This structure is measured by estimated population and employment density gradients, using a sample of 135 UCP and non-UCP metropolitan areas. The purpose of this paper is to address this research gap by examining the impacts of different types of UCPs on the metropolitan spatial structure. However, little is known regarding the differential impact of this tightness on the spatial distribution of population and economic activities at the metropolitan level. Moreover, it is important to distinguish among UCPs, because their tightness varies substantially. Since UCPs vary in terms of adopted geographical area, from small town to region, they may have different effects on the urban spatial structure, which may significantly affect travel patterns, energy consumption and the environment. For example, although UCPs are known to encourage compact developments, slowing the increase of urbanised areas, and to promote concentrations of population and employment in UCP cities, critics argue that UCPs also generate a distorted land use pattern, such as leap-frog developments outside containment boundaries. One of the controversial issues is the spatial impacts of UCPs, because their primary goals are to prevent urban sprawl and promote the central city. There has been much discussion on both the positive and negative impacts of UCPs ( Carlson and Dierwechter, 2007 Wassmer, 2006 Nelson et al., 2004 O’Toole, 2003 Carruthers, 2002 Pendall et al., 2002 Richardson and Gordon, 2000 Levine, 1999 Ding et al., 1999 Staley et al., 1999). For example, UCPs may reinforce a monocentric urban pattern, encourage a polycentric one or produce a dispersed one, failing to prevent urban sprawl.
Special attention is given to UCPs because they directly limit the physical size of communities, significantly affect the growth and location of population and economic activities, and influence the urban spatial structure at the regional level. Several communities, including cities, counties (or regional councils) and state governments, have adopted some form of UCPs as a method to contain urban sprawl. While UCPs may include diverse forms of growth management policies, only physical containment policies, such as urban growth boundaries (UGBs) and urban service areas (USAs), are here referred to as UCPs and are the focus of this paper. All subjects Allied Health Cardiology & Cardiovascular Medicine Dentistry Emergency Medicine & Critical Care Endocrinology & Metabolism Environmental Science General Medicine Geriatrics Infectious Diseases Medico-legal Neurology Nursing Nutrition Obstetrics & Gynecology Oncology Orthopaedics & Sports Medicine Otolaryngology Palliative Medicine & Chronic Care Pediatrics Pharmacology & Toxicology Psychiatry & Psychology Public Health Pulmonary & Respiratory Medicine Radiology Research Methods & Evaluation Rheumatology Surgery Tropical Medicine Veterinary Medicine Cell Biology Clinical Biochemistry Environmental Science Life Sciences Neuroscience Pharmacology & Toxicology Biomedical Engineering Engineering & Computing Environmental Engineering Materials Science Anthropology & Archaeology Communication & Media Studies Criminology & Criminal Justice Cultural Studies Economics & Development Education Environmental Studies Ethnic Studies Family Studies Gender Studies Geography Gerontology & Aging Group Studies History Information Science Interpersonal Violence Language & Linguistics Law Management & Organization Studies Marketing & Hospitality Music Peace Studies & Conflict Resolution Philosophy Politics & International Relations Psychoanalysis Psychology & Counseling Public Administration Regional Studies Religion Research Methods & Evaluation Science & Society Studies Social Work & Social Policy Sociology Special Education Urban Studies & Planning BROWSE JOURNALS
0 kommentar(er)
