Measuring "Sprawl:"

Alternative Measures of Urban Form in U.S. Metropolitan Areas

By

Stephen Malpezzi and Wen-Kai Guo

Revised, January 15, 2001

The Center for Urban Land Economics Research

The University of Wisconsin
975 University Avenue
Madison, WI 53706-1323
smalpezzi@bus.wisc.edu
 wgou@bus.wisc.edu
http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/realestate

ii
iii
Stephen Malpezzi is Associate Professor and Wangard Faculty Scholar in
the Department of Real Estate and Urban Land Economics, and an associate
member of the Department of Urban and Regional Planning, of the
University of Wisconsin-Madison. Wen-Kai (Kevin) Guo is a Ph.D. candidate
in Food Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison.

Comments on this and closely related work have been provided by Alain
Bertaud, Michael Carliner, Mark Eppli, Richard Green, James Shilling, Kerry
Vandell, Anthony Yezer and participants at the Homer Hoyt Institute/Weimer
School's January 1999 and January 2000 sessions as well as the June 1999
Midyear meeting of the American Real Estate and Urban Economics
Association. Comments and criticisms of this paper are welcome.

The research we describe was supported by the University of Wisconsin's

Graduate School, the Wangard Faculty Scholarship, and the UW Center for
Urban Land Economics Research. Opinions in this paper are those of the
authors, and do not reflect the views of any of the above individuals, or of
any institution.

iv
v
Introduction

Economists and other social scientists have tried to study urban form
more or less rigorously for the better part of two centuries. The earliest
commonly cited work is that by German scholars such as von Thunen (1826)
and somewhat later work by Lösch (1944). In this century pioneering
English-speaking scholars include Clark (1951), Hoyt (1939, 1966), and
Burgess (1925). The 60s and 70s saw a further flowering with work such as
Alonso (1964), Mills (1972), Muth (1969), and Wheaton (1977) among many
others. Song (1996) provides a particularly nice discussion of some
alternative measures. Excellent reviews and extensions of this large
literature can be found in Anas, Arnott and Small (1998), Fujita (1989), and
Turnbull (1995).

The economics of location has been a fertile academic field for some
forty years, and is enjoying resurgence due partly to the high profile of
recent work on the economics of location by generalist economists such as
Krugman (1991). But this academic resurgence is nothing compared to the
eruption of interest in urban form by a wider range of political and social
commenters. One watershed was certainly journalist Joel Garreau’s
excellent popularization Edge City (1991), which broadened the audience
for discussion of urban form. But the real explosion of interest in urban
form has been due to the growing concern and exploding reference to
urban sprawl.

What environmental activists and now many others call sprawl is

certainly not new to urban economists. The phenomenon of rapid growth
on the periphery of the city is something that has been a core feature of
most of the literature mentioned above, and the much larger literature that
lies behind it. To give just one example, Edwin Mills’ classic 1972 book
studies the decentralization of urban population in a large sample of U.S.
cities going back to the latter part of the 19th century. Sam Bass Warner’s
Streetcar Suburbs, coming out of a different scholarly tradition, is another
well-known early examination of decentralization.

Perhaps the first dividing line between urban economists and many
other urban observers is the use of the word sprawl, with its pejorative
connotations. While a number of authors have used the term sprawl in the
academic literature (see references below), most urban economists have
preferred less value-laden terms, such as urban decentralization (Mills
1999) or accessibility (Song 1996). But economists have lost the
lexicographic battle. To give just one example, we did a simple Internet
search on the term "urban decentralization" using Infoseek.com. The
search engine returned 27 hits. We repeated an identical search using the
term "urban sprawl." The engine returned 5,946 hits.
 With all the extraordinary attention paid to sprawl, it is quite
interesting that only recently have some of those involved in the policy
discussion attempted to define it. Consider the following quotation:

...sprawl in all its forms is seldom satisfactorily

defined. Urban sprawl is often discussed without an
associated definition at all. ... Some writers make no
attempt at all at definition, while others engage in
little more than emotional rhetoric, as in "the great
urban explosion (which) has scattered pieces of
debris over the countryside for miles around the
crumbling centre ... a destruction of the qualities of
the city"

Despite its contemporary relevance, the quotation is from a paper by Robert

Harvey and W.A.V. Clark, written 35 years ago. 1

Our view is that discussions about sprawl, whether academic or policy

oriented, are greatly hampered by loose definition and inadequate
measurement. Our intention in this paper is to contribute toward improving
the measurement of sprawl. Using a consistent data source, we compute
some familiar measures such as average population density of the
metropolitan area, and the familiar negative exponential density gradient.
We also compute some less often used measures, such as those based on
gravity models, and some which are fairly new, including measures based
on order statistics, measures of fit of various models, and measures that
incorporate the notion of autocorrelation.

We also investigate the use of data reduction techniques to collapse

some of these disparate measures into a univariate index. We also evaluate
how well each one of our measures incorporates the information contained
in the others, i.e., to get some sense of "which measure is best." We also
estimate simple models of the determinants of each of the measure, using
right-hand side variables suggested by the urban economics literature as
well as some of the sociological explanations for decentralization.2

While we investigate a large number of measures, we certainly do not

exhaust all possible measures. For example, our data tell us little directly
about how much space within a tract is devoted to one land use or another,
1
Harvey and Clark (1965). Harvey and Clark took the internal quotation from Pearson
(1957).
2
The simple models are estimated with an eye towards facilitating comparisons and
validating measures of urban form. They are best viewed as exploratory. See our
companion paper, Malpezzi (2000) for a more detailed model, albeit with the estimation
focused on a single measure.

2
or how much space is privately owned vs. publicly owned. These are
important components of some people’s views of sprawl.

Our explanatory models are exploratory and simple. We mention here

and discuss again below the fact that more complete models would deal
with the potential endogeneity of some of our right hand side variables, as
well as utilize a more complete vector of determinants. For example, for
tractability this paper abstracts from the effect of housing prices as an
equilibrating mechanism, in contradistinction to Malpezzi and Kung (1998),
which argues that housing price gradients and location may be jointly
determined. We also limit ourselves to data from the 1990 Census, that is,
our measures are developed from a single cross section. Measures that
focus on tract level changes are only one class of many possible extensions
to our measurement effort here.

Previous Research

The literature on urban form is huge. Our intention in this paper is to

focus on measurement, so our review here is extremely selective. Readers
interested in a broader review of the literature on sprawl are referred to
Malpezzi (2000), Ewing (1997), and Gordon and Richardson (1997) among
others. Those who wish a more detailed review of the academic approach
to urban form should consult Anas, Arnott and Small (1998), as well as
McDonald (1989), Wheaton (1979), and Ingram (1979).

Surely the simplest measure of sprawl, and one used any number of
times by urban economists and others, is the average density of the
metropolitan area. Brueckner and Fansler (1983) and Peiser (1989) are
among well-known papers by urban economists that use this measure.

Far too many papers to cite focus on the negative exponential density
gradient and its many derivatives and extensions. According to Greene and
Barnbrock (1978), the first to use the negative exponential function was the
German scholar Bleicher (1892).3 In many respects, the function was
popularized by the work of Colin Clark in geography, and later by Edwin
Mills, Richard Muth, and others in economics. Many authors have noted
that the monocentric negative exponential is not always a terribly good fit
for many metropolitan communities; see Richardson (1988), Kau and Lee
(1976), and Kain and Apgar (1979) for examples. Here we note the
following key points. (1) Without doubt the univariate negative exponential
fits some cities reasonably well, and others quite badly. (2) Despite this, it
is still often used partly because of the advantages of having a univariate
3
Although McDonald, in his excellent (1989) review, suggests that Stewart (1947)
apparently first fit the negative exponential form described here. Most observers would
agree that it was Clark (1951) who popularized the form among modern urban scholars.

3
index of decentralization or sprawl (see, for example, Jordan, Ross and
Usowski 1998). (3) It is apparently neglected in the literature that the
measure of fit of such a simple univariate model is in its own way a measure
of sprawl, as we will discuss below.

Most individual papers that measure decentralization, or

'sprawl,' focus on one measure or at most a few measures. There are
exceptions, of course. Several papers have examined differences among
functions theoretically and using simulation methods. Ingram (1971)
examined average distances, negative exponential functions, a linear
reciprocal function, among others, and Guy (1983) examined a number of
accessibility measures in a broadly similar fashion. Broadly speaking,
these papers clarify differences among candidate functions, and tell us
which might best capture stylized facts of observed patterns, but do not
offer empirical tests per se. Some papers have tested a limited number of
specific hypotheses, e.g. whether a single parameter exponential function
performs as well as some flexible form (e.g. Kau and Lee).

In many respects Song (1996) is a paper that parallels this one, in that
it uses actual data to test a wide range of alternative forms. Song estimates
a variety of gravity, distance and exponential models using tract level data
from Reno, Nevada. Best-fit criteria suggest that gravity measures and,
especially, a negative exponential measure, perform much better than linear
distance measures. As Song is careful to note, results from a single metro
area are suggestive, but it remains to examine other forms, and especially
to test forms across other metropolitan areas. Most analysts would admit
the possibility of differing performance for a given estimator in, say, Los
Angeles compared to Boston or Portland, for example. In our paper, we
follow Song in examining a range of possible measures of urban form, but
rather than focus on a single location, we examine a wide range of U.S.
metropolitan areas.

More recently, Galster et al. (2000) have independently undertaken an

exercise in some respects similar to ours. Galster and colleagues estimate a
series of measures of urban form for a dozen large MSAs (in contrast to our
measures, for some 300). Later, we will briefly compare our results to
Galster et al.'s, and to Song's.

The Measurement of Urban Form

In this section we discuss some measures of sprawl and related

measures of urban form.

First we introduce some notation. We use a capital P to indicate the

population of a metropolitan area, and small p to indicate the population of a

4
tract. Capital A denotes the area of the metropolitan area, and small a
denotes the area of the tract. Capital D refers to the density of the
metropolitan area, i.e. D=P/A, and small d, d=p/a, is the density of a tract.
Distance from the city center is denoted by the letter u. Letters i and j index
tracts within a metropolitan area, and k indexes metropolitan areas
themselves. Generally we construct a measure for each metropolitan area,
and for notational simplicity we usually drop the subscript k.

Average Density

The most common measure is average density in the metropolitan area.:

(1) Average MSA density; for each MSA, D=P/A. In our database of MSA
results, described below, this variable is denoted MSADENS.

While widely used, the limitations of the measure are obvious. Consider
two different single-county MSAs of equal area and equal population.
Suppose the first contains all of its population in a city covering, say, a fourth
of the area of the county, the rest of which is rural and lightly settled.
Suppose the other MSA has a uniform population distribution. Our measure,
average density, is the same. But most observers would consider the second
MSA as exhibiting more "sprawl" than the first.

Of course there is no reason to limit ourselves to average densities.

Other moments, and nonparametric measures can also be considered, as
below.

Alternative Density Moments

In this paper we construct several new indicators of population

density gradients, based on the densities of the Census tracts in each MSA.
The starting point for each MSA is to compute these tract densities, and
then to sort tracts by descending density. We then construct several
indicators of "sprawl", one for each MSA:

(2) Maximum tract density, DENMAX = max(di)

(3) Minimum tract density, DENMIN = min(di)

(4) DENMED: the density of the "median tract weighted by population,"

that is, median(di) when tracts are sorted by density, the tract containing
the median person in the MSA. For example, suppose the population of the
MSA is 100 people, in 7 tracts:

5
 Tract Tract
N Density Population
1 10 30
2 9 30
3 8 10
4 7 10
5 6 10
6 5 5
7 4 5

The median person is "contained" in tract 2, so DENMED=9.

(5), (6): DENQ1 and DENQ3, the corresponding 1st and 3rd quartiles of
tract density, constructed as above.

(7), (8): DENP10 and DENP90, the corresponding 10th and 90th percentiles
of tract density, constructed as above.

Measures of Dispersion in Tract Densities

(9): DENCV, the coefficient of variation of tract densities.

(10). DENGINI, a Gini coefficient measuring variation in tract density,

constructed as follows. Sort tracts within MSA in descending density.
Compute cumulative population in percent, CPP and cumulative area in
percent, CAP, as you move down tracts. Compute difference between CPP
and CAP for each tract. Then sum over all tracts within each MSA.

(11). Theil's information measure, an alternative to the Gini coefficient:

ai  a /A 
DENTHEIL    log i 
i A  p i /P 

where ai is the area of the ith tract, A is the MSA area, pi is the population
of the ith tract, and P is the MSA population.

Population Density Gradients

The measure of city form that has been most often studied by urban
economists is the population density gradient from a negative exponential

6
function, often associated with the pioneering work of Alonso, Muth and Mills,
but as noted earlier first popularized among urban scholars by the
geographer Colin Clark. More specifically, the population density of a city is
hypothesized to follow:

d(u)  d 0 e  γuε

where d is tract population density at distance u from the center of a city; d0

is the density at the center; e is the base of natural logarithms; gamma is "the
gradient," or the rate at which density falls from the center. The final error
term, ε, is included when the formulation is stochastic.

Among the other attractive properties of this measure, density is

characterized by two parameters, with a particular emphasis on γ, which
simplifies second stage analysis. The function is easily estimable with OLS
regression by taking logs:

ln d(u) = ln d0 - γu + ε

which can then be readily estimated with, say, density data from Census
tracts, once distance of each tract from the central business district (CBD) is
measured. Thus, we construct measures

(12) our gradient, gamma (denoted KMB1_1 in the database), and

(13) density at the center, d0 (denoted INTB_1).

The exponential density function is sufficiently important to warrant

brief discussion. This particular form has the virtue of being derivable from a
simple model of a city, albeit one with several restrictive assumptions, e.g. a
monocentric city, constant returns Cobb-Douglas production functions for
housing, consumers with identical tastes and incomes, and unit price
elasticity of demand for housing.

As is well known, the standard urban model of Alonso, Muth and Mills
predicts that population density gradients will fall in absolute value as
incomes rise, the city grows, and transport costs fall. Extensions to the model
permit gradients to change with location-specific amenities as well (Follain
and Malpezzi 1981).

The negative exponential function often fits the data rather well, for
such a simple function in a world of complex cities. Sometimes it does not fit
well, as we will confirm. Many authors have experimented with more flexible
forms, such as power terms in distance on the right hand side (of which more
below).

7
 The world is divided up into two kinds of people: those who find the
simple form informative and useful, despite its shortcomings (e.g. Muth
1985), and those who believe these shortcomings too serious to set aside (e.g.
Richardson 1988).4 In fact, given the predicted flattening of population
density gradients as cities grow and economies develop, it can be argued that
the monocentric model on which it rests contains the seeds of its own
destruction; and that a gradual deterioration of the fit of the model is itself
consistent with the underlying model.

Extensions of the Simple Exponential Gradient

As already noted, the simplest, and most widely used model for estimation
is:

ln d = a + b ln u

where d is the tract's density, and u is distance from the center. We are
relying on this simple model for our second stage work, but we have also
computed three additional models, with right hand side variables:

(14) A quadratic model, i.e. with terms u and u2.

(15) A cubic model, u, u2, and u3.
(16) A fourth power model, u, u2, u3 and u4.

In our database of results, these coefficients are represented by variables

KMBa_b, where a represents the order of the model, and b represents
which term. For example, KMB3_1 is the coefficient of linear distance in
the cubic model. The intercepts from these models are denoted INTB_a,
where a is again the order of the model.

Measuring Discontiguity

A simple and natural measure of discontiguity is:

(17) The R2 statistic from the univariate density gradient regressions, denoted
RSQ_1.

Consider the two panels of Figure 1. Panel A shows a very highly

stylized city with a given density gradient, as does Panel B. In Panel A, we

4
The world is also divided up into people who divide the world into two kinds of people,
and people who don't, but that's another paper.

8
have drawn a pattern consistent with very contiguous density patterns as
one moves from the center of the city outwards. The second panel shows a
city with the same density gradient, but a much more discontiguous pattern.
The R-squared from the density gradient regressions is a natural measure of
this discontinuity. However it should be noted that a low R-squared is a
sufficient but not necessary condition for such discontinuity.

To see this, consider a city where the density gradient is very

contiguous from tract to tract, but assume that the gradient varies by
direction as well as distance from the CBD. As example would be a metro
area in which the gradient declines very rapidly with distance in one
direction, but very slowly in another. Suppose this difference is very
systematic, and density changes slowly as one rotates from left to right
around the central point of the city. Such a city would not be truly
discontiguous by most people’s thinking, but would have a low R-squared
for a simple two-parameter density regression of the usual kind, where it is
maintained that density varies with distance but not direction. Of course it
would be possible to estimate distance density gradients that vary by
direction as well as distance (see Follain and Gross 1983), but undertaking
such an exercise would require resources beyond our present ones.

(18) The difference in R2 statistic from the univariate density gradient

regressions, and the R2 statistic from the fourth power density gradient
regressions, DRSQ1_4. Another variation on the preceding theme; if the
univariate model is a good one, then adding successive power terms adds
little to the explanatory power of the regression. If, on the other hand, the
improvement in fit is large, the simple model is less satisfactory.

Measures of Spatial Autocorrelation

The r-squared measure from the negative exponential regression will

capture some of this, but we can construct examples where, for example,
spatial auto correlation is high but the R-squared is low. Consider a case
where spatial auto correlation is high and positive (i.e., very little sprawl on
this element) but where density varies tremendously by radial location
(direction north or south, for example). Since our simple negative
exponential model imposes that density is a function of distance but not
direction, we would find a low R-squared even though the spatial
autocorrelation in such a city could be high. A more generalized measure of
such autocorrelation is therefore desirable.

(19) Moran’s I (denoted MORAN_I). One commonly used measure is

Moran’s I, which is effectively a correlation coefficient, constructed using a
weighting matrix where weights depend upon location. More specifically,
the formula as usually written is:

9
  ci j
ij (d i  D )(d j  D )
I n
 c 
i j
ij
i
(d i  D) 2

where n is the number of tracts, and C is an n by n matrix that incorporates

the information of which tracts are contiguous. Specifically, each row
represents a tract, and contiguous tracts have ones entered in their
corresponding columns. Other elements of C are zero.

One practical difficulty in computing Moran’s I for a large number of

places (tracts and MSAs) is to develop an algorithm to compute the matrix
C. In this version of our paper we use an algorithm from Isaaks and
Srivastava (1990) which uses a quadratic approximation. That is, when
distances are small, the elements of C are approximately 1, but as they get
larger given the elements are quadratic in distance, they rapidly approach
0.

Other measures of spatial autocorrelation are possible, of course.

Moran's I is isotropic, i.e., it depends on distance from the tract in question,
but not direction. To the extent that direction as well as distance does
matter, an anisotropic measure that accounts for direction would be a
natural extension. Dubin, Pace and Thibodeau (1998) and Gillen, Thibodeau
and Wachter (1999) discuss the use of such anisotropic indexes for single
metropolitan areas. Computational difficulties have so far kept us from
producing such an index for our full set of metropolitan areas, but given
resources, this would be an appropriate extension for future work.

Compactness

In Bertaud and Malpezzi (1999), Alain Bertaud developed a compactness

index, rho, which is the ratio between the average distance per person to
the CBD, and the average distance to the center of gravity of a cylindrical
city whose circular base would be equal to the built-up area, and whose
height will be the average population density:

d w i i
 i

where rho is the index, d is the distance of the ith tract from the CBD,
weighted by the tract's share of the city's population, w; and C is the
similar, hypothetical calculation for a cylindrical city of equivalent

10
population and built up area. A city of area X for which the average distance
per person to the CBD is equal to the average distance to the central axis of
a cylinder which base is equal to X would have a compactness index of 1.
In this paper we use the simpler weighted average of distances from
one set of points in a metropolitan area to another to compute two distance
measures. Distances are corrected for the earth's curvature.

(20) DCENTAVG is the weighted average distance to the center, where tract
populations are the weights.
(21) DCENTMED is the weighted median distance to the center, where tract
populations are the weights.

Of course, in the modern city, many if not most employment and shopping
destinations are no longer in the city. Gravity based measures are
conceptually similar measures that are less CBD-focused.

Gravity Based Measures

Gravity measures were popularized by Lowry (1964) among others.

Song (1996) presents several such measures. The general form of a gravity
model takes its form from Newton’s Law of Gravitation. However, several
variants can be obtained by various choices of the power terms and so on
involved. Song discusses and estimates a wide range of these for a single
metropolitan area. Given the difficulty of estimating and comparing gravity
measures across metropolitan areas if one permitted the exponents to be
chosen by the data, we prefer to pick two common and simple assumptions,
one where terms are linear and the other exponential.

(22) The linear gravity function, GRAVLIN, is is the weighted average

distance from the center of each tract to every other tract, in turn in fact the
same as above:

p u
i j
j
1
ij

G1 
P

(23) The exponential gravity function, GRAVEXP, can be written:

p e
 u ij
j
i j 11
G2 
P
Combining Measures

Given the multidimensionality of sprawl, sprawl is a natural candidate

for data reduction techniques. We used the well-known method of principal
components.

Principal components analysis derives a vector p = Za', where Z is a

matrix whose columns consist of n observations on K variables and a' is a K-
element vector of eignenvalues. We choose the a's so that the variance of p
is maximized subject to the normalization condition that a1 + a2 + ... + aK =
1. Given inevitable collinearity, we choose 12 of our 22 spatial measures as
elements of Z:

INTB_1, the intercept from the simple univariate exponential model;

KMB1_1, the coefficient of distance in the simple exponential model;

RSQ_1, the R-squared from the simple exponential model;

DRSQ1_4, the improvement in R-squared from the univariate

exponential model to the fourth power model;

DENCV, the coefficient of variation of tract densities;

DENMED, the density of the median tract, when tracts are ordered by
density;

DENP90, the density of the 90th percentile tract, ordered by density;

DENGINI, the Gini coefficient of tract densities;

MSADENS, the average density of the entire MSA;

DCENTMED, the weighted median distance to the center of the MSA;

GRAVLIN, the linear gravity measure;

GRAVEXP, the exponential gravity measure.

We extract three principal component measures from this data, and label
them PC1, PC2 and PC3.

Other Possible Measures

12
 We have seed that in addition to the traditional gradient measure, many
measures of urban form have been put forward and studied. The simplest, of
course, is the average density of the city or metropolitan area. We have
proposed a fairly large set of other measures to include here, but we have not
exhausted the possibilities. Others include measures such as functions based
on densities other than the negative exponential, such as the normal density
(Ingram 1971; Pirie 1979; Allen et al. 1993).

Many additional measures could be developed using techniques

developed by urban geographers and others for the analysis of data
exhibiting spatial autocorrelation. Moran's I, which we have computed, is
one such measure but there are others. Anselin and Florax (1995), Pace
and Gillen (forthcoming) and Pace, Barry and Sirmans (1998) describe these
techniques in greater detail.

A few papers have examined land use conditions on the fringe as

opposed to the metropolitan area as a whole. (See Brown, Phillips and
Roberts (1981)).

Also, we note that the American Housing Survey has data on land area
for single-family houses. To our knowledge, no one has used this data in the
analysis of sprawl. For example, median lot size of single-family homes built
in the last five years would be one possible indicator that could be
constructed. We did undertake some preliminary work with this data.
Problems arose from the fact that such data are only reported for single-
family units. But the biggest problem with this potential measure is that
preliminary analysis of AHS data tells us that their are many missing
observations, and further (and more worryingly) missing plot area is
correlated with other housing characteristics and income, suggesting
potential biases in measures created from this dataset. Further work along
these lines remains for future research.

The Determinants of Urban Form and "Sprawl"

In order to evaluate different measures, we intend to estimate simple

least squares models of the determinants of sprawl. What does theory, and
previous research, suggest those determinants might be?

The well-known "standard urban model" of Alonso (1964), Muth (1969)

and Mills (1972) postulates a representative consumer who maximizes utility,
a function of housing (H) and a unit priced numeraire nonhousing good,
subject to a budget constraint that explicitly includes commuting costs as well
as the prices of housing (P) and nonhousing (1). It is easy to show that
equilibrium requires that change in commuting costs from a movement

13
towards or away from a CBD or other employment node equals the change in
rent from such a movement. For such a representative consumer:

Δu  t  ΔP(u)  H(u)
where u is distance from the CBD and t is the cost of transport. This
equilibrium condition can be rearranged to show the shape of the housing
price function:

ΔP(u) t

Δu H(u)

Now consider two consumers, one rich and one poor. Assume H is a
normal good. If (for the moment), t is the same for both consumers but H is
bigger for the rich (at every u), the rich bid rent function will be flatter. The
rich will live in the suburbs and the poor in the center. Even if t also
increases with income (as is more realistic), as long as increases in H are
"large" relative to increases in t, this result holds. 5 Also, as incomes rise
generally, the envelope of all such bid rents will flatten. Also, clearly, as
transport costs fall, bid rents will flatten.

The standard urban model has a competitor, which is sometimes called

the "Blight Flight" model (Follain and Malpezzi 1981). As presented in the
U.S. literature, the Blight Flight Model has a negative tone. People have left
the cities not because they preferred suburban living a la the standard
model, but because the cities themselves have become less desirable places
to live. As U.S. cities became more and more the habitat of low-income
households and black households, the argument goes, housing and
neighborhood quality declined and white middle-to-upper income households
flew to the suburbs.

While "Blight Flight" explanations focus on negative amenities such as

crime and fiscal stress, the models are easily generalizable to positive
amenities such as high quality schools. Blight Flight can be generalized and
formalized by adding a vector of localized amenities (and disamenties) to
the standard urban model above. See, for example, Li and Brown (1980),
Diamond and Tolley (1982), and many subsequent applications.

Of course other causes can be considered, for example the degree of

monocentricity, opportunity cost of land in non-urban uses, and the industrial
structure of a city (manufacturing implies different land use patterns than
office work, for example). Mills (1999) has a nice discussion of these.

Data
5
But see Wheaton (1977) and Glaeser et al. (2000) for dissenting views.

14
 Our basic data source for our measures of urban form is 1990 Census
tract -level data on population and tract area. We construct tract density as a
simple ratio. Our measures are "gross" at the tract level, although at the
metropolitan area level the effect of some large features are controlled for.

Unless otherwise noted, all second-stage variables are metropolitan

are level variables taken from the 1990 Census. Geographic variables
(adjacent to another metro area, or adjacent to a large body of water in the
suburbs) are described in Malpezzi (1996).

First Stage Results: Alternative Measures of Urban Form

Basic Measures

Table 1 presents the measures we have constructed to date, for 35 large

metropolitan areas (MSAs/PMSAs) using 1990 Census data. Metro areas are
sorted by descending population. A database with the results for all 330
metro areas can be downloaded at:

http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/realestate/urban_indicators.htm.

The measures in Table 1 are, in order presented:

Average population density;

Measures based on order statistics of the individual tract densities,

when sorted by population; namely, the median, the first and third
quartiles, and the 10th percentile;

Population density gradients, and their fit (R-squared);

Compactness as measured by the average and median distances

between tracts and the CBD, said averages and medians weighted by
tract population;

Gini coefficients and Theil indexes of the dissimilarity of tract densities

Gravity measures

15
 Spatial Autocorrelation, as measured by Moran's I

Principal components summaries of key indicators (based on a method

described below)

Figures 2 through 5 present scatterplots of representative indicators

by metropolitan area population.6 Some patterns are quite obvious. For
example, larger metropolitan areas tend to be denser. Larger metropolitan
areas tend to have flatter density gradients, or more precisely large
metropolitan areas tend to have flat gradients whereas small metropolitan
areas have a wide range of gradients. While this would yield a positive
linear relationship that suggests that a nonlinear, possibly heteroskedastic-
corrected, model would be appropriate.

We also examined the pairwise correlation among these measures.7

Not surprisingly, correlations are high between conceptually related
measures, e.g., between the average density in a metropolitan area and the
intercept from the negative exponential model, as well as the average
density of the median Census track. Correlations are similarly high
between gravity measures using different exponents.

We found the following broad patterns. First of all of our measures

based on percentiles – whether the median, the first quartile, or the 10th
percentile or tracks- are highly correlated. The pairwise correlations
among these variables are generally about 0.9. Correlations are less high
with the simple person’s per square mile density variable used in so many
other studies. The Gini and Theil measures are correlated with each other
but not terribly correlated with most other measures.

Generally denser metro areas, by whatever measure using order

statistics, are positively correlated with positive population density
gradients; but the correlation is modest. Denser metro area by most
measures have lower R-squared (worse fits) for the density gradient
regressions. Interestingly, it makes more of a difference if one take the
logarithm of a given density measure than it does to choose among
percentile measure. The correlations among linear percentile based
measures are typically about 0.9 as mentioned above; the same high
correlation is obtained among the several logarithms of these measures.
But across linear and logarithmic measures the correlation is much less,
typically from .5 to .6. That is not terribly surprising since there is such a
very wide range of densities among metro areas that the log transformation
gives a significantly different shape to the data.
6
A larger set of scatterplots, and the key to the three-letter codes for MSAs in Figures 2
through 6, are available at http://wiscinfo.doit.wisc.edu/realestate/urban_indicators.htm
7
The matrix of correlations is also available at our website.

16
Summarizing Key Indexes Using Principal Components

In this section, we discuss the construction of reduced form measure

using the method of principal components. We ran principal components
against the following individual measures: average population density,
density gradient, density of median track, linear gravity measure,
exponential gravity measure. Our initial exploration of the eigenvectors
associated with these suggested that many signs were inconsistent, in the
following sense. If our factor score measures sprawl, we would expect it to
be increasing in the population density gradient (a negative number) and
decreasing in average population density. The measure would be a
consistent one as long as the signs were reversed. Our expectation of the
signs of each of these variables is listed as follows:

Upon reflection, we realize that to a large extent what these initial

eigenvectors were measuring was the size of the metropolitan area. Large
metropolitan areas tend to be denser than smaller ones, and the population
density gradients flatter for both for reasons that are well understood. One
way to deal with this on an ad hoc manner is to first estimate a regression of
each element against population and then construct a scale using principal
components on the residuals from this regression i.e., with the effect of city
size purged. We present both sets of principal components in Table 2, and
the scores for each metropolitan area at the end of Table 1, above. When
the effect of city size is purged, signs are more in line with expectations,
although not perfectly so.

Regression Analysis of Each Indicator vs. Other Indicators

Table 3 presents a set of least squares regressions that we can use to

examine how correlated each index is with the others. We place no
particular economic meaning upon these regressions; they are simply
summary ways of describing multiple correlations among the data.

The heading of each column represents the sprawl indicator

considered in that column. The rows are the other indicators used as
"independent variables." Notice that we do not use the principal
components measures from Table 1, because they are by construction linear
combinations of other indicators.

As argued above, everything else equal, an indicator that has a high r-

squared when regressed against the other indicators is a better summary of
the information contained in the rest of the set. However, such a high r-
squared could come from a very, very close relationship with only one or

17
two functionally related measures. We suggest as an alternative criterion
the number of significant coefficients in the "model." Everything else equal,
an indicator which is statistically related to a larger number of other
indicators (each capturing some element of sprawl as discussed above) is
preferred to an indicator whose correlation depends on one or a few
indicators.

The best way to analyze this quickly is to refer to the r-squared

statistics at the bottom of the table, as well as the count of the number of
significant coefficients in each model. We do not count significant
intercepts. We use a probability of 0.10 as our cutoff.

It's clear that from the point of view of fit the best performers are the
density of the tract containing the median household and its related
indicator, the tract containing the 90th percentile, as well as the exponential
gravity measure. Close behind in terms of fit are the linear gravity measure
and the simplest measure, average density (person per square kilometer).
In terms of the number of significant coefficients, the best performer is the
intercept from the single parameter negative exponential model: ten of
eleven coefficients are significant. Close behind are the density of the track
containing the median household, and the linear gravity measure. The
standard urban model's distance coefficient, the density of the track
containing the 90th percentile, and the exponential gravity measure also
performed quite well by this criterion.

In terms of combination of good fit and large number of significant

coefficients, we like the density of the tract containing the median
household when tracks are sorted by density. The gravity measures also
performed well. Perhaps the real result from this table is by this criterion,
most indicators do very well indeed. Those related to the intercept and
coefficient of the standard urban model, various moments of tract and
metropolitan area density, and the gravity measures all performed
creditably. In fact, from these results, one must feel very sanguine about
the simplest and oft-criticized measure of average metropolitan area
density. We did not have this prior going in, but it appears that average
MSA density creditably serves as a proxy for many other elements. The
simple negative exponential distance coefficient, another oft-criticized but
heavily used statistic, also performs very creditably according to these
criteria.

Comparisons to Previous Studies

Our first stage results can be briefly compared to results from Song
(1996) and from Galster et al.(2000), each in turn. First we reiterate that
Song's study examines a single metro area, from Reno, Nevada; his criteria

18
for choice of a "good" measure are based on fit within a single metro area,
while ours focus mainly on cross-MSA criteria. Naturally Song does not
consider the simplest measures, like average density and our order-
statistics measures, because within a single MSA there is nothing to "fit"
with such a measure.

As we mentioned above, Song found that in Reno gravity measures

and, especially, a negative exponential measure, perform much better than
linear distance measures. Song is careful to note that such results may or
may not generalize to other metropolitan areas. Our Table 5, above,
suggests that the fit of similar models will in fact be quite different in one
metro area or another. R-squared of a univariate exponential density model
varied from near nil to about 90 percent; and we argued above that this fit
was in and of itself valuable information about urban form. While there is a
noticeable tendency for larger MSAs to have lower r-squared, there are
small metro areas with low r-squared, and among large MSAs the fit ranges
from circa 0.2 for New York and Los Angeles to circa 0.6 for Atlanta and
Boston, with Chicago in between.

Another way to examine how the "best model" varies by MSA is to

consider what, if anything, is gained from the simplest negative exponential
model, to one where a flexible fourth power polynomial is fit to the log of
density (the basis for DRSQ1_4 described above). Figure 6 plots the
unadjusted R-squared for the fourth power model against that for the
simplest model, for all MSAs in our study. Metro areas along the 45° line,
such as Jersey City and West Palm Beach at the bottom, and Laredo near
the top, see little improvement from fitting a more flexible form. On the
other hand, Jamestown-Dunkirk NY, Grand Rapids MI, and Florence SC,
among others, see substantial improvement from adding power terms.
These results confirm that Song's conjecture that "best fit" within MSAs
varies by MSA is quite correct.

Galster et al.'s more recent study has proceeded independently from

this one but along somewhat similar lines, that is estimating a series of
measures, in their initial study for a set of 13 large metropolitan areas. In
their careful effort Galster et al. divide each metro area up into half-mile
grids, rather than relying on Census tracts. They define a number of
elements of "sprawl" or decentralization: density, continuity (how much
"leapfrog" development), concentration (whether land use is used uniformly
across the MSA or in a few locations), compactness (the size of the built-up
area's footprint), centrality (whether most development is close to the CBD
or far away), nuclearity (whether an MSA tends toward monocentricity or
polycentricity), diversity (whether land uses are mixed within subareas of
the MSA) and proximity (whether different land uses are close to each other
within an MSA). Galster et al. calculate specific measures of each of these
concepts using their grid system; computational details are provided in

19
their paper. They then rank each MSA by each element, and compute an
overall index of sprawl by adding the six component indexes.

For most of these concepts, we have one or more measures that are
related, although given the differences in our data structure the details of
construction are different. In brief, Galster et al.'s density is conceptually
similar to our MSADENS;, their continuity is similar to our RSQ_1;,
concentration is related to our DENMED, compactness is proxied by our
DCENTAVG; and centrality is measured by our KMB1_1. We have no direct
measure of nuclearity, but RSQ1_4 will presumably be high if nuclearity is
low. We have no direct analogue of diversity or proximity because we have
no information on other land uses.

Figure 7 shows that our measures are related. The vertical axis is our
preferred single measure, the density of the tract containing the median
person, when tracts are sorted by density. The horizontal axis is Galster et
al.'s sprawl index, based on the sum of the ranks of each of their six
components. New York is the "least sprawled" MSA according to both
measures; Atlanta the "most sprawled;" in general the two measures show
substantial correlation.

Second Stage Results: Determinants of Urban Form

This section describes a set of ordinary least squares regressions of

each potential sprawl measure against a consistent set of right-hand side
variables. This time we include the factor scores as left hand side variables.
These results are contained in Table 4. (We did not include the factor
scores in Table 3 because they are linear combinations of the other
dependent variables by construction).

The first three rows of Table 4 represent independent variables that

reflect the physical constraints that a metropolitan area faces. The first is a
dummy variable for being adjacent to a metropolitan area. The next two are
dummy variables for whether the suburbs or the central city are adjacent to
a large body of water, such as an ocean or one of the Great Lakes. These
geographic variables were constructed by reviewing maps of each
metropolitan area.

Many of our measures stem from the monocentric model of the city,
which is oft criticized. In fact, many metropolitan areas have more than one
central city. This has led some authors such as Jordan, Ross and Usowski
(1998) to limit their analysis to metropolitan areas that have a single central
city. But for our purposes, this is undesirable because having multiple

20
central cities may well be a key aspect of sprawl, so we wouldn't want to
restrict the sample this way. As an ad hoc adjustment, we have included the
number of central cities in each metropolitan area as an independent
variable.

Follain and Malpezzi (1981) and Mills and Price (1985) among others,
argue that central city externalities such as high poverty, crime, and bad
schools will tend to engender blight flight. We picked a single
representative blight flight measure, namely the central city murder rate, to
represent these negative externalities.

In a number of preliminary regressions, Jersey City, New Jersey, and

the New York metropolitan area consistently came up as outliers in many
respects. We've already seen that these are extremely dense places,
especially Jersey City. We therefore included dummy variables in these
regressions, although an alternate set without them yielded qualitative
similar results.

The first thing to notice from Table 3 is that there is a wide range in
overall predictive performance. Adjusted r-squares range from less than 10
percent for the indicator representing "Improvement In Unadjusted R-
Squares Between Linear And Four-Power Standard Urban Models," to
almost 0.9 in some of the density moments and gravity measures.

The most consistent performer of all the independent variables is

clearly the size of the metropolitan area. This is really not terribly
surprising. Generally, the larger the metropolitan area, the denser, and the
flatter the gradient (although, as noted above, the relationship is not
necessarily a simple one; there are a number of smaller metropolitan areas
with very flat gradients). Generally, fast growing metropolitan areas tend to
be less dense and more dispersed, as do metropolitan areas with multiple
central cities.

Perhaps the most surprising result is that for the log of median MSA
income. The tendency is for higher income metropolitan areas to be denser
and to have steeper gradients. Now when we examine unadjusted two-way
plots of gradients and income, such a result would not be surprising, since
larger metropolitan areas tend to have higher incomes, and we've already
noted that higher densities at least would be expected for metropolitan
areas of greater size. But we would expect the result to be opposite in sign
once we've controlled for population in the regression, based on the
precepts of the standard urban model. In particular, we would expect
flatter gradients for higher income metropolitan areas. It remains to be
seen whether this contrary result holds up in more carefully specified
models in future work.

21
 Metropolitan areas with higher central city murder rates tend to be
less dense, everything else equal, with flatter gradients as the blight flight
view of the world suggests. The performance of the geographic variables is
somewhat mixed, but in general, greater geographic constraints are related
to higher density moments and somewhat greater dispersion.

Again returning to comparisons across dependent variables,

examining Table 4 we find that in many respects the order statistics
measures performed very well. The measures of spatial autocorrelation
including r-squared and the gravity coefficients performed less well.
Average population density, the simplest measure and one used by papers
such as Brueckner and Fansler and Peiser, among others, performs
surprisingly well. Based on Table 4's results we would say that the simple
average density measure so commonly used performs fairly well, although
we would prefer our order statistics measures given a choice.

Conclusions

In this paper we have attempted to move the discussion of "sprawl"

ahead by considering a range of measures that can be constructed from a
single year’s Census tract-level data. We have not exhausted the possible
set of measures that could be constructed; in particular, we have not
constructed any dynamic measures based on changes. But we have
constructed and compared a fuller set than has been analyzed before in a
cross-metropolitan context.

We generally find, perhaps not surprisingly, that many alternative

measures exist and that widely speaking, most tell the same story. The
indicators most commonly used by urban economists, average population
density and the density gradient, perform reasonably well. We do propose
an alternate measure based on order statistics that we think has some
advantages.

We also discussed some extensions to our current work, including the

use of spatial autocorrelation based measures and measures based on
changes. Armed with these and other indexes, academic research into
"urban sprawl" can place today’s policy debates on a firmer footing.

Armed with the indicators we've constructed and detailed in this

paper, cross-MSA empirical research can proceed on a range of issues.
These include a more detailed treatment of the costs and benefits of
"sprawl," including a particular focus on the interplay between
transportation and urban form. However, there are still significant gains to
be had by further research on these measurement issues. In addition to
applying more of the recent technology from urban geography, such as

22
alternative models of spatial autocorrelation, urban decentralization is a
dynamic phenomenon. As 2000 Census data becomes available there could
be large gains to carrying out similar exercises for more recent data (and
for other Census years), permitting the modeling of decentralization in
changes.

23
 References

Allen, W. Bruce, Dong Liu and Scott Singer. Accessibility Measures of U.S.
Metropolitan Areas. Transportation Research -- B, 27B(6), 1993, pp. 439-
49.

Alonso, William. Location and Land Use. Harvard University Press, 1964.

Anas, Alex, Richard Arnott and Kenneth Small. Urban Spatial Structure.
Journal of Economic Literature, 36(3), September 1998, pp. 1426-64.

Anselin, Luc and Raymond J.G.M. Florax (eds.). New Directions in Spatial
Econometrics. Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1995.

Bertaud, Alain and Bertrand Renaud. Socialist Cities Without Land

Markets. Journal of Urban Economics, 41, 1997, pp. 137-51.

Bertaud, Alain and Stephen Malpezzi. The Spatial Distribution of

Population in 35 World Cities: The Role of Markets, Planning and
Topography. Center for Urban Land Economics Research, 1999.

Bleicher, H. Statische Beschreibung der Stadt Frankfurt am Main und ihrer

Bevolkerung. Frankfurt am Main, 1892. (Cited in Greene and Barnbrock).

Brown, H. James, Robyn S. Phillips and Neal A. Roberts. Land Markets at

the Urban Fringe. Journal of the American Planning Association, 47, April
1981, pp. 131-44.

Brueckner, Jan K. Urban Sprawl: Diagnosis and Remedies. University of

Illinois Critical Issues Paper, 1999.

Brueckner, Jan K. and D. Fansler. The Economics of Urban Sprawl: Theory

and Evidence on the Spatial Sizes of Cities. Review of Economics and
Statistics, 55, 1983, pp. 479-82.

Burgess, Ernest W. The Growth of a City: An Introduction to a Research

Project. Publications, American Sociological Society, 18(2), 1925, pp. 85-
97.

Clark, Colin. Urban Population Densities. Journal of the Royal Statistical

Society, 114, 1951 pp. 375-86.

Diamond, Douglas B. Jr. and George Tolley. The Economics of Urban

Amenities. Academic Press, 1982.

24
Dubin, Robin A., Kelley Pace and Thomas G. Thibodeau. Spatial
Autoregression Techniques for Real Estate Data. Journal of Real Estate
Literature, 1998.

Edmonston, Barry. Population Distribution in American Cities. Lexington

Books, 1975.

Egan, Timothy. Urban Sprawl Strains Western States. The New York
Times, December 29, 1996.

Follain, James R. and David J. Gross. Estimating Housing Demand and

Residential Location with a Price Function that Varies by Distance and
Direction. Paper presented to the Southern Economic Association,
November 1983.

Follain, James R. and Stephen Malpezzi. The Flight to the Suburbs: Insight
from an Analysis of Central City versus Suburban Housing Costs. Journal of
Urban Economics, May 1981.

Fujita, Masahisa. Urban Economic Theory. Cambridge University Press,

1989.

Galster, George, Royce Hanson, Hal Wolman, Jason Freihage and Stephen
Coleman. Wrestling Sprawl to the Ground: Defining and Measuring an
Elusive Concept. Processed, 2000.

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

Gillen, Kevin, Thomas Thibodeau and Susan Wachter. Anisotropic

Autocorrelation in House Prices. Processed, 1999.

Glaeser, Edward L., Matthew E. Kahn and Jordan Rappaport. Why Do the
Poor Live in Cities? NBER Working Paper No. 7636, 2000.

Gordon, Peter and Harry W. Richardson. Are Compact Cities a Desirable

Planning Goal? Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 1997,
pp. 95-106.

Green, Richard K. Land Use Regulation and the Price of Housing in a

Suburban Wisconsin County. Journal of Housing Economics, 1999.

Green, Richard K. Nine Causes of Sprawl. Illinois Real Estate Letter, 2000.

Greene, David L. and Joern Barnbrock. A Note on Problems in Estimating

Exponential Urban Density Models. Journal of Urban Economics, 5, 1978,
pp. 285-90.

25
Guy (1983) add ref.

Handy, S.L. and D.A. Niemeier. Measuring Accessibility: An Exploration of

Issues and Alternatives. Environment and Planning A, 29(7), July 1997, pp.
1175-94.

Harvey, Robert O. and W.A.V. Clark. The Nature and Economics of Urban
Sprawl. Land Economics, 41(1), 1965.

Hoyt, Homer. The Structure and Growth of Residential Neighborhoods in

American Cities. FHA, 1939. Selections reprinted in H.M. Mayer and C.F.
Kohn (eds.), Readings in Urban Geography. Chicago, 1959.

Hoyt, Homer. Where the Rich and the Poor People Live. Urban Land
Institute, 1966.

Ingram, D.R. The Concept of Accessibility: A Search for an Operational

Form. Regional Studies, 5, 1971, pp. 101-7.

Ingram, Gregory K. Simulation and Econometric Approaches to Modeling

Urban Areas. In Peter Mieszkowski and Mahlon Straszheim (eds.), Current
Issues in Urban Economics. Johns Hopkins, 1979.

Isaaks, Edward H. and R. Mohan Srivastava. An Introduction to Applied

Geostatistics. Oxford, 1990.

Jordan, Stacy, John P. Ross and Kurt G. Usowski. U.S. Suburbanization in

the 1980s. Regional Science and Urban Economics, 28, 1998, pp. 611-27.

Kain, John F. and William C. Apgar Jr. Simulation of Housing Market

Dynamics. AREUEA Journal, 7(4), Winter 1979, pp. 505-538.

Kau, James B. and Cheng F. Lee. The Functional Form in Estimating the
Density Gradient. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 71, 1976,
pp. 326-7.

Krugman, Paul R. Geography and Trade. MIT Press, 1991.

Li, Mingche and H. James Brown. Micro-Neighborhood Externalities and

Hedonic Housing Prices. Land Economics, 56, May 1980.

Lösch, August. The Economics of Location. New Haven: Yale University

Press, 1954 (trans. of Die raumliche Ordnung der Wirtschaft, orig. in
German, 1944).

26
Lowry, Ira S. A Model of Metropolis. Rand, 1964.

Malpezzi, Stephen. Housing Prices, Externalities, and Regulation in U.S.

Metropolitan Areas. Journal of Housing Research, 1996.

Malpezzi, Stephen. The Determinants of Urban Sprawl in U.S. Metropolitan

Areas. University of Wisconsin, Center for Urban Land Economics Research
Working Paper, 2000.

Malpezzi, Stephen and Yeuh-Chuan Kung. The Flight to the Suburbs,

Revisited: The Intraurban Distribution of Population and the Price of
Housing. Paper presented to the American Real Estate and Urban
Economics Association, New Orleans, January 1997.

Malpezzi, Stephen, Gregory Chun and Richard Green. New Place-to-Place

Housing Price Indexes for U.S. Metropolitan Areas, and Their Determinants:
An Application of Housing Indicators. Real Estate Economics, 26(2),
Summer 1998, pp. 235-75.

McDonald, John F. Econometric Studies of Urban Population Density: A

Survey. Journal of Urban Economics, 26, 1989, pp. 361-85.

Mieszkowski, Peter and Mahlon Strazheim (eds.). Current Issues in Urban

Economics. Hopkins, 1979.

Mills, David E. Growth, Speculation and Sprawl in a Monocentric City.

Journal of Urban Economics, 10, 1981.

Mills, Edwin S. Studies in the Structure of the Urban Economy. Johns

Hopkins University Press, 1972.

Mills, Edwin S. The Measurement and Determinants of Suburbanization.

Journal of Urban Economics, 32, 1992, pp. 377-87.

Mills, Edwin S. Truly Smart "Smart Growth". Illinois Real Estate Letter,
Summer 1999, pp. 1-7.

Mills, Edwin S. and Richard Price. Metropolitan Suburbanization and

Central City Problems. Journal of Urban Economics, 15, 1984, pp. 1-17.

Muth, Richard F. Cities and Housing. University of Chicago Press, 1969.

Muth, Richard F. Models of Land-Use, Housing, and Rent: An Evaluation.

Journal of Regional Science, 25, 1985, pp. 593-606.

27
Ottensman, John R. Urban Sprawl, Land Values and the Density of
Development. Land Economics, 26, 1977, pp. 389-400.

Pace, R. Kelley and Otis W. Gilley. Using the Spatial Configuration of the
Data to Improve Estimation. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics,
forthcoming.

Pace, R. Kelley, Ronald Barry and C.F. Sirmans. Spatial Statistics and Real
Estate. Journal of Real Estate Finance and Economics, 17(1), 1998, pp. 5-
13.

Peiser, Richard B. Density and Urban Sprawl. Land Economics, August

1989, pp. 193-204.

Pirie, G.H. Measuring Accessibility: A Review and Proposal. Environment

and Planning A, 11, 1979, pp. 299-312.

Real Estate Research Corporation. The Costs of Sprawl: Literature Review

and Bibliography. Washington: U.S. GPO., 1974.

Richardson, Harry W. Monocentric versus Polycentric Modes: The Future

of Urban Economics in Regional Science. Annals of Regional Science, 22,
1988, pp. 1-12.

Song, Shunfeng. Some Tests of Alternative Accessibility Measures: A

Population Density Approach. Land Economics, 72(4), November 1996, pp.
474-82.

Stewart, J. Suggested Principles of Social Physics. Science, 106, 1947, pp.

179-80.

Straszheim, Mahlon R. The Theory of Urban Residential Structure. In

Edwin S. Mills (ed.), Handbook of Urban and Regional Economics. Volume
2, North Holland, 1987.

Thurston, Lawrence and Anthony M.J. Yezer. Causality in the

Suburbanization of Population and Employment. Journal of Urban
Economics, 35(1), January 1994, pp. 105-.

Turnbull, Geoffrey K. Urban Consumer Theory. Washington, D.C.: The

Urban Institute Press for the American Real Estate and Urban Economics
Association, 1995.

Von Thunen, Johann H. The Isolated State. Original in German, pub. 1826,
1842, 1850; Der Isolierte Staat in Beziehung auf Landwirtschaft und

28
Nationalolonomie, 3rd ed. Jena: Gustav Fischer, 1930; Translated by Peter
Hall, and by Bernard W. Dempsey.

Warner, Sam Bass Jr. Streetcar Suburbs: The Process of Growth in Boston,
1870-1900. Harvard University Press, 1962.

Wheaton, William C. Income and Urban Residence: An Analysis of

Consumer Demand for Location. American Economic Review, 67, 1977, pp.
620-31.

Wheaton, William C. Monocentric Models of Urban Land Use: Contributions

and Criticisms. In Mieszkowski and Straszheim (1979).

Wheaton, William C. Land Use and Density in Cities with Congestion.

Journal of Urban Economics, 43(2), March 1998, pp. 258-72.

White, Michelle J. Commuting Journeys are Not Wasteful. Journal of

Political Economy, 1988.

Yinger, John. City and Suburb: Urban Models with More Than One
Employment Center. Journal of Urban Economics, 31, March 1992, pp. 181-
205.

29
 Population Density

Figure 1-A Distance from Center

Population Density

Figure 1-B Distance from Center

30
 Persons per Square Kilometer Metropolitan Area Average Density
10,000
JC
NY

PAT ANH CHI

1,000 NAU LA
TRN SF
NWK
OAK BOS PHL
HON
LWL PRV SJSCLE
WAT MSX
BUF FTL
MIL MIA DC
DET
NBM
HTLBRO LHM
NHA MON
HRTNFK TPBAL
A
BDC AKR SLK CIN PGH
HMO FLT ELP GRY
DTN NO SDI
DAL
ATLHOU
FIM RAC
NSH
DNBGAL
SBN
SCZ WIL FWO
SAT SEAMIN
KEN SRA LAN YNG
SMA GRR
ALN STL
GBYKAL FYN
NLN
ANNFTM
RDG
ATC CTN
MEL ABQTDO WPB MEMORL
LVL IND DEN
COL
PTM ELK PDR
PME RKF
ERI DAB STCTAC
BA RLG
TOXN
SWB JKL
ROCCTE
POO
MUN BDR MAD WOR
CSC OMH
GSC KCM
100 LEWBIN
ELM
BGR
LAC
SBY
VMB
HAG
ALT
SWO
BRY
DCI
TPK
BNT
A
MNL
BUR
TH INC
CDR
JMI
JWIMCH
JNC
HAL
ROA
BOI
BRN
SA
LBK
GNV FPC
CGA
V LEX
MAC
BNH
SWV
TAL
SMO
CPX
APL
YRK
FWA
MOD
DES
SAG
PEN
DAV
SHR
VAL
LAN
SRS
MEM
LKL
CNO
SPK
HBG
SYR RCH
AUS
KNX BIR
CSC
GNC SAC
ALB
NSH
OKC PHX
LOWN
WK BUR
GAD
KOK ANA
SHN LIMWAC EVN
CHM PEOCOS LRA
IOWALG
RCM
CMOPCF
SIXWWV
TYL
FWBLCL
PRK SIL SLM
ASN BEU
JMS
AUGMOB
WCH
JKB
DBQ
JTN KNKFSC
CUM MNO
ODS
ABLWLO
JDN BRZ
CHT JHN
HIK
ANCPROMTG
HAWSBR TUL
THA
DOT OCL KILUTR
WNC
DAN
SDT SCP
LAWCVLTUS
BIL
JOP
FAL
DCA CCO
BXI
STC
AMR SNS FRO
STJ SYCC
PBA WMP XC
AXLLMT
FSA
MRC LSV RVR
VTX EAU
TEX
WFTLYN FCLLFL
SNG GLNNPL
WAS
FAZ VIS
EUG BAKTUC
END BEL
SFE FAR
PUEMDO
RLD
BLG LAR Y AX RNO
RDC
LCN
GRY DUL
10 RCY
GFM
CHY
BSM
GFK YAZ

CAS

1
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
MSA Population, 1990
Figure 2

Density of Census Tract Containing

Density of Weighted Median Tract

Median Person
100,000

NY
JC
10,000
SF
LA
CHI
HON NOSJS MIA OAK
ANH
LAR NWK SDI PHL
STCELP NAU
PUEFLR NBM LBK STM
INC MOD
SBR ABQ LSVBUF SLK
POO
PRV
SA
DEN
SAC
MIL
T
PHX
CLE
SEABAL
DET
BOSDC
AMR PRO CPX
TRN BDC
VAL OMH
FRO MSX NFK TPADAL
KEN MCH RNO SPK BAK TUCWPB COL PGH MIN HOU
1,000 VTX MDT
CAS LWK
STJ
OWN
IOW
LAC
ODS
LAW
SXC AL
SIX
ABL
BLG
MUN
NBC
FAR
LFI
BRY
FWB
FIM
GBY
T FCL
RAC
TPK
ANC
BRD
SCZ
BOI
SGM
SAV
WAT
NIA
SILCGA
ROA
BDR
KAL
ERI
ANN
RKF
LEO
SRA
SBNHMO
LEX
APL COSSMA
SNS
MAD
DADES
NHA
V WCH
TDO
OXN
WIL
TACALN
AKR
GRY
GRRAUS
MEM
LVL
OKCORL
MON
FWO
DTN IND
JKL
RCH
CIN
KCM STL
RVR
GFKDBQ BRN
BRO MTG
FYN
LWL
EUG AUR
SHRMEL
FL LAK
WOR
YNG
T ROCHRT ATL
END GFM
BSMELM
SNGALGPCF
DCI JWI
BIL CDR
RLD YAX
CHMBXI
GAL
WAC SLM P FWA
FTM
BEU
AWCTN
JMS
DABLAN SYR
TUL
RLGALB
CHY YAZ
KOK WNC WLO MRC
NSH GNVTAL
HALEVN PEN
PEO
ATC CSCCSC
BAT SWB BIR
LEW
PTM ANI BRM BNH
SMO
CCO FPC AUG
SAGMOB
LRA
HBG NSH
PAS
WFT
BIN LCL
BNT ORG
MAC LHM
VISMEM
JOL
RCYBGRTEXYCC
SWOMUS
NPL
MNL
TUS DNB
BEV
CHT
ELK
JNC LFL RDG
UTR CTE
THA
LYN
BCR NLN SRS LKL
CNO
BUR
FAZ
RCM
CMO EAU
MNO
HAG
PRK
LIM
MDO
VMB
AXL
JDN
BUR
OLY PME
JMI
PKE
SWV LAN GSC GNC
JTN
PBAKNK
SDT
GADANA RDC ASN DUL
LMT KIL YRK KNX
SCP WWV
JOP PDR
WMPCVL
GRY FSA
HTL HIK HAW JKB
100 SBY
FSC
CUM DOT
SFE
DAN
SHN
ATH
ANS
BELTYL
FAL
BRZ
OCL JHN
DCA
STC
WAS LCN
GLN

10
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
MSA Population

Figure 3

31
 Population Density Gradient
One Parameter Model
Coefficient of Log Density

0.2

ANC
0.1
ORG
NAU
0.0 BRZ
SBR JC
WPB
JDN DULHMO AUR
MELLAK OXN SLK SAC
MON RVR
ANH LA
BNT GAL FPCATC BAK
NHA SWB
GSC GNC TPA
CHY CHTPDR
HIKBRN
KILSTM
BEUJKB RLG
TUC
GRR JKLCTE SF PGH
OAKSDI DET CHI NY
BCR YAX SRA DAB
DAJOL
V VAL HBGALNALBMSXFWO
OKC
DTN
NSH
ROC NFK
SJS PHX ATL
DAL DCPHL
HOU
CAS SHN LMT
PAS BXI
CCO
HTL
STC
RNO
SCZ
JHN
NIANLNVIS
APL
MAC SAG
CPX
HAW LKL
YRK
CSC
SNS CSC
SYR
FROHON
KNXAUS
LRA BIRORLCOL
KCMCLE
NWK
MIA
SEASTL
FSC
DAN VMB
DOT
SFE
BELNPL
FWB MRC SGM
EUGPAW SMA
STC TDO RCHPRV SA
NO T
CIN MINBOS
UTR AUG TUL IND DEN BAL
-0.1 CUM
YAZWFTANS
RDC
JOP
RAC
LIM
JWI BRM
FSA BDR
LFL
GNV BNHFTM
PKE MEM
SRS
CTN
LHM
PEN
YNG
WCH
MOB WIL
ELP
GRY
BAT LSVMEM
AKR POO
HRTMIL
ANA
TEX
GLN
WAS ELK
WLO
DCA LCL
PRK OCL
BEV SWV
TALERI
SLM CNO
JMS
LAN
MOD
DESWOR TAC BUF
EAU
SWO
ANI
WWV DNB SHR
PEO
MTG FWABDC LVL
RCYSDTHAG ATHFCL LEO
CHM TRN LAN
BSM BLG GRY
SCPMDO
ALRLD
TOLY
LYN CGAEVN
GFK WNC
YCC
SXCKEN
LCN
FAL
AXL PME
AMR SAV
ANN SPK
LEX
RDG FLT OMH
DBQ SBY
WMPTHA
PCF NSH
FAR
FAZNBC ASN ROAPRO
FYN
BGR CVL MUSBRD
JNC HALRKF COS
GFM TYL
MNOCDR SIL
KAL MADABQ
-0.2 PBA
KOK
PTM CMO
BUR BUR WAC WAT
SMO
LBK
KNK LAR
BIL
ABL
ALG
LAC MNL BOI BRO
SBN
GADSIXFLR GBY
MDT
RCMBRY
PUE TUS
LAWFIMJMI
LWL
JTN ODS
VTX
-0.3 IOW
OWN
ELM
STJ
SNG
MUN TPKMCH
NBM INC
BIN
DCI
LWK
END LEW LFI

-0.4
10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000
MSA Population

Figure 4

Fit of Population Density Gradient

One Parameter Model
R-Squared of Simple Model

1.0
OWN
VTX LAR

END GFM DCI JMI

BUR
SNG MUN SMO
LWK SIX
0.8 JTNGAD
CASRCYMDT
GFK YAZ
PUE
LAWPCF
BURTYL
TUS
LCN
SIL
ASN
TPK
ROA
PEN
KNKALG MNL
BIL
FAL COS
ELM
IOW A XL
DCA LWL
BIN
GLNFAR MAD
KOK
SBYTEXMUS
BLG OLY
MTG
CNO TUL
LVL
BSM CMOGRY
RDCMCH INC AUG
LAN
LAC
RCM JNCFSA
WACKAL
WMP LFIATH
THA
ABL
ODS
MNO
GBY
CDROCL SBN SHR
TAL
HAL
BOI FWA TAC
NWKMIN
ATL
PBA WAS BEL
EAU BRD
LFL
PME MOB BIR
FAZ
YCC RKF JMS BAT
SLM OMH MEM
0.6 STJ DAN
CVLNSH
DBQANAWWV
FWB
SAV
FCLBRO EUG
PRO
FYN
RDG
LEX
KNX
AKR BUF
POO
MIL
BAL
BOS
HAGLYN
KEN
MDONBM
NPL
WAT
LBKPKEPEOFLCSCT TDO PRV
IND
JOP
SCP CGA WCH FRO CIN SEASTL
LEWSXC BRY
WNC ANS
NBCSTC
RACGNV EVNSPKABQ YNG LSV ROC DET
RLD BXIRNO DES WIL
CHYPTMFSC DNBSWV HAW
ERI LKLLRA
GRY HRT DC
CUM WLO LCL
FLR BNH LHM AUS
JHNSRA MEM
CTN
SNS BDC HOU
SFE LMT ANN SRSLAN TUCRCH NSH COL CLE
0.4 SDT DOT PRK
ALT
ANI
CHM
LIM
MRC
MACTRN
DA
WOR
YRK
VCSC SYR
MOD SA T
NFK
DENPGH
PHL
BRM
CCO UTRDAB NO DAL
NIA ELP KCM
SAC
FIM
SWOELK JKL CTE MIA RVR CHI
BGR AMRDULNLN
VIS ALN
ORL
OKC
DTN
WFT HTL HIK
YAX LEO FTM HBG
SAG BAK ALB
SHN NAU
ANC CPX JOL GNC
BCR SGM JKB GRRHON SDI NY
APL STC PHX
0.2 VMB
CHTPDR KIL
BRNPAW
VAL
SMA MON
FWO OAK
RLG MSX SJS
GSC SF TPA
JWI BDR ATC SWB
BEV LA
PAS BNT SCZ FPC BEU NHA
LAK
GAL MEL OXN SLK ANH
JDN AUR
ORG
HMOSTM WPB
SBR
0.0 BRZ JC

10,000 100,000 1,000,000 10,000,000

MSA Population
Figure 5

32
 Fit of Linear, Fourth Power SUE Models
Undadjusted R2, 4th Power Model
1.00 OWN
VTX
YAZ GFM LAR
BSM
CMO SILSMOEND
FSC ATH GLNBIL LCN DCI
BUR
JMI
STCDAN DBQWAS BELTAL TEX KNK MDT
TYL
RCY MUN
KOK LWL ROA
BUR
LAW LWK
GAD
SIX
FSA
RDCSBY BINGFKPCF
PUESNG
GNV EUG LFL FARAXL TUS
ALGCAS JTN
RAC IOW PEN
KEN YCC FWA
WNCHAG
0.80 NBC RDGBRO
PBA
MNO
SHR
RCM
GRYDCA
THABLG FAL
MCH MUS
TUL
TPK
MNL
COS
ASN
LIM SCP NSH EAUWAC MTG ELM
MAD
LAN
CNO
DOTTUC
SFE RNOANS ANA
BRY
LEW SLM
SAV
PME ABL
WMP
SBN
OLY
INC
LVL
AUG
WCH CVL ODS
BIR
LFI
CDR
CHY BATOCL
MOB JNC
GBY
LAC
HAL
KAL
GRR CUM ABQ FYN
WATPRORKF
BAL
OMH
JMS NWK
JOP
CGA MEM
KNX ATL
TAC
BDC ROC BUF
BOS
PKE FCL BOI
BRD
MIN
ANI
DUL DAV BNH
WLOPTM
DNB SXC LYN
TDOSTJ
FWB
LBK FAZ
YRK DES FRO FL
PRVT
MIL
POO
AKR
WWV
0.60 JDN YAX
WFT WOR FLR
TRN
SYRLAN
MRC LHM
SRA
MEM
JHN HRT
ERI SEA
NPLLEX
CIN
MDO
CSC
PEO
NBM
IND
ALT
SATMAC
COL HAW DET
EVN
BXI STL
AUS RLDSPK
GRY
YNG
WIL
BDRBRN SAC CHM
SRS
LMT LCL LSV
SHN
BAK CCO CTN DC
LRA
SWV
NHA CHTBCR HIK SWO PRKSNS LKL
NSH
JWI
ATC ELKNO RCH
DEN CLE HOU
SGM JKL
NLN UTR
SBR GSC ANCVIS ELP
RVRMOD
PGH
DAB
CSC ANN
SDT
0.40 BNT
PAW SAG
GNCFTM
AMR
DTN
HBG
ALN
NIA
CTEBRM
DAL
FIM
MIA
PHL
NFK
KIL
APL ORL
OKCKCM
PAS JOL BGR
VAL JKB CHI
BRZ BEU
FPC RLGPDR LEO
ALB
HTL
HMO SDINAU
SCZ CPX
PHX
AUR SF FWO
STCNY
HON
GAL BEV MSX
VMBOAK
SMA
TPAMON
0.20 SLK LA
OXN
SJS
SWB
ORG LAK
STM ANH
MEL
WPB
JC
0.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00
Undadjusted R2, Linear Model

Figure 6

Compare Galster et al. Results to Dens

Density of Weighted Median Tract

Of Tract Containing Median Person

100,000

NY

10,000
SF
LA
CHI MIA
PHL
DC DET
DEN
BOS DAL
HOU
1,000
ATL

100
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70
Galster et al. Total Sprawl Index
Figure 7

33