practices. APA
       Planners Press, 1995.

Novaco, R.W., W. Kliewer, and A. Broquet. "Home Environmental Consequences of Commute
       Travel Impedance." American Journal of Community Psychology, 1991, vol. 6, pp. 467-489.

Gates, Wallace and Robert Schwab. The Impact of Urban Land Taxation: The Pittsburgh
       Experience. Working Paper, Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1995.

Pauly, K.  "Highways, Sprawl, and...How about a New Approach." Bay Journal, 1992, vol. 2, no. 9,

Pelley, Janet. "The Economics of Urban Sprawl." Watershed Protection Techniques, June 1997,
       vol. 2, no. 4.

Population Growth and Development in the Chesapeake Bay Watershed to the Year 2020. The
       Report of the 2020 Panel to the Chesapeake Executive Council, December 1988.

Real Estate Research Corporation.  The Costs of Sprawl—Literature Review and Bibliography.
       Prepared for the Council on Environmental  Quality, the Office of Policy Development and
       Research, Department of Housing and Urban Development, and the Office of Planning and
       Management, Environmental Protection Agency.  Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing
       Office, 1974.

Redman/Johnston Associates, Ltd.  (RJA). Agricultural Protection Issue Paper. Isle of Wight  County,
       Virginia. 1990.

Shear M.D., and W. Casey. "Just Saying 'Yes' to Developers." The Washington Post, June 21,
Sorensen, A. Ann, Richard P. Greene, and Karen Russ.  Farming on the Edge.  DeKalb, Illinois:
       American Farmland Trust Center for Agriculture in the Environment, Northern Illinois
       University, March 1997.

Stokes, Samuel N., A. Elizabeth Watson, Genevieve P. Keller, and J. Timothy Keller.  Saving
       America's Countryside: A Guide to Rural Conservation. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins
       University Press, 1989.

Tiner, Ralph W., et. al. Recent Wetland Status and Trends in the Chesapeake Watershed (1982-
       1989): A Technical Report. Chesapeake Bay Program, May 1994.

Ulrich, R.S., et al.  "Stress Recovery During Exposure to Natural and Urban Environments."   Journal
       of Environmental Psychology, 1991, vol.11, pp. 201-230.

Young, Dwight. Alternatives to Sprawl.  Cambridge,  MA: Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, 1995.

Video References

Beyond Sprawl: Towards Sustainable Patterns of Growth for the 21st Century. Chesapeake Bay
       Local Government Advisory Committee, 1996.

Costs of Sprawl. American Planning Association's Planning Commissioners Service, 1996

A Pattern for Living. Chesapeake Bay Foundation,  1995. (Slide show and video)

Internet References

The Chesapeake Bay Program Homepage
       http://www. chesapeakebav.net/bayprogram

Chesapeake BIOS (Bay Journal)
       http://web.gmu. edu/bios/

CREST Internet Information Services Center for Renewable Energy and Sustainable Technology
       http ://www. crest, org/efficieny/nrdc/mobility/sprawl. html

Indicators of Urban Sprawl (Oregon's Department of Land Conservation and Development)

Lincoln Institute of Land Policy (Land Lines)
       http ://www. lincolninst. edu

Planners Web (Planning Commissioners Journal)

Planners Web:  Sprawl Resource Guide
       http ://www. web com. com/pj c/sprawl. html

Preserve Net: Stopping Suburban Sprawl

Smart Growth Network Index
       http ://www. sustainable. org/SGN/sgn. index.html

Sprawl-Busters Web Page
       http ://www. sprawl-busters, com

Sprawl Net-Rice University
       http://riceinfo.rice. edu/~lda/Sprawl_Net/Home.html

Urban Land Institute

The Chesapeake Bay Program is the cooperative partnership,  \
among the states of Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia; the    ]"
District of Columbia; the Chesapeake $ay Commission, a tri- t '<-
siate legislative body; the U.S. Environmental Protectidn  -
Agency, representing the federal government; and
participating citizen advisory groupst             .        '

www. chesapeakebay.net/bayprogram